One of the Worst: President Woodrow Wilson

In some areas, there is not much that needs to be said here about the misdeeds of President Woodrow Wilson as so many have detailed them already and from widely different political backgrounds and viewpoints. For monarchists, much of the criticism of Wilson has focused on his actions during and after the First World War. There is certainly much to criticize. However, my problem with the most extreme of that type of criticism is that, in exaggerating the influence of a man who was involved only at the very end of the war and whose views were often ignored when it was over, too many equally or more guilty parties escape unscathed. The First World War was a disaster of epic proportions but it was not a war that the United States or Wilson had anything to do with starting nor was the botched peace settlement entirely of his own making. Later, after the fact when it was too late to do any good, Wilson himself admitted he was totally out of his element and had no idea what he was talking about when he strutted over to Europe ready to lecture to all and sundry about how to solve the worlds problems. There is plenty, again, to criticize him for on that front but his counterparts in the other countries involved deserve by far the most criticism. Nonetheless, he was one of the worst presidents America has ever produced and it is Americans, rather than Europeans, who have the most grounds for which to condemn Woodrow Wilson.

First of all, some things to make all our friends on the liberal left very uncomfortable. Wilson was a Democrat and only the second Democrat to be elected President since the era of Republican domination during and after the Civil War. This happened because the Republican Party had split into conservative and progressive factions led by Taft and Teddy Roosevelt. His father was a Confederate-sympathizing Presbyterian preacher and, as President, Wilson segregated Washington DC and the federal government, demoting or firing many Blacks (whom he referred to as “Darkies”). He re-segregated the army and is often remembered for the praise he gave to the controversial Civil War film “Birth of a Nation” in which the heroes who ride to the rescue in the end are the Ku Klux Klan. Wilson’s endorsement was so positive, it was featured in the film itself. Wilson also adamantly opposed granting suffrage to women but, being a politician after all, changed this position when it became clear that his career would suffer for it. Afterwards, he favored giving women the vote. Impressed yet liberals? So, it is true, this hero of the Democrat Party and so many liberals still today was a complete racist who only grudgingly went along with giving women the right to vote and who had no qualms about invading countries that did not threaten the United States at all. What a guy.

His election came with a huge victory for the Democrats in Congress and with near absolute power President Wilson could have his way on just about everything. The American people were to see what an unfettered Democratic government looked like for the first time in the memory of most people. First he lowered or abolished tariffs and then set about putting the government in charge of the banking industry and establishing a new currency with the passage of an act creating the Federal Reserve which the government would have exclusive control over. In doing this, Wilson had said that he wanted to set business free, but not too free it seems as he next set about enacting a massive intrusion of government into the business sector with the creation of the Federal Trade Commission and the passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act. He also helped out the farmers by making it easier for them to drown themselves in debt. Again, what a guy. And if that doesn’t make you love him, Americans also have President Wilson to thank for the federal income tax. I’m rather surprised his face isn’t on Mt Rushmore (which was carved by a member of the KKK so I really am surprised).

In the area of foreign relations, Wilson turned down a loan to China because he was against “dollar diplomacy” yet he didn’t seem to have a problem with violent “diplomacy”. He disapproved of the military dictatorship of President Victoriano Huerta in Mexico and tried to coerce him into retirement, declaring that there would be no peace in Mexico so long as Huerta remained in office. When Huerta refused to step down because of the disapproval of the American president, Wilson began selling weapons to his enemies (including Pancho Villa who would eventually ransack a town in the United States). Next, a group of U.S. sailors were arrested in the Mexican port of Tampico. They were eventually released and President Huerta apologized but this was not enough for President Wilson who demanded that Huerta salute the American flag in Tampico which, obviously, he was not about to do. When Huerta refused this ridiculous demand, Wilson responded by invading Mexico and occupying the port of Veracruz. This little battle cost 18 Americans their lives, four more than the number of sailors who had been arrested in Tampico -what a trade. Argentina, Brazil and Chile intervened to negotiate a peace, Huerta was forced to leave office and Wilson was happy. But, the man who replaced Huerta, Venustiano Carranza, was soon faced with rebellion as well, led by one of his former generals, the aforementioned Pancho Villa.

After Pancho Villa raided American territory, President Wilson ordered another invasion of Mexico where American troops clashed with rebel and government forces alike. The issue was never settled as American attention was soon diverted by the First World War. However, Mexico was certainly not alone in being invaded by American troops thanks to President Wilson. No, this preachy scholar who firmly believed he was the smartest man in any room, who condemned past territorial acquisitions by the United States and who would condemn, for example, the German invasion of Belgium in 1914, invaded a number of other countries himself. Aside from a totally unjustified invasion of Mexico at Veracruz, Wilson had American troops invade and occupy Nicaragua in 1914, Haiti in 1915 and Wilson put the Dominican Republic under U.S. military rule in 1916. Somehow, each of those was justified but, of course, Germany invading Belgium or Austria-Hungary invading Serbia was just plain wrong. It was after all of that, in 1917, that Woodrow Wilson took the United States into World War I after winning reelection on the slogan “he kept us out of war”.

But, before getting into that, we should also mention that a whopping three Constitutional amendments were passed during the Wilson administration. One was giving women the vote (and we know what Wilson thought about that), the other was the prohibition of alcohol which proved to be extremely lucrative for the organized crime business and finally one which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators who had previously been appointed by state governments. This is often overlooked but it was one of the worst of the many terrible things Wilson inflicted on the United States. The Senate had been established in the first place to provide a representative body for the states of the Union. The people were represented by the House of Representatives and the states were represented by the Senate. By making Senators be directly elected, the public suddenly got double-representation and the states suddenly had none. This made it much easier for the federal government to trample on the rights of the states in the future. It would also lead to a great deal of political fighting and deadlock as the Senate ceased to be a less partisan gathering based on region rather than party and became a more puffed up version of the lower house which became particularly problematic when the same public would elect one party to power in the House and another party to power in the Senate.

Wilson declaring war on Germany

Then, of course, there is the war. It is true, Wilson stayed out almost until the very end (he specifically did not want to join the Allies so long as the Russian Empire was a member of the club) when many others (like Teddy Roosevelt) wanted to get involved from the outset. It is also true that Germany committed a calculated risk with the reintroduction of unrestricted submarine warfare and an unbelievably colossal act of stupidity with the infamous Zimmermann Telegram, however, Wilson still could have dismissed that if he had really wanted to. Most governments would not have of course, but the fact is that Mexico was not about to be any sort of threat to the United States and Germany or any of the Central Powers posed no real threat to American security or interests at all. Germany gave Wilson a reason to go to war but it could never be said it was vital or necessary to do so. Then, during those brief months of war, the American public was treated to what a little strutting dictator Wilson could be. Newspapers that were critical of the war, Great Britain, the Wilson administration or which said anything positive about Germany were shut down. People who displayed opposition to the war were arrested. So much for freedom of speech. One man was arrested for playing music by Beethoven, another was arrested for reading the Constitution of the U.S. on the street. Wilson set up an official propaganda office, enlisted celebrities to help sell war bonds, deported immigrants who opposed the war and arrested thousands of people for being critical of the government even after the war was over. He was a tyrant of the first order who would never compromise with anyone. In fact, many attribute the failure of the Senate to ratify the Versailles Treaty, at least in part, with the fact that Wilson cut the Republicans completely out of the process.

In his arrogant, scholarly way, he came to Europe when it was over famous for his “Fourteen Points”, cheered wildly in every European capital he visited. The truth, of course, was that the Fourteen Points were irrelevant from day one. The Germans actually wanted to have a peace based on them, knowing it was a better deal than what they would otherwise get but, of course, Britain and France had no intention of letting Wilson dictate the peace. Most regarded Wilson with derision as an over-educated yet uniformed, idealistic incompetent who didn’t know what he was talking about. Eventually, Wilson himself all but admitted as much. He had lots of vague, pretty sounding slogans but no real solutions to European or world problems. He also sacrificed a great deal just to see the creation of his beloved League of Nations, a useless talking shop that the United States, thankfully, refused to have any part of. In fact, the U.S. refused to sign on to both the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles which, in typical fashion, Wilson blamed on the influence of Germans and Irish in the United States. He left behind him a country full of unemployed veterans, striking workers and race riots but with a much bigger and more powerful federal government that future presidents would be only too willing to exploit.

Woodrow Wilson must easily rank as one of the worst presidents in American history. Arrogant, hypocritical, narrow and close-minded, he was convinced he had the answer to any and all problems which usually amounted to some grandiose turn of phrase followed by putting the government in charge and leaving someone else to deal with it. He actually emerged from the war claiming that the United States was the “savior of the world”. He blighted America with the Federal Reserve, the income tax and a level of totalitarian tyranny the likes of which had not been seen before (but would be seen increasingly in the future). He inflicted plenty of terrors on Europe, the only diminishment there being that his Allies happily ignored him most of the time and inflicted far worse. Yet, as bad as he was for America, probably the worst thing Wilson did was to clear a path for even worse things to come and politicians from both the Democrat as well as Republican Parties have built on his mistakes. He muzzled free speech and gutted freedom of the press, later presidents would put people in concentration camps, hold people without trial or take away any right to privacy. He got the government involved in banking and business practices, later presidents would take over entire industries. He started the income tax, other presidents would raise it higher and higher and expand it wider and wider. Wilson was terrible enough on his own but probably the most damaging thing he did in the long run was setting a new standard in what the President could get away with and, for the first time, setting the precedent that American military intervention could solve the world’s problems. Woodrow Wilson: Europeans hate him, Americans should hate him more.

Why I Will Not Join In Kennedy Worship

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and from the political left as well as the right, ‘Kennedy worship’ has been in overdrive. The airwaves are full of tributes of that ‘magical’ time of “Camelot” with that darling liberal family becoming American royalty. The tales of perfection are never ending. How the Kennedy clan is the quintessential American story, poor Irish immigrants, fleeing British oppression, coming to America for freedom, working hard, becoming extremely wealthy and entering politics to “give back” to the country that has made their success possible. Frankly, it’s enough to make me sick. I will not be joining in with this Kennedy love-fest and the most simple answer as to why should be clear enough. I am a monarchist and heaping adulation and hero worship on a republican politician is not on my list of priorities. I consider the list of American presidents to be a sorry collection overall and even the few I consider comparatively better than others I could never bestir myself to actually admire, defend or praise and commemorate. However, to my surprise, some monarchists apparently adore JFK and the Kennedy clan that has remained in power ever since, benefiting from the myth-making surrounding their fallen hero. This surprised me, especially coming from admirers of the British Empire (something Kennedy opposed) and the tenacious defense of Kennedy by some. Having taken on other beloved American presidents in the past, not excluding Washington and Lincoln, perhaps I should explain what some of my problems with Kennedy are. His sincere worshippers will surely not be moved by this, most have no recollection of the “Camelot” days and even then it was more form than substance but, just in case there are some open to persuasion, here are the reasons why this monarchist has no love for the late President Kennedy.

First of all, I am no fan of the nest that Kennedy hatched from. The rise of the family under Joe Kennedy was no success story of hard work and fair play but rather of political intrigue, corruption and making a fortune on bootlegging during prohibition. Joseph and John F. Kennedy, however, had relatively little in common save for the fact that no woman was safe around either of them. JFK was born in 1917 and named after his grandfather, Boston mayor and later Congressman John F. Fitzgerald who was a lifelong supporter of Irish republicanism and published a weekly newspaper devoted to denouncing the British monarchy called “The Republic”. Joe Kennedy, who hungered for recognition and acceptance from the elites of Wall Street and London, tried to distance himself from his Irish dissident background but John F. Kennedy was the total opposite. Still, his father helped get him elected to Congress and later the Senate by building him up as a war hero. He had earlier purchased John a commission in the Navy and when sent to war his torpedo boat was run over by a Japanese destroyer and cut in half. And, when you’re a Kennedy, getting run over by a ship larger and slower than your own is enough to qualify for “war hero” status.

From his earliest days in office, touring Asia and the Middle East in 1951, JFK was an avowed enemy of the British Empire. In his radio report to the home front, he decried, “Our intervention in behalf of England’s oil investments in Iran” referring to the aid the U.S. and U.K. gave to the restoration of the Shah of Iran who had been driven out by his premier who had nationalized the oil industry, most of which was British-owned. The depth of opposition to the British Empire Kennedy had can be seen in the pages of his book, “Profile in Courage” in which the nominally Catholic Kennedy praises the Puritanical John Quincy Adams for his refusal to, “yield his devotion to the national interest for the narrowly partisan, parochial and pro-British outlook which dominated New England’s first political party”. In a St Patrick’s Day speech in Chicago in 1956 he called on the local Irish-Americans to broaden their opposition to the British Empire in Ireland to revive the American ‘revolutionary heritage’ and apply it around the world against all empires. The following year, in a speech called “Imperialism the Enemy of Freedom” in the Senate, he demanded that the U.S. take the side of the Algerian rebels against the French and decried the resources the Eisenhower administration had given to support the French in Vietnam and the last Vietnamese Emperor.

Anglophiles in the Democratic Party disapproved as of course did the French and the British who were trying to maintain themselves. However, not long after, Charles de Gaulle became President of France, gave up on Algeria and withdrew France from its imperial alliance with Great Britain. This was nothing new however. In his very first political speech, Kennedy said that the only solution to the problems in Ireland were for the end of partition and the removal of the British Crown from any part of the island. For the sake of good relations, he avoided the subject publicly after becoming president, but from his earliest speeches throughout his political career there is no doubt he wanted the British Crown out of Ireland and most anywhere else in the world as well. As an admirer of the British Empire, that does not impress me much, nor does his much vaunted record of anti-communism. Kennedy was elected to office promising to negotiate a peace with the Soviet Union and the first fiasco he had to deal with was the Bay of Pigs invasion. He did not plan it, nor has he ever been held responsible for it but it was Kennedy who called off the scheduled air strikes so as to boost his absurd claim that ‘America had nothing to do with it’. All this accomplished was to make the communists view Kennedy as someone they could push around, and they were not incorrect in that assessment.

Kennedy wanted to show he was tough and thought Indochina would be the place to do it. First up was the Kingdom of Laos where a communist insurgency was underway. However, Kennedy could not bring himself to support the King of Laos who was tainted by being royal and by having been friendly with colonial France, so he made a 2-front war into a 3-front war. Rather than supporting the royalist faction of Prince Souvanna Phouma, he funded the formation a more faithfully pro-American faction under General Phoumi Nosovan. The result was a civil war no side had the strength to win until the victory of the communists in Vietnam allowed them to dominate the region and turn Laos into a puppet state. In Vietnam itself, Kennedy began by aiding the Catholic and strongly-nationalist President Ngo Dinh Diem, praising him as someone untouched by colonialism (unlike the former emperor). However, when the media (two individuals in particular) began to portray Diem in a negative light, opinion was shifted against him and his regime. When Diem refused to take orders from the United States government, Kennedy gave the word to the generals in Vietnam that U.S. aid would stop unless Diem was removed. Diem was not only removed but brutally assassinated along with every member of his family in the country at the time. South Vietnam never had a stable government again and the communists were elated, astonished that America could be so stupid as to remove their most dangerous enemy for them. No, a successful anti-communist crusader Kennedy was certainly not.

On other fronts, as soon as he gained office Kennedy began a personal correspondence with Gamal Abdel Nasser, the man who planned the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy and an avowed enemy of Great Britain as well. Kennedy reversed the policy previously favored by Democrats Truman and Dulles and he actively took the side of Nasser and the Arab nationalists against the British and Saudi allied Arab royalists of the Middle East. He was also good friends with President Sukarno of Indonesia who brought an end to the reign of the Dutch monarchy in the East Indies. Even after being betrayed by their American allies, something Queen Wilhelmina had threatened to abdicate over, the Dutch monarchy of Queen Juliana still reigned over half of New Guinea. Sukarno wanted that for the Republic of Indonesia and President Kennedy was ready to help him out. He sent his brother Robert to the Netherlands to demand an immediate evacuation of Netherlands New Guinea and with Kennedy backing Sukarno who was threatening invasion, the Dutch were furious but had no choice but to comply. Afterward, the first lavish aid package for Sukarno’s government was passed a few days before Kennedy was assassinated. 

Kennedy had opposed British influence in Asia, Africa and Ireland but for many Brits who had given up on the idea of the glory days of empire, that was not terribly important. Many probably never heard about it or would have cared if they did. They probably didn’t care that when Kennedy visited Ireland he took the time to meet with his cousins who served in the Irish Republican Army, after all, they were so charming and as long as he did not mention the problem directly it could all be overlooked. However, some people in Britain did manage to work up some anger when it came to Kennedy taking over British defense. It seemed to many in Britain that Harold Macmillan had signed over British security to President Kennedy with the Nassau Agreement by which American missiles would be used for Britain’s nuclear deterrent and the U.S. gained a submarine base in Scotland. The British nuclear subs were then to be assigned along with British bombers to a joint NATO task-force that would be under United States control, keeping all nuclear capacity for the alliance in American hands, something Kennedy justified as preventing “nuclear proliferation”. Many in Britain, however, saw it as the loss of British independence in military affairs and it helped encourage the decline of the Tory party. Kennedy would have been thrilled. Kennedy appointees Bob McNamara and Dean Acheson were both of the opinion that Britain was old news and in the words of Acheson, the “’special relationship’ with the United States…is about played out”.

All of that would be sufficient, I would think, in discouraging any monarchist and certainly any British, Dutch, Laotian, Egyptian etc royalist from being part of the Kennedy fan club. For myself, it certainly is and I can add to that my opposition to almost the totality of his domestic policies as well. I don’t approve of his economic intervention, I don’t approve of his immigration plan to shift from Europe to Central and South America, I don’t approve of how he dealt with Native Americans and I don’t approve of his social policies. I do not like how he distanced himself from his religion while running for office and I can certainly not approve of the flagrant immorality of his private life. Were there other American presidents who were worse? Certainly. There were also some who were better. What is more frustrating about Kennedy than other presidents who have been deified and have their own cult-like following such as Lincoln or Washington or FDR, Kennedy had a whole family to come after him and who have benefited from the myth-making surrounding their slain relative. The adulation he received and the elevation of his family to "royal" status allowed a slew of disreputable characters with the Kennedy last name to hold positions of power and influence such as little brother Ted Kennedy, an alcoholic who got a woman killed and who arranged for Gerry Adams to come to the USA for St Patrick’s Day, or daughter Caroline Kennedy who stood up at the last Democrat National Convention to voice her support “as a Catholic woman” for birth control and abortion being part of the Obamacare health plan. The idea that President Kennedy, who did little and even less of any good, while in office or his dysfunctional family in general could have so many ardent admirers astounds me. It always will and if some wish to join in the worship of him or any other politician, I cannot stop them. However, I will be having no part of it myself nor will I ever hold a romantic view of any presidential figure.

Mad Rant: Bad Presidents

The United States recently celebrated Presidents Day, a holiday to honor all presidents which grew out of lumping together the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, widely considered to be the best American presidents. It will not surprise readers of this weblog to know that I disapprove of both of these individuals though it may surprise some to know that I have a much better opinion of the “revolutionary” George Washington than I do of the first Republican Party President Abraham Lincoln. I actually think George Washington was a pretty decent American president. Not stellar by any means but he kept the country on an even keel, had a pretty conservative attitude on things and resolved to stay out of world affairs and have the USA mind its own business. Where I offend the “Yankee Doodle” crowd is when I point out that Washington was a military idiot. So sorry to offend the honor of your “god” Yankee doodles, but that is simply a fact.

George Washington, aside from the whole “traitor” thing, had flaws that were mostly personal and nothing to do with his presidency. He was stuck-up, vindictive, quick to take offense and good at trying to blame others for his own mistakes. He pulled the teeth out of his own slaves when he was in need of some and cursed his soldiers after losing a battle. And he lost plenty of them. The British basically thrashed him from one end of New England to the other with the only battles he ever won basically being minor skirmishes in which he had the enemy grossly outnumbered (such as the time he famously crossed the Delaware to capture a handful of drunk Germans). The only ability he ever seemed to show was in retreating and the best he ever achieved was in not-being-destroyed by the British army. And don’t talk to me about Yorktown either for everyone knows that the French won that battle, not George Washington. However, his side did win the war and he deserves credit for that (the presidency was a fitting reward) since he surely would have been blamed had they lost.

Abraham Lincoln, however, is an entirely different story. He is often rated even above Washington as the greatest president in American history and if you don’t believe me about the lengths to which this goes just take a little trip to Washington DC where his colossal image is enthroned in his very own Greco-Roman temple. I am, frankly, completely at a loss to explain how this is possible. I am bewildered by the praise heaped on this tyrant of a man for things which he actually did the very opposite of. Admirers will say that he “kept the United States together”. Umm, no, in fact it was his election that drove half of the country into open rebellion against him. Admirers will say that he “freed the slaves”. How is that possible when the law that abolished slavery was passed after Lincoln was dead as Julius Caesar? Well, but, but, his admirers will say that he was an honest, God fearing and decent man. You are talking about Lincoln, right? The same man who said at his inauguration that there could be no war between the states without the south being the aggressors and then called for tens of thousands of troops to invade the south? The same man who promised that he had no plans to interfere with slavery where it legally existed only to then say he had made a promise to God to eradicate slavery when issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” (which actually freed practically no one as it applied only to areas not under Union control)? “Honest Abe” my aching…

As for the “God fearing man” part, Lincoln is actually the only American president who was never a member of any church nor did he have any religious affiliation. And as for the decent part, I am sorry Lincoln worshippers, but the man purposely killed more Americans than any foreign nation or potentate in history. Whatever you think of the righteousness of the cause of the war, Lincoln is the only American president to ever fight a full-scale war against Americans. His troops killed American civilians, looted and burned American towns, starved American children and devastated entire regions of the country we call America. He used U.S. soldiers to break up properly elected state governments (Maryland) as well as to arrest anyone who exercised their freedom of speech to voice disapproval of the war he was fighting. “Honest Abe” tried to justify this by saying that secession was illegal yet he engineered the secession of the western counties from Virginia to form the new state of West Virginia to gain more representatives in Congress. Honest someone said?

Now I know that the hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, trampled rights and tyrannical rule will still be excused by many as being justified means to the end of abolishing slavery. In the first place, I find that just a tad disturbing as it is, and in the second place I do not see how that can possibly be true. Great Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Brazil all ended slavery without a horrific bloodbath. The Tsar of Russia ended serfdom without butchering his own people by the hundreds of thousands. Are people really arguing that the only way the greatest President of the United States in American history could end slavery was by brute military force that utterly devastated half the country and killed nearly 700,000 people? Were he one of the greatest statesmen to ever walk the earth, could he not have found a better way? It simply baffles me that the man hailed by so many as the greatest American President is the same one who trampled on the constitution, suspended civil rights, arrested thousands without warrant or hope of a trial simply for speaking against his actions, waged war against his own people and, after his death, had most of his actions denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court as totally illegal and unconstitutional. It utterly baffles me and I doubt I will ever understand this odd sort of republican logic, but, I suppose, that is why I am … The Mad Monarchist.

U.S. Presidents and Monarchy

How did U.S. Presidents Impact the Institution of Monarchy? Here is a look at a few:

George Washington: Obviously not good for monarchy as he was the leader of the rebel forces who broke away from their King and country. He also famously refused an offer to become King of the United States. However, he was not a revolutionary radical. He was a man of very aristocratic tastes and styles who viewed the presidency as something of an electoral monarchy. He would not shake hands, for instance, because he felt it was beneath the dignity of the President to do so. He also denounced the societies set up in America by revolutionary France in an effort to spread radicalism and encourage a renewal of the war with Great Britain. Washington rejected this absolutely and worked with Alexander Hamilton to normalize relations with Britain.

James Madison: One of the revered early presidents of the USA, one would be hard pressed to determine why if looked at objectively. His administration took a bad economy and made it worse, led the US into an unnecessary conflict with Great Britain in the War of 1812. His administration saw the invasion of Canada defeated, Washington DC occupied by the British and the White House and Congress burned to the ground. He also created the second national bank of the United States and started the policy of maintaining a standing army, considered necessary after the country came so close to ruin in the War of 1812. Although not involved in events in Europe, by taking the US into war against Britain in 1812 Madison was effectively aiding the cause of Napoleon and the revolutionary movement.

James Monroe: The successor of Madison, he was probably worse for the cause of monarchy in the long-run. The most important legacy of his regarding monarchy was the Monroe Doctrine which reserved the Americas as the effective domain of the United States and a republics only club. This was especially critical as it greatly aided the revolutionaries of Latin America break away from the Crown of Spain and discouraged any other European powers to come to the aid of the Spanish. It was deliberate US policy, started by Monroe, to discourage monarchy in the New World and support what would become known as ‘banana republics’ that would be reliant on the protection and direction of the United States. However, it should also be noted that Great Britain encouraged this and first recommended that the US declare itself opposed to the maintenance of the Spanish colonial empire. He also took Florida from Spain and blocked any further expansion of the Russian Empire in the Pacific west.

Zachary Taylor: A president who had little impact on monarchy though he did annoy the kingdoms of France and Portugal by pressing for reparations payments. His most ignorant foreign policy, though not actively harmful, was giving moral support to the German radicals in the Revolutions of 1848. This was true not only in that these rebellions were harmful for Europe but the rising importance of nationalism would also have ill-effects on the United States in the long-run.

Abraham Lincoln: Although he has achieved deified status in the victorious United States for his leadership during the War Between the States, Lincoln was an avowed enemy of monarchy. His administration came to the brink of war with Great Britain and the Second French Empire and he actively supported the spread of “Republican Clubs” in the US to raise money for the Mexican republican leader Benito Juarez and refused to recognize the government of Mexican Emperor Maximilian. The only monarchy the Lincoln administration was very friendly with was, oddly enough, the Russian Empire but this was only a friendship of convenience due to the antagonism between the Lincoln administration and Britain and France.

Andrew Johnson: The successor of Lincoln, Johnson continued the policies of his predecessor regarding the Mexican monarchy and was active in stopping Austria from sending help to their embattled son and in putting pressure on the French to abandon to Mexico. In the end this was not good for Mexico or the United States but Johnson was not a success on any level, hated by Americans in the south as a turncoat and hated by northern Americans for not being harsh enough in dealing with the south. He became the first president to ever be impeached.

Grover Cleveland: A mixed bag as a president regarding monarchy, Cleveland was against US intervention around the world but did not hesitate to involve himself in the affairs of others. Most significant was the recent uprising in Hawaii against the monarchy there. The US had extensive interests in the Kingdom of Hawaii and many wished to annex the islands. Cleveland, however, found that the populace did not approve of the overthrow of the Queen and he put a stop to all plans for annexation, which brought him much ridicule by those anti-monarchists who attacked him for taking the side of the Hawaiian Queen. Yet, though Cleveland opposed annexation he also opposed using US forces to restore the Queen to her throne. However, Cleveland also brought the US to the brink of war with Great Britain over something as trifling as a border dispute with Venezuela. In the end the matter was resolved by arbitration in favor of the British. This expanded the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine to include the US not only in any intervention by a European power in the Americas but also any diplomatic disputes involving such parties.

William McKinley: Very different from his predecessor Cleveland, McKinley was an active expansionist who presided over a trumped up war with the Kingdom of Spain which saw the Spanish defeated and forced to give total independence to Cuba and to hand over to the United States Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. McKinley also presided over the formal annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States as a territory.

Woodrow Wilson: Monarchists in the British Empire, Belgium, and Italy etc might be inclined to look favorably on Wilson, but overall he pushed a very anti-monarchist foreign policy. A rather preachy hypocrite Wilson declared the US “to proud to fight” in World War I but did not hesitate to criticize both sides when they did something he didn’t like. He needlessly antagonized the Germans and finally took the US into war on the Allied side only after the Russian Empire had fallen (an event which was praised in Congress). He refused to deal with the monarchs of the Central Powers even when they embraced his own plan for peace. His naïve idealism resulted in a policy that angered almost everyone and the peace treaty he brought home was rejected by Congress. Although hailed as a peacemaker for his role after World War I, in truth his position was inconsistent; he was ignored by his fellow Allies and in the end looked even worse when his high sounding words did not match the disastrous situation left on the ground.

Herbert Hoover: Most known for presiding over the start of the Great Depression, Hoover did not have much to do actively with monarchy but some of his policies did so indirectly. Although very unpopular today, Hoover did prove popular in at least one monarchy when he led the effort to bring food and medical supplies to the war-torn population of Belgium during the Great War. However, as President he backed the Hoover-Stimson doctrine which refused to recognize any states formed by military force. This was done in reaction to the Japanese occupation of Manchuria but was a rather hypocritical position for the US government to take.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: It might surprise some people to know that probably no president has ever been the enemy of more monarchies than FDR. This self-proclaimed champion of liberalism was effectively president-for-life and held office as long as Hitler did in Nazi Germany. He took the US forces out of Haiti and ended Panama and Cuba being US protectorates. However, he also recognized the USSR, persistently aggravated Japan in particular. Despite US neutrality he found many ways to support the Allies against Germany and China against Japan before bring the US into the war officially after Germany invaded the Soviet Union. One might be tempted to compare FDR and Wilson, but as incompetent as Wilson was, FDR was actively worse. He was almost as obsessed with taking down the British Empire as he was the Axis. He set the US on the road that would lead to abandoning the monarchies of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. True, his intervention in World War II liberated and saved a number of monarchies, but many others were abandoned and he was far from being a loyal ally especially toward the British.

Harry S. Truman: President Truman did not have a huge impact as far as monarchy is concerned, most of the policies that most effected them having originated during the regime of his predecessor. Monarchy would not return to Germany and Austria, was lost in Italy and all across Eastern Europe. Monarchies such as Vietnam which had recently declared independence also were not recognized or supported because of their dealings with Japan, yet the return of French (or British as the case may be) colonial power was also not supported which left the communists as the only game in town. However, to be fair, Truman also presided over the sending of vital support to Europe in the aftermath of World War II and he did finally pledge to at least block the expansion of communism if not trying to actively destroy it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: President Eisenhower took the political establishment somewhat by surprise when he was elected to succeed Truman and pledged to end the Korean conflict. Ike, as he was called, is probably best known today for cutting the military budget drastically and putting security in the hands of an enlarged nuclear arsenal. The most significant foreign policy of Ike regarding monarchy was his failure to support the British in the Suez Canal affair. Ike later admitted that this was his biggest mistake. He then gave support to the French and Vietnamese monarchists fighting against communism in Indochina (a good thing) but failed to provide the critical help needed at Dien Bien Phu because the British would no go along with the idea (after Suez they were feeling none too cooperative toward Ike). The result was a red victory.

Gerald Ford: The successor of the disgraced Nixon, Ford did not have a huge impact in the area of monarchy but he did preside over the US pull-out from Vietnam which assured the final victory of communism in Indochina and the loss of the monarchies in Laos and Cambodia. To be fair, the Republican Ford was hamstrung by a Democrat-controlled Congress but overall his leadership left much to be desired and left office with few friends on the right or the left.

Jimmy Carter: President Carter did not have a huge direct impact on monarchy but he was indirectly extremely harmful to the institution and a monumental failure overall. The dominating foreign policy issue of his administration was the revolution in Iran. Upon assuming office Carter brought in a whole group of new people adamantly opposed to the continued rule of the Shah. While promising support on one hand he worked against the Shah on the other and ultimately withdrew even lip-service from the traditional US support for the monarchy in Iran. When the revolution erupted he refused to help the Shah and advised him to leave the country. The result was the loss of the Iranian monarchy and, even more significantly for long-term US interests, terrorist radicals were able to seize control of an entire country for the first time.

Ronald Reagan: President Reagan had little impact on monarchy but there was an interesting development regarding the British Commonwealth island of Grenada. The government of Grenada was seized by communist revolutionaries aligned with Cuba, the Governor-General was arrested and Reagan finally responded by invading Grenada when the lives of US students were threatened. US troops defeated the communist regime, Navy SEALS rescued the Governor-General and a new government was appointed by the GG. However, the official status of Grenada as a constitutional monarchy had never actually changed and many Commonwealth leaders were outraged at Reagan for invading Grenada and destroying the communist regime.

George H. W. Bush: Again, President Bush the elder (as he sometimes now known) did not have a huge impact on monarchy but he does get a share of the credit for launching Operation Desert Storm which liberated the Persian Gulf monarchy of Kuwait from the republican dictator of Iraq Saddam Hussein. His popularity surged after the war but he still managed to anger enough of the American public after that time to be turned out of office after one term.

Bill Clinton: When thinking of President Clinton any sort of foreign policy is probably not the first thing that comes to mind, however, his administration worked behind the scenes to discourage a return to monarchy in Eastern Europe in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Clinton’s Secretary of State famously quipped that, “we don’t do kings” and crucial opportunities were lost for the restoration of monarchy in places such as Romania and Bulgaria.

George W. Bush: President "W" Bush has a mixed record when it comes to monarchy. The two dominating foreign policy issues of his two terms were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both ruled by regimes which had overthrown benevolent monarchies and known no prosperity since. In Iraq the chances for a restoration, even after the defeat of Saddam Hussein, were never good but in Afghanistan the former monarch, King Mohammed Zahir Shah, was widely respected. Despite the obvious advantages of a royal restoration, talked about in many quarters, the Bush administration worked behind the scenes to discourage a return to monarchy. That is a definite mark against him though the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan did at least give monarchist groups the chance to compete in national politics again alongside other parties; something strictly forbidden in the past.

Barack H. Obama: Too soon to tell after only a year in office, though his denial of any special relationship between the US and Great Britain is certainly not a good sign.

Prince Ends Presidential Run

According to the German media and his own website Prince Radu Duda of Romania has ended his bid to be the next President of the Romanian republic. Despite the endorsement of his father-in-law King Michael the Prince has attributed his decision to a lack of popular support for his campaign. According to polls no more than 12% of Romanians at most favored his effort to be their next president. Most people could see this coming and the real mystery is why he ever thought he had a chance in the first place with even many proud, patriotic monarchists having little enthusiasm for him. I can only see the little episode as damaging to the monarchial cause in Romania which would benefit greatly from a restoration under King Michael who is truly an able and admirable man. I am afriad this has hurt the RF's public image and leaves me rather gloomy as to the prospects under the next generation of royal leaders.