Edmund Morris's Misuse of Teddy Roosevelt and History in the New York Times

Yikes!

There is no way Roosevelt would have supported Obama, nor any other Democrat around today. Neither would he support most Republicans.

Morris

I appreciate Mr. Dealy's response because I think it catches Morris at what is a despicable and thoughtless act. His gleeful foray into the world of political partisan hackery, undermines any serious Historian and their efforts to practice the science. Of course so many formerly respectable arts are being profoundly undermined by actions such as his. Not least of which; Journalism, once elevated by men like Cronkite, Morrow and others, now slightly more appreciated than the average child molester. Congratulations Mr. Morris, your legacy has been tossed upon the dung heap of modern publishing.

A double-edged sword...

After reading what you have to say, and checking your contempt for Morris against my own changing opinion of him, I heartily joined in your outcry against his twisting of TR's words. However, when I read the actual op-ed itself, my animosity towards Morris lessened greatly . It is clear that the op-ed was not meant to be taken seriously as TR's position on certain issues had he been alive today. Taken as a whole, the piece is fairly light-hearted and humorous, it only seems pretentious and over-confident when you take bits out to support your anger. The ending is quite right, however, TR was fairly progressive towards the end of his life, and he would not have like how the Republican party ran these past years, and he certainly would not have liked Bush's administration and the predicament it left this nation in.

Progressive is not another word for Democratic

I find it quite amazing that someone has the guts enough to argue that someone as pro-American as Theodore Roosevelt would support Barack Obama. Let us remind ourselves, Michael McNicholas, that the original Progressive Party of 1912 -- the one in which Theodore Roosevelt was a part of -- was a political party created by a split in the Republican Party when Roosevelt lost the Republican nomination to William Howard Taft and pulled his delegates out of the convention. In other words, besides having differing opinions with the Republican presidential primary nominees at that time, it was also a ploy so Roosevelt could still be a running delegate in the 1912 election. To even suggest that being a Progressive foreshadows the ideals and platforms of today's Democratic party is a travesty to everything Theodore Roosevelt believed and accomplished. If such an inference is deemed plausible, then someone could just as well say "Since Theodore Roosevelt pushed for National Conservation laws protecting our nation's forests, then when placed in the hypothetical situation of where he is asked whether he would like to eat a steak or a salad, he most definitely would choose a salad." It is this type of absurdity and own personal interpretation that questions the relevance of most secondary historical sources. Roosevelt was a true American man as patriotism was first and foremost his driving force behind his "Man in the Arena" and other profound speeches.

As Roosevelt said, "The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Not to mention, "There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100% Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."

Last time I checked, Barack Obama did not share these ideals. It upsets me that one would suggest that much.

Edmund Morris, TR and Obama.

And yet he won a Pulitzer Prize for History and the National Book Award for what arguably to this day is the quintessential popular work on Roosevelt's early life.

Not to mention that, inconveniently for the mossback Republicans of today, Mr. Morris happens to have guessed correctly that TR would have been deeeelighted to support Obama. He was, after all, a progressive.

Harry Lembeck's screed above smacks of anti-intellectualism and is a barely veiled parochial attack on Mr. Morris, who was born in Kenya.

Here is the quote The Theodore Roosevelt Association's website has about Mr. Morris' book:

Morris, Edmund. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Coward, McCann and Georghegan, 1979. Morris's brilliantly written book, which won the Pulitzer Prize, follows TR up to 1901, and is the first volume of a projected three-volume biography. Morris gives a detailed account of the first part of TR's career, with informative notes explaining the sources and reasons for interpretations. This is one of the most important and widely read books on TR.

Edmund Morris A Disgrace to TR Scholarship

Edmund Morris is a disgrace to scholarship. He is also not a trained, academic historian. His books on Theodore Roosevelt are riddled with errors of both fact and interpretation. He brings a left-wing political agenda to his analysis. He despises both TR and the rigorous Americanism TR personified. And he is, quite simply, not to be trusted. I would urge all those who want to defend TR's reputation to check out the Theodore Roosevelt Association.

- Harry Lembeck

Secretary, Executive Committee

The Theodore Roosevelt Association

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org

Excellent

This is very smart and good.

TR, pundit

While I do appreciate and admire Morris for his volumes, I do agree that this article was a little out of line. At first I found it fun (it was TR's birthday after all!), and looked forward to it as a potential application of TR's dealings from a century ago. After reading it again, I found it a little distasteful, but maybe not entirely a misuse of history. This essentially is what Morris draws criticism for. He seems emotionally invested in his subject (I wasn't aware of the creepy stuff, though). I have appreciated Morris's volumes of TR because I think he did admire the man. When he didn't admire him, or disagreed with him, it seemed pretty obvious. The real question is the what is the difference between a historian and a biographer? Unfortunately, when large sums of money by publishers are offered for a memoir (and a good story on a saturated topic), aggrandizing of the subject (and the author) are inevitable. I might end this with the quote from TR himself in his description of muckrakers(ironic as this is... what form of news media nowadays escapes from this definition!):

"There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful."

Yes, YOU Could Look It Up

No, he was 60. If you're going to write a post like that, you should really make sure you have the number right.

TR did not live a long life

TR died at the age of 58. To quote Casey Stengel, "You could look it up."