How Do The Author Characterize The Thinking Like A Historian

("Theodore Roosevelt and the

In his article “Why FDR was America’s Worst President,” Andrew Doris explains why Franklin Roosevelt was America’s worst president and why America would be better off today if he were to have never been elected. According to Doris, Roosevelt not only failed in ending the Great Depression, but when he introduced his New Deal policies, he also introduced the idea that the president could overstep the boundaries set for him in the constitution. During his presidency, Roosevelt failed to “faithfully execute the rulings of the other branches” and “respect the system of checks and balances” (Doris). Doris proves these statements throughout his article. He states that when Roosevelt came into office, he was hungry for more power than the constitution

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler are often referred to as two of the most influential people of the first half of the twentieth century. FDR and Hitler were certainly the two most influential and powerful people in their time of economic depression and world war. These were two very different men, but they had their similarities. Both of these men brought their country’s out of an economic depression. The two were very impressive speakers. Hitler certainly had his “critics”, but so too did Franklin Roosevelt.

When presenting the question of who deserves the title of best President of the United States, one would not be surprised to find Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and FDR as the frontrunners. While each of these presidents was undisputedly successful and groundbreaking in their own right, all fall short to America’s first modern president- Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, assuming office at the turn of the century, redefined and reimagined the role of the president and the executive officialdom. By expanding the powers of the presidency, Roosevelt was able to move the country forward in both the international arena and on the home front. Roosevelt’s vast success can greatly be attributed to his charisma, character, and persuasion skills. He understood that the art of governing was truly the power to persuade, and he mastered the trade. Roosevelt not only improved life domestically as he fought against inequality and corrupt business practices, but he also achieved his goal of gaining influence abroad, thus earning the United States a powerful platform on the global stage. Roosevelt’s natural leadership, charm, bravery, and compassion combined with his thorough understanding of the country’s needs, both for the individual and for the long-term well being of the country, made him the most successful president in United States history.

Genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group. The most famous genocide, conducted by the Germans, is the extermination of the Jewish population known as the Holocaust. There are other genocides such as the Armenian or Darfur genocide, but the Holocaust is the one talked about and studied the most around the world today. Museums exist in Washington D.C, Los Angeles, and parts of Europe that focus primarily on this dark time in history. Vast amounts of books, movies, and documents concentrate on the Holocaust. Why is this chapter, between 1939 and 1945, discussed and examined? The answer lies within people who experienced the Holocaust such as Elie Wiesel, Jay Frankston, and Franks Shatz. These men have gone through hell and back, but they believe in one thing. That is, the notion of never again. The goal is to educate future generations on what really happened, so history does not repeat itself. Never again should people of any race, religion, or ethnicity, go through the horrific past of the Holocaust. In their writing, Wiesel, Frankston, and Shatz do a great job using pathos, logos, and ethos to convey their message of never again for future generations.

There were a number of influential factors that played a role in the development of U.S constituent’s fears and thoughts about the Holocaust during the time periods. These thoughts and fears at the time dictated over U.S legislator and there ability to pass and make laws aiding Jewish refugees. One of the influential roles included the media because, during the Holocaust the press tried their best efforts to hide and mask the full persecution that Jews and non Aryans were facing (IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE ERA OF THE HOLOCAUST, 1). This served to be immoral in the eyes of the future public, because ignorance is not bliss it’s an illusion people portray to mask reality. With this ignorance in mind the constituents pushed their advocates to not pass laws, because they perceived this genocide as a minor inconvenience (IMMIGRATION). Ignorance leads to pain, and people being set in their ways such as laws.

1. From the first 3 paragraphs of the speech, why did FDR feel the government

As not only President but Commander in Chief, Roosevelt had an obvious ethical appeal to the general public, and his advice concerning war involvement and interpretation of this event will forever depict most American’s view of the attack. Seeing as ethics aren’t in question here, it was not necessary for Roosevelt to spend much time proving himself trustworthy. However, he does show strength and courage in the midst of in a time of fear and dismay. He also plays on the values of Americans by

Chavez uses the “Latino Threat Narrative” to compare the Hispanics to the “German language threat, the Catholic threat, the Chinese and Japanese language threat, and the southern and eastern European threats.” He suggests that “each was pervasive and defined “truths” about the threat posed by immigrants that, in hindsight, were unjustified or never materialized in the long run of history.” Chavez was trying to explain that the Hispanic would pattern these other threats by upsetting the America people. He states that “… the Latino Threat Narrative is part of a grand tradition of alarmist discourse about immigrants and their perceived negative impacts on society.”

The United States’ response to the Holocaust is a much-discussed and very sensitive subject for a variety of groups close to or related to the situation. The opinions on the subject are diverse and far-reaching, and the analyzations and comparison of some of these can lead to a greater understanding of not only the happenings of the Holocaust itself but also the social reactions to the event by the many groups involved. Four sources I intend to compare include Martin Gilbert’s Auschwitz and the Allies, David Wyman’s The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945, W.D. Rubinstein’s The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved the Jews from the Nazis, and Peter Novick’s The Holocaust in American Life, because I believe that these four sources make up a diverse and widespread selection from which nearly all opinions, or the most conflicting ones, can be observed and interpreted. The first work uses an investigatory style that proposes pieces of evidence from the period shortly before the Holocaust that could have allowed the allies further and more prudent action. Similarly, the second work argues that there is substantial evidence that the United States and the rest of the allies could certainly have saved thousands of lives with earlier and more aggressive action, but argues from a more opinion and theoretical style that focuses less on

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is an ideologically elusive figure; indeed as was swiftly evident it is impossible to pigeon hole him into any of these three convenient categories. Elements of all three views can be identified at various junctures of his presidency up to Pearl Harbor in the final weeks of 1941. This essay will argue that generally FDR was most accurately described as an internationalist. However, although this best describes his personal views throughout, the reality was much more complex. Roosevelt appeared to exhibit isolationist qualities during the early years of

The legacy that President Hoover passed to his successor was disastrous. The country experienced an unprecedented economic depression. However, in his speech during the presidential campaign in 1936, he expressed a deep concern that the New Deal is directed against the interests of ?poor Americans?[footnoteRef:2]. He also blamed the Roosevelt policy in violation of ?fundamental American ideals and liberties?[footnoteRef:3]. While Roosevelt was rebuilding America, Hoover attacked

Great post Jay. I am a Political Science Major and a Government teacher and never saw the “greatness” all the high school teachers preach of FDR either. That is one of the reasons; I challenged myself to take this course as my elective. Hamby’s analyze is more in line with my political science than my fellow preaching colleges of liberalism. In Government class, Roosevelt is referred to as an Imperial President and he beginning of the modern Presidency.

Historians and scholars have often debated the success and failures of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency since 1945. A number of scholars argue that he created jobs, boosted the economy, and helped America get back onto the road of becoming a great nation. On the other hand, it can be argued that his plans and ideas to create jobs only lasted for the short term and his acts created long-term problems. This paper will discuss Roosevelt’s life, his reforms, and both the positive or negative outcome those actions had on America. However, it must be stated, for the struggles America was going through, and the perseverance they held to triumph over their trials, was in part due to Roosevelt’s boundless leadership as president. Franklin Delano

Winchell, who was Jewish, was one of the first commentators to attack Adolf Hitler. In 1940 Winchell reported the news of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to seek a third term. He supported Roosevelt wholeheartedly. But by 1950s he had a change of heart and had turned archconservative, supporting Senator Joseph McCarthy and noting with approval the