Definitely voting for Teddy Roosevelt.
I would have loved to vote for the man I consider our greatest President. Theodore Roosevelt was simply the greatest, he brought America to the world stage and modern world.
Roosevelt held a bizarre and ultimately disastrous notion of executive power. He set the standard for looniness that presidents to this day try to mimic. Not to mention he was an unabashed Morgan crony.
. . . So?
While it may not bother you that national interests were subordinated to the banks, I’m not in favor of such a corrupt partnership. Debs would agree with me.
Waitaminnit, it’s a great big step from “TR was a Morgan crony” to “national interests were subordinated to the banks.” What in particular are you thinking of?
TR was a Morgan crony, therefore national interests were subordinate to those of the banks.
Aside from appointing Morgan men to high level cabinet positions, his shenanigans in Panama led to a large windfall for a Morgan led syndicate which owned the Panama Canal Company.
Morgan associate George W Perkins assembled the Progressive Party in 1912 to split the Republican vote between Roosevelt and Taft, thereby installing Morgan man Woodrow Wilson in the presidency. Taft was an Ohio politician aligned with Morgan competitor John D Rockefeller. Under Wilson the great Morgan dream of cartelization of the banking industry was made possible with the Federal Reserve Act.
And before Roosevelt, national interests were subordinated to industry and the banks. You put no value on his trust breaking?
Where’s the national interest being suborned? Are you saying the canal project was not in our national interest?
In which case do you think the consumer benefited?
More in the latter than the former, surely.
Despite the vigorous campaign by his opponent in this thread, TR holds a commanding lead so far, with 8 of the 11 votes cast. Bully!
Ermm, no, that is not a logically necessary consequence.
So what? How does that subordinate the national interest to the banks’? Someone would have had to get that contract if the canal were going to happen at all. And the canal was a matter of national interest.
Perhaps, but we’re discussing the 1904 election here; what you impute to Wilson has nothing to do with TR.
And Debs is running second! Take that, ya mofo Socialist Labor splitters!
It was in the particular interest of the parties mentioned that Roosevelt proceed in the manner that he did. The Morgan syndicate doubled their money upon sale of their shares to the US government.
I was unclear. Which particular trust busting exercise was beneficial to the consumer?
In practice it was a consequence.
So I guess it was also in the national interest for the cronies to get richer off the taxpayer.
True but it helps to establish how Roosevelt worked hand in glove with the Morgan group.
BTW, where did you get the quote in that post?
Yes, but where’s the subornation? What happened that was not in the US national interest?
The taxpayers subsidized the wealth of the Morgan syndicate.
Was there any alternative to that if we wanted to continue the canal project?