Wilson is healthy enough and wins in 1924.

Woodrow Wilson was intrested in running for a third term in 1924. However he was very unfit to be President. But what if he was healthy and ran in 1924 winning against say President Harding. What would he do in his third term. Could he survive the term considering his past bad health?
 
I had a post on this a few years ago (as usual, apologies for links that may no longer be working):

***

Woodrow Wilson for President--in 1924?!

Yes, Woodrow Wilson died on February 3, 1924. But in 1923 the idea of his seeking a political comeback did not seem absurd. As John Milton Cooper, Jr. writes in *Woodrow Wilson: A Biography* (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 2009), pp. 588-9, 1923 was

"...the best time in his life since the [1919] stroke. Nearly everyone who saw him commented on how much better he looked. In June, a senior reporter for *The New York Times,* Richard Oulahan, wrote a long story about him. Oulahan noted that he still limped but did not drag his left foot, and he used a cane but could stand without it and get in and out of a car without help. 'He has good color, his eyes are clear, his voice is strong, his cheeks are filled out, and he has lost that emaciated appearance of face and body which shocked those who saw him on his first outing after his long siege of confinement to the White House.' The reporter noted that from all reports, mentally he was 'the Woodrow Wilson of the stirring days of September, 1919.' He compensated for lack of paid work with attention to public affairs. Oulahan dismissed rumors that Wilson was personally interested in the race for the Democratic nomination in 1924, and he noted that Wilson had not committed himself to any of the contenders, not even his son-in-law McAdoo. This newspaper story read a lot like the one by Louis Seibold in *The World* three years earlier, which had set the stage for the abortive stab at a third-term bid..." http://books.google.com/books?id=lxoOdaCDbpEC&pg=PA589

Twice in November, 1923, Wilson spoke out publicly on current events. On the day before the fifth anniversary of the Armistice, he gave his first and only talk on the radio. Much of it was devoted to scolding his fellow Americans for failing to live up to their obligation to maintain peace and for withdrawing into "a sullen and selfish isolation"; yet he expressed confidence that the nation would "retrieve that fatal error and assume once more the role of courage, self-respect and helpfulness which every true American must wish to regard as our natural part in the affairs of the world." http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/14wilson/14facts3.htm As Cooper notes, pp. 591-2 "Stations across the country carried the talk, and some towns set up loudspeakers in auditoriums, allowing thousands of people to hear the ex-president's voice for the first time. It might have served as a kickoff for a campaign." The next day, Wilson addressed an estimated 20,000 people who had gathered in front of his S Street home to pay him an Armistice Day homage, assuring them "I am not one of those that have the least anxiety about the triumph of the principles I have stood for. I have seen fools resist Providence before, and I have seen their destruction, as will come upon these again, utter destruction and contempt. That we shall prevail is as sure as that God reigns."

(In the radio address, Wilson had criticized France and Italy for having made "waste paper of the Treaty of Versailles." In January 1924, Wilson went even further in discussions with Raymond Fosdick who had stopped by for a visit: "Some day another Bismarck will arise and the Germans will wipe the French off the face of the earth--and I hope they do." Cooper, p. 593. I knew that Americans by 1923-4 were pretty disillusioned with Our Oldest Ally, and that many people tended to sympathize with our recent German enemy on things like the occupation of the Ruhr. But I never heard any other American take it quite *that* far. Wilson also told Fosdick that "Mussolini is a coward. Somebody should call his bluff. Dictators are all cowards.")

Besides speaking, Wilson was also writing. His *Atlantic* article "The Road Away from Revolution" argued that while it could reasonably be asserted that "the abstract thing, the system, which we call capitalism, is indispensable to the industrial support and development of modern civilization" yet the attack on the system, of which the Russian Revolution was the most obvious example, did have its legitimate points: "Have capitalists generally used their power for the benefit of the countries in which their capital is employed and for the benefit of their fellow men? Is it not, on the contrary, too true that capitalists have often seemed to regard the men whom they used as mere instruments of profit, whose physical and mental powers it was legitimate to exploit with as slight cost to themselves as possible, either of money or sympathy?" http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300991.txt Wilson's only answer to the problem of revolution was to urge the Christianizing of economic and social life. The article was attacked then and later for its vagueness as to just what this would entail and how it could be brought about. (Wilson's brother-in-law Stockton Axson told Wilson to resist the suggestions that the article be expanded and elaborated. If anything, Axson said, the article should shortened: "This is not an argument, it is a challenge." Wilson agreed to Axson's suggested cuts. Cooper, p. 584.)

Wilson was not satisfied with any of the potential 1924 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, including his son-in-law McAdoo. Except for Newton Baker, none of them seemed really committed to the League, and Wilson though he liked Baker said he "ought not to run in 1924. He ought to be saved for 1928." McAdoo had made the big mistake of doing legal work for some oilmen later to be implicated in Teapot Dome. [1] Unlike McAdoo, Wilson had never been a prohibitionist (he had vetoed the Volstead Act, though largely on technical grounds--a veto which Cogress promptly overrode) and indeed he did not really care much about the ethnocultural issues that were tearing the Democratic Party apart, especially Prohibition and the Klan. (Incidentally, as I note at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/ozMalZPiiJs/IGPblZ6mX7AJ it may well be a myth that in 1915 he praised "Birth of a Nation" as being "like writing history with lightning." Three years later, he told Joseph Tumulty that the movie was "a very unfortunate production" and he wished it would not be shown "in communities where there are so many colored people." Cooper, p. 273. As Cooper notes, this was a matter of deploring the stirring up of emotions, rather than objecting to the underlying racist message of "Birth of a Nation." Still, it might come as a surprise to people who think of Wilson as practically a Klansman himself. [2]) As for the anti-evolution crusade of Bryan (who was occasionally mentioned as being a possible nominee yet again in case of a deadlocked convention) Wilson said "of course like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

Wilson's preferred candidate for 1924 was himself; he even wrote fragmentary notes for an acceptance speech and a third inaugural address. They showed that he still believed in a combination of internationalism abroad and progressive reform at home. 1924 was probably not the year for such policies to prevail, either in the nation as a whole or even within the Democratic Party. And yet, let us say that Wilson's relative good health of 1923 had lasted for another year or two. Cooper suggests (p. 594) that "with radio at his disposal, even as a semi-invalid he might have made a better compromise candidate than the one the party finally picked--the obscure and lackluster John W. Davis."

(If nominated, Wilson would no doubt be disappointed by the Democratic platform because instead of pledging US membership in the League, it merely promised a referendum on the issue. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29593 Yet Wilson might still be willing to run on such a platform, because he was capable of convincing himself not only that he could win but also that the League could prevail in such a referendum--and the second hope was neither more nor less delusional than the first. What might disturb him more would be the platform's reference to "such reservations or amendments to the covenant of the league as the president and the senate of the United States may agree upon.")

So the nomination of a semi-healthy Wilson by a deadlocked Democratic convention was not out of the question. But that he would defeat Coolidge in November was extremely implausible--though he might, for example, get the support of some trade unionists and western progressives who voted for La Follette rather than the conservative Davis in OTL. (He would get virtually no African American votes, of course, but neither did Davis.)

To actually have Wilson elected in 1924 requires not only that Wilson remain at least as healthy as he was in 1923 in OTL, but also that a lot of even less likely things happen--e.g., Harding lives, manages to escape the taint of the scandals just enough to win the nomination, and then is devastated by new revelations before the election...

(There would of course be the third-term issue, yet it could be argued that the point of the no-third-term tradition was to prevent an incumbent president from using the powers of his office to perpetuate himself indefinitely in the White House, and that the tradition should therefore be interpreted only to prevent a third *consecutive* term. This was the argument used by supporters of Grant in 1880 and of TR in 1912. Yes, both of them lost, but it is not clear to what extent the no-third-term tradition was responsible for their failures to win the GOP nomination. In the case of Grant, there were memories of the scandals of his administration; in the case of TR, there was the difficulty of preventing the renomination of an incumbent president.)

[1] By contrast, when Wilson and his former Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby were law partners in 1921-2, Wilson was very scrupulous about what clients the firm should take. He declined to involve himself in a case about the Costa Rica-Panama boundary and in another one involving Ecuador and some American banks. He did agree to represent the Western Ukrainian National Republic's bid for recognition by the League of Nations. (Although, as Colby soon concluded, there was not much they could do for the Western Ukrainians; Poland was intent on treating their territory as an integral part of Poland.) Most important, in August 1922 when representatives of the oil company owned by Harry Sinclair asked the firm to represent them in the upcoming Senate investigation into the Teapot Dome leases, and when they offered a huge retainer, Wilson smelled a rat: "Colby must be a child not to see through such a scheme," he told his wife Edith. (Cooper, p. 581)

[2] So might a couple of 1922 items mentioned in a 1923 *Time* listing of Wilson's 1921-3 activities:

"Thanks State Attorney Lyon, of Virginia, for saving Negro from mob. July 30"

"Spurns charge of church favoritism made by Klan official. Aug. 25."

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,716262,00.html (only available for subscribers)


https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/woodrow-wilson-for-president-in-1924.338499/
 
How is he going to win in the Roaring Twenties? With the economy doing well, no war (and steps taken to prevent war), and increasingly liberal lifestyles, you think the country wants to rock that boat, especially for a religious conservative who dragged them into war, raised taxes, and forced austerity? That is QUITE the hill to climb.
 
How is he going to win in the Roaring Twenties? With the economy doing well, no war (and steps taken to prevent war), and increasingly liberal lifestyles, you think the country wants to rock that boat, especially for a religious conservative who dragged them into war, raised taxes, and forced austerity? That is QUITE the hill to climb.
Wilson wasn’t really a conservative. He was considered a progressive at time
 
Even if Wilson were healthy enough to pursue the 1924 Democratic nomination, it's unlikely that he'd win at the convention let alone in the general election. The reason the Democrats were destroyed in 1920 and remained in exile for twelve years was because Wilson was widely unpopular during his second term thanks to the war, strikes, rioting, economic slump, and repressions of civil liberties. That's exactly why Harding's slogan, "return to normalcy," registered with voters. Wilson might do better in the early rounds of balloting than his competitors, but he has too much baggage going against him to win. Odds are that as in OTL a dark horse like Davis clinches the nomination after an extensive series of ballots. When Grant and Theodore Roosevelt ran for a non-consecutive third term in 1880 and 1912 even they couldn't do it despite being the most popular men in the country at the time. If they failed so would Wilson.

But supposing that for some reason the Dems nominate Wilson, he'd be no better than a sacrificial lamb against the Republicans. Why? Because like in OTL Americans just wouldn't want a fourth president in three years. Further, Coolidge was very popular due to his personal integrity and the booming economy. But even if Harding lives and faces Wilson he still wins. Americans didn't know the true nature of the Teapot Dome Scandal until after Harding died, when Coolidge personally disposed of his predecessor's cronies and a series of investigations from 1927-29 revealed the extent of corruption under Harding. Harding was actually well-liked by the public and would've beaten any Democratic challenger, but like Nixon in 1972 any mandate gained by a landslide reelection would evaporate once the President is revealed to be a crook.

In short: Wilson winning in 1924 is ASB.
 
His views on segregation were pretty bad even for his time.

That's understandable given that he lived in the Confederacy during the Civil War, and in the south for much of his youth and early adulthood. Given his views on segregation, quite likely the Ku Klux Klan would have supported him explicitly and wholeheartedly. It would be interesting to see what he did with that. It's difficult to imagine Wilson repudiating the Klan and rejecting the support, but he was cagey enough as a politician to not embrace the Klan outright. My guess is he would have said nothing or perhaps damned the Klan faintly (yielding, in effect, praise, in an inversion of the cliché).

And a Democrat not spurning the Klan would mean that African-American ties to the GOP would only be reinforced--plus a lot of ethnic Catholic Americans (Italian; Irish; Middle European, for example) that hitherto had voted for Democrats might find themselves rather alienated and vote for the GOP instead. (Not that the Klan had much of a toehold in New England ever to any extent, but could you imagine the elder Joe Kennedy getting sore enough at the Dems and Wilson for cozying up to the Klan, sufficiently to shift once and for all to the Republicans? Bends the mind...)

I agree with Inferus: Wilson would have a steep hill to climb. Can't see him beating Silent Cal, although the election would be closer than the 1924 election IOTL.

Amadeus raises some valid points about Harding. However, I suggest that had Harding lived, he would have started housecleaning on his own. He felt betrayed by the Ohio Gang (there are accounts of Harding holding one of the Ohio Gang up against an interior White House wall by the lapels, bellowing, "You double-crossing bastard!" in the miscreant's face) and would have taken advice to purge his administration of malefactors. A purged Harding administration wouldn't be particularly competent or noteworthy in terms of accomplishments, but the times didn't call for either, given the lack of overwhelming crises. Going further down this side trail, Harding had rather forward-thinking views on race relations, and would likely have reversed a lot of the damage Wilson did between 1913 and 1921.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So just going with it, President Wilson redux, 1925-1929.

What are the hallmarks of his administration?

Does he perhaps recognize the Soviet Union?

Does he take any position on war debt or reparations reform?

Does he react in any particular way to the rise of the Chinese Nationalist-Communist United Front and their Northern Expedition?

Does he fight the same Banana Wars as Coolidge, or perhaps different ones?
 

The Avenger

Banned
So just going with it, President Wilson redux, 1925-1929.

What are the hallmarks of his administration?

Does he perhaps recognize the Soviet Union?

Does he take any position on war debt or reparations reform?

Does he react in any particular way to the rise of the Chinese Nationalist-Communist United Front and their Northern Expedition?

Does he fight the same Banana Wars as Coolidge, or perhaps different ones?
I'd add two more questions to this:

Does he try to have the US enter the League of Nations on his own terms (and undoubtedly fail)?

Does he try to establish an alliance with Britain and France?
 
All right, playing the game here: assuming (using at least a couple of carloads of handwaving) Wilson somehow beats Coolidge in 1924, the balance of the 1920s won't be very pleasant unless you're white, Protestant, and born in the US. Here's why:
  • As doctrinaire as Wilson could be, I could see Wilson demanding no-holds-barred enforcement of prohibition. That means a lot of ethnic Americans (Germans, Czech, Slovaks brewing their own beer covertly; Mediterranean nationalities making wine) are going to be rather upset.
  • Given Wilson's upbringing in the south during/after the Civil War and his well-documented views on race, it wouldn't take much to see Wilson getting cozy with the Klan. Long story short, if you're African-American in a significant portion of America, your life is going to be a living hell. You'd always be paranoid about which night will your front door get kicked down by a mob in sheets and hoods. And it won't be much better for Catholics, Jews, or recent immigrants with anything vaguely approaching swarthy skin.
  • You could bet Wilson would revive the idea of joining the League of Nations, and would be at loggerheads with the Senate almost immediately. More about that below.
  • After the Red Scare of 1919, I can't see Wilson recognizing the Soviet Union. Come to think of it, he'd probably find some way to make life difficult, shall we say, for anyone noticeably left of center. He could find some reason / excuse to have wartime sedition laws enforced even in peacetime, meaning Eugene Debs might well die in prison.
  • There would be little aid given after the Mississippi flood of 1927. Why? Wilson would rationalize that it would go in significant proportion to African-Americans. Enough said.
All in all, I don't see Wilson getting much of anything done. He'd be too busy duking it out with the Senate over the League of Nations, and other legislation would get pushed to the side. I could see someone as outspoken as Charles Dawes as the GOP candidate in 1928, running on a platform roundly condemning Wilson for continuing prohibition, letting the KKK run amok, and generally doing nothing while pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of the League. Unfortunately, Dawes, while probably getting resoundingly elected, might face a poisoned chalice, since it's questionable whether or not Wilson's SecTreas would do much of anything to rein in the rampant madness on Wall Street. Dawes might be able to get some corrective measures in place, which might delay a crash, mitigate it to some extent, or--hopefully!--both. But Dawes wouldn't have the easiest time in a 1932 re-election bid.

Now, all of that presumes Wilson doesn't have a stroke from his constant contention over the League. If he does, I'd bet that time the stroke would wind up fatal, and his VP (maybe Oscar Underwood?) might be able to salvage something from what remained of Wilson's term. But even so, I still think the GOP wins in 1928.
 
Top