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.