Post Civil War World

[eleanorigby]

I was channel surfing tonight and the Ken Burns Civil War series was on my local PBS. I watched episode 8 (ends with Appamatox), but didn't want to hear about Lincoln being assassinated, so I came in here to spend some time with you lot. Here is my question, which since I have no clue how to do a poll, could get interesting in an odd way quickly. I actually have 2 questions, but what the hell.

First question:

Who do you think was the best President ever? I tried to put in some modern ones, but I don't want to have too many options. Feel free to write one in.

I think Lincoln was. I realize it's an impossible choice, given that times of history demand different talents etc. But for me, he leads the pack by a substantial margin.


Second question:

How different would Reconstruction have been if Lincoln had not been cruelly and stupidly assassinated by an alcoholic racist moron? (sorry, but I really admire Lincoln in many ways and his death was such a waste of talent and ability). Lincoln was charitable and compassionate in victory--the antithesis of Reconstruction and carpetbaggery. It's not a period I have studied up on, but I am interested in thoughts you all might have.

[eleanorigby]

Fine. Don't take my poll or answer my questions, just read my thread.

I hate you all--you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

[Harry]

It probably won't be a popular choice, but I think history hasn't given Johnson enough credit. He's going to get blamed for Vietnam, but that was started by Eisenhower and really ramped up by Nixon. Johnson's Great Society brought most of the Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity programs to fruition.

By the same token, history gives Reagan entirely too much credit, but that's a different thread.

Presidents get too much credit in good times, and too much blame in the bad ones.

[Tamerlane]

I'm not sure about best, so I just went with most important and I'd argue that Washington tops that list.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Fine. Don't take my poll or answer my questions, just read my thread.

I hate you all--you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

I like your opinions and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[AuntiePam]

I've watched that series two or three times, and my daughter has the DVD set. It's awesome. I cry every time that letter is read, the one from Sullivan Belew (sp?).

No clue about your Reconstruction question. My understanding is that things were pretty good for several years and then went to hell, but I don't know why. Racism, I suppose, and the shitty condition the South was in. When people are down, they're gonna look for someone to blame. Blame the Negroes!

There should have been a massive effort to rebuild -- a Marshall Plan for the South.

I voted for FDR. The New Deal -- impressive.

Here's a question: Could the Civil War have been prevented? Could slavery have ended any other way?

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

No clue about your Reconstruction question. My understanding is that things were pretty good for several years and then went to hell, but I don't know why.

Well, one reason is that Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice president (a compromise choice to appease southerners), became president after Lincoln's assassination. And then proceeded to kiss white southern ass.

[Harry]

I feel the Civil War became inevitable when The Articles of Confederation didn't work, and the last of the Great Virginia Landowners died. Politically, Andrew Jackson started things down hill.

[WednesdayAddams]

There's no Kennedy option. (joking-FDR all the way)

[rayh]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Second question:

How different would Reconstruction have been if Lincoln had not been cruelly and stupidly assassinated by an alcoholic racist moron? (sorry, but I really admire Lincoln in many ways and his death was such a waste of talent and ability). Lincoln was charitable and compassionate in victory--the antithesis of Reconstruction and carpetbaggery. It's not a period I have studied up on, but I am interested in thoughts you all might have.

Try The Sothern Victory series of books, where the South wins the civil war.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by rayh

Try The Sothern Victory series of books, where the South wins the civil war.

Thanks, but a world where the South won does not appeal to me. If Lincoln had not died, I feel sure that post war events would not have unfolded the way they did. They may have broadly, but perhaps not in execution? I will have to read up on it a bit (in my copious free time). What is staying with me from episode 8 is how Lincoln (and Grant) both said that there should be no gloating, but that we should welcome the Confederates back as Americans. And that is what we should have done. Maybe that was even attempted, but again, the devil is in the details and in how the message is delivered. Hmmm.


I really shouldn't have put "best" in the poll. Folks who know me will realize I put Reagan in there as a sop to the deluded hardcore Reps and as a joke. Reagan didn't do much good while in office, IMO.

It's funny how the echoes of long past events stay with us as a nation. We still have faint sounds from the Revolutionary War, lingering reverberations from the Civil War and of course the New Deal and the Great Society are still very much with us (and thank goodness)-no matter how the conservatives attempt to wrest this nation back into the pre-industrial age (hell the stone age). I probably should have gone with most important, but again, different eras in history demand different talents.

[Darmund]

Washington was a great war hero, but I don't think he really did much as president apart from sort of being the symbolic glue that held the republic together in the critical early years. Nobody else could have done it. Without Washington, the United States wouldn't have lasted. But he hated being president.

Lincoln is a great choice, of course, but I have to agree with Wenz: FDR.

[Uthrecht]

I'm finding it tough to say exactly how the Reconstruction period would have gone if Lincoln had been around for the remainder of his term. I think part of the problem was that a lot of the Republicans, while being part of the abolitionist party, weren't all that more enlightened about race than the Democrats. What was really needed was education for freed blacks, and that wasn't really the focus of the post-Civil War effort.

Congress was more interested (in my opinion) in punishing the South and shifting things around broadly, than in solving the problem of integrating a slave population in and getting the workforce, society and economy ready for a post-slavery environment. I'm not sure that Lincoln would have fared better than Johnson in controlling Congress.

Darmond mentioned that Johnson kissed Southern ass. I'd agree that he backed off the talk of hanging Confederate leaders, but I also think it was a decent idea (in net effect if it wasn't his plan) to get Southerners in control of the South as much as possible, while also forcing them to accept the place of freed slaves in society. But I think he also was trying to get them back on their own feet, with their own respected leaders. Yes, that would mean you'd have ex-slaveowners back in positions of power, but let's face it - you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone qualified to be running a government who also hated slavery, and was a native Southerner. I could easily see Lincoln taking a similar tactic, and with a similar result: Congress refusing to seat them.

[eleanorigby]

But I can't help but think that Lincoln would have focused on the rebuilding of the South, and put a damper on the punishing aspect of things. I think that would have made a great deal of difference--also, Lincoln had massive referent power in the North--he could have used it to the entire country's advantage in the Recon era. Just a thought.

[mswas]

I don't really approve of Lincoln. The man was a bit of a tyrant and a despot. He had them shell New York so they could force Irish immigrants to go down south and kill their new countrymen who they'd never met, in a political struggle they knew nothing about. That doesn't sit right with me. To my mind that makes him the worst President ever. Getting rid of slavery was a good thing, but at what a cost.

George Washington on the other hand, if it were not for him setting the precedent of abdicating the Presidency, he may well have ruled as King and it would've been just another Monarchy. If you read what he said, he predicted pretty much every problem we would ever face.

In answer to your second question. I think he would've been a complete tyrant. I think the United States would have been a military dictatorship, and he would have taken brutal retribution upon his enemies. We'd probably be banana republic style now.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by mswas

Getting rid of slavery was a good thing, but at what a cost.

What's your bargain basement, cost effective solution for getting rid of Slavery?

Originally Posted by mswas

In answer to your second question. I think he would've been a complete tyrant. I think the United States would have been a military dictatorship, and he would have taken brutal retribution upon his enemies. We'd probably be banana republic style now.

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Yeah, that sounds like someone out for 'Brutal Retribution'.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

What's your bargain basement, cost effective solution for getting rid of Slavery?

I don't have one, but the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over secession. Abolition was merely a means to an end. It crushed the South economically so that they could never revolt again.

Yeah, that sounds like someone out for 'Brutal Retribution'.

He bombed his own people in New York. People who didn't want to fight and had no grievances against their Southern countrymen. He forced them to fight at the point of a bayonet. In a state where slavery was already illegal.

We are currently bombing the fuck out of another country because the leader bombed his own people.

But perhaps you are right. Maybe he would have lived by that, 'malice toward none', idealism. It's pretty words and all, but when you set out under a system where you are undermining the economy of the defeated states, and probably installing leaders from the other states. It's kind of hard to actually believe that those pretty words mean anything in a practical sense. Everyone had malice toward one another after the civil war.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by mswas

He bombed his own people in New York.

50,000 people rioted; one of the first things they did was to burn down an orphanage full of black children while the kids were still inside. What other possible response was there? Should he have tried to simply reason with them?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

50,000 people rioted; one of the first things they did was to burn down an orphanage full of black children while the kids were still inside. What other possible response was there? Should he have tried to simply reason with them?

They rioted because they didn't want to go fight in a war against their own countrymen.

And people in New York rioted all the time back then. They didn't always shell them.

It's unfortunate that they burned down that orphanage. But perhaps we should discuss the morality of the draft in the first place.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

50,000 people rioted; one of the first things they did was to burn down an orphanage full of black children while the kids were still inside. What other possible response was there? Should he have tried to simply reason with them?

Very interesting. I didn't know about the draft riots. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and they state that the children were able to escape with the aid of police. I also was unaware of the Commutation Fee for avoiding the draft.

ETA: It's a good example of the racism that went on in the North, though.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by mswas

But perhaps you are right. Maybe he would have lived by that, 'malice toward none', idealism. It's pretty words and all, but when you set out under a system where you are undermining the economy of the defeated states, and probably installing leaders from the other states. It's kind of hard to actually believe that those pretty words mean anything in a practical sense. Everyone had malice toward one another after the civil war.

I don't think blanket statements like "everyone had malice toward one another after the Civil War" are helpful (or true). I have to say I am somewhat taken aback by your opinion on Lincoln. Tyrant and despot? He had fierce enemies in politics, who he placed in his cabinet and they became admirers (as far I recall). He tried like hell to get bitter factions to work together, with some success.

It's Wikipedia, but this is a concise summary of his term(s) in office:

Lincoln

No malice from Grant. None from Lincoln. None from Sherman*. If their actions are anything to go by: Grant stopped his Union troops from cheering as Lee left Appamatox. Sherman had his men stand at attention and salute the Army of Northern Virginia at the formal surrender. Lincoln said that we (the north) must accept and embrace the southerners as Americans.

IMO, the Congresscritters and those wonderful upstanding, righteous, moral folk known as entrepreneurs saw a chance to profit mightily and did so. The South was bitter after the war and rightly so in many respects. Not only had their way of life been destroyed, their livelihood had as well, even their very homes and cities were rubble.


*I'm pretty sure it was Sherman.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

I don't think blanket statements like "everyone had malice toward one another after the Civil War" are helpful (or true). I have to say I am somewhat taken aback by your opinion on Lincoln. Tyrant and despot? He had fierce enemies in politics, who he placed in his cabinet and they became admirers (as far I recall). He tried like hell to get bitter factions to work together, with some success.

It was hyperbole. There was a lot of animousity on all sides, enough to go around. It still exists to some degree.

You have a valid point regarding the team of rivals stuff.

It's Wikipedia, but this is a concise summary of his term(s) in office:

Lincoln

No malice from Grant. None from Lincoln. None from Sherman*. If their actions are anything to go by: Grant stopped his Union troops from cheering as Lee left Appamatox. Sherman had his men stand at attention and salute the Army of Northern Virginia at the formal surrender. Lincoln said that we (the north) must accept and embrace the southerners as Americans.

General's tend to have a different way of looking at those things than most people. They thought they were honorable enemies and deserved respect for fighting the good fight. That's cool, but as you note, Grant had to stop his troops from cheering as Lee left Appamatox. So Grant held no malice, but a lot of his troops clearly did.

IMO, the Congresscritters and those wonderful upstanding, righteous, moral folk known as entrepreneurs saw a chance to profit mightily and did so. The South was bitter after the war and rightly so in many respects. Not only had their way of life been destroyed, their livelihood had as well, even their very homes and cities were rubble.

Yes, they did. Do you think it would've been different had Lincoln remained?

Also, I'd like to point out that the draft is a form of slavery. You are enslaving a person at gunpoint and forcing them to go be a murderer against their will, in many cases, they will die in that state with their liberty completely removed. The draft is evil, and it's one of the most un-American things I can think of. Wasn't the Civil War the first draft?

[Uthrecht]

Well, the Civil War was fought because states seceded, but they seceded because of slavery.

As to Lincoln, Rigby, he might well have tried to push for rebuilding of the South, but again I feel that he would have run against a brick wall with the bulk of the Republican Congress. I think that a majority of the politicians there wanted to punish the South (and in some cases bleed it), and would not have been receptive to something like that.

[Anacanapuna]

::'Puna skips past most of the posts directly to the reply section::
I've been a casual scholar of the Civil War most of my adult life, and the common thread among serious historians is that Lincoln would have poured massive amounts of aid into helping the South rebuild after the war. Apparently he was of the mind that because the devastation of the South had been necessary in order to destroy the Confederates' will to fight, it would be necessary to rebuild that economy much the way the Allies rebuilt Germany and France after WWII. According to Shelby Foote (not exactly a scholar, but in many ways the common man's authority on the war while he was alive) they planned to invite foreign investment to expand the Northern industrial base into the South to balance the almost-entirely agrarian economy there. There was no plan yet on how to provide the massive manpower required to cultivate King Cotton, but different types of land re-distribution plans had been floated once or twice during the war. The problem with them was that, for all his liberalism, Lincoln had little stomach for taking land away from planters to give to former slaves.

One of the worst after-effects of Lincoln's assassination was here in the West. Lincoln had thought, after the Civil War, of persuading Congress to shore up its treaties with the American Indians and stop the constant and steady pressure on the tribes in the West. He was mindful of Stephen Long's assessment of the West as the Great American Desert (which wasn't necessarily true, but had some validity) and to use remnants of the U.S. Army, not to subdue and eradicate the Indians, but to keep open vast reaches of the West to Indian use. Unfortunately, almost no one else shared this thought and the rush to carpetbag the South became a rush to carpetbag the West and the horrors of the succeeding 40 years commenced upon the natives.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

::'Puna skips past most of the posts directly to the reply section::
I've been a casual scholar of the Civil War most of my adult life, and the common thread among serious historians is that Lincoln would have poured massive amounts of aid into helping the South rebuild after the war. Apparently he was of the mind that because the devastation of the South had been necessary in order to destroy the Confederates' will to fight, it would be necessary to rebuild that economy much the way the Allies rebuilt Germany and France after WWII. According to Shelby Foote (not exactly a scholar, but in many ways the common man's authority on the war while he was alive) they planned to invite foreign investment to expand the Northern industrial base into the South to balance the almost-entirely agrarian economy there. There was no plan yet on how to provide the massive manpower required to cultivate King Cotton, but different types of land re-distribution plans had been floated once or twice during the war. The problem with them was that, for all his liberalism, Lincoln had little stomach for taking land away from planters to give to former slaves.

Sounds like most of that money would've gone to carpet-bagging industrialists then. Leaving a lot of the ownership of the South in the hands of foreign financiers.

Remember, it's not so much about rebuilding is it is about who owns the post-war order.

One of the worst after-effects of Lincoln's assassination was here in the West. Lincoln had thought, after the Civil War, of persuading Congress to shore up its treaties with the American Indians and stop the constant and steady pressure on the tribes in the West. He was mindful of Stephen Long's assessment of the West as the Great American Desert (which wasn't necessarily true, but had some validity) and to use remnants of the U.S. Army, not to subdue and eradicate the Indians, but to keep open vast reaches of the West to Indian use. Unfortunately, almost no one else shared this thought and the rush to carpetbag the South became a rush to carpetbag the West and the horrors of the succeeding 40 years commenced upon the natives.

That's sad.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by mswas

Sounds like most of that money would've gone to carpet-bagging industrialists then. Leaving a lot of the ownership of the South in the hands of foreign financiers.

Remember, it's not so much about rebuilding is it is about who owns the post-war order.

Investment doesn't equal perpetual ownership. The South had no funds with which to rebuild so any rebuilding investment would have to have come from outside. Most investors want to earn their money back with interest. Instead, there was no investment, as such, just the wholesale theft of what was left of the economy.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

Investment doesn't equal perpetual ownership. The South had no funds with which to rebuild so any rebuilding investment would have to have come from outside. Most investors want to earn their money back with interest. Instead, there was no investment, as such, just the wholesale theft of what was left of the economy.

An interesting point about rebuilding. By the 1910s to 1920s, the South had started to have textile mills being built, in some cases by Northern companies or investors. That, coupled with labor strikes in the North helped crash the New England textile industry.

Just food for thought as to why the North didn't necessarily want to help rebuild the South.

[WednesdayAddams]

Mod Note: Okay. We have a new thread on the morality of conscripted military service here. Let's drift back to the topic of why my president can beat up your president. [/note]

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Mod Note: Okay. We have a new thread on the morality of conscripted military service here. Let's drift back to the topic of why my president can beat up your president. [/note]

Would it be a thread drift to mention the terrible burden placed on Truman to drop the Bomb(s) on Japan?

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Would it be a thread drift to mention the terrible burden placed on Truman to drop the Bomb(s) on Japan?

Not at all, but I would point out that Truman's presidency had more wrong with it than simply what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the least of which was the whole 'loyalty check' fiasco.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I would point out that Truman's presidency had more wrong with it than simply what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the least of which was the whole 'loyalty check' fiasco.

True. I didn't take into consideration the rise of McCarthyism during the Truman Administration. EO 9835 predates The Patriot Act, giving unprecedented power over citizens' privacy.

But I find it hard to argue that was more devastating than introducing the most catastrophic weapon to mankind to the rest of the world.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

True. I didn't take into consideration the rise of McCarthyism during the Truman Administration.

Well, didn't Truman set all that up himself by painting how horrible and gobally destructive communism was? If I recall, he talked all that up so that he could push Congress into giving him the money to send support to Greece.

[mswas]

I would also like to point out that George Washington was the only man from the revolution who COULD have been President at the time. The nastiness between Jefferson and Adams in the 1800 election demonstrates how small those two men were in comparison to Washington. And had it not been Washington, the country probably would have fallen apart in the first decade.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Let's drift back to the topic of why my president can beat up your president.

I have $10 says Theodore Roosevelt can take on all comers. Possibly two at a time.

Originally Posted by mswas

I would also like to point out that George Washington was the only man from the revolution who COULD have been President at the time.

Washington boggles me sometimes. He managed to pull off some impressive military planning, but was less impressive in some other Revolutionary battles and managed to totally hork things up at Fort Necessity (admittedly he was at a disadvantage on numbers and still young). He did well generally in business to my understanding, but kept misinvesting in western expansion land projects. Which of course, makes him human.

[Anacanapuna]

Yep, I'm afraid that, had Booth failed, President Lincoln would have had a generally disappointing second term. But I still think there would have been some federal oversight of Reconstruction. Doubtful that foreign investors would have put much into the South -- they certainly didn't lift a finger to help during the war, no reason to think they'd come in afterward.

[What Exit?]

Seriously, where is Theodore Roosevelt. He was the best President we've had. I liked Reagan, I voted for Reagan, but he does not belong on this list. Johnson is far worse. I would barely rate him a good President.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Seriously, where is Theodore Roosevelt. He was the best President we've had. I liked Reagan, I voted for Reagan, but he does not belong on this list. Johnson is far worse. I would barely rate him a good President.

Why re Johnson?


I thought about Teddy R, I did, but this is my first ever poll and had no idea how it all worked.

[What Exit?]

Johnson is the one that poorly escalated Vietnam. That is a huge strike. I give him plenty of credit for getting some good social programs passed and plenty of real civil rights legislation but he also saddled us with a terrible welfare system. Overall I would not rate him great.

Why do you rate him great?

Oh and then as a side matter, he was kind of an ass IRL. Not uncommon for Presidents and not the nasty piece of work that Nixon was but he was a shady dealer overall from what I have read.

[eleanorigby]

Mostly due to his Great Society legislation-he presided over massive social changes. I've always had the sneaking feeling that Johnson was not a fan of it all, but saw that it was necessary and right to end segregation. Yes, he was an ass personally. But he was also able to manipulate, cajole, and bully Congress into some semblance of working order. We could do with a bit more of that these days (it'd help if the GOP stopped threatening to take their toys and go home over every thing).


Of course, by the end, LBJ was increasingly paranoid and losing his grip. Reagan, IMO, did absolutely nothing splendid at all. I was just trying to be fair and balanced.

[What Exit?]

Well as I acknowledge Reagan is not worthy of this list I won't bother defending him. But he did a lot of good and sadly a lot of bad.

I will defend why Teddy should be on the list. But in a later post, I've done this before and I am too tired to be original. I will search for an old post of mine instead.

[eleanorigby]

Oh, no need to defend. It's an incomplete list by any measure. Thing is, it's hard to judge the Presidents using only measure--as I said in my OP, different times call for different talents etc.

[What Exit?]

Why Theodore? Well he completely kicked ass and was moral to the point of near priggishness. Only Old Hickory was probably as tough and he was pretty much evil. Teddy (as he hated to be called) was a trustbuster, smart military mind, progressive, fiscally conservative as far as paying for what you spend, in favor of government healthcare, the first green President and he more than anyone else thrust the US onto the world stage with both the Great White Fleet and negotiating the peaceful ending to the Russo-Japanese War.

As a man, he was too awesome to be real. If you wrote a story with him as your main character everyone would complain he was the author’s Mary-Sue. He overcame severe asthma and kicked it into submission. He pushed himself like few others. He was a good boxer and wrestler and mastered judo. Would swim the icy Potomac regularly, hunting down the men that stole his boat in a bitter Dakota winter and caught them and brought them to legal justice when almost anyone else in the territory would have just shot them. He was a cattleman, explorer, writer, hunter, boatman, designed his own awesome house, went a long way towards cleaning up the NY police department as Police Commissioner, was shot by an assassin, saved by his Manuscript of Speech and as he wasn’t coughing up blood gave this long speech before seeking medical attention to remove the bullet. He explored the River of Doubt that was later named after him. He of course is the last man to run outside of the two parties and beat one of them. He came in second to Wilson and soundly defeated Taft.

He invited the first Black Man to dine in the White House and took a huge backlash for it. That man was Booker T. Washington.He handled a potentially crippling winter coal strike really well as it was ended quickly and both sides were unhappy with him. Did I mention the Panama Canal? He made that happen and established our first overseas Naval Bases. He prepared the US to become a world power.

Many consider Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as our best Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. Yes, Theodore appointed him.

Roosevelt also arbitrated successfully the Moroccan dispute between Germany and France. Clean Food acts.

Roosevelt set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined. He added enormously to the national forests in the West, reserved lands for public use, and fostered great irrigation projects.
He promoted Physical Fitness. He crusaded endlessly on matters big and small, exciting audiences with his high-pitched voice, jutting jaw, and pounding fist. "The life of strenuous endeavor" was a must for those around him, as he romped with his five younger children and led ambassadors on hikes through Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C. He was a founder of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
Small but major social equality achievements:
Oscar S. Straus was the first Jew appointed as a Cabinet Secretary.
In 1901 Booker T. Washington became the first black man to dine at the White House.

Intellectualy he established himself as a historian (he was President of the American Historical Association) and as a naturalist (he was considered the world's authority on large American mammals and he led two major scientific expeditions for prominent American Museums, one in South America and one in Africa, each lasting many months). Had he not become President, he would be remembered for his contributions in both of these fields.
He had a lot to do with the NY Museum of Natural History being the truly great Museum it is.

Supporting Information gathered from the Wiki Article and http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/
For more on his conservation achievements please Follow the links in http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/conservation.htm

I'm going to stop with these, culled from about 5 or 6 of my old posts on two different boards.