President Hughes in WWI - in what dimensions does "Hughesianism" differ from "Wilsonianism"

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
To help discussion along and guide it along a couple paths I have not seen it go on before, I have enumerated a list components of Wilsonianism:

What would a Hughes Administration position be on:


a) Mexico


b) Separate AEF or amalgamation w/Allied unit


c) Armistice or unconditional surrender



d) Anything like the 14 points


There would still be indigenous demand for ethnic successor states, there might be similar domestic political benefits to be seen supportive of ethnic demands, France wants to create a string of potential eastern allies against Germany [but are some ethnic groups more affordable to offend than others?]


e) Differences in final settlement in terms of borders



f) Differences in terms of US ratifying treaty

g) Differences in partisan dynamic

h) U.S. amenability to a postwar alliance with one or more powers

i) Differences over Russian revolution and support for Whites

j) Differences over Far Eastern aspects at Versailles and also later on

k) Differences over Italian territorial claims

l) Possibility of more sanguine view of Japanese effort in Russian Far East, Qingdao, Manchuria,

m) How curmudgeonly would TR be about Hughes Administration policy?

n) differences over the disposition of Yap and Micronesia?

o) differences over the existence and founding charter of a League
 

CaliGuy

Banned
To help discussion along and guide it along a couple paths I have not seen it go on before, I have enumerated a list components of Wilsonianism:

What would a Hughes Administration position be on:


a) Mexico

Not sure about Mexico, unfortunately.

b) Separate AEF or amalgamation w/Allied unit

I suspect that he would be more willing to amalgamate U.S. forces into Allied units.

c) Armistice or unconditional surrender

Whatever the French and British want, presumably.

d) Anything like the 14 points

Probably nothing that specific.

There would still be indigenous demand for ethnic successor states, there might be similar domestic political benefits to be seen supportive of ethnic demands, France wants to create a string of potential eastern allies against Germany [but are some ethnic groups more affordable to offend than others?]

I agree that Austria-Hungary still breaks-up and collapses after the end of World War I in this TL.

e) Differences in final settlement in terms of borders

With less of a focus on national self-determination, France might be allowed to acquire the Saarland in this TL. Also, Italy might acquire Dalmatia in this TL. In addition, Albania might be partitioned by Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia in this TL.

f) Differences in terms of US ratifying treaty

The U.S. ratifies both the Treaty of Versailles and the security treaty with France in this TL.

g) Differences in partisan dynamic

More Democratic isolationists in this TL?

h) U.S. amenability to a postwar alliance with one or more powers

Much greater, probably.

i) Differences over Russian revolution and support for Whites

Probably none.

j) Differences over Far Eastern aspects at Versailles and also later on

Probably none.

k) Differences over Italian territorial claims

Italy gets Dalmatia and possible a part of Albania in addition to its our TL post-World War I territorial gains.

l) Possibility of more sanguine view of Japanese effort in Russian Far East, Qingdao, Manchuria,

Can you please elaborate on this part?

m) How curmudgeonly would TR be about Hughes Administration policy?

To be honest, I think that TR (and Henry Cabot Lodge as well) might be relatively supportive of the Hughes Administration.

n) differences over the disposition of Yap and Micronesia?

Probably none.

o) differences over the existence and founding charter of a League

The League of Nations wouldn't have anything like Article X in this TL. However, some kind of organization which resembles the League of Nations would probably be created after the end of World War I in this TL.
 
TR and Cabot Lodge were professionals as well as learned men. While they may not have cared much for Hughes personally, they'd have been able to set that aside to work with him toward the common good (and who knows how the personal relationships may have ameliorated). I don't see Hughes as going to Versailles to take part in the negotiations; rather, he would have on hand in the person of TR someone with direct experience in negotiating treaties and would be willing to put him to work in that role. Look for TR in the Hall of Mirrors--in which case Lloyd George and Clemenceau would have nowhere near as easy a time as they did with Wilson. Couple that with the respect TR already had in Europe and I think you'll get a significantly different treaty; i.e., one based more on the Realpolitik of the time and less hell-bent on vengeance. (I also suspect Hughes wasn't as partisan as Wilson, so he probably would have sent someone like Gilbert Hitchcock or Oscar Underwood to Versailles also.)

Have to agree that there would be something along the lines of the League of Nations formed, but as CaliGuy indicates, no infamous Article X. And the charter would probably be drawn up so that there wouldn't be any reservationists; that is, they'd support it as is more or less enthusiastically. I'll concede that there may still be a few irreconcilables like Borah or Norris, but I'd bet TR could bring Hiram Johnson to heel. Long story short, the *League* will come into existence with the US as part of it. That, coupled with a less punitive treaty, may postpone significantly / butterfly away another general conflict in Europe for more than just a generation--and mean a different lineup if/when it happened.

Also, I doubt the US would become as isolationist as it did in the '20s IOTL, nor would the conservative Republicans carry the White House (guessing here that Lowden or Lenroot would succeed Hughes, and Hoover would get no closer to the White House than a higher level cabinet post). Really going out on a limb here but it's not out of the question that in this situation, economic policies of the '20s might be such that we would now speak of a panic / recession of 1929 rather than "the Depression". That has its own cloud of butterflies both domestically and abroad.

All of this, by the way, assumes TR doesn't pass away in January 1919. Maybe in this timeline something somehow prevents him from going to the Amazon at all, or events there unfold somewhat differently that his health isn't compromised. (There's an idea for a timeline: a few days before departing for Brazil in 1916, TR misses a step going downstairs at Sagamore Hill, falls, and breaks an ankle or a bone in one foot. His doctor puts it in a cast and firmly rules out travel to Brazil. The trip is canceled...)
 
Also, I doubt the US would become as isolationist as it did in the '20s IOTL, nor would the conservative Republicans carry the White House (guessing here that Lowden or Lenroot would succeed Hughes, and Hoover would get no closer to the White House than a higher level cabinet post).

It won't be any Republican.

The country was weary of wartime sacrifices, and the governing party, whichever that may be, is virtually certain to be creamed. If the Republicans are in, then 1920 is going to be a Democratic year.
 
It won't be any Republican.

The country was weary of wartime sacrifices, and the governing party, whichever that may be, is virtually certain to be creamed. If the Republicans are in, then 1920 is going to be a Democratic year.

This is also, to drag up one of the hoariest chestnuts of this community, recently mentioned in a "how late can the Dems stay conservative?" thread (which in itself underestimates the fluidity of the Progressive movement, although by seniority the Dems were more conservative than not), this seems like just the point of departure. So much depends on Wilson's health. If he doesn't suffer physically there's a chance that he tries to pull a Cleveland which would keep the Progressive faction and the conservative majority together a little while longer without needing a straight fistfight like the "Klanbake" in '24 to move things along. Of course there remains then the chance Wilson would pull a Harding and die in office putting his probably-conservative VP into power.... So much depends on how much the major business interests start deciding that they can do business with the likes of Texas and Florida and Atlanta's railroads and Alabama's steel belt, etc. An administration dominated by Hughes, TR, and Cabot Lodge is going to leave an opening for realignment of the conservative coalition, much as OTL's conservative dominance of the GOP in the Twenties led to alliances of convenience with the same Southern interests I mentioned above, and several border-South states voting for Hoover, aligned with a business-plus-prohibition agenda. This way there's a chance either the GOP does get dragged in a Progressive direction long term through the gateway drug of a Hughes presidency, or that you do in fact have a three-way split that creates an independent Progressive Party pulled ever further left, a very conservative Democratic Party rooted in the South and a few urban machines, and a moderate Republican party rooted in its post-Civil War centers of strength which include a number of high-Electoral College states that would give them an advantage. Lots of interesting butterflies available.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This is also, to drag up one of the hoariest chestnuts of this community, recently mentioned in a "how late can the Dems stay conservative?" thread (which in itself underestimates the fluidity of the Progressive movement, although by seniority the Dems were more conservative than not), this seems like just the point of departure. So much depends on Wilson's health. If he doesn't suffer physically there's a chance that he tries to pull a Cleveland which would keep the Progressive faction and the conservative majority together a little while longer without needing a straight fistfight like the "Klanbake" in '24 to move things along. Of course there remains then the chance Wilson would pull a Harding and die in office putting his probably-conservative VP into power.... So much depends on how much the major business interests start deciding that they can do business with the likes of Texas and Florida and Atlanta's railroads and Alabama's steel belt, etc. An administration dominated by Hughes, TR, and Cabot Lodge is going to leave an opening for realignment of the conservative coalition, much as OTL's conservative dominance of the GOP in the Twenties led to alliances of convenience with the same Southern interests I mentioned above, and several border-South states voting for Hoover, aligned with a business-plus-prohibition agenda. This way there's a chance either the GOP does get dragged in a Progressive direction long term through the gateway drug of a Hughes presidency, or that you do in fact have a three-way split that creates an independent Progressive Party pulled ever further left, a very conservative Democratic Party rooted in the South and a few urban machines, and a moderate Republican party rooted in its post-Civil War centers of strength which include a number of high-Electoral College states that would give them an advantage. Lots of interesting butterflies available.
An independent Progressive Party might be difficult to sustain in the long(er)-run, though; indeed, look at how various third parties throughout U.S. history quickly fizzled out.
 
An independent Progressive Party might be difficult to sustain in the long(er)-run, though; indeed, look at how various third parties throughout U.S. history quickly fizzled out.


And why would there be one?

If the Republicans have led the country into WW1, the German vote will be heavily Democratic, so the Dems will dominate the Midwest. That doesn't leave much space for Lafollette's party.

There won't, of course, be any "Klanbake". The Democrats won't risk a damaging split if they confidently expect to win. If a deadlock develops, they'll do what the Republicans did in 1920, and ditch the front-runners in favour of a dark horse. And they won't take 103 ballots to do it - probably more like 13.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
To help discussion along and guide it along a couple paths I have not seen it go on before, I have enumerated a list components of Wilsonianism:

What would a Hughes Administration position be on:


a) Mexico

Read Hughes acceptance speech at the Republican convention where he mocks intervening in Mexico.

b) Separate AEF or amalgamation w/Allied unit


c) Armistice or unconditional surrender



d) Anything like the 14 points

Most Americans leaders keep AEF separate. Hughes does.

He will be flexible on the terms ending the war. We will not see anything as grand as the 14 points, but he will have some demands for the peace negotiations.

There would still be indigenous demand for ethnic successor states, there might be similar domestic political benefits to be seen supportive of ethnic demands, France wants to create a string of potential eastern allies against Germany [but are some ethnic groups more affordable to offend than others?]


e) Differences in final settlement in terms of borders



f) Differences in terms of US ratifying treaty

g) Differences in partisan dynamic

We probably enter the war a couple months later than OTL due to the transition period and congress not being in session. We have different results on ground which make arguing E to G pointless. Also I to K

h) U.S. amenability to a postwar alliance with one or more powers

i) Differences over Russian revolution and support for Whites

j) Differences over Far Eastern aspects at Versailles and also later on

k) Differences over Italian territorial claims

l) Possibility of more sanguine view of Japanese effort in Russian Far East, Qingdao, Manchuria,

m) How curmudgeonly would TR be about Hughes Administration policy?

n) differences over the disposition of Yap and Micronesia?

o) differences over the existence and founding charter of a League

We are not entering alliance under Hughes. We will have a more hostile relationship with Japan post war. i.e No joint military operations in Russian Far East. Good chance TR gets his combat command, so he will be happy. Good way for Hughes to get TR out of his hair. Teddy likes the ring of Major General. Hughes might force issues over Yap and Micronesia. Might not too. Good chance he wins the war, then the USA goes home and lets France and UK sort out Europe.

Again, important to emphasis that the USA will enter the war later than OTL, so this war will end differently on the ground.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
We probably enter the war a couple months later than OTL due to the transition period and congress not being in session.
Wilson might appoint Hughes SecState and then have both himself and his VP resign--thus making Hughes President several months early, though.

Close. You said a Progressive Party wouldn't be viable in the long run. I suspect it wouldn't get far even in the short run.
OK, and agreed.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Wilson might appoint Hughes SecState and then have both himself and his VP resign--thus making Hughes President several months early, though.

Sure, might. But I am not so sure that this will be the course of action. I have seen arguments both ways. This may have been a serious plan or it may have just been a wild idea.
 
Top