Theodore Roosevelt loses the 1898 New York gubernatorial election

[Ricardolindo]

Theodore Roosevelt only won the 1898 New York gubernatorial election very narrowly, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898_New_York_state_election. What if he had lost to Augustus Van Wyck? I doubt that he would have been William McKinley's running mate in 1900, in this timeline. Who would McKinley have chosen as running mate, in this timeline? Assuming that McKinley's assassination isn't butterflied away, that person would have become President of the USA. Would Theodore Roosevelt have, ever, become President of the USA, in this timeline? What would the USA of this timeline look like?

 

[Ricardolindo]

In https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-killed-at-san-juan-hill.324957/#post-9541232, David T mentioned alternatives to Theodore Roosevelt for McKinley's running mate in 1900, all of whom were more conservative than Theodore Roosevelt.
Thoughts?
On another matter, what would Theodore Roosevelt's life in this timeline look like?

 

[Ricardolindo]

Bump.

 

[Claudius]

In https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-killed-at-san-juan-hill.324957/#post-9541232, David T mentioned alternatives to Theodore Roosevelt for McKinley's running mate in 1900, all of whom were more conservative than Theodore Roosevelt.
Thoughts?
On another matter, what would Theodore Roosevelt's life in this timeline look like?

I think he would have stayed in politics. He viewed himself as being in "the governing class" as indeed his family had been for many years in New York. If he saw his ambitions thwarted in NY, perhaps he would have turned his eyes westward. The burgeoning state of California would have looked attractive and his Progressive politics would find ready listeners. perhaps alt-TR would try a run for Senate or Governor, followed by a try for President.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I think he would have stayed in politics. He viewed himself as being in "the governing class" as indeed his family had been for many years in New York. If he saw his ambitions thwarted in NY, perhaps he would have turned his eyes westward. The burgeoning state of California would have looked attractive and his Progressive politics would find ready listeners. perhaps alt-TR would try a run for Senate or Governor, followed by a try for President.

I'm not sure if he could have become President if he wasn't McKinley's VP when he was assassinated. The conservative Republican Party bosses hated him and he only was the Republican nominee in 1904 because he had accidentally become President.
What do you think?

 

[Virginia Liberal]

TR not president I think the universe just rebelled against you a little. Lol but with out being McKinley's vp I don't see the Republicans running him for the White House. Look at 1912 TR carried the bulk of the states that had primaries but back then they didnt matter, the party bosses controlled everything. Best he could do is maybe senator or maybe a third party run.

 

[Old1812]

Might I suggest William O'Connell Bradley, former Governor of Kentucky as McKinley's VP pick? He seems to have been a steady conservative Republican, but still electable as far as I can tell. He may also be able to pick up some Southern support, or at least win KY

 

[Ricardolindo]

Might I suggest William O'Connell Bradley, former Governor of Kentucky as McKinley's VP pick? He seems to have been a steady conservative Republican, but still electable as far as I can tell. He may also be able to pick up some Southern support, or at least win KY

He isn't included in David T's list but I think it's possible. I think that if he was McKinley's running mate, McKinley would win Kentucky. However, I don't think that he could enable McKinley to win any of the former Confederate states, all of which went for Bryan by more than 9 points.

 

[Wendell]

I still like Henry Clay Evans as a McKinley running mate.

 

[Old1812]

I still like Henry Clay Evans as a McKinley running mate.

Heck Yeah Southern Republicans Who Could've Accomplished More But Didn't Because Solid South!

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The term of Governor of New York was only for two years, so Roosevelt tries again in 1900 and probably wins, given that McKinley carried New York that year. He never becomes President, which really was a historical accident, and this butterflies a good deal of stuff.

The Republicans at the time were generally the more "liberal" or "left" of the two parties. They generally favored high tariffs, overseas expansion, a strong navy, and a strong currency, but though generally pro-business were not adverse to some pro-labor measures and there was a general feeling at the time that the trusts had gotten out of hand and needed to be reined in. So you actually have gotten many of the policies anyway,but pursued less vigorously. But Roosevelt was one of those politicians that just went ahead and did things that had been considered, but hemmed and hawed at, in establishment circles. The Panama Canal is one example that might not have happened without Roosevelt, there was a longstanding American project of a canal through Central America and an obvious benefit for a country with a navy that had to operate on two oceans. Germany later built the Kiel Canal, a less spectacular example, but the same strategic idea, their navy had to get to both the North and Baltic Seas easily. But someone else might not have gotten around to actually doing it, for reasons. The Republicans were generally more pro-civil rights, or less segregationist, than the Democrats, but no one esle would gone ahead and invited an African-American intellectual to the White House.

A big thing that gets butterflied is the term "White House" itself and the idea of the President at the center of American public political life. The 1912 split also will probably get butterflied. This also butterflies the Wilson Administration. The State of the Union address remains a written report (or put on the internet) and ignored so again the President isn't at the center of public life. Until the Great Depression, you have a series of boring Republican Presidents with maybe a single term conservative Democratic administration mixed up there somewhere. And if Franklin Roosevelt's administration is butteflied as well things get really interesting. And without the somewhat progressive Roosevelt and Wilson administrations and no Palmer raids the Socialist Party has a chance to become a real major party.

 

[redjirachi]

TR not president I think the universe just rebelled against you a little.

Who's going to be the big progressive figure in this timeline, assuming there is one and T.R never becomes big for it

 

[Thomas1195]

Who's going to be the big progressive figure in this timeline, assuming there is one and T.R never becomes big for it

La Follette.

 

[DanMcCollum]

La Follette.

Yes, totally LaFollette. The biggest problem is he didn't get the GOP nomination - and therefore the Governorship - until 1900. However, he came very close in 1898 at the state convention, so it would be possible to get him into the Governor's Mansion two years early with few issues. LaFollette was also pretty close to McKinley due to them serving in the House together.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I really want to do a LaFollette as President timeline one of these days (as well as one with his son Phil as President). LaFollette was also a MUCH better party-builder than Roosevelt and I could see him using patronage and that bully pulpit to strengthen the Progressive wing of the GOP at the national level. Just for added fun, we could get TR in the Senate and bristling at having to exist in LaFollette's shadow. Those two really disliked one another

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I suspect the NY state legislature only puts TR in the Senate to get him out of NY state politics. The earliest he can get elected by the voters would be 1914, assuming that constitutional amendment doesn't also get butterflied. But I could see him being Governor for a long time.

This affects other NY political figures, such as Charles Evans Hughes and William Randolph Hearst. Of course, TR might relocate to California like Hearst did. Also Oliver Wendell Holmes might not get to the Supreme Court.

 

[Ricardolindo]

The term of Governor of New York was only for two years, so Roosevelt tries again in 1900 and probably wins, given that McKinley carried New York that year. He never becomes President, which really was a historical accident, and this butterflies a good deal of stuff.

The Republicans at the time were generally the more "liberal" or "left" of the two parties. They generally favored high tariffs, overseas expansion, a strong navy, and a strong currency, but though generally pro-business were not adverse to some pro-labor measures and there was a general feeling at the time that the trusts had gotten out of hand and needed to be reined in.

In https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...onservative-party.421348/page-2#post-15208325, David T argues that the Republicans were always the more conservative party, at least on economic matter, as they were supported by the rich. At the time, high tariffs were, actually, the conservative position, they were generally favoured by the rich for protecting their businesses and opposed by the poor because they led to higher prices and only helped the rich. Of course, there were exceptions, rich people whose businesses depended on the import of cheap raw materials favoured low tarifs and poor people who worked in protected businesses favoured high tariffs.
David T also notes that, apart from La Follette, none of the progressive Republicans were as supportive of labor as the Democrats.
He also notes that some of Theodore Roosevelt's anti-trust bills received more support from Democrats than from Republicans.
He notes that non-economic issues are another matter, though, and that it could be argued that the Republicans were generally to the left of the Democrats on such issues, at least before the New Deal.
What do you think, now?

 

[DanMcCollum]

In https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...onservative-party.421348/page-2#post-15208325, David T argues that the Republicans were always the more conservative party, at least on economic matter, as they were supported by the rich. At the time, high tariffs were, actually, the conservative position, they were generally favoured by the rich for protecting their businesses and opposed by the poor because they led to higher prices and only helped the rich. Of course, there were exceptions, rich people whose businesses depended on the import of cheap raw materials favoured low tarifs and poor people who worked in protected businesses favoured high tariffs.
David T also notes that, apart from La Follette, none of the progressive Republicans were as supportive of labor as the Democrats.
He also notes that some of Theodore Roosevelt's anti-trust bills received more support from Democrats than from Republicans.
He notes that non-economic issues are another matter, though, and that it could be argued that the Republicans were generally to the left of the Democrats on such issues, at least before the New Deal.
What do you think, now?

This is broadly correct, though it's a somewhat simplistic analysis as well. Although the GOP favored big business and tariffs, a major tenant of the Progressive Movement was free trade (it was believed that international competition would drive down consumer prices and help the average American).

Meanwhile, Democrats - generally speakibg - were more supportive of labor; an unsurprising fact when you consider thst a large part of their base was made up of ethnic and immigrsnt laborers in large cities. As mentioned in a similar thread, this is the reason that Eugene V. Debbs began his political career as a Democrat, and was viewed as an up and coming party leader, prior to Cleveland's crushing of the Pullman Strike abd Debb's subsequent imprisonment.

Part of the problem is that we are trying to read modern political alignments of Right v Left into the past - and that's not the way parties at the time were organized nor viewed themselves (they were organized, as now, around certain hot button issues and passionately held truisms that do not always match the truisms and issues of today). Further muddying the waters is the fact that the political landscape of the Progressive Era was one of pretty important shifts as the political consensus of the post-Civil War world begsn to break down and both political parties were forced to address modern issues thst they previously had not engaged deeply with. They result being, that members of both parties could occasionally reach the same conclusion, but from pretty divergent philosophical backgrounds.

This is one of the reason that, towards the end of the first wave of the Progressive Movement, you see leaders like LaFollette (and even Roosevelt to an extent) pushing for political realignment. It was seen as beneficial that all of the Progressives migrate to one party, and stalwarts to another. Its the same reason you also see various Farmer-Laborer movements rise up to the same ends, though often arguing for the destruxtion of one or both major parties and the creation of a new party to meet thr needs of Progressives, Socialists, Laborers, etc.

And so, its complicated. This was an era where party loyalty was still very high, but where very deep divisions were emerging within those same parties; where progressive Democrsts and Republicans might have more in common with one another than the stalwarts in their own parties, but might not recognize the fact.

It was a surprisingly fluid time!

 

[Ricardolindo]

This is broadly correct, though it's a somewhat simplistic analysis as well. Although the GOP favored big business and tariffs, a major tenant of the Progressive Movement was free trade (it was believed that international competition would drive down consumer prices and help the average American).

I don't see how that contradicts anything I or David T said. At the time, tariffs were the conservative position. BTW, David T's post also mentions that none of the progressive Republicans repudiated protectionism as much as the Democrats did, that they only claimed to oppose excessive protection and that they usually claimed that their home states' products were not protected enough and that was true even of La Follette, who was easily the closest thing to a free trader among the progressve Republicans.

Meanwhile, Democrats - generally speakibg - were more supportive of labor; an unsurprising fact when you consider thst a large part of their base was made up of ethnic and immigrsnt laborers in large cities.

And, David T argues that it's precisely their base that requires the Democrats to be generally to the left of the Republicans on economic matters.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I don't see how that contradicts anything I or David T said. At the time, tariffs were the conservative position. BTW, David T's post also mentions that none of the progressive Republicans repudiated protectionism as much as the Democrats did, that they only claimed to oppose excessive protection and that they usually claimed that their home states' products were not protected enough and that was true even of La Follette, who was easily the closest thing to a free trader among the progressve Republicans.



And, David T argues that it's precisely their base that requires the Democrats to be generally to the left of the Republicans on economic matters.

I think you're looking for an argument where none exists. I wasn't attempting to contradict your statement, just to provide a bit more context.

I would, generally, agree with the sentiment that the Dems of the era were relatively more economically liberal (in the modern sense) than their Republican counterparts. However, a wide variety of beliefs existed and there were certainly not just individual politicians, but state parties and factions, that went against this rule. Cleveland and his Bourbon faction, for instance, certainly proved themselves no friends of Labor and the state Democratic Party in, say, Wisconsin was a deeply conservative party - especially after the state political realignment of the 1890s and early 00s.

I would argue that both parties had - what to modern eyes would seem - liberal and conservative traditions and philosophies which would have made it possible for either to emerge as the dominant liberal or conservative party as the 20th century progressed.

However, as to your comment that the Dems of the early 20th century were generally more economically liberal than the GOP - well, yeah. This is the same party which supported Bryan three times!

 

[Ricardolindo]

I think you're looking for an argument where none exists. I wasn't attempting to contradict your statement, just to provide a bit more context.

I would, generally, agree with the sentiment that the Dems of the era were relatively more economically liberal (in the modern sense) than their Republican counterparts. However, a wide variety of beliefs existed and there were certainly not just individual politicians, but state parties and factions, that went against this rule. Cleveland and his Bourbon faction, for instance, certainly proved themselves no friends of Labor and the state Democratic Party in, say, Wisconsin was a deeply conservative party - especially after the state political realignment of the 1890s and early 00s.

I would argue that both parties had - what to modern eyes would seem - liberal and conservative traditions and philosophies which would have made it possible for either to emerge as the dominant liberal or conservative party as the 20th century progressed.

However, as to your comment that the Dems of the early 20th century were generally more economically liberal than the GOP - well, yeah. This is the same party which supported Bryan three times!

I agree that there were many exceptions to the norm that I refer to.