Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, was more than just a political figure. Known for his love of adventure, conservation, and bridging gaps, he could be considered the world’s first celebrity, though Abraham Lincoln may also considered one.
Before I learned more about Roosevelt, I only knew him as the American President. What really intrigued fascinated me was how even though he was a hunter, he was also a passionate animal lover and as a result, became a major conservationist. One key moment was when he refused to shoot an orphaned bear cub, which inspired the creation of a toy bear called “Teddy” after him. Roosevelt also played a major role in establishing national parks like Yellowstone. But the most exciting part of his life, for me, in terms of his love for animals, was his trip to East Africa after his presidency. He went there to escape re-election pressures and to collect wildlife for American museums. As mentioned earlier, despite being a hunter, Roosevelt was also an animal lover and studied them when not hunting, as seen in his books about his wild experiences.
Today however, I am not here to discuss Roosevelt’s East African trip or his love for Lions, which was as strong as my own passion for them (though this love is what made him visit what are now Kenya and Uganda, resulting in his nickname ‘American Lion.’). He also never saw wild Tigers (which I love as much as Lions) and thus was not symbolically connected to them in the way he was with Lions. Instead, I want to focus on an unexpected act of his that surprised his country. Roosevelt’s actions demonstrated his understanding of how African-Americans were treated in the U.S., possibly influenced by his time in Africa. (though at the same it also may not necessarily be time since Roosevelt’s friend, Frederick Seymour, who was part of his safari, pointed out and documented a key difference between Africans and African-Americans while documenting the safari, suggesting that calling African-Americans “African” was controversial and potentially harmful.). While I do not like the term “Black History”, let alone using the word ‘Black’ or ‘White’ for African-Americans or Caucasian-Americans respectively, Roosevelt’s actions showed he was aware of the struggles faced by African-Americans. Yet, his response to similar issues later in life did not always seem as fair.
As someone who is both Autistic and empathetic, I believe Roosevelt’s actions were motivated by a desire to improve the welfare of others, even if his approach was not always clear or consistent. His understanding of African-American challenges seemed genuine, but it did not always translate into fair or decisive action. I also agree with (my favourite actor) Morgan Freeman’s perspective on race. In 2005, Freeman criticized Black History Month when interviewer Mike Wallace asked him about it, calling it a limited view of American history, and argued that to end racism, we must stop talking about it altogether. Instead, we should see each other for who we are. He made this point just as Freeman when he said he would stop calling Wallace a White man and asked Wallace to stop calling him a Black Man and in that way, they would know each other by name.
But be that as it may, while Roosevelt’s actions may have been an attempt to challenge the mistreatment or unfairness of African-Americans, they were indirect and did not go far enough. As someone who values empathy and perspective, I believe Roosevelt’s motives were likely about promoting the welfare of others, even if his actions did not always reflect that intention clearly.
Thus this theory of mine, more an opinion rather. is based on the above.
1901 – Inviting Booker (Taliaferro) Washington to the White House
During his time as the Governor of New York, Roosevelt had often invited African-American guests to eat with him at the White House and would even allow them to stay a night if they chose. This was not the first time that African-Americans had been invited to for meals at the White House. Historical records show that former slaves like Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass, who became abolitionists, were greeted by Presidents Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, and Stephen Cleveland. Another notable instance was operatic performer Marie Selika Williams, who became the first African-American performer at the White House, thanks to First Lady Lucy Hayes. Presidents, especially Republicans like Roosevelt, would normally meet privately with African American leaders.
Booker T. Washington, born in 1856 to an enslaved African-American woman named Jane in Hale’s Fort, Virginia, was a significant figure in this context. His father, a Caucasian man, played no role in his life. Washington had no name for the first few years of his life and chose the name Booker when he could. At the age of nine, he and his family were liberated by American troops under the Emancipation Proclamation. After emancipation, Jane moved her family to West Virginia to join her new husband, Washington Ferguson, who had escaped slavery during the war. Young Booker, initially illiterate, began teaching himself to read and attended school, developing a deep passion for books.
At school, Booker chose the surname Washington for registration. Later, he learned his mother had named him “Booker Taliaferro” at birth, though his middle name was not used by his enslavers. Upon discovering this, he readopted his full name, becoming Booker Taliaferro Washington. To support himself, Washington worked in salt furnaces and coal mines in West Virginia. At 16, he travelled mostly on foot to Hampton Institute in Virginia, a school for freed men, where he worked as a janitor to pay for his studies. After graduating at 19, he briefly returned to West Virginia before attending Wayland Seminary in Washington, D.C., in 1878.
In the early 1880s, Washington became the first leader of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Under his leadership, the Institute emphasized industrial and vocational education, enlisting students in the construction of campus buildings as part of their practical training. Washington gained national prominence with his 1895 Atlanta Address, advocating for Black progress through education and entrepreneurship rather than directly challenging segregation and disenfranchisement. He was a key proponent of African-American businesses and founded the National Negro Business League.
Washington’s approach, often referred to as the “Atlanta Compromise,” emphasized self-help and accommodation to the social realities of the time. This drew criticism from some Black leaders, like W.E.B. Du Bois, who favoured more direct political activism. Despite his public stance, Washington secretly supported legal challenges to segregation and voting restrictions.
As an educator, author, orator, and civil rights activist, Washington was a strong opponent of slavery. His 1901 autobiography Up from Slavery became an immediate bestseller and remained the bestselling autobiography of an African-American for 60 years. It had a major impact on the African-American community and attracted the attention of President Roosevelt, whom Washington advised on many occasions. Due to their equation (and Roosevelt’s love for Washington’s book), Roosevelt invited Washington to dinner at the White House in 1901.
However, this act sparked a significant backlash. Unfair treatment of African-Americans, including those who were leaders like Washington, continued through practices like belittling and demonizing them. Worse still, lynchings were rampant across the American South. Roosevelt, perhaps seeking to make his own mark on the race issue, invited Washington, whom many, including Roosevelt, viewed as the most prominent African-American leader. This decision shocked both Republicans and Democrats, as Roosevelt and Washington were both Republicans.
Some viewed the invitation as an opportunity to maintain African-American support for the Republican Party, while others, including Washington, were reluctant about the public display and preferred to keep their interactions strictly professional. Washington hoped to discuss the brutal treatment of African-Americans, including the lynching of a man in Tennessee, and sought Roosevelt’s help in rallying support to end such acts which Roosevelt was also against but Roosevelt was mainly keen on dining with Washington.
The day after the dinner, the White House released a statement, “Booker T. Washington of Tuskegee, Alabama, dined with the President last evening,” which sparked outrage in the South. Political cartoons featuring racial stereotypes were published, and many southerners deemed the act a violation of the principle of white supremacy. As a result, lynchings escalated, and the southern press and politicians reacted harshly. James K. Vardaman, a Democrat from Mississippi, called the White House “saturated with the odour of nigger,” and the Memphis Scimitar condemned it as “the most damnable outrage.” Senator Benjamin Tillman even suggested that Roosevelt’s actions would lead to the deaths of a thousand African-Americans in the South.
Governors in the South, like Allen Candler of Georgia slammed Roosevelt, claiming that no self-respecting white man could dine with a Black man. William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic presidential candidate, mocked the invitation, claiming it was a political maneuverer to secure Black votes and promote “social equality.”
While the Northern press generally supported Roosevelt’s actions, acknowledging Washington’s achievements and suggesting the dinner was a move to present Roosevelt as a president for all people, reactions within the African-American community were mixed. Some, like Bishop Henry Turner, saw Washington as a hero, while others, like William Monroe Trotter, criticized him for supporting segregation while dining at the White House.
None of the negative criticism affected Roosevelt negatively in any way at all and he said he was happy to invite Washington or any other African American whenever he pleased although for at least 30 years, no African American dined at the White House. Of course, while no instances of that happened again, Roosevelt knew that by getting re-elected soon by making sure that he knew those who were Caucasian knew the hierarchy at the time. At the same time, he could not be let go for wanting to sacrifice the party’s ability to get support for Caucasians in the South which was tricky because Whites from there at times did not want any part in addressing race and equality, rather class and equality although still this did not change Roosevelt’s thoughts.
Five years later, in 1906, Roosevelt found himself dealing with a case which was also not as uncommon as the race issue because back then numerous organisations operated without any concern for health and safety of Americans. A book known as ‘The Jungle’ by investigative journalist Upton Sinclair detailed not just the horrors of the exploitation of those involved in the butchery meat business but also dangerous and poisonous products that some of these people were selling publicly, causing the deaths of thousands. When Roosevelt read the book, he was also aware of what was happening at the time and called Upton to meet him. He discovered that the book was a work of fiction but was still not convinced entirely by the claims of Upton based on what Upton wrote so he launched his own investigation for as is known, ‘in every fiction, there is always fact’. To do this, he hired two friends who were investigators themselves and instructed them carefully on what to do. Managing to successfully be undercover, they reached the production factories and found out that it was much worse than what Sinclar had depicted. Bringing what they had uncovered to Roosevelt, he passed a bill before the congress to force the meat production factories to clean up their act and label their food, but they refused to comply as he had expected.
When this happened, men who were members of the congress despite concern that the passing of such bills would ruin the food industry were called in to serve as ‘tasters’ of some of the meat dishes that had been cooked. During the meal, Roosevelt asked Senator Aldridge to read an excerpt from the bill’s report which confirmed what Roosevelt’s investigators had seen, meat being shovelled from the filthy floors, piled on tables and warily washed before being pushed from room to room in box carts as it gathered dirt, splinters and floor filth and elements that could result in tuberculosis. The flabbergasted Senators immediately gave their blessing for Roosevelt to pass the bill which allowed the Government to inspect what would come out of these food processing factories as Roosevelt believed they were the only people who could stand up for the health of these people.
However while Roosevelt seemed to be creating a relationship between the government and the people, he still believed that to maintain class and economy, he needed to deal with racism but for many this did not sound like him for there were many, even historians of today who see him as not only deeply conflicted about making sense of the roles that African-Americans should play in (American) society yet also contradictory about fairness and justice for them even though by then he had appointed numerous African-Americans to low-level positions throughout the government.
1906 – The Brownsville Incident
The 25th Infantry Regiment, composed of African-American soldiers known as the Buffalo Soldiers, was stationed in Brownsville, Texas, in 1906. The town’s predominantly Caucasian residents resented the soldiers due to their race, exacerbating tensions already heightened by local raids. When a Caucasian bartender was killed and a police officer (who was also Caucasian) was wounded on the night of August 13, the soldiers were immediately accused, despite all evidence suggesting their innocence. Their commanders at Fort Brown confirmed the soldiers were in their barracks, with some even in bed, and the unit’s firearms were securely locked away. However, local residents produced suspiciously planted evidence, including spent rifle cartridges, to implicate the soldiers.
President Theodore Roosevelt, at the recommendations of the Army Inspector General, ordered the dishonourable discharge of 167 soldiers, citing a “conspiracy of silence.” This decision cost the men their pensions and barred them from federal civil service jobs, sparking outrage across both the Caucasian and African-American communities. Prominent African American leaders, including Roosevelt’s old friend Booker T. Washington, pleaded with Roosevelt to reconsider, but their efforts were ignored. The African-American community, previously supportive of Roosevelt and the Republican Party, felt betrayed, and some began to withdraw their allegiance.
Subsequent investigations revealed significant flaws in the case. The cartridges used as evidence were suspiciously clustered and inconsistent with the manner of actual gunfire, strongly suggesting they were planted. Civilian accounts of pistol shots further contradicted the accusations, as the soldiers’ pistols were secured in an armoury. Despite this, local white officials and investigators continued to blame the soldiers, and no indictments were issued by the county court.
The case, known as the Brownsville Affair, became a political and social flashpoint. Senator Joseph B. Foraker of Ohio led efforts to advocate for the soldiers, securing a Congressional resolution to establish a board of inquiry. While an inquiry was held two years later. the investigation largely upheld Roosevelt’s decision but minority reports challenged the conclusions, citing inconclusive evidence. Eventually, despite the outrage in both the African-American and the Caucasian communities. several of the men were allowed to re-enlist, though the broader injustice persisted.
In the 1970s, historian John D. Weaver’s book The Brownsville Raid reignited interest in the case, arguing the soldiers were denied due process. In 1972, the Army officially exonerated the men, and President Richard Nixon posthumously pardoned them, granting honourable discharges. Congress later awarded a tax-free pension to the last known survivor, Dorsie Willis, recognizing the wrongful treatment endured by the Buffalo Soldiers who were proved innocent in the end.
What my thoughts are
I first heard about the story through a two-part miniseries about Roosevelt that aired in 2022 (three years back). I am very limited in my knowledge about him (except for his Kenyan trip as mentioned earlier) but this documentary certainly did teach me about many more cases that he got involved in. Naturally I had no knowledge of the Brownsville Incident or Brownsville Raid as this case has also been known as, before I saw the series but when I did, I expected that Roosevelt would have had more of a heart and actually not rely on any outside influence but only the facts of the case. By using the same investigative techniques that he did to ensure health and safety in the food industry, he could have confirmed (and even reassured others if he got his facts right in the first place) in some way that these people were indeed innocent. However, it shocked me deeply that instead he dismissed them and not even the words of his friend, the first African-American to dine with him at the White House when he was President could change his mind. If he had not done this, there would have been no backlash or a sense of betrayal from African-Americans towards him and I still do not know to this day if Washington and he still remained friends or drifted apart due to his choices here.
At the same time, I am inclined to believe that where Roosevelt was coming from what may have been ‘tough concern’ because as was said earlier, Brownsville’s Caucasian community resented African Americans and found them easy to blame. The lower status that African-Americans as compared to Caucasians would certainly have made them feel belittled and humiliated, expecting it every day of their lives. Roosevelt could also have issued such an order to dismiss them because he did not want them to go through the same humiliation time and again by being blamed for something that was not their fault although if this was the case he could have easily told them why he was doing it yet it could simply be that he was feeling kind of ‘tied by the hands’ on (presumably being unable) to in some parts give African-Americans the same rights as Caucasians who were still about African-Americans and could not bring himself to say it, afraid that by doing so, it would put him at risk. Even though it came too late for these men (by then Roosevelt who was no longer President had died yet it is unknown what his thoughts would have been or how he would have reacted to their release), this acknowledgment came decades too late though it serves as a testament to their innocence and the enduring struggle for justice.
THE END