Roosevelt-Wilson Ticket 1912

Roosevelt talks Wilson into running as his running mate as a united Democratic Progressive front agreeing to compromise between the New Nationalism and New Freedom Movements.

Freethinker, are you trying to provoke those men into coming back to haunt you?

They absolutely hated each other. No way would you ever have got them on the same ticket.

And in particular, what is in it for Wilson? Once nominated, he is a dead cert to become President just so long as he's still breathing on March 4. So why settle for being anybody's veep? Even if he could swallow running with Roosevelt at all, in the conditions of 1912 the ticket would have to be the other way round.

And if Wilson is willing to be VP (in your dreams) why not with Bryan or Champ Clark? He was closer to them politically than to TR, and it would have been much easier to arrange.
 
Last edited:
Oh god lol... here we are again... this time I'll be kind and break it down.

1. The segregation was a continued trend from previous administrations, does it make it any less bad that it was done? Not really, segregation in any form is no bueno. But your seeming implication that it was Wilson who was responsible for all of, or a majority of this completely ignores A. society at the time and B. the actions of his predecessors, but that's okay because they wanted to do the Federal Reserve and such too... it couldn't possibly be that the Progressive Era had some ugly trends it inspired as well.

2. So what about Latin America? Wilson did back then what US presidents would do today regarding the Middle East, if Saudi Arabia experienced serious terrorism-induced unrest (to the point that they couldn't resolve it themselves) or if an issue came up with Iran it's a pretty clear-cut case: the troops are going in. I remain unconvinced that really any US president bar a complete buffoon would not have, in some capacity done the same, if you think TR or Taft in either part would not have intervened in Latin America then that's just plain absurd, even more so to criticize Wilson in a way that implies Latin American interventions were something he came up with.

3. The post-stroke League of Nations madness? You mean all the crap that happened AFTER his stroke rendered him mostly incapacitated, and where the consensus is that its occurrence DID drastically alter his personality? I'll let you have that, but I will insist that Teddy Roosevelt's childhood asthma lead to his failure to obtain the Republican nomination in 1912. Wilson was changed SEVERELY by the occurrence of his stroke and couldn't really be assumed to be any sort of mentally competent person following its occurrence. That he remained in office is a sad affair but let's face it in 1912 nobody really had the precedent to deal with it. Certainly not an intelligent enough understanding of neurology to realize that the stroke had changed Wilson's personality to the point where he was no longer fit to serve.

But oh that horrible Wilson should be fully blamed for his actions after his stroke shouldn't he?

Because a war an ocean away justifies more than what *other presidents* Polk, *other presidents*

Really? Polk? The guy who basically started a war to expand slavery into new territory that would be forcibly seized from another nation, now putting him on the level of Wilson is just low.

Pretty much all Socialists opposed the war, and the First Red Scare made Joe McCarthy and the Alien and Sedition Acts look like cupcakes.

Not true, several people who were socialist but supported the war Wilson left alone. Also the First Red Scare affected a startlingly small amount of people when all was said and done. And it's not like it just started out of the blue... people like Emma Goldman were involved in plots to commit what even in the most liberal definition of the term would be classified as terrorism.

If we want to go by numbers of people affected McCarthy and the HUAC got to a lot more people than the Red Scare did.

However, he was very successful in his first term at passing things like the Federal Reserve etc., but Taft and TR planned to do as much, or more.

That's a little grasping-at-straws of an assumption to make. You can't just dismiss someone's achievements to force said person to conform more to your view of them because the other guys "would have done it", if I ever told my professor or teacher in HS or college that I know they would have done it for sure had either of them been president instead of Wilson, I suspect I would've been held after class to be talked to.

We can also look at the policies TR and Taft actually pursued and we find a different picture: Taft busted more trusts than TR and TR wanted to keep consolidating trusts and labor, Wilson came in as the person who would solidify the gains of the Progressive Era.

talked the talk about freeing people from colonialism... as long as they were white.

Except for Arabs... oh wait he's not allowed to do that.

Thankyou Heavy Weapons Guy
 
But in that sense do you believe that there is any possibility that this could have happened, I mean Roosevelt was a powerful figure.. perhaps Wilosn could have been intimidated
 
But in that sense do you believe that there is any possibility that this could have happened, I mean Roosevelt was a powerful figure.. perhaps Wilosn could have been intimidated

Not really much possibility, the personalities and temperaments are really too strong for any significant sort of cooperation.
 
Well i've adjusted the plot so that Wilson faces serious challangers from Democrats that decide to run aganist as him as independents,
do you guys think I should switch it so that Wilson is President and Roosevelt is vice?
 
But in that sense do you believe that there is any possibility that this could have happened, I mean Roosevelt was a powerful figure.. perhaps Wilosn could have been intimidated

An ex-President isn't all that powerful - especially one who's just been read out of his party. And Wilson was as inflexible as they come.

Not that TR was any better. They were both "My way or the highway" types, not team players.
 
Freethinker, are you trying to provoke those men into coming back to haunt you?

They absolutely hated each other. No way would you ever have got them on the same ticket.

And in particular, what is in it for Wilson? Once nominated, he is a dead cert to become President just so long as he's still breathing on March 4. So why settle for being anybody's veep? Even if he could swallow running with Roosevelt at all, in the conditions of 1912 the ticket would have to be the other way round.

And if Wilson is willing to be VP (in your dreams) why not with Bryan or Champ Clark? He was closer to them politically than to TR, and it would have been much easier to arrange.

True. Wilson and Roosevelt had the same Progressive ideals, but Wilson liked small government, and Roosevelt big government.
 
True. Wilson and Roosevelt had the same Progressive ideals, but Wilson liked small government, and Roosevelt big government.

Eh, it isn't that easy, Wilson campaigned on that but in practice he did a lot that expanded the role of the government, things like the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission HUGELY expanded the role of the government in the economy. Fiscally, he campaigned to TR's right, in practice, he was more centrist, but he stopped the mad trust-busting crusade, which in the long-term was probably smart.
 
Eh, it isn't that easy, Wilson campaigned on that but in practice he did a lot that expanded the role of the government, things like the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission HUGELY expanded the role of the government in the economy. Fiscally, he campaigned to TR's right, in practice, he was more centrist, but he stopped the mad trust-busting crusade, which in the long-term was probably smart.

Yes, you're right about that. But I'm talking about the pre-Presidency. His views clashed with Roosevelt's, but his actions DID NOT.

Wilson didn't run at TR's right, TR ran at Wilson's Left. :)
 
True. Wilson and Roosevelt had the same Progressive ideals, but Wilson liked small government, and Roosevelt big government.

And even more important, Wilson liked Wilson and Roosevelt liked Roosevelt.

The early 20C was one of those political eras that threw up a whole platoon of prima donnas who wanted to be "The great I Am", and none of whom would defer to any other. TR and Wilson were the biggest of these "lone wolves". Both had spectacular careers which each ended in a train wreck.
 
And even more important, Wilson liked Wilson and Roosevelt liked Roosevelt.

The early 20C was one of those political eras that threw up a whole platoon of prima donnas who wanted to be "The great I Am", and none of whom would defer to any other. TR and Wilson were the biggest of these "lone wolves". Both had spectacular careers which each ended in a train wreck.

Very true. Charles Evan Hughes would have won in '16 had Roosevelt not so campaigned for war.
 
Plan: Wilson loses the Jearsy Governor Race if 1910 and narrowly fails to win the Democratic Nomination, Clark wins the Democratic Nomination instead..
Meanwhile there are many more American Socialists
 
Thankyou Heavy Weapons Guy
Ok, if you're not going to listen to me, I won't bother except for one thing because I am part Arab...

Oh god lol... here we are again... this time I'll be kind and break it down.

talked the talk about freeing people from colonialism... as long as they were white.


Except for Arabs... oh wait he's not allowed to do that.
Are you kidding? The British and French tricked the Arabs (and Lawrence of Arabia) into thinking that they would be justly treated as an independent nation. Before WWI, Syria = Today's Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Hatay/Alexandretta (in Turkey), and Palestine/Israel. These nationalities literally did not exist, just as how Bolivians were once (Upper) Peruvians. After WWI, what was once called Syria became commonly referred to as the Levant or Greater Syria. Faisal was promised that he would be King of Greater Syria, which would have been not only the Levant but most likely Iraq and the Hijaz (his father's land) as well. But then came the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Arabs were not only divided, but became colonies to new overlords. Most of the non-oil messes of the Middle East today derive from Sykes-Picot.

And even if Wilson became a superhero and freed the Arabs census the U.S. census regards Arabs as white :p
 
Ok, if you're not going to listen to me, I won't bother except for one thing because I am part Arab...


Are you kidding? The British and French tricked the Arabs (and Lawrence of Arabia) into thinking that they would be justly treated as an independent nation. Before WWI, Syria = Today's Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Hatay/Alexandretta (in Turkey), and Palestine/Israel. These nationalities literally did not exist, just as how Bolivians were once (Upper) Peruvians. After WWI, what was once called Syria became commonly referred to as the Levant or Greater Syria. Faisal was promised that he would be King of Greater Syria, which would have been not only the Levant but most likely Iraq and the Hijaz (his father's land) as well. But then came the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Arabs were not only divided, but became colonies to new overlords. Most of the non-oil messes of the Middle East today derive from Sykes-Picot.

And even if Wilson became a superhero and freed the Arabs census the U.S. census regards Arabs as white :p

well you do bring up good points, and i don't want you to feel that I complety disregarded you actually you sparked some research and I learned alot from it thanks!) its just I feel like you are being a little overly harsh on Wilson given the conditions of the time.

Just like FDR had a Southern Democratic Congress to deal with...
And He actually did bring in some black Republicans into the U.S

But yes your statments on Wilsion are facts...
Goverment (I believe)
 
Ok, if you're not going to listen to me, I won't bother except for one thing because I am part Arab...


Are you kidding? The British and French tricked the Arabs (and Lawrence of Arabia) into thinking that they would be justly treated as an independent nation. Before WWI, Syria = Today's Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Hatay/Alexandretta (in Turkey), and Palestine/Israel. These nationalities literally did not exist, just as how Bolivians were once (Upper) Peruvians. After WWI, what was once called Syria became commonly referred to as the Levant or Greater Syria. Faisal was promised that he would be King of Greater Syria, which would have been not only the Levant but most likely Iraq and the Hijaz (his father's land) as well. But then came the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Arabs were not only divided, but became colonies to new overlords. Most of the non-oil messes of the Middle East today derive from Sykes-Picot.

And even if Wilson became a superhero and freed the Arabs census the U.S. census regards Arabs as white :p

You're talking to the boards resident Arabophile and one who just got done watching Lawrence of Arabia a few nights back. Also, Hatay wasn't Turkish until given to them out of the French Mandate of Syria.

And yeah, I think a lot of people blame Wilson for the colonialism that sprang up because of Versailles but really it was going to happen, as sad as it is to acknowledge it, it was almost guaranteed that it would happen.
 
Plan: Wilson loses the Jearsy Governor Race if 1910 and narrowly fails to win the Democratic Nomination, Clark wins the Democratic Nomination instead..
Meanwhile there are many more American Socialists


Why would there be more Socialists?

Clark had been a strong supporter of WJ Bryan since 1896, and trounced Wilson almost three to one in the California Primary, so his appeal to the "left" of the party would seem to be at least as strong as Wilson's.

As the 1912 nominee, he might lose a few conservative Dems to Taft [1], but there's no reason for him to lose any votes to Debs. Indeed he may "squeeze" the Socialist a bit more than Wilson did.

[1] Even that isn't certain. Iirc he won big in the Massachusetts primary also - a more conservative state than CA.
 
Why would there be more Socialists?

Clark had been a strong supporter of WJ Bryan since 1896, and trounced Wilson almost three to one in the California Primary, so his appeal to the "left" of the party would seem to be at least as strong as Wilson's.

As the 1912 nominee, he might lose a few conservative Dems to Taft [1], but there's no reason for him to lose any votes to Debs. Indeed he may "squeeze" the Socialist a bit more than Wilson did.

[1] Even that isn't certain. Iirc he won big in the Massachusetts primary also - a more conservative state than CA.

because I am planning to have frederick Engles come to America
 
Ive tried to make a T.L post twice on here and then the system asks me to log in even though i'm already logged ... then it wipes out all of my work...
 
Top