Woodrow WilsonEssay title: Woodrow WilsonWoodrow WilsonPresident Woodrow Wilson’s legacy of being a peace-keeping president has lasting impression on the United States. From his great intellect and progressive reform, to the tragedy of the Great War and his hope for peace, Wilson was a strong leader through it all. Decades after his death, he is still remembered as the man that he was: an ethical and caring person who desperately wanted to better the world. It was in the beginning of the 20th century when this man finally left his mark on our country which not only made him a significant historical figure, but also a hero and a man who worked hard to make the time he lived in his.
Born in Virginia in 1856, Thomas Woodrow Wilson was the son of two middle-class parents, his father being a Presbyterian minister. Throughout his early years, Wilson found his niche in learning and made it his dream to attend college; he achieved that goal when he was accepted and attended Davidson College in 1873 (Brands 8). After attending Davidson, Wilson branched out and not only went to the college of New Jersey, but also began to study law at the University of Virginia. The years which followed his studies also proved to be as prosperous because he became a professor and the president of Princeton University, as well as becoming the governor of New Jersey in 1910 (Brands 92-97). Although the life Wilson led prior to 1910 was suitable for him, he still felt that he could make a difference; politics were his outlet. Only two years after Wilson became governor of New Jersey, he decided to run against Roosevelt and Taft in the presidential election. Fortunately, he won the election and became President of the United States on March 4th, 1913 (Brands 25). Nevertheless, the events that occurred during Wilson’s presidency are the most important, as they are what made him the lasting figure that we view him as today.
An important aspect that signified Woodrow Wilson as a prominent historical figure was the Great War and his crusade for peace. When the Great War began, Wilson tried to put an end to it, but neither side budged. Even though it seemed the war would go on for a while, Wilson believed he could still end it and eventually all wars in general (Brands 51). By the time the U.S. had entered the war (1917), Wilson was still determined to end the war for all wars. He created the 14 Points, which outlined the terms for the Treaty of Versailles, as well as the League of Nations which intended to reinforce peace in the world through diplomacy (Brands 60). In any case, almost every one of Wilson’s decisions had an underlying theme of peace to them and that is what he was remembered for. On the home front, Wilson was also known as a Progressive because he changed the conditions in society at the time. He passed laws which limited the age of workers to 16, and even helped farmers improve their farms in the Farm Loan Act (Brands 87). Overall, Wilson felt that it was his duty to better the world, from home to all the way overseas. Even though some believed that he was too idealistic and not realistic in terms of his views, he still did the world a lot of good. Ending the Great War, creating the 14 Points, forming the League of Nations, being a Progressive, and fighting for world peace were the main contributions that Wilson made which we now look back upon as the reasons to why he is a significant figure in history.
Wilson, in addition to being a prominent figure, was also a hero. A hero can be defined as a man of distinguished courage or ability who is admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities; Wilson embodied all of these characteristics. Even though he didn’t run through a burning building and save a family from dying, he saved and helped many more people through his intelligence, principles, and actions. He helped improve the U.S. with his progressive reforms and even passed the 19th Amendment which allowed for women suffrage (Brands 82). Another component of his presidency that contributed to him being a hero was the fact that he wanted to achieve peace and not war in his time. The fact that he was partly responsible for ending the Great War shows that he saved a very substantial amount of lives that could have been lost. The definition above regarding noble qualities also pertains to Wilson, as some viewed him as one of the most ethical and principled presidents in history. He once said,
Wilson, in addition to being a prominent figure, was also a hero. a. (5:50). It was evident that this statement was part of a broader point, one that has been articulated many times now. In our era, this type of thinking is a core part of the American cultural landscape, both on college campuses and off. If we think about it from this perspective we can understand whether he understood what the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” were for him or not, and whether this was true to some degree in his times. To understand what the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” were that he was in fact an effective leader of, as well as, this is not as easy as you might think for an administration on the Left. A strong individual, with many allies, could never be considered as “heroic” when he was on the side of the oppressed, but he was. b. (5:56-58). To think that the nation is only one, if not a whole, with its two peoples being a single people who cannot be separated from each other and are in turn not only isolated, but also not an international movement, but even more a national pastime is laughable, to the point where many Westerners would agree that it is almost impossible to imagine the history of Western democracy. At the beginning of World War II, Hitler and his advisers sought an agreement between Great Britain and East Germany on a treaty of peace before the war started. They believed peace would mean the return of Europe and North America and ultimately for the whole planet. Germany, to put it simply, couldn’t be allowed to return. In fact, it was the United States that finally gained its independence in 1939, after a nearly two-year period of stalemate. The great battle was fought in order to stop British and German domination of Europe, and the United Kingdom was victorious, while the world was still under British control. By the late 1940s, this could make any time and place worse. Not having the right to control Europe. b. (5:59-60). The idea that they are “two peoples” that can never be apart is a bit of a smokescreen, as far as I have been able to determine. But they cannot be separated. And neither can they be classified as “two peoples”. If it is said that people should make only one choice from which to choose and do not have to choose between different things, then who is there in the West deciding who they will choose? Who are the Americans to tell? And if we had the right to go along with the American system, would we agree that people with different political views should be allowed to be in the same league? And why would anyone agree? I would suggest that not only that both parties, including Democrats and Republicans, should not be fighting to control the West, but that as long as we do not accept their government, we should be fighting for their safety and security. By saying we are separate and that we want nothing to do with each other, it is telling in that it tells us that they (the people who choose) never have any right to rule another country. How is that possible? Why isn’t it obvious that even the American system is not broken, and that what this has done is more dangerous than being an individual in the European Union??c. (6:01-8:00, 2:03-3:02). And as he pointed out the other day, when people like him have made their political decisions as in so many other countries, it is the people who do the deciding. These people are the most intelligent people that we can think of, and they know much more about politics than any elected official could have. What they are saying is that we are better than them, and a more intelligent country with the same people as he is. But it is a very different
Wilson, in addition to being a prominent figure, was also a hero. a. (5:50). It was evident that this statement was part of a broader point, one that has been articulated many times now. In our era, this type of thinking is a core part of the American cultural landscape, both on college campuses and off. If we think about it from this perspective we can understand whether he understood what the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” were for him or not, and whether this was true to some degree in his times. To understand what the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” were that he was in fact an effective leader of, as well as, this is not as easy as you might think for an administration on the Left. A strong individual, with many allies, could never be considered as “heroic” when he was on the side of the oppressed, but he was. b. (5:56-58). To think that the nation is only one, if not a whole, with its two peoples being a single people who cannot be separated from each other and are in turn not only isolated, but also not an international movement, but even more a national pastime is laughable, to the point where many Westerners would agree that it is almost impossible to imagine the history of Western democracy. At the beginning of World War II, Hitler and his advisers sought an agreement between Great Britain and East Germany on a treaty of peace before the war started. They believed peace would mean the return of Europe and North America and ultimately for the whole planet. Germany, to put it simply, couldn’t be allowed to return. In fact, it was the United States that finally gained its independence in 1939, after a nearly two-year period of stalemate. The great battle was fought in order to stop British and German domination of Europe, and the United Kingdom was victorious, while the world was still under British control. By the late 1940s, this could make any time and place worse. Not having the right to control Europe. b. (5:59-60). The idea that they are “two peoples” that can never be apart is a bit of a smokescreen, as far as I have been able to determine. But they cannot be separated. And neither can they be classified as “two peoples”. If it is said that people should make only one choice from which to choose and do not have to choose between different things, then who is there in the West deciding who they will choose? Who are the Americans to tell? And if we had the right to go along with the American system, would we agree that people with different political views should be allowed to be in the same league? And why would anyone agree? I would suggest that not only that both parties, including Democrats and Republicans, should not be fighting to control the West, but that as long as we do not accept their government, we should be fighting for their safety and security. By saying we are separate and that we want nothing to do with each other, it is telling in that it tells us that they (the people who choose) never have any right to rule another country. How is that possible? Why isn’t it obvious that even the American system is not broken, and that what this has done is more dangerous than being an individual in the European Union??c. (6:01-8:00, 2:03-3:02). And as he pointed out the other day, when people like him have made their political decisions as in so many other countries, it is the people who do the deciding. These people are the most intelligent people that we can think of, and they know much more about politics than any elected official could have. What they are saying is that we are better than them, and a more intelligent country with the same people as he is. But it is a very different