IOTL, incumbent President Woodrow Wilson won an extremely narrow victory against Republican nominee and Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes came within 4,000 votes of winning the state of California, which alone would have swung the election to Hughes. The 1916 Presidential Election was incredibly important as it immediately preceded American entry into the First World War, and Woodrow Wilson would try to shape the world with his ideals in the peace talks, leading to massive ripples throughout history. What if President Wilson lost re-election to Charles Evans Hughes? How would a President Hughes handle the end of WW1, and the Treaty of Versailles? How would Hughes' Treaty of Versailles differ from Wilson's? What decisions would President Hughes make domestically? Would Woodrow Wilson try to seek a second non-consecutive term in 1920? Seeing as any Democrat would likely defeat President Hughes in the turbulent atmosphere of 1920, what would a 1920s under Democrat administrations differ from OTL, especially economically?
WI: Charles Evans Hughes defeats Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 Election
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
It may be Leonard Wood instead of Pershing. I'm not sure just how much difference that would make
If Hughes brings back anything resembling the League of Nations, he will almost certainly accept the Lodge Reservations (if indeed his version of the Treaty does not already include them). So there's every ;likelihood that the US joins - though again the effect will probably be marginal. He may also submit the guarantee of France's bordes separately from the League.
Territorially there is apt to be little if any change. Ethnic borders were pretty generally accepted (so long as Germany didn't actually *gain* territory) and Hughes' outlook wasn't all *that* different from Wilson's. TR notoriously called him "Wilson with whiskers" and there's some truth in it. They may do better wrt the reparations clauses. At all evets I don't see how Hughes' treaty could make things any *worse^ than OTL's.
The fact that Hughes and Lloyd George were both Welsh (or at least Hughes' father was) may draw them closer together.
Hughes seem to have been distinctly anti-Japanese (later, as SoS, he would successfully oppose any renewal of the Anglo-Jap Alliance) so he may well resist letting them have Tsingtao. However, given that they were already in possession of it, he may well not succeed.
Domestically, the big change is that the Dems have been out of po wer during the war years, which will benefit them hugely. I don't know if they'll dominate the 1920s as much as the Reps did OTL since the split over Prohibition and the Klan may very well still happen, but they'll certainly be stronger in Congress and at least competitive for the Presidency. $64000 question is whether any of this can butterfly away the Wall Street Crash.
If Hughes brings back anything resembling the League of Nations, he will almost certainly accept the Lodge Reservations (if indeed his version of the Treaty does not already include them). So there's every ;likelihood that the US joins - though again the effect will probably be marginal. He may also submit the guarantee of France's bordes separately from the League.
Territorially there is apt to be little if any change. Ethnic borders were pretty generally accepted (so long as Germany didn't actually *gain* territory) and Hughes' outlook wasn't all *that* different from Wilson's. TR notoriously called him "Wilson with whiskers" and there's some truth in it. They may do better wrt the reparations clauses. At all evets I don't see how Hughes' treaty could make things any *worse^ than OTL's.
The fact that Hughes and Lloyd George were both Welsh (or at least Hughes' father was) may draw them closer together.
Hughes seem to have been distinctly anti-Japanese (later, as SoS, he would successfully oppose any renewal of the Anglo-Jap Alliance) so he may well resist letting them have Tsingtao. However, given that they were already in possession of it, he may well not succeed.
Domestically, the big change is that the Dems have been out of po wer during the war years, which will benefit them hugely. I don't know if they'll dominate the 1920s as much as the Reps did OTL since the split over Prohibition and the Klan may very well still happen, but they'll certainly be stronger in Congress and at least competitive for the Presidency. $64000 question is whether any of this can butterfly away the Wall Street Crash.
A summary of a major difference between the WIlsonian and the Lodge-Hughes idea of the League:
"... the league idea was becoming increasingly popular with those on the left (especially in Britain) who saw a panacea in either a super-state or in popular control of foreign policy and avoided the implication (so crucial in Lodge's view) that a league would have to be maintained by force of arms.. Wilson's views, at this point, seemed to be closer to that group than to those of the League to Enforce Peace. In the campaign Hughes, not the President, specifically endorsed the League to Enforce Peace and made the point, which Wilson avoided, that "our preparedness will have proper relation to this end."" https://books.google.com/books?id=Gt_ueSiU91UC&pg=PA242
Another point: With a Republican in the White House, Lodge might have softened the terms of his reservations.
TR will want to do some fighting in Europe personally, not sit behind a desk in Washington. And unlike Wilson, Hughes will grant his request.
Segregation in the federal bureaucracy didn't start with Wilson (though he certainly expanded it) and was not done away with by the Republican administrations that followed him. https://www.jstor.org/stable/273560#metadata_info_tab_contents "Generally forgotten, however, has been the fact that this was a Republican as well as a Democratic policy. It was introduced at least as early as the administration of Theodore Roosevelt and was expanded during the period of Republican ascendancy in the 1920's."
As for Hughes' own record:
"In view of the low esteem in which African Americans held President Wilson by 1916 because of his racial policies, it might have seemed logical for Hughes to have made inroads among black voters. The former New York governor, however, had not been a notable friend of black Americans in Albany. As governor, "he did not make good on solitary colored appointment, big or little." To repeated requests for a black appointee, Hughes had replied that he would not appoint any man because he was colored, Irish, German, or what-not. As one black leader noted, "usually that high idealistic attitude results in the utter ignoring of Ham."" So it was with Hughes. With no reference to black issues in the GOP platform, the whole question boiled down to "since we know that nothing can be expected of Mr. Wilson, all we can do is to support Hughes and trust to luck as to what he would say or do.”." Lewis L. Gould, The First Modern Clash Over Federal Power: Wilson Versus Hughes in the Presidential Election of 1916, pp. 112-113.
Last edited:
I might point you to one of my favorite alt-history timelines from the old Usenet days, "Mr. Hughes Goes to War."
(Short answer: "Very differently.")
(Short answer: "Very differently.")
Would a former president and head of state/government accept a cabinet position?
That's exactly why he *won't* be in the Cabinet. He wants to be fighting in Europe , not sitting behind a desk in Washington, DC. That's why he resigned as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1898--he wanted to lead troops in combat in Cuba.
Not much, It would eliminate him as a possible future presidential candidate but he didn't have long to live anyway.
BTW, in OTL, when TR told Elihu Root that if permiited to lead troops in Europe he did not expect to survive the War but to be buried in France, Root quipped, “Theodore, if you can convince Wilson of that I am sure he will give you a commission." https://books.google.com/books?id=zHP8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117
Last edited:
ahmedali
Banned
It's funny how everyone thinks that anyone but Wilson means a better situation for post-war Germany
Al-Wefaq had an overwhelming advantage for public relations and advertising
(The rape of Belgium alone provided a huge PR for the Entente, and the Germans could not obtain anything similar unless von Essen attacked Sweden.)
Even Teddy Roosevelt, a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm's brother, Prince Henry, would be very angry at the actions of the Germans in Belgium.
And also the reasons for supporting the reconciliation are economic, because the United States provided them with loans
(They have no interest in Germany winning because this means the collapse of the Entente and its inability to pay)
The only difference is that there is no Fourteen Points or self-determination promotion because it's Wilson related stuff
(And this will save the Austro-Hungarians greatly, because with the exception of Russia, Serbia and Romania, there is no interest in the other Entente countries to break up Austria, but they almost did not care and the other races did not revolt except because of Wilson's promises)
But Germany's punishment will not be different from OTL
(Wilson is just a pawn used by Clemenceau and Lloyd George at this point)
The difference will be internal (the bad things that Wilson did won't happen here)
Al-Wefaq had an overwhelming advantage for public relations and advertising
(The rape of Belgium alone provided a huge PR for the Entente, and the Germans could not obtain anything similar unless von Essen attacked Sweden.)
Even Teddy Roosevelt, a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm's brother, Prince Henry, would be very angry at the actions of the Germans in Belgium.
And also the reasons for supporting the reconciliation are economic, because the United States provided them with loans
(They have no interest in Germany winning because this means the collapse of the Entente and its inability to pay)
The only difference is that there is no Fourteen Points or self-determination promotion because it's Wilson related stuff
(And this will save the Austro-Hungarians greatly, because with the exception of Russia, Serbia and Romania, there is no interest in the other Entente countries to break up Austria, but they almost did not care and the other races did not revolt except because of Wilson's promises)
But Germany's punishment will not be different from OTL
(Wilson is just a pawn used by Clemenceau and Lloyd George at this point)
The difference will be internal (the bad things that Wilson did won't happen here)
Wonderful news! I hadn't realised it was still online.
I realise much of it is low-probability, but I was enjoying myself and let my hair down a bit more than usual.
Last edited:
It featured my favorite Habsburg, so I've always had a soft spot for it, Mike!
But how would Hughes feel about that?
If sent to Europe, TR will be grandstanding it and playing the hero, while he is left to make all the unpopular decisions. Wouldn't this risk exposing himself to the fate of William Howard Taft? After all it's not as if TR likes him very much. To my mind he has a strong motive for keeping TR in Washington, so that if anything goes wrong, at least TR is (with any luck) equally implicated.
Last edited: