1920s and 1930s if Charles Evans Hughes wins in 1916

CaliGuy

Banned
What would the 1920s and 1930s--both in the U.S. and abroad--have looked like had Charles Evans Hughes won the U.S. Presidency in 1916?

For the record, I am operating on the assumption that Hughes would have taken the U.S. into WWI just like Wilson did and that WWI would have still resulted in an Entente victory and in approximately a similar peace treaty in comparison to our TL.

Also, I suspect that some Democrat (probably not Woodrow Wilson due to his health, though) will win the U.S. Presidency in 1920 in this TL in response to WWI and the resulting recession. Afterwards, I expect Democrats to hold the White House until the Great Depression occurs, after which point the Republicans will capture the White House in 1932.

However, I am specifically curious about both the nature of U.S. domestic and foreign policy in the 1920s and 1930s and the situation in other parts of the world (Europe, Asia, the Pacific, et cetera) during this time.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
Hughes may be able to hang on and win in 1920, after all he just lead a country to a successful war. That's a big enough boost for most incumbents.

Bot I do see the Dems winning in '24 just because of the publics weariness with 8 years of the same party.

So if the Democrats catch the blame for the depression, people living in Smithburgs or Roosevilles, etc. who do the Republicans win with in 1932? Hoover? La Folette?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Hughes may be able to hang on and win in 1920, after all he just lead a country to a successful war. That's a big enough boost for most incumbents.

Look at the 1918 and 1920 election results in our TL, though.

Bot I do see the Dems winning in '24 just because of the publics weariness with 8 years of the same party.

Actually, if the Republicans hold on in 1920, I could see them holding the White House until 1932. Also, back then, people appear to have been more willing to allow a single party to keep the White House for more than two consecutive terms.

So if the Democrats catch the blame for the depression, people living in Smithburgs or Roosevilles, etc. who do the Republicans win with in 1932? Hoover? La Folette?

Probably someone a bit younger than that. Indeed, this Republican would probably be a progressive and might quickly and unexpectedly rise to fame (just like Warren G. Harding did in 1920 in our TL).
 
For the record, I am operating on the assumption that Hughes would have taken the U.S. into WWI just like Wilson did and that WWI would have still resulted in an Entente victory and in approximately a similar peace treaty in comparison to our TL.
I wouldn't be so sure about the last part. What I remember from the book The Great Influenza is that French prime minister Clemenceau was a real mother fucker and was pushing for a punitive treaty. And Wilson caved at the end because he was sick, most probably with a stroke.

The entire 20th century may have been radically different and in a very positive way.
 
Last edited:
One important difference between Hughes and Wilson in the handling of the war is that Hughes would appoint Gen. Leonard Wood not Pershing to head the AEF. One question that jumps out is whether the AEF would have performed better or worse under Wood. In OTL Wood tried unsuccessfully to get the Republican nomination in 1920. If Hughes loses in 1920 Wood could be a very formidable candidate in 1924. Though if gets in the White House there is the fact he died in 1927.
 
Maybe with Wood being a military hero in this TL he becomes Hughes running mate in '20? This sets Wood up for 1924 and an unprepared President (if Wood dies in '27) to face the depression (once again barring butterflies)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
One important difference between Hughes and Wilson in the handling of the war is that Hughes would appoint Gen. Leonard Wood not Pershing to head the AEF. One question that jumps out is whether the AEF would have performed better or worse under Wood.

Well, wouldn't Wood be more willing to allow U.S. soldiers to serve in foreign units?

In OTL Wood tried unsuccessfully to get the Republican nomination in 1920. If Hughes loses in 1920 Wood could be a very formidable candidate in 1924. Though if gets in the White House there is the fact he died in 1927.

If the Democrats win in 1920, though, they will probably hold the White House in 1924 due to the good economy. Plus, war heroes don't always win--just ask Winfield Scott Hancock and John McCain.
 
If the Democrats win in 1920, though, they will probably hold the White House in 1924 due to the good economy. Plus, war heroes don't always win--just ask Winfield Scott Hancock and John McCain.


And WW1 didn't seem to throw up popular heroes the way other wars did.

Iirc the only WW1 vets to become POTUS were Truman and Eisenhower, and they only after it had become ancient history.
 
Some of the most significant effects on the 1920s and 1930s would actually be in the areas of civil rights under Hughes. Hughes would never have re-segregated Washington as Wilson did, nor oversee segregation in various branches of the civil service, and so you might see a civil rights movement, instead of being somewhat set back in the early decades of the 1900s, instead push forward a bit more. Secondly, Hughes was much more favourable to women's suffrage - promising an amendment on the campaign trail repeatedly in 1916 - and this is certainly something he would have pursued. You might well have seen the 19th Amendment pushed through a few years earlier than OTL, and further developments in early women's rights lead on from there.

Hughes really is an underappreciated gem for alternate history.
 
Though they may have had their differences, Hughes would have been astute enough to have TR as part of the delegation to *Versailles*. Now you're talking about someone in the American delegation with solid credentials in Europe, and respect to go with it. I doubt Clemenceau would have gotten away with a fraction of what he did IOTL if he had to work with Hughes and TR. Hence we're talking a decidedly different treaty.

As to a possible Hughes successor: how about the first director of the office of the budget and Hughes' Secretary of the Treasury during his 1921-1925 term, Charles Dawes?
 
Some of the most significant effects on the 1920s and 1930s would actually be in the areas of civil rights under Hughes. Hughes would never have re-segregated Washington as Wilson did, nor oversee segregation in various branches of the civil service, and so you might see a civil rights movement, instead of being somewhat set back in the early decades of the 1900s, instead push forward a bit more. Secondly, Hughes was much more favourable to women's suffrage - promising an amendment on the campaign trail repeatedly in 1916 - and this is certainly something he would have pursued. You might well have seen the 19th Amendment pushed through a few years earlier than OTL, and further developments in early women's rights lead on from there.

Hughes really is an underappreciated gem for alternate history.


But would any Southern States have ratified the 19A had it not been Wilson promoting it? A Republican would have far less influence there.
 
Unless he screws up royal as commander of the AEF Gen. Woods is nearly certain to be the Republican nominee in 1924. Whether or not he wins the general election is an open question (belaboring the Ike analogy could be another form of the all too common World War 1.9 fallacy which is trying to force World War One to be more like World War Two)

I don't see full fledged Prohibition under a President Hughes, at most a hard liquor prohibition that permits beer and wine. I would even go so far as to say there is a 50/50 chance Storyville remains open which could slow the spread of jazz.

Hughes is less likely to try to crush dissent after the declaration of war to the same extent Wilson did and if he tried he's much less likely to get away with for a variety of reasons starting with Speaker Clark being a Democrat. Debs does not get prosecuted

Hearst's migration from being a prominent Radical Democrat to a grumpy Republican may not happen with a President Hughes

If he's not in the White House with all the stresses that causes Wilson's 1919 stroke might be postponed or completely prevented That could mean he could be a political force in the early Twenties,
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
Though they may have had their differences, Hughes would have been astute enough to have TR as part of the delegation to *Versailles*. Now you're talking about someone in the American delegation with solid credentials in Europe, and respect to go with it. I doubt Clemenceau would have gotten away with a fraction of what he did IOTL if he had to work with Hughes and TR. Hence we're talking a decidedly different treaty.

TR was already dead by the time of the Versailles Peace Conference, though.

As to a possible Hughes successor: how about the first director of the office of the budget and Hughes' Secretary of the Treasury during his 1921-1925 term, Charles Dawes?

Yes, Dawes could work for this. :)

But would any Southern States have ratified the 19A had it not been Wilson promoting it? A Republican would have far less influence there.

Maybe not as quickly, but very likely eventually; after all, the winds were heading in the direction of women's suffrage--something that would have almost certainly continued with or without Woodrow Wilson as the U.S. President.
 
Hughes may be able to hang on and win in 1920, after all he just lead a country to a successful war. That's a big enough boost for most incumbents.

The problem is that it's an unpopular war with many people, and after 1918 any conceivable peace settlement will be unpopular. As I wrote here years ago, "*Any* conceivable peace treaty is going to be unpopular with many people (German-Americans who think it too harsh on Germany, Irish-Americans resentful that it doesn't guarantee Ireland's freedom, Italian-Americans who don't think it gives Italy enough, etc.) In addition, even with people who feel the US had no choice but to enter the war, there will be resentment of wartime regulations, wartime and postwar economic disruption, inflation, etc. These resentments which in OTL were directed against the Democrats will in this ATL be directed against Republicans." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...dential-election-of-1916.311473/#post-8939913
 
TR was already dead by the time of the Versailles Peace Conference, though.

True, he was IOTL. Doesn't necessarily mean with a Hughes presidency that his life plays out the same. I'll grant he'd already gone to the Amazon by the time of the election so that damage was done. However, it's entirely possible he wouldn't have had any familial casualties in the Great War, which accelerated his decline. Thus, it's not outside the realm of possibility of TR surviving to the early '20s or so.
 
I am toying with TR running in 1908 as his "second" elected term, thus no Taft and assuming further he takes the Supreme Court seat CEH took in 1910, having Hughes run in 1912 as TR's successor. Oddly I hit 1916 in a quandary over whether TR will run against him since he too might not be "progressive" enough or fatigue in the GOP giving an opening the Wilson, so a plausible Wilson first term in 1916. Assuming Hughes runs and wins re-election then he likely retires for the 1920 election and I am trying to think of who might win as a Democrat or run as a successor Republican. In this mess I can get myself a Republican in 1920, maybe even Harding or set up to have the Democrats finally grasp power and hold it through to 1928 or 1932, potentially being the party in power if 1929 hits the same (no butterflies there).

Does anyone have suggestions on who Hughes would run with as VP and select as his cabinet? I roughly assume he might populate his first term with many of TR's choices but by a second term might shift more moderate and bring in more conservative leaning Republicans? Would Wilson still run with Marshall ever here? And if not who does he tap? Any suggestions on some deeper policy and position from Hughes? He appears akin to TR but perhaps not as bold or brash? I have already mucked up the Great War so here the USA may never be involved whether its Wilson or Hughes at the helm in 1914 or 1916, but I am curious if there is anything more to read on where Hughes stood, not just how he campaigned versus an incumbent Wilson.

Thank you in advance for any ideas. I look forward to unravelling the 1920s and 1930s now.
 
True, he was IOTL. Doesn't necessarily mean with a Hughes presidency that his life plays out the same. I'll grant he'd already gone to the Amazon by the time of the election so that damage was done. However, it's entirely possible he wouldn't have had any familial casualties in the Great War, which accelerated his decline. Thus, it's not outside the realm of possibility of TR surviving to the early '20s or so.


Of course that could equally well work the other way.

In Mr Hughes Goes To War, I had him as Secretary of War in Hughes' cabinet, and dying six months earlier due to pressure of work.
 
Top