Charles Evans Hughes

What about the Zimmerman telegram? That was the official impetus for America getting involved in World War One; under a Hughes presidency might it have led to a war with Mexico instead? (and a proxy war against Germany?)
 
Last edited:
What about the Zimmerman telegram? That was the official impetus for America getting invilved in World War One; under a Hughes presidency might it have led to a war with Mexico instead? (and a proxy war against Germany?)



It would still lead to war with Germany if it is sent and intercepted as OTL, but there could be a lot of room here for butterflies.

If Barbara Tuchman is correct, much of Zimmermann's cavalier attitude toward the US derived from his view of Wilson personally. In Ch9 of The Zimmermann Telegram she recounts an incident in Berlin just after the severance of diplomatic relations in Feb 1917. The departing Ambassador and Mrs Gerard were having after-theatre supper with Zimmermann and alady friend. "You will see," Zimmermann told them, "everything will be all right. America will do nothing because Wilson is for peace and nothing else. Everything will go on as before." - - - To the Germans [journalists] he said it was a good thing - at last we have gotten rid of this person as peace mediator."

If this was his attitude, it might have changed considerably once Wilson left the scene, to be replaced by a stranger who was a totally unknown quantity as far as the Germans were concerned [1]. The Telegram might not be sent (especially if Hughes is getting tough with the Mexicans and a US/Mex war looks likely even without the ZT) or it might get sent by submarine, as was originally planned, and so never intercepted. And even if it still came out, Zimmermann might have washed his hands and claimed it to be a British hoax - which many Americans would have believed.


[1] At http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf? res=9E0DE4D71430E733A05753C1A9679D946796D6CF

there is a report in the NYT of alarm in Berlin at the news of Wilson's "defeat". They hadn't a clue what to expect from Hughes.
 
Having a Senate and (probably) HoR controlled by ther other party doesn't help either.

Regarding Hughes' SoS, I had thought he might bring Philander Knox back. However, I've not been able to turn up much regarding Knox's attitude to the European War. Frank B Kellogg is also possible. So is Root, of course, but choosing him might bind Hughes tighter to the TR wing of the party than he really wants to be, especially if he feels that TR's sabre-rattling has nearly cost him the election..



What sort of action are you contemplating? Would it involve legislation?

Keep in mind that the Senate at least (probably the HoR too) will be under Democratic control from the get-go, and in any event, after the 1918 midterms, both houses are almost certain to be heavily Democrat.

I see very little chance of Kellogg at this time. What foreign policy credentials he had came about when he was senator which started in 1916. The postwar Republican administrations emphasized domestic over foreign policy. Hughes does not have that luxury. He needs a heavyweight SoS.

Knox would fit that bill. He is a bit hard to read re the war as you've noted. On the one hand he was recommended by Root so that suggests he is not too far apart but then he served under Taft, who was not in the Republican Warhawks camp and had his own idiosyncratic views about a postwar peacekeeping mechanism. Yet I still see a lot of Republican pressure esp. by Lodge and TR to pick Root and Hughes could be inclined to do this as a halfway measure to fend off demands for Teddy to have a direct role in his administration.

As for the Klan I would see Hughes launching a series of investigations soon after the war ended to try to highlight both their brutality and corruption.
 
What about the Zimmerman telegram? That was the official impetus for America getting invilved in World War One; under a Hughes presidency might it have led to a war with Mexico instead? (and a proxy war against Germany?)

No. Hearst the Democrat was the loudest voice pushing for war with Mexico instead of Germany and Hughes the Republican will be even less likely to listen.
 
I see very little chance of Kellogg at this time. What foreign policy credentials he had came about when he was senator which started in 1916. The postwar Republican administrations emphasized domestic over foreign policy. Hughes does not have that luxury. He needs a heavyweight SoS.

Unless he intends to do like Wilson and be his own SoS. Old Woodrow could never be accused of appointing heavyweights.

Knox would fit that bill. He is a bit hard to read re the war as you've noted. On the one hand he was recommended by Root so that suggests he is not too far apart but then he served under Taft, who was not in the Republican Warhawks camp and had his own idiosyncratic views about a postwar peacekeeping mechanism.

In a letter of Nov 27, 1915 to Lodge, TR criticises Knox for "defending Hypenated Americanism lately in a way which if persevered in will make him as undesirable as [Theodore F] Burton - - I did not think Knox had the proper understanding of our foreign questions - -". However, TR also states that he would "do my best to get the Progressives to support Knox if he were the man available - -".

"Hyphenated Americanism" as used by TR, was generally a euphemism for the views of German and Irish Americans. Burton was supported by many of the latter, so in TR's mouth that comparison was quite an insult. Yet in his desperation to get rid of Wilson, TR was evidently willing to swallow Knox and cross his fingers that he would make Root his SoS, which would apparently make everything ok.

This is pretty typical TR. Great man though he was, at times like this he reminds me of Toad of Toad Hall. His current obsession, whatever it might be, would drive all others out of his mind. Hence his absurd suggestion that the Progressives should nominate Lodge, who had probably never said a progressive word in his life, merely because Lodge happened to agree with TR on the latest bee in the latter's bonnet - getting into the war. All the reform issues he had fought for as the Progressive candidate had now become ancient history to him, and he blithely expected the party's "rank and file" to likewise forget them and troop to the polls as he directed. No wonder so many of them walked away and voted for Wilson instead.


Yet I still see a lot of Republican pressure esp. by Lodge and TR to pick Root and Hughes could be inclined to do this as a halfway measure to fend off demands for Teddy to have a direct role in his administration.

If I were Hughes I shouldn't (once the election was out of the way) have wasted time trying to appease Teddy. I suspect it would be futile.

My impression is thta the man had become temperamentally incapable of approving of any President other than himself. He fell out with Taft, so driving Taft out became his obsession - even though it made Wilson's election inevitable[1]. Once Wilson was in, getting him out became priority#1, almost regardless of who got in. Once Hughes was President, I fear it would only be a matter of time before TR found him, in turn, unacceptable for this or that reason.

[1] Or if not Wilson's, then that of Champ Clark or WJ Bryan, whom TR disliked even more. But as long as getting rid of Taft was his Big Issue, that didn't weigh with him
 
Last edited:
Top