How would Woodrow Wilson be remembered without WWI?

[Baldrick]

so, Woodrow Wilson was obviously a very passionate social conservative, and he certainly did a great deal of harm to the Civil Rights cause. Watching Jeff Davis being hauled through Richmond in '65 was a formative experience for him. most otl Americans remember him for getting the USA into wwi, for the League of nations, etcetera.
But what if there was no wwi for him to enter? Either its averted or the war ends very soon with a white peace or moderate victory?
How would this president be remembered by contemporaries and modern historians?

 

[A Piece of History]

As a racist imperialist. Seriously, while he was going on his tour in Europe talking about terrible war was and how the rights of newly independent nations had to be respected, he was or had carrying/carried out interventions in Latin America.

Wilson sought to move away from the foreign policy of his predecessors, which he viewed as imperialistic, and he rejected Taft's Dollar Diplomacy. Nonetheless, he frequently intervened in Latin American affairs, saying in 1913: "I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men." The 1914 Bryan–Chamorro Treaty converted Nicaragua into a de facto protectorate, and the U.S. stationed soldiers there throughout Wilson's presidency. The Wilson administration sent troops to occupy the Dominican Republic and intervene in Haiti, and Wilson also authorized military interventions in Cuba, Panama, and Honduras. The Panama Canal opened in 1914, fulfilling the long-term American goal of building a canal across Central America. The canal provided relatively swift passage between the Pacific Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean, presenting new economic opportunities to the U.S. and allowing the U.S. Navy to quickly navigate between the two oceans

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth]

More focus might be placed on his domestic racism- perhaps leading to a slightly earlier Civil Rights Movement? (Although it would've come a lot quicker had Hughes won in '16)

 

[Histor32]

As a racist imperialist. Seriously, while he was going on his tour in Europe talking about terrible war was and how the rights of newly independent nations had to be respected, he was or had carrying/carried out interventions in Latin America.

That's an American tradition.. Strike that.. That's a long held tradition of every group in power. And I agree its wrong, a double standard and doesn't live to the ideal that is on the tin, seldom is.. Even today it is that way

 

[Protagoras]

I think leading the country in a war on the winning side improved his reputation a lot; I expect that without WWI he would be less well known, but those who do remember anything about him would be more likely to hold him in the contempt he deserved.

 

[David T]

so, Woodrow Wilson was obviously a very passionate social conservative,

It's not clear to me exactly what a "social conservative" was in the 1910's. Of course Wilson took the standard view of white Southerners on segregation and the "Negro question" (though he did publicly denounce lynching https://www.amistadresource.org/documents/document_07_06_030_wilson.pdf) but for example on immigration he was quite liberal and vetoed a literacy test for immigrants. On anti-Semitism, one need only mention his appointment of Brandeis to the Supreme Court and his defense of Jews at Versailles. (Lloyd George said at Versailles that "There is obviously something to be said to justify the hostile feeling of the Poles against the Jews. M. Paderewski told me that, during the war, the Jews of Poland were by turns for the Germans, for the Russians, for the Austrians, but very little for Poland herself." Wilson replied that "It is the result of long persecution. The Jews of the United States are good citizens...Our wish is to bring them back everywhere under the terms of the law of the land." https://books.google.com/books?id=rRrRBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT146) Wilson was also opposed to Prohibition and vetoed the Volstead Act--I suppose that would be called a "liberal" position today (though at the time Prohibition was often considered a "progressive" social reform). On women's suffrage, Wilson had private doubts about it and did not support a constitutional amendment to establish it nationwide, but did say he supported it in the states and specifically endorsed it for New Jersey when the question came up there. He also had no use for anti-evolutionists, although that issue did not really become big until after he left the White House. ("Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised." Letter to Winterton C. Curtis, 29 August 1922. ) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

I suppose you may have in mind his alleged sympathy with the Klan. But practically everything people "know" about Wilson and the Klan (almost certainly including the famous description of Birth of a Nation as "like writing history with lightning") is wrong:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...te-woodrow-wilson.402116/page-2#post-13471264

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...te-woodrow-wilson.402116/page-3#post-13474171

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...te-woodrow-wilson.402116/page-6#post-13522808

All this of course doesn't change or excuse the fact of his instituting segregation in the federal government. But whether he was overall a "social conservative"--a term that was not widely used at that time, anyway--may well be questioned.

 

[sampleswift]

Wilson without WWI would be vilified as soon as the Civil Rights movement happened. He would be seen as a bloody racist with no redeeming factor.

 

[David T]

If there had been no World War, the economic downturn of 1913-14 (which Republicans predictably blamed on the Underwood Tariff and the administration's "anti-business" policies) might have led to a sweeping Republican victory in 1914. (As it was, the Republicans made substantial gains, but the Democrats retained control of both houses of Congress.)

"As Gus Karger noted somewhat ruefully to former president Taft in early September, 'The war, I fear, has obliterated many of the issues that seemed clear-cut six weeks ago. ' The tariff and business conditions, key elements in the Republican appeal, receded in the popular mind." Lewis L. Gould, The First Modern Clash Over Federal Power: Wilson Versus Hughes in the Presidential Election of 1916, p. 19. With a hostile Congress, and with the economy not being buoyed by the war orders of OTL, it is doubtful that Wilson could have won re-election--and if he didn't, he would be seen as a political failure by historians. (His actions on segregation would also have hurt his reputation, of course, but probably that would take a few decades.)

Of course I could be wrong, and Wilson might win Truman-style by making 1916 a referendum on the "reactionary Republican 64th Congress"...

 

[Driftless]

Wilson's handling of diplomatic relations with Mexico during their Civil War was... maladroit... The situation was complicated and a bloody mess, which required finesse. Instead, Wilson's Sec's. of State, (WJ Bryant and R Lansing) managed to add fuel to the fire, which helped sour US-Mexican relations even more.

 

[UCB79]

Wilson's handling of diplomatic relations with Mexico during their Civil War was... maladroit... The situation was complicated and a bloody mess, which required finesse. Instead, Wilson's Sec's. of State, (WJ Bryant and R Lansing) managed to add fuel to the fire, which helped sour US-Mexican relations even more.

But a second war with Mexico did NOT happen, & IIRC by the end of the 1910’s we had pulled out of Mexico completely. I certainly agree Driftless that Wilson’s Mexican policy left much to be desired but I would argue that OTH it was nowhere near the disaster of, say, Johnson in Vietnam or W in Iraq.

 

[tallthinkev]

Just another POTUS that half the US population couldn't name. Like OTL Harding, Polk, Hoover and Taft.

 

[David T]

If there had been no World War, the economic downturn of 1913-14 (which Republicans predictably blamed on the Underwood Tariff and the administration's "anti-business" policies) might have led to a sweeping Republican victory in 1914. (As it was, the Republicans made substantial gains, but the Democrats retained control of both houses of Congress.)

"As Gus Karger noted somewhat ruefully to former president Taft in early September, 'The war, I fear, has obliterated many of the issues that seemed clear-cut six weeks ago. ' The tariff and business conditions, key elements in the Republican appeal, receded in the popular mind." Lewis L. Gould, The First Modern Clash Over Federal Power: Wilson Versus Hughes in the Presidential Election of 1916, p. 19.

Indeed, the Democrats were already using the "he kept us out of war": theme in 1914! "At Atlantic City , New Jersey , in mid - October , Champ Clark predicted that historians might “ declare that his efforts to keep the United States out of war constituted his clearest title to the gratitude of his country . " https://www.google.com/search... "The Democratic slogan became, “War in the East! Peace in the West! Thank God for Wilson!" https://books.google.com/books?id=1Hj6tJuEWC4C&pg=PA569

 

[Comte de Geneve]

He would be remembered primarily as an 'accidental' one-term president who was gifted the presidency by the GOP split and lost it after an economic downturn and when faced with a re-united GOP. Among historians his legacy would be remembered highly as the epitome of Progressivism for the spurt of reform legislation and constitutional amendments that marked his first 2 years in office and would remain high until the current era when his segregationist impulses become more important to historians than his Progressive accomplishments.

 

[raharris1973]

He would be remembered primarily as an 'accidental' one-term president who was gifted the presidency by the GOP split and lost it after an economic downturn and when faced with a re-united GOP. Among historians his legacy would be remembered highly as the epitome of Progressivism for the spurt of reform legislation and constitutional amendments that marked his first 2 years in office and would remain high until the current era when his segregationist impulses become more important to historians than his Progressive accomplishments.

The best post here, and the one (other than David T's) least corrupted by presentism and fashionable racial monomania.

 

[Amadeus]

so, Woodrow Wilson was obviously a very passionate social conservative, and he certainly did a great deal of harm to the Civil Rights cause. Watching Jeff Davis being hauled through Richmond in '65 was a formative experience for him. most otl Americans remember him for getting the USA into wwi, for the League of nations, etcetera.
But what if there was no wwi for him to enter? Either its averted or the war ends very soon with a white peace or moderate victory?
How would this president be remembered by contemporaries and modern historians?

If the war had ended earlier or does not occur, Wilson would probably have lost to Hughes in 1916. As a one term President, Wilson would have a mixed record of progressive reforms and racial discrimination. Historians don't tend to rank losers very highly - I expect that he'd be ranked in the middle tier of Presidents at best.

 

[sarahz]

I think leading the country in a war on the winning side improved his reputation a lot; I expect that without WWI he would be less well known, but those who do remember anything about him would be more likely to hold him in the contempt he deserved.

Yes WW! is really the only reason he is remembered. He would otherwise sink into well deserved obscurity.

 

[AdA]

As a racist imperialist. Seriously, while he was going on his tour in Europe talking about terrible war was and how the rights of newly independent nations had to be respected, he was or had carrying/carried out interventions in Latin America.

Racist yes.
Imperialist no. In 1912/20 imperailism meant european style colonialism, While Wilson was promoting US dominance through a more evolved form that he would not regard as imperialism but as international capitalism.
The USA regarded it's interventions in Latin America at the time much as we regard UN interventions today. Keeping the peace. They were not, of course making the world safe for democracy, but simply making the world safe for Capitalism, which, for a 1912 American, was pretty much the same thing.

 

[A Piece of History]

Imperialist no. In 1912/20 imperailism meant european style colonialism, While Wilsomn was promoting US dominace through a more evolved form that he would not regsrd as imperialism but as international capitalism.
The USA regarded it's interventions in Latin America at the time much as we regard UN interventions today. Keeping the peace. They were not, of course making the world safe for democracy, but simply making the world safe for Capitalism, which, for a 1912 American, was pretty much the same thing.

Well, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Wilson's interventions were a evolution in US foreign policy and with it, the definition of 'imperialism'. He was the first US President to invade and occupy a sovereign country (Haiti) in order to impose a democracy, then he used the same reasoning to invade the Dominican Republic. You cannot say Wilson was not an imperialist when he was toppling governments in order to impose his own version of democracy. I will remind you that in 1913, he said ""I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men."

 

[AdA]

Well, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Wilson's interventions were a evolution in US foreign policy and with it, the definition of 'imperialism'. He was the first US President to invade and occupy a sovereign country (Haiti) in order to impose a democracy, then he used the same reasoning to invade the Dominican Republic. You cannot say Wilson was not an imperialist when he was toppling governments in order to impose his own version of democracy. I will remind you that in 1913, he said ""I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men."

In 1912 words had different meanings.
Ducks sounded different then.

 

[ArtosStark]

Ducks sounded different then.

I am very interested in the source on the syntax drift of the ducks mother-beak.