Woodrow Wilson and Blacks

www.mngop.com/brc ^ | 08-03-03 | Mn. Black Republican Coalition

[Mn. Black Republican Coalition]

Part 2 Woodrow Wilson This is Part 2, of our series.

[Mn. Black Republican Coalition]

What we did not learn about Wilson is as remarkable as what we did not learn about this president. We learned, and I teach today, that some say Wilson led our country into World War 1 and after the war led a national struggle to create the League of nation. We learned that Wilson would be associated with the suffrage movement. However, history lesson fail to mention two antidemocratic policies that Wilson failed to carry out: his racial segregation of the federal government and his military intervention in foreign countries. The United States intervened in Latin America more that anytime in our history. We landed more troops in Mexico in 1914, Haiti in 1915, and the Dominican in 1916. Wilson would maintina forces in Nicaragua, using them to determine its president and to press passage of a treaty preferential to the United States. Get this. Russian textbooks give great detail to Wilson (in 1917) giving monetary aid to “White” side of the Russian civil war. After a short hold on front lines as far west as Volga, the White Russian forces broken by the end of 1919, our troops would leave Vladivostok on April 1, 1920. Some historian accept the idea that Wilson’s interventions in Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua, would set the historical stage for dictators of Batista, Trujillo, the Duvaliers, and the Somozas. What we did not learn about Wilson is as remarkable as what we did learn about Wilson. Critical Thinking Question. Why, do you suppose that over half of our textbooks fail to mention Wilson’s takeover of Haiti? U.S. Marines invaded Haiti in 1915 and forced their legislature to select our preferred president. Why?

Why do most textbooks only have a few sentences about Wilson’s racism? We shall cover this in Wilson, Part 3

Send your responses to:

Black Republican Coalition PO Box 4171 Saint Paul MN 55104

or email to

MnBRC@hotmail.com

[weikel]

Can you give me a link to the 1st part of the series, Wilson IMHO opinion( he was definitely the most racist prez ever) was almost satanic. He brought socialism to America and chaos to world politics contributing to the rise of communism, hitler, and radical Islam. Worst president ever.

If we had sided with the Kaiser( and the Krauts were not the bad guys in WWI by any measure) or merely stayed out and allowed a Prussian victory none of the above would be a problem( and France would be eliminated as an independent country too).

[weikel]

Ping to some fellow supporters of the Central Powers.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

I doubt that France would have been treated as shabbily by the Germans as Germany and Austria-Hungary were treated by the Allies. The Central Powers were still fighting according to nineteenth centuty rules. The Allies were engaged in total war, even anticipating (and enabling) ethnic cleansing when they caused Austria-Hungary to be broken up by ethnicity.

[hayfried]

But what about the Laconia and Lusitania? Was Wilson to stand by idly while the Germans torpedoed US shipping?

[weikel]

He didn't declare war over those... and they were both loaded with ammunition.

[hayfried]

He didn't declare war over those... and they were both loaded with ammunition.

So, Wilson should have ignored the following?

• German submarine attack on the unarmed Laconia 2/26/17
• the Zimmermann telegram, clearly indicating a German willingness to form an anti-US military alliance with Mexico
• Three more unarmed American merchantment sunk 3/18/17

Given the above events preceding the declaration of war on 4/6/17, what would you have done as president,Woodrow Weikel? What's your answer?

[weikel]

I wouldn't have let anything get that far( I agree the Zimmerman telegram was a dumba** move) I would have told the Brits to f*** off with the blockade of American shipping to the north sea.

[hayfried]

Now we're getting somewhere.

But then, what exactly does telling the Brits to f*** off mean?

Business was booming for the US as a neutral supplier to both sides, but especially to the Allies. Should Congress have passed a law making it illegal to trade with the Brits? Would such a law even have been constitutional? Could the President and Congress have endured the political fallout from choking off trade and causing a recession?

[weikel]

Business was booming for the US as a neutral supplier to both sides, but especially to the Allies. Should Congress have passed a law making it illegal to trade with the Brits?

No but I'd threaten to enter the war on the side of the Germans if the Brits( and they weren't longstanding allies back then) if they didn't lay off the blockade.

[royalcello]

Worst president ever.

I agree completely. As a monarchist, I'll never forgive Wilson for destroying the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The removal of the Hohenzollerns and Hapsburgs surely paved the way for the rise of Hitler as you suggest.

France would be eliminated as an independent country

It's the French Republic that needs to be eliminated. As long as there are those who hope and pray for a restoration of the monarchy, the true spirit of France will never die.

[weikel]

Plus the Bolsheviks would have been immediately deposed after the Wehrmarcht had taken Paris and cleared the Western front.

The Islamic problem also has its roots in the defeat of the central powers the Saud family and Wahabbi cult would long ago have been wiped out by Ataturk's firing squads if the Ottoman Empire had stayed intact.