WI: Charles Evan Hughes in 1916

Wilson won California (and the election) by 18,000 votes and arguably because California Governor Hiram Johnson felt snubbed by Evans and didn't fully support him as a result. What if this changed and Evans won (he would have had a single electoral vote above the threshold!)? Any ideas om changes?
 
Well, the "Sixtifor" is whether the US still enters WW1. Most likely it does, as Nov 1916 is very late in the day.

Hughes might be a bit less favourable to Poland at Versailles, but the difference is likely to be marginal. If a League of Nations emerges, it probably won't include Article X, so may stand a better chance of Senate approval.

If TR is Sec of War then you might get Leonard Wood leading the AEF instead of Pershing. But again it's not obvious that there'd be a lot changed.

The big change probably comes postwar. Assuming the war still drives up the cost of living as OTL, Hughes will stand little chance of re-election. So we could see Democratic administrations through the 1920s. It's anybody's guess who the Presidents would be and what they'd do, but there's an outside chance that their financial policies might be different enough that the Wall street Crash is butterflied.
 
BTW, Wilson's plurality in CA was only abt 3,800, not 18,000.

And Hughes' campaign was already in trouble even before he went to CA, due to his lacklustre speaking style and his vagueness about policies. Warren Harding was probably right when he said that Hughes would have some better to just stay at home and do a few carefully managed press conferences - as Harding himself was to do four years later - rather than stumping the country.
 
To recycle a post of mine from some months ago:

***

I doubt that the famous Long Beach episode was what cost Hughes California. Secretary of the Interior Lane, a Californian, wrote after the election:

"The result in California turned, really as the result in the entire West did, upon the real progressivism of the progressives. It was not pique because Johnson was not recognized. No man, not Johnson nor Roosevelt, carries the progressives in his pocket. The progressives in the East were Perkins progressives who could be delivered. The West thinks for itself. Johnson could not deliver California. Johnson made very strong speeches for Hughes. The West is really progressive. . . ." https://books.google.com/books?id=8mwoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227

What alienated California progressives (and progressives in the rest of the West) from Hughes was not his manners (his snub of Johnson at Long Beach) but his politics. California labor, for example, which strongly backed Johnson in his own campaigns, spurned his backing of Hughes. Wilson did especially strongly in heavily unionized cities like San Francisco. This should not be surprising, given Hughes' opposition to the Adamson Act, which provided for an eight-hour day for railroad workers. William Allen White, who supported Hughes, nevertheless lamented, "He talked tariff like Mark Hanna. He talked of industrial affairs like McKinley, expressing a benevolent sympathy, but not a fundamental understanding. He gave the Progressives of the West the impression that he was one of those good men in politics—a kind of a business man's candidate, who would devote himself to the work of cleaning up the public service, naming good men for offices, but always hovering around the status quo like a sick kitten around a hot brick!" https://books.google.com/books?id=cnU9AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA138
 

CaliGuy

Banned
To recycle a post of mine from some months ago:

***

I doubt that the famous Long Beach episode was what cost Hughes California. Secretary of the Interior Lane, a Californian, wrote after the election:

"The result in California turned, really as the result in the entire West did, upon the real progressivism of the progressives. It was not pique because Johnson was not recognized. No man, not Johnson nor Roosevelt, carries the progressives in his pocket. The progressives in the East were Perkins progressives who could be delivered. The West thinks for itself. Johnson could not deliver California. Johnson made very strong speeches for Hughes. The West is really progressive. . . ." https://books.google.com/books?id=8mwoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227

What alienated California progressives (and progressives in the rest of the West) from Hughes was not his manners (his snub of Johnson at Long Beach) but his politics. California labor, for example, which strongly backed Johnson in his own campaigns, spurned his backing of Hughes. Wilson did especially strongly in heavily unionized cities like San Francisco. This should not be surprising, given Hughes' opposition to the Adamson Act, which provided for an eight-hour day for railroad workers. William Allen White, who supported Hughes, nevertheless lamented, "He talked tariff like Mark Hanna. He talked of industrial affairs like McKinley, expressing a benevolent sympathy, but not a fundamental understanding. He gave the Progressives of the West the impression that he was one of those good men in politics—a kind of a business man's candidate, who would devote himself to the work of cleaning up the public service, naming good men for offices, but always hovering around the status quo like a sick kitten around a hot brick!" https://books.google.com/books?id=cnU9AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA138
Could Hughes have won had he supported the Adamson Act, though?

Well, the "Sixtifor" is whether the US still enters WW1. Most likely it does, as Nov 1916 is very late in the day.

Agreed; indeed, since Germany resumed USW even after the peacenik Wilson was re-elected, I don't see this decision being any different if Hughes was President. After all, if Germany believes that Hughes will bring the U.S. into the war in any case, why not launch USW?

Hughes might be a bit less favourable to Poland at Versailles, but the difference is likely to be marginal.

Actually, I've thought about this and I'm not completely sure that you are correct in regards to this. Yes, Hughes might be less dependent on ethnic/immigrant voters than Wilson was, but at the same time, this might be compensated by a desire to be tough on Germany--including in the postwar peace negotiations. Indeed, please keep in mind that people such as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge wanted unconditional surrender from Germany rather than an armistice. In turn, if Hughes acquires a similar mentality, he could be advocating harsh peace terms for Germany not so much to benefit countries such as Poland but to harm and cripple Germany.

If a League of Nations emerges, it probably won't include Article X, so may stand a better chance of Senate approval.

Agreed. Also, we could see a U.S.-British-French alliance in the interwar period in this TL; after all, even Senator Lodge supported this but Wilson didn't pursue it in our TL--instead focusing on his unsuccessful League of Nations fight.

If TR is Sec of War then you might get Leonard Wood leading the AEF instead of Pershing. But again it's not obvious that there'd be a lot changed.

Could Wood be more tolerant of having U.S. troops in foreign military units?

The big change probably comes postwar. Assuming the war still drives up the cost of living as OTL, Hughes will stand little chance of re-election. So we could see Democratic administrations through the 1920s. It's anybody's guess who the Presidents would be and what they'd do, but there's an outside chance that their financial policies might be different enough that the Wall street Crash is butterflied.

Agreed with all of this.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
BTW, Wilson's plurality in CA was only abt 3,800, not 18,000.

And Hughes' campaign was already in trouble even before he went to CA, due to his lacklustre speaking style and his vagueness about policies. Warren Harding was probably right when he said that Hughes would have some better to just stay at home and do a few carefully managed press conferences - as Harding himself was to do four years later - rather than stumping the country.
Or Hughes could have picked a running mate from California.

However, please keep in mind that Hughes was lucky enough as it was; after all, while he lost CA and NH, he managed to win MN by a narrower margin than he lost CA by.
 
Or Hughes could have picked a running mate from California.

Provided that dropping Fairbanks didn't cost him Indiana and/or Minnesota. If he lost either of those then even winning CA wouldn't save him.

Conversely, Ex-Senator Theodore Burton of Ohio later expressed the view that had he been chosen as VP (I understand he was offered it but his idiot of a Secretary turned it down w/o consulting him) they would have carried the state, in which case CA's vote would not have been needed. Of course, given the margin of Wilson's win there, this may have been wishful thinking.


However, please keep in mind that Hughes was lucky enough as it was; after all, while he lost CA and NH, he managed to win MN by a narrower margin than he lost CA by.

Indeed. Given the mess that the Republican party was still in, they did well to come as close as they did. Perhaps if TR had been considerate enough to die three years sooner - -?
 
Top