Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The unhappiness of Woodrow Wilson
Salon ^ | Dec 21, 2007 | Andrew Leonard

Posted on 04/27/2011 12:56:20 PM PDT by george76

Did the president lament the day he "unwittingly ruined" his country by creating the Federal Reserve?

...

" I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world -- no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. "

...

Via e-mail, John M. Cooper, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and the author of several books on Woodrow Wilson, writes:

"I can tell you categorically that this is not a statement of regret for having created the Federal Reserve. Wilson never had any regrets for having done that. It was an accomplishment in which he took great pride."

(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fed; federalreserve; presidents; progressives; wilson; woodrow; woodrowwilson
From the way back machine.
1 posted on 04/27/2011 12:56:22 PM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76

Wilson knew what he was doing, and was quite happy. He was by all accounts a reprehensible man, a racist filled with dreams of domination by elites. He is the father of all the bad things that Conservatives hate. If he wasn’t at the birth of it, he fed and clothed it.


2 posted on 04/27/2011 1:02:21 PM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

History will judge Woodrow Wilson in a most cruel manner.


3 posted on 04/27/2011 1:07:37 PM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Terrorism is nothing more than Kinetic Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Well, one day, a hero will come along and undo it. It will be painful and ugly, but it will be the right thing to do.


4 posted on 04/27/2011 1:11:32 PM PDT by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Of course. He was a “progressive movement” leader.


5 posted on 04/27/2011 1:58:24 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

If Wilson hated it, that would be the best extant argument in favor of the Fed.


6 posted on 04/27/2011 2:09:56 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

It’s very simple.

The actual statements from Wilson, reflected his distrust of “a few men” if the “great wealth” that they had and that they could personally direct was in “private” hands.

He was apparently, as history shows, unopposed to circumstances, even “the wealth of the nation”, in the hands of “a few men”, if those men were government dictators appointed to serve and once appointed accountable to no one.

When fiat money did not reign, private bankers could not use a central bank’s cheap money to inflate their own ability to lend. When fiat money did not reign, private bankers took fewer stupid risks, because of the greater chance that they were risking the banks and their own capital.

What Wilson hated was that someone besides him had more to say about where “the nation’s wealth” (individual’s private wealth stored in private banks) ought be spent; someone besides him had more influence in the economy. He changed that - sort of - when he signed the law that established the Federal Reserve.

Read the wiki article on the crisis that started the political panic that led to creation of the Federal Reserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

You will notice types of unregulated activity in STOCK MARKET types of operations that (a)were shady, (b)needed some regulation and (c) could have been regulated without creating the Federal Reserve.

You will also notice that the “panic” over the situation was resolved by private banking activity, largely by the bank of J.P, Morgan, without any laws needed for that action and without, and before any Federal Reserve legislation.

Recall also, with the easy credit stimulated BY THE NEW FEDERAL RESERVE, the “roaring twenties” followed and instead of a minor and resolvable panic, or mere recession, the nation went into a depression.

Obviously, the cure for economic bubbles and their fall was not a cure; but the legislation did resolve Wilson’s complaint: that “private” hands had too much say in the economy.

All of Obama’s legislation has had the same affect. None of the targets are the targets the public sees. All of the targets are “the private hands” with too much say in some part of the economy - government can do better.


7 posted on 04/27/2011 3:21:48 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: runninglips
Bump to your post!

Wilson knew exactly what he was doing when he started the progressive ball rolling toward the destruction of the country.

8 posted on 05/07/2011 4:46:45 PM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; Dengar01; randita; ...

Wilson (and his wife who took over after his stroke) was the first truly odious President.

Charles Evans Hughes, maybe the best President we never had.


9 posted on 05/08/2011 1:12:04 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; randita

Wilson carried California by just 0.38% in 1916; had Hughes carried it, he would have been elected president. Hughes needed just 3,774 more votes in California to prevent Wilson from winning reelection.

Of course, had President Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt been able to agree on which of the two should run in 1912, Wilson would have never become president in the first place.


10 posted on 05/08/2011 8:21:22 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

“When fiat money did not reign, private bankers could not use a central bank’s cheap money to inflate their own ability to lend.”

Hardly true. Banks didn’t need a central bank in order to inflate their ability to lend. The free banking era from the 1820s to the 1860s, the era of wildcat banking, was characterized by excessive lending and depreciating money.

“You will also notice that the “panic” over the situation was resolved by private banking activity, largely by the bank of J.P, Morgan, without any laws needed for that action and without, and before any Federal Reserve legislation.”

JP Morgan was the driving force behind the creation of the Fed, citing his experience during the panic of 1907.


11 posted on 05/08/2011 9:07:57 AM PDT by Pelham (Islam, mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I still think had TR not run in 1912, Taft still might very well have lost (not by much, however). I base that on the fact that the Republicans lost the House in the 1910 midterms and were effectively split in the Senate (which led to the infamous turnover of Presidents Pro Tempore). I think a lot of the Roosevelt Progressives would’ve voted for Wilson in protest.


12 posted on 05/08/2011 9:43:05 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]



Not Your Cup of Tea?
Support Free Republic Instead
Kitty will be fine


Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

Be sure A.I. Laz has enough bandwidth.

13 posted on 05/08/2011 10:07:50 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

My Grandfather hated TR, The Bride at every Wedding and the corpse at every funeral, hated FDR even more.


14 posted on 05/08/2011 10:09:03 AM PDT by Little Bill (Sorry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I heard a story on the history channel once about a ballot box in Cali that showed up at the last minute.


15 posted on 05/08/2011 10:09:24 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

Right, and do you recall Richard M. Nixon going out of his way to hail Wilson?


16 posted on 05/08/2011 3:30:18 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry

Not yet, professional historians nearly always rank him at least eighth, but they have to give a high rank to JFK for celebrity reasons.


17 posted on 05/08/2011 3:31:41 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

No doubt about it. Taft was the precursor of Hoover twenty years earlier.


18 posted on 05/08/2011 3:33:06 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Impy

Not at all, Hughes was called Charles “Evasive” Hughes in 1916 because he feared taking decisive positions. As a Supreme Court justice and later chief justice, he favored the all powerful Supreme Court. He once joked that the “Constitution means what the judges say it means.” by the way, wasn’t he also a NY governor?


20 posted on 05/08/2011 3:36:50 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Wilson could have defeated either Taft or TR outright in my opinion because he talked of a “New Freedom” that thrilled the uninformed. I can see similarity between Wilson and Clinton 80 years later.


21 posted on 05/08/2011 3:39:41 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; Impy

Not quite. Taft was a Conservative, Hoover was a liberal. Had Hoover carried on in the tradition of his two predecessors, we’d never have had a prolonged Depression. Harding, so long maligned by historians, resolved the economic downturn at the end of Wilson’s reign in record time. My opinion of him radically changed when I learned just how successful his economic policies were... because they were so common-sense. Remember that the Democrats tried to get Hoover to run for President under THEIR label in 1920... he was preferred by both Wilson AND FDR ! It was only due to his reading the political tea leaves for that year and a lame excuse about not officially registering as one why he didn’t. If anything, Hoover was more like Ike, who also was a disaster as a Republican President.


22 posted on 05/08/2011 4:32:26 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; Impy

If TR had been the nominee in 1912, I postulate Wilson would’ve been defeated by an achingly close margin. How so ? Look at the California returns. Taft was not on the ballot in the general election in the state because TR secured BOTH the Progressive & Republican lines. So the race was a good indicator of what such a showdown would’ve looked like between TR and Wilson with the Socialist Eugene V. Debs performing respectably. As it was, TR won the state by nearly a tie vote, less than 200 votes, each getting 41.8%. Debs took 12% and the Prohibitionist took 3.5%.


23 posted on 05/08/2011 4:38:03 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: runninglips
He was by all accounts a reprehensible man, a racist filled with dreams of domination by elites. He is the father of all the bad things that Conservatives hate.


No, he WAS an out an out racist, but thanks to progressives they cleaned up his image better than Johnson, FDR and even Senator "Sheets" Byrd.


They even had black folks fooled to no end. Wilson single-handed got most of the black civil servants fired...

24 posted on 05/08/2011 4:54:13 PM PDT by Nat Turner (I can see NOVEMBER 2012 from my house....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

NO, I am not THAT old....lol


25 posted on 05/08/2011 7:42:23 PM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

One big difference between Wilson and Clinton is that had Perot not run Clinton likely would have defeated President Bush by a 283-255 Electoral College majority (although Bush would have a chance of also winning CT and IA and getting to 270), while the 1912 results show that Wilson would not have gotten over 231 EVs (with 266 needed for victory) had he run either against Taft or TR.


26 posted on 05/08/2011 8:19:33 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

“JP Morgan was the driving force behind the creation of the Fed, citing his experience during the panic of 1907.”

Yes - the merge of the interests of the major banks with the interests of the politicians that want to borrow money, and borrow more and back stop the banks using the taxpayers money.


27 posted on 05/09/2011 2:39:49 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

“Yes - the merge of the interests of the major banks with the interests of the politicians that want to borrow money, and borrow more and back stop the banks using the taxpayers money.”

Well that’s nice but you are confusing the role of Congress and the Executive with that of the Fed. The Fed can’t increase the national debt by even one cent.

Politicians have been borrowing money since the days of the Continental Congress, which by my estimation predates the Fed by 130 years. They don’t need the Fed in order to borrow money. The Fed is simply irrelevant to the national debt. And it has no power to force taxpayers to do anything.

Nor can the Fed make taxpayers backstop the banks. There are two laws that I know of that have taxpayers backstopping banks, the FDIC and TARP. In both cases those are laws signed into effect by Presidents.


28 posted on 05/09/2011 7:31:50 PM PDT by Pelham (Islam, mortal enemy of the free world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican

I’ve played around with 1912 on Dave Leip’s atlas.

If Wilson had gotten all of Debs vote it I think it would have been hella close. But with Debs in their I think either Taft or TR would have taken it.

The pro-Wilson swings in 1916 are perplexing, many Hughes states were close. I guess he got many of those TR voters.


29 posted on 05/09/2011 8:52:11 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican

Yeah he was Governor when he was appointed to the court the first time.

Best President we never had is short list if you limit it to failed major nominees.

I’ve always wonder what Henry Clay would have been like.


30 posted on 05/09/2011 8:56:30 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj

“He kept us out of war.”


31 posted on 05/09/2011 9:46:53 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Silly reason to vote for him. Especially since he was lying. ;d


32 posted on 05/09/2011 10:58:55 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Impy

No sillier than the reasons why Republicans voted for Obama in 2008. Sometimes voters get silly.


33 posted on 05/10/2011 3:24:13 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Impy

“Wilson (and his wife who took over after his stroke) was the first truly odious President.”

I don’t know. John Adams didn’t do much to stop the beatings and unconstitutional arrests of the press. A good thing he was spanked decisively before it got worse.

Wilson did cause an ecomomic depression though. [God bless Harding!] The really irritating thing about Wilson was that Wilson pulled it off. He also had pervaded colleges with his progressive vision.


34 posted on 05/15/2011 7:34:09 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (George Washington: [Government] is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson