I gotta disagree here. Chesty Puller, Daniel Daly, Alvin York and LlouL W Williams are 4 heroes kids off the top of my head

Apart from York (because he got a film made about him) are they exactly household names in the US?

There certainly weren't any heroes with the standing to be seriously considered for POTUS. Iirc the only WW1 vets ever to reach the White House were Truman and Ike - and neither of them got there on account of his WW1 service. It didn't throw up anyone that people especially wanted to vote for.
 
What neither of us have recognized so far is that Roosevelt's public statements (not just on the war but on any issue) would be very different had he been gearing up for a Presidential run prior to 1916. In OTL Roosevelt was not running in 1916 so he was perfectly free to make frank statements on the war that offended people who otherwise would've voted for him or for Hughes. So his public stance on the war would be carefully moderated and filtered, just as he did while talking about trusts and domestic reforms during his OTL presidency. He would likely emphasize keeping America out of the war while proposing to build up national defense to protect US neutrality and defend America from German aggression. He also would not be going around castigating "hyphenated-Americans" (a phrase Wilson also used) given the importance of German and Irish voters in major swing states.

The problem is that TR in a sense *was* a candidate in 1916--not a declared one (he would not let his name be entered in the primaries) but one who nevertheless hoped for the GOP nomination (by mid-1916 he thought the country was coming around to his way of thinking on preparedness and that rank and file Republicans would support him, though he worried that the convention would be under the control of "machine politicians") and did have some prominent supporters in the party, including prominent 1912 Taft men. https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/gop-nominates-tr-in-1916.398553/ Anyway, even if he were the front-runner for the GOP nomination, I just don't think he could restrain himself by 1915 from making some belligerent-sounding statements--such was his hatred for Wilsons 'weakness."
 
Anyway, even if he were the front-runner for the GOP nomination, I just don't think he could restrain himself by 1915 from making some belligerent-sounding statements--such was his hatred for Wilsons 'weakness."

This is where we get into the grey area of AH. An astute politician could criticize Wilson as weak, then argue that a stronger army and navy will actually stave off a German attack and increase the chance of maintaining peace. This is where TR could bring back his "speak softly and carry a big stick" mantra and use it effectively in a campaign. As President he pulled this PR act off very well and it isn't unreasonable to think that he could do the same as an openly declared 1916 candidate. But we just don't know for sure how he would have run a campaign. He could make his coveted come back, or he could end up like Grant in 1880.

All the same, had he been elected I actually don't think he'd behave much differently from Wilson as a wartime leader. He would build up defenses and seek to arm merchant vessels, before seizing upon the Zimmerman telegram and the return of USW as a causes belli. He would advocate for a League of Nations of some sort (I've read that he supported an international "League of Peace" with a standing force) but unlike Wilson he would still die early in 1919 and the new President goes to Versailles. Much like what happened with FDR and Truman, ironically.
 
IMO, Roosevelt could win the election - and if so he'd be taking office early. Wilson had of course planned on appointing Hughes as SecState, then resigning along with VP Marshall. It's probable that he'd do the same with TR, who in this scenario would be taking office within weeks of his election. I expect that Roosevelt's Vice-President, who per the Constitution would actually be taking office later than Roosevelt on the scheduled March 4, 1917 inauguration, would be a Midwestern isolationist and a political moderate to balance the ticket. Perhaps Elmer Burkett of Nebraska, Fairbanks' only serious challenger for VP in 1916.

Roosevelt would ironically have handled the war little differently from Wilson if elected in 1916. The main differences would be in how Roosevelt handles the peace as I've mentioned previously:

All the same, had he been elected I actually don't think he'd behave much differently from Wilson as a wartime leader. He would build up defenses and seek to arm merchant vessels, before seizing upon the Zimmerman telegram and the return of USW as a causes belli. He would advocate for a League of Nations of some sort (I've read that he supported an international "League of Peace" with a standing force) but unlike Wilson he would still die early in 1919 and the new President goes to Versailles. Much like what happened with FDR and Truman, ironically.

So President Burkett goes to Versailles, then probably loses in 1920 to Ohio Governor James M. Cox. The 1920s will likely be a Democratic decade. But I wonder if FDR would remain a Democrat - as I've mentioned in earlier posts TR has good reason to keep him in his administration. By 1920 the younger Roosevelt may be under pressure to switch parties and run with Burkett as his Vice-President.
 

Bomster

Banned
One interesting aspect of this POD is how it would affect FDR. In 1916 he was serving Wilson as Assistant Secretary of the Navy as TR had under McKinley. Had TR won, he probably would have kept FDR in the Navy Department given their personal friendship and a tradition of making bipartisan appointments during wartime as was common in this period. Also, FDR was a staunch advocate of preparedness against the Kaiser before WWI, making him a valuable asset for the new President. In fact he might even be promoted to Secretary of the Navy. But how would this affect FDR's political career?
Could we see Republican FDR?
 
Could we see Republican FDR?

Possibly. If TR wins in 1916, the Democrats win in 1920, and the Republicans win in 1932 then the GOP will become the more liberal party while the Dems become more conservative. In this scenario, I could see Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower being elected as Democrats (in 1920 and 1948, as both men considered in OTL).
 
Top