President Hughes: 1917 - 1925

Why would the American position to the Treaty and the post war settlement in this ATL be much different to OTL? What different political circumstances would see the US Senate approve American membership of the LoN?

The Senate would have approved a modified membership in the LoN (no mandates or outside troop deployments in the Western Hemisphere), but Wilson was too self-righteous and stubborn to compromise.

(this was after his stroke, which aggravated many of his personality flaws)

A different president might be more willing to compromise.
 
Presumably TR would basically hew to the same sort of proposals as Wilson, however, TR was a far better diplomat and would be able to probably come up with a better overall agreement. TR won the Nobel Peace Prize for his Russo-Japanese War negotiations, so I think that probably qualifies him as a MUCH better diplomat than Wilson.

When he returned, the passage of the Treaty would be his last great accomplishment. He would push incredibly hard for it, because he knows that he will soon be dead. If he dies before the agreement is approved, then the agreement could be pushed "in TR's honor", by President Hughes.

I see all this as very plausible. I also agree with whomever posted that the United States might get more deeply involved in European affairs with some kind of mandate. TR will probably be looking to entangle the US in European affairs, and a mandate will probably be the way to do it.

How would TR feel about intervening in Russia against the Bolsheviks?

Is the idea of the US accepting a mandate possible at this time? Would the Senate accept such a proposal? What would the mandate be?
 
Presumably TR would basically hew to the same sort of proposals as Wilson, however, TR was a far better diplomat and would be able to probably come up with a better overall agreement. TR won the Nobel Peace Prize for his Russo-Japanese War negotiations, so I think that probably qualifies him as a MUCH better diplomat than Wilson.

When he returned, the passage of the Treaty would be his last great accomplishment. He would push incredibly hard for it, because he knows that he will soon be dead. If he dies before the agreement is approved, then the agreement could be pushed "in TR's honor", by President Hughes.

I see all this as very plausible. I also agree with whomever posted that the United States might get more deeply involved in European affairs with some kind of mandate. TR will probably be looking to entangle the US in European affairs, and a mandate will probably be the way to do it.

How would TR feel about intervening in Russia against the Bolsheviks?

TR would be no different to Wilson in supporting intervention in the Russian Civil War. He most likely would not get any political support even if he wanted to commit large numbers of troops. There was almost no support in the electorates of the USA or any of the Allied countries for the Whites and even less for the Romanovs.
 
First: Teddy would get a better deal, and Teddy + Hughes would get their better deal through the Senate.

I'll leave to you all to work out the details (which you more or less have, MarkA aside), but Senate Republicans aren't stupid and Teddy is way more popular than they are plus they have to live with Hughes for a few more years.


As for the election in 1924, it largely depends on Hughes' second term, IMO. Hughes will owe TR's Progressives big and so the conservatism of the Republicans may be blunted; I doubt it and Hughes' second term is probably fairly pro-business. Hence, it's not out of the question that a Democrat wins in 1924. Maybe Hiram Johnson though? It would require the Progressives having a bit more clout, but TR's legacy in *Peace might give them that. He also gives a nice geographic balance to the ticket.

Alternatively, you have Hiram Johnson manages to get on the ticket (in a way very similar to Coolidge in OTL 1920). His progressive has the chance to respond well to economic crisis, but so did Hoover OTL. In any case it'll be hard to get him relected after so long with Republicans in the White House.

Long term there's a decent chance for the Republicans to keep more Progressive influence than they did OTL if they have a more formal re-union and if they avoid the swing to the right in reaction to Wilson under Harding and Coolidge. I also find it particularly amusing to have a Democrat in power for a alt-crash in 1929, just for fun.

The Republicans, until the Great Depression broke them, pretty much had an electoral college lock. Sure they needed 2/3 of all non-South EV, but except for the 1912 split (and 1916 incumbent / looming war) and of course Grover himself they always won since the end of the Civil War.

I see no particular reason the Republicans would lose the Presidency anytime soon, although that takes us straight into their OTL problem: having the Presidency when the Great Depression hits.

It seems odd just to have Republican Presidents one after another, but before the Great Depression and after the Civil War that's basically what happened: 16 Democratic years (Wilson, Grover), 48 Republican years. (Or we could do like 8 progressive years (not always liberal) and 56 conservative years)



A Republican Party with Teddy Roosevelt as Secretary of State probably appeases the Progressives somewhat and it's quite possible that a proper mend between the conservatives and progressives could be formed. They do have more common interests than with the racist Southern Democrats (at the time, anyway) and they can probably agree on foreign policy and some domestic policy.

That said, if the progressives are participating fully in Republican politics that's going to push the party, not really to the left as such, but certainly in an anti-business direction.

Particularly, I think they demand (after the pro-big business Hughes) a progressive for 1924 at the top (pointing to increased progressive led Congressional majorities in the ATL & California's important to 1916).

Notably if Teddy lives a little longer he may be able to bring about not just OTL 1918 Republican congressional pick-ups but also 1920 ones—a strong ATL progressive force in the House will do a lot to the Republican Party.


Let's say, for the future of a Great Depression hit Republican Party, Hiram Johnson is the President elected in 1924 (with, certainly, a strong conservative VP).

(We could put the Democrats in charge when the Great Depression hits, but that would leave neither party able to react, both dominated by conservative forces. Although the New Deal may have lengthened the Great Depression (IMHO)—it also got people through it without a widespread break-down in society, or revolt against the government so it more than worth it. No New Deal of any kind… yikes.)

He's got eight years, a Republican majority or close to it (albeit also a conservative majority if you count Southern Democrats + conservative Republicans), and—unlike Hoover—he can communicate that he is in fact doing stuff about the Great Depression. So hey, the US might get another burst of progressive work. Could be interesting.

Although Hoover gets blamed a lot (try Coolidge), he really did react to the Great Depression—he just was never seen as doing so. Hiram Johnson would be seen as doing so, I think. Certainly he would have followed different, perhaps better, policies. If he had managed to get national health insurance passed (unlikely, but…) that would be a powerful cushion through the Great Depression & a political saviour for Republicans.

Now that's not enough to save whoever the 1932 Republican nominee is, but I could see the Republicans surviving the Great Depression. Not enough to win the Presidency anytime soon, but enough to stay competitive and retain decent Congressional forces (though, if it is FDR, the progressive Republicans will likely back him).
 
In 1920 in your ATL the Democrats will win election, just as in 1920 the Republicans won election in OTL. The Republicans would have to actually win the First World War in the eyes of the public before they would win a postwar election. That would be a major ATL.
What would make the Republicans do a better job of fighting the First World War than the Democrats did? Keeping the Russians in the war by funding them better so the Bolsheviks don't take over like in OTL? A treaty that made the Germans pay reparations would be possible if the Allies weren't worried about a Russian Revolution spreading into German under the banner of International Communism.
We would have saved half the cost of the war if we didn't spend so much money propping up the European empires after the Armistice.
 
Electric Monk - nobody has worked out any details of anything except what they would like to be a cabinet makeup and much of what you speculate on is simply your fantasy and until someone can show a breakdown of Senate voting affiliations much of this thread is wishful thinking. Just because TR may be popular does not mean much if the Senators are determined to keep their constitutional privilege of deciding on international treaties.

Why would TR get a better deal? The outcome of the negotiations was predicated on the British and French accepting the basic principals and the Germans trusting the principles, of the US. With no prior annunciation of the Fourteen Points what will the American position on the post war settlement be? Germany must be prepared to accept the American offer of a fair peace and they will realize TR is not President he will be the negotiator not the decision maker.

Britain and the Empire will not accept an easy peace and the French even less so.
 
As an amusing aside, I can just picture TR, Lloyd George and Billy Hughes yelling at each other over the wording of some phrase. I wonder who would win?

Hughes, I believe, had a good command of unconventional English, and Lloyd George may have had the Welsh gift of poetry or something akin to that. But TR was an accomplished author, debater, and public speaker, with a command of the language akin to that of William F. Buckley or George Will in OTL. He could call on a fully conventional (i.e., non-profane) vocabulary that could truly dazzle.

I don't think I'm underestimating Wilson: if anything, he was a strongly self-righteous idealist who couldn't persuade the strong personalities of Lloyd George and Clemenceau to begin to consider his viewpoints. On the other hand, TR wasn't lacking in self-confidence, but had none of the same qualities that Wilson had that put others off. Plus, add in his "been there; done that" experience of mediating an end to a major war, and that trumps whatever Wilson could bring to the table.

I'll second those who point out that TR's version of the peace would face a Senate held by his own party, and would thus have an easier time of passage. Moreover, he had personal relationships with many of the key senators, including Hiram Johnson (his running mate in 1912) and Henry Cabot Lodge (a long-time personal friend): those were absent in Wilson's relationship with the Senate; indeed, those change the nature of the relationship from adversarial to collegial.
 
Last edited:
Electric Monk - nobody has worked out any details of anything except what they would like to be a cabinet makeup and much of what you speculate on is simply your fantasy and until someone can show a breakdown of Senate voting affiliations much of this thread is wishful thinking. Just because TR may be popular does not mean much if the Senators are determined to keep their constitutional privilege of deciding on international treaties.

Why would TR get a better deal? The outcome of the negotiations was predicated on the British and French accepting the basic principals and the Germans trusting the principles, of the US. With no prior annunciation of the Fourteen Points what will the American position on the post war settlement be? Germany must be prepared to accept the American offer of a fair peace and they will realize TR is not President he will be the negotiator not the decision maker.


I do know that Teddy propelled the Republicans to a congressional majority in 1918. Whether or not Hughes with Teddy in cabinet helps put the Republican Party back together is of course an open question, but it's plausible that it happens (it is, of course, at least as plausible that it goes as OTL).

As for the Senate:

Wiki said:
Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge controlled the Senate after the 1918 elections, but Wilson refused to give them a voice at Paris and refused to agree to Lodge's proposed changes. The key point of disagreement was whether the League would diminish the power of Congress to declare war.

There are no Fourteen Points (no President Wilson), Teddy and Lodge are friends, and President Hughes would happily side with Congress on the declaring war part.

Therefore, at the very least (even if Teddy fails to get a better deal overall) the Senate will agree to a very slightly modified OTL agreement.
 
Electric Monk - nobody has worked out any details of anything except what they would like to be a cabinet makeup and much of what you speculate on is simply your fantasy and until someone can show a breakdown of Senate voting affiliations much of this thread is wishful thinking. Just because TR may be popular does not mean much if the Senators are determined to keep their constitutional privilege of deciding on international treaties.

Why would TR get a better deal? The outcome of the negotiations was predicated on the British and French accepting the basic principals and the Germans trusting the principles, of the US. With no prior annunciation of the Fourteen Points what will the American position on the post war settlement be? Germany must be prepared to accept the American offer of a fair peace and they will realize TR is not President he will be the negotiator not the decision maker.


I do know that Teddy propelled the Republicans to a congressional majority in 1918. Whether or not Hughes with Teddy in cabinet helps put the Republican Party back together is of course an open question, but it's plausible that it happens (it is, of course, at least as plausible that it goes as OTL).

As for the Senate:

Wiki said:
Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge controlled the Senate after the 1918 elections, but Wilson refused to give them a voice at Paris and refused to agree to Lodge's proposed changes. The key point of disagreement was whether the League would diminish the power of Congress to declare war.

There are no Fourteen Points (no President Wilson), Teddy and Lodge are friends, and President Hughes would happily side with Congress on the declaring war part.

Therefore, at the very least (even if Teddy fails to get a better deal overall) the Senate will agree to the a very slightly modified OTL agreement.
 
Last edited:
I do know that Teddy propelled the Republicans to a congressional majority in 1918. Whether or not Hughes with Teddy in cabinet helps put the Republican Party back together is of course an open question, but it's plausible that it happens (it is, of course, at least as plausible that it goes as OTL).

Actually I think that the economic conservatives and progressives might have been able to get together on some things, and certainly having someone other than Harding in the White House would help things along. What I'm thinking is that the economic boom of the 20's would happen regardless of who is in power. Therefore, if we have a not-anti-progressive, you could see a move toward social spending of the kind championed by TR. The booming economy would satisfy the conservatives, while the progressives got to tinker with some social programs.

When the Great Depression hits, you could see some compassion from the Republicans, and thus not have the massive backlash from Democrats. The Democrats would probably pick the presidency up anyway in '32, but if it is anyone other than FDR I think they'll have a hard time turning things around. In the GOP they have exactly the wrong reaction. Believing that the weak interventionism of their 24-32 President caused the Depression, they nominate a strict laize-faire economist (Hoover?) in '36 while Huey Long takes the Democratic nomination.

I just turned "Progressives more succesful" into "Huey Long takes power"- I might be a little off-topic.

There are no Fourteen Points (no President Wilson), Teddy and Lodge are friends, and President Hughes would happily side with Congress on the declaring war part.

Therefore, at the very least (even if Teddy fails to get a better deal overall) the Senate will agree to the a very slightly modified OTL agreement.

Concur. Would TR push for mandates, and if so, what mandates? I'm thinking that Palestine-Transjordan might be a nice touch, for general (pained) laughs as the Americans try to figure out what is happening. Would the US be more supportive (that is, less hostile) to Jewish immigration to Palestine? It would provide a nice little piece that the United States might actually stay in because of its general religious value, and symbolic value (the country that was founded as the "New Jerusalem"- New England Puritans- now actually is in control of Jerusalem).
 

MrHola

Banned
Thanks for all the input, guys :). Now we should focus on a different treaty of Versailles. Unfortunatly, I have no clue on where to start :(. I doubt TR or Hughes would consider giving every ethnic group a nation like Wilson wanted.
 

MrHola

Banned
Bump.

Charles Fairbanks died in 1918. Who would replace him? TR? And who would take TR's place? I also assume that the AEF would be better prepared for the war, Hughes would start beefing up the armed service because of Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare.
 
You may be underestimating Wilson's prestige in 1918 somewhat. The real problem for the French and British was the self determination clause. Would any American negotiator be prepared to leave that out and if so what would the basis of the post war settlement be?

Considering Lloyd George has just convincingly won an election on the slogan of 'Make the Germans Pay', I suspect he will give little ground on this issue. Certainly the French will not. So the seeds of simmering German discontent will still be sown.

Your claim that TR's vision of a LoN would be acceptable to the US Senate needs to be verified. I still cannot see why the Senate would give up its right to dictate foreign policy for the USA simply because there is a Republican administration in office at the time. FDR still had to work with his Democratic Congressional colleagues.

As an amusing aside, I can just picture TR, Lloyd George and Billy Hughes yelling at each other over the wording of some phrase. I wonder who would win?
Probally Billy Hughes, I mean he was the Australian TR.
 
Hughes would've ended Wilson's racial segregation of the civil service.
How, hm, certain is that? It affects my TL, since Hughes becomes President there (sadly, much of this discussion here is not useful to me, since the Great War is already over by the time he becomes President), but this, and, to a degree, the proposed cabinet, helps me).
 
Bump.

Charles Fairbanks died in 1918. Who would replace him? TR? And who would take TR's place? I also assume that the AEF would be better prepared for the war, Hughes would start beefing up the armed service because of Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare.


In 1920, a relatively conservative running mate would probably be the choice. One could see a long-time war horse like Philander Knox or Nicholas Murray Butler (who was a stand-in as Taft's running mate in 1912 after Sherman's death).

Now, about TR: I gather you're assuming he would die sometime after he did in OTL, but not much (say, late 1919/early 1920)? With Hughes in the Oval Office, this becomes more problematic. I could see long-time centrist Elihu Root occupying this office: he bridged the progressive/conservative gap readily, and would be highly acceptable to the Senate.

As to preparedness of the AEF: Hughes, urged on by TR, would likely see to greater preparedness as you mention.
 
Why would the American position to the Treaty and the post war settlement in this ATL be much different to OTL? What different political circumstances would see the US Senate approve American membership of the LoN?

While I don't have a biography of TR at hand, I can say that he put forth the concept of a league of nations (note no capitals) in a speech well before Sarajevo. To be sure, there was no driving force to establish one at the time. However, given that this would not be entirely a new concept to the Senate, as well as the fact that it would be presented by one of the majority party, especially one with an established track record favoring the US becoming a major power, whatever was presented would surely (1) preserve American sovereignty, and (2) be far more palatable overall than what was presented in OTL.
 
How, hm, certain is that? It affects my TL, since Hughes becomes President there (sadly, much of this discussion here is not useful to me, since the Great War is already over by the time he becomes President), but this, and, to a degree, the proposed cabinet, helps me).

I would say it is highly probable though I would expect it to be sharply criticized by Southern Democrats in Congress.
 
Top