To me, the 1916 Presidential Election is one of the most consequential in both US and world history. Because of this election, Wilsonian ideals reshaped the entire world at Versailles, leading to WW2, the Cold War, and American foreign policy even up to the present day, and conservative laissez-faire Republicans would dominate the 1920s, leading to the Great Depression. 1916 was also a very close election. All it would have taken is 4,000 votes and Charles Evans Hughes would have defeated Woodrow Wilson in the electoral college. What if he did? What would be the effects on WW1? On the end of WW1? What would be the effects on America?
WI: Charles Evans Hughes defeats Woodrow Wilson?
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
(1) Would Hughes have conducted the War with greater respect for civil liberties than Wilson? I am skeptical. The Espionage Act and its 1918 amendments (popularly but not officially called the Sedition Act) were bipartisan legislation. I am not aware that Hughes objected to them. It is true that in 1920 he did object to the expulsion of five Socialists from the New York legislature. (For that matter, so did Warren Harding!) As a member of Harding's Cabinet, Hughes also supported amnesty for Debs. But that was well after the War was over. During the War he stated his position as follows:
"It is vitally important that the wells of public opinion should be kept free from the poison of treasonable or seditious propaganda. Congress has ample authority to provide for the punishment of seditious utterances as well as sedltious acts. If the enemy's efforts to spread its propaganda succeed, it is due to our own supineness. There is no lack of constitutional power to deal with these efforts. As Lincoln said: ‘I can no more be persuaded that the Government can take no strong measures in time of rebellion because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man because it cannot be shown to be good medicine for a well one.' The remark obviously applies as well in the case of war with a foreign foe.
“I fully agree that in places where the courts are appropriately performing their functions, and the administration of justice remains unobstructed, these normal processes should not be displaced by military tribunals to try civilians. Our judicial processes have not yet broken down and we still have confldence in their adequacy to punish treason and sedition but treason and sedition must be punished and punished promptly. Constitutional power is adequate. The defence and preservation of the nation is a fundamental principle of the constitution.
“With respect to property and business, with respect to life itself, freedom is restrained. Witness our War Defence and Conscription acts, our broad plans of regulation by which manifold activities are controlled to an unusual degree. Of course, freedom of speech and of the press is also a relative freedom. There is no license to destroy the nation or to turn it over helpless to its foe. There is no constitutional privilege for disenforcement of the law or to interfere with the war plans adopted by authority.
“But, with due recognition of the difficulty of exact definition and close distinction, it is quite obvious that there is a field for honest criticism which cannot be surrendered without imperiling the essentials of liberty and the preservation of the nation itself. Our officers of Government are not a privileged class. Even when equipped with the extraordinary powers of war, they are the servants of the nation, accountable for the exercise of their authority..." https://books.google.com/books?id=3r1NAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA16-PA8
Does the last paragraph offer much hope of a more libertarian prosecution of the War? I doubt it. It basically consists of platitudes that Wilson himself would readily accept--that "legitimate criticism" is permissible even during wartime. I think the preceding paragraphs are more significant.
(2) Hughes' peace treaty: Hughes would be more open to amendments to make the League of Nations--or whatever it would be called --acceptable to the Senate (most Americans favored some kind of association of nations). In particular, I don't think he would have wanted the open-ended guarantees of Article X. But I don't think that otherwise a Versailles Treaty negotiated by the Hughes administration would differ very much from what Wilson arrived at. For some reason, some people think Hughes would have been less harsh toward Germany, but as I once wrote here, "Most of the decisions you mention were not Wilson's idea but simply Wilson acquiescing in what the British and/or French wanted--and I don't see why Hughes would be more inclined to break Allied unity in favor of the Germans than Wilson was. After all, his party included men like TR and Lodge and Root who were not exactly known for German sympathies... " https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...le-the-aftermath-of-wwi.477358/#post-19682595
(3) IMO Hughes is likely to lose in 1920. Even when people support a war (and most people will at first rally behind Hughes' decision to go to war in 1917) they quickly come to resent the hardships and regimentation war brings, no matter which party is conducting it. Moreover, postwar disillusionment is almost inevitable. Any peace treaty is going to be unpopular with voters, especially ethnic ones (try satisfying both Germans and Poles or both Italians and South Slavs or both Slovaks and Hungarians; and of course the Irish will complain that the treaty doesn't guarantee Ireland's freedom) and idealists who don't like the necessary deals and compromises the treaty inevitably includes. Moreover, there will almost certainly be the same pattern of wartime boom and inflation followed by depression.
On inflation, here's Fredrick Lewis Allen in his classic history of the 1920's, *Only Yesterday* imagining a middle-class couple of 1919:
"Mr. and Mrs. Smith discuss a burning subject, the High Cost of Living. Mr. Smith is hoping for an increase in salary, but meanwhile the family income seems to be dwindling as prices rise. Everything is going up, food, rent, clothing, and taxes. These are the days when people remark that even the man without a dollar is fifty cents better off than he once was, and that if we coined seven-cent pieces for street-car fares, in another year we should have to discontinue them and begin to coin fourteen-cent pieces. Mrs. Smith, confronted with an appeal from Mr. Smith for economy, reminds him that milk has jumped since 1914 from nine to fifteen cents a quart, sirloin steak from twenty-seven to forty two cents a pound, butter from thirty-two to sixty-one cents a pound, and fresh eggs from thirty-four to sixty-two cents a dozen. No wonder people on fixed salaries are suffering, and colleges are beginning to talk of applying the money-raising methods learned during the Liberty Loan campaigns to the increasing of college endowments. Rents are almost worse than food prices, for that matter; since the Armistice there has been an increasing shortage of houses and apartments, and the profiteering landlord has become an object of popular hate along with the profiteering middleman. Mr. Smith tells his wife that "these profiteers are about as bad as the I. W. W.'s." He could make no stronger statement." http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/allen/ch1.html
My guess is that Hughes will be blamed for "profiteers" at least as much as Wilson was--maybe more so, since the GOP was associated with big business more than the Democrats were.
"It is vitally important that the wells of public opinion should be kept free from the poison of treasonable or seditious propaganda. Congress has ample authority to provide for the punishment of seditious utterances as well as sedltious acts. If the enemy's efforts to spread its propaganda succeed, it is due to our own supineness. There is no lack of constitutional power to deal with these efforts. As Lincoln said: ‘I can no more be persuaded that the Government can take no strong measures in time of rebellion because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man because it cannot be shown to be good medicine for a well one.' The remark obviously applies as well in the case of war with a foreign foe.
“I fully agree that in places where the courts are appropriately performing their functions, and the administration of justice remains unobstructed, these normal processes should not be displaced by military tribunals to try civilians. Our judicial processes have not yet broken down and we still have confldence in their adequacy to punish treason and sedition but treason and sedition must be punished and punished promptly. Constitutional power is adequate. The defence and preservation of the nation is a fundamental principle of the constitution.
“With respect to property and business, with respect to life itself, freedom is restrained. Witness our War Defence and Conscription acts, our broad plans of regulation by which manifold activities are controlled to an unusual degree. Of course, freedom of speech and of the press is also a relative freedom. There is no license to destroy the nation or to turn it over helpless to its foe. There is no constitutional privilege for disenforcement of the law or to interfere with the war plans adopted by authority.
“But, with due recognition of the difficulty of exact definition and close distinction, it is quite obvious that there is a field for honest criticism which cannot be surrendered without imperiling the essentials of liberty and the preservation of the nation itself. Our officers of Government are not a privileged class. Even when equipped with the extraordinary powers of war, they are the servants of the nation, accountable for the exercise of their authority..." https://books.google.com/books?id=3r1NAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA16-PA8
Does the last paragraph offer much hope of a more libertarian prosecution of the War? I doubt it. It basically consists of platitudes that Wilson himself would readily accept--that "legitimate criticism" is permissible even during wartime. I think the preceding paragraphs are more significant.
(2) Hughes' peace treaty: Hughes would be more open to amendments to make the League of Nations--or whatever it would be called --acceptable to the Senate (most Americans favored some kind of association of nations). In particular, I don't think he would have wanted the open-ended guarantees of Article X. But I don't think that otherwise a Versailles Treaty negotiated by the Hughes administration would differ very much from what Wilson arrived at. For some reason, some people think Hughes would have been less harsh toward Germany, but as I once wrote here, "Most of the decisions you mention were not Wilson's idea but simply Wilson acquiescing in what the British and/or French wanted--and I don't see why Hughes would be more inclined to break Allied unity in favor of the Germans than Wilson was. After all, his party included men like TR and Lodge and Root who were not exactly known for German sympathies... " https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...le-the-aftermath-of-wwi.477358/#post-19682595
(3) IMO Hughes is likely to lose in 1920. Even when people support a war (and most people will at first rally behind Hughes' decision to go to war in 1917) they quickly come to resent the hardships and regimentation war brings, no matter which party is conducting it. Moreover, postwar disillusionment is almost inevitable. Any peace treaty is going to be unpopular with voters, especially ethnic ones (try satisfying both Germans and Poles or both Italians and South Slavs or both Slovaks and Hungarians; and of course the Irish will complain that the treaty doesn't guarantee Ireland's freedom) and idealists who don't like the necessary deals and compromises the treaty inevitably includes. Moreover, there will almost certainly be the same pattern of wartime boom and inflation followed by depression.
On inflation, here's Fredrick Lewis Allen in his classic history of the 1920's, *Only Yesterday* imagining a middle-class couple of 1919:
"Mr. and Mrs. Smith discuss a burning subject, the High Cost of Living. Mr. Smith is hoping for an increase in salary, but meanwhile the family income seems to be dwindling as prices rise. Everything is going up, food, rent, clothing, and taxes. These are the days when people remark that even the man without a dollar is fifty cents better off than he once was, and that if we coined seven-cent pieces for street-car fares, in another year we should have to discontinue them and begin to coin fourteen-cent pieces. Mrs. Smith, confronted with an appeal from Mr. Smith for economy, reminds him that milk has jumped since 1914 from nine to fifteen cents a quart, sirloin steak from twenty-seven to forty two cents a pound, butter from thirty-two to sixty-one cents a pound, and fresh eggs from thirty-four to sixty-two cents a dozen. No wonder people on fixed salaries are suffering, and colleges are beginning to talk of applying the money-raising methods learned during the Liberty Loan campaigns to the increasing of college endowments. Rents are almost worse than food prices, for that matter; since the Armistice there has been an increasing shortage of houses and apartments, and the profiteering landlord has become an object of popular hate along with the profiteering middleman. Mr. Smith tells his wife that "these profiteers are about as bad as the I. W. W.'s." He could make no stronger statement." http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/allen/ch1.html
My guess is that Hughes will be blamed for "profiteers" at least as much as Wilson was--maybe more so, since the GOP was associated with big business more than the Democrats were.
bguy
Donor
Assuming Wilson still won the popular vote in 1916 then he would seem to have a good shot at pulling a Grover Cleveland in 1920. I would imagine his health would be much better as well without the stress of being a wartime president and then the League fight, so there's a good chance he makes it all the way through this second term.
Any major changes in the world map from this Alt-Versailles?
I imagine he would want to run for a third term too. Wasn't he for that before everything went to hell including his health?
He fantasised about one, but never had the slightest hope. The stress of a campaign would probably kill him, and even if it didn't Harding would have massacred him in November.
As for seeking a third term in 1924,after a non-consecutive second one, tthi sis conceivable but unlikely. Such a term would have kept him in office until he was 72, and of the leading figures of the era, Taft TR and Champ Clark, only Taft attained that age, and he only by six months[1]. So even if he wins the term he probably doesn't finish it.
[1] Hughes is the glorious exception, living to 86, but from what I can gather he was always the healthier of the two, even before 1919.
A Democratic administration during the 1920s raises many issues of itself:
- How would Wilson have responded to the economic depression following the war – would he have drastically cut spending or tried other means of dealing with it?
- Who would Wilson have appointed to the Supreme Court with three vacancies to fill between 1921 and 1924, and possibly another in 1925? There seems to be no information as to whom Wilson would have appointed had there been a vacancy in his second term (the first full presidential term with no Court vacancy since 1817 to 1821)
- Would Wilson have intensified his segregationist policies of his first term, and tried to repeal the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments? Although what public opinion data exist suggest the great majority of white Americans wanted at least the Fifteenth repealed, the Senate voted 19—48 against it in 1914.
- What foreign policy positions would Wilson have taken in the 1920s?
Thomas1195
Banned
Well, I can see the Democrats being blown up in 1932-1936 and replaced by a new Progressive Party (composing of Progressive Republicans and Populist/Progressive Democrats who are pissed off by their President) if their President during 1928-1932 is Hoover-sque. This would be more likely than the Norman Thomas trope.
I mean, centre-left parties were often more vulnerable to being replaced when they failed to solve a major crisis.
I mean, centre-left parties were often more vulnerable to being replaced when they failed to solve a major crisis.
It would be interesting if Wilson were to make a comeback in 1920, saying "he would've kept us out of war," only to die in office in 1923/24.
bguy
Donor
1. IIRC the Democrat platform in 1920 did call for tax cuts, so I imagine we would still see tax and spending cuts though the tax cuts would be structured more in favor of lower income groups.
2. Some possibilities:
Mitchell Palmer. A progressive former congressman that Wilson thought highly enough of to make his Attorney General IOTL.
Joseph Folk. Former Governor of Missouri with a progressive reputation (as well as a reputation as an uncompromising moralist.) IOTL William Jennings Bryan tried to talk Wilson into making Folk his Attorney General, so if Wilson wants to score some brownie points with the Bryan wing of the party Folk would seem a good choice. IOTL Folk failed in his 1918 run for the Senate, but ITTL (if he still gets the nomination) then he probably has a better chance of winning given the tendency of mid-term elections to go against the president's party.
Joseph Robinson. Senator from Arkansas with a progressive reputation. IOTL (by the 1930s at least) Robinson desperately wanted to be on the Supreme Court, and he would seem a reasonable pick if Wilson wants to reward his southern allies.
John Davis. He was Wilson's Solicitor General and had a reputation as a brilliant lawyer. He also was rather conservative, but Wilson appointed a deeply conservative justice in his first term (James McReynolds), so that's not necessarily a disqualifier for Wilson.
3. I can't see Wilson trying to repeal the 14th or 15th Amendments. Both amendments are functionally dead letters in the south in the 1920s anyway.
4. I assume we would still see something akin to the Washington Naval Treaty and (if the Soviets still come to power) then Wilson would refuse to recognize their government.
What progressive legislation (if any) would be attempted in a second Wilson presidency? I assume Wilson would try and please the labor unions by getting something akin to OTL's Norris-La Guardia Act (banning yellow dog labor contracts and restricting injunctions against strikes) passed, and maybe Wilson would also try to pass something akin to the McNary-Haugen bill to help the farmers.
Any thoughts on who Wilson's veep would be? James Cox seems a logical choice. (A progressive governor from a critical Midwest battleground state.) Interestingly, enough Hughes will need a new veep candidate in 1920 as well (assuming Fairbanks dies on schedule in 1918.) Given that Hughes will probably want a midwestern conservative to balance the ticket, he might very well go with Warren Harding for his vice president.
At any rate if Cox is elected Vice President then he would seem to have a good chance of succeeding Wilson in 1924. Admittedly at this point in US history no Vice President had succeeded a president by election since Martin Van Buren, but given the very wide fissures in the Democrat Party in the 1920s (fissures that will likely still be there even if the Democrats win in 1920), the sitting vice president would make sense as a compromise candidate.
One thing that occurs to me is that if there is a lot of disillusionment with the war and its aftermath, and a lot of economic radicalism in the Democratic Party as a result of the hatred of "profiteers," Bryan for a change might have a chance for the Democratic nomination in a year he could actually win the general election. His warnings that the US was drifting into war and his resignation in protest as Secretary of State might look prophetic in retrospect. Wilson, even if he were healthy enough to run, might be opposed by those who thought that while the declaration of war happened under Hughes, Wilson had made it inevitable. (Yet, as in OTL Bryan would presumably loyally support the War once it was declared, volunteer for duty, etc., thus muting any charges of lack of patriotism.)
Of course, German-Americans might have mixed feelings--liking his antiwar stance and his critique of Hughes' peace settlement, but disliking his Prohibitionism.
Of course, German-Americans might have mixed feelings--liking his antiwar stance and his critique of Hughes' peace settlement, but disliking his Prohibitionism.
We tend to forget in this day in age is that back then the Presidency was less powerful, parties far less polarized, and the US dramatically less confident on the world stage. As @David T says in his post, there isn't likely to be much immediate change in the war, but I can see a slightly more effective mobilization as the Republicans were in charge during the war with Spain and spearheading military reform. Post war I can see a slightly different treaty without the 14 points, as well as more US buy-in into a weaker League of Nations.
The 1920 elections will be interesting, I think there may be some backlash but am unsure how much. Does anyone know when the anti-war backlash really set in? Did it start immediately, or did it only slowly build until the 30's and rise of fascism/communism really made people think the whole thing just wasn't worth it.
The 1920 elections will be interesting, I think there may be some backlash but am unsure how much. Does anyone know when the anti-war backlash really set in? Did it start immediately, or did it only slowly build until the 30's and rise of fascism/communism really made people think the whole thing just wasn't worth it.
bguy
Donor
It's an interesting thought, but I would think the candidate that has twice won the popular vote would still have a big advantage over the candidate who has already lost three times.
Also assuming Wilson (and Marshall) went through with Wilson's plan to immediately turn the presidency over to Hughes in November 1916 and that the Germans start unrestricted submarine warfare around the same time they did IOTL then Hughes will already have been president for five months by the time American enters the war. That seems like enough time that the blame for American involvement will fall on Hughes rather than Wilson, and especially since Wilson's argument that the Germans only resumed unrestricted submarine warfare once the candidate who advocated 'Preparedness' became president and that the Germans would not have done so if he had still been president should seem at least somewhat plausible to the voters since the Germans weren't being particularly belligerent towards the United States when Wilson left office.
Thomas1195
Banned
I do not think that progressivism and economic radicalism is going to fly in 1920 when most people just want "return to normalcy".
Would German-Americans become more Democratic and Irish-Americans remain more Democratic? Would Republicans become more hawkish and Democrats more dovish? Would a more “ethnic” and therefore “wetter” Democratic Party prevent the passage of the 18th Amendment?
Last edited:
One possible change, assuming Hughes doesn't go full Wilsonian self determination, would be a pes confrontational attitude towards Italy. Wilson picked a fight with the Italians over the Yugoslavia territories; if Hughes is more willing to compromise on the treaty of London, or just less bad at handling the OTL borders with a negotiated annexation of Fiume, then that might impact Italy and the Balkans, perhaps delaying fascism.
Another possibility would be with Germany's post war borders. Perhaps France annexes the Saarland putright, perhaps Poland gets Danzig rather than it being set up as a free city, perhaps part of Silesia is given to Poland outright.
Wilson would probably run in 1920 and probably succeed, since Hughes would be unlikely to win the popular vote and the war, pandemic, and 1920 recession will probably blow back on him. Not to to tip my hand for my Unmutilated Victory timeline but FDR could end up as the VP candidate in 1920 as OTL, then becoming president in a Bidenesque succession if Wilson has his stroke in office or doesn't run again in 1924. Considering that he would potentially be getting Polio in office, or even as President... perhaps UHC is taken up by the Progressives? Could be a bit of a progrewsive Dem wank if FDR takes over and implements some social policies. Also we'd avoid President Harding which is a good thing.
That was in the OTL context; Theodore was still a potential force in the Republican party after all until his demise. Hughes had been chosen as a moderate between TR and Taft progressives and more moderate business friendly establishment. Types; if he eeks out a win, and then has to deal with recession and war, then Wilson's progressivism undoubtedly would find ample support by a war weary, mid recession public.
What woud become of Herbert Hoover? Would he still be director of the Food Administration and/or Secretary of Commerce? Would the Food Administration even exist? Would Hoover still be a humanitarian hero?
1. Hughes is not going to prosecute the war much differently from Wilson, other than having Leonard Wood as Commander of the AEF instead of John Pershing. The peace treaty is going to be a little more pragmatic; Hughes will probably accept the Lodge reservations. He might not nationalize the railroads or having all of the wartime policies of Wilson, though I don't see him not enacting censorship.
2. 1920 is going to be a Democratic year - the economy would still be in turmoil regardless. I don't see why a "conservative" Democrat would win -- if anything, it's going to be a Wilsonian, who has been vindicated. Either Wilson himself runs for a second term (a la Grover Cleveland), or if his health is too poor as OTL has his son-in-law William G. McAdoo run instead. I still expect a Democratic landslide that year: the Democrats will still sweep the West & Midwest and do well in the Northeast too.
3. The policies of a Wilsonian administration are going to be interesting. While the policies of Harding in trying to solve the 1920 recession were not actually much different than typical Progressive administration, the laissez-faire-mania of the Coolidge era will be avoided. Does that mean the Great Depression is averted? Not at all - I see it happening right on schedule, since the postwar boom was unsustainable and its difficult to imagine a Democrat wouldn't be able to prevent them. What I'm unsure about is whether the Democrats will stick to the gold standard and perform Hooveresque policies in failing to solve the GD; I doubt it, given that Wilson himself was willing to take the US off the gold standard, but if so the Great Depression might be scoped down.
4. Nonetheless, if a recession still exists in 1932 then a conservative establishment-type Republican - Herbert Hoover, maybe? (and yes, Hoover was a Bull Mooser but if he wants the 1932 nomination he'll have to run as a conservative) - will win the nomination & the general. How it goes from there is anyone's guess.
2. 1920 is going to be a Democratic year - the economy would still be in turmoil regardless. I don't see why a "conservative" Democrat would win -- if anything, it's going to be a Wilsonian, who has been vindicated. Either Wilson himself runs for a second term (a la Grover Cleveland), or if his health is too poor as OTL has his son-in-law William G. McAdoo run instead. I still expect a Democratic landslide that year: the Democrats will still sweep the West & Midwest and do well in the Northeast too.
3. The policies of a Wilsonian administration are going to be interesting. While the policies of Harding in trying to solve the 1920 recession were not actually much different than typical Progressive administration, the laissez-faire-mania of the Coolidge era will be avoided. Does that mean the Great Depression is averted? Not at all - I see it happening right on schedule, since the postwar boom was unsustainable and its difficult to imagine a Democrat wouldn't be able to prevent them. What I'm unsure about is whether the Democrats will stick to the gold standard and perform Hooveresque policies in failing to solve the GD; I doubt it, given that Wilson himself was willing to take the US off the gold standard, but if so the Great Depression might be scoped down.
4. Nonetheless, if a recession still exists in 1932 then a conservative establishment-type Republican - Herbert Hoover, maybe? (and yes, Hoover was a Bull Mooser but if he wants the 1932 nomination he'll have to run as a conservative) - will win the nomination & the general. How it goes from there is anyone's guess.
Irish-Americans were strongly Democratic. The Republicans were far too nativist - in Massachusetts, for instance, there was a notorious rivalry between the Republican "Boston Brahmins" and the ethnic machines - and the Democrats dependent on the aforementioned machines. The reason 1920 was an exception was because Wilson had pissed off the ethnic vote by breaking his promise to support an independent Ireland, but after the election Irishmen reverted to the Democratic column. The Democrats even nominated a Catholic in 1928 (who swung MA & RI to the Dem. column), and during the New Deal Irishmen became a major part of the New Deal coalition -- one of them, a guy with the last name "Kennedy," went on to be elected President. This changed in the 70s, when the Democrats captured the social progressivism of the post-Vietnam era: strongly Catholic Irish America was unwilling to accept party support of abortion. I don't see why a change in 1916 would change that dynamic.
German-Americans are largely isolationist, and this has had a major influence - even in the modern era, the "pacifistic" Obama was nearly able to flip SD, ND, and MT in 2008. But they are also heavily rural, and socially conservative in other ways: because the Republicans were always sympathetic to the rural vote, they have been very successful at capturing it since the New Deal era. The reason Smith failed to win it despite the farm crisis was because he was Catholic and a city-dweller; in socially conservative German America, such sentiments did not fly. In 1916, they supported the "peace candidate" Wilson but supported Harding in 1920 after Versailles & the ethnic tensions of WWI.
Last edited:
bguy
Donor
Hoover was already directing relief operations for Belgium before 1916, so he would still have a reputation as a great humanitarian. And between that reputation and his organizational skills the Hughes Administration would certainly want him a prominent position during World War 1. (Food Administrator would still make sense given Hoover's reputation and area of expertise, though I could also see him running Hughes' version of the War Industries Board.)
The Kenneth Whyte biography of Hoover suggests that Hoover didn't really have strong partisan loyalties at that time and his trying to run as a Republican in 1920 was largely opportunistic as Hoover correctly assumed it was going to be a Republican year. Thus ITTL where the Democrats seem ascendant in 1920, Hoover probably tries to ally with them. Still, I don't know if someone as partisan as Wilson would give a Cabinet position to someone who played a prominent role in the Hughes Administration, so if Wilson is elected in 1920 then I suspect Hoover is going to be left out in the cold.