TR's cousin had the same problem. It only became possible for a US president to act differently when a popular political movement created the conditions where the president could act. This has been the case with every political/social change.
TR's cousin had the same problem. It only became possible for a US president to act differently when a popular political movement created the conditions where the president could act. This has been the case with every political/social change.
Are there no other unpopular decisions by presidents that come to mind, TC? To start early in the country's life, there is John Adam's opposition to war with France, for which he lost reelection to the presidency. More to the point, a reading of Theodore Roosevelt does not encourage the idea that at root he was a champion for the rights of Black people in the US.
You're right. Neither was Eisenhower, but by 1957 there was a sufficient political movement in favor of civil rights in the wake of Brown that he had to act in Little Rock like it or not. Presidents are weather vanes. As FDR said to his advisors in 1932 following his election (before his inauguration) regarding their suggestions for action: "No go out and convince the country to convince me to do these things."
I have answered you twice. As I pointed out, the existence of a viable political movement has to precede the kind of action you are talking about. It's still the case.
I did not read your answer concerning Theodore Roosevelt's personal commitment in his mind, heart and gut to the rights and equality of Blacks. You mentioned common political practice and slogans not what motivates a leader to do what he believes in even with unfavorable odds. The equality of Blacks was not on Theodore Roosevelt's agenda.
How committed have most Democrats and liberals been to Civil Rights? Might a major factor in the position of Blacks in this country have to do the level of engagement on the part of White America? That may change with the participation of young American voters.
What a sophisticated historically detailed conversation.
Thank you for that, as well as TLC posting Theodore RooseveltтАЩs speech, which I admit to skimming through. I know too well my attention span is that of a flea.
TR's cousin had the same problem. It only became possible for a US president to act differently when a popular political movement created the conditions where the president could act. This has been the case with every political/social change.
Are there no other unpopular decisions by presidents that come to mind, TC? To start early in the country's life, there is John Adam's opposition to war with France, for which he lost reelection to the presidency. More to the point, a reading of Theodore Roosevelt does not encourage the idea that at root he was a champion for the rights of Black people in the US.
You're right. Neither was Eisenhower, but by 1957 there was a sufficient political movement in favor of civil rights in the wake of Brown that he had to act in Little Rock like it or not. Presidents are weather vanes. As FDR said to his advisors in 1932 following his election (before his inauguration) regarding their suggestions for action: "No go out and convince the country to convince me to do these things."
You have not answered with reference to Theodore's level of determination to secure the rights and equality of Blacks in the USA. Cheers!
I have answered you twice. As I pointed out, the existence of a viable political movement has to precede the kind of action you are talking about. It's still the case.
I did not read your answer concerning Theodore Roosevelt's personal commitment in his mind, heart and gut to the rights and equality of Blacks. You mentioned common political practice and slogans not what motivates a leader to do what he believes in even with unfavorable odds. The equality of Blacks was not on Theodore Roosevelt's agenda.
How committed have most Democrats and liberals been to Civil Rights? Might a major factor in the position of Blacks in this country have to do the level of engagement on the part of White America? That may change with the participation of young American voters.
I don't go around finding people guilty of being in step with their times, since we'd all be doing time under that.
I wonder what my answer to that would have been around 1957?
I did not see your answer to my last question. If you read my initial response to '120 YEARS AGO... you saw what T. Roosevelt's opinion was of Blacks.
What a sophisticated historically detailed conversation.
Thank you for that, as well as TLC posting Theodore RooseveltтАЩs speech, which I admit to skimming through. I know too well my attention span is that of a flea.
Thank you, Samm. It's fine to do some work on Labor Day wrote one flea to another!