WI: Rebellion against Woodrow Wilson

KeiFail

Banned
What if the Socialists or some other group opposed to the US joining WWI rebelled against Wilson's government and attempted to kill him due to his Fascist tendencies like silencing critics of the war ?
 
Everyone is amazed that the president has been shot on account of somehow tending towards an ideology which has not yet materialised.
 
Wilson wasn't a Fascist, but he was definitely an unreconstructed authoritarian in wartime. In that regard he was similar to Adams I or Lincoln, who also shut down the free press and jailed political opponents. Of course, that in no way justifies his actions which were clearly unconstitutional abuses of power. The major difference is while Adams and Lincoln can perhaps be forgiven since on balance their legacies were positive (founding America and abolishing slavery respectively), Wilson re-segregated the federal government and completely wasted his opportunity to achieve a more peaceful, united world by intentionally destroying his own League of Nations because he was too arrogant to compromise. That last act of political suicide was rated as one of the worst all-time Presidential mistakes by historians around 10-12 years ago. (If anyone is curious, the worst mistake was supposedly Buchanan's failure to confront the South over secession).

But for the sake of discussion, if the Socialists had indeed formed some sort of armed resistance or tried to assassinate Wilson then it would shock the country but otherwise very little would change. Wilson ruthlessly cracked down on left-wing dissent in OTL, in the event of the POD then the repression would simply be more intense and affect more people. This would give Harding's call for a "return to normalcy" more popularity and slightly increase support for the Congressional GOP, but beyond that it's hard to imagine how this would make 1920's American that much more conservative than OTL. Harding would still pardon Debs and progressivism would still be in political exile.
 
Even the early American Communists were well aware there was no immediate chance for a revolution in the US. See John Reed:

***

IN response to anxious queries from our capitalist acquaintances as to the danger of a Bolshevik Revolution in the United States within the next two weeks, we wish to settle the question once for all.

1. The American working class is politically and economically the most uneducated working class in the world. It believes what it reads in the capitalist press. It believes that the wage-system is ordained by God. It believer that Charles Schwab is a great man, because he can make money. It believes that Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor will protect it as much as it can be protected. It believes that under our system of Government the Millenium is possible. When the Democrats are in power, it believes the promises of the Republicans, and vice versa. It believes that Labor laws mean what they say. It is prejudiced against Socialism.

Note: Organized Labor’s candidate for Governor of California, Mayor Rolfe, was a very ordinary type of bourgeois politician. Through a technicality his name was removed from the ballot. This meant his certain defeat. Labor was asked why it didn’t throw its weight solidly behind the Socialist ticket? “Oh,” answered Labor, “the Socialists will never get elected. What’s the use of throwing away your vote?” I am told that Labor wrote Rolfe’s name on the ballot, and Stephens won.

2. American Labor disapproves of the Russian Soviets, the German Revolution, and other manifestations of “anarchy.” To the American working class the British Labor Party is “going a little too far"; it seems to be dominated by “nuts.” As for the French and Italian movements, who cares what the “wops” do? Note: On November 7th some Socialists had a pamphlet printed to celebrate the first anniversary of the founding of the Soviet Government. When they went to get it at the binder’s, a member of the Typographical Union said, “I don’t know whether I’ll give you this stuff or not. It’s all about the Bolsheviks. You guys ought to be arrested!”

3. With the exception of the Jewish workers, other foreigners, and a devoted sprinkling of Americans, the Socialist party is made up largely of petty bourgeois, for the most part occupied in electing Aldermen and Assemblymen to office, where they turn into time-serving politicians and in explaining that Socialism does not mean Free Love. The composition of the English-speaking branches is: little shop-keepers, clerks, doctors, lawyers, farmers (in the Middle West), a few teachers, some skilled workers, and a handful of intellectuals.

Nothing is farther from the normal desires of the American Socialist party than a Revolution. It is really the refuge of almost all intelligent humble people who believe in the principles on which the American Republic was founded. It has never altogether approved of the Bolsheviki. It applauds the German Revolution largely because it thinks that the Germans will be more orderly.

4. There is no well-defined Left or Revolutionary wing in the Socialist party. This fact has driven many workers, dissatisfied with industrial conditions and disillusioned with politics, to join the I. W. W., a revolutionary organization dominated by Syndicalist ideas. As in France and Denmark, the Syndicalist philosophy has captured the imagination of the revolutionary proletariat; although in the United States there is a very small revolutionary proletariat. ...

https://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/bolsh.htm
 
I wonder what the post-WW1 treaties would look like? Would a "nightmarish peace" which looks as if it was written by a British Space Bat be imposed?

That would be a French Bat

When asked how he had done at the Versailles Conference, Lloyd George replied:

"Not badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon Bonaparte"
 
Wilson wasn't a Fascist, but he was definitely an unreconstructed authoritarian in wartime. In that regard he was similar to Adams I or Lincoln, who also shut down the free press and jailed political opponents. Of course, that in no way justifies his actions which were clearly unconstitutional abuses of power. The major difference is while Adams and Lincoln can perhaps be forgiven since on balance their legacies were positive (founding America and abolishing slavery respectively), Wilson re-segregated the federal government and completely wasted his opportunity to achieve a more peaceful, united world by intentionally destroying his own League of Nations because he was too arrogant to compromise. That last act of political suicide was rated as one of the worst all-time Presidential mistakes by historians around 10-12 years ago. (If anyone is curious, the worst mistake was supposedly Buchanan's failure to confront the South over secession).

But for the sake of discussion, if the Socialists had indeed formed some sort of armed resistance or tried to assassinate Wilson then it would shock the country but otherwise very little would change. Wilson ruthlessly cracked down on left-wing dissent in OTL, in the event of the POD then the repression would simply be more intense and affect more people. This would give Harding's call for a "return to normalcy" more popularity and slightly increase support for the Congressional GOP, but beyond that it's hard to imagine how this would make 1920's American that much more conservative than OTL. Harding would still pardon Debs and progressivism would still be in political exile.
But Wilson wanted to keep most of those controls he enacted even in peacetime which is the difference between him and Adams and Lincoln.
 
But Wilson wanted to keep most of those controls he enacted even in peacetime which is the difference between him and Adams and Lincoln.

There's also a wee difference between the Civil War and American participation in the First World War. One was an existential conflict, the other was not.
 
Top