T.R. reelected in 1908; Ramifications?

I am somewhat surprised that I was unable to find a time line of note based on this premise, given that everyone seems to agree that he would have easily won another term. Is my search-fu simply weak?

He would have likely appointed Taft to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1910, so who would have been his anointed successor? Would he have needed one?

I can't see him planing on running for a fourth term, but I also can't see him failing to intervene in the Mexican Civil War, the aftermath of which may convince him he needs to continue in office.

So what do you guys think? Would there be war with Mexico? Who would run in 1912? How would T.R. in '08 effect the development of the Progressive movement?

How would the Supreme Court be effected by having Taft preside as Chief Justice for 20 years?

Well if TR is President in 1908 you probably do away with the tariff issue that caused such a schism in the Republican party at the time. TR had stopped publicly talking about it at this time because of the reactions and possible party split. It also means American Steel, since its creation TR approved is not busted up.

This means that the Republican party stays more moderate if TR is President. He was not the bullish conservative that Taft was. It is possible TR uses a Supreme Court appointment to Chief Justice to mollify the conservatives while also silencing them in effect by getting Taft out of politics and into the court.

As for who would run in 1912, Charles W. Fairbanks. Without the split in the Republican Party he'd be favored over Charles Evan Hughes. Coming right off of TR's presidency he would probably easily win a first term as I believe TR would maintain most of his popularity and Fairbanks was his Vice President. Without the split in the R I believe he'd beat Wilson easily.

Now the question is how does WWI now differ with Fairbanks in charge. During a war generally the incumbent President always wins so Fairbanks wins again in 1916 (However his health will kill him halfway through his term leaving his Vice President as President for the next election).

This is my guess James S. Sherman was the Vice Presidential nominee on the 1912 ticket. His death in October of 1912 opens a quandary. Its just before the election but not enough time to reprint ballots. He's dead so the Senate is unlikely to recognize him as a valid candidate when the electoral votes are read. That means the only valid VP candidate with electoral votes is Thomas R. Marshall. The problem is that both Fairbanks and Marshall are from Indiana, so there is no valid VP candidate, so I believe its left vacant.

In 1916 Fairbanks vice president is probably Elihu Root. Whether they can defeat Wilson now I'm not sure but generally the War President wins if he's the incumbent so my bet is that Fairbanks/Hughes win narrowly. in 1916.

You've now had a R in the Presidency for a very long time in 1920 the Democrats will be poised to win the Presidency.

James M. Cox is probably still the most apt to be nominated and he'll win the country gets tired of having one party in the WH over time. Franklin Delano Rooselvelt is his vice president. I believe they would easily be reelected. Also Cox/Rooselvelt could run for a 3rd term and citing TR's precedence probably does. You've avoided the bubble of the 1920s that collapsed since Coolidge is not in the Treasury and not president during this time.

FDR runs in 1932. Garner is VP as it was a deal needed to be made, and the other major contender is the same state as FDR.

FDR has now been in Washington 16 years, his health is failing and he is getting to be frail. He decides not to run again in 1940 as a result, even if he did he'd never live out to see the end of the term. There would be a bitter battle between James A Farley and James N. Garner over the nomination, this opens them up to sadly a Republican takeover of the White House.

Wendell Willkie secures the Republican nomination after an outpouring of letters in support of aid to Britain he wins the election. Charles L. McNary is his Vice President. C

1909-1913 Theodore Roosevelt/Charles W. Fairbanks
1913-1917 Charles Fairbanks/Vacant
1917-1921 Charles W. Fairbanks/Elihu Root
1921-1933 James M. Cox/Franklin D. Roosevelt
1934-1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt/James N Garner
1941- April 1944 Wendell Willkie/Charles L. McNary
April 1944-Oct 1944 Wendell Willkie/Vacant.
Oct 1944 We have a problem Houston......the President has died with no Vice President.....as he died 6 months before.
Oct 1944-1945 Thomas E. Dewey (former Sec of State under Willkie)/Vacant
1945-1953 Harry F. Byrd/Harry S. Truman
1953-1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower/Richard M Nixon

This is going to be hard times for the R, since both the Vice President and President died in 1944. Wendell Wilkie would have been the nominee for President on the ticket, with McNary's death earlier this would make John W. Bricker the most likely candidate for Vice President with the death of Wilkie he'd be the Presidential Candidate now with no Republican Vice President on the ticket. (its really to late to reprint tickets...)

The most likely nominee in 44 for the democrats is Harry F. Byrd with Harry S. Truman as his running mate. I believe Byrd/Truman would win mostly due to the chaos caused by the death of Willkie. They push through an Amendment to make sure a line of sucession exists

The Republicans in the Electoral College would be pledged to the new ticket, and they don't meet until January, so have no problem knowing whom to vote for.

I'm a bit doubtful about Hughes as VP. He hesitated over leaving the Supreme Court even for the top job, and I'm pretty sure would decline the lesser one and stay a Justice. Philander Knox maybe, or conceivably Elihu Root? I agree he would be from the northeast, as Fairbanks was from Indiana.

Mikestone8 said:

The Republicans in the Eletoral College would be pledged to the new ticket, and they don't meet until January, so have no problem knowing whom to vote for.

I'm a bit doubtful about Hughes as VP. He hesitated over leaving the Supreme Court even for the top job, and I'm pretty sure would decline the lesser one and stay a Justice. Philander Knox maybe, or conceivably Elihu Root? I agree he would be from the northeast, as Fairbanks was from Indiana.

Click to expand...

Root seems a likely fallback in an emergency situation like that.

Root would be the choice then. Remember prior to the I think 26th amendment the VP slot was left vacant til next election. This could speed the passage of the 26th Amendment, I went back and edited it to Root.

I didn't really explain how Dewey became president, essentially Congress appointed him since he was Sec of State noting that Jefferson had been Washington's Sec. of State. They realize given only 3 months its not going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, and Dewey is probably a safer choice than some they could make.

Much like since FDR never wins 4 terms there is no real term limit on the President amendment passed.

War with Mexico is a no no. The war with the Philippines was the Iraq War in the 1800-1900. Deeply unpopular. Indeed already a few shameful massacres happened under TR's presidency and he was not looking forward to ending the war for a second time

JRScott said:

Now the question is how does WWI now differ with Fairbanks in charge. During a war generally the incumbent President always wins so Fairbanks wins again in 1916 (However his health will kill him halfway through his term leaving his Vice President as President for the next election).

This is my guess James S. Sherman was the Vice Presidential nominee on the 1912 ticket. His death in October of 1912 opens a quandary. Its just before the election but not enough time to reprint ballots. He's dead so the Senate is unlikely to recognize him as a valid candidate when the electoral votes are read. That means the only valid VP candidate with electoral votes is Thomas R. Marshall. The problem is that both Fairbanks and Marshall are from Indiana, so there is no valid VP candidate, so I believe its left vacant.

In 1916 Fairbanks vice president is probably Elihu Root. Whether they can defeat Wilson now I'm not sure but generally the War President wins if he's the incumbent so my bet is that Fairbanks/Hughes win narrowly. in 1916.

Click to expand...

This presents an interesting possibility: what if Fairbanks is sans VP as you suggest and his health kills him in his first term? The US didn't have a precedent or laws relating to succession if without a president and a vice-president. Unless legislation gets passed before Fairbanks death dealing with this scenario, this would be a serious constitutional crisis. It probably means that congress takes up executive authority until 1917, and could permanently tilt the balance of power away from the executive and in favour of the legislature.

There was already a succession act in place, a better one than we have now frankly. The Secretary of State would become President in that circumstance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1886

I'm pretty sure TR would not favor Sherman as VP; Sherman was highly conservative. Taft swung to the right to accomodate him, which is where most of his trouble started.

Perhaps someone like Francis E. McGovern, a more Progressive type, would get the VP slot?

JRScott said:

This is going to be hard times for the R, since both the Vice President and President died in 1944. Wendell Wilkie would have been the nominee for President on the ticket, with McNary's death earlier this would make John W. Bricker the most likely candidate for Vice President with the death of Wilkie he'd be the Presidential Candidate now with no Republican Vice President on the ticket. (its really to late to reprint tickets...)

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier there is no need to reprint tickets. Voters don't vote for them, only for the Electoral College - whose members would vote for their respective party nominees, whether those were the ones shown on the November ballot papers or not.

JRScott said:

As for who would run in 1912, Charles W. Fairbanks. Without the split in the Republican Party he'd be favored over Charles Evan Hughes.

Click to expand...

At this point wouldn't the nomination hinge on who Roosevelt supports? It seems that his views are closer to Hughes, and thus more likely to get his support.

Perhaps Fairbanks-Hughes, then, or Hughes-Fairbanks? It wouldn't be the first time two Presidents shared a VP...

Cyrus Alquist said:

This presents an interesting possibility: what if Fairbanks is sans VP as you suggest and his health kills him in his first term? The US didn't have a precedent or laws relating to succession if without a president and a vice-president. Unless legislation gets passed before Fairbanks death dealing with this scenario, this would be a serious constitutional crisis. It probably means that congress takes up executive authority until 1917, and could permanently tilt the balance of power away from the executive and in favour of the legislature.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind seldom was the VP slot filled in the event of the VP's death or his ascension to the Presidency prior to the passage of the 26th amendment. In that case whoever is Secretary of State would become president.

Stolengood said:

I'm pretty sure TR would not favor Sherman as VP; Sherman was highly conservative. Taft swung to the right to accomodate him, which is where most of his trouble started.

Perhaps someone like Francis E. McGovern, a more Progressive type, would get the VP slot?

Click to expand...

At the same time TR didn't want a split in the party which happened OTL, he'd be willing to put a conservative in the VP slot, especially one of Sherman's age as its unlikely he would ever be a threat, much like he'd put Taft in the Supreme Court to prevent an attack from that side.

Mikestone8 said:

As I mentioned earlier there is no need to reprint tickets. Voters don't vote for them, only for the Electoral College - whose members would vote for their respective party nominees, whether those were the ones shown on the November ballot papers or not.

Click to expand...

The shock of losing the President and Vice President and the relative confusion in the populace would have more vote for the opposing ticket than the R ticket. The average individual at that time didn't understand the electoral college (and well I doubt the average individual today does). It would be enough to swing the election in the Democrats favor.

Stolengood said:

Perhaps Fairbanks-Hughes, then, or Hughes-Fairbanks? It wouldn't be the first time two Presidents shared a VP...

Click to expand...

As others pointed out Hughes probably wouldn't leave the court for a second tier slot, so ultimately he stays on the court in this case rather than leaving it to run. Keep in mind Fairbanks would be the incumbent and traditionally any split convention favors the other party .

JRScott said:

The shock of losing the President and Vice President and the relative confusion in the populace would have more vote for the opposing ticket than the R ticket. The average individual at that time didn't understand the electoral college (and well I doubt the average individual today does). It would be enough to swing the election in the Democrats favor.

Click to expand...

I don't want to be rude, but this seems like a silly divergence, arguing about an election that would almost certainly never happen thirty years after the point of departure.

How about people talk more about what Roosevelt would do during his third term, domestically and foreign policy wise.

The first thing I see is there would be no Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909. First TR had stopped talking about tariffs at this point so there will be no emergency call for Congress to assemble and discuss the measure. As such it will not pass in that emergency motion. TR had largely ignored this over the past years, and it was not a high topic on his mind. Still pressure in Congress would come and he'd take command. The Payne bill I believe would be more favored by him. It would lower the import duties on many goods whereas Aldrich would have lowered some and raised others.

Now TR had started in 1906 talking about a graduated income tax. It is still very likely the 16th Amendment would be passed in Congress. It is likely to become law but slightly later than it did in OTL, for example CA and KY aren't going to count due to anomalies. It still becomes law later the same day when WY becomes the 36th state to ratify.

Without Taft you don't have the case against US Steel, and the other 80+ corporations that antitrust suits were brought about. TR though he was quick to rail against industry he didn't go after them with the fervor Taft really did. TR used it more as a political tool to gain votes, whereas Taft though he didn't publicly criticize big business was more about efficiently taking it down wherever he could.

As for the railroads who wanted in 1911 to hike their rates 20% in unison, TR would act much like Taft did in threatening to use the act against them then providing negotiations that ultimately mitigate the rate hikes.

TRs more active Congressional role will help him avoid the Democrats taking control of the House in 1910 elections, he'll lose fewer seats in the Senate as well.

TR and Taft had similar viewpoints on Blacks, indeed TR had appointed many as members of his administration. A third term he might could move this towards more equality earlier but doubtful he would be able to reach that goal given the politics of the time.

On foreign affairs.

TR is unlikely to dismiss Henry White, it is also likely the Department of State would not see the overhaul that Taft gave it as a result. As such relations with France will not be strained as OTL.

There will be no personal meetings with China to facilitate Chinese railroad which antagonized Japan and Russia real life. I'm not sure TR would be doing the initiatives in Central America either.

There will be no African Safari for TR personally. It is possible though he cannot go himself that he could fund an expedition to meet the needs for the museums otherwise the quantity/quality of the various exhibitions at the national museums.

I'm not sure how TR would go on the Mexican Revolution, there are advantages to both.

JRScott said:

On foreign affairs.

TR is unlikely to dismiss Henry White, it is also likely the Department of State would not see the overhaul that Taft gave it as a result. As such relations with France will not be strained as OTL.

There will be no personal meetings with China to facilitate Chinese railroad which antagonized Japan and Russia real life. I'm not sure TR would be doing the initiatives in Central America either.

There will be no African Safari for TR personally. It is possible though he cannot go himself that he could fund an expedition to meet the needs for the museums otherwise the quantity/quality of the various exhibitions at the national museums.

I'm not sure how TR would go on the Mexican Revolution, there are advantages to both.

Click to expand...

So, if that's what T.R. wouldn't do, what would he do? You haven't mentioned any foreign policy initiatives you think he might take in a third term.