Is it weird?

[TheDrake]

Is it weird that self proclaimed conservatives are up in arms about a building named after Woodrow Wilson is being renamed? He's a democrat, a socialist, and a globalist. I think they'd say a huzzah. Is this similar or not similar to people pulling down statues mistakenly?

[Kasandra]

I assume many who object know that he was perhaps the most racist President since Jackson.  When he took office he immediately began firing black supervisors who oversaw some white employees and replaced them with white men.

In 1914, a group of black professionals led by newspaper editor and Harvard alumnus Monroe Trotter met with Wilson to protest the segregation. Wilson informed Trotter, "Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." When Trotter insisted that "it is untenable, in view of the established facts, to maintain that the segregation is simply to avoid race friction, for the simple reason that for fifty years white and colored clerks have been working together in peace and harmony and friendliness," Wilson admonished him for his tone: "If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me … Your tone, with its background of passion."

[TheDeamon]

Is it weird that self proclaimed conservatives are up in arms about a building named after Woodrow Wilson is being renamed? He's a democrat, a socialist, and a globalist. I think they'd say a huzzah. Is this similar or not similar to people pulling down statues mistakenly?

I for one am pleased to hear that they're starting to deconstruct Woodrow Wilson, that man caused far more lasting harm to the United States than most people can possibly imagine, and that many Democrats(and some Republicans) have held him in high esteem even to this day is highly disturbing.

[TheDrake]

Wilson is complicated. He deserves to be studied for his impact, his ideas, and his morality. He does not deserve a place of honor. He should be examined equally in all his good and bad qualities.

[TheDeamon]

Wilson is complicated. He deserves to be studied for his impact, his ideas, and his morality. He does not deserve a place of honor. He should be examined equally in all his good and bad qualities.

And his bad qualities were doozies. His high points were getting into WW1, and helping push for the League of Nations, for which he gets some points for being visionary, although I doubt he was the author, he was just a vocal supporter.

His low points also happen to include World War 1(in particular the peace treaty), and his handling on the League of Nations and I'm not talking about trying to sell the idea domestically.

[Kasandra]

Wilson is complicated. He deserves to be studied for his impact, his ideas, and his morality. He does not deserve a place of honor. He should be examined equally in all his good and bad qualities.

That reminds me to quote Teddy Roosevelt (again).  The timing is good, too, as I think his letter should be read out loud alongside the annual reading of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July.

“Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where the people are themselves free. Our Government is the servant of the people, whereas in Germany it is the master of the people. This is because the American people are free and the German people are not free.

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

[wmLambert]

Dinesh D'Souza's video: Hillary's America: the Secret History of the Democrat Party did a thorough job of looking at Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkmO1H210TM

These two Presidents have done more damage to our nation than all others combined. What Jackson did far outstrips what FDR did to Japanese-Americans. Jackson's Trail of Tears was not done for politics - but for personal enrichment. FDR carried on Wilson's racism, his internment of loyal Japanese-Americans was the epitome of Racism. His New Deal excluded minorities.