Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tr-m] Michael Beschloss quote on CSPAN

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Bangor
    I see Beschloss making two points in the quote: 1) Presidential reputations (in historians opinions, I m assuming) are influenced by the era (political,
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 18, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I see Beschloss making two points in the quote:
      1) Presidential reputations (in historians' opinions, I'm assuming) are
      influenced by the era (political, economic, social, etc.) they live in.
      2) Theodore Roosevelt was highly regarded in the 1930s and 1940s (and
      probably today) -- but not in the 1920s -- because the prevailing political
      philosophy of those times were for and against TR's, respectively.

      For the first I'd say this is correct, to an extent. Historians who want
      to sell books to the public and be popular need to cater to the prevailing
      opinions of the era. However, as an example, I never got the impression
      that the Reagan Revolution won over the ivory towers of academia in the
      1980s. In general, every thinking person will have their own opinions and
      beliefs and this can't help but to color their perceptions of the
      past. This is especially true if they lived through part of the "past"
      that they are writing about.

      That gets me to the second issue. People/historians of the 1920s were
      commenting on TR as a person who lived at the same time they did. This
      means that their impressions will tend to be overly influenced by their
      last observations of him (this is termed "latency") -- the Progressive
      years in his life (those most anathema to the laissez-faire years of the
      1920s I think Mr. Beschloss is referring to). Later, in the 1930s, 1940s,
      and today, historians and the public can more fully judge TR's achievements
      and opinions from his entire career. Some of these achievements and
      opinions certainly are from his later years, but it also includes his time
      in the NY legislature, in Washington in the 1890s, in the military, as
      President, and his post-Presidential years. Thus, while the political era
      may have influenced the historians of the 1920s, not having a proper
      perspective on TR's entire career and having not realized the lasting
      influence he did have are also important factors.

      As for Mary Beth Smith's comment about TR being more idolized than George
      Washington, I think that's a bit much, but I think she's on the right
      track. TR revered the frontiersmen (the books he wrote and the letter from
      Colorado that was just discussed on this list are good examples). These
      were the "real" Americans he grew up with and wished he could be like. The
      life and bravery of a frontiersman was tangible enough to believe in, yet
      distant enough to romanticize. I think TR can fill the same role in
      present day. His conservationism, take-charge attitude in politics, and
      indefatigable belief in America (among other traits which this group knows
      well) makes him an inspiration to people today.

      Aaron
    • Mary Beth Smith
      George Washington was one of TR s heroes. In Gouverneur Morris, TR wrote: Washington, alike statesman, soldier, and patriot, stands alone. He was not only
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 19, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        George Washington was one of TR's heroes. In Gouverneur Morris, TR wrote:

        Washington, alike statesman, soldier, and patriot, stands alone. He was not
        only the greatest American; he was also one of the greatest men the world
        has ever known. Few centuries and few countries have ever seen his like.
        Among the people of English stock there is none to compare with him, unless
        perhaps Cromwell, utterly different though the latter was. Of Americans,
        Lincoln alone is worthy to stand even second.
        --------------

        We don't appreciate George Washington enough today if the above statement is
        true. This caused me to buy two books on George Washington but I haven't
        read them yet. George Washington, who had 3 horses shot dead beneath him
        during the American Revolution, must have inspired TR's bravery during the
        Spanish American War. Can anybody sum up what George Washington meant to
        the people of the 19th century?

        Mary Beth
        On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:20:59 -0600, tr-m@yahoogroups.com wrote:

        > I see Beschloss making two points in the quote:
        > 1) Presidential reputations (in historians' opinions, I'm assuming) are
        > influenced by the era (political, economic, social, etc.) they live in.
        > 2) Theodore Roosevelt was highly regarded in the 1930s and 1940s (and
        > probably today) -- but not in the 1920s -- because the prevailing
        political
        > philosophy of those times were for and against TR's, respectively.
        >
        > For the first I'd say this is correct, to an extent. Historians who want

        > to sell books to the public and be popular need to cater to the
        prevailing
        > opinions of the era. However, as an example, I never got the impression
        > that the Reagan Revolution won over the ivory towers of academia in the
        > 1980s. In general, every thinking person will have their own opinions
        and
        > beliefs and this can't help but to color their perceptions of the
        > past. This is especially true if they lived through part of the "past"
        > that they are writing about.
        >
        > That gets me to the second issue. People/historians of the 1920s were
        > commenting on TR as a person who lived at the same time they did. This
        > means that their impressions will tend to be overly influenced by their
        > last observations of him (this is termed "latency") -- the Progressive
        > years in his life (those most anathema to the laissez-faire years of the
        > 1920s I think Mr. Beschloss is referring to). Later, in the 1930s,
        1940s,
        > and today, historians and the public can more fully judge TR's
        achievements
        > and opinions from his entire career. Some of these achievements and
        > opinions certainly are from his later years, but it also includes his
        time
        > in the NY legislature, in Washington in the 1890s, in the military, as
        > President, and his post-Presidential years. Thus, while the political
        era
        > may have influenced the historians of the 1920s, not having a proper
        > perspective on TR's entire career and having not realized the lasting
        > influence he did have are also important factors.
        >
        > As for Mary Beth Smith's comment about TR being more idolized than George

        > Washington, I think that's a bit much, but I think she's on the right
        > track. TR revered the frontiersmen (the books he wrote and the letter
        from
        > Colorado that was just discussed on this list are good examples). These
        > were the "real" Americans he grew up with and wished he could be like.
        The
        > life and bravery of a frontiersman was tangible enough to believe in, yet

        > distant enough to romanticize. I think TR can fill the same role in
        > present day. His conservationism, take-charge attitude in politics, and
        > indefatigable belief in America (among other traits which this group
        knows
        > well) makes him an inspiration to people today.
        >
        > Aaron
        >





        _______________________________________________________
        Send a cool gift with your E-Card
        http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
      • Mary Beth Smith
        George Washington: I ll answer my own question here. George Washington was a great man, brave, honest, physically and morally strong. By the time TR was
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 28, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          George Washington:

          I'll answer my own question here. George Washington was a great man, brave,
          honest, physically and morally strong. By the time TR was president he had
          all of George Washington's great qualities.

          In Hero Tales, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote of Washington:

          He came into office with a paper constitution, the heir of a bankrupt,
          broken-down confederation. He left the United States, when he went out of
          office, an effective and vigorous government. When he was inaugurated, we
          had nothing but the clauses of the Constitution as agreed to by the
          Convention. When he laid down the presidency, we had an organized
          government, an established revenue, a funded debt, a high credit, an
          efficient system of banking, a strong judiciary, and an army. We had a
          vigorous and well-defined foreign policy; we had recovered the Western
          posts, which, in the hands of the British, had fettered our march to the
          West; and we had proved our power to maintain order at home, to repress
          insurrection, to collect national taxes, and to enforce the laws made by
          Congress. Thus Washington had shown that rare combination of the leader,
          who could first destroy by revolution, and who, having led his country
          through a civil war, was then able to build up a new and lasting fabric upon
          the ruins of a system which had been overthrown. At the close of his
          official service he returned again to Mount Vernon, and, after a few years
          of quiet retirement, died just as the century in which he had played so
          great a part was closing.

          Lodge adds that he was a man of unblemished character:

          Washington stands among the greatest men of human history, and those in the
          same rank with him are very few...Few men in all time have such a record of
          achievement. Still fewer can show at the end of a career so crowded with
          high deeds and memorable victories a life so free from spot, a character so
          unselfish and so pure, a frame so void of doubtful points demanding either
          defense or explanation.

          He was also a man of great strength:

          He was remarkably muscular and powerful. As a boy he was a leader in all
          outdoor sports...He feared no exposure or fatigue, and outdid the hardiest
          backwoodsman in following a winter trail and swimming icy streams. This
          habit of vigorous bodily exercise he carried through life.

          He was a great soldier:

          He was a great soldier of the type that the English race had producted, like
          Marlborough and Cromwell, Wellington, Grant, and Lee...a stubborn and often
          reckless fighter, a winner of battles...

          He was a great statesman:

          He was...a great constitutional statesman, able to lead a people along the
          paths of free government without undertaking himself to play the part of the
          strong man, the usurper, or the savior of society.

          He was quiet but passionate. He had enormous self control:

          But as a rule these fiery impuslses and strong passions were under the
          absolute control of an iron will

          He was compassionate:

          His pity always went out to the poor, the oppressed, or the unhappy, and he
          was all that was kind and gentle to those immediately about him.

          He was honest:

          He was, of course, the soul of truth and honor, but he was even more than
          that. He never deceived himself. He always looked facts squarely in the
          face and dealt with them as such...

          Mary Beth

          On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:01:17 -0800 (PST), tr-m@yahoogroups.com wrote:

          > George Washington was one of TR's heroes. In Gouverneur Morris, TR
          wrote:
          >
          > Washington, alike statesman, soldier, and patriot, stands alone. He was
          not
          > only the greatest American; he was also one of the greatest men the world
          > has ever known. Few centuries and few countries have ever seen his like.

          > Among the people of English stock there is none to compare with him,
          unless
          > perhaps Cromwell, utterly different though the latter was. Of Americans,
          > Lincoln alone is worthy to stand even second.
          > --------------
          >
          > We don't appreciate George Washington enough today if the above statement
          is
          > true. This caused me to buy two books on George Washington but I haven't
          > read them yet. George Washington, who had 3 horses shot dead beneath him
          > during the American Revolution, must have inspired TR's bravery during
          the
          > Spanish American War. Can anybody sum up what George Washington meant to
          > the people of the 19th century?
          >
          > Mary Beth
          > On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:20:59 -0600, tr-m@yahoogroups.com wrote:
          >
          > > I see Beschloss making two points in the quote:
          > > 1) Presidential reputations (in historians' opinions, I'm assuming)
          are
          > > influenced by the era (political, economic, social, etc.) they live
          in.
          > > 2) Theodore Roosevelt was highly regarded in the 1930s and 1940s (and
          > > probably today) -- but not in the 1920s -- because the prevailing
          > political
          > > philosophy of those times were for and against TR's, respectively.
          > >
          > > For the first I'd say this is correct, to an extent. Historians who
          want
          >
          > > to sell books to the public and be popular need to cater to the
          > prevailing
          > > opinions of the era. However, as an example, I never got the
          impression
          > > that the Reagan Revolution won over the ivory towers of academia in
          the
          > > 1980s. In general, every thinking person will have their own opinions
          > and
          > > beliefs and this can't help but to color their perceptions of the
          > > past. This is especially true if they lived through part of the
          "past"
          > > that they are writing about.
          > >
          > > That gets me to the second issue. People/historians of the 1920s were

          > > commenting on TR as a person who lived at the same time they did.
          This
          > > means that their impressions will tend to be overly influenced by
          their
          > > last observations of him (this is termed "latency") -- the Progressive

          > > years in his life (those most anathema to the laissez-faire years of
          the
          > > 1920s I think Mr. Beschloss is referring to). Later, in the 1930s,
          > 1940s,
          > > and today, historians and the public can more fully judge TR's
          > achievements
          > > and opinions from his entire career. Some of these achievements and
          > > opinions certainly are from his later years, but it also includes his
          > time
          > > in the NY legislature, in Washington in the 1890s, in the military, as

          > > President, and his post-Presidential years. Thus, while the political
          > era
          > > may have influenced the historians of the 1920s, not having a proper
          > > perspective on TR's entire career and having not realized the lasting
          > > influence he did have are also important factors.
          > >
          > > As for Mary Beth Smith's comment about TR being more idolized than
          George
          >
          > > Washington, I think that's a bit much, but I think she's on the right
          > > track. TR revered the frontiersmen (the books he wrote and the letter
          > from
          > > Colorado that was just discussed on this list are good examples).
          These
          > > were the "real" Americans he grew up with and wished he could be like.

          > The
          > > life and bravery of a frontiersman was tangible enough to believe in,
          yet
          >
          > > distant enough to romanticize. I think TR can fill the same role in
          > > present day. His conservationism, take-charge attitude in politics,
          and
          > > indefatigable belief in America (among other traits which this group
          > knows
          > > well) makes him an inspiration to people today.
          > >
          > > Aaron
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > _______________________________________________________
          > Send a cool gift with your E-Card
          > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
          >
          >





          _______________________________________________________
          Send a cool gift with your E-Card
          http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
        • Joe Adamczyk
          I think you missed the most important thing Washington did in his entire career: He voluntarily stepped completely away from power, not once but twice. He
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I think you missed the most important thing Washington did in his entire
            career: He voluntarily stepped completely away from power, not once but
            twice. He could easily have assumed power as generalissimo after the
            revolution, with hardly any objection from most of the people. He could also
            have served as President for life. Instead, he stepped down both times, not
            just in name but in fact as well; both times he went back to Mt. Vernon and
            stayed out of politics; the first time, for at least three years, and the
            second time, until his death.

            This was astonishing at the time, and even more so in retrospect.

            Joe A.





            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Mary Beth Smith [mailto:marybeth_smith@...]
            > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:10 AM
            > To: tr-m@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [tr-m] Michael Beschloss quote on CSPAN
            >
            >
            > George Washington:
            >
            > I'll answer my own question here. George Washington was a great
            > man, brave,
            > honest, physically and morally strong. By the time TR was
            > president he had
            > all of George Washington's great qualities.
            >
            > In Hero Tales, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote of Washington:
            >
            > He came into office with a paper constitution, the heir of a bankrupt,
            > broken-down confederation. He left the United States, when he went out of
            > office, an effective and vigorous government. When he was inaugurated, we
            > had nothing but the clauses of the Constitution as agreed to by the
            > Convention. When he laid down the presidency, we had an organized
            > government, an established revenue, a funded debt, a high credit, an
            > efficient system of banking, a strong judiciary, and an army. We had a
            > vigorous and well-defined foreign policy; we had recovered the Western
            > posts, which, in the hands of the British, had fettered our march to the
            > West; and we had proved our power to maintain order at home, to repress
            > insurrection, to collect national taxes, and to enforce the laws made by
            > Congress. Thus Washington had shown that rare combination of the leader,
            > who could first destroy by revolution, and who, having led his country
            > through a civil war, was then able to build up a new and lasting
            > fabric upon
            > the ruins of a system which had been overthrown. At the close of his
            > official service he returned again to Mount Vernon, and, after a few years
            > of quiet retirement, died just as the century in which he had played so
            > great a part was closing.
            >
            > Lodge adds that he was a man of unblemished character:
            >
            > Washington stands among the greatest men of human history, and
            > those in the
            > same rank with him are very few...Few men in all time have such a
            > record of
            > achievement. Still fewer can show at the end of a career so crowded with
            > high deeds and memorable victories a life so free from spot, a
            > character so
            > unselfish and so pure, a frame so void of doubtful points demanding either
            > defense or explanation.
            >
            > He was also a man of great strength:
            >
            > He was remarkably muscular and powerful. As a boy he was a leader in all
            > outdoor sports...He feared no exposure or fatigue, and outdid the hardiest
            > backwoodsman in following a winter trail and swimming icy streams. This
            > habit of vigorous bodily exercise he carried through life.
            >
            > He was a great soldier:
            >
            > He was a great soldier of the type that the English race had
            > producted, like
            > Marlborough and Cromwell, Wellington, Grant, and Lee...a stubborn
            > and often
            > reckless fighter, a winner of battles...
            >
            > He was a great statesman:
            >
            > He was...a great constitutional statesman, able to lead a people along the
            > paths of free government without undertaking himself to play the
            > part of the
            > strong man, the usurper, or the savior of society.
            >
            > He was quiet but passionate. He had enormous self control:
            >
            > But as a rule these fiery impuslses and strong passions were under the
            > absolute control of an iron will
            >
            > He was compassionate:
            >
            > His pity always went out to the poor, the oppressed, or the
            > unhappy, and he
            > was all that was kind and gentle to those immediately about him.
            >
            > He was honest:
            >
            > He was, of course, the soul of truth and honor, but he was even more than
            > that. He never deceived himself. He always looked facts squarely in the
            > face and dealt with them as such...
            >
            > Mary Beth
            >
            > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:01:17 -0800 (PST), tr-m@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            >
            > > George Washington was one of TR's heroes. In Gouverneur Morris, TR
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Washington, alike statesman, soldier, and patriot, stands
            > alone. He was
            > not
            > > only the greatest American; he was also one of the greatest
            > men the world
            > > has ever known. Few centuries and few countries have ever
            > seen his like.
            >
            > > Among the people of English stock there is none to compare with him,
            > unless
            > > perhaps Cromwell, utterly different though the latter was. Of
            > Americans,
            > > Lincoln alone is worthy to stand even second.
            > > --------------
            > >
            > > We don't appreciate George Washington enough today if the
            > above statement
            > is
            > > true. This caused me to buy two books on George Washington
            > but I haven't
            > > read them yet. George Washington, who had 3 horses shot dead
            > beneath him
            > > during the American Revolution, must have inspired TR's bravery during
            > the
            > > Spanish American War. Can anybody sum up what George
            > Washington meant to
            > > the people of the 19th century?
            > >
            > > Mary Beth
            > > On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:20:59 -0600, tr-m@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            > >
            > > > I see Beschloss making two points in the quote:
            > > > 1) Presidential reputations (in historians' opinions, I'm assuming)
            > are
            > > > influenced by the era (political, economic, social, etc.) they live
            > in.
            > > > 2) Theodore Roosevelt was highly regarded in the 1930s and
            > 1940s (and
            > > > probably today) -- but not in the 1920s -- because the prevailing
            > > political
            > > > philosophy of those times were for and against TR's, respectively.
            > > >
            > > > For the first I'd say this is correct, to an extent. Historians who
            > want
            > >
            > > > to sell books to the public and be popular need to cater to the
            > > prevailing
            > > > opinions of the era. However, as an example, I never got the
            > impression
            > > > that the Reagan Revolution won over the ivory towers of academia in
            > the
            > > > 1980s. In general, every thinking person will have their
            > own opinions
            > > and
            > > > beliefs and this can't help but to color their perceptions of the
            > > > past. This is especially true if they lived through part of the
            > "past"
            > > > that they are writing about.
            > > >
            > > > That gets me to the second issue. People/historians of the
            > 1920s were
            >
            > > > commenting on TR as a person who lived at the same time they did.
            > This
            > > > means that their impressions will tend to be overly influenced by
            > their
            > > > last observations of him (this is termed "latency") -- the
            > Progressive
            >
            > > > years in his life (those most anathema to the laissez-faire years of
            > the
            > > > 1920s I think Mr. Beschloss is referring to). Later, in the 1930s,
            > > 1940s,
            > > > and today, historians and the public can more fully judge TR's
            > > achievements
            > > > and opinions from his entire career. Some of these
            > achievements and
            > > > opinions certainly are from his later years, but it also
            > includes his
            > > time
            > > > in the NY legislature, in Washington in the 1890s, in the
            > military, as
            >
            > > > President, and his post-Presidential years. Thus, while
            > the political
            > > era
            > > > may have influenced the historians of the 1920s, not having
            > a proper
            > > > perspective on TR's entire career and having not realized
            > the lasting
            > > > influence he did have are also important factors.
            > > >
            > > > As for Mary Beth Smith's comment about TR being more idolized than
            > George
            > >
            > > > Washington, I think that's a bit much, but I think she's on
            > the right
            > > > track. TR revered the frontiersmen (the books he wrote and
            > the letter
            > > from
            > > > Colorado that was just discussed on this list are good examples).
            > These
            > > > were the "real" Americans he grew up with and wished he
            > could be like.
            >
            > > The
            > > > life and bravery of a frontiersman was tangible enough to
            > believe in,
            > yet
            > >
            > > > distant enough to romanticize. I think TR can fill the
            > same role in
            > > > present day. His conservationism, take-charge attitude in politics,
            > and
            > > > indefatigable belief in America (among other traits which this group
            > > knows
            > > > well) makes him an inspiration to people today.
            > > >
            > > > Aaron
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > _______________________________________________________
            > > Send a cool gift with your E-Card
            > > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > _______________________________________________________
            > Send a cool gift with your E-Card
            > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
            >
            >
            >
            > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: tr-m-unsubscribe@...
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • Tweed Roosevelt
            Some time ago I sent the following quote to the list and asked what you thought of it. Some discussion followed. I thought I would add my thoughts. Michael
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Some time ago I sent the following quote to the list and asked what you
              thought of it. Some discussion followed. I thought I would add my thoughts.

              Michael Beschloss is, I believe, a well respected historian and therefore
              we tend to take what he says as gospel, especially if it appears on
              TV. Nonetheless, I think he is dead wrong about the historiography of
              TR. In fact he has it backwards. TR was well respected in the 20's. The
              biographies were all uncritical, even fawning. It was in 1931 with the
              publication of Henry F. Pringle's Pulitzer Prize winning "debunking"
              biography, *Theodore Roosevelt* that TR's reputation took a nose dive. It
              began to be resurrected with the publication of William Henry Harbaugh's
              *Power & Responsibility, The life and times of Theodore Roosevelt* in 1961,
              and achieved it's current status with Edmund Morris's *The Rise of Theodore
              Roosevelt* in 1979, also a Pulitzer Prize winner. Yes, Beschloss is right
              that presidential reputations are influenced by contemporary attitudes, but
              only to an extent. Perhaps what is much more important is who is writing
              about a particular president and how the writer portray him.


              >The following quote appeared on CSPAN2 on2/11/01 at 7:00 AM
              >
              >... And historians are
              >human and I think that leads us to be fairly open minded about someone who
              >does that. Another thing to remember is the presidential reputations are so
              >influenced by changes in a political era. The priorities of the American
              >people at a given time. Theodore Roosevelt is a wonderful example of this.
              >We now think
              >of Theodore Roosevelt as a pretty major important president, but that was not
              >always the case. If we were talking about Theodore Roosevelt in the 1920's,
              >some wag probably would have referred to him as a hyper thyroid case who got
              >the government much too involved in the domestic economy and around the
              >world. T. R.'s time was not the 1920's, a time when people were very
              >allergic to the idea of being involved in the world and allergic to the
              >idea of government
              >intervention in the economy. But you get up to the 1930's, the 1940's, that
              >was a time that was just tailor made for Theodore Roosevelt, his
              >reputation began to
              >rise. ...
              >
              >Quote from Michael Beschloss, author of *American Heritage Illustarted
              >History of the Presidents
              >
              >What do member of the group think of this idea?
              >
            • Edward J. Renehan Jr.
              Tweed: You are quite right that TR s star shone bright in the 1920s. We must remember that when he died in January of 1919 he was poised to take the Republican
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Tweed:
                You are quite right that TR's star shone bright in the
                1920s. We must remember that when he died in January
                of 1919 he was poised to take the Republican
                nomination for the presidency and poised to win the
                November election. He was seen at his death as the
                wise giant of a statesman who, in the early years of
                World War I before the US entered the fracas, had
                warned a largely isolationist and unlistening country
                to prepare for war in order to avoid hostilities. In
                hindsight, the American public saw that he'd been
                right all along on this -- as on so many other things
                -- and he won back the respect and following he'd
                somewhat lost in the wake of the 1912 election, the
                splitting of the Republican vote, and the election of
                Wilson. TR's reputation, as you point out, did not
                start to decline until the publication of Pringle's
                flawed biography. But as we know, water always
                eventually seeks its own level and thus TR's decline
                did not last. -- Ed Renehan



                --- Tweed Roosevelt <tweedr@...> wrote:
                > Some time ago I sent the following quote to the list
                > and asked what you
                > thought of it. Some discussion followed. I thought
                > I would add my thoughts.
                >
                > Michael Beschloss is, I believe, a well respected
                > historian and therefore
                > we tend to take what he says as gospel, especially
                > if it appears on
                > TV. Nonetheless, I think he is dead wrong about the
                > historiography of
                > TR. In fact he has it backwards. TR was well
                > respected in the 20's. The
                > biographies were all uncritical, even fawning. It
                > was in 1931 with the
                > publication of Henry F. Pringle's Pulitzer Prize
                > winning "debunking"
                > biography, *Theodore Roosevelt* that TR's reputation
                > took a nose dive. It
                > began to be resurrected with the publication of
                > William Henry Harbaugh's
                > *Power & Responsibility, The life and times of
                > Theodore Roosevelt* in 1961,
                > and achieved it's current status with Edmund
                > Morris's *The Rise of Theodore
                > Roosevelt* in 1979, also a Pulitzer Prize winner.
                > Yes, Beschloss is right
                > that presidential reputations are influenced by
                > contemporary attitudes, but
                > only to an extent. Perhaps what is much more
                > important is who is writing
                > about a particular president and how the writer
                > portray him.
                >
                >
                > >The following quote appeared on CSPAN2 on2/11/01 at
                > 7:00 AM
                > >
                > >... And historians are
                > >human and I think that leads us to be fairly open
                > minded about someone who
                > >does that. Another thing to remember is the
                > presidential reputations are so
                > >influenced by changes in a political era. The
                > priorities of the American
                > >people at a given time. Theodore Roosevelt is a
                > wonderful example of this.
                > >We now think
                > >of Theodore Roosevelt as a pretty major important
                > president, but that was not
                > >always the case. If we were talking about Theodore
                > Roosevelt in the 1920's,
                > >some wag probably would have referred to him as a
                > hyper thyroid case who got
                > >the government much too involved in the domestic
                > economy and around the
                > >world. T. R.'s time was not the 1920's, a time
                > when people were very
                > >allergic to the idea of being involved in the world
                > and allergic to the
                > >idea of government
                > >intervention in the economy. But you get up to the
                > 1930's, the 1940's, that
                > >was a time that was just tailor made for Theodore
                > Roosevelt, his
                > >reputation began to
                > >rise. ...
                > >
                > >Quote from Michael Beschloss, author of *American
                > Heritage Illustarted
                > >History of the Presidents
                > >
                > >What do member of the group think of this idea?
                > >
                >
                >
                > To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
                > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                > tr-m-unsubscribe@...
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
                >


                =====
                EDWARD J. RENEHAN JR.
                ejren@...
                http://renehan.net

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.