WI: Hughes Wins in 1916

What would have happened if Charles Evans Hughes and the Republican Party managed to defeat Woodrow Wilson for President in 1916?

In OTL, Wilson was able to be re-elected due to winning California by 3000 votes, and carrying the state's 13 electoral votes to defeat Hughes 277-254.
 

Japhy

Banned
Well the first things being first, will Wilson appoint Hughes SecState and then resign like he said he would or not? If Hughes is in office in November of 1916 he actually gets quite a while extra to act. Further, it depends on if TR does become his Secretary of War or not.

After that it's probably a roughly similar war, though the nature of the war effort may be drastically different as well as the nature of the US Army at large and the AEF in particular. In the end, I doubt Hughes would go for creating something akin to The League but as an Internationalist there's plenty he could do to create a US-involved peace settlement.
 
Well the first things being first, will Wilson appoint Hughes SecState and then resign like he said he would or not? If Hughes is in office in November of 1916 he actually gets quite a while extra to act. Further, it depends on if TR does become his Secretary of War or not.

I doubt Hughes will accept to be appointed as Secretary of State, personally.

After that it's probably a roughly similar war, though the nature of the war effort may be drastically different as well as the nature of the US Army at large and the AEF in particular. In the end, I doubt Hughes would go for creating something akin to The League but as an Internationalist there's plenty he could do to create a US-involved peace settlement.

Yeah, I agree.

After the war, the GOP sees a huge backlash against them, the Democrats win a huge landslide in 1920, and the Roaring 20s are Democratic.
 

Japhy

Banned
I doubt Hughes will accept to be appointed as Secretary of State, personally.

To be immediately elevated to the top job? I don't think it's he, but Woodrow who is the bigger stumbling block there.

Yeah, I agree.

After the war, the GOP sees a huge backlash against them, the Democrats win a huge landslide in 1920, and the Roaring 20s are Democratic.

That's far from inevitable.
 
To be immediately elevated to the top job? I don't think it's he, but Woodrow who is the bigger stumbling block there.

It fits pretty well with Wilson's idealism, but I'm not sure if the Senate would choose him. Of course, a possibility sure exists

That's far from inevitable.

I think it is. Any party that enters war is going to see a huge backlash for entering in a highly divisive day and age. There will be a loss of civil liberties and a huge segment of the American population will be opposed to the war. In any case, there's gonna be huge German and Irish turnout, and they're gonna vote Democratic, so the Midwest and large parts of the Northeast will be turned blue.

genusmap.php


Democratic: 418 EV
Republican: 119 EV
 
Last edited:
Alternatively, Hughes becoming President might butterfly enough things that the US stays out of the war, in 1917 anyway. Granted, that would have huge implications...
 

Japhy

Banned
Alternatively, Hughes becoming President might butterfly enough things that the US stays out of the war, in 1917 anyway. Granted, that would have huge implications...

There's no way the German Generals aren't going to go back to unrestricted submarine warfare.
 
Hughes ran on something of a pro-war platform.

He emphasised the need to defend America's maritime rights, but of course in 1916 this could have referred as much to British blockade measures as to the U-boat issue, which had temporarily gone on the back burner. And he couldn't be too openly neutralist for fear of a rift with TR. It's not at all clear what his attitude would have been if elected.
 
Woodrow Wilson got sick and caved to the French. It was a blunder, it was a fluke. But the result was the punitive Treaty of Versailles which made future war(s) significantly more likely.

Any other president, or if Wilson doesn't get sick, this doesn't happen.
 
Sort of bumping this.

So, is the general consensus that 1916 was a poisoned chalice, and that Hughes would not win a second term?
 
So, is the general consensus that 1916 was a poisoned chalice, and that Hughes would not win a second term?

Still not certain this is a foregone conclusion. The economy plays just as important a role in deciding elections. There was a post-war recession after peace occurred, but there was also a recession in 1920.

Under the right circumstances, the economy could be doing very well, and with no unpopular League of Nations idea, Hughes could win reelection narrowly. This, not to mention, Hughes didn't campaign on having kept the country out of the war, so there is no real sense of betrayal.

For example, Hughes is inaugurated in March, so lets say the United States enters war right around the same time it did IOTL. This is the same month the Tsar Abdicates and when Germany decides to finance Lenin in Russia, which, skipping ahead a bit, leads to the Russians leaving the war ceding a lot of territory to German control. If things go a bit differently here, Germany has the potential to do better in the Spring Offensive, which has the potential to draw out the war longer and lead to a more concentrated war effort by the United States. Either with a stronger more mobilized economy leading to sustained growth or the fact that it's pretty hard to beat a President in wartime, Hughes could win in 1920.

Even if WWII goes roughly as per OTL, there is still the recession in 1920 that could be avoided ITTL.

1916 is by no means a poisoned chalice.
 
Under the right circumstances, the economy could be doing very well, and with no unpopular League of Nations idea, Hughes could win reelection narrowly.

Why would the economy be any different under Hughes than under Wilson?

And the Democrats had already taken a clobbering in the 1918 midterms, even before the League became a big political issue. Even before the shooting stopped, Americans were getting tired of the war and longing to get back to normal.

Also, Hughes starts from a lower base. He ran half a million votes behind Wilson, and his victory would be down to the quirks of the electoral College. Now, as the President who went to war, he has the German vote against him, and the isolationist vote in general. That will be devastating in the Midwest, which OTL provided 102 of his electoral votes. In 1916 he carried states like WI, SD and MN, with their large German populations. He won't in 1920. So all the Democrats have to do is equal (not increase) their 1916 performance in the West, and the election is a massacre.


For example, Hughes is inaugurated in March.
That may well not be the case. Wilson had privately decided that if he lost he would appoint Hughes Secretary of state, persuade Vice President Marshall to resign, and then do so himself. So Hughes could be in office by the end of November. Of course Hughes could turn the idea down, or Marshall sabotage it by refusing to resign, but there's no reason why either of them should.
 
Why would the economy be any different under Hughes than under Wilson?

With different economic policies, perhaps? (It amazes me that so many people on this sight will blam the Great Depression on the 20s Era Republican Economic Policies but will overlook the government's role in other recessions.)

And the Democrats had already taken a clobbering in the 1918 midterms, even before the League became a big political issue. Even before the shooting stopped, Americans were getting tired of the war and longing to get back to normal.

Which in OTL was certainly an issue exacerbated by Wilson campaigning on having kept the country out of was.

Also, Hughes starts from a lower base. He ran half a million votes behind Wilson, and his victory would be down to the quirks of the electoral College. Now, as the President who went to war, he has the German vote against him, and the isolationist vote in general. That will be devastating in the Midwest, which OTL provided 102 of his electoral votes. In 1916 he carried states like WI, SD and MN, with their large German populations. He won't in 1920. So all the Democrats have to do is equal (not increase) their 1916 performance in the West, and the election is a massacre.

IIRC, Wisconsin at least was a staunchly Republican state of the era. But anyways, who's to say President Hughes is as harsh on Germany as Wilson was IOTL? He could've certainly handled peace terms in a less belligerent way, meaning there isn't particularly a mass exodus of German voters. Sure, the war wouldn't help that, but Hughes wouldn't do things exactly as Wilson had. For a more specific example, with no League of Nations, the President won't be criticizing and claiming German Americans for sabotaging it.

It should also be stated that between the two elections, there was an increase in voting size by about eight million voters with the passage of women's suffrage. Even if German's flee Hughes to some extent, women have the potential to more than make up for it - potentially adding New Hampshire to his column of wins, for example. If the Democrats equal their 1916 performance in 1920... Well they did that IOTL and it didn't work. They have to be a lot more competitive even with the German disadvantage President Hughes is likely to mildly suffer.

I'm not saying he would win hands down, but I'm just trying to point out it isn't as clear cut as people might think.

This also depends on who the Democratic Nominee, I would like to point out! If they run a weak candidate, it gets a lot easier for Hughes to win. If Wilson is in better health and runs again, I imagine he might actually do rather well, given the circumstances.
 
how many million black Americans would likely have voted for not Wilson had there been a free and fair and constitutional election in the parts where human property had been legal before 1860
 
how many million black Americans would likely have voted for not Wilson had there been a free and fair and constitutional election in the parts where human property had been legal before 1860

OTOH, absent the poll taxes, literacy tests etc, quite a few more whites would also have been able to vote.
 
IIRC, Wisconsin at least was a staunchly Republican state of the era.

So was Minnesota, but that didn't stop Hughes coming within 392 votes of losing it in 1916. Had he done so, of course, we would never hear of the famous late returns from CA, as Wilson would be home and dry without them.

I accept your point that the backlash against Hughes might not be as severe as OTL's against Wilson - but his problem is that it doesn't need to be. Apart from CA, there were three more states - MN, IN and WV - which Hughes took by a single percentage point or less. Had he lost them, he'd have been left with only 221 votes to Wilson's 310. Even the smallest slippage from his 1916 performance will tip him out of the White House - and if Americans have had to put up with those "meatless days" and what have you, they are going to be thoroughly brassed off, so it won't be just a tiny shift



But anyways, who's to say President Hughes is as harsh on Germany as Wilson was IOTL?
Then he'll be criticised for letting them off too lightly. The ToV was a "no win" situation for its authors. They'd be seen as wrong whatever they did. It is no accident that all the "Big Three", not just Wilson, vanished from the scene within a few years of its signing. Nothing positive was ever going to come out of that shambles.

It should also be stated that between the two elections, there was an increase in voting size by about eight million voters with the passage of women's suffrage.
Would it still have passed under Hughes? He would have supported it, but would he (or any Republican) have been able to procure as many Southern votes and ratifications as Wilson did? I may be wrong, but I suspect you need a Democratic POTUS to get the 19A through.

And after the hardships of the war, would women voters be any less eager for a change than male ones?

I say all this with regret. I don't know if anyone here remembers my old magnum opus, "Mr Hughes Goes To War", but anyone who does will realise that Charles Evans Hughes is one of my favourite figures from the era in question. That said, however, the more I've learned about him, the more I feel that the Supreme Court was his natural home, and that he made an error in leaving it to run for POTUS. With the best will in the world, I can't see him as a two-term President, and I doubt if his single term would be a happy one.
 
Last edited:
Top