What if Woodrow Wilson dies during the 1912 elections?

[The Dude Bro]

The 1912 election was a dangerous experience for more than one candidate. It is probably fairly common knowledge on this board by this point that at one point during the campaign an unemployed and mentally ill man attempted to assassinate Theodore Roosevelt while he was campaigning in the city of Milwaukee. What is probably less well known, though, is that Woodrow Wilson also almost died as well. As he was campaigning, his train car was height by a freight train, and, if the train was just a little bit closer to where he was in the car, he would have been hit. (1) So, the what if here should be a bit obvious: what if the fright train hits Wilson directly and he is killed in the crash? How will the campaign develop without a Democratic candidate, the Republican party still split, and Debs out there on the stump for the Socialists?

1: Traxel, David. "The Battle." Crusader Nation: The United States In Peace And The Great War: 1898-1920. 1st ed. New York: Vintage First Edition, 2006. 37. Print.

 

[The Dude Bro]

This is just so I can subscribe to this thread. Pay no attention to this post.

 

[wietze]

to up the stakes, Wilson dies in the crash AND roosevelt gets assasinated.


maybe even more intriguing?

 

[Thande]

When exactly was this?

I think speculation about the 1912 election tends to ignore the fact that the Democrats had been out of power for a long time and there was genuine enthusiasm for them, or at least fatigue with the Republicans (and the Progressives were just viewed as another faction of Republican). In real life it's probably a lot harder for Roosevelt (or Taft) to win than we think, Wilson would probably have won a landslide even with a united Republican ticket. However, how much of that was due to Wilson himself, that's the question--so this idea is potentially interesting.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Either Roosevelt or Taft might be able to attract some democrats, depending on who gets put up in place of Wilson.

Also, AH.com rejoices.

 

[Alternatehistoryguy47]

The 1912 election was a dangerous experience for more than one candidate. It is probably fairly common knowledge on this board by this point that at one point during the campaign an unemployed and mentally ill man attempted to assassinate Theodore Roosevelt while he was campaigning in the city of Milwaukee. What is probably less well known, though, is that Woodrow Wilson also almost died as well. As he was campaigning, his train car was height by a freight train, and, if the train was just a little bit closer to where he was in the car, he would have been hit. (1) So, the what if here should be a bit obvious: what if the fright train hits Wilson directly and he is killed in the crash? How will the campaign develop without a Democratic candidate, the Republican party still split, and Debs out there on the stump for the Socialists?

1: Traxel, David. "The Battle." Crusader Nation: The United States In Peace And The Great War: 1898-1920. 1st ed. New York: Vintage First Edition, 2006. 37. Print.

It depends on how good Marshall is at campaigning. He was just as Progressive as TR, so if all else stays the same, Marshall inherits the campaign and wins the Presidency.

Better outcome IMO.

 

[The Dude Bro]

When exactly was this?

The book itself gives no date for when it happened, but from the chronology of the book it appears to have taken place between the Progressive Party Convention in early August and the assassination attempt on Roosevelt in early October, so sometime in August or September in all likelihood.

 

[1940LaSalle]

OK, gonna take a few shots and quit when I feel tired...

* Stipulating that Wilson is killed during August or September 1912, what follows immediately is precedent-setting. I'd guess the Dem party chieftains (i.e., the DNC plus hangers-on) gather together in, say, Chicago or St. Louis to decide who gets the nod in place of Wilson. Logic suggests it would be Marshall; having nothing else to go on, that's not unreasonable. I could aslo see Marshall going for someone of a more or less similar bent for his running mate, like Oscar Underwood.
* Now you have a progressive Democrat ticket (that is, a real one, as opposed to a pseudo, given Wilson's racism) running against TR and a conservative GOP ticket. I'd say Taft is still the odd man out by a wide margin. On the other hand, Marshall doesn't begin to have Wilson's turn of a phrase (to give the devil his due), and next to TR, he's as charismatic as a flashlight is to a searchlight. I think TR wins a narrow popular plurality and a narrow electoral majority.
* Look for TR to make an inaugural speech in which he extends an olive branch to the GOP, particularly to Root and Lodge: the GOP may have a modest majority/plurality in Congress but realize they don't have the chops to override vetos, and that TR can veto anything they pass. Hence, an accommodation--perhaps uneasy at first but an accommodation between once, present, and future Republicans nonetheless.
* I'd guess that given his status in Europe, TR would offer to broker a peace between the Habsburg Empire and Serbia before things got out of hand, and that his offer would be well received. That alone might be enough to temper, if not counteract, the usual mid-term losses by the party in power. If he were able to deliver a peace acceptable to all (which I suspect he would), his stock only rises for 1916, and the progressive/conservative rift in the GOP heals that much further.

Someone else take it from here.

 

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

This is just so I can subscribe to this thread. Pay no attention to this post.

I've seen people make posts like this before. You do realize you can subscribe to a thread without posting in it, right?

 

[Mikestone8]

The book itself gives no date for when it happened, but from the chronology of the book it appears to have taken place between the Progressive Party Convention in early August and the assassination attempt on Roosevelt in early October, so sometime in August or September in all likelihood.

If it's that early then there's time for the Democratic Convention to reconvene. Certainty is impossible but the obvious candidate would be Champ Clark, who almost made it first time round. Marshall, as I understand it, was given the job only to secure Indiana's delegates for Wilson, so won't automatically be promoted. He probably stays on as VP though.

As for November, there's no reason to expect any major change from OTL. Neither Clark nor Marshall is likely to lose more than the odd one or two (if indeed any) of the states Wilson carried, and a sympathy vote might enable either one to pick up California, which OTL was a statistical tie. That's particularly likely if it's Clark, who OTL got 72% in CA's Democratic Primary, against 28% for Wilson. He may well hold onto some Dem voters who OTL abstained or went for Debs.

Policies - Either Clark or Marshall will be more isolationist on WW1. It's not certain that either one can manage to keep out of the war, but at least there's hope. Domestically, the $64,000 question is whether the "Single 6-year term" Amendment goes through, in which case the 1916 election is moved back to 1918. Probably little change on economic issues.

 

[Cook]

the Democrats had been out of power for a long time and there was genuine enthusiasm for them, or at least fatigue with the Republicans (and the Progressives were just viewed as another faction of Republican). In real life it's probably a lot harder for Roosevelt (or Taft) to win than we think, Wilson would probably have won a landslide even with a united Republican ticket.

There was a genuine enthusiasm for the Democrats to the extent of 41% and the Progressives were clearly just a Republican Faction, which makes it evident that without a split Republican/Progressive Ballot their votes would have gone to the Republican candidate – giving him 50% (27% who voted for Roosevelt and 23% who voted for Taft.) Wilson won because it was a First Past the Post electoral system and the opposition vote was split. In 1916, with all the advantages that the incumbent enjoys and concerns about the war in Europe, Wilson only just scraped back in.

I’m one of the few on this site who likes Wilson, but let’s be honest; he lucked into the White House.

 

[Mikestone8]

There was a genuine enthusiasm for the Democrats to the extent of 41% and the Progressives were clearly just a Republican Faction, which makes it evident that without a split Republican/Progressive Ballot their votes would have gone to the Republican candidate – giving him 50% (27% who voted for Roosevelt and 23% who voted for Taft.) Wilson won because it was a First Past the Post electoral system and the opposition vote was split. In 1916, with all the advantages that the incumbent enjoys and concerns about the war in Europe, Wilson only just scraped back in.

I’m one of the few on this site who likes Wilson, but let’s be honest; he lucked into the White House.

No he didn't.

Look at the Congressional races. The Republicans had suffered crushing defeat in 1910, and would lose even more seats in 1912 - despite most Congressional races being two-way.

TRs vote consisted of Republicans who defected to him "because he was there" but most of whom, if their votes in the HoR races are anything to go by, would have defected to Wilson (or to whoever the Democrats nominated) had TR not been on the ballot.

Four years later the GOP still couldn't win despite TR having returned to the fold. No way would any single Republican candidate have got anywhere near 50% in 1912.

It's like pointing out that Douglas and Breckinridge together received more votes than Lincoln in 1860 - Perfectly true, but totally irrelevant since their respective supporters could never have combined.

 

[anotherlurker]

the interesting thing is weather or not the new president is willing to push for american trade right with CP when faced with the british blockade, after all, there's lots of money to be made, isolationists love money.

 

[Mikestone8]

the interesting thing is weather or not the new president is willing to push for american trade right with CP when faced with the british blockade, after all, there's lots of money to be made, isolationists love money.

Of course, if the 6YT Amendment has gone through the POTUs, whoever he is, doesn't have to worry about his re-election prospects. He serves till March 1919 then stands down forever. So he may be less concerned about economic recession as it won't affect him, and even his party's next nominee won't be running till 1918 - by which time both war and recession may well be over.

 

[The Dude Bro]

If it's that early then there's time for the Democratic Convention to reconvene. Certainty is impossible but the obvious candidate would be Champ Clark, who almost made it first time round. Marshall, as I understand it, was given the job only to secure Indiana's delegates for Wilson, so won't automatically be promoted. He probably stays on as VP though.

As for November, there's no reason to expect any major change from OTL. Neither Clark nor Marshall is likely to lose more than the odd one or two (if indeed any) of the states Wilson carried, and a sympathy vote might enable either one to pick up California, which OTL was a statistical tie. That's particularly likely if it's Clark, who OTL got 72% in CA's Democratic Primary, against 28% for Wilson. He may well hold onto some Dem voters who OTL abstained or went for Debs.

Policies - Either Clark or Marshall will be more isolationist on WW1. It's not certain that either one can manage to keep out of the war, but at least there's hope. Domestically, the $64,000 question is whether the "Single 6-year term" Amendment goes through, in which case the 1916 election is moved back to 1918. Probably little change on economic issues.

Champ Clark was seen by the progressive/populist/liberal wing of the Democrats as too much of a conservative and also a hack. A number of them will not vote for him and will instead throw their support behind TR in all likelihood. Clark might still win, but it's going to be a messy election that will probably leave him with no popular mandate.

 

[Mikestone8]

Champ Clark was seen by the progressive/populist/liberal wing of the Democrats as too much of a conservative and also a hack. A number of them will not vote for him and will instead throw their support behind TR in all likelihood. Clark might still win, but it's going to be a messy election that will probably leave him with no popular mandate.

Then how come he defeated Wilson in California - one of the most progressive states in the Union - by almost three to one?

Clark had been a long-time Bryan supporter until the fell out at they 1912 Convention, as a result of Bryan's clumnsy attempt to deadlock it in his favour, so there's no reason why the party's liberals should have any problem with him. Indeed, on some points he was ahead of Wilson, being the first candidate to have a Women's organisation.

In any case, supposing Clark were to be painted as a conservative, any votes lost to TR would be balanced out by votes gained from Taft. 1912 was a most peculiar election, in that the Democrats found themselves in the political centre, between the two wings of the GOP, so that losses in one direction (even supposing there were any) were pretty certain to be offset by gains in the other.

Incidentally, if Clark were to lose any liberal votes, why do you assume they would go to TR? Isn't Debs (an ex-Dem who had supported Bryan in 1896) at least as likely - esp as neither man has any hope of winning, so it's only a gesture either way?

 

[Mikestone8]

Re Clark, there's an interesting Nytimes article about him, by journalist Charles Willis Thompson, at

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E06E6DF143BE430A75750C1A9679D946196D6CF

It's particularly interesting because

a) Thompson was a Republican with "no dog in the fight" as far as the Democratic Party was concerned.

b) Thompson would later turn against Clark on account of the latter's attitude to the Great War. So this article, written in November 1910, gives a glimpse of how he saw Clark before foreign policy issues affected his (Thompson's, not Clark's) judgment. It's well worth a look.

 

[Timmy811]

No he didn't.

Look at the Congressional races. The Republicans had suffered crushing defeat in 1910, and would lose even more seats in 1912 - despite most Congressional races being two-way.

TRs vote consisted of Republicans who defected to him "because he was there" but most of whom, if their votes in the HoR races are anything to go by, would have defected to Wilson (or to whoever the Democrats nominated) had TR not been on the ballot.

Four years later the GOP still couldn't win despite TR having returned to the fold. No way would any single Republican candidate have got anywhere near 50% in 1912.

It's like pointing out that Douglas and Breckinridge together received more votes than Lincoln in 1860 - Perfectly true, but totally irrelevant since their respective supporters could never have combined.

Taft didn't get on the ballot in S. Dakota and Roosevelt won more than 50% of the vote there. Why would it be different in other states? The Republican party was dominate in this time frame, routinely winning 50-60% of the popular vote.

 

[The Red]

I think speculation about the 1912 election tends to ignore the fact that the Democrats had been out of power for a long time and there was genuine enthusiasm for them, or at least fatigue with the Republicans (and the Progressives were just viewed as another faction of Republican). In real life it's probably a lot harder for Roosevelt (or Taft) to win than we think, Wilson would probably have won a landslide even with a united Republican ticket. However, how much of that was due to Wilson himself, that's the question--so this idea is potentially interesting.

The 'landslide' was in the electoral college, Wilson actually got a lower vote share than Bryan in 1908. Not saying it's impossible for Wilson to win but the election would resemble 1916 far more than its OTL counterpart if he did.