Theodore Roosevelt dies in Africa during a safari, Taft re-elected in 1912

Here's the story: As many of you know, Theodore Roosevelt handed his scepter to William Howard Taft who "could not fill TR's shoes" in most people's minds. Teddy ran against Taft in 1912 allowing for Woodrow Wilson, the misled idealist, to come to power. If Teddy had been killed by a lion while on safari in Africa then Taft would have widely been elected to a second term. Taft was a Progressive at heart, but he had a strict interpretation of the Consitution. He may very well have allowed the income tax to pass (since it included a provision lowering tariffs, though he prefered a strictly corporate version of the tax), but he would have defeated the attempts to estblish the Federal Reserve as he had done before. Taft continues his second term using harsh rhetoric against bankers and promising a noninterventionist (arbitration only) foreign policy. Though not as popular as Roosevelt, Taft is satisfactory. He continues the policies of his previous term and much of the legislation that Wilson passed is passed through Taft. Taft decides not to intervene in the political civil war in Mexico and also refuses US involvement in the war in Europe. 1916 comes and the candidates are Charles Evans Hughes and Woodrow Wilson. Hughes takes the cake pointing to Taft's record and the attacking the Democrat's ties to the banking and business communities. (Federal Reserve Act and Wilson's campaign funds) He is see as a more true Progressive candidate and also promises to keep us out of war. No US involvement in WWI results in a German victory (their push in 1917 is not answered by American troops) on the continent by 1918, and a peace agreement is drawn up by 1920. Russia remains carved up as it was in the treaty of Brest Litovsk and Germany is empowered to dominate the continent. France is allowed to exist with minor territorial changes (mostly colonial), and Great Britain remains largely unchanged. What impact would this have on history? Remember that no Federal Reserve means no money contraction of the 1920s and a lessening of the effects of the Great Depression.
 
How exactly do you suppose a lion can kill a man with 48 inch biceps and rock hard abs. Not to mention he defeated the Spanish single handily by himself at San Juan Hill.
 

mowque

Banned
How exactly do you suppose a lion can kill a man with 48 inch biceps and rock hard abs. Not to mention he defeated the Spanish single handily by himself at San Juan Hill.

Don't do that.

To the OP: Would Taft win the election? Also, I still we needed some type of Federal Reseve, although I also think you are correct that Taft wouldn't have done it.

And I'm not so sure about a German victory..

Welcome to the board.
 
ASB. It will take approximately 1000 lions all ganging up on Roosevelt for there even to be a CHANCE of him getting killed.

Seriously though, I think you are mainly right with how Taft would run things. Germany will not win WWI even if America doesn't enter, it just means longer bloodshed. Britain's blockade was starving them to death.

The Federal Reserve thing is interesting. I guess there will be less conspiracy theories in this time line then in ours. :p
 
Here's the story: As many of you know, Theodore Roosevelt handed his scepter to William Howard Taft who "could not fill TR's shoes" in most people's minds. Teddy ran against Taft in 1912 allowing for Woodrow Wilson, the misled idealist, to come to power. If Teddy had been killed by a lion while on safari in Africa then Taft would have widely been elected to a second term. Taft was a Progressive at heart, but he had a strict interpretation of the Consitution. He may very well have allowed the income tax to pass (since it included a provision lowering tariffs, though he prefered a strictly corporate version of the tax), but he would have defeated the attempts to estblish the Federal Reserve as he had done before. Taft continues his second term using harsh rhetoric against bankers and promising a noninterventionist (arbitration only) foreign policy. Though not as popular as Roosevelt, Taft is satisfactory. He continues the policies of his previous term and much of the legislation that Wilson passed is passed through Taft. Taft decides not to intervene in the political civil war in Mexico and also refuses US involvement in the war in Europe. 1916 comes and the candidates are Charles Evans Hughes and Woodrow Wilson. Hughes takes the cake pointing to Taft's record and the attacking the Democrat's ties to the banking and business communities. (Federal Reserve Act and Wilson's campaign funds) He is see as a more true Progressive candidate and also promises to keep us out of war. No US involvement in WWI results in a German victory (their push in 1917 is not answered by American troops) on the continent by 1918, and a peace agreement is drawn up by 1920. Russia remains carved up as it was in the treaty of Brest Litovsk and Germany is empowered to dominate the continent. France is allowed to exist with minor territorial changes (mostly colonial), and Great Britain remains largely unchanged. What impact would this have on history? Remember that no Federal Reserve means no money contraction of the 1920s and a lessening of the effects of the Great Depression.

I think we all know TR would kick anyone's ass including Chuck Norris, so lets drop the jokes and answer the new guy's query.

Taft is reelected and Hughes wins in '16 ok. I don't know enough about Hughes to know if he wins again in '20 or not. The US stays out of WW1 ok.

I will disagree with the other posters here though, I think this gives the German offensive in the spring of '17 a chance to succeed or at least stalemate again with the Germans regaining what they lost at Verdun and in the fall of '16. Possibly a suing for status quo antebellum but Germany would probably keep all of Poland and partition the Ukraine with Russia.

As for no Fed. Reserve, as much I like the idea personally, I think you are going to see some sort of central banking system will come in eventually, probably in response to the Great Depression which I view as inevitable, although likely on a smaller scale. Due to the war in Europe rebuidling will still hinge upon America and our fiscal policies. The Stock Market will still be huge and buying on margin will still be legal. US agriculture will still become bloated because of the wasting of Europe in WW1. Past those Ideas, I don't know enough to continue. I will think that Austro-Hungary will breakup and Russia will have a Civil War (That was a long time coming anyway) but the rest of Europe will still be similar to what it was like pre-war. The 30s and 40s depend upon the Govt. reaction to the Great Depression.
 
How exactly do you suppose a lion can kill a man with 48 inch biceps and rock hard abs. Not to mention he defeated the Spanish single handily by himself at San Juan Hill.

ASB. It will take approximately 1000 lions all ganging up on Roosevelt for there even to be a CHANCE of him getting killed.

I think we all know TR would kick anyone's ass including Chuck Norris, so lets drop the jokes and answer the new guy's query.

Try to act like you can be stronger than an overused internet meme.
 
excuse me Th_Jefferson, but do you take AP united states history?
Anyway I doubt that taft would be re elected, he was very inept
 
Anyway I doubt that taft would be re elected, he was very inept

I think he would have been. In OTL, Wilson only won because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote. The popular vote was 42-27-23 for Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft respectively. While some of Roosevelt's support was because of his personal popularity, I don't think that a vast majority of it was. I think without him the likely result is a Taft victory. A close victory mind you, but a victory nonetheless.
 
I think he would have been. In OTL, Wilson only won because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote. The popular vote was 42-27-23 for Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft respectively. While some of Roosevelt's support was because of his personal popularity, I don't think that a vast majority of it was. I think without him the likely result is a Taft victory. A close victory mind you, but a victory nonetheless.
oh dang I just went to my book looked at that and was going to edit it,
Okay, in this instance, since Taft was more conservative, the US might have declared war on germany earlier
 
Eureka! I've found Teddy's famous big stick.
TR was crushing Taft, but taking nothing from Wilson. The Dem Party was very strongly united coming out of the convention, with Bryan and Underwood on board and even Champ Clark eventually giving his support, and Tammany Hall bringing up the rear. With TR gone, no Bull Moose. The Progressives without TR would split between the inept Taft and not inept Wilson.

55-45 Wilson over Taft
 
oh dang I just went to my book looked at that and was going to edit it,
Okay, in this instance, since Taft was more conservative, the US might have declared war on germany earlier

Conservatives in the United States were isolationists until the end of World War II. There's no chance in hell Taft will declare war earlier than would have the interventionist Roosevelt and the moderate Wilson, for it would mean splitting the Republican Party and giving the Democrats the potential for a win in 1916.
 
TR was crushing Taft, but taking nothing from Wilson. The Dem Party was very strongly united coming out of the convention, with Bryan and Underwood on board and even Champ Clark eventually giving his support, and Tammany Hall bringing up the rear. With TR gone, no Bull Moose. The Progressives without TR would split between the inept Taft and not inept Wilson.

55-45 Wilson over Taft

I could be mistaken, but if my information is correct, Taft was inept as a politician but still a likeable Progressive by northern standards. Wilson seemed to have taken the populist Progressive vote (southern poors) but the northern union types and elites flocked to TR beforehand and afterwards Taft. The thing is, Wilson channeled southern and great plains anger (same geography Republicans have today) and the Progressives elites and union men of the north voted Republican. Wilson hijacked and perverted Progressivism. He is called a Progressive but was funded by the very corporations he supposedly hated. TR when he ran his Bull-moose party was not supported by many businessmen. You have to be very carefull if you are going to regulate businesses because if you don't know what you are doing (in most cases our go'vt doesn't) then you may very well empower and strengthen big business and stifle small competitors. Roosevelt knew this (I've read his autobiography). However, I do not agree that all his methods of controlling monopolies were effective. Anyway I digress.
 
Top