WI: WJB doesn't run in 1908, runs in 1912?

Another thing worth mentioning is that if 1912 sees Bryan and Clark as the main contenders at the convention, and neither one receives a 2/3 supermajority - which is quite possible, odds are that Wilson is nominated as a compromise candidate anyway.
That certainly is true.
 
But in 1916 hardly anyone seriously thought the Entente was losing. Not even the Germans, which is why they gambled on USW.

Britain's financial difficulties were unknown to the general public, while the Russian Revolution and the French Army mutinies were still in the future. Even in April 1917, most Americans, including President Wilson himself, would have assumed that

The situation could dramatically change if President Bryan is strictly neutral and does not give the large amounts of money and arms that Wilson provided to the Entente in OTL. And even if Bryan's foreign policy has no impact on the election (which given how extremely close it was in OTL is something I highly doubt), the fact is that Bryan was seen by many voters as too radical. That's a major reason he lost all three times he ran for President. Wilson by contrast was not seen this way - in fact business leaders supported him over the GOP in 1912 in order to stop Roosevelt. So Bryan is likely to lose in 1916.
 
The situation could dramatically change if President Bryan is strictly neutral and does not give the large amounts of money and arms that Wilson provided to the Entente in OTL. And even if Bryan's foreign policy has no impact on the election (which given how extremely close it was in OTL is something I highly doubt), the fact is that Bryan was seen by many voters as too radical. That's a major reason he lost all three times he ran for President. Wilson by contrast was not seen this way - in fact business leaders supported him over the GOP in 1912 in order to stop Roosevelt. So Bryan is likely to lose in 1916.


Surprisingly, Bryan did not oppose the sale of arms to belligerents - though (not altogether consistently) he drew the line at allowing loans to facilitate this. See Devlin[1].

Wilson was advised by Lansing that for a government to take power to prohibit private sales of arms would be unneutral, the more so as the power could be used effectively only against one side. Bryan, who might have been expected to take the sentimental view, in fact shared Lansing's opinion.

So the Entente could still have purchased munitions, but would have to sell securities or pay in gold rather than by raising loans. Would such a point really have registered with American voters?

As for him being radical, by 1916 he will have been POTUS for three years, so people know what his policies are. Are any of them likely to have been much more radical (in unpopular ways) than Wilson's? [2]

Another point is whether his administration will be seen as Southern-dominated, to the degree Wilson's was. As Livermore notes [3], the Sectional issue hurt the Democrats quite a bit in 1916

- - the sectional issue cut down many of Wilson's followers, especially in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, where Democratic loses were heaviest

If Bryan's Administration is less Southern and more Midwestern in character, he and the Democrats are likely to do better in that crucial region. In short, to me it all looks rather "swings and roundabouts".




[1] Patrick J Devlin Too Proud to Fight, ChVII, p177.

[2] One interesting question is his possible stand on Prohibition. OTL he came out for it only after his 1908 loss, when he saw himself finished as a Presidential hopeful. If he still considers himself one, may he postpone "coming out" on the issue? Or if not, will German-American voters forgive his prohibitionist views for the sake of his antiwar ones? Could be important in a close race.

[3] Seward W Livermore Woodrow Wilson and the War Congress, Ch1.
 
While I think @David T's suggestion of Hearst in 1904, Wilson (or another Bourbon Democrat) in 1908, and Bryan in 1912 might be more possible than my original scenario, could this work?

Grover Cleveland (reluctantly) agrees to be nominated in 1904, and makes the election somewhat of a contest. The conservatives remain in control to have a last throw of the dice in 1908 and lose, allowing the progressives to take the party back in 1912.

I think my original suggestion might still work if the Democrats realize the economy has recovered and Gompers can't promise the labor vote.
 
Talking of 1916, is it certain whether Hughes still runs in 1916? Would he be ok to leave the Supreme Court if it meant that Bryan would appoint his successor?
 
Talking of 1916, is it certain whether Hughes still runs in 1916? Would he be ok to leave the Supreme Court if it meant that Bryan would appoint his successor?
I'm wondering how much difference would there be in Wilson appointing Hughes' successor or Bryan.

If Hughes isn't nominated, who can the Republicans choose to balance the conservative and progressive wings? Leonard Wood might fit the bill, but almost everyone will alienate one wing or the other. If a conservative is chosen like Elihu Root or Fairbanks, TR and the Progressives will still try again.
 
If Hughes isn't nominated, who can the Republicans choose to balance the conservative and progressive wings? Leonard Wood might fit the bill, but almost everyone will alienate one wing or the other. If a conservative is chosen like Elihu Root or Fairbanks, TR and the Progressives will still try again.

Possible but not certain.

By 1916 TR was absolutely fixated on the War, and he'll be even angrier about Bryan's policy than he was OTL about Wilson's. Yet if he bolts, then 1916 becomes a repeat of 1912, and Bryan wins easily. Would he really bolt, or just urge his followers to hold their noses and vote Republican anyway? I suspect the latter, though it is more than doubtful whether said followers would be prepared to listen.
 
I have one idea for a cabinet position - John Burke was governor of North Dakota and a friend of Bryan, it seems likely he could get a major position, like Secretary of State or the Treasury. Oscar Underwood or William Sulzer could get cabinet positions as well.

As far as running mates go, Jud Harmon or Thomas R. Marshall seem likely, both being governors of key swing states.
 
@David T, would a suitable POD for your scenario be William Randolph Hearst being nominated, and winning the 1902 New York gubernatorial election? The OTL Democratic candidate Bird S. Coler lost by only 6 percentage points. This would likely make him a much more attractive choice than most at the 1904 DNC.
 
Would Henry Cabot Lodge have a chance to be nominated in 1916? He was a close friend of TR, so at least that clears one big obstacle. Unfortunately, it seems plenty of his fellow Republicans either didn't trust or hated him, so there's that. It seems Leonard Wood may be the best choice.
 
Would Henry Cabot Lodge have a chance to be nominated in 1916? He was a close friend of TR, so at least that clears one big obstacle. Unfortunately, it seems plenty of his fellow Republicans either didn't trust or hated him, so there's that. It seems Leonard Wood may be the best choice.


But weren't both of them supporters of US entry into WW1? In 1916 that would kill their chances.
 
@David T, would a suitable POD for your scenario be William Randolph Hearst being nominated, and winning the 1902 New York gubernatorial election? The OTL Democratic candidate Bird S. Coler lost by only 6 percentage points. This would likely make him a much more attractive choice than most at the 1904 DNC.

As I said, I think the only really plausible scenario for Bryan not getting nominated in 1908 would be for the Democrats to try "radicalism" unsuccessfully for yet a third time in 1904, this time with Hearst instead of Bryan. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nate-wilson-in-1908-and-bryan-in-1912.299615/ Obviously, this would be more likely if Hearst could win some significant election (other than to the US House) before 1904. But I think 1902 might be a bit early for him to win the governorship (he was elected to Congress easily, but it was a safe Democratic district). McKinley's assassination was still fresh in people's minds, and Elihu Root's 1906 attack on Hearst for allegedly inspiring the assassination might be even more effective in 1902 than it was in 1906. ("Once only has this method of incendiary abuse wrought out its natural consequence— in the murder of President McKinley. For years, by vile epithet and viler cartoons, the readers of the Journal were taught to believe that McKinley was a monster in human form, whose taking-off would be a service to mankind..." https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA222&id=OCJvCV6_h_sC)
 
How much would appeals to the voters to help the Entente really work in 1916? It seems most Americans were just fine with staying out, whatever happened in Europe.
 
How much would appeals to the voters to help the Entente really work in 1916? It seems most Americans were just fine with staying out, whatever happened in Europe.

Precisely. Had TR died three years earlier, Hughes would very likely have won. TR's open bellicosity was a millstone around his neck.

Also, pro-Entente sympathy was strongest in the Northeast, which the Republicans swept in any case. Only the four votes of NH would be likely to change, while those of IN (15), MN (12) and WV (6) might well shift the other way.
 
The question is whether Bryan would be so intent on keeping the US out of the war he would do things (restricting loans to and trade with the Entente) that could bring about a depression in the US. If so, he could be defeated in 1916, if the Republicans convince voters that a less restrictive policy could help the economy without getting the US into the War.
 
The question is whether Bryan would be so intent on keeping the US out of the war he would do things (restricting loans to and trade with the Entente) that could bring about a depression in the US. If so, he could be defeated in 1916, if the Republicans convince voters that a less restrictive policy could help the economy without getting the US into the War.

Though Bryan, surprisingly, did not oppose private sales of arms See my message #23.

The refusal of loans could cause problems if it led to a choking off of trade with the Entente. However, they might, at least for a time, have been able to continue buying with gold, or by selling investments rather than just using them as security. Iirc we managed to buy from the US in 1939/40 even without loans, which were then forbidden by US law. So the impact might not have been immediate.

Also, with the crucial exception of Ohio (where the Democratic margin was big enough that it might have survived an economic downturn) Hughes made a virtually clean sweep of the industrial states of the North. So discontent there probably changes little or nothing in terms of electoral votes. So it's the attitude of the farmers that really counts, and the poor 1916 harvest compared with the previous year may well keep agricultural prices high.
 
Last edited:
The question is whether Bryan would be so intent on keeping the US out of the war he would do things (restricting loans to and trade with the Entente) that could bring about a depression in the US. If so, he could be defeated in 1916, if the Republicans convince voters that a less restrictive policy could help the economy without getting the US into the War.

It's worth noting that despite Bryan's reputation as "the Great Commoner," a major reason that he never became President was middle class anxiety over his economic policies. In particular, workers feared that Bryan's support for low tariffs and free silver would benefit farmers at their expense. Republicans could win over enough of these voters to defeat Bryan in 1916, especially since there had been a recession from January 1913 to December 1914.

As I said, I think the only really plausible scenario for Bryan not getting nominated in 1908 would be for the Democrats to try "radicalism" unsuccessfully for yet a third time in 1904, this time with Hearst instead of Bryan. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nate-wilson-in-1908-and-bryan-in-1912.299615/ Obviously, this would be more likely if Hearst could win some significant election (other than to the US House) before 1904. But I think 1902 might be a bit early for him to win the governorship (he was elected to Congress easily, but it was a safe Democratic district). McKinley's assassination was still fresh in people's minds, and Elihu Root's 1906 attack on Hearst for allegedly inspiring the assassination might be even more effective in 1902 than it was in 1906. ("Once only has this method of incendiary abuse wrought out its natural consequence— in the murder of President McKinley. For years, by vile epithet and viler cartoons, the readers of the Journal were taught to believe that McKinley was a monster in human form, whose taking-off would be a service to mankind..." https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA222&id=OCJvCV6_h_sC)

Even in the unlikely instance that Hearst were to become Governor in 1903, and run in for President in 1904, given the amount of enemies he made throughout his life there's a decent chance he'd fail to receive the super majority of delegates needed to be nominated. If the convention deadlocks, then it's just as likely for Parker to ironically be nominated anyway.
 
Top