Lenroot Vs McAdoo Vs La Follette: Who wins 1924?

In an alternate 1924 election, who'd win the presidency?

  • Irvine Lenroot(Republican)

    Votes: 31 91.2%
  • William G. McAdoo(Democrat)

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Robert M. La Follette Sr(Progressive)

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Total voters
    34
In the 1920 election, Irvine Lenroot was Warren G. Harding's choice for a running mate, but he declined and it went to Calvin Coolidge instead. Harding died, Coolidge became president and became the 1924 nominee, then won re-election

In the 1924 election, William Gibbs McAdoo seemed like he'd be the Democratic nominee, but John W. Davis is chosen.

Let's assume Lenroot accepted that option. Things remain the same until Harding dies in August 1923 and his scandals are revealed, and Lenroot takes Coolidge's place as U.S President. McAdoo gets the nomination. To make things interesting, Robert M. La Follette Sr taking the Progressive ticket remains unchanged. In a three-way battle between Republican Lenroot, Democrat McAdoo and Progressive Follette, who'd win? Will the Republicans get it just like OTL, are the Democrats gonna have a win in the 20s, or will we see our first third party President?

For that matter, what would Irvine Lenroot's inherited term look like? What do you think the winner's term will be like?
 
Lenroot wins just like Coolidge. "Silent Cal" didn't actually do much to merit a term in his own right, he just so happened to be in office during a time of peace and prosperity. I also assume that most people didn't want to elect a fourth President in three years (Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Davis/LaFollette) just as in 1964. That said, Lenroot's presidency would have more of a progressive bent and he'd most likely run again in 1928 - putting him in office during the Great Depression.
 
Last edited:
In the 1920 election, Irvine Lenroot was Warren G. Harding's choice for a running mate, but he declined and it went to Calvin Coolidge instead.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Lenroot had at first rejected the offer of the vice-presidential nomination but was reconsidering. It was the delegates who rejected him in favor of Coolidge:

***

Hays, who had been present when Lenroot had earlier rejected the offer, now
tried to make it as attractive as possible. He quoted Harding as saying
that the office would be more than honorary--Lenroot would sit with the
Cabinet and help to make policy. He also appealed to Lenroot's party
loyalty--the nomination would be made in a few minutes. Would Lenroot go
before the convention and reject the nomination? Lenroot restated his
objections, but he finally agreed to consult with his wife and some friends
and to return with his answer.

By this time Harding had already been nominated and McCormick excitedly
nominated Lenroot for vice-president. He was seconded by, among others,
Senator Calder of New York. But during McCormick's speech someone cried out
"Coolidge! Coolidge!" and after Calder uttered the words "of Wisconsin"
following Lenroot's name, another voice shouted "not on your life."
Wisconsin--the state whose delegates each day held themselves righteously
apart; which voted for La Follette when nobody else would; and which had
within the hour refused to make Harding's nomination unanimous--was not
exactly the most popular state at the convention. By contrast, when
Coolidge's name was placed in nomination, a loud cheer went up, and there
were many seconding speeches. Coolidge won with 674 1/2 votes to 146 1/2 for
Lenroot. (Lenroot got only 2 votes from Wisconsin; the other 24 went to Asle
Gronna of North Dakota, who had La Follette's support.)

(3) So does it follow that Lenroot never had a chance, that he was doomed by
anti-senatorial and anti-Wisconsin sentiment? Not necessarily. Hays later
told Lenroot that if he had accepted the offer of the earlier conference,
during the recess, there would have been time to get word to the delegates
that Lenroot was the choice, not just of a "Senate cabal" but of the
presidential nominee, which was quite another matter. Marguiles concludes
that "if Harding's preference had been made forcefully clear, nothing else
would have mattered--neither Wisconsin's unpopularity nor the conservatism of
the delegates and the popularity of Coolidge nor the smoldering resentment
against the senators." (*Senator Lenroot of Wisconsin*, p. 331)

https://www.alternatehistory.com/shwi/President Irvine Lenroot.txt

***

Anyway, Lenroot would certainly win in 1924. The country was prosperous, the Republicans were the majority party, the Democrats would have been deeply divided no matter who they nominated, and La Follette would almost certainly take more votes from McAdoo (who was counting on the support of organized labor and western progressives) than he would from Lenroot.
 
In keeping the USA out of the Great War, I toyed with no McAdoo and events eliminate Coolidge as a nationally prominent politician, leaving Lenroot and Davis in 1924. In my mind that shifts the Republicans back into a more progressive mood once Harding is disgraced by scandals and Lenroot takes over, Davis would likely push the Democrats back into a more conservative mood with a more Solid South orientation. La Follette should draw votes otherwise going progressive Republican but also the more liberal Democrats so I factor his effect as neutral. Thus I would give the edge to Lenroot in 1924 but like TR I tend to have him shy from running a "third" term so I could conceive of another candidate in 1928. But I have reduced Hoover's prominence also so I tend to have him merely Cabinet level at most. Without the other changes I am pursuing then my best guess is Lenroot can ride the prosperity coat tails to victory in 1924, the 1928 election gets harder to predict.
 
LaFollette probably wouldn't run as a third party with Lenroot as the Republican nominee. He expressed that a large reason he ran was because the other two candidates were conservatives. I figure if Lenroot is running and especially if McAdoo is running he'd sit '24 out.
 
LaFollette probably wouldn't run as a third party with Lenroot as the Republican nominee. He expressed that a large reason he ran was because the other two candidates were conservatives. I figure if Lenroot is running and especially if McAdoo is running he'd sit '24 out.

In that case Lenroot not only wins but he wins with more votes than Coolidge.
 
LaFollette probably wouldn't run as a third party with Lenroot as the Republican nominee. He expressed that a large reason he ran was because the other two candidates were conservatives. I figure if Lenroot is running and especially if McAdoo is running he'd sit '24 out.

By the 1920's the days when La Follette viewed Lenroot as a fellow progressive were long gone:

"La Follette spent much of the fall of 1920 waging an unsuccessful campaign against the reelection of Wisconsin's junior senator, Irvine Lenroot. La Follette called his former lieutenant's votes in favor of the League of Nations and the Esch-Cummins bill (which returned the railroads to their private owners with a government guarantee of profits) a betrayal of the American people. 'Is it rational to believe,' he asked caustically while denouncing Esch-Cummins on the floor of the Senate, 'that in a few short months a small group of senators and representatives — no one of us an expert in railway transportation — has discovered some magic by which the miserable failures of seventy years are to be converted into a marvelous success?' La Follette waged his campaign mostly through the mails, fearful of the possibility of being misquoted while speaking publicly, but he did speak in Milwaukee, denouncing Lenroot for 'deserting the progressive ranks under fire to become a reactionary and a servant of special interests.' While La Follette and Lenroot were split over the war and other significant political issues, the vociferousness of La Follette's attacks are reminiscent of his earlier feud with McGovern..." https://books.google.com/books?id=CLGRHqcHWm0C&pg=PA274
 
By the 1920's the days when La Follette viewed Lenroot as a fellow progressive were long gone:

"La Follette spent much of the fall of 1920 waging an unsuccessful campaign against the reelection of Wisconsin's junior senator, Irvine Lenroot. La Follette called his former lieutenant's votes in favor of the League of Nations and the Esch-Cummins bill (which returned the railroads to their private owners with a government guarantee of profits) a betrayal of the American people. 'Is it rational to believe,' he asked caustically while denouncing Esch-Cummins on the floor of the Senate, 'that in a few short months a small group of senators and representatives — no one of us an expert in railway transportation — has discovered some magic by which the miserable failures of seventy years are to be converted into a marvelous success?' La Follette waged his campaign mostly through the mails, fearful of the possibility of being misquoted while speaking publicly, but he did speak in Milwaukee, denouncing Lenroot for 'deserting the progressive ranks under fire to become a reactionary and a servant of special interests.' While La Follette and Lenroot were split over the war and other significant political issues, the vociferousness of La Follette's attacks are reminiscent of his earlier feud with McGovern..." https://books.google.com/books?id=CLGRHqcHWm0C&pg=PA274
In that case he'd probably just support McAdoo, he was no doubt surprised when both parties nominated conservatives, as OP has said, neither candidate was expected and both considered "reactionaries" by LaFollette. However, I think it's still likely he'd stick with the party, even if he disliked the Lenroot personally.In 1920, Johnson fumed and threw a fit when Harding was nominated but he didn't walk out as long as Harding denounced the league. He only left the 1924 convention after the entirety of his platform was shot down, I'm certain Lenroot would be willing to compromise to keep his support much like Harding did with Johnson.
 
The big hope of the McAdoo supporters in 1924 was that if the Democrats nominated McAdoo, La Follette would drop out, but I doubt that this was true. A lot had happened to tarnish McAdoo's progressive image, notably his work for the oil companies and his refusal to denounce the Klan. Even the railroad brotherhoods, which liked the way McAdoo ran the railroads during the War, refused to endorse McAdoo, supporting La Follette instead. https://books.google.com/books?id=MqzZ1JwoXzEC&pg=PA269
 
By the 1920's the days when La Follette viewed Lenroot as a fellow progressive were long gone:

"La Follette spent much of the fall of 1920 waging an unsuccessful campaign against the reelection of Wisconsin's junior senator, Irvine Lenroot. La Follette called his former lieutenant's votes in favor of the League of Nations and the Esch-Cummins bill (which returned the railroads to their private owners with a government guarantee of profits) a betrayal of the American people. 'Is it rational to believe,' he asked caustically while denouncing Esch-Cummins on the floor of the Senate, 'that in a few short months a small group of senators and representatives — no one of us an expert in railway transportation — has discovered some magic by which the miserable failures of seventy years are to be converted into a marvelous success?' La Follette waged his campaign mostly through the mails, fearful of the possibility of being misquoted while speaking publicly, but he did speak in Milwaukee, denouncing Lenroot for 'deserting the progressive ranks under fire to become a reactionary and a servant of special interests.' While La Follette and Lenroot were split over the war and other significant political issues, the vociferousness of La Follette's attacks are reminiscent of his earlier feud with McGovern..." https://books.google.com/books?id=CLGRHqcHWm0C&pg=PA274
What exactly was LaFolette's issue with the LoN?
 
What exactly was LaFolette's issue with the LoN?

It was linked to the Versailles Treaty, and under Article X the US might be required to enforce the unjust [1] territorial provisions of that treaty.

[1] At least to La Follette and to many other progressives--and of course to the German-American voters of Wisconsin.
 
It was linked to the Versailles Treaty, and under Article X the US might be required to enforce the unjust [1] territorial provisions of that treaty.

[1] At least to La Follette and to many other progressives--and of course to the German-American voters of Wisconsin.
Did Lenroot support the LoN with or without the Lodge Reservations, though? After all, weren't the Lodge Reservations meant to deal with Article X?
 
Did Lenroot support the LoN with or without the Lodge Reservations, though? After all, weren't the Lodge Reservations meant to deal with Article X?

Lenroot was one of the so-called Mild Reservationists, but even the Mild Reservationists were insistent that the US not be obligated by Article X. Lenroot said that he made that point to Wilson, but the latter insisted that Article X was the heart of the Covenant. https://books.google.com/books?id=j0ZKDK4Bg8kC&pg=PA155
 
Lenroot was one of the so-called Mild Reservationists, but even the Mild Reservationists were insistent that the US not be obligated by Article X. Lenroot said that he made that point to Wilson, but the latter insisted that Article X was the heart of the Covenant. https://books.google.com/books?id=j0ZKDK4Bg8kC&pg=PA155
It doesn't seem to make sense for LaFolette to blame Lenroot for supporting the LoN given that he only supported the LoN with reservations, though.

Also, does it seem to you that Wilson made too big of a deal of Article X instead of compromising and taking what he can get (specifically, entry into the LoN with reservations in regards to Article X as well as ratification of the Anglo-American security treaty with France)?
 
Also, does it seem to you that Wilson made too big of a deal of Article X instead of compromising and taking what he can get (specifically, entry into the LoN with reservations in regards to Article X as well as ratification of the Anglo-American security treaty with France)?

Historians not only condemn this action, but a survey around 12 years ago ranked this decision as one of the 10 worst in Presidential history. Some writers have speculated that Wilson's 1919 stroke had an impact.
 
Historians not only condemn this action, but a survey around 12 years ago ranked this decision as one of the 10 worst in Presidential history. Some writers have speculated that Wilson's 1919 stroke had an impact.
I don't know for sure if Wilson's stroke had an impact on this, but in any case, Wilson's wife should have overruled him and lied and said that Wilson supports the Lodge Reservations. It would have been extremely dishonest, but it might have gotten the job done. Of course, the most important thing would have been to get the Anglo-American security treaty with France ratified even if the U.S. fails to join the LoN.

Also, it's interesting that, in spite of this, Wilson is still highly rated and highly ranked among U.S. Presidents.
 
Also, it's interesting that, in spite of this, Wilson is still highly rated and highly ranked among U.S. Presidents.

Well, FDR's internment decision and James Madison's failure to avoid war with Britain were on the same list. (Unfortunately I can't find the original article anymore, but it was a survey of historians from 2006).
 
Historians not only condemn this action, but a survey around 12 years ago ranked this decision as one of the 10 worst in Presidential history. Some writers have speculated that Wilson's 1919 stroke had an impact.

Wilson was already pretty stubborn before the stroke, though.
 
Wilson was already pretty stubborn before the stroke, though.

Then it's fair to say that if the stroke changed anything, it only hardened his position on the issue. The fact is that Wilson saw himself as an agent of God himself and he was on a divinely ordained mission for peace - that kind of hubris never leads to a happy ending in politics.
 
Well, FDR's internment decision and James Madison's failure to avoid war with Britain were on the same list. (Unfortunately I can't find the original article anymore, but it was a survey of historians from 2006).
Completely agreed about Japanese-American internment but the U.S. was with Canada was a good thing. It gave the U.S. the opportunity to try acquiring additional living space in Canada and even though the U.S. failed to win this war, at least Americans could say that they tried to capture Canada--which is better than not trying at all and thus not knowing what would have happened.

This is also why I am a big fan of the U.S.'s war with Mexico in the late 1840s. The U.S. really benefited from acquiring a lot of living space in the Southwestern U.S. as well as in other parts of the U.S. (though the cruelty towards Native Americans was absolutely unacceptable).

Also, what other presidential decisions were on this list?
 
Top