In fairness, Wilson and FDR weren't the only ones. I think Nixon flirted with it, too.
As for the German thing, the Imperial Japs didn't leave enough survivors to build concentration camps in asia. Not without giving up their sex slaves, at least.
All humans are good and bad- and especially powerful or prominent humans- ones who have to make tough decisions. Hitler, Mussolini, they were actually genuinely loved by a lot of their people. Many confederate officers and such went on post war to be notable diplomats and so important things in society- some even fought for civil rights and other things that might surprise people.
Some of histories most beloved figures on the other hand- had terrible skeletons in their closets- or out in the open and we just look the other way. Gandhi is held up as an enlightened figure of peace and civil rights- he ran his campaign in Africa because he was pissed Indians were being treated as badly as blacks when Indians were “better” than Africans. He frequently referred to Africans using racial slurs. He has several allegations of sexual misconduct- if you read on his sexual history- what can be found as keepers of his image destroyed or partially destroyed many records that weren’t suitable to the saintly image and covered up accounts in various ways... its... problematic.
If we never made a statue or tribute to anyone who’d don’t wrong- we wouldn’t have much to decorate or bake things with. And yes- interning an entire nationality or ancestry of people is more wrong than perhaps... cheating at monopoly. BUT- you also have to remember that after the Japanese left the horrible camps- indigenous people moved in- because the temporary concentration camps were better than the permanent housing set up for them by the government.
Basically all the founding fathers owned slaves- much of the country was built by or on that which was directly linked to slavery. We obviously can’t (realistically) destroy our entire country- everything in it, and every element of history of it, and start over fresh. So what do we do?
We do better. We can’t undo the past. But we can try to do better going forward. We don’t want to erase history- but we also shouldn’t glorify the worst parts of it. This leaves a real challenge when dealing with historical figures. Even among the most progressive works of and minds of the 1950’s you’ll find attitudes and actions and statements about women or minorities that would be viewed as problematic by our standards.
We kinda have to judge historical figures by the time and place they were. It wasn’t right to own slaves- ever. But- Un Washington’s day it was socially acceptable- even sometimes expected. It’s complex and there is a line where the bad outweighs the good. A statue to Hitler in from t of VW because Hitler brought labor laws and cars and virtually no unemployment and many things to the suffering people of Germany... that isn’t what his legacy is. His legacy is a genocidal monster. That monster did some good things- but he did worse things to way more people.
But centrally important there is legacy. What are we remembering them for- how? If you remember a confederate general for his actions after the war- show him that way- not in his battle dress. If you remember a confederate general for brining food to the kids in a town- make sure he’s memorialized that way- not as a military officer of a rebellion. But even that isn’t perfect.
History is perception. Benedict Arnold is a name synonymous with betrayal. What ISNT part of that narrative is how badly the government screwed Arnold first- and some things that were maybe more in his head that he FELT betrayed. Arnold was a traitor- although at times he claimed not to be- but that’s not the WHOLE story.
However- much of his image is overshadowed by the propaganda of his time. His actions and figure were very public- much more so after his treason- and obviously this infamy was cemented as part of the perception of the man at large. Those in the UK who know of the man (American history isn’t as compelling as one might think- even the revolution is a somewhat small note in British history...) often just know him as a traitor- hows that for interesting? The guy who tried to help the crown win the war... if known at all- is seen as a turncoat by the people he tries to help?
Perception is key in history. You can change it- but not erase it. There is a perception of the confederacy in America that often- isn’t completely accurate- some argue isn’t accurate at all- but... they were the “bad guys” and they lost. In perception- those things are often linked. Most Americans can’t support the more specific issues they stood for- leaving the union for example. Obviously if we throw slavery in- few if anyone supports that- and we generally don’t support states going to war over interstate commerce either. So there’s not a lot of support there when we get past some ideals of “under dogs” or “freedom” or “doing what you think is right.”
Tl:dr- history is full of people who did bad things. We have to look at many angles- perception being one of the most important- and asses wether they are tempered more for the good they did- or the bad. Perceptions can change through time, new information can be discovered- and the attitudes of people change. What was acceptable or even progressive in one time would be seen as barbaric in another. It’s not black and white- someone who did things that are remembered centuries later will almost always have don’t some seriously problematic things to get there. Little change, slow change- doesn’t tend to get immortalized but doesn’t usually have the costs that big changes do.
As for the German thing, the Imperial Japs didn't leave enough survivors to build concentration camps in asia. Not without giving up their sex slaves, at least.