If Theodore Roosevelt was elected in 1912, would the 22nd amendment be passed?

If TR somehow won election as a Progressive, Democrats and Republicans in Congress might unite on a presidential-term-limits amendment. But I think such an election is extremely improbable--almost any plausible Democratic presidential candidate would win the core Democratic vote, which would be enough for victory in a three-way race. IMO the only plausible way for TR to be elected in 1912 is as a Republican. If that happens, the Republicans will oppose such an amendment--at least as long as TR is alive.

After TR's death, a Democratic Congress might pass such an amendment as a posthumous slap at TR--the way the 22nd Amendment in OTL was a posthumous slap at FDR by the Republican 80th Congress. And just as the 22nd Amendment got some support from Democrats who had not cared all that much for FDR and felt freer to implicitly criticize him now that he was no longer around, so this amendment will get some support from Republicans who (even if only privately) had never cared that much for TR.
 
Last edited:
If TR somehow won election as a Progressive, Democrats and Republicans in Congress might unite on a presidential-term-limits amendment. But I think such an election is extremely improbable--almost any plausible Democratic presidential candidate would win the core Democratic vote, which would be enough for victory in a three-way race. IMO the only plausible way for TR to be elected in 1912 is as a Republican. If that happens, the Republicans will oppose such an amendment--at least as long as TR is alive.

After TR's death, a Democratic Congress might pass such an amendment as a posthumous slap at TR--the way the 22nd Amendment in OTL was a posthumous slap at FDR by the Republican 80th Congress. And just as the 22nd Amendment got some support from Democrats who had not cared all that much for FDR and felt freer to implicitly criticize him now that he was no longer around, so this amendment will get some support from Republicans who (even if only privately) had never cared that much for TR.

On second thought, the amendment that a Democratic Congress might pass after TR's death might be quite different from the 22nd Amendment--it might instead be a single-six-year-term amendment. Bryan had favored this; it was in the 1912 Democratic platform [1]; and in OTL it was only defeated through Wilson's efforts. [2] But in this ATL Wilson is not elected president in 1912--and probably not thereafter, either--so Bryan might get the Democrats to go along with this pet idea of his.

[1] Although actually the platform doesn't even specify that the term be six years: "We favor a single Presidential term, and to that end urge the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution making the President of the United States ineligible to reelection, and we pledge the candidates of this Convention to this principle." https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1912-democratic-party-platform

[2] See Wilson's letter to A. Mitchell Palmer at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-year-presidential-term.395351/#post-12902607 As The Nation remarked when the text of the letter was made public in early 1916, "From any point of view, it is a noteworthy document. Nowhere in it did the President even allude to the Baltimore platform, favoring a single term, urging a Constitutional amendment to make the President ineligible for reelection, and pledging 'the candidate of this Convention to this principle.' The candidate of that Convention never made any public reference to this particular plank; and his letter to Mr. Palmer, written in February of 1913, showed that he regarded it as of no binding force. He wrote, in fact, as if it had never existed. It cannot be said, therefore, that he has changed his mind in order to suit his present political ambitions. From the first he treated the one-term plank as a bit of Bryanesque buncombe." https://archive.org/stream/nation102jannewy/nation102jannewy_djvu.txt
 
Last edited:
Given TR's third, and possibly fourth, terms would be non-consecutive with his first two, would he still face the same controversy as FDR? I would think that the "president-for-life" charge falls flat when said president actually retired and returned to private life (albeit briefly), and had to regain the presidency. Perhaps the amendment wouldn't restrict a president to two terms, but to two consecutive terms, leaving the door open for comebacks…?
 
Given TR's third, and possibly fourth, terms would be non-consecutive with his first two, would he still face the same controversy as FDR? I would think that the "president-for-life" charge falls flat when said president actually retired and returned to private life (albeit briefly), and had to regain the presidency. Perhaps the amendment wouldn't restrict a president to two terms, but to two consecutive terms, leaving the door open for comebacks…?

The no-third-term tradition was definitely used against presidents seeking a third non-consecutive term. It was used against Grant in 1880 and against TR in OTL in 1912. The idea that it was OK to have a "third cup of coffee" if it wasn't right after the first two cups was widely ridiculed, as in this cartoon:

d92e098d058a416946c62d9a73ed6271.jpg


Now, granted, the very fact that TR would win in 1912 in this ATL would mean that this line of criticism would have failed--that year. But that doesn't mean it would be forgotten by his enemies, any more than Republicans were silenced in their objections to FDR's third and fourth terms after 1940 and 1944. As soon as an anti-TR Congress is elected after TR's death or defeat, we will see the anti-TR equivalent of the anti-FDR 80th Congress' constitutional amendment. It might not be openly directed at his memory, but the thought will be there and sometimes stated explicitly: "if only the Colonel had not sought his 'third cup of coffee,' we would never have gotten into the War..."
 
Last edited:
Maybe if T.R got a fourth term, but if it was just 1913-1917 I don't think it would be enough. They could always argue that since he was only elected twice it wouldn't rustle any jimmies
 
Maybe if T.R got a fourth term, but if it was just 1913-1917 I don't think it would be enough. They could always argue that since he was only elected twice it wouldn't rustle any jimmies

The problem is that TR himself rejected the "second elective term" argument back in 1904: "On the 4th of March next I shall have served three and a half years, and three and a half years constitute my first term. The wise custom which limits the President to two terms regards the substance and not the form, and under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination." https://books.google.com/books?id=tH_mYP6NuIkC&pg=PA66

Supposedly TR later told a friend that he would be willing to cut his hand off at the wrist if he could take that pledge back...
 
Top