If the Zimmermann Telegram was earlier and so destroys the policy neutrality. Although Mexico would not attack America would this telegram during the election mean people want to attack Mexico. If Germany is still defeated what would the treaty of Versailles be like with Hughes instead of Wilson and what effect would this have the World War Two.
What if Charles Evans Hughes was elected in 1916?
- Thread starter TRN
- Start date
First of all, forget the Zimmerman Telegram. It would not in itself have led to war without the German decision to resort to unlimited submarine warfare. Indeed, the whole reason for the telegram was that Germany realized that its planned campaign of unlimited submarine warfare was almost certain to bring the US into the War, and that it wanted Mexico as an ally in that event.
Anyway, if you want Hughes to win, there are much more plausible ways of doing this than "an earlier Zimmerman Telegram." For one thing, if the Socialists had a stronger candidate than Benson, that would probably have been enough to throw California into the Hughes camp.
As for a Versailles Treaty under Hughes, I don't think it would look all that different from that of OTL, only Hughes would have a better chance of getting the US into the League of Nations (or whatever it could be called) because he would not insist on the open-ended commitments of Article X. But I still don't think the League would be very effective, even with US membership.
Anyway, if you want Hughes to win, there are much more plausible ways of doing this than "an earlier Zimmerman Telegram." For one thing, if the Socialists had a stronger candidate than Benson, that would probably have been enough to throw California into the Hughes camp.
As for a Versailles Treaty under Hughes, I don't think it would look all that different from that of OTL, only Hughes would have a better chance of getting the US into the League of Nations (or whatever it could be called) because he would not insist on the open-ended commitments of Article X. But I still don't think the League would be very effective, even with US membership.
This has always been an awesome POD. Not just because I, like most on this forum, don't like Woodrow Wilson but also because a Hughes victory in 1916 could dramatically alter the course of history. If Hughes won in 1916 and enters the war but is saddled with the domestic headaches faced by Wilson (riots, strikes, economic depression), it's likely that the Democrats win in 1920. And if Wilson wins the popular vote in 1916 but loses the electoral vote, it's quite possible that like Cleveland he'll make a comeback four years later. This means the Democrats are in power during the Roaring Twenties and probably the Great Depression as well, paving the way for the GOP to win in 1932. Without FDR's 1932 victory and his New Deal coalition, this could mean that the Democrats remain the more Conservative party and the GOP is more liberal. On the other hand, if Republican policies aren't enough to relieve the Depression (the GOP would still have the strong reactionary element that stymied TR's more liberal policies in his second term) then it's possible that a third party lead by Huey Long takes power in 1936 or in 1940. The Prospect of a Long dictatorship is truly a frightening one. I for one am very glad we never went down that path.
Smaller butterflies would include the end of the lame duck period. Wilson planned on appointing Hughes SecState and then resigning along with his VP, making Hughes the President a few months early. Also, Hughes supported a League of Nations and unlike the uncompromising Wilson he would be more willing to make amendments to the Treaty of Versailles in order to get it passed. This would mean the U.S. is a member of the League and could take some diplomatic action against Hitler and/or Mussolini and perhaps Franco. The problem is that the leading member nations (UK and France) would still refuse to confront fascism as in OTL until it's too late. Not to mention that the U.S. public, while supportive of the Allies, was overwhelmingly isolationist until Pearl Harbor. So it's unlikely that WWII would be prevented, but US membership in the League would certainly be a positive.
Smaller butterflies would include the end of the lame duck period. Wilson planned on appointing Hughes SecState and then resigning along with his VP, making Hughes the President a few months early. Also, Hughes supported a League of Nations and unlike the uncompromising Wilson he would be more willing to make amendments to the Treaty of Versailles in order to get it passed. This would mean the U.S. is a member of the League and could take some diplomatic action against Hitler and/or Mussolini and perhaps Franco. The problem is that the leading member nations (UK and France) would still refuse to confront fascism as in OTL until it's too late. Not to mention that the U.S. public, while supportive of the Allies, was overwhelmingly isolationist until Pearl Harbor. So it's unlikely that WWII would be prevented, but US membership in the League would certainly be a positive.
The Democrats were already further left than the Republicans well before 1932 - I'd say since 1896 when William Jennings Bryan took over the party. Teddy Roosevelt muddied the waters a bit because he was way over on the left flank of the Republican Party and thus to the left of even many prominent Democrats in that era of less polarized parties, but that was never more than an anomaly.
Certainly not on social issues. It was Wilson's cabinet of Democrats, not him personally, who first suggested that he segregate the federal government. When he at first hesitated to do so for political concerns, they segregated their own departments before practically begging the President to allow this which he did. Not to mention that famous incident in 1913 when Wilson threw civil rights advocates out of the White House. The Republican party in contrast still prided itself in being the Party of Lincoln and gained the majority of the black vote until 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt was reelected with the help of African-Americans who benefited from the New Deal.
I agree that TR was way to the left of both parties in many respects, but he was joined with progressive Republicans like Pinchot, LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, etc. who represented the entire left wing of the GOP. Their support of electoral and judicial reform as well as the creation of a welfare state eventually implemented by FDR was not shared by Bryan or Wilson. In fact, in 1912 Wilson ran as the conservative, individualist alternative to Roosevelt whose "New Nationalist" platform he and many others considered a collectivist first step to socialism. This line of argument was repeated by Republicans like Robert Taft when they attacked FDR's New Deal. So there's an exact flip in the Democratic and Republican positions on the political spectrum (centre-right vs. centre-left) after 1932.
I imagine if Hughes wins in 1916 and Wilson wins in 1920, Wilson would enact a very strong welfare state in response to the likely Depression of 1920-1921. Remember, Wilson was already pretty darn active in his first term as far as legislation went. Now, he won't be able to get as expansive in government power as he did during the war (and which he wanted to continue even after the war was over), but he could get pretty far as he feels he has to and has the mandate to do anything he can to end the economic crisis.
There's no guarantee that Wilson is able to run in 1920 or not. He already had 2 strokes by the time he was first elected (no one then knew what was happening to him fully,) that third one probably more than likely was inevitable regardless if he was in office or not. Unless the Dems want a puppet President in this scenario I don't him getting the nod.
The race issue doesn't really map onto the left-right spectrum that well. There's of course a general tendency for the left to be less racist, but as Wilson demonstrated that was far from a hard and fast rule.
TR was of course not the only progressive Republican, but that wing was nowhere near as strong as on the Democratic side. TR of course split with the Republicans by 1912 over just these issues: the party establishment was terrified that he'd manage to take over the party and pulled out every trick they could to keep him from being nominated despite his fairly overwhelming support from the rank and file. There is as you say a decent case to be made that Wilson ran to the right of TR in 1912, but a big part of that is how radicalized TR was by his conflict with the Republican establishment. The actual 1912 Republican candidate, Taft, was generally on the progressive wing of the Republican Party, but he was nevertheless clearly the most conservative of the three major players in the election. On the other side while neither Bryan nor Wilson went as far as FDR, they were both clearly prototypes of the New Deal movement, not its opposite.
Many political scientists would still say that the 1932 realignment signified the official flip between the GOP and Democrats, but it's perfectly fair to acknowledge that both TR's New Nationalism and Wilsonian idealism had a key influence on the New Deal. After all, FDR both emulated cousin Teddy and respected his former boss Woodrow Wilson. Many of TR's welfare state policies were finally implemented from 1933-1938, while Wilson's internationalism and support for the League of Nations obviously influenced FDR's foreign policy. Even Bryan's populism can be seen in FDR's "I welcome their hatred" rhetoric. It took a politician of FDR's caliber entering office at just the right time to synthesize these various positions into what we today recognize as the New Deal and the United Nations. But for the sake of the original purpose of this thread, what impact do you think that a Hughes Presidency would have on the future direction of America?
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
I have a feeling that with a Hughes win WWI ends in 1918 with a negotiated peace due to exhaustion.
The way I see things Wilson had a hate-boner for Willie and was viewed as pro-Entente. With a genuinely neutral USA not taking invented-yesterday Rules of Blockade shit from the UK and France there'd be greater willingness to negotiate and less to hold out before the USA joins the war.
The way I see things Wilson had a hate-boner for Willie and was viewed as pro-Entente. With a genuinely neutral USA not taking invented-yesterday Rules of Blockade shit from the UK and France there'd be greater willingness to negotiate and less to hold out before the USA joins the war.
Hughes might not have disliked Willie as much as Wilson did, but he was more of an Anglophile and would sympathize with the UK even more than Wilson did. Thus he'd be likelier to push for war, and likelier to push for it sooner.
The GOP was the party of elite WASPs in this day and age - they were among the most vocal supporters of war with Germany.
They probably would. It would be interesting to speculate as to what kind of domestic agenda President Hughes would have. TR derided Hughes as, "Wilson with whiskers," and many other Progressive Republicans thought him too conservative on labor and economic issues. However, he was still moderately forward thinking and a defender of civil liberties. We probably wouldn't see the government overreach that happened under Wilson, but it's not likely that Hughes will have any great domestic accomplishments working with a Democratic Congress.
It would be possible if a Republican Justice decides to retire after Hughes is sworn in, but otherwise no seats opened from 1917-1920.
I'm tempted to think that Hughes would spend the first two years trying to balance both wings of his party, before giving up after the 1918 midterms and trying to get some deals with Democrats, mostly failing in the process.
IIRC In 1916 Wilson only carried California by 3000 votes and this gave him the Electoral College votes to win. Perhaps the Germans or even Mexicans had little to do with it.
1916, I've heard, is one of the best cases of one small POD likely changing the same result. The CA governor not feeling snubbed by Hughes might easily flip CA and thus the election.
Pretty certainly.
They won the Senate OTL, and will probably at least maintain their majority in 1918. Even OTL they only lost it by the narrowest of margins.
The HoR result in 1916 was a virtual tie, with Democrats organising it through the support of a handful of minor party candidates. The change of a couple of thousand votes in CA won't alter that by more than the odd seat. So they are almost guaranteed to win a solid majority at midterm.
it's possible Hughes is forced to govern as a liberal Wilson-lite from day one, in that case.