A Charles Evans Hughes Presidency

Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 Presidential election only after a hard-fought campaign, even to the point of many newspapers proclaiming Hughes the winner early on the night of the election.

WI Charles Evans Hughes did indeed win the 1916 election? The election was charged with many issues, not in the least the fact that Europe was embroiled in WWI.

Would a Hughes presidency change much? Would he be an effective leader, etc.?
 
First, I swear there are other posts and threads on this floating around down forum.

Second, though you didn't call for a POD, flipping California is probably the best bet (it had a razor thin margin). Wiki tells a good story about Hiram Johnson (Progressive Republican governor of CA) and Hughes being at the same hotel, but Hughes didn't greet Johnson and so Johnson didn't support Hughes. It may or may not be true (or pertinent), but certainly a margin of a few thousand votes is flippable. Note, though, that even if California flips, Wilson is still liable to win the popular vote. This doesn't matter much at all...except for calculations of legitmacy and the like.

Third, Wilson at the time of the 1916 election seems to have thought about having his Sec State and Vice President resign, then appointing Hughes Sec State, and then resigning himself in order to avoid a lengthy lame duck period in the middle of the tense diplomatic environment of the period. However, would he really have done so? I tend to think he might have -- he was idealistic enough -- but it's very uncertain and may have been undone by the unwillingness of either Wilson's Cabinet or the Senate to go along. If the scheme fails, then Wilson is left as a lame duck when the Germans begin to re-institute unrestricted submarine warfare and send the Zimmerman note, thus giving America a causus belli. Hughes won't take office until March 4, 1917. OTL Wilson began to lay the ground for war as early as February, asking for a decalaration in February.

It's hard to see the US getting involved in the war sooner than OTL if it's avoided getting involved until 1916. Per the discussion above, I think there's substantial ground to think it might take a bit more time for the declaration to come. Nevertheless, IMO, the crucial part of US involvement in the war isn't on the military side of things but on the diplomatic, political, and financial fronts. Probably the biggest thing that might make a substantial difference is the lack of the "Fourteen Points" as a basis either for German armistice or a peace. However, Hughes may well make a similar speech (Wilson made the speech to convince a domestic audience the war was just); at the very least, Hughes' later actions suggest he wasn't averse to internationalism: he presided over the Washington Naval Conference as Sec State in 1921, he was a member of various international bodies in the 1920s until his appointment as CJSCOTUS in 1930.

Nevertheless, it's probably not too wrong to suggest that Hughes would have taken a different stance on "internationalism" than Wilson, probably avoiding something like a League of Nations in deference to a solid treaty that would present a workable international order. Hence, the biggest thing likely to change, assuming the foregoing is at all correct or accurate, is the Treaty of Versailles -- and few events have had so widespread an effect, charting the course not just of Europe, but of the Middle East, China, Korea, and parts of Africa. Furthermore, Hughes could probably get the US to sign up to being involved in a more muted, more realistic settlement which quashes a return to isolationism.

And then of course there's more fanicful option: Hughes appoints TR as minister plenipotentiary to negotiate a peace in 1917.
 
If Hughes was President would WWI have ended the same way? It is my impression that the Germans approached Wilson about a cessation of hostilities, Wilson leaked it to the press, word gets back to the German armies about a peace being negotiated. Now no one wants to be the last person to die in a war which is about to be concluded so German forces give up the fight.

Now in TTL Germans contact Hughes and the negotiations begin in secrecy. The Germans can now negotiate maybe not from great strength but at least not from the extreme weakness of OTL. The Versaille Treaty is not nearly as bad for the Germans, maybe even as good as retreating to 1914 borders, loosing a few of her colonies. After all before the Germans all but gave up, the French were almost in the same situation so with the Germans looking a bit stronger both side might be willing to just end the damn war.

Am I correct in how WWI ended, I might be misremembering some things. I think that this would have a bigger impact than maybe having TR as SecState at the negotiations.
 

burmafrd

Banned
The Treaty was draconian considering the state that Germany was in after WW1. ANd blaming Germany for starting the war was one of the most hypocritical acts of all. There was PLENTY of blame to spread around for this war. A more just treaty that maybe makes the German economy stronger and less vulnerable to Hitler and his thugs, or the Communists- its an intersting possibility.
 
Top