Wilson has a major stroke in 1906

Not really. The Lusitania was heading into German infested waters. Wilson just need an excuse for the U.S. to enter WWI and the Lusitania was a convenient.

American entry into WWI is by no means inevitable.


The Lusitania had nothing to do with it. That sinking was ancient history by 1917.The decisive factors were the Zimmermann Telegram, and, immediately afterward, the sinkings of several American (not Britiah) merchantmen by u-boats.

Had Wilson wanted an excuse to go to war, there had already been plenty. By April 1917 the problem was finding a way not to. Had he been as uncompromisingly non-interventionist as Bryan, he could probably have blocked a declaration of war, but he was not, and neither were the majorities in both houses of Congress.
 
Results of 1916 Presidential Election


Would there even be a 1916 election? See the two NYT article below.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E4DD133BE633A25751C0A9649C946296D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9506E0D9133EE733A25750C1A9669D946596D6CF

Would Clark have blocked the single-term Amendment as Wilson did? It was, after all, a part of the Democratic platform, on which he had just been elected. If he lets it go to the HoR (where it is certain to pass) and the states ratify it (also near certain, given the combined support of Democrats and anti-TR Republicans) he is in office for six years, and the next election won't be till 1918.


BTW, how on earth does TR manage to carry New York in 1912? OTL, he came last, with only 390,000 votes out of about 1.5 million total - 26%. All Clark has to do is match Alton Parker's 42% of 1904, and he carries the state easily. Indeed, he could fall well short of that and still do so, since Taft, the runner-up, got only 30%. How exactIy does a relatively minor change like nominating Clark instead of Wilson (one unexciting candidate rather than another) make anything like that kind of difference?
 
I think that Champ Clark would win the nomination seeing as how he was the favorite going into the convention IOTL. The only reason Wilson won the nomination was that William Jennings Bryan convinced the left-wing of the party to unite against Clark, and eventually threw his support behind Wilson. In order for someone else to take the nomination from Clark, he would need to emerge as the only viable alternative to Clark, and thus unite the left-wing as Wilson did IOTL. Judson Harmon would be a good candidate for this, or maybe Oscar Underwood (though he was far more likely as a VP candidate than a Presidential one). Perhaps Bryan himself could run again, he was only 52. Fourth time's a charm maybe?

Either way, I think a Democrat is gets elected. The Republican vote was split between Roosevelt and Taft. I could see it be a little closer with a weaker Democratic candidate, but I can't see either of them winning the election. Unless we somehow butterfly away the animosity between the two, although that would be a huge stretch (possibly even ASB) considering a POD only six years earlier. If I write the TL (which I'm leaning towards doing), there's no way I'm using butterflies to justify a huge plot twist like that.

Why not have Bryan refuse to accept Clark and bolt the convention for his own run and have a 4 way free for all?

EDIT: Didn't realize how old this tread was when I wrote this.
 
Last edited:
Why not have Bryan refuse to accept Clark and bolt the convention for his own run and have a 4 way free for all?

Not a chance. Bryan is one of the most partisan Democrats who ever lived. He wouldn't even think of bolting. He even campaigned for Parker in 1904.

EDIT: Didn't realize how old this tread was when I wrote this.

Me neither.
 
Progressive party politics can avoid Great Depression?


Why?

By 1929 the second TR administration (even if it happened) is as ancient history as the Wilson Administration OTL - and since it won't control Congress, will have done far less than Wilson's did, and certainly not have been able to pass anything remotely controversial. So how would it be likely to avert the Depression?
 
The only really interesting timeline that you can develop is if it puts Teddy Roosevlt in the White House in 1912 and America enters the war earlier. Presumably Bryan runs in 1912 and puts of lot of middle of the road voters off.
 
The only really interesting timeline that you can develop is if it puts Teddy Roosevlt in the White House in 1912 and America enters the war earlier. Presumably Bryan runs in 1912 and puts of lot of middle of the road voters off.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Champ Clark as president would make for a more interesting timeline. Clark was against the Federal Reserve Act as implemented. A truly neutral USA could be an honest broker for peace. Without US taxpayer backed loan guarantees the Entente can run out of money to fund the war. A lessening of the massive industrial expansion caused by war production will have social as well as economic implications for the USA.[/FONT]
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Champ Clark as president would make for a more interesting timeline. Clark was against the Federal Reserve Act as implemented. A truly neutral USA could be an honest broker for peace. Without US taxpayer backed loan guarantees the Entente can run out of money to fund the war. A lessening of the massive industrial expansion caused by war production will have social as well as economic implications for the USA.[/FONT]


Could you clarify what you mean by "taxpayer backed loan guarantees"?

All loans raised prior to April 1917 were raised by the House of Morgan and secured on British or other Allied property in North America - the US government didn't raise them or guarantee them. The first unsecured loan was only made in May/June 1917 - well after the declaration of war - and would almost certainly never have been made had the US remained neutral - as it probably would under Clark.
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Champ Clark as president would make for a more interesting timeline. Clark was against the Federal Reserve Act as implemented. A truly neutral USA could be an honest broker for peace. [/FONT]


There could also have been some other effects. See the NYT article of January 4, 1911, at

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802E6DC1331E233A25757C0A9679C946096D6CF

Clark advocated increasing the President's term to six years, while making him ineligible for re-election. He would also have

a) increased the terms of US Representatives from two years to three.

b) moved election day to the last Monday in August and inauguration day to the first Monday in October.

An amendment providing for the single six-year-term passed the Senate in Feb 1913, but was never voted on in the House due to the intervention of President-elect Wilson, who disapproved. Presumably Clark would have let it through. Whether his other proposals would ever have seen the light of day is less clear.
 
Top