@bguy TR jr could even be a contender for President in 1928.
They took big losses in 1922.
Or the incumbent in 1928 could lose or not run, especially if it's a former Secretary of State who's not that great of a politician and if they have just a year to define themselves. At this point, only one ascended VP has ever been renominated - Roosevelt's father.It's possible though it would require either Wood to survive his presidency so there isn't an incumbent president running for reelection in 1928 or for Wood to predecease Harding and for Harding to survive at least until mid-1928 but decide that his health is too poor for him to stand for a full term in 1928. I think the former is the more likely scenario, since I just can't see Harding surviving all the way until 1928. (He was already showing signs of having a heart condition as early as 1918 and was a heavy smoker too boot, so time was definitely not on his side.)
Or the incumbent in 1928 could lose or not run, especially if it's a former Secretary of State who's not that great of a politician and if they have just a year to define themselves. At this point, only one ascended VP has ever been renominated - Roosevelt's father.
What if Wood got the GOP nomination in 1920, with Warren Harding chosen as his running mate? How does this affect American economic, social, and foreign policy in the 1920's
Would America join the League of Nations;
if so, is the League made more effective or otherwise changed ("Americanized")?
Would farmers get better assistance; would organized labor fare better;
less economic inequality?
Would the height of white supremacy (the Klan, etc) be unaffected, or do civil rights do even a little better?
And how does all this, in turn, affect the coming of the Great Depression and the rise of militarism in Japan and Germany? And are there knockoff political effects?
(Man, it's been years since we discussed this PoD...)
He's not walking away, he's finishing the term and then retiring as the democratic process selects a new leader. Depends if he wants to campaign I guess - it's possible that if Wood dies late enough he wouldn't want to spend his whole presidency campaigning.TR Jr. is pretty much the last person though that could get away with challenging an incumbent president. (Memories of his father pulling that same stunt in 1912 are just too fresh.)
As for President Stimson deciding not to seek a term in his own right, I think he will be under pretty intense pressure from the party regulars to run. After all why would the party want to give up the advantage of incumbency and risk a potentially nasty nomination battle between Hoover and Roosevelt when they don't have to? (And of course the dominant conservative wing of the party will strongly prefer the conservative Stimson to more progressive candidates like Hoover or Roosevelt.)
Furthermore, Henry Stimson was always a man with a very strong sense of duty. (This is after all a man who served as Secretary of War during a world war despite being in his mid 70s just because his country needed him.) Thus its almost impossible to imagine Stimson just walking away from the presidency. Doing so would be deserting his post, which is anathema to a man of Stimson's character.
However, what I am especially curious is this--could a President Wood have pushed to make the 1920s immigration restrictions less severe? Indeed, any thoughts on this?
John Fredrick Parker said:@bguy What if Wood dies in the WH? If Harding succeeds him and lives/serves through 1928, would he be as likely to get the nod that year (especially if he's in less than great health himself)?
Emperor Julian said:He's not walking away, he's finishing the term and then retiring as the democratic process selects a new leader.
Assuming the Mississippi flood goes as OTL, Hoover is a national hero at this point (some poor black people in the South might disagree but they'll get no attention). He didn't completely dominate the 1928 convention for no reason.
The 1920s immigration restrictions also severely affected a lot of White people, though. Thus, I am unsure that Wood's attitudes towards Chinese, Filipinos, and African-Americans would be an adequate reflection of his views on the immigration of various White ethnic groups to the U.S.According to the Jack Lane biography of Wood, Wood enthusiastically supported excluding Chinese immigrants from the United States during the Roosevelt Administration.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J...MKHbyMCeIQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=racial&f=false
The same biography also suggests that Wood's racial prejudices became worse as he got older (and shows Wood making nasty statements about Cubans, Filipinos, and African-Americans), so he will almost certainly support severe immigration restrictions as president.
The 1920s immigration restrictions also severely affected a lot of White people, though. Thus, I am unsure that Wood's attitudes towards Chinese, Filipinos, and African-Americans would be an adequate reflection of his views on the immigration of various White ethnic groups to the U.S.
Yeah, that's more spot-on to what I'm talking about here; indeed, thanks for this information.Well per the Lane biography in Wood's 1920 campaign he called for "quality immigration to eliminate the undesirable immigrant", and wanted the government to aggressively guard against letting anarchists and communists into the country. Wood also wanted immigrants that were found to be "acceptable" to be watched long enough to "teach them to be Americans."
https://books.google.com/books?id=J...YAcgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=immigration&f=false
So that certainly sounds like Wood would impose pretty severe restrictions on immigration.
If President Wood does prevent American aid to Russia during the famine, does that endanger the viability of the Soviet state? If not, how is the USSR affected? And what does this mean for Europe 10-20 years down the line?Another thought -- would the U.S. have been as involved in mitigating the Russian Famine of 1921?
If President Wood does prevent American aid to Russia during the famine, does that endanger the viability of the Soviet state?
If not, how is the USSR affected?
And what does this mean for Europe 10-20 years down the line?
Does this mean that OTL events in Europe up to the dawn of WWII -- the rise of fascism, annexations of 1938, etc -- are not affected by our chain of events discussed thus far? Even if Asia is significantly calmer (no Manchuko Incident, etc)?Probably no difference unless the Soviet Union loses so many people that it can't endure the World War II bloodletting that it endured in our TL.
Does this mean that OTL events in Europe up to the dawn of WWII -- the rise of fascism, annexations of 1938, etc -- are not affected by our chain of events discussed thus far?
Even if Asia is significantly calmer (no Manchuko Incident, etc)?
How do you know that the U.S. President in 1931 will be less passive, though?Yes, and the US being more hardline with Japan in general (a less passive president circa 1931, etc).
If it's not Herbert Hoover, the President could respond to provocation in any provocation in Manchuria (if it even still happens TTL) with sanctions and "defensive" naval maneuvers; this, combined with having a naval arms race, combined further with effects all this has on Japan's domestic politics, means that the Second Sino-Japanese War is likely (or at least could well be) averted entirely.How do you know that the U.S. President in 1931 will be less passive, though?
If it's not Herbert Hoover, the President could respond to provocation in any provocation in Manchuria (if it even still happens TTL) with sanctions and "defensive" naval maneuvers; this, combined with having a naval arms race, combined further with effects all this has on Japan's domestic politics, means that the Second Sino-Japanese War is likely (or at least could well be) averted entirely.
What's also interesting, as noted, is that none of this is likely to prevent Europe's own path to war; at worst, the Soviets will be comparatively weaker due to taking more of a demographic hit in the early 20's TTL; but if that's the case, I don't expect that will have any impact on the rise of Hitler and his moves toward annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. However, this could well mean the breakout of the war is different from OTL -- maybe Britain decides to be firmer with Germany at Munich, or maybe the Soviets decide against the pact -- but either way, that would mean, in addition to not having an Asian theater, the war in Europe is significantly less destructive than OTL. Thoughts?