alternatehistory.com

One of the problems the Republicans had in finding a presidential candidate for 1916 was to get someone who had not been too closely involved in the Taft-TR warfare of 1912. That was one reason for example why Elihu Root, arguably the ablest man in the GOP, would not do--there was too much resentment from TR loyalists of the way he had helped Taft "steal" the nomination from Root's old friend TR in 1912. (There were other objections to Root as well--he was in his seventies, and as a former "Wall Street lawyer" and present almost-open advocate of joining the War on the Allied side, would be unpopular west of the Appalachians.) In OTL, the GOP solved this dilemma by choosing Charles Evans Hughes, who because of his seat on the Supreme Court had taken no side in the Taft-TR split in 1912.

Hughes, as we know, turned out to be a weaker candidate than he loooked like on paper, so it is tempting to ask whether the GOP could have found another 1912 "neutral" to run. (Let's say that Hughes makes it absolutely clear that he wants to stay on the Court and will not accept the nomination.) Lewis L. Gould in The First Modern Clash Over Federal Power: Wilson Versus Hughes in the Prresidential Election of 1916 (University Press of Kansas 2016) suggests one alternative (pp. 38-40):

"With their past leaders ruled out for various reasons, Republicans explored the prospects of some fresh faces in 1915. One potential aspirant was Ambassador to France Myron T. Herrick. He had been a friend and ally of William McKinley in Ohio politics. After being elected governor of Ohio in 1903, he was talked of as a coming Republican with national ambitions. Then he stumbled with an unexpected reelection loss in 1905 when Ohio voters were in an anti-bossism mood. [Other sources, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_T._Herrick blame Herrick's defeat on his failure to support Prohibition--DT. ] He remained a large figure whose name was often mentioned for cabinet posts in the Roosevelt and Taft presidencies.

"Taft appointed Herrick as ambassador to France in 1912. Herrick sent in his resignation to president-elect Wilson in February 1913. The Wilson administration encountered difficulty in finding a deserving and well-heeled Democrat to take up the duties of the Paris post. By mid-summer 1914 William Graves Sharp, a wealthy Democratic contributor, had been confirmed as Herrick's replacement and sailed for France to become ambassador in early August. By that time World War I had begun, and Herrick was dealing with the plight of tens of thousands of Americans displaced and stranded by the fighting. He did so with energy and efficiency and Ambassador Sharp stood aside and 'voluntarily refrained from taking over the affairs of the embassy because he realizes that Herrick should not be relieved at such a critical juncture.' Herrick's performance endeared him to his French hosts.

"In late November Herrick was on his way home, and Sharp had taken over. Republicans believed that Wilson had replaced Herrick for partisan purposes and his recall was not justified. It was a popular and recurrent talking point within the GOP and it led to discussion in early 1915 of Herrick as a presidential possibility. As Henry Cabot Lodge told him, 'you are the logical candidate and you can be elected hands down. You have been absent nearly three years and fortunately you have not been mixed up in all the rows of 1912. Everybody knows you and everybody is for you.'

"Herrick talk was prevalent in the early months of 1915. 'Republican lightning might flash further and strike worse,' concluded the nation's main Democratic paper, the New York World. Yet, despite the popularity of Herrick among Republicans, and his plan to make rural credits legislation the center of his appeal, his candidacy did not take off. Herrick thought his business past was a liability for his chances. By early 1916 he announced his candidacy in Ohio to oppose incumbent Democratic senator Atlee Pomerene in Ohio and thus abandoned any presidential ambitions..."

Suppose Herrick remained a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, and the party eventually decided they could do no better (again, the POD is that Hughes is clearly unavailable).

The first question is whether Herrick can carry his home state of Ohio. In discussions of 1916, much attention has been devoted to California, and that is understandable given the state's closeness. But the fact is that if Hughes had carried Ohio, he would not have had to carry California. And there seemed no a priori reason to assume Wilson should win in Ohio: the state went Republican in every presidential election from 1856 through 1908; and even in 1912 Wilson only got 40.96 percent of the vote there, slightly behind his national showing of 41.84 percent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912

It might be argued that the fact that Herrick lost his Senate race to Pomerene shows that he could not have defeated Wilson in Ohio. But it should be noted that (1) the Senate race was of course between two Ohioans, so Herrick did not have the home state advantage he would have against Wilson; and (2) in any event, Herrick did better than Hughes in Ohio--Hughes lost the state to Wilson 51.86 to 44.18 percent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio,_1916 whereas Herrick only lost narrowly to Pomerene--49.26%-46.15%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1916

Herrick may have been too progressive for some Ohio Republicans, who preferred Senator Harding's choice Harry Daugherty. But that was probably a lesser evil politically than to be seen as too conservative, as many Ohioans regarded Hughes after he came out against the Adamson Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamson_Act (Cleveland was an important center of railroad and other trade unionism.) Ironically, Hughes ended up offending both wings of the Ohio GOP, because he had spoken glowingly of Herrick before the primary, and Daugherty therefore blamed Hughes for his defeat...

If Herrick couldn't carry Ohio, could he have carried California, which Hughes so narrowly lost? I don't know, but it would be hard for anyone to do more to offend Hiram Johnson progressives in the Golden State than Hughes did...
Top