when woodrow wilson left the white house in 21, he had a wine collection that he didn't want to leave behind. his successor was a hard drinker and party boy. so wilson got a permit from the prohibition bureau to transport is one collection. by the way, during prohibition if you had wine in your possession before prohibition started that's yours to keep, they're not gonna take it away from you. so personal possession was not out lot during prohibition. but you couldn't manufacture, cell, or transport. so in this case woodrow wilson had a special permission to transport alcohol from is old house to his new house. he had the permit approved, come by the woodrow wilson house, i have a prohibition tour that i sometimes lead. at the end we see the prohibition era wine cellar. very, unique how many other houses in the area have original bottles. it's amazing. look at the short battle in the center. that is quantro the packaging has barely changed. the french ambassador's house at a lot of these bottles. we helped to save france during world war one, that is why we got a perpetual resupply fr

president woodrow wilson arrived in britain en route to the peace conference and gathering in paris. during his time in london before he arrived in paris, wilson had an interview with the deputy chief sensor of great britain, frank worthington. in response to a question from worthington about close relations between great britain and the united states, wilson, according to worthington's notes told him the following. must not speak of us who come over here as cousins, less as brothers. we are neither. neither must you think of us as anglo-saxon. that term can no longer be rightly applied to the people of the united states. there are only two things which can establish and maintain relations between your country on mine. community of ideals and interests." like aght seem surprising outlook to take for a man like wilson. all the more so because it ran against common perception amongst u.s. elites in the era. let me give you one example of an opposite perspective. some years earlier, the scottish american steel baron andrew carnegie published an essay in which he advocated that length the

and so he so irritates woodrow wilson that woodrow wilson has his privileges as an ambassador revoked. how timely with our current news, right? you don't behave, you lose your office. but on his way out, dublinski knew exactly how to annoy americans. what the african-american press said to that dublinski pressed on america's cancer spot, and that was that he said, how dare you, americans, who claim to be neutral, judge we ottomans about how we treat our minorities, given how you treat your own minorities. native americans, african-americans. so until you stop segregation, you have no business telling us about being violent or how to control our minorities. and in order to ensure having lost his ambassadorship, that he left woodrow wilson on the brink of a complete conniption, dublinski was photographed in black churches in d.c., praying and singing with african-americans, and talking about how their plight and their suffering really helped him understand who americans truly were, despite their browbeating all over the world, as purported neutrals, who were also morally superior. so wh

the most decayed president is woodrow wilson. he pretty much looks like he has leprosy. the question always comes up, is there a rhyme or reason as to why these guys are decaying at a faster rate than the remaining, and i just don't understand or know if there is any reason behind it. perhaps he's in a wind pattern or rain pattern that makes him more susceptible to cracking. i just don't know. but what i do know is if you come look pretty closely at this president, who was one of eight virginia native presidents born and raised in stanton, look at his right eyeball. that is a wasp's nest, which is not uncommon. often you will see them in the nostrils of the sculpture as well. a few of them are starting to miss some parts. lyndon johnson is starting to lose the end of his nose. ronald reagan was one of them that was struck by lightning a few years back but he's been successfully cleaned up since. and probably the most difficult of all of the presidents to identify is back here behind president reagan. no one's ever gotten this right, as a matter of fact. i had to really s

one is represented by woodrow wilson who argues that the right solution is multilateral.ike problems like pandemics, great power competition, those are international problems that need international solutions. they are other folks who are not a composed 2 -- opposed to negotiating with other countries, but there are americans like theodore roosevelt making the same argument in the u.s. what do you think is causing the problem and what do you think is the appropriate solution? there are people who were thinking internationally 100 years ago and people thinking nationally. those two would be very familiar to somebody looking at our world 100 years ago. they would've recognized a lot more about the situation that we would expect. jason: that leads me to my next question. you are talking about different visions that were there already from the very beginning. of course these countries had fought together, britain and france had been in the fight since 1914. the u.s. jumped in three years later. at what point did the tensions between wilson and the others begin to surface betw

one is represented by woodrow wilson who argues that the right solution is multilateral. that projects like pandemics, great power competition, international bolshevism they , are international problems that need international solutions. and there are folks like the french prime minister who are not opposed to negotiating with countries, but they want to go strictly to a national model. and then there are americans like theodore roosevelt making the same argument in the u.s. what do you think is causing the problem and what do you think is the appropriate solution? there are people who were thinking internationally 100 years ago and people thinking nationally. would be verysets familiar to people 100 years ago looking at our world. and they would've recognized a lot more about the situation then maybe we would expect. jason: that leads me to my next question. we were talking about the framework and different visions there from the beginning. these countries had fought together. britain and france had been in u.s.ight since 1914, the jumping in three years later. at what p

woodrow wilson has a ph.d. from johns hopkins. he is the president of pressed princeton before he becomes the governor of new jersey and the president of the united states. what is bothering them? will review this and i think you know what many of these things are. we can talk about a few of the motivations in terms of fears. fears of new capitalism. as companies grow larger and larger and capitalism becomes more and more impersonal, i'm talking really fast, i will step back and have you think about that. think about a 19th century world where your neighbor might have chickens in her yard to sell eggs. you know her. her eggs are not going to be rotten because she does not want to rip you off because you have a face relationship. or you are a farmer that goes to the local grain elevator. you know that operator. you are not selling at a fixed rate across hundreds of miles on the southern pacific railroad. where you have to pay a certain rate and you cannot negotiate. you don't know who you're seller is. i think we take for granted g

the army and woodrow wilson made sure that charles young didn't become a general. and pershing didn't intervene. he had an opportunity to i think take a much more definitive stance in protecting black officers and their reputations. he chose not to do that, which i think was really a stain on his leadership. talk.at the japanese proposed a racial equality clause as part of the covenant in the league of nations. largely because of wilson's upper -- opposition it was rejected. was this supported by black american leaders or was this strictly a japanese initiative? >> that is a good question. you begin to see a growing relationship between african-americans and japan. you are really going back to the japanese-russo war and this idea of japan as part of a darker ofld, and emerging world nations which is going to challenge europe and european supremacy. so there were certainly african-american support for that racially quality clause, and certainly during the thatwar period, we see how relationship and -- evolved in different ways. >> ladies and gentlemen, will you plea

host: what were the biggest mistakes of then president woodrow wilson in 1918? was entirely focused on world war i. the disease, the second wave, the serious wave in september 1918. he was not going to be distracted by anything, and he did not want anyone in the country distracted. he thought it would hurt the war effort. he never made a single public statement. they had created a propaganda , it was fake because they were doing exactly what the government wanted them to do. minimize and trivialize the pandemic. there was no tony doughty back then. -- doughty back then. --fauci back then. about if proper precautions were taken. event, farrrific more lethal and dangerous that what we are facing now. much more. host: that is an incredible statement. that woodrow wilson did not get a single public statement on what was the greatest pandemic of the time. john: not one. he was an interesting creature in a lot of ways, and when he focused on something, that was it. and he was focused on the war. host: there are a couple parts of the book that are applicable to where w

he so irritates woodrow wilson that woodrow wilson has his privileges as an ambassador revoked. how timely with our current news. if you don't behave, you're on your way out. he knew exactly how to annoy americans. but the african-american press said dublinksi pressed on america's spot. -- native americans, african americans. until you stop segregation, you have no business about being violent or how to control our minorities. he left woodrow wilson on the brink of a complete connection. there were photos of him praying and singing with african-americans and talking about how their plight and suffering were handled. what we see in the case of the united states is that the question of race will already be part of this diplomatic tug-of-war. the germans will do the same. it will return. in the united states, what we get from the very beginning of the war are a lot of the same kinds of concerns that had been weighing heavily on european empires that we had been talking about. what were some of those concerns? that their own countries were full of dissidents who could set the place

president woodrow wilson arrived in britain en route to the peace conference in paris about which we have heard quite a bit already. during his time in london before he arrived, wilson had a private interview with the deputy chief censor of great britain. in response to a question about close relationships between great britain and the united states, wilson told him the following. i quote. of us who not speak come over here as cousins, still less as brothers. we are neither. neither must you think of us as anglo-saxons, because that term can no longer be rightfully applied to the people of the united states. there are only two things which can establish and maintain closer relations between your country and mine. they are a community of ideals and interests." this might seem like a surprising outlook to take for a man like wilson. all the more so since it ran against common perceptions of u.s. elites in that era. that me give you just one example of an opposite perspective on this relationship. earlier, the scottish american steel baron andrew carnegie published an essay in which he a

the most decayed president is woodrow wilson. he pretty much looks like he has leprosy. and the question always comes up, is there a rhyme or reason as to why these guys are decaying at a faster rate than the remaining and i just do not understand or know if there's any reason behind it? perhaps he is in a wind pattern or rain pattern that makes him more susceptible to cracking, i just don't know. i do know that if you look closely at this president who is one of eight virginian presidents born and raised in stanton, look into his right eyeball. that is the wasps nest, not uncommon. often you will see them in the nostrils of the sculptures as well. a few of them are starting to mix some parts. lyndon johnson is starting to lose the end of his nose. ronald reagan was struck by lightning a few years back. but he has successfully been cleaned up since. probably the most difficult of all of the presidents to identify, is back here behind president reagan. no one has ever gotten this right. i had to really study him hard to figure out who was. that is warren hearting. behind

>> woodrow wilson very famously said that god himself was content to give us just 10 and david georgeas asked to evaluate his own performance and he said i don't think i did too bad seeing that i had napoleon on one side and jesus christ himself on the other. there are tensions already. the first american president to go to europe in office. the first american president trying to take american ideals and provide them to the old world. on what youends think fundamentally caused the war. there is something inherent in the german character. he had argued for fighting on rather than giving up. there is something different about germany that you have to deal with. in george's mind there is a balance of power problem. the lack of open markets, the lack of incentives for states to work together. although they were allies during the war they had very different definitions of what they thought they were doing their. we can talk about this for world war ii as well. you think is the fundamental cause of the problem and until you have answered that , you cannot look for solutions. approach looks

woodrow wilson has gone from the sixth spot to the 11 spot. rutherford b hayes also dropped from 26 to 32. grover cleveland, 17 to 23. historians don't tell us why the rankings have changed, but there is a commonality and i think our historians can speak to that tonight, that is under the category of pursued equal justice for all. rutherford b hayes is tagged with ending reconstruction, woodrow wilson and andrew jackson, we have learned so much more about their policies, jackson with native americans, and he and woodrow wilson with african-americans. grover cleveland does not have the best record either. dwight eisenhower has gone up. a theory has emerged about his hidden hand presidency. he is fifth-place today. bill clinton came in at 21 when we first surveyed, on the heels of his impeachment process. on the second survey, he went to the 15th spot and remains there. ulysses s grant double 11 spots from 33 to 22. when we look at the big biographies that have come out and change public perspective on these presidents, that's part of it, becaus

so, again, i mentioned the woodrow wilson house. when wilson left the white house on march 4th, 1921, he actually had a wine collection. and he did not want to leave it behind because his successor warren harding was a known heavy drinker and kind of a party boy. so he got -- wilson got a permit from the prohibition bureau to transport his wine collection -- and by the way, during prohibition, if you had alcohol in your possession before prohibition started, that was yours to keep. they weren't going to take away from you. so personal possession was not outlawed during prohibition. but you couldn't manufacture, sell, or transport it. so in this case here wilson had to get special permission to transport his alcohol from the white house over to his new house over in kalorama on s street. and he got that permit approved. and we have a prohibition tour at the woodrow wilson house that i lead sometimes. at the end of the tour we go down and see the prohibition era wine cellar. it's really unique. it's like how many other houses in the co

woodrow wilson, down. sixth to 11th. and you folks are going the have to explain this to me, because i have a soft spot in my heart for rutherford b. hayes. he dropped six points over the survey, from 26th to 32nd spot. and grover cleveland, our only two-term nonconsecutive president went from number 17 in the survey to 23. so who are the ones that went up? well, dwight eisenhower. made it from number nine into the top five. bill clinton, i told you that he was in the number 15th position but when he first came into the survey he was in 21st. that was in 1999 right after the impeachment process. he moved to 15th by the second time we did it and there he stays in our 2017 survey. and finally, u.s. grant. you're a specialist on this, edna, you have to help me understand this one. grant is the president who changed the most going up 11 points over the course of our three surveys. i'd love to hear your perspective on why historians are looking more favorably upon him. that's an overview and now you have three fabulous histor

so 1912, african-americans to vote for woodrow wilson. there is pretty strong evidence that that led to wilson winning inputs republican stronghold in massachusetts and ohio. when it happened of course woodrow wilson promises that he would go for the rights. a part of that was black people had no choice in the election. different americans would active and not protecting. i think in essence it was and i would argue that he was radical. in the sense that he was then voting should be done based on the needs of the demands that african-americans are living, but that usually shouldn't african-americans should not put as he said your eggs in one basket and pardons that have yet to show us the goods. 1912. but the question for today in terms of that he was a definitely a person who was at heart, really believed that you should not vote for party and you have to force the elected officials to make the direct needs of the people. steve: obviously very resident resident today. it's exciting to see the major prize is catching up with the scholarship

george traces to woodrow wilson, the questioning of the separation of powers, the birth of the imperial presidency, the rise of demagoguery. lots of conservatives and libertarians blame it all on wilson. that is a tough series of critics to have from both sides. susan: related to that, maybe for you to start on this, to -- do shifting cultural views impact the ways historians rate presidents? michael: absolutely. part, because we are all embedded in culture. we are all bound by culture. presidents as well. they can try and break a lot of things, but they can't recount of their culture. they might be able to change the culture. lincoln's vision encompasses, let's change our culture by getting rid of slavery. let's break the chain so to speak and begin a different way of thinking. then, unfortunately he died. i think culture is critical for a president because it defines the context in which they operate. susan: will take about 10 more minutes with questions. anybody wants to tackle this one? discuss jfk's place. is it camelot? >> he did not pass much legislation. things he wanted to he f

the african-american people parts or 1912 for instruments encourage african-americans about for woodrow wilson. there is pretty strong evidence is that led to wilson winning in a strong republican stronghold like massachusetts and ohio. when that happens, of course, woodrow wilson promises he made for civil rights. but trotter said the black people had a choice in that election because the republican party different americans would be active not protecting. his radical in a sense that voting should be done based on the needs, the demands of african-american community. but that you should not -- african-americans should not put all their eggs in one basket on a party who is yet to show us the goods, that was a quote he had a 1912. but that's the question for today in terms of that was definitely someone who was a person at heart who really believed you should not vote for a party and you have to force elected officials to meet the direct needs of the people who voted them into office. >> host: i was a very resonant today. it's exciting to see that major prize is catching up with the scholarship

host: what were the biggest mistakes of then president woodrow wilson in 1918?as entirely focused on world war i. the disease, the second wave, the serious wave in september 1918. he was not going to be distracted by anything, and he did not want anyone in the country distracted. he thought it would hurt the war effort. he never made a single public statement. they had created a propaganda , it was fake because they were doing exactly what the government wanted them to do. minimize and trivialize the pandemic. there was no tony doughty back then. -- doughty back then. --fauci back then. about if proper precautions were taken. event, farrrific more lethal and dangerous that what we are facing now. much more. host: that is an incredible statement. that woodrow wilson did not get a single public statement on what was the greatest pandemic of the time. john: not one. he was an interesting creature in a lot of ways, and when he focused on something, that was it. and he was focused on the war. host: there are a couple parts of the book that are applicable to where we

woodrow wilson had a congressional election and now has republicans in congress who are not terribly excited about a lot of the internationalist side of this whole peacemaking process. they don't have -- pressures theyar have to deal with as well. casualtiescing undergoes construction that he have to listen to these all bees, i guess we can focused on the -- they also have to for democracies, there republic, they'll have to deal with trip -- pressure from below. way to deal with this is to look at the big three. looking around there is no one american answer to the covid crisis, no one questions the covid crisis. these are determined by where you live, middle-class first working class. all kinds of things would determine your response. it's interesting the ways in which the debates reach across national lines. do you want to solve these problems the national or the imperial level. do you want to do this by opening up the empire to international trade which is an answer or do you want to increase those, keeping americans out of those markets and trying the best that you can to reinfor

he had this fantasy that woodrow wilson what a port him over brandeis. the thing about taft is he made up with brandeis. he would join brandeis's deci sions. they would set aside their disagreements to converge. they ended up working together well. taft shows there is no necessary correlation between virtue. he was an incredibly devoted husband. taft lovingly nursing his wife back to health after she had a stroke and taking hours to teach her to speak again. his daughter, helen taft who became a distinguished history professor and president of bryn mawr. none of that means you are a leader because leadership requires things like deliberation, flexibility and the willingness to listen to your opponents who may not correlate with public virtue. i remember reading one anti-nixon historian who said that nixon was the only truly wicked president we had had. i do not think that is true. i would love -- as a recent biography shows, there was such a human side to nixon. he was so vulnerable. he did a great deal of good in foreign policy. even his failed attempt

one is represented by woodrow wilson who argues that the right solution is international and multi -- problems like pandemics, great power competition, de colonization, dealing with communism, bolsheviks them, those are international problems that need international solution. there are other folks, the french prime minister who are not opposed to negotiating but want to go through a national model. theodore roosevelt who were making the same argument back in the u.s.. the question comes to your perspective. what do you think is causing the problem and what do you think is the appropriate solution? there are people who are thinking internationally 100 years ago and people who are thinking nationally. in some ways, i think those two mind sets would be very familiar to people of 100 years ago looking at our world they would have -- in our present situation than maybe we would expect. >> that leads me to the next question. we are talking about the issue of frameworks and different visions that were there already from the very beginning. these countries had fought together. britain and fra

wo woodrow wilson has a ph.d before he becomes president of the united states. so what's bothering them and we will review this and you know, i think, what many of these things are. we can talk about fears of new capitalism. capitalism becomes more and more impersonal, i'm talking really fast, i want to step back and have you think about that. think about a 19th century world where your neighbor might have chickens in her yard. right? to sell eggs, and you know her, right? her eggs are not rotten, she won't want to rip you off you have a face to face relationship. the farmer that goes to the local grain elevator. you're not selling at a fixed rate. i think we take for granted global capitalism's impersonal nature. when you get things from amazon prime you're not thinking about who is pulling it off of the warehouse shelf. like people were used to face to face transaction. this was threatening, right? this was a real change. they fear that the power of huge corporations would ruin democracy. the run away railroad, as i mentioned, was just one example. there was d

millions more died in a global influenza pandemic. after the war, in france, the american president woodrow wilsontered his wartime allies behind the so-called league of nations. but he couldn't sell the plan here at home. wilson crisscrossed the country by rail, delivering one speech after another, the effort almost killed him. >> it's easy to think, okay, presidents are always barn storming, going around the country talking to the people. >> reporter: she is professor of american history at harvard university. >> to campaign on your own behalf was considered undignified well through the 19th century. so even just going around the country was a novelty. >> reporter: in effect, wilson was going door to door, but he had none of the tools that would amplify the campaigns of future presidents. not that warren harding recognized radio's potential. as for calvin coolage, they didn't call him silent cal for nothing. herbert hoover? no, he never got the hang of radio either. that was left for franklin roosevelt and those famous fire side chats. >> this bank holiday, while resulting in many cases in great

the woodrow wilson center hosted this one-hour event. >> it's a great pleasure today to welcome backhas the distinction of bein

those are vote for woodrow wilson there is evidence with a stronghold like massachusetts and ohio andhat happened he betrayed those promises but that people had no choice and that election because to the act of not protecting the law. so in that sense i argue he was radical he was saying that voting should be done the demands of the african-american community but they should not put all their eggs in one basket for a party that has betrayed u us. so definitely somebody was at heart really believed that you should not vote for parties and with those electorate officials from those who voted them into office. >> so to catch up with a scholarship of your generation and see it across the board with those big biographies like frederick douglass and others that one big last year or the year before. obviously what the american history but talking about the leadership of different eras what other errors do you think that your generation of scholars see that have not been researched or written with the originality and that revisionism understood one - - required? >> and they are proud and thos

woodrow wilson, from six down to 11. this one boggles my mind, because i like rather furred be haze. he's gone from 26 to 32. 17 to 23. i'm sure historians will have some perspective on things have changed it who is up. dwight di eisenhower, he is up. he was it ninth now he is at fifth. bill clinton, when the first survey was just coming out, he was 21st place, the next two surveys he settled in at the 15 position. finally this is an interesting one, from 33rd place to 22nd, ulysses as grant. and also these big biographies that are coming out they do influence people and make a difference. the top five overall, it's not going to be any surprises. dwight highs and how are now in fifth position. theodore roosevelt in fourth. franklin roosevelt in third. george washington, in second place and in number one place, abraham lincoln. the bottom five. john tyler comes, he went on to join the confederate congress after he left the white house. a man without a party when he was in the white house. and he was buried with the confed

the woodrow wilson center hosted this one-hour event. >> well it is a great pleasure today to welcomen. he also has the distinction of being a title eight scholar. and he has just written a new book "secret wars, covert conflict in international politics" and it will be available for purchase after today's talk. dr. carson is an assistant professor from the university of chicago. he has published

woodrow wilson down. six to 11. you folks will have to explain this to me because i have a soft spot in my heart for rutherford b. hayes. he dropped six points over the survey from 26 to 32. and grover cleveland, our only two turn nonconsecutive president went from number 17 to 23. who are the ones that went up? dwight eisenhower made it from number nine spot into the top five. bill clinton. i told you he was in the number 15 position. but he was in 21st in 1999 right after the impeachment process. he moved to 15 by the second time we did it and he stays there in the 2017 survey. and finally, u.s. grant. and edna will have to help me understand this one. grant is the president to change the most, going up 11 points over the course of the three surveys. i would love to hear your perspective about why historians are looking more favorably on him. now you have three fabulous historians that have been so much a part of c-span's programming over the years that will add some context to that. thanks for your attention. [ap

woodrow wilson, there had been a congressional election and he has now republicans in congress who are not excited about the international side of the peace making process. the french don't have an election to deal with, but there are popular pressures they need to respond to as well. a lot of people the sacrifice, the casualty that france undergoes and destruction in parts of the country that need to be listened to. we can get focussed on the big three and what's going on with them as they're trying to figure out a treaty that everyone can agree to. they also have to as democracies, the third republic, britain with their long tradition, the u.s., they all have to deal with pressures. >> the easiest way to study the treaty is to look at the big three. looking around at our own country, there's no one american answer to the covid crisis. these are determined by where you live, middle class versus working class, all kinds of things determine your response. to me it's interesting to the ways in which the debates reach across national lines. the big one is do you want to solve the problems

in this room, woodrow wilson made the great decisions which led to victory in world war i. franklin roosevelt made the decisions which led to our victory in world war ii. dwight d. eisenhower made decisions which ended the war in korea and avoided war in the middle east. john f. kennedy, in his finest hour, made the great decision which removed soviet nuclear missiles from cuba and the western hemisphere. i have noted that there's been a great deal of discussion with regard to this decision that i have made. and i should point out i do not contend that it is in the same magnitude as these decisions that i have just mentioned. but between those decisions and this decision, there is a difference that is very fundamental. in those decisions the american people were not assailed by counsels of doubt and defeat from some of the most widely known opinion leaders of the nation. i have noted, for example, that a republican senator has said that this action i have taken means that my party has lost all chance of winning the november elections. and others are saying today that this m

at the other end of the spectrum would be woodrow wilson in the flu pandemic of 1918-1919. woodrow wilson pretended it wasn't happening, never gave one speech about it, did not let people know how to protect themselves, sent soldiers to europe on coffin ships, as they were called, even though he was told not to, and had huge complicity in the deaths of 670,000 americans. had wilson been more of a leader, he could have saved a lot of people. instead, he tried to pretend that was not a national emergency and everything was fine. i hope that's not what we're seeing from president trump today. >> rick tyler, what we're seeing also is that there is certainly the president's numbers for handling the pandemic, his poll numbers from various polls are falling. and joe biden's got a 17-point advantage in a fox poll last week over the president in his handling of the pandemic. overall, an eight-point lead nationally, and we don't really focus much on national polls in an election year. but when we talk about the president and dr. fauci and others, his numbers are actually rising again

you have woodrow wilson curated and narrated. let's take a figure that helps us work around to some of the other conversations. we are in washington, d.c.. talk to me about houston, charlie houston. this dude was one of the highest-ranking black officers in world war i. >> he was a lieutenant. for an african-american at the time, he was a lieutenant. i asked people all the time, do you know who charles hamilton houston is? and what is he important for? and everyone who knows him knows him for a lawyer. few people know that he was one of the individuals who went to fort des moines, arden officer ship, and served as a lieutenant and fought in france in the 92nd division. it was that experience that he had in the military, when he saw the way he was treated and other african-americans were treated, that he decided that what his father always wanted him to be, his father wanted him to be a lawyer and was alert himself. -- and was a lawyer himself. that is where he got his foundation to be a lawyer. so when you open the book, i collec

wilson --f woodrow [laughter] perhaps he should have thought a little more carefully about his words on the evening of april 2, 1917, as he spoke before the congress and issued a declaration of war against germany. we all know the words. in his speech, he proclaimed the world must be made safe for democracy. a champion of of the rights of mankind and we shall be satisfied when those rights been made as secure as the fate and freedom and nations can make them. perhaps more than any other group, african-americans seized on the blatant hypocrisy of his pledge and appropriated democracy as a rhetorical and ideological weapon in the cause of racial equality. by framing the war as a struggle of the future of global democracy, wilson created the ideological terrain for the emergence of the new negro, both in the united states. black people would face a war for democratic rights and humanity on american soil. before the first trips set foot on french soil. july 2, 1917 massacre in east st. louis, hundreds of african-americans, men, women, children were really slaughtered . the naacp organize

woodrow wilson is curated and narrated in here. let's pick a figure that helps us work around to some of the other conversations. we're in d.c. charles hamilton houston. let's talk about charlie houston, who's known for training the people who killed jim crow as a lawyer but this dude was one of the highest ranking officers in world war i. >> he was a lieutenant. that's not -- i see soldiers and sailors, that's not very high, but for an african-american in that time. >> that's what i meant. >> he was a lieutenant. i ask people all the time do you know who charles hamilton houston is, and what is he important for and everyone who knows him knows him as a lawyer. >> that's right. >> but few people know that he was one of those individuals who went to fort des moines, earned an officership, and served as a lieutenant overseas and fought in france in the 368th infant infantry -- regiment of the 92nd division. it was that experience that he had in the military when he saw the way he was treated and other african-americans were treated,

woodrow wilson from six down at 11. this boggles my mind because i like rutherford b hayes. 26 down at 32. grover cleveland, 17 to 33. i am sure historians will have some perspective on how society has changed and what historians are looking at them more critically. who is up? dwight eisenhower. when we first of the survey, he was in ninth place and now he is sixth. bill clinton, when we first did the survey, just after impeachment, he was 21st place and now he has settled in 15th position. finally, from 30 third place to 22nd, ulysses s grant. one of the things we have found over the course of time is those big biographies that become big best center -- best sellers influence the views historians and society have here grant has had some of those in recent years. the top five overall, no big surprises. dwight eisenhower, theodore ,oosevelt, franklin roosevelt george washington, and guess who is number one? abraham lincoln. of course. the bottom five. tidewater virginia's favorite son who went on to join the confederate