Logic of his Career: The Author Charles Washburn was a Harvard Classmate of TR, and a friend that did not always agree with  TR’s political policies. He covers many topics & adds more knowledge about free trade, tariffs and referendums to recall judicial decisions, that can be found in other books about TR. From his perspective, he tries to tell an honest story but most likely unconsciously  he fears to tell the whole truth.  Washburn was a member of the republican party. He seems to justifies supporting Taft in 1912 because he believes TR was wrong about referendums to recall judicial decisions (where judges use less than clear and convincing violation of the constitution to act as legislators). He says nothing about a requirement of honesty in elections. Mr. Washburn seems to have a legal background. This is what he says about TR's support for recall of judicial decisions:
 
“He must have known, as well as any one, what the result would be. And then, when he had left nothing undone and had done everything to make his nomination in a Republican Convention impossible,”
 
 
Nomination impossible, what does that mean? He does not say. For those that know  what happened at the 1912 convention it means that 39 delegates from the previous 1908 convention ran the 1912 convention until the 1912 delegates were seated and that they replaced several hundred Roosevelt delegates with Taft delegates making TR's  nomination impossible, even though TR obtained enough delegates from the primary elections. But Mr. Washburn chose not to tarnish his party and the person he voted for with an act that was shameful and contrary to voters legal rights of choice. TR clearly would have given the nomination to Taft if it was an honest convention. Everything in TR’s career points to example after example of TR’s acceptance of fair contest outcomes. This is a history example of good people willing to do dishonest acts for what they think is best. If he was sure about the validity of the actions of his party leaders there would be no hesitation to offering the honest truth about what they did. He can not do this because the election was stolen. If we choose to remember our history this is an example of Machiavellian vigilante politics with good intentions that most likely caused World War 1 by replacing Theodore Roosevelt with a president that thought that you can avert war by being to proud to fight. I guess President Wilson never faced a bully in the playground or Taft really never thought justice was the surest path. Mr. Washburn thought it was ok to do business with a thief if he is selling something that he likes. All of these actions are completely opposite to how TR lived and worked and became successful. One of the main reasons this web site has been built is to show that TR's honest principles produced the greatest success this country ever enjoyed and that we are operating today under Machiavellian principles, which seem in the short run to be beneficial but in the long run they are destructive. TR's life examples and success prove beyond a shadow of doubt which method is best. So why do our schools not offer this type of history lesson?