Theodore Roosevelt: A More Critical Look At A Famous President

Introduction

I have to say I’m becoming more of a history buff lately. I have in fact tried to watch as many episodes of the recent PBS special “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History” as I have been able to. I felt that the special was well put together, gave some fair objective facts, but overall had its biases in favor of the former Presidents (but what reporting doesn’t have biases?). The special certainly isn’t alone in its outstanding love for Teddy, the man’s face has been sculpted into a mountain for crying out load! However the more I have been learning history, the more I have discovered that it is the most boisterous and historically significant presidents that are revered by the public, even if they don’t deserve it. 

Its no secret Teddy Roosevelt had a big personality, and was a very active president. Roosevelt fans boast about a lot of his presidential accomplishments: He was a strong military leader, expanded the US’s Navy into a true military presence, organized peace talks both foreign and domestic, brought about the Panama Canal and National Parks, helped break up monopolies, and even was the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize.¹ But aside from his presidential accomplishments, people admire the strong rogue personality who organized the Rough Riders, gave a speech while still bleeding from a failed assassination, and just seemed like an overall man’s man.² I have to admit, I see the appeal. All these stories sound more about a character from a tall tail than a real person. Unfortunately, my bubble was bursted when I took a deeper and more critical look at his presidency. Here’s what I found:

Often Exercised A Reckless And Immoral Foreign Policy

After learning more about Teddy’s personality, it is of little wonder why his foreign policy was the way it was. When referring to his involvement in the Spanish-American War, a fellow soldier described Teddy as “reveling in the victory and gore”.³ Suffice it to say, war seemed like something Roosevelt more celebrated than resented. Combine that with a fearlessness of confrontation, and you get commander in chief who will look for more excuses to act militarily than not. 

To his credit, Roosevelt did win the Nobel Peace Prize for organizing talks which lead to an end of the Russo-Japanese War, and wisely avoided confrontation regarding a trading position in Morocco.⁴ However, many other arbitrations Teddy is given credit for happened only because of U.S. military threats and gross intervention. 

Starting in 1902, Teddy is famously credited with arbitrating a dispute between Germany Venezuela, except the part that is often left out is that this only happened after the US threatened military intervention. Venezuela hadn’t payed its debts, and the British-German consortium wanted to put the pressure on with a navel blockade. Roosevelt reacted by sending the US Navy, and thankfully this caused the Kaiser to back down and the matter was arbitrated. However, it was their guarantee of safety which caused Venezuela to not pay its debts in the first place. And on top of that, Roosevelt risked an all out war with Germany over a foreign dispute that didn’t even involve the United States.⁵

Roosevelt pulled a similar stunt when the Dominican Republic also owed debts to the British-German consortium. Except this time instead of offering naval protection, Teddy had U.S. officials practically commandeer the country’s revenue departments to ensure the debt was paid.⁶ (Imagine if a foreign entity did that to the U.S. today!)

To further his philosophy of an aggressive military, Roosevelt formed the famous Great White Fleet which consisted of four squadrons of battleships that sailed around the world. The fleet was more than just a representation of a strong navy, it was a means for Roosevelt to recklessly threaten nations for trivial disputes.

For example, Roosevelt threatened Japan with a naval presence in the Pacific after a minor immigration and integration issue (of which the United States was on the wrong side). He sent ships to implicitly threaten Turkish officials to treat U.S. missionaries the same as they have treated European missionaries. And he also implicitly threatened with his Navy the Sultan of Morocco to negotiate with a kidnapper who allegedly held U.S. citizen captive for ransom.⁷

The continuous aggressive threats of Roosevelt were dangerous and reckless, but some of the actual interventions were far worse. Roosevelt turned a blind eye to many inhuman actions going on during U.S.-Filipino conflicts (the slaughter of civilian and children). He eventually discharged the U.S. leaders accused of giving the orders, but he never indicted them despite a large amount of evidence that was stacked against them. Teddy knew of the atrocities long before they were brought public, but did nothing about them.⁸


Unfortunately, even TR’s most famous foreign accomplishment, the Panama Canal, is outshined more by its moral atrocities than by its eventual benefits. In spite of a treaty between the U.S. and Colombia that obligated the United States to defend Colombia’s integrity, Roosevelt supported Panamanian revolutionaries because he saw it as being the best way to obtain a canal. Roosevelt promised Philippe Bunau-Varilla, a French organizer of the rebellion, military support, and prevented Colombians from using their own railways to get across the country to bring down the insurrection. The U.S. even paid a Colombian leader to turn his army around and not fight. After Panama won its independence, Bunau-Varilla quickly signed a canal treaty before an another Panamanian delegation could alter it. In the end, the treaty gave the U.S. large amount of control in the area, and the Panamanians were duped. The shadiness of this action was not ambiguous, even Roosevelt’s own cabinet joked about the situation. Secretary of War Elihu Root commented, “You have been shown that you were accused of seduction, and have conclusively proved that you were guilty of rape”.⁹

Often Acted Like A King, And Was Spotty On Domestic Policies

But perhaps my biggest criticism of Roosevelt is the precedent he set for the executive branch of government.  Roosevelt was not the least bit concerned with getting congressional approval, as required by him of the Constitution, for hardly any action. He also set an astounding record for the most executive orders (1,081 to President Grant’s 217. Much of his work for National Parks was done by executive order).¹⁰  To similar criticisms he responded: “The Constitution was made for the people, and not the people for the Constitution”.¹¹ To be fair, I think that is a great point he is making. I agree wholeheartedly that the rule of law ought to be broken without hesitation if it isn’t serving the right ends. However I also strongly believe, if governments should exist, there should be a balance of powers in case one power gets out of hand. Any leader’s eagerness to act as the lone decision maker for an entire country is not only audacious, its megalomaniacal. Perhaps worst of all though, it set a bad precedent for executive power. Not every president is going to be benevolent, but thanks in a large part to Roosevelt, the president is going to have nearly the power of a king.

But executive orders weren’t the only area in which bad precedents were being set. Roosevelt also set the precedent of interfering with labor and business disputes. When a dispute arose in the coal industry, Roosevelt gave orders for the ready use of force to halt the dispute and seize and operate the mines. This of course is a gross example of government being able to seize property without due process of law.¹²

Many hail Roosevelt as being the infamous trust-buster, but his record was spotty. As it seems with most anti-trust cases, not all trusts were targeted (probably due to favoritism) which creates an un-level playing field. For example, the railroad, beef, coal, and sugar industries were targeted, but the large steel industry was given special treatment.¹³ Even proponents of anti-trust legislation must surely recognize that the law is only fair and effective if its applied equally to all. And hopefully anti-trust proponents also understand that overseas competition can largely reduce the chances of monopolies from forming. Unfortunately, Roosevelt either didn’t understand or care about this concept as he was weak on the position of lowering tariffs. Thus, by not fighting tariffs, Roosevelt was ironically helping the very monopolies he was trying to hinder.

When it came to race relations, Roosevelt often displayed mixed actions. Granted he did, to the dismay of Southern colleagues, become the first president to entertain an African American at the White House by inviting Booker T. Washington to dinner. But when African American soldiers were accused of a shooting in Texas, Roosevelt dishonorably discharged them. Contradicting the tradition of “innocent until proven guilty”, Roosevelt only agreed to reinstate the soldiers if they could prove their innocence.¹⁴

Conclusion

Roosevelt wasn’t all bad, he did have some redemptive qualities. Unfortunately this article might simply come off as nothing but a smear piece. But I feel that one article with a more focused look into his negative qualities will not even come close to balancing out the myriads of worship articles. Even if you’re still a fan of Teddy after reading this, hopefully you have now balanced out your historical knowledge a little better. As for me personally, I think that Roosevelt’s bad qualities outweighed his good. You’re going to need more than charisma to win me over. 

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to follow me at:
facebook.com/therobalvordblog

Reference

1: Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (2014). The Biography.com website. Retrieved 03:51, Sep 25, 2014, from http://www.biography.com/people/theodore-roosevelt-9463424.

2: Theodore Roosevelt: Assassination Attempt, 1912 The doctorzebra.com website. Retrieved 03:55, Sep 25, 2014, from http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/z_x26a_g.htm

3: Chris Wallce, Character: Profiles in Presidential Courage (New York: Rugged Land, 2004), 150-151

4: Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex (New York: Modern Library, 2001), 378-379

5: Ibid., 482-485

6: Ibid., Theodore Rex, 492-495

7: Charles A. Beard, A Foreign Policy For America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1940), 58-59

8: Morris, Theodore Rex, 24-25

9: Ibid.,  289-302