Tonight I was reading Frederick Jackson Turner’s "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." The first footnote just jumped off the page:
A paper read at the meeting of the American Historical Association in Chicago, July 12, 1893. It first appeared in the Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, December 14, 1893, with the following note: "The foundation of this paper is my article entitled 'Problems in American History,' which appeared in The Ægis, a publication of the students of the University of Wisconsin, November 4, 1892... It is gratifying to find that Professor Woodrow Wilson--whose volume on 'Division and Reunion' in the Epochs of American History Series, has an appreciative estimate of the importance of the West as a factor in American history--accepts some of the views set forth in the papers above mentioned, and enhances their value by his lucid and suggestive treatment of them in his article in The Forum December, 1893, reviewing Goldwin Smith's 'History of the United States.'" The present text is that of the Report of the American Historical Association for 1893, 199-227.
This is the sort of language one uses to make it clear that one’s ideas might be falsely attributed to another author, who did not properly attribute the source of borrowed ideas. BTW, Turner had been Wilson's student at Johns Hopkins.
My suspicions received some support in a passing sentence in a 1933 scholarly article. Reviewing Turner’s frontier thesis in the 1933 Pacific Historical Review, Frederic L. Paxson likens Turner to Columbus and calls him a prophet. In a footnote, Paxson quotes Wilson’s 1893 article, noting that Wilson does not mention Turner in his 1893 piece, which in part set out Turner’s thesis:
"When the great westward migration began everything was modified. . . Beyond the mountains . . . a new nation sprang up. . . . Our continental life is a radically different thing from our life in the old settlements. . . . The formative period of American history . . . did not end in colonial times or on the Atlantic coast . . . nor will it end until we cease to have frontier communities and a young political life just accommodating itself to fixed institutions. . . . Almost all the critical issues of our politics have been made up beyond the mountains." Woodrow Wilson, "Mr. Goldwin Smith's 'Views' on our Political History," in Forum, xvI, 495 (December, 1893); but though aware of the new revelation, Wilson failed to name the prophet [i.e., Turner].
So, not only was Woodrow Wilson the most racist of the post-Reconstruction presidents (a man who systematically re-segregated Washington and demoted African American government employees), but he might have been a plagiarist as well.
UPDATE: For background on Wilson's "Dixiecrat" views, see this analysis of the work of Lawrence J. Friedman:
It was Inauguration Day, and in the judgment of one later historian, "the atmosphere in the nation's capital bore ominous signs for Negroes." Washington rang with happy Rebel Yells, while bands all over town played 'Dixie.' Indeed, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who swore in the newly elected Southern president, was himself a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Meanwhile, "an unidentified associate of the new Chief Executive warned that since the South ran the nation, Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race." Somebody had even sent the new president a possum, an act supposedly "consonant with Southern tradition."
This is not an alternate world scenario imagining the results of a Strom Thurmond victory in the 1948 election; it is the real March 4, 1913, the day Woodrow Wilson of Virginia moved into the White House. . . .
An openly racist Southern presidency had existed fewer than 30 years earlier [than Strom Thurmond's 1948 candidacy]: Wilson's. His White House had not only approved of the South's discriminatory practices (many of which were also widespread in the North), it implemented them in the federal government. Had Dixiecrat dreams come true, a Thurmond administration would have revived Woodrow Wilson's racial policies. . . .
Wilson's racist views were hardly a secret. His own published work was peppered with Lost Cause visions of a happy antebellum South. As president of Princeton, he had turned away black applicants, regarding their desire for education to be "unwarranted." He was elected president because the 1912 campaign featured a third party, Theodore Roosevelt's Bullmoose Party, which drew Republican votes from incumbent William Howard Taft. Wilson won a majority of votes in only one state (Arizona) outside the South. . . .
Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington's large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson's cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington.
Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments. One justification involved health: White government workers had to be protected from contagious diseases, especially venereal diseases, that racists imagined were being spread by blacks. In extreme cases, federal officials built separate structures to house black workers. Most black diplomats were replaced by whites; numerous black federal officials in the South were removed from their posts; the local Washington police force and fire department stopped hiring blacks. Wilson's own view, as he expressed it to intimates, was that federal segregation was an act of kindness. In historian Friedman's paraphrase, "Off by themselves with only a white supervisor, blacks would not be forced out of their jobs by energetic white employees."
According to Friedman, President Wilson said as much to those appalled blacks who protested his actions. He told one protesting black delegation that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." When the startled journalist William Monroe Trotter objected, Wilson essentially threw him out of the White House. "Your manner offends me," Wilson told him. Blacks all over the country complained about Wilson, but the president was unmoved. "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me," he told The New York Times in 1914, "they ought to correct it."
Depends on how relevant the plagiarism is to the deeds which made someone famous.
Both are forms of plagiarism.
It isn't uncommon for similar ideas to occur to more than one person in the same field independently around the same time. Sometimes ideas are "in the air".
Turner's footnote is a bit kinder than I would have expected if he had thought that Wilson had plagiarized him. That is slim evidence, but it might mean that he didn't have a strong suspicion of plagiarism and was merely trying to establish priority and that he hadn't plagiarized Wilson.
Paxson, writing in 1933, says that Wilson was aware of Turner's revelation when he wrote his December 1893 piece.
I take it that the point of Turner's footnote is to make it clear that Wilson was aware of Turner's thesis when Wilson wrote in 1893.
Does Paxson give the basis for his statement that Wilson knew of Turner's work?
Bill
He was a racist. What does being a plagiarist on top of that add?
Keep in mind that Wilson had made a big splash with "Congressional Government" in 1885. So it would not be surprising if a junior colleague sought to add "heft" to his work by associating his ideas with one of the most prominent scholars of the period—a sort of self-awarded imprimatur. (I have done this. Mea culpa.)
On the other hand, if you are at a university, and if this interests you, go to your library at lunchtime and take a look at Arthur Link's complete writings of WW. It occupies, I dunno, 4 1/2 or 5 shelves in our library, and must be seen to be believed. It is possible that someone so prolific was not terribly careful about attributions.
It really hit home when scholar saw it in print.
All are manifestations of the same ethical offense: passing off someone else's ideas as your own. The hired writer might of course be serving as an editor &technician putting the a pile of supplied ides into a coherent whole - but that would also demand attribution to be ethically acceptable.
If less than 1/2 of the paper is directly copied, no actionable plagiarism has occured.
The rule was adopted when it was discovered that Martin Luther King Jr's doctoral thesis was 1/3 directly copied from the papers of other writers.
Under this rule, WW commited no actual plagiarism.
Better. Because it's cheaper.
AND a RACIST!
And a PLAGIARIST!!!!!
Or have we simply come down to "well, he was a bad man, so he probably committed this wrong too."
Lousy reasoning. I'd give it an F in a freshman politics class.
A very Buck v Bell sentiment!
I'll try and check Links edited papers of Woodrow Wilson today when I'm in the library.
For those asking why WW gets a pass for militarism and GWB gets dinged, consider this: Wilson had a (D) following his name, G W. Bush has an (R). That wasn't so hard, now was it? And it is interesting, that many of the people cheering Wilson as one of our best presidents rank his disciple George W.Bush as one of the worst. Of course, it helps it you have a more academically acceptable speaking style, and are a good word smith. President Bush's efforts to explain how he wanted to bring American style democracy to Iraq just aren't as pithy as Wilson promising to 'teach the Mexicans to elect good men." But in many ways, That really what President Bush is doing.
While I'm looking, Hoosier, I'll see how the relationship between Turner and Wilson seems to fit together. But if Wilson took more credit than was his just due for an idea of a bright student, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, would it. And, you are correct - Turner was apparently a dreadful lecturer, so reading his work must have been much less painful than listening to him.
I suppose that, as offensive as the proposition is, one is entitled to be a racist. I don't know anyone who would claim entitlement to plagiarize.
(Why is it hushed up? Now there's the rub).
However, academic and intellectual norms do protect ideas, and, if I am expressing ideas that I got from someone else, credit must be given to that person.
Additionally, a somewhat murkier academic norm dictates that some portion of my work must be original. If my whole paper consisted of nothing but a paraphrase of Frederick Jackson Turner, it would be unacceptable, even though the notes and bibliography indicated that I had relied on him. This is a murky area and depends in part on the student's level: a grade school paper that consisted almost entirely of paraphrase of published work would not necessarily be an ethical problem, although one would hope that the student could progress to a higher level in the secondary grades. In contrast, even in grade school, direct transcription from another work would be impermissible.
It is this rule requiring originality, not mere paraphrase, that Martin Luther King violated. His academic work consisted largely--much too largely--of paraphrase. Reading his papers and the sources on which he relied, one is struck by the jejune nature of the enterprise. King is working like the grade schooler mentioned above, producing "academic" work that is simply a paraphrase of what he has read. He isn't saved simply because he did, in fact, properly credit his sources.
But, to me, Martin Luther King is saved by what he did in the rest of his life, which was a lot more valuable, memorable and admirable than the finest scholarship.
As for Wilson being assassinated, what an idiotic theory. Was this a slow-motion assassination? Wilson went to Paris in 1919 and died in 1924. Wilson did suffer a stroke in 1919, characterized by facial paralysis on one side.
I would note that if Democrats think that history repeats itself and that there are parallels between between Wilson and George W. Bush, as an earlier commenter did, then they should be heartened. Adding to the parallel, Wikipedia noted in an article about the 1920 election, "Outgoing President Wilson was increasingly unpopular. . . . The economy was in a recession, the public was weary of war and reform."
In that election, Warren Harding defeated his Democratic opponent, James Cox, 60.1% to 34.1%--and won the electoral vote 404-127. Republicans also captured 10 formerly Democratic Senate seats and 61 seats in the House.
I don't believe in exact parallelism, and I don't think the 2008 results are going to be anywhere as bad as the Democrats were in 1920, but I thought I would share them.
According to this link, Wilson did not win a majority of votes in Arizona (or in any other state outside the South. Wilson in Arizona received 44%, to 29% for Roosevelt, 13% each for Taft and Debs, and 1% for the Prohibition candidate.
(Why is it hushed up? Now there's the rub).
How is Wilson's racism "hushed up?" It's true that a lot of people don't know about it, but a lot of people don't know jack shit. We've all seen Leno's "Jaywalking" segments. It's no secret -- otherwise, how did you know about it? -- can easily be documented in widely-available books, and is well-known to moderately informed people.
In fact, I'd say most people couldn't name the second-most famous thing most Presidents are famous for. Wilson had WWI and the 14 Points, and most people don't go beyond that.
As one who was initiated into the Knights of Columbus at Edward Douglass White Council, let me note that, while this has been the subject of speculation, I am unaware of any hard evidence that Chief Justice White had in fact been a member of the Klan. (He certainly would have been unwelcome in the second Klan, the one that was founded ca. 1915 and was as anti-Catholic as anti-black.)
What do modern high school history textbooks have to say about Wilson?
Hmmm ... It might also be interesting to compare the treatment of Wilson and Nixon in modern high school textbooks.
Anyone out there with kids in high school? Inquiring minds want to know ...
I know this was intended as snark, but c'mon. The Democrats were the racist party in those days. Not that all Dems were racist, of course, but that the party as a whole depended on the votes of racists and catered to them.
It's true that racism was downplayed in older histories (certainly when I was growing up), but recent biographies of Wilson are quite blunt about it.
Because I'm feeling so good today about living in a state with a courageous Supreme Court, I'll leave off any commentary on today's parties.
I imagine high school history textbooks are as dreadful now as they were in my day. If so, it's likely that one would no more learn from them that Wilson was a racist than one would learn --- well, any number of interesting and moderately important facts. (Of course, in my day Wilson was still President.:-)) I would be as surprised as anyone to find out that Wilson's racism is widely-known; but very little is widely-known. That doesn't mean it's "hushed up." Leonard Jeffries -- you may remember him -- used to rant that it was hushed up that several of our early Presidents owned slaves. It was true that shamefully large numbers of people didn't (and still don't) know that, but it was common knowledge among people with any historical knowledge at all. Anyone who read any reputable general history of the period or biography of any slave-owning President would learn it. This sort of thing may not be widely-known, in the sense that randomly-selected people off the street know it, but it's widely-available to anyone who cares to know. That's a far cry from being "hushed up."
Why should we give Wilson credit for having a stroke?
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/klan.html
Please let us know what you find. I admit that I don't know anything about their scholarly relationship.
What I do know: Wilson coached college football before moving on to Princeton. I'm just not sure why I know that. But I can't picture it, so perhaps that's why it stuck in my head.
My youngest sister graduated from high school a few years ago, 8 years after I did, and we both took AP US history. Her class covered Wilson's racism, mine did not. Of course, my teacher was a big fan of Wilson.
Wilson received his Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins in 1888. He was teaching at Princeton in the 1890/1891 academic year, but appears to have also done some visiting lecturer work at Johns Hopkins after he received his Ph.D. This includes the time when Turner was at Johns Hopkins.
Allan Bogue's biography, _Frederick Jackson Turner: Strange Roads Going Down_, 1998 was my source for general biography of Turner. indicates Turner arranged to go to Johns Hopkins in 1888. He was able to obtain a room in a lodging house, which happened to be the same one Wilson had used when he was a student, (43-44) and where Wilson roomed when he was teaching at Johns Hopkins (49). They appear to have had a good relationship, and critiqued each other's work occasionally after Turner finished his Ph.D. in 1891. Bogue reports that Turner read the Frontier thesis paper to Wilson in 1893 after he had presented it to the American Historical Association (113), and that Wilson and Andrew C. McLaughlin of the University of Michigan praised the frontier thesis in the AHA _Report_ in 1896 (130, n.478).
The Papers of Woodrow S. Wilson, Vol. 8, 1892 - 1894 provide additional information. Wilson to Charles K. Adams,December 23, 1892 indicates that Wilson was a house guest of the Turners while attending the American Historical Association meeting in Madison, where Turner was teaching. Link says Turner read a draft of the Frontier thesis paper to Wilson at that time, citing the Stephenson article in Agricultural History (61), which suggests that Turner may have been bouncing ideas off Wilson, whom he valued as a mentor and colleague. This possibility is at least suggested by Link's description of the chronology of events in Wilson's writing his book _Division and Reunion_ for editor Albert Bushnell Hart. Hart approached Wilson in April of 1889, and Wilson contacted his former student, now returned to Wisconsin (and teaching duties while finishing his dissertation) in August. Link says that Wilson recalled discussions with Turner, asking Turner if he could provide material on the antebellum development of"self-conscious western sectionalism" for him (279-280). This would be during the time Turner was writing his dissertation, and well before his permanent appointment at Madison and his Frontier Thesis paper being presented to the AHA in 1893. Link also has correspondence showing that Turner wrote Wilson immediately after presenting the Frontier Thesis paper in July (278-279), and again at Christmas time in 1893 (417). The letters seem quite cordial and friendly, not suggesting that Turner felt ill used.
So was Wilson mis-appropriating the work of one of his graduate students for himself? I honestly can't see anything too much in it. Maybe he was, but it doesn't seem to be an especially strong case, as far as I can see.
And now a possible correction. I commented earlier on Turner's reputedly poor speaking skills. I drew from my own recollection of a graduate seminar years ago, and so I checked my notes in the file cabinet. Yes, indeed, that's what my learned Herr Doktor Professor said. But, I wonder if perhaps he had mis-interpreted something. Wilbur Jacobs, "Frederick Jackson Turner: Master Teacher," Pacific Historical Review, (2/1954), pp. 49-58 argues to the contrary. On pp. 56-57 he cites one of Turner's students remembering that Turner was a good speaker. Bogue cites a report by John Franklin Jameson (who did not care for western history) as reporting that Turner read a paper in 1888, with "his voice pleasantly melodic, pitched and nuanced with elocutionary skill." (48). However, Bogue also notes that Guy Stanton Ford remembered an 1892 undergraduate course from Turner as being disjointed, and Ford characterized Turner as not a very successful undergraduate teacher, but a good inspiration for motivated self-starters. However, graduate students like Carl L. Becker remembered Turner's seminars very fondly (64-65). So what's the truth? Perhaps Turner wasn't an especially effective undergraduate teacher, and perhaps he did not always excel in public speaking, but he seems to have had a great deal of support from his graduate students, who felt he gave them encouragement and guidance.
Having looked at it again today, I still feel much more favorably about Turner's work, both as a historian and as a man, than I do about Wilson's work. But I don't know that I would go as far as saying Wilson was clearly taking Turner's ideas as his own.