WI TR wins nomination of the Republican party in 1912

What would the consequences be if TR defeats Taft for the nomination and runs against Wilson with a united party instead of a fractured one

Would TR still lose the election and if he is elected would America enter WWI earlier and gain land as a result of the peace treaty..... Would Wilson's Leauge of Nations be created or would it be a leauge of like minded nations that TR preferred.. Also who would TR VP be because if i remember correctly he is going to die in roughly 1916 or 1917
 
If I remember correctly, TR splitting from the party was what cost them the election in the first place, TR was a anglophile from what I heard so I would assume he would get the US into the war earlier which would itself change things considerably. Weather the US would gain any land is unknown to me. I don't even know if the whole League of Nations idea would even have been thought up. The Vp thing is beyond me as well.
 
What would the consequences be if TR defeats Taft for the nomination and runs against Wilson with a united party instead of a fractured one

IIRC it all depends on a committee vote that determined which delegates from certain places would be seated. That vote was very close and if TR wins it, he can win the nomination. If TR has GOP backing, he'll crush Wilson. Like a bug. Probably Henry Cabot Lodge as a VP, I think: a conservative Republican whom TR respected.

Would TR still lose the election and if he is elected would America enter WWI earlier and gain land as a result of the peace treaty..... Would Wilson's Leauge of Nations be created or would it be a leauge of like minded nations that TR preferred.. Also who would TR VP be because if i remember correctly he is going to die in roughly 1916 or 1917

There are a ton of threads about the potential effects on WWI of a TR presidency in 1912. The most optimistic is that TR could get the participants to the negotiating table in the Summer of 1914 or just after the first battles in Autumn. I'm not sure of such theories, but the realm of possibility is very wide. Such a settlement, of course, probably leaves several issues unsolved and thus percolating.

It's not unlikely that TR's involvement, being an ocean away from events, isn't enough to avert the war's outbreak. And once things get going, the "over by Christmas" effect will keep the combatants from wanting to negotiate before they have a chance to achieve a victory and thus force themselves on their opponents. With these assumptions, the question is whether TR will declare war in 1915-16, rather than waiting until 1917. While he spoke out several times about the need to oppose Germany's assault on international law and the rights of neturals, that's a far cry from taking the country to war. Probably, TR is interventionist but can't get enough war fever going until 1916...which is an election year. Meanwhile, TR's reforms may be pissing people off right and left and he may not be able to get a war declared. By this point, having TR in office may very well constitutue enough of a threat to change some planning in Europe.

Assumming a timeframe not too different from ours. Say TR does get a War declared in early 1916, successfully defends it at the polls (Ironically, his slogan becomes "He'll Win Us Victory in War" rather than "He Kept Us out of War"). That probably puts American boots on the ground about a year sooner, enough time to be several blooded, but also enough time to potentially make a greater effect, particularly if they arrive before Brest-Litvosk.

At a Peace Conference similar to OTL's, one requested by virtue of an armistice rather than won by virtue of a conquest, TR is likely to ameliorate some of the Treaty of Versailles. His version of the League is way better than Wilson's. OTL, though, he died in 1919; he was in poor health in his declining years so he may not play a major role in the peace. As for land acquisition: probably doubtful. The British Dominions will want to keep what they've occupied and further imperial acquisitions for the US is politically controversial. Perhaps the most plausible would be the US tacking over German concessions in China, but of course China was hoping to get them back period. US interest in the peace is in attempting to make sure a European War doesn't threaten the status quo and thus erode US economic interests.

Despite all this, we should consider that a TR presidency in 1912-1920 changes a lot before you get to WWI. One such example is the Federal Reserve System. Probably it's not too different, since proposals had been floated as early as 1908-9, but crucial factors--such as the degree of public control--might have been different. Additionally, TR became a bit more extreme in his later years: some of his proposed reforms would seriously piss people off and provoke political dissent and perhaps shift the bases of the GOP (and thus the Dems in response). It's why I think it's not out of the question that TR faces much more political resistance at home on the issue of the war.
 
Given that there was a Republican split vote that put Wilson in then Roosevelt would almost certainly have won. Would there have been any different course of events regarding Mexico. Roosevelt would have probably taken a tougher line against Villa's incursions but what about the civil wars earlier when Huerta came to power would the Ambassador dared to have helped overthrow Madero if Roosevelt was known to be against it as he would probably have taken a toughter line with the Ambassador than Wilson did? Madero stays in power, no problems with Villa.

World War 1. Its a lot easier to make bellicose statements when you are out of power. I suspect there would be no decleration of war but armed neutrality and possibly escorts for American ships and Germany may well have abandoned unrestricted submarine warfare for the first time earlier or exempted passenger ships. The Barralong incident would have tied Roosevelts hand if he had delayed any declaration of war.
 
While Teddy would've liked to get America into the war from its inception his first possible entry point would be after Lusitania but IMO there is a very real risk that an attempt to secure a declaration of war would fail at that point with a majority of Democrats and the Lafollette Republicans opposing. This miscalculation could cost TR seriously and undermine his effectiveness as a president.

George Will wrote an interesting column recently:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100508.php3
 
Have you heard of the good Reuben James?

While Teddy would've liked to get America into the war from its inception his first possible entry point would be after Lusitania but IMO there is a very real risk that an attempt to secure a declaration of war would fail at that point with a majority of Democrats and the Lafollette Republicans opposing. This miscalculation could cost TR seriously and undermine his effectiveness as a president.

George Will wrote an interesting column recently:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100508.php3
It is possible that TR's belligerent approach with a secretary of state who wasn't a pacificist like William Jennings Bryan may have strengthened the hand of chancellor Bethman Holweig against the militarists over understricted submarine warfare either resulting in its rejection or modifying it to exempt passenger ships so that the Lusitania may never have been torpedoed. Shortly after the Lusitania, the Barralong incident would have restrained TR unless the decleration immediately followed the Lusitania. However TR may have provided destroyer escorts for American ships in the hopes that one would be torpedoed like the Reuben James in 1941. As America wouldn't have had the memory of involvement in World War 1, an attack on an American ships would probably have persuaded congress to declare war
 
Last edited:
Roosevelt contracted malaria in 1914 during an expedition to the Amazon and it seriously ruined his health. His favorite son was killed in the war in 1918. When Teddy died the next year he was only 60. This POD eliminates the former event and butterflies away the latter. The man would be capable of serving as president into the early '30s, though it would be ASB if he ended up doing it.
 
It is almost certain that if TR won the Republican nomination he would have defeated Wilson in 1912. I think that he might have tried to prevent the war from breaking out an try to mediate a peace agreement . It would have won him a second Noble Peace Prize an futher raised America's Prestige in the world.
There is the question as to what would have happen if the Easter Rebellion had broken out in 1916 with TR in the White House. He might have exerted pressure on the Brits to grant the Irish their independence.
 
It would have won him a second Noble Peace Prize an futher raised America's Prestige in the world.

Can you win a Nobel more than once?

There is the question as to what would have happen if the Easter Rebellion had broken out in 1916 with TR in the White House. He might have exerted pressure on the Brits to grant the Irish their independence.

Why would there still be one if the war is prevented and why would the Anglophile Roosevelt offend Britain by telling it what to do in its own backyard?
 
This is a pretty invaluable resource to understand TR's views, or at least his public views.

IRELAND—RACIAL ANTAGONISM IN. There isno language in which to paint the hideous atrocitiescommitted in the Irish wars of Elizabeth; and the worst must be credited to the highest English officials. In Ireland the antagonism was fundamentally racial; whether the sovereign of England were Catholic or Protestant made little difference in the burden of wrong which the Celt was forced to bear. (1900.) Mem. Ed.XIII, 297; Nat. Ed. X, 196.

Wall of text follows, of which no-one will read (not even me):

INTERNATIONAL COURT—PROPOSAL FOR. It is necessary to devise means for putting the collectiveand efficient strength of all the great powers of civilization back of any well behaved power which iswronged by another power. In other words, we must devise means for executing treaties in good faith, by the establishment of some great international tribunal, and by securing the enforcement of the decrees of this tribunal through the action of a posse comitatus of powerful and civilized nations, all of them being bound by solemn agreement to coerce any power that offends

____________. All the civilized powers which are ableand willing to furnish and to use force, when force isrequired to back up righteousness and only the civilized powers who possess virile manliness ofcharacter and the willingness to accept risk and laborwhen necessary to the performance of duty are entitled to be considered in this matter should join to create an international tribunal and to provide rules in accordance with which that tribunal should act. These rules wouldhave to accept the status quo at some given period; forthe endeavor to redress all historical wrongs wouldthrow us back into chaos. They would lay down the rulethat the territorial integrity of each nation was inviolate;that it was to be guaranteed absolutely its sovereignrights in certain particulars, including, for instance, theright to decide the terms on which immigrants shouldbe admitted to its borders for purposes of residence, citizenship, or business; in short, all its rights in mattersaffecting its honor and vital interest. Each nation should be guaranteed against having any of these specified rights infringed upon. They would not be made arbitrable, any more than an individual's right to lifeand limb is made arbitrable; they would be mutuallyguaranteed. All other matters that could arise between these nations should be settled by the international court. The judges should act not as national representatives, but purely as judges, and in any given case it would probably be well to choose them by lot, excluding, of course, the representatives of the powers whose interests were concerned. Then, and mostimportant, the nations should severally guarantee to usetheir entire military force, if necessary, against any nation which defied the decrees of the tribunal or whichviolated any of the rights which in the rules it was expressly stipulated should be reserved to the severalnations, the rights to their territorial integrity and thelike. . . .In addition to the contracting powers, a certain number of outside nations should be named as entitled to the benefits of the court. These nations should be chosen from those which are ascivilized and well-behaved as the great contracting nations, but which, for some reason or other, are unwilling or unable to guarantee to help execute thedecrees of the court by force. They Would have no rightto take part in the nomination of judges, for no peopleare entitled to do anything toward establishing a courtunless they are able and willing to face the risk, labor,and self-sacrifice necessary in order to put police powerbehind the court. But they would be treated with exactjustice; and in the event of any one of the greatcontracting powers having trouble with one of them,they would be entitled to go into court, have a decisionrendered, and see the decision supported, precisely as inthe case of a dispute between any two of the greatcontracting powers themselves. . . . [In addition] thereare various . . . states which have never been entitled tothe consideration as civilized, orderly, self-respectingpowers which would entitle them to be treated on termsof equality in the fashion indicated. As regards thesedisorderly and weak outsiders, it might well be thatafter a while some method would be devised to dealwith them by common agreement of the civilizedpowers; but until this was devised and put intoexecution they would have to be left as at present.Of course, grave difficulties would be encounteredin devising such a plan and in administering itafterward, and no human being can guarantee that itwould absolutely succeed. But I believe that it could bemade to work and that it would mark a very greatimprovement over what obtains now. (Independent,January 4, 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 184-187; Nat. Ed.XVIII, 158-161.

Just brows the next five or so pages starting from here.

It is our duty to try to work for a great world league for righteous peace enforced by power;but no such league is yet in sight. At present the prime duty of the American people is to abandon the inane and mischievous principle of watchful waiting—that is, of slothful and timid refusal either to face facts or to perform duty. Let us act justly toward others; and let us also be prepared with stout heart and strong hand to defend our rights against injustice from others.(Everybody's, January 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 167; Nat.Ed. XVIII, 143.____________.

Before we make such a league for the future, let us in the present live up to our engagements under The Hague conventions and without delay proteston behalf of Belgium. If we are not willing to undergo the modest risk implied in thus keeping the promise we have already made, then for heaven's sake let us avoid the hypocrisy of proposing a new world league, under which we would guarantee to send armies over to coerce great military powers which decline to abide by the decisions of an arbitral court. Above all, let us avoid the infinite folly, the discreditable folly, of agitating for such an agreement until we have a naval and militaryforce sufficient to entitle us to speak with the voice of authority when fronted with great military nations in international matters. Let us not live in a realm of childish make-believe. Let us not make new and large promises in a spirit of grandiloquent and elocutionary disregard of facts unless and until we are willing by deeds to make good the promises we have already made but have refrained from executing. (Metropolitan,August 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 355; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 304.

LEAGUE FOR PEACE—POSSIBILITY OF. The only alternative to war, that is to hell, is the adoption ofsome plan substantially like that which I herein advocate and which has itself been called utopian. It is possible that it is utopian for the time being; that is, that nations are notready as yet to accept it. But it is also possible that afterthis war has come to an end the European contestantswill be sufficiently sobered to be willing to considersome such proposal, and that the United States willabandon the folly of the pacifists and be willing to co-operate in some practical effort for the only kind ofpeace worth having, the peace of justice andrighteousness. The proposal is not in the least utopian,if by utopian we understand something that istheoretically desirable but impossible. What I proposeis a working and realizable utopia. My proposal is thatthe efficient civilized nations—those that are efficientin war as well as in peace—shall join in a world leaguefor the peace of righteousness. This means that theyshall by solemn covenant agree as to their respectiverights which shall not be questioned; that they shallagree that all other questions arising between them shallbe submitted to a court of arbitration; and that they shallalso agree—and here comes the vital and essential pointof the whole system-to act with the combined militarystrength of all of them against any recalcitrant nation,against any nation which transgresses at the expense ofany other nation the rights which it is agreed shall notbe questioned, or which on arbitrable matters refuses tosubmit to the decree of the arbitral court. (Independent,January 4, 1915.)

More here and the following few pages.
 
Yes, but I'm not certain whether you can win a Nobel *in the same category* twice. It might be that there is no rule against it, as such, it just isn't done.


Errr... Except that it IS done
http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/double.html said:
Marie Sklodowska Curie 1903 in Physics 1911 in Chemistry
Linus Pauling 1954 in Chemistry 1962 in Peace
John Bardeen 1956 in Physics 1972 in Physics
Frederick Sanger 1958 in Chemistry 1980 in Chemistry
International Committee of the Red Cross 1917 in Peace 1944 in Peace 1963 in Peace
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1954 in Peace 1981 in Peace
Note that Sanger and Bardeen have both won twice in the same field.
 
Errr... Except that it IS done

Note that Sanger and Bardeen have both won twice in the same field.
Ah, yes. One learns something new every day...
Altough both had more then fifteen years between the Nobels, so one might suspect that giving a Nobel to Theodore in, say, 1915 or 1916, would have been a bit more sensitive, given that it is only nine or ten years since he last received a Peace Nobel, and those Nobels are, by their nature, often more... controversial then the others.
I can't be certain, of course, but IMO, it might be a bit too early to give him another Nobel, especially given that he would be the current Head of State and Head of Government for one the Great Powers, albeit a more distant and uninvolved one.
 
Top