1912 Republican Convention

My question is what if the Republicans came up with a compromise candidate in 1912, and who would it be.
 
Interesting point. In 1912 Herbert Hadley was a young (just 40 years old) governor of traditionally Democrat Missouri. From what I can gather, he was well thought of across the board in the GOP. Perhaps both sides could agree on the young governor since he offered the advantages of being acceptable to all, a Republican who could carry traditionally Democrat polities, had a solid record of reform and improvement, and was young enough to be a force for some time to come. Team him with a more traditional running mate (say, Nicholas Murray Butler) and Wilson will have a real fight on his hands to win. Indeed, Hadley--I think--could well beat Wilson with a united GOP behind him.

Assuming that happens, you might well see:
  • Taft on the Supreme Court as soon as a vacancy come up
  • TR as the first former president to have a cabinet position (State, in my view)
  • No Wilsonian imposition of segregation, meaning that race relations in the US might well be a good decade or more advanced beyond what they are now
  • A negotiated/brokered settlement of the Austro-Serbian crisis of 1914, orchestrated by SecState Roosevelt at the direction of President Hadley
  • Prohibition doesn't get enacted
 
A compromise candidate was not possible, because TR completely rejected the idea: "I’ll name the compromise candidate. He’ll be me. I’ll name the compromise platform. It will be our platform.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1912-republican-convention-855607/

If somehow both TR and Taft showed more flexibility, and both agreed to withdraw for the sake of the party--something extremely unlikely--the logical compromise candidate would be Hughes, who had been a moderately progressive governor of New York, and who as a Supreme Court justice was not involved the TR-Taft quarrel.
 
I agree with the other posters: the GOP was split right down the middle with each side wanting the other to win. Both thought they could, but ultimately it was Taft's conservatives who were in control of the party machinery and thus narrowly beat Roosevelt even though he was actually more popular. This is what began the GOP's transformation into the party of conservatism, a process which was complete by the time TR's younger cousin finished his tenure in the White House. Republicans were still more liberal on social issues until 1964, but even then Dewey, Warren, Ike, and Rockefeller all self-identified as fiscal conservatives. But I digress. My point is that 1912 was such a critical flashpoint in the history of the Republican Party that unity was impossible, even if TR had jumped into the race earlier and/or gotten LaFollette's endorsement as many historians say he should. Roosevelt was never going to be the nominee that year unless Taft stepped down and endorsed him for whatever ASB reason. The Republican elites hated TR from the very beginning of his political career and actively worked to sabotage him as President. In fact the very reason he become Chief Exec in 1901 was because he was made VP first, and only because party bosses were trying to get rid of him. Scratch that, destroy him. And in 1912 they finally succeeded. Roosevelt would never tolerate that and his only option was to run third party even if he lost.
 
Interesting point. In 1912 Herbert Hadley was a young (just 40 years old) governor of traditionally Democrat Missouri. From what I can gather, he was well thought of across the board in the GOP. Perhaps both sides could agree on the young governor since he offered the advantages of being acceptable to all, a Republican who could carry traditionally Democrat polities, had a solid record of reform and improvement, and was young enough to be a force for some time to come. Team him with a more traditional running mate (say, Nicholas Murray Butler) and Wilson will have a real fight on his hands to win. Indeed, Hadley--I think--could well beat Wilson with a united GOP behind him.

No. Hadley (or Hughes or whoever) would have faced an impossible choice - take a conservative line and lose TR's supporters, take a Progressive line and lose Taft's, or attempt to fudge the issues and so lose both.

You can't paper over a divide wider than the Grand Canyon. Twelve years later, Smith and McAdoo withdrew in favour of a compromise candidate - who lost even worse (probably) than either of them would have done. A "compromise" Republican would have suffered the same fate in 1912.
 
Top