Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left
- Thread starter PyroTheFox
- Start date
- Status
Here comes the Great War to ruin everything like it always does.
Minor note, Shangri-La is from a 1933 book called Lost Horizon and wouldn't exist here.
I'd be surprised if @PyroTheFox pulls a curve ball and keeps the war limited, or at least diplomacy being able to wrap things up faster.
Part 6: Chapter XX - Page 129
The Capture and Arrest of Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo, June 28th, 1914 - Source: Wiki Commons
Chapter XX: Land That I Love: The War to End All Wars
Unbeknownst to much of the United States, tensions had been subtly rising abroad for some time. The great powers of Europe periodically spared over land, influence, and colonial investments, and that trend had not stalled by the twentieth century whatsoever. Market competitiveness and an urge to remain dominant in the affairs of the world drove European leaders to press on in that exact fight. For centuries, Great Britain ruled the game. From its multi-billion holdings overseas to its reputable naval power, it was often said, "On her dominions the sun never sets." Directly contesting her geopolitical throne was Germany: a nation formally founded less than a century ago, yet by 1914 an industrial powerhouse in iron and coal production. Unlike Britain, Germany did not possess a vast colonial empire, and as such it depended on continental expansion in order to bolster its prestigious position.
Germany linked itself tightly to its neighboring empire, Austria-Hungary. The latter nation was a patchwork of nationalities and ethnicities centrally controlled by the Hapsburg dynasty in Vienna, and its fate became intrinsically intertwined with that of the Germans. Austrian possessions along the Adriatic Sea and a joint venture with the Ottoman Empire to seep their influence into the Middle East amounted to a discernible threat to British hegemony over the global economy. France, Britain's closest ally and a living testament to the might of the German military (see Alsace-Lorraine and the Franco-Prussian War), naturally viewed the expansion of the German Reich as an inherent danger. Over the course of the previous decades, each of the above powers steadily increased armaments, naval expenditures, and recruited sizable standing armies - all meant as a supposed preventative measure.
Nowhere was pressure closer to a boiling point than in what historians refer to as the Balkan "Powder Keg," a region embroiled in territorial claims, spikes of ethno-nationalism, and the site of two fresh wars. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne, made the fatal mistake of visiting this area in June of 1914. While traveling within a motorcade in the streets of Sarajevo, a Yugoslav nationalist named Gavrilo Princip stepped up to the car's footboard and shot Ferdinand and his wife with a pistol at point-blank range. The imperial couple lost consciousness and died shortly thereafter. In the moment, the event was treated as an unexpected and chaotic affair, accompanied soon after with the death of Princip in prison and anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo. In speculative theory, this spark could have failed to light the powder keg if the proper precautions were taken, but no such result came about.
Imperial powers throughout Europe reacted with utter shock and disgust, but most Europeans (and Americans) treated the matter as just another ordinary headline. Few journalists imagined it as particularly cataclysmic or with any long-lasting implications. In the words of suffragette Rheta Childe Dorr, "The Hapsburgs were always being assassinated." Of what importance is the untimely death of a Central European prince to a factory worker or a social reformer? President Roosevelt paid the event relatively little mind as well, requesting updates on the situation as it unfolded but otherwise focusing more intently on domestic reform measures in addition to responding to a downtown fire in Manchester, New Hampshire. As the days ticked by, however, and the government of Serbia refused to comply with Austrian prodding to either investigate or condemn the assassination, the ordeal evolved into something far more significant.
Austria-Hungary submitted a letter to Serbia on July 23rd demanding it combat anti-Austrian propaganda, arrest all participants in the plot, curb the trafficking of explosives, and allow Austro-Hungarian delegates to take part in an investigation. Serbia declined to acquiesce to Austria's ultimatum, prompting the latter to break all diplomatic channels. Prime Minister Nikola Pašić authorized the mobilization of the Serbian armed forces on July 24th. Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary responded with a mobilization of their own on the following day. This chain triggered an accelerated crisis that culminated in the involvement of allied parties. Russia began a partial mobilization, eventually stirring Germany and France into action.
The fact of the matter is war did not break out all at once. That high-school level concept is a simplified explanation of the July Crisis and is completely inaccurate. Granted, the span of time between the Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum and the eventual declaration of war is short, but European powers truly did take extensive efforts to stall an eruption. [British Foreign Secretary] Edward Grey offered to calm Serbia and settle the air, but Kaiser Wilhelm dismissed him. Britain repeatedly warned that the potential for a localized conflict was null and that Russian mobilization was all but imminent. Roosevelt too openly asked for neutral mediation, but British and French ministers were said to have refused the notion of American intervention.
Historian John Dickinson, Roundtable Discussion on the First Great War, Aired 1989
At last, the steam escaped the kettle. Austria-Hungary issued a declaration of war on Serbia on July 28th. Due to the mess of entangling alliances circulating throughout the continent like arteries in a body, war was swiftly inevitable. German troops advanced into Luxembourg and Belgium starting on August 1st, therefore leading to Britain's declaration of war on Germany. The stage had been set. The Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire now existed in a state of war with the British, French, and Russian Entente. President Roosevelt thenceforth called a meeting with his military advisors to prepare all available options.
Last edited:
Part 6: Chapter XX - Page 130
The world now plunged into war. European populations reacted with a mix of shock and perturbation, unsure as to why diplomatic negotiation failed so miserably to curtail the disastrous July Crisis outcome. Continental pro-war sentiment was, at first, largely restricted to conservative groups and the upper-middle class, though socialist and pacifist protest organizations ultimately failed in preventing this mood from seeping into the countryside and working classes. The prospect of British intervention manifested numerous peace demonstrations in early August, including one particularly massive London rally at Trafalgar Square, but, nonetheless, the government eventually voted in unanimity for war. In a matter of weeks, Princip and Ferdinand faded to the background. The march to battle now revolved around resolving old disputes and capitalizing on uncertainty for the purpose of imperial and commercial pursuits.
The United States was caught entirely off-guard, and like the men and women of Europe responded in astonishment at the crumbling of harmony. Samuel Gompers asserted that he had not considered it possible for "civilized nations" to wage war in the age of science. Industrialist Andrew Carnegie, a notable member of the Anti-Imperialist League and a purported pacifist, grew despondent in the face of global foolishness and the failure of negotiation. Well-known ranking Democrats, including a stunned and appalled former President Bryan, likewise expressed a strong distaste for European conflict. Unitarian minister John Haynes Holmes, an anti-war proponent, famously described the outbreak of war as a doomsday scenario. "Suddenly, in the wink of an eye, three hundred years of progress is tossed into the melting-pot. Civilization is all gone, and barbarism come."
President Roosevelt met with his Cabinet in a string of meetings beginning on July 29th. He provided no official comment to the press at the onset of back-and-forth war declarations in Europe, hoping to draft a coherent response alongside knowledgeable input from Secretaries Garfield, Wood, and Meyer. Roosevelt understood that an enormous majority of the country desired the U.S. to stay neutral in the fray. Zero to none wanted involvement in the European theater, knowing the Atlantic Ocean guaranteed isolation by default. That is not to say, however, that Americans did not overtly favor one side or the other. Many empathized with the interests of their respective home countries, thus consulting cultural and ethnic identities. Most aligned with Britain, seen by a fair portion of Americans as their "mother country". To the 32 million Americans with roots in Germany, Austria-Hungary, or Ireland, however, supporting anyone apart from the Central Powers was absurd. This held true for the millions of Jewish Americans who opposed the vitriolic, autocratic, and fervently anti-Semitic Russian Empire.
The Roosevelt Administration settled on an option it deemed singularly appropriate for the unique position of the United States: Preparedness. In their view, it was fundamentally necessary for the federal government to do all it could to prepare for the eventuality of war. Embedded in the national plan was economic and military readiness. If the country should find itself at the threshold of conflict, the greatest risk would be inattentiveness. Roosevelt had long since been an advocate of militarism and the expansion of the armed forces, and an outbreak of an overseas war presented a serendipitous opportunity to aggressively champion that idea. They deemed the oft-neglected Army and Navy insufficient for the modern era. In the words of Senator Lodge, an undefended and helpless nation, by its very nature, "invites aggression." Leonard Wood concurred on the need to substantially bulwark the nation's military, and indeed that notion unified Republicans and Progressives in a manner yet unseen.
In late August, as war raged betwixt the great powers of Europe, Roosevelt committed to the Preparedness program in a highly reported public address. He sustained the need to remain neutral for the purpose of national security and economic longevity but insisted that the country ought to remain vigilant regardless.
We need, more than anything else in this country, thoroughgoing Americanism - for unless we are Americans and nothing else, we are not a nation at all - and thoroughgoing preparedness in time of peace against war - for if we are not thus prepared, we shall remain a nation only until some more virile nation finds it worthwhile to conquer us. Americanism means many things. It means equality of rights and therefore equality of duty and of obligation. It means service to our common country. It means loyalty to one flag, to our flag, the flag of all of us. All privilege based on wealth, and all enmity to honest men merely because they are wealthy, are un-American - both of them equally so. [...] I advocate military preparedness not for the sake of war, but for the sake of safeguarding this nation against war, so long as that is possible, and of guaranteeing its honor and safety if war should nevertheless come.
President Theodore Roosevelt, Preparedness Speech, August 27th, 1914
The presidential address encompassed a broad list of objectives for the federal readiness program, including not only military expansion (though it did mention Roosevelt's desire for a navy second only to Great Britain), but compulsory military training for all school-aged children. Comparing it to the Swiss system, Roosevelt stated that all young men, as a requirement for educational advancement, must serve at a West Point-like training center followed by six months of actual service in the field. Military preparedness advocates insisted on this point as one vital to the growth of the armed forces. Obligatory, universal service spat in the face of pacifism, a concept dubbed by Roosevelt an "utter folly" and stood to strengthen bonds that circumvented cultural ties and social identities. Knowing the fierce objection Democrats would invariably have to the above proposals, the speech also included a slight digression pertaining to the need for a Progressive Senate majority.
"Your Congress is tasked with the patriotic duty to enact Americanization," the president postulated. "The Party of Columbia is the party of one national identity, of one American language: the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Our citizens must be Americans, and nothing else, and if they try to be something else in addition, then they should be sent out of this country and back to the other country to which, in their hearts, they pay allegiance. This is not an age of cowardice, it is one of courage, of honor, truth and hardihood - the virtues that made America."
Last edited:
Sorry Teddy, I don't see mandatory military school and military service for all men likely to pass. He can probably get a fairly significant military expansion though.
Last edited:
I don't mean any offence by it and it's not that I don't think you could come up with this on your own, but this seems a bit...odd for a proposal (it's more a bit much).
If there wasn't already some talk of this around the time, I'd be surprised you included it. If only because it'd seem like overkill in a country that didn't even have a six figure army.
Going from barely a standing army to training a citizen militia for the entire country seems like a big stretch, especially while the States are still out of the war.
Did Teddy or someone else in the Republican party suggest this in OTL ?
Congress did enact a peacetime draft in 1940 before the American entry into WWII, with 12 months active duty until amended in 1941. The bill was first introduced in the senate as S. 4164 on June 20th, 1940, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, 4 days after Petain announced his intention to seek an armistice and two days before France signed the Armistice of Compiègne, so it was likely at least partially a reaction to the troubling speed of German advance, but I'm only speculating here.
While I doubt that any compulsory training and service will make it into law before American entry into WWI, it might only be a negotiating tactic so he can get a lesser expansion of military preparedness passed.
There is, however, a possibility for some form of national service to land right in Teddy's lap - courtesy of the Supreme Court and that pernicious "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment. For context, it wasn't until 2008, in DC vs Heller, that the SC ruled that previous limitations on gun ownership, even those predicated on the language of well-regulated militia did not prevent people from owning guns without any sort of militia membership. Presser v Illinois (1886) stated that the 2nd amendment does not restrict the laws of the states themselves, except in that they cannot deprive the federal government entirely of a citizenry armed so as to be available for calling to military service, and for a sense of how the militia clause was later used, US vs Miller (1939) asserted that weapons without clear purpose in a militia (like sawn-off shotguns) can be restricted in interstate commerce.
Hypothetically, with the right case brought before the Supreme Court, they might rule that the right to bear arms, for the provision of the common defense, requires that the bearers of arms be organized so as to be effective in the case of military necessity (and indeed, also so that they can't simply operate independently). Interestingly, Presser v Illinois offers a template: in that case, a socialist in Chicago was fined for leading a march of an unlicensed militia, and the charge was upheld by all the courts of appeal, with the SC ruling that Illinois, as a state, was permitted to put restrictions on the right to bear arms, while only the federal government was bound by the second amendment. What if a patriotic club marched with guns in DC? What if an armed socialist militia, again in DC, counter-marched? What if there's a clash, or arrests? Presser left open the question of gun rights in DC, and also left open a means by which gun rights in DC could be restricted, by using the second amendment itself. If socialist marchers are arrested while patriotic marchers are left alone, or if arrests happen well away from government buildings (eg, the socialists intercept the patriots several blocks before their march reaches the national mall, or perhaps even after the patriots leave the mall, to return to their headquarters) then charges of endangering the organs of government may well fall flat, and the case could reach the Supreme Court, where their only option to limiting socialist intimidation tactics would be to affirm the right of Congress to require the bearers of arms to be licensed members of regulated militias, since any other restriction (like requiring the bearers of arms to be "persons of good repute") would contravene the second amendment.
Teddy could use this to push for militia regulation that turns them into reserve forces with training etc.
While I doubt that any compulsory training and service will make it into law before American entry into WWI, it might only be a negotiating tactic so he can get a lesser expansion of military preparedness passed.
There is, however, a possibility for some form of national service to land right in Teddy's lap - courtesy of the Supreme Court and that pernicious "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment. For context, it wasn't until 2008, in DC vs Heller, that the SC ruled that previous limitations on gun ownership, even those predicated on the language of well-regulated militia did not prevent people from owning guns without any sort of militia membership. Presser v Illinois (1886) stated that the 2nd amendment does not restrict the laws of the states themselves, except in that they cannot deprive the federal government entirely of a citizenry armed so as to be available for calling to military service, and for a sense of how the militia clause was later used, US vs Miller (1939) asserted that weapons without clear purpose in a militia (like sawn-off shotguns) can be restricted in interstate commerce.
Hypothetically, with the right case brought before the Supreme Court, they might rule that the right to bear arms, for the provision of the common defense, requires that the bearers of arms be organized so as to be effective in the case of military necessity (and indeed, also so that they can't simply operate independently). Interestingly, Presser v Illinois offers a template: in that case, a socialist in Chicago was fined for leading a march of an unlicensed militia, and the charge was upheld by all the courts of appeal, with the SC ruling that Illinois, as a state, was permitted to put restrictions on the right to bear arms, while only the federal government was bound by the second amendment. What if a patriotic club marched with guns in DC? What if an armed socialist militia, again in DC, counter-marched? What if there's a clash, or arrests? Presser left open the question of gun rights in DC, and also left open a means by which gun rights in DC could be restricted, by using the second amendment itself. If socialist marchers are arrested while patriotic marchers are left alone, or if arrests happen well away from government buildings (eg, the socialists intercept the patriots several blocks before their march reaches the national mall, or perhaps even after the patriots leave the mall, to return to their headquarters) then charges of endangering the organs of government may well fall flat, and the case could reach the Supreme Court, where their only option to limiting socialist intimidation tactics would be to affirm the right of Congress to require the bearers of arms to be licensed members of regulated militias, since any other restriction (like requiring the bearers of arms to be "persons of good repute") would contravene the second amendment.
Teddy could use this to push for militia regulation that turns them into reserve forces with training etc.
Yes, universal military training/UMT is actually an OTL proposal supported by Roosevelt. It was an early idea that, theoretically, could've ramped up reserve unit #s. It became popularized in 1915, but considering TR as president and Wood as a major piece of the administration (and knowing their thoughts on the military), I figured it's within reason that they would propose it here.
And yes, it is absolutely a big stretch to go from very little to basic universal conscription
Interesting! Hadn't considered that type of test of the second amendment, but it'll be useful for TR's toolbelt nonetheless!
Last edited:
I don't think it could really sit in his toolbelt, since the administration can't submit reference questions to the Supreme Court (Muskrat vs United States, 1911). It would take a very specific kind of incident to force the SCOTUS to answer the specific question of constitutional interpretation, but if a case involving paramilitaries in areas of federal jurisdiction comes before the Court, then he can speechify about the case and make use of the final ruling.
Last edited:
Part 6: Chapter XX - Page 131 - 1914 Election Results
1914 Congressional Elections
Senate
Republican: 34 (+2)
Progressive: 31 (+3)
Democratic: 30 (-6)
Socialist: 1 (+1)
House
Progressive: 158 (+10)
Republican: 135 (-4)
Democratic: 117 (-4)
Socialist: 18 (+2)
Civic League: 6 (-3)
Independent: 1 (-1)
Senate Leadership
Senate President Hiram W. Johnson (P-CA)
President pro tempore Eugene Hale (R-ME)
Conference Chairman Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN)
Conference Chairman Robert La Follette (P-WI)
Caucus Chairman Robert L. Owen (D-OK)
House of Representatives Leadership
Speaker Wesley L. Jones (P-CA)
Minority Leader James R. Mann (R-IL)
Minority Leader Oscar Underwood (D-AL)
Minority Leader Victor L. Berger (S-WI)
Minority Leader Daniel A. Driscoll (CL-NY)
Senate
Republican: 34 (+2)
Progressive: 31 (+3)
Democratic: 30 (-6)
Socialist: 1 (+1)
House
Progressive: 158 (+10)
Republican: 135 (-4)
Democratic: 117 (-4)
Socialist: 18 (+2)
Civic League: 6 (-3)
Independent: 1 (-1)
Senate Leadership
Senate President Hiram W. Johnson (P-CA)
President pro tempore Eugene Hale (R-ME)
Conference Chairman Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN)
Conference Chairman Robert La Follette (P-WI)
Caucus Chairman Robert L. Owen (D-OK)
House of Representatives Leadership
Speaker Wesley L. Jones (P-CA)
Minority Leader James R. Mann (R-IL)
Minority Leader Oscar Underwood (D-AL)
Minority Leader Victor L. Berger (S-WI)
Minority Leader Daniel A. Driscoll (CL-NY)
The Roosevelt midterm elections seemed to exacerbate 1912 voting trends. A quick glance at the 1914 results explained no less than a hearty examination of state-by-state vote totals. More Americans favored President Roosevelt's agenda than they opposed it, evident by the ten-seat expansion of the Progressive delegation in the House and three-seat boost in the Senate. The Columbians were united and did not allow for the war in Europe to disrupt that unity. Democrats, meanwhile, stayed very much divided throughout the 63rd Congress as in-fighting brewed continuously between Bryan Democrats, who empathized with the Progressive social and economic platforms yet held a hardline against the idea of Preparedness mobilization, and frustrated conservative Democrats that rejected the Progressive program in its entirety. Struggling to conceive a uniform messaging on the national level, the party had immense difficulty holding onto its slim senatorial plurality. An ascendant Progressive tide washed over Democratic officeholders, resulting in a six-seat loss in the upper chamber. In addition to factionalism endlessly plaguing the old bastion of Jeffersonian ideals, a component operating outside of the Democratic party also played into the inter-party divisiveness.
The non-affiliated Civic League of Independents in Congress attracted scores of candidates in hotly contested districts, as well as in a fair few senatorial and gubernatorial races. Despite former President Hearst's fourth-place finish in the 1912 presidential election, the 1.5 million voters that buoyed the Hearst candidacy now followed his plea to defend the young political faction. Those candidates in favor of the anti-establishment reform program exhibited much of the same style-over-substance approach to politics of the former president, lambasting Roosevelt for coordinating with Republicans and commonly citing corruption within the Democratic leadership. The Civic League of America fielded over sixty candidates for office in 1914, including the nine congressional incumbents. Thirteen altogether managed to secure electoral success that year, such as former Navy Secretary Lewis Nixon in an open race for a New York State Senate seat, but dozens of high-profile office-seekers like petroleum producer Thomas L. Hisgen in the Massachusetts governor's race failed to overtake leading Progressives and Republicans. Hearst personally devoted his time and capital into the CL, so it must have been dreadfully discouraging to learn that his congressional faction lost a third of its members on Election Day.
Western Populists, seated in Congress as Democrats, faced intense scrutiny from their own party for voting approvingly on Roosevelt's Square Deal legislation, and as a natural result lost in their respective primary bouts. Therefore, incumbent senators John C. Bell of Colorado and Henry Heitfeld of Idaho suffered for their voting patterns. Each were brought into Washington as members of the Populist Party, gradually transformed into Bryan-molded Democrats, and by 1914 were as faithful as anyone to the national committee. Senator Heitfeld served as the Class 3 senator of the Gem State for about 12 years and not once heard a word of caution of the state apparatus, leaving the incumbent completely unprepared when former Governor James H. Hawley (D-ID) launched a surprise crusade against him. Hawley won the nomination, but, to his discredit, failed to curb the seemingly insurmountable campaign of Idaho House Speaker Paul Clagstone (P-ID).
Likewise, Senator Bell was felled by challenger Charles Spalding Thomas (D-CO), a former governor and Confederate Army veteran. Thomas, a thoroughbred conservative, obviously did not meet the criteria traditionally expected of Colorado Democrats, but indeed took home the nomination in a textbook upset. Thomas faced off against Republican State Chairman Hubert Work (R-CO) and reformist labor attorney Benjamin Griffith (P-CO). Utilizing a campaign fresh with references to a glorified U.S. military under the guidance of President Roosevelt, the politically inexperienced Griffith nearly toppled the poll-leading Democrat at the last minute. The final count put Thomas ahead, however, 40% to 39%, with Work catching up the rear with 11%. Thomas claimed the victory in the name of preventing U.S. entry into the European war, stating, "Sanity in Congress is all that prevents Colonel Roosevelt from dragging us into a fight that does not whatsoever concern us."
Senator James Garfield's transition to the State Department left that seat vacant at the start of the 63rd Congress. A subsequent special election for that seat led to victory for GOP candidate and former governor Myron T. Herrick (R-OH). Herrick soon opted in favor of running for a complete term, giving the conservative financier the opportunity to grip onto Garfield's old seat for another six years. His senatorial colleague, Theodore Burton (R-OH) made the fateful decision to retire in 1914, thereby leaving an open contest alongside the potential re-election of Senator Herrick. The recent inductee was considered a shoo-in for his election, but Burton's seat seemed a toss-up. Industrialist Arthur Lovett Garford won the Columbian nomination while Democrats settled on progressive reformer Representative James M. Cox (D-OH) for their choice. The Republican Party nominated incumbent Governor Warren G. Harding (R-OH) to succeed Burton - a nightmare scenario for Cox and Garford. The sitting Ohioan governor was tremendously popular in his home state and delivered safe, patriotic platitudes as opposed to the sweeping legislative pledges offered by his opponents. Skillfully lassoing mountainous Republican turnout, Harding handily defeated Cox and joined fellow victor Herrick in the all-GOP Senate delegation.
As with Ohio, the Republican Party experienced a political miracle in New York. Incumbent Governor Lewis Chanler (D-NY), who in 1912 hung onto the Governor's Mansion by the skin of his teeth, believed a third full term was untenable and announced his bowing-out in early 1914. Sensing an opportunity, Representative William Sulzer, then considered a prominent face of the New York Democratic Party, declared an intent to run. His chief competitor would be a returned and reinvigorated Charles Evans Hughes (R-NY), the anti-corruption GOP nominee who narrowly lost to William R. Hearst in 1906. Espousing a pledge to fulfill a progressive agenda that included cracking down on Tammany Hall interference in the political process and ramping up military recruitment efforts in conjunction with the Preparedness Movement, Hughes easily won the endorsement of President Roosevelt and the New York Progressive Party. Sulzer had not anticipated a unified opposition and was unequivocally decimated by the mammoth competitor in a 60-40 race. Likewise, New York Assemblyman and Republican Leader Elihu Root, a virulent Hearst opponent and champion of readiness in the war, demolished incumbent Senator William Sheehan (D-NY) for a seat in the Senate.
Lastly, perhaps the most influential race of 1914 took place in Nevada. Jingoist and white supremacist Senator Francis G. Newlands (D-NV) prepared to take part in the toughest re-election fight of his career. Newlands served in the Senate since 1902 and had yet to fall below 50% in an election. It would not be so easy in 1914, however, when he dealt with a repertoire of anti-incumbent opponents. Carson City attorney Samuel Platt (R-NV) ran harsh, negative advertisements against Newlands with assistance from a Vanderbilt-backed war chest. The Columbians ran local business owner James Johnson, who too held nothing back in criticizing Newlands above all else. Former Governor Denver S. Dickerson (D-NV), a beacon in statewide politics, even withheld an endorsement of the sitting senator, provoking outrage by the Nevada Democrats. Polling put Newlands neck-in-neck with the competition, with all candidates roughly within a point or two of one another. Reverend Ashley Grant Miller (S-NV), the Montcalm County Assistant Prosecutor and active member of the Socialist Party, initiated the surprise upset of the election and, by a margin of fewer than one percent of the vote (30.01% to 29.69%), defeated Senator Newlands and delivered the SP with its first ever win in the upper legislature.
Senators Elected in 1914 (Class 3)
Francis S. White (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 85%
Marcus A. Smith (D-AZ): Democratic Hold, 49%
James P. Clarke (D-AR): Democratic Hold, 72%
George C. Pardee (P-CA): Progressive Hold, 47%
Charles S. Thomas (D-CO): Democratic Hold, 40%
Frank B. Brandegee (R-CT): Republican Hold, 55%
Duncan U. Fletcher (D-FL): Democratic Hold, 89%
Thomas E. Watson (D-GA): Democratic Hold, 67%
Paul Clagstone (P-ID): Progressive Gain, 42%
Charles M. Thomson (P-IL): Progressive Gain, 38%
Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN): Republican Hold, 38%
Albert B. Cummins (P-IA): Progressive Hold, 58%
Joseph L. Bristow (P-KS): Progressive Hold, 57%
Augustus E. Wilson (R-KY): Republican Gain, 40%
John R. Thornton (D-LA): Democratic Hold, Unopposed
John W. Smith (D-MD): Democratic Hold, 45%
William J. Stone (D-MO): Democratic Hold, 53%
Ashley G. Miller (S-NV): Socialist Gain, 30%
Jacob Gallinger (R-NH): Republican Hold, 55%
Elihu Root (R-NY): Republican Gain, 52%
Lee Overman (D-NC): Democratic Hold, 57%
James H. Sinclair (P-ND): Progressive Gain, 40%
Warren G. Harding (R-OH): Republican Hold, 56%
*Myron T. Herrick (R-OH): Republican Gain, 48%
Thomas Gore (D-OK): Democratic Hold, 44%
William D. Hanley (P-OR): Progressive Gain, 39%
Gifford Pinchot (P-PA): Progressive Hold, 41%
Coleman L. Blease (D-SC): Democratic Hold, 98%
Philo Hall (P-SD): Progressive Hold, 50%
Reed Smoot (R-UT): Republican Hold, 54%
William P. Dilingham (R-VT): Republican Hold, 59%
Ole Hanson (P-WA): Progressive Hold, 44%
Isaac Stephenson (P-WI): Progressive Hold, 50%
*Special Election
Francis S. White (D-AL): Democratic Hold, 85%
Marcus A. Smith (D-AZ): Democratic Hold, 49%
James P. Clarke (D-AR): Democratic Hold, 72%
George C. Pardee (P-CA): Progressive Hold, 47%
Charles S. Thomas (D-CO): Democratic Hold, 40%
Frank B. Brandegee (R-CT): Republican Hold, 55%
Duncan U. Fletcher (D-FL): Democratic Hold, 89%
Thomas E. Watson (D-GA): Democratic Hold, 67%
Paul Clagstone (P-ID): Progressive Gain, 42%
Charles M. Thomson (P-IL): Progressive Gain, 38%
Charles W. Fairbanks (R-IN): Republican Hold, 38%
Albert B. Cummins (P-IA): Progressive Hold, 58%
Joseph L. Bristow (P-KS): Progressive Hold, 57%
Augustus E. Wilson (R-KY): Republican Gain, 40%
John R. Thornton (D-LA): Democratic Hold, Unopposed
John W. Smith (D-MD): Democratic Hold, 45%
William J. Stone (D-MO): Democratic Hold, 53%
Ashley G. Miller (S-NV): Socialist Gain, 30%
Jacob Gallinger (R-NH): Republican Hold, 55%
Elihu Root (R-NY): Republican Gain, 52%
Lee Overman (D-NC): Democratic Hold, 57%
James H. Sinclair (P-ND): Progressive Gain, 40%
Warren G. Harding (R-OH): Republican Hold, 56%
*Myron T. Herrick (R-OH): Republican Gain, 48%
Thomas Gore (D-OK): Democratic Hold, 44%
William D. Hanley (P-OR): Progressive Gain, 39%
Gifford Pinchot (P-PA): Progressive Hold, 41%
Coleman L. Blease (D-SC): Democratic Hold, 98%
Philo Hall (P-SD): Progressive Hold, 50%
Reed Smoot (R-UT): Republican Hold, 54%
William P. Dilingham (R-VT): Republican Hold, 59%
Ole Hanson (P-WA): Progressive Hold, 44%
Isaac Stephenson (P-WI): Progressive Hold, 50%
*Special Election
Last edited:
I'm guessing that the GOP and Progressives will merge and conservitive Republicans will join the Democrats.
More like the other way around.
The democrats control more territory, but the Republicans still have more resources, I think they should be able to swallow the Democratic Conservatives if there's to be a consolidation.
Same. I can see him at least preparing the US military and upgrading it so if they have to go into wars and so ion, they'd be more prepared and well-trained than under Woodrow.
Agreed!
We shall see. The conservatives are definitely in a pickle - though as I mentioned before this is the height of the Progressive era, and things will change soon enough.
Hmmm
Part 6: Chapter XX - Page 132
Secure in the knowledge that the U.S. voting population sanctioned President Roosevelt's call to action, the exiting 63rd Senate reluctantly agreed to take up the legislative proposals offered by the head of state. Preparedness, an idea that had gained a torrent of traction since the president's August address on the subject, seeped into the daily American lexicon and bubbled into a full-fledged movement by the conclusion of 1914. Advocates for war readiness spurred the growth of a handful of local and state "Defense Clubs," manifesting a lobbying force aside from war-hungry weapons manufacturers. Senator Fairbanks, the univocal leader of the Senate Republicans during Roosevelt's tenure, voiced his favor with the program and urged his party to follow suit. The Falconer-Colt Bill, also known as the Preparedness Bill, reached the floor of the Senate on December 10th.
Falconer-Colt, named for Senator LeBaron Colt (R-RI) and Representative Jacob Falconer (P-WA), furnished a base level of preparedness that included a dramatic upsurge in military spending, a wide-ranging expansion of federal recruitment efforts, the renewal of naval contracts, and a numbered increase in State and War Department officials. When Roosevelt took office, the State Department operated with a meager, bare-bones budget and employed only about two hundred workers. In the case of unexpected conflict, such an abysmal figure would leave the U.S. far below the typical requirements of a capable and advanced, industrialized nation. Falconer-Colt also outfitted expanded presidential powers in the eventuality of war involving the United States: a prospect exceedingly unacceptable to the Democratic Party. Indeed, congressional Democrats fought vehemently against Preparedness at every turn, exhaustingly reiterating their perspective that enlarging the scope of the Executive branch and dedicating a higher percentage of the national budget to the military would not stave off war, but perhaps have the opposite effect.
A secondary aspect to the bill in Congress concerned the economy. At the outbreak of war in August, insanity struck the London Stock Exchange and forced its indefinite closure. Demand for raw gold shot through the roof, draining U.S. reserves and stirring bank runs and panic hoarding by the American citizenry. Stocks crumbled, food prices rose, unemployment figures skyrocketed, and the export market dissipated short of nothingness. Any small chance of recovery appeared to evaporate, or at least that was how it seemed. Alongside its war fever, the late-summer Roosevelt Administration primarily focused on how best to deal with the national economy in a world rife with bloodshed and mistrust. Roosevelt and his political comrades believed that the answer to the United States' economic woes lied with its root problem: the war. After all, once the pure shock of the world plunging into a deadly battlefield wore off, someone needed to produce the means necessary to conduct said war. Therefore, the president insisted that the Preparedness legislation incorporate a portion that entailed looser restrictions on overseas trading and light subsidies for steel and cooper manufacturers (a major turnaround from Roosevelt's belligerent legal assault on U.S. Steel).
Roosevelt placed all of the nation's metaphorical eggs into the export basket, explicitly refusing to either advise the New York Stock Exchange to close or order the Treasury seize on depleting gold reserves. Some Progressives joined with Democrats in deriding the president's choice, albeit in private correspondence, wary of rolling the dice on exports. Fortunately for Roosevelt, the drying up of industry in Europe and a sudden rise in demand of most raw goods validated his decision. If managed and coordinated properly, the U.S. was on track to be a significant economic player despite its poor contemporaneous condition. Furthermore, the warring continent was ripe for investment, and that caught the eyes of Rockefeller and Morgan interests. Between 1910 and 1915, U.S. banking forces invested millions into various European governments and often served as their purchasing agents. Especially in the wake of favorable trading conditions with Germany, Morocco, and China from years of open-door negotiations and diplomatic endeavors, the House of Rockefeller operated as a benevolent, non-aligned lender to these countries. Historians estimate well over two billion dollars in loans were dispersed to the Central Powers prior to, and too at the start of, the Great War.
Congress signed off on Falconer-Colt in December, altering very little of the text and complying to much of the president's demands (it did not include universal conscription). Just as predicted, the American economy underwent an industrial boom in the first half of 1915 partially due to the Preparedness doctrine. Steel and oil demand bounced back from sharp cutbacks and overall unemployment dipped slightly with the reinforcement of naval bases, speedy construction of a revitalized Navy, and, of course, rising enlistment figures. The only piece of the puzzle that stayed unresolved was the stunted American exports wing. European need for American goods was at an all-time high due to the wartime draining of resources and ever-higher manpower costs, but Great Britain tactically made international trade abundantly nightmarish. The British Naval Blockade, established at the onset of war in August, effectively blocked off German ports from receiving any outside trade whatsoever, including from neutral powers. Britain forbade all commerce with Germany and mandated all merchant vessels, even if they held cargo unrelated to the war, dock in Entente-controlled ports for examination. For Americans, the Royal Navy exhibited especially strict scrutiny. It was not unheard of for seafaring traders to have their stock depleted or ruined in that process.
U.S. traders were endlessly frustrated at the idea that British intrusion culled profiteering opportunities, and many avoided the North Sea completely to stave off the risk of losing cargo. Britain and France were, in theory, more easily accessible trading partners with the restrictions of the blockade in mind, but German rates had been massaged over the last decade and U.S. industries preferred existing arrangements over being bullied into accepting uglier rates for the same work. Commercial forces had no love for Britain prior to the war, but this development sickened them and drove many to lobby the Roosevelt Administration to act. The president delayed the choice as long as possible, but now he either needed to acquiesce to British demands and start from scratch or bully London right back. Truthfully, Roosevelt's less-emphasized imperial ambitions, that of the United States as a world power, counted heavily on utilizing its standing deals with the Kaiser as a foundation. Trade with the British Empire and France was miniscule by comparison. Endangering relations with an amiable German Empire at a moment when France acted in an outright antagonistic manner to the administration and Britain mocked the U.S. with its snatching away of the "Freedom of the Seas" was no option at all.
Before the United States laid a golden valley. The omnipresent powers of international commerce, those interests that greedily profited off exploitation in the Philippines and colonialism in South America, viewed the Great War not as a catastrophe, but as an opportunity for new profits. In the unquestioning service of their home countries, men were driven off to war to die in one of the most inhumane conflicts in human history. They were ordered to dig their own graves, and capitalists happily sold the shovels. [...] U.S. financiers, banks, and investors long since coveted a plate at the table in Europe. Germany was their entry-point to total economic domination in the Eastern Hemisphere. Once the Ottomans completed their Bosporus-to-Baghdad railway, and forcibly swung open the doors of the Middle Eastern markets to plundering, investing in the Central Powers was all but inevitable. Desperate American merchants were offered fabulous riches by these same investors if they dared to traverse the Mediterranean or the North Sea. It just so happened that the Captain of the Rose took such an offer.
Benjamin McIntyre, The Workers' Struggle: The Birth of a Columbian International, 2018
Over the objection of Anglophile Leonard Wood, Theodore Roosevelt chose to, quite literally, test the waters. In a fateful, controversial move that has since become one of the most oft discussed resolutions of the Columbian president, Roosevelt personally sent notice to London that American commercial ships would no longer abide by the blockade. He decreed that the American economy would not "kowtow to [...] an assault on our freedom," insofar as the intercepting and forced docking of commercial vehicles was concerned. Noting the innate neutrality of the seas and the unprecedented nature of enforcing a blockade against peaceful traders, Roosevelt stated that vessels containing no war materiel had no reason to abide by the British government. He did not pass a formal issue contesting the status of European waters or otherwise officially challenge the blockade, but instead sent the above memorandum and waited for a return letter - presumably anticipating the British would back down from their hardline offensive. Secretary Garfield followed-up with a more cordial message, but that too was seemingly ignored.
Four days later, on April 30th, 1915, a transatlantic ship named "The Yellow Rose," sailed into the North Sea. According to a copy of its manifest, it contained fourteen crew members, twenty passengers, and a diverse stock of foodstuffs and medical supplies. The Yellow Rose was bound for the seaport town of Esbjerg in Denmark but was stopped by British authorities along the Western blockade just South of Dover. Reports vary, but the official assessment by the Dover Patrol was that the ship refused standard orders to dock at Dover and continued pressing East (though some historians assert that the shipping vessel was first halted and boarded). Declaring the rogue captain in criminal disregard to submit to their jurisdiction, and apparently under a premonition that it was carrying more nefarious goods than wheat and medicine, the British convoy unceremoniously fired upon the ship. The Yellow Rose sank into the English Channel, and all onboard perished on that April afternoon.
Last edited:
- Status