Journal #6 - Evaluation of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency

Teddy Roosevelt was president for almost 8 full years between 1901-1909, and he ran for a 3rd term in 1912. That election ended up with Woodrow Wilson winning with the Republican votes divided between Taft and Roosevelt. This win for Wilson seemed to signal an end to TR's career.

During his presidency, TR felt that muckraking journalists were a danger to democracy b/c they riled up anti-government or anti-American feelings when they exposed government and business corruption. People like himself (educated, informed, those with good intentions) are the ones who should be controlling reform. Reform is better than revolution, TR believed.

These muckrakers were extremely pivotal in bringing about changes in monopolistic businesses (Standard Oil), changes in the meat and medicine industries, and in poverty and local and state government corruption. Yet, TR felt that he was the best of both worlds - reform but not radical reform.

So, my question for you is: who is right, TR or the muckrakers? Should the president lead reform or should it be the journalists? Or, do you think there should be someone else being at the forefront of business and government? Congress? Consumers? Explain your answer (in a minimum of 150 words).

Journal #5 - Eugenics and Social Darwinism

During this unit on immigration and the growth in American cities, we looked a lot and discussed issues concerning the poor in America, both back then and now. Social Darwinism was used as a philosophy to justify the inequality between rich and poor before the 20th Century, and denying charity or help of any kind to the poor was seen as interference w/ natural law.

Eugenics became popular enough so that over 30 states had eugenics / sterilization laws on the books by 1935. According to some of the research out there, 70,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by 1970 for reasons like laziness, promiscuity, mental "deficencies", and the like. This way, the poor could not pass on their bad genes to their children thereby making more children. The thinking went, fewer poor people now = fewer poor children in the future.

But who gets to decide who is fit to have children and who isn't fit?

Tell me your reactions to our discussion this week about social Darwinism, eugenics, the poor, and the articles you were given. (Minimum 150 words reply please).

Feel free to discuss or react to other comments posted by students on the blog.