1916: Hughes is elected President
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:57:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  1916: Hughes is elected President
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1916: Hughes is elected President  (Read 2682 times)
LBJ Revivalist
ModerateDemocrat1990
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 799


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 06, 2010, 09:32:08 AM »

Had Charles Evan Hughes been elected President in November 1916, how do you think the course of the next four to eight years might have been different? Would America have still gotten involved in World War I? To a greater or lesser extent? Would there have been any idea of a League of Nations put forth?
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2010, 09:40:06 AM »

Had Charles Evan Hughes been elected President in November 1916, how do you think the course of the next four to eight years might have been different? Would America have still gotten involved in World War I? To a greater or lesser extent?

Really doubt that it would be a greater extent -- not sure what a greater extent would even look like.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Possibly even a better idea for an organization that the US would have joined.
Logged
LBJ Revivalist
ModerateDemocrat1990
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 799


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2010, 10:34:28 AM »

Had Charles Evan Hughes been elected President in November 1916, how do you think the course of the next four to eight years might have been different? Would America have still gotten involved in World War I? To a greater or lesser extent?

Really doubt that it would be a greater extent -- not sure what a greater extent would even look like.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Possibly even a better idea for an organization that the US would have joined.

Why do you say a better idea might have been put forth under a Hughes Presidency? I'm not very familiar with Hughes' political positions, but it seems the GOP was very much against the idea of the League of Nations for what seems, from my reading, to be staunch isolationism. I guess as basically the party leader, if Hughes offered up any such idea for a League of Nations type body, the GOP would have better supported it, but the question is--Would he have? I don't know what his views were on that sort of thing.

So yeah...Why do you think we would've had a League of Nations type organization, and why might it have been better?
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2010, 04:16:44 PM »

Why do you say a better idea might have been put forth under a Hughes Presidency? I'm not very familiar with Hughes' political positions, but it seems the GOP was very much against the idea of the League of Nations for what seems, from my reading, to be staunch isolationism.

Views on the League divided the Republican party.  While there were some isolationists, there were many who were not, including many prominent ones.

During the 1920 campaign Hughes (along with Harding, Hoover and a number of other big name Republicans) signed a statement that started: 

"The question between the candidates is not whether our country shall join in such an association. It is whether we shall join under an agreement containing the exact provisions negotiated by President Wilson at Paris, or under an agreement which omits or modifies some of those provisions that are very objectionable to great numbers of the American people."   

Also, as Secretary of State, Hughes worked with the League, advocated that the US join the World Court, and led the Washington Naval Conference.  He was in no way an isolationist.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a very low opinion of Woodrow Wilson and I think he did a poor job drafting and negotiating the terms of the League in Paris and then did a poor job of selling the agreement to the US.   


Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2010, 04:21:40 PM »

The only way that Hughes election could prevent United States entry into World War I would be if Hughes' election convinced the Germans that they could best prosecute the war without a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare.  I don't think that would be the case.  What would have been different would have been the post-War treaties and also that I think Hughes would not have agreed to sending U.S. troops to participate in the expeditionary forces sent to North Russia or Siberia.
Logged
Mikestone8
Rookie
**
Posts: 84
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2011, 12:45:43 PM »

The only way that Hughes election could prevent United States entry into World War I would be if Hughes' election convinced the Germans that they could best prosecute the war without a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare.  I don't think that would be the case.  What would have been different would have been the post-War treaties and also that I think Hughes would not have agreed to sending U.S. troops to participate in the expeditionary forces sent to North Russia or Siberia.


Keeping out of the war is certainly a longshot. About the only way I could see it is if he used British blockade measures as an excuse to keep US merchantmen out of British waters - sort of "If we cannot sail there freely we prefer not to sail there at all". If he did so, there would be no sinkings of American ships hence probably no war. But like I say it's a long shot.


If Mr Hughes does go to war, the interesting period is the aftermath. Presumably the backlash against the Democrats will be replaced by one against the Republicans, so he probably won't be re-elected. Are the 1920s dominated by the Democratic Party?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.214 seconds with 14 queries.