The Woodrow Wilson marker at Princeton University: An opportunity to tell the truth

Hubert Harrison

As a matter of intellectual integrity, and for the benefit of current and future generations, the proposed Woodrow Wilson marker at Princeton University  should highlight the important insights offered by Hubert H. Harrison (1883-1927), the “father of Harlem radicalism” and founder of the militant “New Negro Movement.”

When Wilson led the United States into World War I with a call to “make the world safe for democracy,” Harrison responded by organizing a massive Harlem protest rally. The rally demanded enforcement of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and that the Wilson administration “Make the South Safe for Democracy.” Harrison was well aware that Wilson “never had the slightest intention of extending democracy to millions.” He emphasized: “Wilson’s protestations of democracy were lying protestations, consciously, and deliberately designed to deceive.”

Woodrow Wilson’s record was deplorable on the “race question.” He cut back federal appointments of African Americans; supported showings of the white-supremacist film The Birth of a Nation for himself, his Cabinet, Congress, and the Supreme Court; stood by silently as segregation was formalized in the Post Office, Treasury, Interior, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and Navy; did nothing as almost two dozen segregation-supporting legislative attempts including exclusion of black immigrants, segregation of streetcars, and a ban on inter-racial marriages in the District of Columbia were introduced in the House and Senate; and declined to use any significant power of office to address lynching, segregation, and disfranchisement and the vicious white-supremacist attacks on 26 African American communities including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and East St. Louis that occurred during his administration.

Under Wilson, the U.S. not only implemented the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Palmer Raids of 1919-1920, it also occupied Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Nicaragua and intervened in Panama, Honduras, and Mexico. Nevertheless, Wilson ran for president in 1916 on a campaign slogan “he kept us out of war,” posed before the world as a champion of democracy, and prated of “the rights of small nationalities,” of “self-determination,” and of “the right of all who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government.” In addition to the awful horrors let loose on small countries pre-war, in the postwar period he also helped to pave the way for partition, occupation, and conquest in the Middle East and Africa and for future wars.

There were contemporaries of Wilson – people like the St. Croix, Danish West Indies-born, Harlem-based Harrison – who saw through the lying statements of Wilson and the misleading portraits of him so often found in the media and history books. Harrison understood that while lynching, segregation, and disfranchisement marred this land, and while the U.S. brazenly occupied smaller countries, Wilson’s calls to war in order to expand democracy were deceptions. At the founding meeting of the Liberty League (the first organization of the militant “New Negro Movement”) in Harlem June 12, 1917, he posed a direct challenge to Wilson, who had claimed the U.S. was entering World War I in order to “Make the World Safe for Democracy.” Harrison’s mass meeting was called, as its organizational flier headlined, to “Stop Lynching and Disfranchisement in the Land Which We Love and Make the South ‘Safe For Democracy.’ ” A month later, Harrison led a second major Harlem rally to protest the white supremacist “pogrom” (his word) in East St. Louis, Ill. (15 miles from Ferguson, Mo.) and to urge federal anti-lynching legislation. Harrison stressed that Wilson “never at any single moment meant to include in his democracy 12 millions of his fellow Americans” and he “allowed 350 of them to be lynched during his Presidency.”

It is important for current and future generations that we challenge lies made by a president in order to make war – whether the lie is about making the world safe for democracy, about a Gulf of Tonkin incident that didn’t occur, or about weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. We should recognize and act on our responsibility to current and future generations to expose the lie and tell the truth.

Jeffrey B. Perry

Mr. Perry is a graduate of the Princeton University Class of 1968 and is a resident of Westwood, New Jersey. His letter originally appeared in the Princeton Alumni Weekly and was then submitted to Planet Princeton.

3 Comments

  1. While it is important to challenge the fables attached to former presidents, it is also worthwhile to explore why they are praised.

    Simply saying that a president one hundred years ago acted in the manner of the times lacks an understanding of evolution. One hundred years from now perhaps the failings of Obama will be recognized, but he was the best we could do at the time.

  2. My letter does not say that Woodrow Wilson acted in the
    “manner of the tines.” The letter emphasizes that Hubert Harrison (1883-1927)
    was of the time of Wilson and he saw through Wilson’s lies and he thought and
    acted in opposition to Wilson’s white supremacy.

    The “manner of the times” defense of Wilson is a cover for
    Wilson’s lies and white supremacy. He could have spoken and acted differently –
    as did Harrison. It is important for current and future generations that we
    tell the truth.

  3. My letter does not say that Woodrow Wilson acted in the
    “manner of the times.” The letter emphasizes that Hubert Harrison (1883-1927)
    was of the time of Wilson and he saw through Wilson’s lies and he thought and
    acted in opposition to Wilson’s white supremacy.

    The “manner of the times” defense of Wilson is a cover for
    Wilson’s lies and white supremacy. He could have spoken and acted differently –
    as did Harrison. It is important for current and future generations that we
    tell the truth.

Comments are closed.