On February 3, 1924, Woodrow Wilson, who had been in retirement only for nearly three years, died in his home, the Woodrow Wilson House, in Washington DC, at the age of 67.
Wilson had never fully recovered from the massive stroke he suffered on October 2, 1919, and he was unable to gain support of the US Senate for the Versailles Treaty and American membership in the League of Nation that he had fought for when he attended the Peace Treaty negotiations in France, the first President to travel overseas as America’s diplomat.
Wilson had accomplished much domestic legislation that was memorable, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the first federal labor laws.
But his record on racial segregation was horrendous, and he opposed the woman suffrage movement for a long time. He also presided over massive attacks on civil liberties during the First World War, totally intolerant of dissent.
And his mission to the Versailles Peace Conference ended in failure, as America did not join the League of Nations, and ratified its own peace treaty with Germany and the other nations on the losing side of the war.
Wilson’s reputation for his accomplishments kept him in the top ten of all Presidents for many decades, but lately he has come under fire, and his spot in the Presidential polls of scholars has declined. He is now out of the top ten at number 11 in the C Span Presidential Poll of historians conducted in 2017, after having earlier been number 6 in 2000, and number 9 in 2009. The American Political Science poll of Political Science professors had pegged Wilson at number 10 in 2014, and in 2018, he slipped to number 11, the same as the most recent C Span poll.
The troubling part is that Wilson fell behind Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson in the recent polling, and is only 15 points ahead in the C Span 2017 poll over number 12, Barack Obama, just as he left the Presidency.
So do not be surprised that Wilson will likely slip to number 12 in the next polling, with Obama surging ahead of him, as Obama looks ever better in comparison to Donald Trump, who ended up at the bottom of the APSA 2018 poll as number 44 out of 44.
Ronald,
If you get a chance, can you give your two-cents on the 2019 presidential crisis in Venezuela?
This is with regard for its election and the U.S.—the likes of Donald Trump and John Bolton (and all who agree with them from both major U.S. political parties)—interfering with, and topple Nicolás Maduro in, Venezuela?
Thank you!
D, I am dismayed at the corruption and economic chaos of the Nicholas Maduro government, and hope he is forced out.
But this is up to the Venezuelan people, not the US government, and the idea of any military intervention is something I totally oppose!
Having said that, I expect Trump, Bolton, et al, WILL intervene militarily, to please their base, and many Hispanics who clearly want a different government.
It will be a diversionary tactic to attempt to take attention off the Mueller probe!
Ronald writes,
“But this is up to the Venezuelan people, not the US government, and the idea of any military intervention is something I totally oppose!â€
This is what I think as well. I haven‘t followed enough of the Maduro government, so I won’t comment specifically on that, but I am opposed to the U.S. overthrowing other countries, which it has done for a long time. (I was recently thinking of the U.S.-backed 1973 coup to take out President Salvador Allende in Chile, by Chilean Army Commander-in-Chief Augusto Pinochet, which was a part of the subject of director Costa–Gavras’s 1982 film “Missing.†It is, in part, because February is Oscar month, and that film’s script won best adapted screenplay.)
Thank you!
Regarding this thread’s topic, Ronald writes, “[Woodrow] Wilson’s reputation for his accomplishments kept him in the top ten of all Presidents for many decades, but lately he has come under fire, and his spot in the Presidential polls of scholars has declined. He is now out of the top ten at number 11 in the C Span Presidential Poll of historians conducted in 2017, after having earlier been number 6 in 2000, and number 9 in 2009. The American Political Science poll of Political Science professors had pegged Wilson at number 10 in 2014, and in 2018, he slipped to number 11, the same as the most recent C Span poll. | The troubling part is that Wilson fell behind Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson in the recent polling, and is only 15 points ahead in the C Span 2017 poll over number 12, Barack Obama, just as he left the Presidency.â€
With no disrespect, I don’t automatically take the so-called expertise of scholars—or anyone—without having to give it thought. Ronald pointing out the 40th U.S. president Ronald Reagan is ahead of 28th U.S. president Woodrow Wilson, even though Reagan had damaging and lasting policies (the tax system which still affects the overall U.S. political system of today; selling weapons to Iran), has me questioning some of those scholars for their individual politics. In other words, I don’t think said individuals are bad people. But, their votes play a role in historically ranking past U.S. presidents.
Oh, D, be assured I would NOT put Reagan ahead of Wilson, but the theory is you have to have one conservative in top ten of the list! LOL
There is another blog topic by Ronald: “Terrible Idea to Have a Notable Third Party or Independent Presidential Candidate in 2020 Presidential Election.â€
I already commented on my position. But, I did want to address, given this blog topic is about Woodrow Wilson, the 1912 United States presidential election because of the third-party candidate of former Republican president and Progressive Party nominee Teddy Roosevelt. But, my comment goes beyond that one election.
Unless I am momentarily forgetting another election cycle, the 20th century had four presidential elections in which a candidate outside the two major political parties carried any states: 1912, 1928, 1948, and 1968. And there was a special one from a gray area: 1960.
In 1960, a bit of a gray area, there was the unofficial nominee Harry Byrd (D–Virginia). Noted by Wikipedia.org: “In 1960, Byrd received 15 votes in the Electoral College: eight unpledged electors from Mississippi (all of that state’s electoral votes), six unpledged electors from Alabama (the other 5 electoral votes from that state went to [official Democratic presidential nominee and winner] John F. Kennedy), and a faithless elector from Oklahoma (the other 7 electoral votes from that state went to [losing Republican nominee] Richard Nixon).†In that election, a Democratic pickup year for 35th U.S. president John Kennedy, Kennedy won 22 states. Alabama and Mississippi, at the time, would have normally carried Democratic for Kennedy.
The rest were official nominees outside the two major parties.
In 1928, Progressive Party nominee Robert LaFollette Sr. carried his home state Wisconsin. It was, at the time, typically with the Republicans. This didn’t stop the Republican Party from winning a third consecutive cycle with the sole term won by Herbert Hoover.
In 1948, Strom Thurmond was the States’ Rights nominee who carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Thurmond’s home state South Carolina—states which carried in 1964 for losing Republican nominee Barry Goldwater but which were, at the time, typically in the Democratic column, as they were each time for 33rd U.S. president Harry Truman’s predecessor, 32nd U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt. This didn’t stop the 1948 Democratic Party from winning a fifth consecutive cycle and a full term for incumbent Truman.
In 1968, American Independent George Wallace carried his home state Alabama along with Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Except for Arkansas, these states backed Goldwater. But, during that period, they normally would have carried in the Democratic column.
In 1912, with a blowup in the Republican Party, 26th U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt challenged and lost the party nomination to incumbent 27th U.S. president William Howard Taft. In 1908, Taft carried 29 of 46 states. Teddy took six of them—California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington—and flipped them. Taft, who came in third, saw not only those six states flip to Teddy but 21 more flip Democratic to Wilson, who unseated Taft, and carried 40 of 48 states (including new-to-the-union New Mexico and Arizona). When it was done, Wilson only held two states he carried from 1908: Utah and Vermont.
What each of these have in common is this: A third party, a “spoiler†candidate, who carries any states will typically win where the party to which that candidate is closest usually prevails. That was the case with 1912 Teddy Roosevelt, 1928 Robert LaFollette Sr., 1948 Strom Thurmond, 1960 unofficial Harry Byrd, and 1968 George Wallace.
This would have also happened with 1992 Ross Perot had he managed to win at least one state. (His two best performances were Utah and Maine, carried in the 1988 Republican column by 41st U.S. president George Bush.)
Had each of 2016 nominees Gary Johnson, former Republican Governor of New Mexico and from the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein, from the Green Party, won one or two states, Johnson would have carried where Republicans usually prevail and Jill Stein would have carried where Democrats usually prevail. (With Johnson, I look toward Idaho, Montana, and Utah. With Stein, I look toward Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Not three each for both. But, those three, with each of Johnson and Stein, are what I would have estimated. This is based on a different reality from what played out; but, it one that is more feasible given the limitations of the two-party control of the electoral system.)
The third party nominees don’t tend to carry among the Top 10 populous states. Well, Teddy Roosevelt did. But, that in part was because Teddy had already been a U.S. president. A third party candidate, who can carry any states, would likely do so in single-digit electoral-vote states. The outcomes still remain. Among those past examples, 1928 and 1948 were years in which the incumbent White House party won holds of the presidency. With the three other party-flipping years—1912, 1960, and 1968—the incumbent White House party had their issues in which the presidency was going to flip whether or not there was a “spoiler†in the picture.
A slip-up: Robert LaFollette Sr. was in the 1924, not 1928, United States presidential election as the Progressive Party nominee who carried his home state Wisconsin. That election ended up a Republican hold for the presidency won in a full term by incumbent Calvin Coolidge.
D, you are correct in changing the LaFollette third party race as being in 1924, not 1928.
Also, John Anderson ran in 1980, and won about 6.6 percent of the vote, but did not win any states in the Reagan landslide. I flirted that one time with voting third party, but ended up voting for Carter, who I now admire much more than when he was President.
I believe Carter will rise from his mid 20s perch in the ratings, once he passes away, as we saw viewpoints of Truman and Eisenhower rise in the decade after their deaths.
The same seems to be starting now with George H. W. Bush, and Lyndon B. Johnson also rose over time, when the passions of Vietnam started to recede.
I do not believe that George W. Bush, however, will have a similar rise over time, but who can say for sure after Donald Trump? LOL 🙂