Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive, elected US President in 1912

Theodore Roosevelt and his running mate, Hiram Johnson, win a narrow victory to become the first President and Vice President of the Progressive Party. The electoral college vote is Roosevelt 278, Woodrow Wilson, Democrat 233, Willam Howard Taft 20. (For this ATL I have taken the OTL results here: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=1912&datatype=national&def=1 and for each state increased the vote for Roosevelt by 10 percent, and decreased the vote for Wilson by 8 percent and the vote for Taft by 2 percent. On that map Democrat is red or pink, Progressive is green and Republican is blue).

Newspaper cartoons show a triumphant bull moose standing next to a prostrate elephant and a disappointed looking donkey.

Who is likely to be in Roosevelt's cabinet?

During the new administration the reforms laid down in the Progressive party manifesto are enacted. An amendment to the Constitution (I don't know which number amendment) extending the franchise to all adult women is ratified in 1914.

In this ATL I don't know if Roosevelt will run in 1916.
 

Xen

Banned
I think for TR to win the Democrats are going to have to run someone far more conservative than Wilson so Roosevelt can attract Progressive Democrats to his party.
 
Wilson was probably one of the more conservative contenders for the Democratic nomination in 1912. He was also a white supremacist. I don't know if James Beauchamp Clark, aka Champ Clark, was more conservative than Wilson. William Jennings Bryan, the other leading contender for the Democratic nomination, would never have been nominated because he was a three time loser.

The prevailing political mood of the United States in 1912 ranged from reformist to progressive. Wilson was less progressive than Roosevelt, but more so than Taft.

In OTL Wilson secured more than 45 percent of the vote in 16 states with a total of 178 electoral votes. In any realistic ATL Roosevelt would not win those states, so the battleground is those states where in OTL Roosevelt won more than 24 percent of the vote and Wilson won less than 45 percent.
 
It would seem that it is unlikely that the BullMoose Party of TR would win the election unless more of the Republican deceided to abondon William Howard Taft for their old leader TR. While not impossible it would seem that things would follow our time line. However, if TR ran as the Republican niminee in 1916 it is very likely that he would have crushed Wilson.
 
Well, one of the factors that could have influenced the election would have been a larger vote for Debs. If he gained increased support in states that OTL went for Wilson, he could easily tip the balance from Wilson to Roosevelt.
 
Well, one of the factors that could have influenced the election would have been a larger vote for Debs. If he gained increased support in states that OTL went for Wilson, he could easily tip the balance from Wilson to Roosevelt.
I am not certain. I wonder if some of the people who were wondering about voting for Debs might in fact have voted for TR in 1912, perhaps more so than for Wilson.
 
In the following states, which Wilson won in OTL, the combined votes for Roosevelt and a proportion of the votes for Debs would have given Roosevelt a majority: Idaho (4 electoral votes), Illinois (29 electoral votes), Kansas (10 electoral votes), Montana (4 electoral votes), Nevada (3 electoral votes), North Dakota (5 electoral votes), Oregon (5 electoral votes), making a total of 60 electoral votes. The vote for Debs exceeded 9 percent in 9 states - ranging from 9.45 percent in Florida to 16.47 percent in Nevada. In 1908, of these states Arizona was a territory and so did not have any votes in the electoral college; Bryan won three (Florida, Oklahoma and Nevada) and Taft won five (California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington).

Although the crude voting figures in 1908 and 1912 hide a complex pattern of changes of voting and non-voting, I expect that most of the votes for Roosevelt in 1912 came from votes for Taft in 1908. But because Taft won only 8 electoral votes in 1912, in my ATL Roosevelt would have to win states from Wilson in order to win a majority of the electoral votes. In those states where in OTL Taft won 25 percent to 35 percent of the vote there was a potentially significant large pool of votes for Roosevelt, particularly where his support was at least 30 percent.

There was tremendous idealism in the Progressive party campaign. It had the nature of a crusade. As Roosevelt said at the conclusion of his "Confession of Faith" to the Progressive Party convention in Chicago on August 6, 1912:
We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.
About which the Wilson-supporting New York Times said in an editorial the following day:
He stood at Chicago and preached Socialism and Revolution, contempt for law, and doctrines that lead to destruction.
The New York Press claimed that what Roosevelt had "confessed" was socialism as advocated by avowed socialists.

Progressives argued that their party was the only bulwark against the inevitability of a Socialist being elected president. But I think more of Debs votes would have gone to Roosevelt than to Wilson.

In the opening sentences of his keynote speech to the Progressive party convention, former senator Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana said:
We stand for a broader liberty, a fuller justice. We stand for social brotherhood as against savage individualism. We stand for intelligent cooperation instead of a reckless competition. We stand for mutual helpfulness instead of mutual hatred.
Those words could have been said by any socialist.

The Progressive and Socialist parties both advocated social welfare measures. Here is the Progressive party platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29617 and the Socialist party platform: http://www.sagehistory.net/progressive/SocialistPlat1912.htm .

If transferred to a British context, in 1912 Progressives would have supported the Liberal party, and to a much lesser extent the Labour party. They would have switched from Liberal to Labour during World War 1 and onwards.

However not all progressives in the Republican party supported Roosevelt. Robert La Follette and William E. Borah stayed with the Republican party, but did not back any candidate for president.

The Progressive strategy was for a realignment of the parties along progressive and conservative lines. In an article in the October 1912 issue of the Yale Review, Herbert Knox Smith wrote:
We Progressives believe that in the election next November our party will become, if not the first, at least the second party, leaving the Republicans a bad third. [...] There will remain by 1914 only two great national parties, Progressives and Democrats. While the Democrats probably will not be by that time avowedly the conservative party, the rise of their opponents, the Progressives, will tend to force them toward that position.
The quotations and much of the information in this message are taken from the book The Bull Moose Years: Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party by John Allen Gable, Port Washington, N.Y., Kennikat Press (1978).

In this ATL, Borah, La Follette and other progressive Republicans switch to the Progressive Party and actively campaign for Roosevelt.

President Theodore Roosevelt declares war on behalf of the United States on the Central Powers in May 1915, after the sinking of the Lusitania. In OTL in 1915 and 1916 Russia was still in the war and Germany was fighting on two front. This is the situation in this ATL, so the First World War has not ended by the summer of 1916.

At the Progressive Party convention in Chicago in June 1916, Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson are renominated by a large majority as candidates for President and Vice-President. However they are opposed by Jane Addams and Robert La Follette and others in the peace wing of the Progressives.

Wilson is nominated at the Democratic convention as their candidate for President, (I am not entirely happy with that scenario). In the Spring of 1916, Charles Evans Hughes declares his support for the Progressive Party. At their convention, the Republicans nominate Elihu Root for President.

By election day the war has not ended, though Allied troops have made some advance on the Western Front, but Germany and Austria-Hungary are at least holding their own against Russia. Wilson supports US involvement in the war, but Root argues for a negotiated peace. Debs, the Socialist Party candidate, campaigning on an antiwar platform, wins the support of Jane Addams and much of the peace wing of the Progressives, though La Follette does not support any candidate. Pro-war socialists support Roosevelt.

Roosevelt is re-elected with 301 electoral votes, Wilson secures 186 electoral votes, and Root has 44 electoral votes. Wilson wins the South and border states, including Missouri, and New Mexico. Root wins Connecticut, Idaho, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Roosevelt wins the rest of the nation.
 
Wilson, if I'm not wrong, died of a stroke from over campaigning for US entrance into the League of Nations (another thing it would be interesting to see TR's position on, by the way). Perhaps he could have likewise campaigned too hard for the election in this timeline, throwing a heavy monkey wrench into the Democratic Machine in either the 1912 or 1916 elections. Whether he died, was bed ridden, or crippled, it would have given TR a far better chance of victory over both Taft and Debs.

On issues, if I may throw this out there, TR and the Progressives were very much supportive of things that would later come in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, and even things that haven't been enacted yet in the United States, such as Universal Healthcare (Theodore Roosevelt was the first person in the world to propose such a system, if I'm not wrong).

I don't know if you are trying to compile a feasible Alternate history, or are asking only the question of who would be in Roosevelt's cabinet. On the latter, I suppose the same people who were in his cabinet before, if they did not support Taft or the Conservative wing of the Republican party in the election. On the former, I have a bit to say, but I don't know whether you're trying for a total alternate history discussion or are just asking that one question.
 
Last edited:
I wonder whether it might have been possible to persuade Taft's supporters that they had indeed little prospect of sucsess so that TR might have won by 'tactical votes'

I would also be interested to know about the likely nature of the Congress. My impression is that rather few people would have been elected as 'progressives' as such.
 
The division between Taft Republicans and Roosevelt Republicans was a deep ideological one that had existed for a while throughout the early Republican party's history. Taft, of course, represented the Conservative wing which was a bit smaller than the Progressive wing of TR, and both progressive and conservative republicans were always at odds. It was TR's losing the election of 1912 and rooting the progressives out of the mainstream GOP, as a matter of fact, that cemented the GOP as Conservative and the Democrats as Progressive up until the post World War 2 era when both would be rather Liberal (after that, it sort of spring boarded back, but that doesn't really matter for this discussion). So I don't know as if Taft Republicans would have supported Roosevelt. However, people on the fence and who were only voting for Taft because he was the Republican party's candidate (regardless of Conservative or Progressive), could have been drawn into the Bull-Moose party.

Congressionally, I can see the Progressives being built up like a Franken-party, with progressive elements of the Democrats and GOP flooding in. For the most part, the Bull-Moose party of the OTL was little more than Theodore Roosevelt's vehicle and had few other candidates in other venues (and when TR lost, it died soon after). Were it to have won, I can see Theodore Roosevelt building it into a true party by drawing in progressives. Either way, I can see the Progressives in Congress regardless of party on rather good terms with TR and his policies, whether they defected to the Bull-Mooses or not. One thing of contention, though, would have been US involvement in the Great War and political differences between progressives of various parties might have become based on international policy and war more so than anything else.

Ideologically, I think the political alignment would evolve into the Progressives on the left, the Democrats somewhere in the center (whether centre-right or centre-left), and the Republicans on the right since most of the progressive elements would have defected to a successful Bull-Moose party. So perhaps a three party system could have come from a Progressive victory, if the GOP wasn't destroyed by a loss to one of its former leaders.
 
Last edited:
Ideologically, I think the political alignment would evolve into the Progressives on the left, the Democrats somewhere in the center (whether centre-right or centre-left), and the Republicans on the right since most of the progressive elements would have defected to a successful Bull-Moose party.
Speaking in Europeans terms, the Progressives, based on their program, sound more like a coalition of Social-Democrats, Social Liberals, and Centrists, so even if they absorbed the Socialists and the Populist wing of the Democrats, they would be a very moderately centre-left party.
Considering the right wing of the Republican Party of those days, the rump Republicans would be a centre-right party, something for classical liberals, moderate conservatives, a few centrists, the modern liberal-conservatives, etc
In order for the Progressives to be successful (and win elections) they would have to have attracted many populists from the Democratic Party. This would leave the Democratic Party as a Party on the right, a mostly Conservative Party (the Dixiecrats) with a Populist wing.

So perhaps a three party system could have come from a Progressive victory, if the GOP wasn't destroyed by a loss to one of its former leaders.
IMO, the consequences in the political system would have something like: either a three/four party system with regional based successful third parties or a change in the two party system, with the Republicans absorbing the rump democratic Party or the opposite (depending on whic party loses more supporters to the Progressives), and minor like minded parties (Socialists, NPL, Farm-Labour, etc) being absorbed by the Progressives.
The Progressives would have a strong chance of absorbing most immigrant vote, thus increasing its size as national US demographics change over time.
 
The division between Taft Republicans and Roosevelt Republicans was a deep ideological one that had existed for a while throughout the early Republican party's history. Taft, of course, represented the Conservative wing which was a bit smaller than the Progressive wing of TR, and both progressive and conservative republicans were always at odds. It was TR's losing the election of 1912 and rooting the progressives out of the mainstream GOP, as a matter of fact, that cemented the GOP as Conservative and the Democrats as Progressive up until the post World War 2 era when both would be rather Liberal (after that, it sort of spring boarded back, but that doesn't really matter for this discussion). So I don't know as if Taft Republicans would have supported Roosevelt. However, people on the fence and who were only voting for Taft because he was the Republican party's candidate (regardless of Conservative or Progressive), could have been drawn into the Bull-Moose party.

Congressionally, I can see the Progressives being built up like a Franken-party, with progressive elements of the Democrats and GOP flooding in. For the most part, the Bull-Moose party of the OTL was little more than Theodore Roosevelt's vehicle and had few other candidates in other venues (and when TR lost, it died soon after). Were it to have won, I can see Theodore Roosevelt building it into a true party by drawing in progressives. Either way, I can see the Progressives in Congress regardless of party on rather good terms with TR and his policies, whether they defected to the Bull-Mooses or not. One thing of contention, though, would have been US involvement in the Great War and political differences between progressives of various parties might have become based on international policy and war more so than anything else.

Ideologically, I think the political alignment would evolve into the Progressives on the left, the Democrats somewhere in the center (whether centre-right or centre-left), and the Republicans on the right since most of the progressive elements would have defected to a successful Bull-Moose party. So perhaps a three party system could have come from a Progressive victory, if the GOP wasn't destroyed by a loss to one of its former leaders.
What if so many Democrats and Republicans defect that the remaining Republicans and Democrats form a coalition party? And in a Tri-Party system you'll see elections thrown to the House often.
 
irst
Speaking in Europeans terms, the Progressives, based on their program, sound more like a coalition of Social-Democrats, Social Liberals, and Centrists, so even if they absorbed the Socialists and the Populist wing of the Democrats, they would be a very moderately centre-left party.
But speaking in the American concept of a political spectrum, and the era's political spectrum and with many of the policies the Progressive Party supported like a minimum wage, universal health care proposals, regulated capitalism, and so on the Progressives were pretty cemented on the left for the time and were decades ahead of the Social Liberals that would come to power with FDR.

Considering the right wing of the Republican Party of those days, the rump Republicans would be a centre-right party, something for classical liberals, moderate conservatives, a few centrists, the modern liberal-conservatives, etc
In order for the Progressives to be successful (and win elections) they would have to have attracted many populists from the Democratic Party. This would leave the Democratic Party as a Party on the right, a mostly Conservative Party (the Dixiecrats) with a Populist wing.
But that surmises that most of the progressive democrats would go with the Bull-Moose party which I don't think would happen. The Republicans would be far more the right wing party in my opinion as the Bull-Moose party was sure to draw away all or the majority of progressive elements leaving really only the conservatives (IE, the GOP of the 20's and 30's) remaining. The Democrats on the other hand would likely retain many progressives, being on the opposition party, which is why I surmise they would be around the center when you clash Dixiecrat and Progressive Democratic ideology into one mix. And the Democratic progressives were more conservative than the Republican progressives, but more progressive than Republican conservatives, which is why I would place the Democrats as the centrist party.

Or maybe you could draw it up as the Republicans being Right to right of center , the Democrats being somewhere in the center, and the Progressives being Left with a bit of left of center .

Were the Democrats to become the right wing party, I think it would be over an extended period as more progressives went to the Bull-Moose party but I'm not entirely sure if it would happen with a few differences between the Progressives of both parties, and if it did I think it would pull the Progressive party a little bit to the right.

IMO, the consequences in the political system would have something like: either a three/four party system with regional based successful third parties or a change in the two party system, with the Republicans absorbing the rump democratic Party or the opposite (depending on whic party loses more supporters to the Progressives),
The GOP would likely see the greatest loss as I do believe it would lose most of its progressives to Roosevelt as he is from that party and drew that group's attention. The Democrats would likely retain more people being a distinct body from anything concerning TR (or at least would retain most of their progressives for a while).

Even with the loss of a major element, I don't know if the Republicans would be destroyed and absorbed by the Dems because they would retain their conservatives and I don't see the Democrats being more conservative than a GOP without most of its progressives left.

and minor like minded parties (Socialists, NPL, Farm-Labour, etc) being absorbed by the Progressives.
The Progressives would have a strong chance of absorbing most immigrant vote, thus increasing its size as national US demographics change over time.
I don't know as if Progressives would absorb the Socialists. The ideology of Progressivism was open to the acceptance socialist ideas should a progressive person or group want to believe in them, I know that, but I don't think the Socialists would allow themselves to be absorbed. Especially as the Progressives would likely support entrance into the World War and the Socialists were anti-war.

What if so many Democrats and Republicans defect that the remaining Republicans and Democrats form a coalition party? And in a Tri-Party system you'll see elections thrown to the House often.
I really don't believe that the Democrats would see a defection as large as the GOP, as -if I recall this right- the Progressives in the Democratic party were more conservative than their Republican counterparts. I also don't think that a conservatives only GOP would be apt to join the Democrats who would likely retain many Progressives and moderates. Maybe you would see an influx of Dixiecrats into the Republicans, though?

And maybe a tri-party system would lead to a reform of the electoral college so that less vote would be necessary for victory if its polarizing enough that voters can't make a distinctive majority either way. With the division of votes among three parties you might also see the increased prominence of the Socialist as the Dems, GOP, and Bull-Moose groups would have less strength than just Dems and GOP.
 
Last edited:
Emperor Norton I asked:
I don't know if you are trying to compile a feasible Alternate history, or are asking only the question of who would be in Roosevelt's cabinet.
I am trying to compile a feasible Alternate history.

In this ATL Roosevelt's cabinet in his 1913 administration includes men from his previous administration and new men, such as George Ray Wicker as Secretary of Commerce and Raymond Robins as Secretary of Labor.

Derek Johnson said
I would also be interested to know about the likely nature of the Congress.
Congressional elections 1912: House of Representatives: Democrat 223, Republican 158, Progressive 54. Senate: Democrat 54, Republican 32, Progressive 10.

1914 elections: House of Representatives: Democrat 212, Republican 132, Progressive 91. Senate: Democrat 52, Republican 28, Progressive 16.

1916 elections: House of Representatives: Democrat 198, Republican 110, Progressive 127. Senate: Democrat 50, Republican 24, Progressive 22.

in 1916, Jeanette Rankin was elected to the House for Montana on the Progressive ticket.

In the new Roosevelt administration, Frances Kellor is appointed the first women cabinet member as the new Secretary for Social Welfare.

In 1917, the world war continues with neither the Allies or the Central Powers able to secure a decisive victory. A revolution in Russia in March overthrows the Tsar and establishes a democratic government which continues to fight the war (as in OTL). Alexander Kerensky becomes chief minister in July. On other fronts, the progress of the war is as in OTL.

The dogged defensive retreat of the Germans on the Western Front and the complete failure of the Russian summer offensive gives rise to tentative peace negotiations. The proposal by Emperor Karl I of Austria-Hungary in June for a confederation of his Empire is warmly welcomed. On August 4, he announces, that following Pope Benedict XV's peace proposal, a cease fire by all armed forces of Austria-Hungary on all fronts. When this news becomes known in Germany, there is widespread demand for peace. The Socialist and Catholic Deputies in the Reichstag vote for peace negotiations and demand the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He abdicates and retires to live on his estates in Prussia. Prince Max of Baden becomes Kaiser as a constitutional monarch. The new German government negotiates a ceasefire without conditions with the Allies on the Western Front. The Russian army, having more or less collapsed, agrees to a ceasefire. The smaller powers also agree to a ceasefire. On August 16, all fighting ceases.

On November 28, 1917, the Peace Summit opens in Geneva. It involves all the powers who had fought in the war. The main decisions: National borders returned to the status quo ante the outbreak of war, except that Alsace-Lorraine is returned to France, subject to the results of a plebiscite of its citizens; the Russian part of Poland becomes an independent Polish state under a democratically elected government. The Ottoman Empire is reduced to roughly the present borders of Turkey in OTL. Agreements are made on the level of armed forces each nation would have. A League of Nations is established with its headquarters in Geneva. (Its constitution and powers are similar to those of the League in OTL).

Roosevelt hails the peace as a victory for democracy. American troops come back to ticker tape parades in New York and other cities. He says that it is now our solemn task to bring true democracy to America.

The Fair Voting Act, 1918, outlaws all devices such as poll taxes and literacy tests which have deprived black people of the vote.

The Justice for Negros Act, 1918, outlaws all segregation in public buildings and on public transport. It bans all restrictions on grounds of colour for appointment to posts in the federal government. Several black people are appointed to miiddle ranking posts in his administration, up to the level of Under-secretary.

Most Democrats are opposed to these Acts, on the basis of States Rights. However a significant minority, including James B. Cox of Ohio and Alfred Smith of New York support them. The Republicans, who regard themselves as "the friend of the Negro", also support them.

There is passionate debate about whether the United States should join the newly formed League of Nations. Roosevelt and the great majority of the Progressive party are in favour of joining with safeguards to protect American national interests. The Democrats are divided, with the Dixiecrats being opposed and the northern progressives being in favour. The Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed.

1918 Congressional election results: House of Representatives: Progressive 174, Democrat 166, Republican 95. Senate: Democrat 46, Progressive 29, Republican 21.

In January 1919, following the death of the President, Vice-President Hiram Johnson suceeds to the Presidency.

1920: After a hard fought battle in the primaries and at the convention between Hiram Johnson and Robert La Follette for the Progressive nomination, Johnson finally prevails. The convention chooses La Follette as his running mate.

The Democrats nominate James B. Cox for President and Robert Latham Owen for Vice-President.

The Republicans choose Henry Cabot Lodge as candidate for President, and Frank Orren Lowden for Vice-President. (I have read Alternate Histories in which Warren G. Harding, Senator for Ohio, is chosen by the Republicans as their candidate for President, and he wins the general election by a landslide over James B. Cox. It is unbelievable that the GOP would have ever nominated such a tenth rate person for President, let alone that he would be elected President).

In this election the anti-war Progressives have returned to the party.

Election campaign: The Progressives campaign on their record of social welfare reform and economic prosperity. If elected they promise to enact a system of privately run health insurance, which will cover the whole pupulation, and to appoint a high-level commission to investigate the possibility of establishing a welfare state. They propose staying in the League of Nations with safeguards to protect the national interest. The Democrats campaign on 'time for a change' and 'return to stability'. They propose to set up a high level commission to investigate whether the United States should remain in the League of Nations. The Republicans campaign on a policy of economic conservatism and withdrawal from the League.

A feature of the election is the courting of the Republican vote. Johnson and La Follette stress that their roots are in the GOP; they did not leave that party, instead it left them. The Progressives are a continuation of the highest, noblest and most enlightened traditions of the GOP.

The result of the election for President: Hiram Johnson and Robert La Follette, Progressive 268 electoral votes. James B. Cox and Robert Latham Owen, Democrat 250 electoral votes. Henry Cabot Lodge and Frank Orren Lowden, Republican 13 electoral votes.

Congressional election results: House of Representatives: Democrat 203, Progressive 153, Republican 79. Senate: Democrat 49, Progressive 31, Republican 16.

Jeanette Rankin is elected as a Progressive Senator for Montana.
 
Emperor Norton I asked:
I am trying to compile a feasible Alternate history.

In this ATL Roosevelt's cabinet in his 1913 administration includes men from his previous administration and new men, such as George Ray Wicker as Secretary of Commerce and Raymond Robins as Secretary of Labor.

Derek Johnson said
Congressional elections 1912: House of Representatives: Democrat 223, Republican 158, Progressive 54. Senate: Democrat 54, Republican 32, Progressive 10.

1914 elections: House of Representatives: Democrat 212, Republican 132, Progressive 91. Senate: Democrat 52, Republican 28, Progressive 16.

1916 elections: House of Representatives: Democrat 198, Republican 110, Progressive 127. Senate: Democrat 50, Republican 24, Progressive 22.

in 1916, Jeanette Rankin was elected to the House for Montana on the Progressive ticket.

In the new Roosevelt administration, Frances Kellor is appointed the first women cabinet member as the new Secretary for Social Welfare.

In 1917, the world war continues with neither the Allies or the Central Powers able to secure a decisive victory. A revolution in Russia in March overthrows the Tsar and establishes a democratic government which continues to fight the war (as in OTL). Alexander Kerensky becomes chief minister in July. On other fronts, the progress of the war is as in OTL.

The dogged defensive retreat of the Germans on the Western Front and the complete failure of the Russian summer offensive gives rise to tentative peace negotiations. The proposal by Emperor Karl I of Austria-Hungary in June for a confederation of his Empire is warmly welcomed. On August 4, he announces, that following Pope Benedict XV's peace proposal, a cease fire by all armed forces of Austria-Hungary on all fronts. When this news becomes known in Germany, there is widespread demand for peace. The Socialist and Catholic Deputies in the Reichstag vote for peace negotiations and demand the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He abdicates and retires to live on his estates in Prussia. Prince Max of Baden becomes Kaiser as a constitutional monarch. The new German government negotiates a ceasefire without conditions with the Allies on the Western Front. The Russian army, having more or less collapsed, agrees to a ceasefire. The smaller powers also agree to a ceasefire. On August 16, all fighting ceases.

On November 28, 1917, the Peace Summit opens in Geneva. It involves all the powers who had fought in the war. The main decisions: National borders returned to the status quo ante the outbreak of war, except that Alsace-Lorraine is returned to France, subject to the results of a plebiscite of its citizens; the Russian part of Poland becomes an independent Polish state under a democratically elected government. The Ottoman Empire is reduced to roughly the present borders of Turkey in OTL. Agreements are made on the level of armed forces each nation would have. A League of Nations is established with its headquarters in Geneva. (Its constitution and powers are similar to those of the League in OTL).

Roosevelt hails the peace as a victory for democracy. American troops come back to ticker tape parades in New York and other cities. He says that it is now our solemn task to bring true democracy to America.

The Fair Voting Act, 1918, outlaws all devices such as poll taxes and literacy tests which have deprived black people of the vote.

The Justice for Negros Act, 1918, outlaws all segregation in public buildings and on public transport. It bans all restrictions on grounds of colour for appointment to posts in the federal government. Several black people are appointed to miiddle ranking posts in his administration, up to the level of Under-secretary.

Most Democrats are opposed to these Acts, on the basis of States Rights. However a significant minority, including James B. Cox of Ohio and Alfred Smith of New York support them. The Republicans, who regard themselves as "the friend of the Negro", also support them.

There is passionate debate about whether the United States should join the newly formed League of Nations. Roosevelt and the great majority of the Progressive party are in favour of joining with safeguards to protect American national interests. The Democrats are divided, with the Dixiecrats being opposed and the northern progressives being in favour. The Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed.

1918 Congressional election results: House of Representatives: Progressive 174, Democrat 166, Republican 95. Senate: Democrat 46, Progressive 29, Republican 21.

In January 1919, following the death of the President, Vice-President Hiram Johnson suceeds to the Presidency.

1920: After a hard fought battle in the primaries and at the convention between Hiram Johnson and Robert La Follette for the Progressive nomination, Johnson finally prevails. The convention chooses La Follette as his running mate.

The Democrats nominate James B. Cox for President and Robert Latham Owen for Vice-President.

The Republicans choose Henry Cabot Lodge as candidate for President, and Frank Orren Lowden for Vice-President. (I have read Alternate Histories in which Warren G. Harding, Senator for Ohio, is chosen by the Republicans as their candidate for President, and he wins the general election by a landslide over James B. Cox. It is unbelievable that the GOP would have ever nominated such a tenth rate person for President, let alone that he would be elected President).

In this election the anti-war Progressives have returned to the party.

Election campaign: The Progressives campaign on their record of social welfare reform and economic prosperity. If elected they promise to enact a system of privately run health insurance, which will cover the whole pupulation, and to appoint a high-level commission to investigate the possibility of establishing a welfare state. They propose staying in the League of Nations with safeguards to protect the national interest. The Democrats campaign on 'time for a change' and 'return to stability'. They propose to set up a high level commission to investigate whether the United States should remain in the League of Nations. The Republicans campaign on a policy of economic conservatism and withdrawal from the League.

A feature of the election is the courting of the Republican vote. Johnson and La Follette stress that their roots are in the GOP; they did not leave that party, instead it left them. The Progressives are a continuation of the highest, noblest and most enlightened traditions of the GOP.

The result of the election for President: Hiram Johnson and Robert La Follette, Progressive 268 electoral votes. James B. Cox and Robert Latham Owen, Democrat 250 electoral votes. Henry Cabot Lodge and Frank Orren Lowden, Republican 13 electoral votes.

Congressional election results: House of Representatives: Democrat 203, Progressive 153, Republican 79. Senate: Democrat 49, Progressive 31, Republican 16.


Jeanette Rankin is elected as a Progressive Senator for Montana.
Could the Progressives really have passed such controversial [back then] legislation in 1910s without causing a landslide defeat? The Civil Rights Movement didn't have the example of World War 2 to do it and many Progressives were quite racist for example Hiram Johnson fought to end Chinese immigration in California and to deprive them of most civil rights.
 
Could the Progressives really have passed such controversial [back then] legislation in 1910s without causing a landslide defeat? The Civil Rights Movement didn't have the example of World War 2 to do it and many Progressives were quite racist for example Hiram Johnson fought to end Chinese immigration in California and to deprive them of most civil rights.
I accept that getting Civil Rights passed in the 1910s would be difficult an unpopular in many places.

I am aware that some people who feared the Chinese supported the rights of former slaves- I recall hearing of a Trade Union newspaper- in the 1880s I think- strongly demanding human rights for white and black Americans but strongly opposing East Asian immigration.
 
Originally posted by General Mung Beans:
Could the Progressives really have passed such controversial [back then] legislation in 1910s without causing a landslide defeat?
The Progressives present the Civil Rights legislation of 1918 as making real and practical the promises and theory of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. It is a continuation of the fight against slavery.

It appeals to the idealism and belief in social justice of white liberals, and has their enthusiastic support, particularly liberal Christians and Jews. Also black troops have served with bravery and distinction in the armed forces in the Great War.

This legislation does not mandate affirmative action, job quotas or bussing of white school children. It did not affect private housing, so middle-class white areas remain white. It does not affect Chinese immigration. Most white people are at least tolerate sharing public transport and public facilities with black people.

In OTL, when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act 1964, he said that by doing so the Democratic Party had lost the South for a generation. In !918 the Progressives didn't have the South to lose.

A cynical view would be that the 1918 legislation did not affect enough white Progressive voters outside the South to cause them to desert that party.

The result of the 1920 election sparks a lively discussion on the fairness of the electoral college. The percentage of the votes cast for the candidates were as follows:

Johnson (Progressive) 40.6
Cox (Democrat) 39.2
Lodge (Republican) 15.9
Debs (Socialist) 3.6
Others 0.7

The Republicans are aggrieved that their electoral college vote falls a good deal short of their popular vote. They, together with the Socialists and many Progressives, campaign for the electoral college vote to be as proportionate as possible. The Democrats and Progressives calculate that such a change will be slightly favourable to them, or neutral in the long run. However one prominent Democratic Senator condemns the proposal as a mathematical device to revive a dying Republican Party. Many Progressives support this change as part of their policy of extending democracy.

Progressives, Republicans and Socialists also advocate the introduction of the Alteernative Vote in Congressional elections.

By the Electoral College Reform Act 1922, the electoral college votes for each candidate are to be allocated as much as possible in proportion to his popular vote. For example, in a state with three electoral college votes a candidate must receive at least 1/3rd of the popular vote to receive one electoral college vote.

The Congressional Elections Voting Reform Act 1922 establishes the Alternative Vote in all congressional elections where there are more than two candidates. By this system, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If a candidate does not receive a majority (50% plus one of the votes), the second preferences of the third or lower place candidates are distributed until one candidate achieves a majority.
 
First I must say a TL where TR's Progressive Party succeeds is always good.:cool:


But I must suggest some minor corrections on European matters. This is not meant as a criticism.
...
Alexander Kerensky becomes chief minister in July.
...
I believe you mean Minister-Chairman.


...
The Socialist and Catholic Deputies in the Reichstag vote for peace negotiations and demand the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He abdicates and retires to live on his estates in Prussia. Prince Max of Baden becomes Kaiser as a constitutional monarch.
...
It's better in this way:
...
The Social Democrats and Catholic Deputies in the Reichstag vote for peace negotiations and demand the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He abdicates and retires to live on his estates in Prussia. Crown Prince William becomes Kaiser as a constitutional monarch.
...
Prince Max of Baden was the Chancellor in OTL, and heir to the Grand-Duchy of BAden, but from the House of Zähringen, and therefore not ellegible to succed Wilhelm II.
 
Originally posted by General Mung Beans:
The Progressives present the Civil Rights legislation of 1918 as making real and practical the promises and theory of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. It is a continuation of the fight against slavery.

It appeals to the idealism and belief in social justice of white liberals, and has their enthusiastic support, particularly liberal Christians and Jews. Also black troops have served with bravery and distinction in the armed forces in the Great War.

This legislation does not mandate affirmative action, job quotas or bussing of white school children. It did not affect private housing, so middle-class white areas remain white. It does not affect Chinese immigration. Most white people are at least tolerate sharing public transport and public facilities with black people.

In OTL, when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act 1964, he said that by doing so the Democratic Party had lost the South for a generation. In !918 the Progressives didn't have the South to lose.

A cynical view would be that the 1918 legislation did not affect enough white Progressive voters outside the South to cause them to desert that party.

The result of the 1920 election sparks a lively discussion on the fairness of the electoral college. The percentage of the votes cast for the candidates were as follows:

Johnson (Progressive) 40.6
Cox (Democrat) 39.2
Lodge (Republican) 15.9
Debs (Socialist) 3.6
Others 0.7

The Republicans are aggrieved that their electoral college vote falls a good deal short of their popular vote. They, together with the Socialists and many Progressives, campaign for the electoral college vote to be as proportionate as possible. The Democrats and Progressives calculate that such a change will be slightly favourable to them, or neutral in the long run. However one prominent Democratic Senator condemns the proposal as a mathematical device to revive a dying Republican Party. Many Progressives support this change as part of their policy of extending democracy.

Progressives, Republicans and Socialists also advocate the introduction of the Alteernative Vote in Congressional elections.

By the Electoral College Reform Act 1922, the electoral college votes for each candidate are to be allocated as much as possible in proportion to his popular vote. For example, in a state with three electoral college votes a candidate must receive at least 1/3rd of the popular vote to receive one electoral college vote.

The Congressional Elections Voting Reform Act 1922 establishes the Alternative Vote in all congressional elections where there are more than two candidates. By this system, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If a candidate does not receive a majority (50% plus one of the votes), the second preferences of the third or lower place candidates are distributed until one candidate achieves a majority.
But wouldn't the bills be too sudden to many people in 1910s America? OTL Civil Rights Movement happend over many years. I'd say maybe 1920s would be the earliest date for laws to officialy pass after various smaller measures are passed without causing disaster. And I don't think liberals of that time were extremely racially tolerant, even Roosvelt I believe was racist.
 
Archangel, I accept your corrections.

Originally posted by General Mung Beans:
But wouldn't the [civil rights] bills be too sudden to many people in 1910s America? OTL Civil Rights Movement happened over many years. I'd say maybe 1920s would be the earliest date for laws to officialy pass after various smaller measures are passed without causing disaster.
I would think that legislation to ban devices such as poll taxes and literacy tests which deprive black people of the vote would be widely accepted, at least outside the South. As to the Justice for Negroes Act, its enforcement is left to each state. This provision was added in order to ensure that it passed Congress without Democrat opposition. Though of course appointments to the federal administration are made by the President.

The biggest surprise of President Hiram Johnson's new cabinet is the appointment of Herbert Hoover as Secretary of State. Hoover is not a Progressive. In fact, he is an independent. Harold Ickes is appointed Secretary of the Treasury and Jane Addams becomes Secretary of Social Welfare.

1921 and 1922: Legislation is passed which makes lynching a federal crime and established an anti-lynching department in the Department of Justice. A bill to outlaw state laws against inter-racial marriage is defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate.

The Social Security Act 1921 establishes unemployment insurance and old age pensions financed by payroll contributions to an independent insurance fund. The Women and Children Welfare Act 1921 establishes non-contributory pensions for women who have not been in paid work and financial allowances for children, payable if both of their parents are not in paid work.

The administration's proposal to establish a system of compulsory health insurance administered by non-profit making organisations is bogged down in the House of Representatives.

A system of financial regulation of the banking industry is established.

After an initial period of neutrality, the Democrats in Congress bitterly oppose the Electoral College Reform Bill and the Congressional Elections Voting Reform Bill which they condemn as Progressive and Republican gerrymandering. The first bill passes the Senate only by the casting vote of the Vice-President. One Democratic Senator having died. The second bill passes the Senate by one vote because of the abstention of two Democratic senators. Both bills have the firm support of Progressives and Republicans.
 
Top