WI William Howard Taft died in 1866

When future U.S. President and Supreme Court Justice William Howard Taft was 9 years old his skill was fractured in a carriage accident. What if he had died as a result? Who would have filled the void (a very large one, I might add :D) in early 20th Century American politics and the high court? How would things be different?
 
In the scenario of William Howard Taft's death in 1866, a possible successor to Elihu Root when he resigned as Secretary of War in January 2004 would have been the Secretary of the Navy, William H. Moody.

Theodore Roosevelt would still not have run for re-election in 1908. It is possible, if not probable, that he would have pushed through the nomination of Elihu Root, who would most probably have been Secretary of State, as Republican candidate for President. But whoever the Republicans nominated in 1908 would have defeated William Jennings Bryan for the Democrats.

If Root were elected President in 1908, I would have guessed that he would have sought the Republican nomination in 1912. Would TR also have done so? If no Republican split in 1912, then Woodrow Wilson might not have won the Presidency. Root opposed Wilson's policy of neutrality in the First World War, but supported him when the United States entered the war. He was a staunch advocate of the League of Nations.

With William Howard Taft not surviving to adulthood there would have been no Robert Taft, which would mean that another Republican would be the leading voice of conservatism and isolationism in the 1940s and 1950s. Although I believe that it is unlikely that this man would have won the Republican nomination in 1940, 1944, 1948 or 1952.
 
My (admittedly limited) understanding of Root has him more likely to follow TR's basic policies more closely, most definitely in foreign policy, than Taft proved to*. This bodes better for TR's official "acceptance" of the Root Presidency, and hence, as pip mentioned, no Bull Moose ticket split and no Wilson. Perhaps no business conservative retaking of the Republican party - it remains more in Progressive hands and we see US politics split between Progressive-Interventionist-Open Trade-Integrationist GOP vs. Conservative-Isolationist-Protectionist-Segregationist Dems.

* - Of course Taft's policies were, with a few notable exceptions, not so entirely different from TR's, so who knows? Maybe TR's ego gets bruised over some different matter and OTL parallel emerges?
 
With William Howard Taft not surviving to adulthood there would have been no Robert Taft, which would mean that another Republican would be the leading voice of conservatism and isolationism in the 1940s and 1950s. Although I believe that it is unlikely that this man would have won the Republican nomination in 1940, 1944, 1948 or 1952.

It could be Arthur Vandenberg or Charles Lindbergh.
 
I agree that Elihu Root would have been the logical successor to TR. I believe that Root and TR could have avoided the split in the GOP in 1912, resulting in a two term Root Presidency which may mean earlier entry of the U.S. into WWI. It might also mean a better prepared U.S. since Root was a follower of the TR/Wood school of "preparedness" which focused on expanding the Army and civilian officer training camps (the genesis of ROTC).
President Root might appoint his and TR's old friend former Army Chief of Staff Leonard Wood as commander of the AEF, rather than sending him to Kansas to train troops like Wilson did. This might lead to a Wood Presidency in 1916 or 1920, depending on when WWI ended. Wood was a leading candidate for the GOP nomination in 1920 in TTL and a successful stint as commander of the AEF might be enough to get him the nomination.
A Root Presidency might lead to interesting things for his protegee, Henry Stimson. Stimson was twice Secretary of War and once Secretary of State but his one attempt at elective office (Governor of NY) ended in failure. Perhpas with former President Root's backing we might see a President Stimson.
 
I agree that Elihu Root would have been the logical successor to TR. I believe that Root and TR could have avoided the split in the GOP in 1912, resulting in a two term Root Presidency which may mean earlier entry of the U.S. into WWI. It might also mean a better prepared U.S. since Root was a follower of the TR/Wood school of "preparedness" which focused on expanding the Army and civilian officer training camps (the genesis of ROTC).
President Root might appoint his and TR's old friend former Army Chief of Staff Leonard Wood as commander of the AEF, rather than sending him to Kansas to train troops like Wilson did. This might lead to a Wood Presidency in 1916 or 1920, depending on when WWI ended. Wood was a leading candidate for the GOP nomination in 1920 in TTL and a successful stint as commander of the AEF might be enough to get him the nomination.
A Root Presidency might lead to interesting things for his protegee, Henry Stimson. Stimson was twice Secretary of War and once Secretary of State but his one attempt at elective office (Governor of NY) ended in failure. Perhpas with former President Root's backing we might see a President Stimson.

Good points, AH! Also, we might see closer US-Japanese relations in the inter-war period[1], possibly saving the Taisho democracy and butterflying or greatly altering the Pacific war (similar lines of reason are at the heart of my Coprosperity TL idea).

1 - Assuming there even is another war. Root was an old balance of power advocate, not a collective security advocate like Wilson, meaning a vastly different Versailles. No Wilson also drastically changes US foreign policy since Wilsonian collective security theory basically set the tone for US diplomacy up to present day (assuming Kissinger is correct).
 
Top