And no, this isn’t a joke thread. I just feel that if we’re honoring presidents for their humanitarian efforts, then we have to give some recognition to Hoover, likely the greatest of our humanitarian presidents.
Hoover was an engineer, and a very successful one, but his Quaker religious convictions drove him toward public service. After successfully helping to evacuate American businesspeople and tourists from Europe after the outbreak of WWI, Hoover led the Commission for the Relief of Belgium. This massive relief effort kept millions of people from starving in a war zone, and Hoover used his clout to negotiate wit Berlin and the allies both to keep supplies running. He managed a $12 million/month budget for relief, massive numbers for the time.
When the United States entered the war, Hoover, working for the American government, managed to keep the Allies fed while avoiding rationing in the United States. He did this by encouraging voluntary conservation of food. After the war, as head of the American Relief Administration, he organized shipments of food for starving millions, including people in Germany and the Soviet Union.
Hoover’s presidency wasn’t a successful one by any means, and he became a target of abuse by many Democrats for years afterward (I will note, though, that Harry Truman had the decency not to do this, and appointed Hoover to an important presidential commission). However, if you measure our presidents by the number of people they directly helped, it is likely that Hoover is at the top of the list.
I once read, and I think it’s very true, that if Hoover hadn’t actually been President he’d be remembered as somebody that most deserved to have been President. I’ve always felt sorry for the man; he was, by all accounts, a fine person and a very competent leader. During most of our nation’s history, he’d have been remembered as a very good President. But he had the misfortune to serve during a crisis when a great President was needed.
Hoover was a good man, to be sure. If he had never been president, he’d be an obscure but beloved figure in history. Unfortunately, he just happened to be in office when the Depression hit. Did he help more than anyone else? Maybe and maybe not. Personally, I think Jimmy Carter’s work in eradicating guinea worm disease may have helped more people. Thanks largely to the Carter center,
You don’t have to knock the humanitarianism of Hoover to praise Carter’s, or vice versa. Both should be remembered fondly for their efforts. It’s too bad that we can’t say the same of more of our former presidents.
On the good side, he was an excellent organizer and he coordinated many great relief efforts.
However: He also killed the Republicans’ chances with black voters for some time through his actions during the 1927 MIssissippi river floods and subsequently.
During the floods communities used blacks as forced labor at gunpoint, provided relief supplies with first priority to whites, second priority to black laborers, and no priority to other blacks, refused to evacuate black refugees stranded on levees, etc. Hoover commissioned but suppressed a report on the abuses and persuaded the black leadership to keep quiet in return for advocacy once he won the presidential election
(I only blame Hoover for his actions, not those of the locals, so he only gets the blame for recognizing an evil as evil and accepting it as a worthwhile tradeoff for personal gain)
Hoover deserves humanitarian points for everything mentioned in the OP. OTOH, he should get some points deducted for at least one thing that happened under his administration: The dispersal of the Bonus Army. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_army#Intervention_of_the_military But, it’s possible MacArthur was going beyond his orders.
It’s pretty definate MacArthur was going beyond his orders. After the first clash between troops and Bonus Army marchers, the Bonus Army fled back to their main camp across the Anacostia. Hoover ordered MacArthur not to cross the Anacostia, and MacArther ignored the orders and attacked the camp.
All good points. Hoover’s best days and greatest service to his country (like those of Thomas Jefferson’s, IMHO) were before he entered the White House.
Also after. At the behest of President Truman after WWII, Hoover went to Europe where food stocks were dangerously low. He had demonstrated expertise in this area, and he helped ensure that 100 million people made it through to the next harvest.
Hoover was never directly recognized with a Nobel Prize. However, after WWI he coordinated most American aid through the American Friends Service Committee. This effort was instrumental in the Quakers being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.
You remember, over in the other thread, when I said that Carter was one of the two most good and decent men ever to be President? You’ve just nailed the other one.
How about measuring our presidents by the number of people they directly HURT?
Because Hoover hurt millions of Americans as much as any president before or since.
It was HIS interventionist policies that started the depression. It was HE who signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff into law, which then reduced imports and exports by a large percentage. It was he who mandated across-the-board wage increases, thus putting millions of Americans into unemployment lines.
Sorry. He doesn’t get a pass because he was a humanitarian. He might have been a decent guy. But he was a truly atrocious president, and as such his legacy is just awful.
Hoover was accused of being a do-nothing President" after the onset of the Depression, but as Richard Schenckman points out in “Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths”, he actually started several programs, and was cited by some as the real father of the New Deal. See his book and cites within, or any reasonably complete bio. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
One of the weird things is that he translated Agricola’s De Re Metallica into English, and his translation is still in print (the least expensive and therefore the most easily available, publioshed in papwerback by Dover):
Lincoln, in his youth, wrote a book explaining why he was an atheist, but he never published it. A friend pointed out that would kill his political ambitions. He burned the manuscript.
Salon has an article comparing Hoover and Bush. Acknowledging Hoover as the “preeminent progressive of his age,” the article makes some interesting observations. It calls Hoover “rigid in the face of the Depression” and having “respond[ed] with blinders to the crisis that befell him.” It praises Hoover for his honesty and integrity during the crooked harding administration and his success as an administrator.
According to the article, Hoover did take some important steps in response to the Depression:
But, it says, none of these actions made a difference, because Hoover was not bold enough and suicidally lashed to his laissez-faire ideology:
And, worst, his main tactic was just to declare victory over the Depression repeatedly: