DBWI: Wilson Wins in 1916
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
I assume we wouldn't get into World War 1 in this timeline due to Wilson's strict neutrality policy
It would more than likely have log lasting effects politically. I would imagine that if Wilson won in 1916 it would butterfly away the Cox/Roosevelt Administration that was in power throughout the 20's. They won on a ticket of keeping the US out of the foreign entanglements and returning to a more domestic focus. Roosevelt more than likely isn't even a candidate let a lone a winning one in 1928 which wouldn't then lead to the Republican resurgence in 1932 with Herbert Hoover.
Yeah, Wilson will have probably not caved to public opinion and congress pressure to DoW the Central Power after the Zimmerman telegram and the restart of USW; from what i read he was too full of himself and stubborn to even contemplate the idea to be forced to do something against his will, regardless of the consequences
The resentment against the Republicans in OTL in the 1920 election would instead be focused on the Democrats. Hence I doubt that Franklin D. Roosevelt would have defeated James Wadsworth for the US Senate in 1920--let alone become POTUS in 1928. (Of course it was his misfortune to become president just as a major depression was brewing, and he was easily defeated in 1932 by the Republican candidate, progressive businessman-humanitarian Herbert Hoover. "He fed the starving during the World War. He can offer food and hope to those who suffer today in our miserable Rooseveltvilles.")
IIRC Roosevelt served only one term as Cox's VP before becoming President in 1929, having been elected in 1924 to replace Sam Stewart. Perhaps had Roosevelt been with Cox from the beginning - when the new administration worked to reverse the post-war depression - FDR would've been better prepared for 1929.
In any case, what Republican might have been elected to replace Wilson in 1920?
Theodore Roosevelt, of course! Wilson would never have allowed him to command troops in France, so TR's heroic death of OTL would not have occurred.
Maybe, but his health was already on the decline after 1912 so his third term wouldn't last very long. His VP, most likely a conservative, would take over by 1924 and a pro-tariff, pro-business GOP would dominate the 1920s.
The reall changes will be at Versailles, how Wilson will have behaved differently from Hughes; while the first looked as dogmatic and lovable as your most hated professor united at a messianic complex, the second had always preferred being more collaborative and avoided to put much pressure on the other big three and concentrated his effort in the building of the Council of Nations and the end of the Russian Civil war
Despite his poor handling of domestic issues Hughes was an excellent statesman. Wilson on the other hand wasn't very interested in foreign policy. I doubt there'd be a Council of Nations and the Russian Civil War would probably have gone on longer.
In the long run, Wilson's biggest legacy was inspiring Wendell Willkie to become a Democratic activist and politician. I often wonder if the United States would've become the world's greatest superpower if not for Willkie's leadership in WWII.
I very much disagree with that.
Wilson brought segregation back into the military, the first thing Hughes did was undo all of that, he also ended segregation in the federal government, pushed for anti lynching laws, broke the power of the klu Klux klan for a generation and forced the civil rights act through congress using the war as an emergency measure.
Yes the shear backlash caused by doing all of this lost the republicans power for a generation but dispite the efforts of dixycrat presidents that came after his reforms remained in place to the present day.
Well, the fact that the USA had become the biggest power in the world doesn't need a great leader in WWII, frankly even a cat will have achieved such result. The USA simply had done like WWI, by selling at the Entente (UK-France-Italy) material while she was fighting the Axis (German-Poland-Japan) and coming late to the party and get the prize...so you don't need that much skilled leaderships.
Plus while postwar the USA was the biggest guy around it was not that the British Commonwealth and Francitaly were so much distant
Last edited:
But the civil rights act he passed lacked teeth. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Movement after WWII that segregation was effectively outlawed. But to his credit Hughes did the best he could in a very racist time. Had Wilson won re-election, progress on civil rights would be pushed back by at least a decade.
At the very least, rolling back Wilson's orders to segregate the military and the federal government offered a full generation of African Americans an avenue to the middle class. Not to mention Generals Pershing and Wood fighting to make sure that the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars allowed members of every race, at least outside of the South.
Without his martyred father, and heroic years of military service, forget Franklin, do we still get President Quinton Roosevelt?
Without his martyred father, and heroic years of military service, forget Franklin, do we still get President Quinton Roosevelt?
Probably not. Which would be disappointing considering how well Quentin Roosevelt handled the post war world.