On June 6, 1912, the Republican National Committee convened in Chicago, Illinois. The blood feud between Roosevelt, Taft, and the supporters for each did not stop on the way in the door. Roosevelt’s supporters were quick to claim that Taft had acquired many of his delegates through patronage or fraud, but it was Taft and his political cronies that had the last laugh in the standoff when they disqualified many of Roosevelt’s delegates (Kolasky, 2011, para. 15). On Friday, June 14th, Roosevelt’s supporters sent him a telegram reading, “C.Q.D”, meaning “Come Quickly, Disaster” (Kolasky, 2011, para. 15). That evening, Roosevelt broke another campaign tradition by boarding a train in New York to make his way to the Chicago convention as quickly …show more content…
as possible so he could attend in person. Once on the floor the next day, he reprimanded the Republican committee, accusing them of “naked robbery”, and promised to continue his fight, shouting to his followers, “We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord” (Kolasky, 2011, para. 16). When the committee repeatedly refused to retract their previous ruling, Roosevelt declined to have his name put in for the Republican nomination, which allowed Taft to win it uncontested (Kolasky, 2011, para. 16). By this point, Taft had mostly given up hope of winning the general election, but still wanted to win the Republican nomination just to throw it in Roosevelt’s face (Gould, 2008, pg. 46). Roosevelt began organizing his followers immediately. The next day, June 23rd, he announced the birth of a new party, the Progressive Party, and after a month of deliberations, held its inaugural convention in Chicago (Kolasky, 2011, para. 19). Everyone knew who the candidate for the upstart party would be, the only question to answer was, “What’s this new party all about?” Most of the discussion revolved around the anti-trust laws of the day. One group wanted to reinforce the Sherman Act, the other supported Roosevelt’s endorsement of creating the Federal Trade Commission (Kolasky, 2011, para. 18). Roosevelt wanted a compromise and finally came up with a platform that allowed for both the creation of the FTC and the strengthening of the Sherman Act. The other issues added to the platform - including women’s suffrage, child labor laws, and a federal minimum wage - were more of a backdrop in Roosevelt’s eyes, but his younger followers were most attracted to these ideological policies of larger government and social reform (Gould, 2008, pg. 139). In short, the Republican primary race of 1912 was as dramatic as a modern-day A-List thriller, and as one Senator noted, “The overweening ambition of Roosevelt has upset everything for the Republican Party” (Gould, 2008, pg. 125). The Republican melodrama consumed so much media coverage that historian J. Franklin Jameson wrote, “I believe there is to be an election, though I do not remember to have heard the Democratic Party mentioned in the last six weeks unless in some obscure place” (Gould, 2008, pg. 86). Since Grover Cleveland left office in 1897, not a single Democrat had been elected to the Presidency, but in 1912, the Party felt like it had a good chance to upset the Republicans if Taft and Roosevelt were going to split their Republican base. There were four candidates looking for the nomination: The front-runner, Champ Clark out of Missouri and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1911, Judson Harmon was the Governor of Ohio, Oscar Underwood was a congressman from Alabama, and Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey and former President of Princeton University (Kolasky, 2011, para. 20). On June 25 in Baltimore, the Democrats opened their primary. At the time, there did not seem to be much doubt Clark would be the nominee, however, he did not have the full two-thirds of the delegates he needed for the nomination to be secured. The next closest candidate was Woodrow Wilson. Knowing they would have to resort to playing politics, Wilson started off by saying some nice words about unofficial Democratic leader, Clark supporter, and former nominee William Jennings Bryan: “… with the rise and fall of particular ideas… there has been one interesting and fixed point in the history of the Democratic Party… the character and the devotion and the preachings of William Jennings Bryan” (Gould, 2008, pg. 85) Bryan gave his support to Wilson after the convention’s 14th ballot, but the vote counts remained largely the same in the short-term. Clark led by roughly 200 votes. However, just before the 30th ballot, Indiana’s delegation abandoned support for Clark when Wilson promised to appoint their governor, Thomas Riley Marshall, as Vice President. It was a 29-vote shift in favor of Wilson (Gould, 2008, pg. 93), who took his first lead that day, albeit a close one, 460-455. Finally, on the 46th ballot – and not until Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia had switched sides – Woodrow Wilson reached 990 votes to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States. Shortly after his miraculous, come-from-behind victory, Wilson proclaimed, “God ordained that I should be the next president of the United States” (Gould, 2008, pg. 77). The general election campaign started in the fall of 1912.
Just like in the Republican primaries, the issue of anti-trust law was at the forefront of debate. Wilson seemed to agree with Roosevelt’s policy that, “big business is not dangerous because it is big,” but only when “its bigness is an unwholesome inflation created by privileges and exemptions which it ought not to enjoy” (Kolasky, 2011, para. 27). Both Wilson and Roosevelt continued the break-neck campaign pace they had begun in their respective primaries, while Taft, wallowing in the misery of the Republican convention, largely stayed off the campaign trail (Kolasky, 2011, para. 38). On October 14, on his way to a speech in Milwaukee, Roosevelt was approached by a man and shot with Colt revolver. The shooter, John Shrank, from New York, had obsessed over the fact that Roosevelt was running for a third term (Kolasky, 2011, para. 40). Incredibly for Roosevelt, the bullet had been cushioned by the 150-page, folded-up speech he was going to deliver, and when his campaigners urged him to seek medical attention, Roosevelt told them, “I will deliver this speech or die. One or the other” (Kolasky, 2011, para. …show more content…
40). The party lines were somewhat blurred in 1912.
Roosevelt and Taft were split on the tariff, while Wilson’s New Freedom platform agreed with Roosevelt on a reduction of duties on manufactured goods. Roosevelt championed women’s suffrage, while Taft and Wilson left the topic out of the debate. Today, Clinton and Sanders argued for equal pay for women while Donald Trump and the Republican Party pledged to defund planned parenthood. Clinton and Trump wanted to raise taxes on the super-rich or put an end to the tax loopholes that they so often take advantage of. Sanders called for breaking up the largest banks in the nation; Trump and Clinton stayed mum on the topic. In a way, Sanders’ campaign promises were very much a modern version of Teddy Roosevelt’s from 1912: changes to the minimum wage laws, conservation of the environment, women’s rights, changes to workplace environments and benefits, and effecting change in big business (Greenspan, 2012, para. 7). However, there is and never has been a solid line drawn between one person’s political beliefs and another’s. Two people may feel differently about some issues, while strongly agreeing on others. The most striking similarities between the 1912 and 2016 election seasons come when you recognize why the winners won and the losers lost. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft could not agree on the issue of trusts. In fact, they downright hated each other on a personal level. When Roosevelt split from the Republican Party, he
took a large chunk of the voting base with him. Likewise, in 2016, Sanders and Clinton both ran a hard-fought race. When the Democratic National Convention came around, Clinton was the favorite, to be sure, but Sanders’ loyal following was still holding out hope for some of Clinton’s delegates to flip-flop. Then the DNC email scandal was surfaced, and all the ugly warts of politics came out into the light. Many of Sanders’ supporters were disillusioned by the Democratic Party at this point and decided to either vote Trump or abstain in protest.
Comparing Edith Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt's Roles in Their Husbands' Presidencies The United States has seen many First Ladies throughout its history, each unique in their own way. From the early "Hostesses" to the later holder of political status, the role of First Lady has varied throughout history. Edith Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt were just two of these great women who, during their life times, accomplished many great things, especially while "In office". Edith Bolling Galt Wilson was the second wife of President Woodrow Wilson. Edith Wilson was not only a devoted wife but, but also a political figure.
Eric Rauchway’s Murdering McKinley: The Making of Theodore Roosevelt’s America is an examination of the events, social conditions and dramatic political changes taking place in America immediately prior to and during the birth of the 20th century that led to the assassination of William McKinley and the rise of progressivism. It is furthermore an investigation of the motives behind the assassination, and an analysis of the events leading up to what made possible “Roosevelt’s America,” arguably the first recognizably modern period in American history from a 21st century perspective: the progressive era.
He decided to break his promise of not running for a third term of being president so Taft couldn’t spend another term in office. When he realized that he wouldn’t be able to win the Republican Party candidate, he decided to break away and create his own party called the Bull Moose Party because Roosevelt felt as strong as a bull moose. The platform of the Bull Moose party was described as “new nationalism”. The platform consisted of “a minimum wage for women; an eight-hour workday; a social security system; a national health service; a federal securities commission; and direct election of U.S. senators” (Miller Center, sec. 4.
American taking part in imperialism gained its motion from both economic and cultural justifications that stemmed from America's history of expansion; American imperialism only varied slightly in the first few generations of presidents as we will explore sampling from Theodore Roosevelt's presidency on into Woodrow Wilson's presidency. American's previous western expansion became the breeding grounds for American imperialistic justification. Though cultural justifications were used to keep the public interest in support of imperialism economic justifications were viewed as more important throughout the history of imperialism, even in uniting the similarities of Theodore Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's imperial agendas.
The U.S. president is a person deemed to be the most fitting person to lead this country through thick and thin. It’s been such a successful method that it has led to 43 individual men being put in charge of running this country. However, this doesn’t mean that each one has been good or hasn’t had an issue they couldn’t resolve when in office. But no matter what, each one has left a very unique imprint on the history and evolution of this nation. However when two are compared against one another, some rather surprising similarities may be found. Even better, is what happens when two presidents are compared and they are from the same political party but separated by a large numbers of years between them. In doing this, not only do we see the difference between the two but the interesting evolution of political idea in one party.
Theodore Roosevelt stepped into head of office on September 19, 1901 when President William McKinley was assassinated. He was the youngest man to become president. His motto was “speak softly but carry a big stick.” President Roosevelt would come into power offering America the square deal. He would take the power away from the industrialists as he controlled big business from the White House. He would soon become known as a TrustBuster. Roosevelt used American power for American interests and was quoted as saying, “I am an American first and last. “ Although some historians argue that Roosevelt acted like a six-year-old throughout his presidency and that he didn’t think things through, ie “he thought with his hips”, one can admire the tremendous leadership qualities that Teddy Roosevelt had. First, he was a very bold man who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. The average citizen was aware of what a “positive, warm and tough, authoritative and funny” president that they had leading them. His leadership qualities stemmed from his time as a New York state Assembly man, a deputy sheriff, a ...
The election of 1912 signified a turning point in American history. Friends, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, competed against each other for the presidency. Though both progressive, they disagreed on how the country needed to run. Roosevelts ever increasing progressivism caused their stances on many important issues to be much different. Although, they did have some points on which they agreed.
Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. He brought hope as he promised prompt, vigorous action, and asserted in his Inaugural Address, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Despite an attack of poliomyelitis, which paralyzed his legs in 1921, he was a charismatic optimist whose confidence helped sustain the American people during the strains of economic crisis and world war.
Compare and contrast the foreign policies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Which do you think was a more effective president? Why?
These two candidates believed strongly that rising power should come with the presidency, economic improvement, opposition of monopolistic businesses, and they both advocated steering away from the isolationism that the country once upheld. The campaigns of the two men spoke of New Nationalism and New Freedom, and the two campaigns had some commonality between the two of them. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both expressed their concerns about the wrongs of corruption and what roles could be served by increased government control and regulation over businesses. This was apparent with Wilson’s platform of New Freedom, which called for “tariff reform, creation of the federal reserve, and antitrust laws” (Bowles).
The Great Depression, beginning in the last few months of 1929, impacted the vast majority of people nationwide and worldwide. With millions of Americans unemployed and many in danger of losing their homes, they could no longer support their families. Children, if they were lucky, wore torn up ragged clothing to school and those who were not lucky remained without clothes. The food supply was scarce, and bread was the most that families could afford. Households would receive very limited rations of food, or small amounts of money to buy food. This led to the starvation of families, including children. African-americans faced tougher challenges than most during the Depression due to discrimination. The classes hit hardest were middle-class
...for their misfortune. The rich blamed the poor, the poor blamed the rich, the middle class blamed the blacks, and no one took responsibility themselves. One complaint most of these classes (with exception to the few that benefited) was the lack of success of the New Deal and other relief efforts. Whether the blacks had too much employment, or the poor were too lazy to receive aid, very few Americans appeared to be happy with Roosevelt’s solution. This didn’t stop his popularity. Many Americans stood behind their president rain or shine, depression or big boom. Regardless of their positions, these citizens who turned to the President in their time of desperation proved that the pen is truly mightier.
Presidents create the leadership position that has a say in all of the decisions for a country. In this era, many judgments of situations needed to be decided, and it made it blatantly obvious as to who made the wrong or right decisions. In the political cartoon published by Washington Post in 1907, Roosevelt wanted to convey that it was necessary to determine what trusts were good or bad. Trusts were made to shut down businesses and he felt he had the power to run these options and opinions. After some violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Teddy really took a step forward in proving his trust-busting techniques. In a speech that Roosevelt made in February of 1912, he expressed his belief on the importance of the people participating in direct election of Senators through his speech. This importance that he felt was necessary eventually led on to the 17th Amendment, which was passed the year after. In Herbert Croly’s New Republic, Wilson received quite a bit of loathing from Croly as he expressed his opinions. The supporters of Wilson definitely disagreed with an article like this, and it was unacceptable to some. Whether liked or disliked, the presidents during this period made an impact on our nation, and the people wanted to be heard for the rights they wanted.
This take on Roosevelt’s policies highlights the perceived negative effects. This article does not necessarily support the theory of an ‘anti-business’ president, but it does shed some light on some of the arguments for the failure of Roosevelt’s policies. It also gives credence to other motivations behind Roosevelt’s policies.
I believe that "New Freedom" and "New Nationalism" can be compatible because they share similar qualities but also could not be compatible for the reason that their ideas on how to run the country are different. "New Nationalism" states that putting individual needs ahead of the nations needs is wrong, which a point the two speeches have in common. Another similar point "New Nationalism" and "New Freedom" share is that both candidates show familiar judgment in without huge corporations there would less of a gap between the rich and the poor. Also without this gap of the rich and poor, our nation would be better as a whole. "New Nationalism" acknowledged that monopolies and trusts are acceptable as long as they are being of service to the people. "New Freedom" motioned that the nation should discharge all monopolies so that there would be less need for government interference. Wilson accredited this because he believes that monopolies are shown to be secured by government and can essentially control the regime because of all the money they give.