What if Taft was president during WW1?

It's a bit of a puzzle why some people here think Taft would have kept the US out of the World War. As I noted above, he was much less of a hawk than, say, TR or Lodge or Root--but he was certainly not more dovish than Wilson, and indeed he even suggested a break in diplomatic relations after the Lusitania sinking (though he did not want it to lead to war).

Even odder is the notion that he wouldn't have intervened in Latin America: "In Nicaragua, Taft used greater force to accompany his dollar diplomacy. Nicaragua was meddling in other Central American states, including Honduras, and had contracted major loans with British institutions. Taft and Secretary of State Philander Knox threw their support to a rebellion that promised a more pliant regime. They landed U.S. Marines in rebel-held territory to protect North American property and lives, just incidentally deterring the government from reconquest. After many twists and turns, the U.S.-sponsored government took power, and it accepted an American loan and a customs receivership to guarantee repayment..." https://books.google.com/books?id=MGamBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA62

It's as if some people are allowing their dislike of Wilson to blind themselves to the fact that many people (and not just TR) who were not his political allies were at least as much in favor of the US use of force as he was.

I do not regard Taft as a dove, rather I think he has a very different vision than Wilson, he was more concerned with Asia and focused in the Americas, he was not going to intervene in Mexico and aside from the meddling in Latin America I see him as more prone to diplomacy and mediation, his America was just not going to war in Europe as easily. And we can only speculate on other butterflies at work, for example as the British liquidate their assets in the USA we might see no effective intervention from the Taft Treasury, recession was on going and it might crash the economy, putting a lot of dislike upon Britain, or Taft might feel more beholden to the German-American population of Ohio voters such that he has better relations with Germany, or as Japan goes to war he finds that more worrisome than who topples who in Europe. It is my opinion that Wilson was playing a double blind game to move the USA into a super power seat using Germany as the shiny object while he slit Britain's throat, letting Russia and France die with Germany, a game Taft is not playing. Taft might assert American power and neutrality to avert war, Germany would be rather different knowing a US flagged ship can sail to Germany and the USA is not kowtowing to the British blockade, moves that a restrained "hawk" might use to actually stay neutral, a goal Taft appears more sincere about than Wilson. You decide if the world might be better off.
 
There are some very interesting ideas here, from how Europe would be calmer with a negotiated peace in ate 1917 after some exhaustion, the idea that a rebuilt Army in 1914 might keep Germany from declaring war (and thus cause the Allies to realize they'd better just get to the table) etc..

I think the best POD if we're going to have TR not run is for the Democratic convention to stay the same and then butterflies from WIlson not worrying about TR cause him to be in a slightlyd ifferent place and critically injured in a train crash - as almost happened OTL. Taft then gets a win a la 1872 awhere he gets a small majority of the vote and other electoral votes are just scattered enough that he wins. (ANother possibility is that he is elected President and Marshal VP by the Senate, which votes by party and selects from among2 men, not the highest 3.)

Okay, that wasn't that simple, but as others have said,it's hard to envision otherwise.

So, Taft must work with Democrats more, but he is pretty moderate, and his interest in arbitration causes him to try to enforce it in 1914 with the war starting u, but both sides choose not to. He's given credit for "giving it the old college try," and he lets Stimson expand the army, ends diplomatic relations with Germany after the Lusitania ((again, he's given credit by the Democrats, but he has some decisions to make after that.

Thing is, I'm wondering about his health.The legend I remember as a child of him getting stuck in a Whie House bathtub is apparently false (though he may have been stuck in one elsewhere and I think did have an extra large one built), but he was clsoe to 400 pounds and it was only after his Presidency he began to lose weight. It is possible that he coud suffer some health issue that would immobilize hijm for a period of time.

It would be very interesting if he were to die trying to preserve peace.

Either way, we likely get Champ Clark in 1916 - even if the above idea happens and Marshall were to be his VP, I suspect he might step aside for Clark in 1916 even if he becomes President., though I could be wrong.

There might be a recession after the war, but the weird part is, Clark died just before the new term as it was.Would he die earlier and his VP become President? Or run gain,win re-election,and then die? That might make things very interesting.
 
Here is how I thought out the "how": I have TR running a third, or second full-term, and serving again from 1909 to 1913, then departing for the Amazon after supporting Taft's run in 1912 versus Champ Clark, dying on that trip and Taft serving from 1913 to 1917. Leaving open the 1916 election where Champ Clark yields to Wilson who now runs as the Democrat versus Taft. You have four more years of TR policy and influence over the GOP, four more years to "groom" Taft and four years in which TR can effect the coming war in Europe as regards the USA. For example, the London conference in 1909 might yield a treaty renouncing blockade, I think the British decline to sign it, but TR might and with some foresight so does Germany. Even if Congress fails to ratify it the precedent is set, the USA is not obligated but supports neutral rights and forbids blockade in war. TR might push for another role as mediator during the Moroccan Crisis, perhaps cementing a better notion of America in the Kaiser's mind, perhaps getting Germany a different deal, who knows, but he is making butterflies.

Some other butterflies to consider are the passage of a six-year term for President, under the Democrats with a "three" term TR I think it passes, thus by the 1916 election we might face a six-year single term President, altering the time in office and interplay with Congress. We have four more years for Taft to grow tired of public service and seek a Supreme Court seat or to drift from TR and lose his backing. We have a potentially more solid grip by progressives over the GOP, and/or Democrats, shifting the political gravity that way. TR might have grown the Navy and/or bolstered the Army in his last term, and so on.

So I can conceive of a TR, Taft, Wilson Presidency cycle offset by four years with Wilson likely serving the first six-year term from 1917 to 1923, potentially dying in office but overseeing whatever peace is cobbled together in Europe. Interesting the Wilson who has no real traction to intervene but maybe turned to to mediate it, having no leverage if Taft kept the USA out and put a lid on American loans. I suspect the USA suffers less disruption since it will have avoided a mobilization for war possibly still in recovery from the 1914 crash, and Wilson getting kudos for how well he brought back prosperity and champions peace. Taft might have entangled us more with Japan and left the GOP as the backer of a new bigger USN. The next election in 1928 might be fascinating and I think we can set the Depression up to fail, along with the firmer isolationism, cleaner party divides and known path America got.
 
The problem with Wilson is that he was pro-British enough to antagonize Germany and perceived as weak enough that Germany risked war. Taft, I believe, would have been more even handed in his neutrality. He would also have been perceived as stronger. This would make Germany less likely to risk provocation.
 
The problem with Wilson is that he was pro-British enough to antagonize Germany and perceived as weak enough that Germany risked war. Taft, I believe, would have been more even handed in his neutrality. He would also have been perceived as stronger. This would make Germany less likely to risk provocation.

There is absolutely no evidence that Taft was less "pro-British" on the World War than Wilson. On the contrary, as I noted, it was Taft who suggested Wilson break diplomatic relations with Germany after the Lusitania sinking.

As for being "stronger" there was simply no will for a massive military buildup in Congress, of the kind that might have deterred Germany from unlimited submarine warfare. On the contrary, Wilson had trouble getting even a limited "preparedness" program through Congress. And incidentally, if Taft were somehow elected in 1912, he would almost certainly face a Democratic-majority, hostile Congress after the 1914 midterms, including many Bryanites who believed that preparedness was just a scheme to enrich the eastern capitalists...
 
I get the distinct impression Taft had more matured and measured judgments than either his predecessor or successor. He may not have been a better President, but I feel he was the better man.
 
It's as if some people are allowing their dislike of Wilson to blind themselves to the fact that many people (and not just TR) who were not his political allies were at least as much in favor of the US use of force as he was.

This could be said about virtually everything written - both on this board and elsewhere - about Woodrow Wilson.

To be clear: Wilson's record has much to criticize and critique. But routinely - from both the right and the left - Wilson's policies - on race, civil liberties, the war, the peace settlement - get singled out as if he were a massive outlier (without whom everything would have been better) when his stances were firmly within the mainstream of political opinion and often shared by much of his party and even many of his opponents.
 
I do not regard Taft as a dove, rather I think he has a very different vision than Wilson, he was more concerned with Asia and focused in the Americas, he was not going to intervene in Mexico and aside from the meddling in Latin America I see him as more prone to diplomacy and mediation, his America was just not going to war in Europe as easily.

There are only two ways for America not to go to war in Europe:

(1) Acquiesce in German unlimited submarine warfare (including even the killing of Americans on American ships in 1917). This is how a President Bryan or a President La Follette or maybe a President Clark would have kept the US out of the war. Taft however definitely was not in favor of this.

(2) Have a big, ready-to-go-to-Europe army to deter the Germans from unlimited submarine warfare. One could just barely argue that TR could have kept America out of the war that way. But in fact I think it very unlikely he could get such a massive military buildup through Congress, and even less likely that Taft would or even would want to.

As for Taft preferring diplomacy and mediation, in 1916 he joined in the GOP attack on Wilson for relying too much on diplomacy and mediation. Sure, that may have been partly a matter of party loyalty, and Taft was never as shrill about it as TR. But I just don't see him keeping America out of the War.

Taft was in many respects an old-fashioned imperialist. It is true that he attacked Wilson's policy on Mexico, but that is only because he mistakenly thought that if only Wilson had recognized Huerta (Taft had almost done so, but delayed in order to use the prospect of recognition to settle certain economic disputes with Mexico) everything would be fine under Huerta's "strong hand." It wouldn't have been; Huerta was running into resistance at an early stage and simply could not have unified Mexico or avoided civil war. While Taft did not want war with Mexico, he actually favored the US grabbing more Mexican territory if war came!

"Taft was astonishingly calloused in his views of the proper course in Mexico. What if Huerta had climbed to power
by the murder of Madero ?

“Huerta may be a murderer in fact as Diaz doubtless was, before he became president,” Taft calmly observed. “They are not Sunday-school superintendents down there, and we cannot make the qualifications of Sunday-school superintendents square with the necessities of the situation where anarchy prevails.

"Taft hoped that there would be no war with Mexico. He was equally hard-boiled, however, in his recommended treatment of that nation if it came. A new and more scientific frontier should be drawn after victory, he confided to Root. By this the United States should seize part of northern Mexico and portions of Lower California.

"“You will say that I am betraying the spirit of the buccaneer,” he wrote. “Not at all. But what I feel is that we ought not to embarrass ourselves, if we go into war, with any self-denying civilization.”

"Taft was shocked, not merely critical, when it appeared that the Democrats would abandon the policies which, as civil governor and secretary of war, he had established for the Philippine Islands.

"...'from the time that McKinley sent me out there until now,” Taft said, “no politics have played any part ... and it remains for Wilson to bring them in.” At the same time he predicted disaster if independence were granted to the islands..."

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.212134/2015.212134.The-Life#page/n335/mode/2up
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Even odder is the notion that he wouldn't have intervened in Latin America: "In Nicaragua, Taft used greater force to accompany his dollar diplomacy. Nicaragua was meddling in other Central American states, including Honduras, and had contracted major loans with British institutions. Taft and Secretary of State Philander Knox threw their support to a rebellion that promised a more pliant regime. They landed U.S. Marines in rebel-held territory to protect North American property and lives, just incidentally deterring the government from reconquest. After many twists and turns, the U.S.-sponsored government took power, and it accepted an American loan and a customs receivership to guarantee repayment..." https://books.google.com/books?id=MGamBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA62

I agree Taft would be willing to intervene in the Caribbean. First with Dollar Diplomacy, and then with troops if that did not work.

However, I think the US intervention in Mexico was a very idiosyncratic thing based on Wilson's desire to punish Huerta for murdering Madero. POTUS Wilson was in violent disagreement with US Ambassador in the country Henry Lane Wilson, about US policy.
 
I agree Taft would be willing to intervene in the Caribbean. First with Dollar Diplomacy, and then with troops if that did not work.

However, I think the US intervention in Mexico was a very idiosyncratic thing based on Wilson's desire to punish Huerta for murdering Madero. POTUS Wilson was in violent disagreement with US Ambassador in the country Henry Lane Wilson, about US policy.

Taft might have to end up intervening in Mexico to support Huerta.
 
Top