What if Theodore Roosevelt was president in 1912

[lordroel]

What if Theodore Roosevelt was president in 1912

As you can see i like Alternate History a lot, running my own little AHforum, but that is not the point here, one of the things i wonder is what if Theodore Roosevelt was president in 1912.

Roosevelt’s challenge to Taft was successful in the first batch of party primaries, but the GOP establishment still held the power, and they made sure that the conservative Taft was nominated over the progressive Roosevelt. The Taft-Roosevelt political war was at full swing in 1912, fatally splitting the Republicans and ensuring that Democrat Woodrow Wilson would be easily elected in an Electoral College landslide. Wilson garnered 435 Electoral Votes from 40 of the then-48 states, with Roosevelt, running under the banner of the Progressive “Bull Moose” Party, taking 88 Electoral Votes from six states, and the incumbent Taft winning only eight Electoral Votes from two states.

So let us ask the question: what if Roosevelt had been able to win the Republican nomination from Taft?

In order for Roosevelt to even get the nomination, Taft would have likely had to make campaign errors so severe, that his credibility among the GOP establishment would have vanished, giving Roosevelt at least a fighting chance at the convention. Keeping in mind that the South was solidly Democratic at the time, the Republicans needed a united party to continue their all-but-unbroken dominance of the White House that had been in place since 1861; in that time only Andrew Johnson and Grover Cleveland represented the Democrats there, with Cleveland the only Democrat to win an election.

Roosevelt’s natural charisma and ability to draw support would have been assets against a bumbling Taft, and if he had given a speech at the convention, perhaps enough delegates would have broken with the pro-Taft establishment and demanded Roosevelt be nominated. If they would have succeeded, then Taft would have been the first incumbent President denied re-nomination since Chester Arthur in 1884, and the first elected President denied re-nomination since Franklin Pierce in 1856.

Perhaps, for the good of the party, Roosevelt’s political wars with Taft and Robert La Follette, the future Progressive Party nominee in 1924, would have been put aside. Perhaps La Follette might have been won over by the promise of a Cabinet post, as the first Secretary of Labor after the department’s split from Commerce.

A Roosevelt nomination would have put the Progressives at the head of the party, meaning that the platform would have been tailored to their interests rather than those of the establishment. It would not be a stretch to have Hiram Johnson, Roosevelt’s running mate on the real-life Progressive ticket in 1912, to join the former President on the Republican ticket. The New Nationalism pushed by Roosevelt would form the basis of the Republican campaign against Wilson’s New Freedom agenda, with the former more reliant on government activism than the latter.

By combining the popular vote totals won by Roosevelt and Taft in the real 1912 election, a united Republican ticket would have won election. Said popular vote total would be 7,608,546 compared to the 6,294,284 won by Wilson. In terms of Electoral Votes, Roosevelt-Johnson would have won 379 Electoral Votes from 34 states, with Wilson-Marshall winning 152 Electoral Votes from 14 states: the 11 former Confederate states plus Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arizona.

Roosevelt would have continued the Progressive agenda upon his return to office as the 28th President, akin to what Wilson actually did but through a Republican governing perspective—speaking of which, the Republicans, not split in this scenario, would have likely kept control of Congress. Perhaps women’s suffrage would have come about earlier than in real life, this being the largest difference on the domestic front.

In foreign affairs, Roosevelt bringing the United States into World War I sooner; I doubt Roosevelt would have let the German sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 go without a response and the following might happen:

- World War I ends two years sooner.

It takes almost a year to build the ships, arm the troops, train them, and land them in France. By late 1915, though, the American Expeditionary Force of 10 million soldiers is fighting alongside the French and English armies on the Western Front. Even with the wasteful tactics of the European generals, which sometimes wipe out thousands of soldiers in hours, the Allies put enough pressure on the Germans to crack their defenses. The Kaiser’s army falls back, across France, into Germany, with the Allies in pursuit. As winter begins in 1916, the Germans are asking for peace terms.

- The Communists never gain power in Russia.

Although the Russian army suffers a paralyzing defeat on the Eastern Front, it is mostly intact when the war ends and the troops march home. The German government is too busy saving itself in 1917 to send the exiled Lenin back into Russia. Without their charismatic leader, the Bolsheviks of Moscow make little progress stirring up revolution. Russian veterans happily round up the loudest revolutionaries and ship them off to Siberia. By November, when the Bolsheviks would have seized the government, they have disappeared underground.

Roosevelt may also have been able to push for a limited-scale League of Nations, which would likely have also failed as it did in real life. But he would have been a presence at the peace negotiations, perhaps influencing some border changes from real life, especially with regards to Europe and the Middle East. But the post-war political and economic climate may have been defined by severe recession and labor unrest, giving the Democrats control of Congress in 1918. The stress from the post-war situation would have been too much for Roosevelt, and he would have likely died on or before January 6, 1919, leaving Hiram Johnson at the helm to deal with the nation’s economic woes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I agree Teddy would likely have gotten us involved in the Great War sooner, there's no guarantee he would have led us into war with the Central Powers.  The British mining of the North Sea was earlier casus belli Teddy might not have ignored. Also Teddy was more realpolitik and less idealistic than Woody. There wasn't anything the US could really gain from defeating Germany, but defeating Britain at the minimum gets the US all the various British (and French) possessions in the Americas, tho we might well hand Guiana over to the Venezuelans.  (The Falklands are too strategic in location to hand over to Argentina.)  Even a truly neutral US that doesn't sell arms to Entente Powers on credit would be sufficient to ensure a Central Power victory.

At a bare minimum, the idea that an American Expeditionary Force could number 10,000,000 men by late 1915 is ludicrous.  In OTL, despite having been in a war economy for some years before our official entry, the AEF numbered only some 2,000,000 men by the Armistice, and there simply wasn't the logistical capability for them to have numbered more by then.

[lordroel]

While I agree Teddy would likely have gotten us involved in the Great War sooner, there's no guarantee he would have led us into war with the Central Powers.  The British mining of the North Sea was earlier casus belli Teddy might not have ignored. Also Teddy was more realpolitik and less idealistic than Woody. There wasn't anything the US could really gain from defeating Germany, but defeating Britain at the minimum gets the US all the various British (and French) possessions in the Americas, tho we might well hand Guiana over to the Venezuelans.  (The Falklands are too strategic in location to hand over to Argentina.)  Even a truly neutral US that doesn't sell arms to Entente Powers on credit would be sufficient to ensure a Central Power victory.

At a bare minimum, the idea that an American Expeditionary Force could number 10,000,000 men by late 1915 is ludicrous.  In OTL, despite having been in a war economy for some years before our official entry, the AEF numbered only some 2,000,000 men by the Armistice, and there simply wasn't the logistical capability for them to have numbered more by then.

Would he win in 1916 if he gotten America into the Great War.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Probably would be re-elected unless am invasion of Canada goes horribly wrong, but such a ascenario has a while host of potential butterflies.

[lordroel]

Probably would be re-elected unless am invasion of Canada goes horribly wrong, but such a ascenario has a while host of potential butterflies.

I doubt he would invade Canada, unless he was a German sleeper agent we never knew about.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Probably would be re-elected unless am invasion of Canada goes horribly wrong, but such a ascenario has a while host of potential butterflies.

I doubt he would invade Canada, unless he was a German sleeper agent we never knew about.

I'll grant that Teddy was an Anglophile, but he wasn't to the level that Woody was.  His first and foremost concern was the U.S. not some misty-eyed Anglophonic world order. At a minimum, I think he would have responded far more forcefully than Woody did to the illegal mining of the North Sea by the Brits in the Winter of 1914-5, so that the US wouldn't have become the Entente Powers munition factory in 1915-6. That would have done much to reduce the need for the Germans to do the U-boat campaign that led to U.S. entry into the war on the side of the Entente Powers. Also, there was far more to be gained territorially by fighting Britain than Germany.

[lordroel]

Probably would be re-elected unless am invasion of Canada goes horribly wrong, but such a ascenario has a while host of potential butterflies.

I doubt he would invade Canada, unless he was a German sleeper agent we never knew about.

I'll grant that Teddy was an Anglophile, but he wasn't to the level that Woody was.  His first and foremost concern was the U.S. not some misty-eyed Anglophonic world order. At a minimum, I think he would have responded far more forcefully than Woody did to the illegal mining of the North Sea by the Brits in the Winter of 1914-5, so that the US wouldn't have become the Entente Powers munition factory in 1915-6. That would have done much to reduce the need for the Germans to do the U-boat campaign that led to U.S. entry into the war on the side of the Entente Powers. Also, there was far more to be gained territorially by fighting Britain than Germany.

You mean a Roosevelt lead America joining Germany, now that is something i would love to see, a America-German battle fleet fighting the British navy, that would be epic.

[Kingpoleon]

While I agree Teddy would likely have gotten us involved in the Great War sooner, there's no guarantee he would have led us into war with the Central Powers.  The British mining of the North Sea was earlier casus belli Teddy might not have ignored. Also Teddy was more realpolitik and less idealistic than Woody. There wasn't anything the US could really gain from defeating Germany, but defeating Britain at the minimum gets the US all the various British (and French) possessions in the Americas, tho we might well hand Guiana over to the Venezuelans.  (The Falklands are too strategic in location to hand over to Argentina.)  Even a truly neutral US that doesn't sell arms to Entente Powers on credit would be sufficient to ensure a Central Power victory.

At a bare minimum, the idea that an American Expeditionary Force could number 10,000,000 men by late 1915 is ludicrous.  In OTL, despite having been in a war economy for some years before our official entry, the AEF numbered only some 2,000,000 men by the Armistice, and there simply wasn't the logistical capability for them to have numbered more by then.

Yeah, I can't see Roosevelt and the people he would likely have in his Cabinet - Hughes, Johnson, Norris, Curtis, etc. - ignoring the British mining and the British blockade of Germany. Roosevelt could very well enter on the side of the Central Powers and take parts of Canada, as well as Belize and the Caribbean islands ruled by the British.

[lordroel]

While I agree Teddy would likely have gotten us involved in the Great War sooner, there's no guarantee he would have led us into war with the Central Powers.  The British mining of the North Sea was earlier casus belli Teddy might not have ignored. Also Teddy was more realpolitik and less idealistic than Woody. There wasn't anything the US could really gain from defeating Germany, but defeating Britain at the minimum gets the US all the various British (and French) possessions in the Americas, tho we might well hand Guiana over to the Venezuelans.  (The Falklands are too strategic in location to hand over to Argentina.)  Even a truly neutral US that doesn't sell arms to Entente Powers on credit would be sufficient to ensure a Central Power victory.

At a bare minimum, the idea that an American Expeditionary Force could number 10,000,000 men by late 1915 is ludicrous.  In OTL, despite having been in a war economy for some years before our official entry, the AEF numbered only some 2,000,000 men by the Armistice, and there simply wasn't the logistical capability for them to have numbered more by then.

Yeah, I can't see Roosevelt and the people he would likely have in his Cabinet - Hughes, Johnson, Norris, Curtis, etc. - ignoring the British mining and the British blockade of Germany. Roosevelt could very well enter on the side of the Central Powers and take parts of Canada, as well as Belize and the Caribbean islands ruled by the British.

But he would make it clear to the Kaiser that he has to play nice.

[Frodo]

It would take so much of the drama if we just had a scenario in which Teddy runs for a second term in 1908, wins, and then runs for yet another term in 1912 (also likely to win).  Perfectly plausible too. 

[Skill and Chance]

1. 19th Amendment passed and ratified during 1912-14.  More women's suffrage at the state level in Republican-controlled states in time for 1912.  T.R. publicly supported it by 1912.

2. Likely US entry into WWII in 1915 after Germany sinks the Lusitania in 1915.

3. If we haven't already won WWI in a rout, he would be on very shaky ground in 1916 between Republican base areas in the German-American Midwest and newly enfranchised women being quite anti-war in that era.

4. If he is still in office when WWI ends, there would likely be some earlier than IRL civil rights victories in response to the atrocities committed against black veterans returning home from WWI in the South.  I don't mean anything like the VRA that early, but I do think at the very least he gets his anti-lynching bill through the Senate. 

5. Probable Republican wipeout in 1920 due to the stagflation-like environment following the end of WWI.

6.  Democrats permanently lose ex-Populist support, but solidify their reputation as the dovish party.  There would be more Grover Clevelands down the line.

[lordroel]

It would take so much of the drama if we just had a scenario in which Teddy runs for a second term in 1908, wins, and then runs for yet another term in 1912 (also likely to win).  Perfectly plausible too. 

Would the American want a president in that period to run more than 2 terms.

[Skill and Chance]

It would take so much of the drama if we just had a scenario in which Teddy runs for a second term in 1908, wins, and then runs for yet another term in 1912 (also likely to win).  Perfectly plausible too. 

Would the American want a president in that period to run more than 2 terms.

Grant had already tried as a Republican, and William Jennings Bryan had been nominated 3 times as a Democrat (though of course he never won), so I don't see why not.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It would take so much of the drama if we just had a scenario in which Teddy runs for a second term in 1908, wins, and then runs for yet another term in 1912 (also likely to win).  Perfectly plausible too. 

Would the American want a president in that period to run more than 2 terms.

Grant had already tried as a Republican, and William Jennings Bryan had been nominated 3 times as a Democrat (though of course he never won), so I don't see why not.

Cleveland was also rumored to have wanted a third term, but was too unpopular in 1896 to be nominated; Woodrow Wilson also apparently entertained delusions that he had a shot at a third term in 1920 and withheld his support from the frontrunner (William Gibbs McAddoo) at the DNC. The two-term precedent was by no means impervious; that FDR ended up being the only president to serve more than two terms is mostly the result of the fact that the majority of presidents who served before the 22nd Amendment didn't even make it to their second term; of those that did, two (Lincoln and McKinley) were assassinated and six (Grant, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman) sought a third term in some capacity.

[Skill and Chance]

It would take so much of the drama if we just had a scenario in which Teddy runs for a second term in 1908, wins, and then runs for yet another term in 1912 (also likely to win).  Perfectly plausible too. 

Would the American want a president in that period to run more than 2 terms.

Grant had already tried as a Republican, and William Jennings Bryan had been nominated 3 times as a Democrat (though of course he never won), so I don't see why not.

Cleveland was also rumored to have wanted a third term, but was too unpopular in 1896 to be nominated; Woodrow Wilson also apparently entertained delusions that he had a shot at a third term in 1920 and withheld his support from the frontrunner (William Gibbs McAddoo) at the DNC. The two-term precedent was by no means impervious; that FDR ended up being the only president to serve more than two terms is mostly the result of the fact that the majority of presidents who served before the 22nd Amendment didn't even make it to their second term; of those that did, two (Lincoln and McKinley) were assassinated and six (Grant, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman) sought a third term in some capacity.

This.  It was only a matter of time until someone who was popular at the end of his 2nd term was also healthy enough to give it a go.  It was only a generation before FDR that modern healthcare became more likely than chance to lengthen your life.  Remember that high stress jobs were very bad for your health in the 19th century:

[Lechasseur]

While I agree Teddy would likely have gotten us involved in the Great War sooner, there's no guarantee he would have led us into war with the Central Powers.  The British mining of the North Sea was earlier casus belli Teddy might not have ignored. Also Teddy was more realpolitik and less idealistic than Woody. There wasn't anything the US could really gain from defeating Germany, but defeating Britain at the minimum gets the US all the various British (and French) possessions in the Americas, tho we might well hand Guiana over to the Venezuelans.  (The Falklands are too strategic in location to hand over to Argentina.)  Even a truly neutral US that doesn't sell arms to Entente Powers on credit would be sufficient to ensure a Central Power victory.

At a bare minimum, the idea that an American Expeditionary Force could number 10,000,000 men by late 1915 is ludicrous.  In OTL, despite having been in a war economy for some years before our official entry, the AEF numbered only some 2,000,000 men by the Armistice, and there simply wasn't the logistical capability for them to have numbered more by then.

My understanding is his preference had always been to support the French and British so I think the scenario you mentioned would have been very unlikely, but I need to go back and look into that more.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Teddy was an Anglophile, but he wasn't worshipful of Anglo-French culture the way Woody was. Personally, I think Teddy would have likely kept the US truly neutral since even with a Central Powers victory, Germany couldn't have really threatened the British. Only if the British proved overly antagonistic would the US have gone to war with the Entente.

[lordroel]

Teddy was an Anglophile, but he wasn't worshipful of Anglo-French culture the way Woody was. Personally, I think Teddy would have likely kept the US truly neutral since even with a Central Powers victory, Germany couldn't have really threatened the British. Only if the British proved overly antagonistic would the US have gone to war with the Entente.

So if the US stays neutral during a war we can not call the Great War then, might we see a cold war between a powerful Germany and the US.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Income Tax would have been deferred, but alcohol and Alcohol Anonoymous and Women's rights Movements would have been instrumental in the Teddy Roosevelt administration. And eventhough he served 8 years in office, already, the GOP Congress would have enacted term limits to the presidency alot sooner than 1948.

He probably would of raised tarriffs, instead of taxes.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Teddy was an Anglophile, but he wasn't worshipful of Anglo-French culture the way Woody was. Personally, I think Teddy would have likely kept the US truly neutral since even with a Central Powers victory, Germany couldn't have really threatened the British. Only if the British proved overly antagonistic would the US have gone to war with the Entente.

Teddy was far more Hawkish than Woody was when it came to WW1

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Teddy was an Anglophile, but he wasn't worshipful of Anglo-French culture the way Woody was. Personally, I think Teddy would have likely kept the US truly neutral since even with a Central Powers victory, Germany couldn't have really threatened the British. Only if the British proved overly antagonistic would the US have gone to war with the Entente.

Teddy was far more Hawkish than Woody was when it came to WW1

It's easy to be hawkish when you aren't the one in charge.

[lordroel]

Teddy was an Anglophile, but he wasn't worshipful of Anglo-French culture the way Woody was. Personally, I think Teddy would have likely kept the US truly neutral since even with a Central Powers victory, Germany couldn't have really threatened the British. Only if the British proved overly antagonistic would the US have gone to war with the Entente.

Teddy was far more Hawkish than Woody was when it came to WW1

It's easy to be hawkish when you aren't the one in charge.

So Teddy would be more realistic if he was president.