The Presidential Election of 1918

I was reading a thread concerned with A hypothetical William Jennings Bryan Presidency. It was mentioned that there was an attempt at a six year term limit amendment that passed through the Senate in 1913. So, in this alternate reality, during the first year of Woodrow Wilson's Presidency an amendment passes limiting The President to a single six year term. Therefore, the next Presidential election is scheduled not for 1916, but for 1918.

Assuming Wilson's remaining Presidency is not incredibly altered by the limitation, and America enters the Great War on schedule and Wilson advocates the same sort of international program he did historically what does the 1918 election look like? The Republicans might have a simpler time in their nomination deliberations. They can't very well nominate General Pershing while the war is still going on. Do they nominate Hughes as per the historical election of 1916? I'm not sure whether enough time had passed since 1912 by 1918, but I remember reading that Theodore Roosevelt wanted to make an attempt at the nomination in 1920. Might he make a similar attempt in 1918?

If Wilson is not grandfathered into this amendment the way Truman was to the one that passed historically, who would be the Democratic standard bearer in 1918? MacAdoo?

More generally which party is more likely to win in 1918? I know the Republicans were heavily favored in 1920, but I'm not sure if that would automatically be the case in 1918.

More generally where might American history progress from here?

1918 was somewhat a republican year IOTL. So it propably will be a republican president and Hughes is still the most lieklycompromise candidat for the conservativ and the progressive wing.

Glass Onion said:

I was reading a thread concerned with A hypothetical William Jennings Bryan Presidency. It was mentioned that there was an attempt at a six year term limit amendment that passed through the Senate in 1913. So, in this alternate reality, during the first year of Woodrow Wilson's Presidency an amendment passes limiting The President to a single six year term. Therefore, the next Presidential election is scheduled not for 1916, but for 1918.

Assuming Wilson's remaining Presidency is not incredibly altered by the limitation, and America enters the Great War on schedule and Wilson advocates the same sort of international program he did historically what does the 1918 election look like? The Republicans might have a simpler time in their nomination deliberations. They can't very well nominate General Pershing while the war is still going on. Do they nominate Hughes as per the historical election of 1916? I'm not sure whether enough time had passed since 1912 by 1918, but I remember reading that Theodore Roosevelt wanted to make an attempt at the nomination in 1920. Might he make a similar attempt in 1918?

If Wilson is not grandfathered into this amendment the way Truman was to the one that passed historically, who would be the Democratic standard bearer in 1918? MacAdoo?

More generally which party is more likely to win in 1918? I know the Republicans were heavily favored in 1920, but I'm not sure if that would automatically be the case in 1918.

More generally where might American history progress from here?

Click to expand...

I can't imagine that any amendment would change the current term. If the amendment was passed in Wilson's first term, I would expect that it would change the 1916 election into the first six-year term election, and Wilson would be eligible for that as his final possible term. (Unless, of course, they forgot to include the standard "this doesn't apply to the current officeholder" boilerplate, but I don't know if they did or not. I can't find a copy of the amendment.) That would leave us with an election again in 1922, but if Wilson's re-elected in 1916, we'd have some trouble as a result of the stroke. They wouldn't have been able to run out the clock the way they did.

If it did result in an election in 1918, I imagine that freivolk's right about Hughes getting the nod, and probably the presidency. Roosevelt would certainly have to try, though. It'd be interesting to see what would happen in that case; Roosevelt would have died, barring some highly unlikely butterflies, after the election was certified but before the inauguration. Unless someone like Hughes, with serious standing, was persuaded to run as TR's VP, we could end up with a highly uncomfortable six years of bickering over whether the President was legitimate enough.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the text of the amendment itself anywhere either. The comment on this site implied that it's passage would mean "there wouldn't be an election in 1916" which implies that the amendment would apply to Wilson's current term. Though as you say it does seem to make more sense for it to begin with the election of 1916. As you say that would be problematic given Wilson's health between 1919 and 1923, as you note. While I'm not sure I support the concept of a six year term, I think it's possible the country would be better off if there could be an election in 1916

Glass Onion said:

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the text of the amendment itself anywhere either. The comment on this site implied that it's passage would mean "there wouldn't be an election in 1916" which implies that the amendment would apply to Wilson's current term. Though as you say it does seem to make more sense for it to begin with the election of 1916. As you say that would be problematic given Wilson's health between 1919 and 1923, as you note. While I'm not sure I support the concept of a six year term, I think it's possible the country would be better off if there could be an election in 1916

Click to expand...

As the Amendment stood, after passage by the Senate, it would have applied to the present incumbent. Also, it barred any person who had previously served as President, so if it got ratied as was, Wilson would serve six years, while Roosevelt (and Taft) would be out of the running. See the NYT articles online at

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E4DD133BE633A25751C0A9649C946296D6CF

and

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9506E0D9133EE733A25750C1A9669D946596D6CF


However, this is a very big if, since the HoR might well have made changes. The ban on former Presidents would have stood, as it was the alliance of Democrats and anti-Roosevelt Republicans which made passage possible, but a grandfather clause exempting the incumbent would be a distinct possibility. So would some provision for the case of a VP who served only a small part of a term.

I suspect, though, that either way it does Wilson little good. Running for a six-year term on top of a four year one - a whole decade in the White House, would have appeared to some as a breach of the Amendment's spirit, even if not its letter, and given what a cliff-hanger 1916 was, this is probably enough to put Mr Hughes into office. If OTOH there is indeed a 1918 election, that means Wilson was not exempted from the Amendment, and so is ineligible. In that case, Hughes is probably agin the front-runner, though there are other possibles.

Any idea who the Presidents in the immediate term might be if there's an election in 1918? I think the consensus is that Charles Evans Hughes would become President in 1919. Unless the amendment also changes the inaugural date, he will become President in March. Of course Wilson may do what he was planning on historically. That is, appoint Hughes Secretary of State, and then resign along with Thomas Marshall. If Wilson remains President until March I would expect him to still advocate his fourteen points as he did historically, he might not go to Paris but he'll still try to have the idea presented by whoever does. I'm not entirely sure how President Hughes will alter Wilson's established foreign policy come March 4th 1919. I don't see President Hughes dying in office as Harding did, he will presumably be President until March 4th 1925. Given the state of the Democratic Party in the twenties, which may be unlikely to change under these circumstances I think a Republican is likely to win in 1924. Possible contenders:

Frank Lowden former Governor of Illinois. He was one of the main two contenders in 1920 historically. He attempted to take the nomination from Herbert Hoover. There's a chance that General Wood might make an effort here, but Lowden seems to me to be the more likely of the two to contest 1924

I think Governor Calvin Coolidge would remain the darling of the conservative wing of the party if the police strike still occurs. I know that's a tad convergent so there's a possibility that it would be butterflied away. If Coolidge can be reelected, and maintain visibility he might be the choice of the more conservative elements within the party.

Herbert Hoover. If I remember correctly Hoover had a certain degree of popularity during the war years and the twenties. There's a chance that President Hughes would appoint Hoover to his cabinet. If Hoover can be the figure in the Hughes administration that he was under Harding and Coolidge he might run for President in this version of 1924.

Not sure who the Democrats nominate in 1924 or how that changes under these altered circumstances.

Is the Great Depression Butterflied here? If not the next election will be very interesting. You'd have a Presidential election in 1930. I'd expect the Republican nominee to be utterly crushed. Whoever the Democrats nominate wins.

I have no idea who that Democrat might be. I don't think it would be Franklin Roosevelt. His entire political career is probably altered beyond recognition by butterflies. He probably isn't chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee in 1918 because Theodore Roosevelt is still alive. He probably doesn't get polio. Of course he may be in better political standing in the twenties than he was historically. I believe the Newport Scandal occurred in 1919, and with President Hughes in the White House I think it's safe to presume that after March 4th 1919, Franklin Roosevelt is no longer Under Secretary of the Navy. Without polio, he probably doesn't have the sort of compassion he did historically so he cannot become what he was in our thirties. The problem is is that he was such an epoch defining figure I can't think of anyone to take his place.

The election of 1930 may be much more tricky as we think. IOTL the GOP lost many seats in this election, but it ended with a drawn in congress. It seems the GOP may still have a chance to win a close victory, especially if they chose the right candidate. I think in 1924 somebody from Ohio will run for the GOP. So they could in 1930 bring in Hoover, whos reputaion is still untarnished ITTL. The Democrats will propably nominate Al Smith and in the end anti-catholic bias in the South could lead to a close win for Hoover. But for 1936 I still expect a democratic victory, but propably not the landslide like it was IOTL. Propably, after a close defeat in 1930, Al Smith will run again. Does somedody knows his stand on Isolationism and the War?

freivolk said:

The election of 1930 may be much more tricky as we think. IOTL the GOP lost many seats in this election, but it ended with a drawn in congress. It seems the GOP may still have a chance to win a close victory, especially if they chose the right candidate. I think in 1924 somebody from Ohio will run for the GOP. So they could in 1930 bring in Hoover, whos reputaion is still untarnished ITTL. The Democrats will propably nominate Al Smith and in the end anti-catholic bias in the South could lead to a close win for Hoover. But for 1936 I still expect a democratic victory, but propably not the landslide like it was IOTL. Propably, after a close defeat in 1930, Al Smith will run again. Does somedody knows his stand on Isolationism and the War?

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. When I go through the potential candidates in my mind for 1924, none of them are from Ohio. Granted there will obviously be butterflies so it's quiet possible the GOP will nominate someone rather obscure from our perspective. But with that said I'm not sure that the nominee will be someone from that particular state. It won't be Harding. Harding's nomination was the consequence of a deadlock between Governor Lowden and General Wood. In 1924 that won't be the case. From what I remember Harding wasn't the type to push himself into the Presidency without that deadlock. If we remove Harding from the equation I'm not sure I know who else could be the Republican nominee if he's from Ohio. Also, there's a good chance he's dead by 1924 anyway even if that is a bit convergent.

I'm not entirely sure who would become President in 1924 under the circumstances. Maybe it'd be Governor Lowden?

Glass Onion said:

I'm not so sure about that. When I go through the potential candidates in my mind for 1924, none of them are from Ohio. Granted there will obviously be butterflies so it's quiet possible the GOP will nominate someone rather obscure from our perspective. But with that said I'm not sure that the nominee will be someone from that particular state. It won't be Harding. Harding's nomination was the consequence of a deadlock between Governor Lowden and General Wood. In 1924 that won't be the case. From what I remember Harding wasn't the type to push himself into the Presidency without that deadlock. If we remove Harding from the equation I'm not sure I know who else could be the Republican nominee if he's from Ohio. Also, there's a good chance he's dead by 1924 anyway even if that is a bit convergent.

I'm not entirely sure who would become President in 1924 under the circumstances. Maybe it'd be Governor Lowden?

Click to expand...

I justz sayed from Ohio, because the most GOP-candidates from 1868 -1920 came from Ohio. I assume that the GOP-candidate will propably somebody, who will gurantee some Key-states, but for us will be a non-entity.

Whats your opinion about Hoover and Al Smih?

I actually think Hoover has a decent shot at 1924 providing he's in the Hughes' cabinet and plays a similarly prominent role. He had a great deal of popularity from his humanitarian work, and if he's given a good position he might be the nominee in 1924 if he plays his cards right. If Wilson's policies have the same effect on the Democratic Party that they did historically, and the party essentially implodes in 1924 the Republicans can probably get away with a Hoover nomination.

If he isn't elected President in 1924, a lot depends on who is elected President that year.

My feeling is that 1918 would be Charles Evan Hughes vs. William Gibbs McAdoo.

If McAdoo doesn't run in 1924 after having lost the election to Hughes in 1918 that might have an impact on the deadlocked convention. There's a chance we see Alfred Smith as the Democratic nominee in 1924.

In terms of 1930, if Smith isn't elected in that year he never becomes President unless things are much worse in 1936 then they were historically.