Woodrow Wilson's legacy with no WWI (as we know it)

As the tin says, how do you think the 28th president of the United States would be viewed in 2012 had there been either no world war at all during his presidency or had war broken out in 1917 over the Ausgleich renegotiation?
Also, speculations about his re-election in 1916 and alternate electoral maps are welcome.:)
 
Last edited:
Okay, so it's likely he would've been remembered as the then-latest in a line of progressive presidents. Without the war, you lose a) his major failure: dealing with Republicans on the Versaille Treaty and the League, and b) A number of his more criticized actions re: racism and expanding authority in wartime. However, you also lose the idea of this great visionary, what with the League of Nations and whatnot, and no term like "Wilsonian Idealism".

However, modern day conservatives still would hate on him, but this time, it's isolated to economic policy.

In terms of re-election, he might lose given that his re-election slogan, was in fact "He Kept us out of the War". So Hughes, or whoever else the GOP nominee is in 1916, might win.
 
Okay, so it's likely he would've been remembered as the then-latest in a line of progressive presidents. Without the war, you lose a) his major failure: dealing with Republicans on the Versaille Treaty and the League, and b) A number of his more criticized actions re: racism and expanding authority in wartime. However, you also lose the idea of this great visionary, what with the League of Nations and whatnot, and no term like "Wilsonian Idealism".

However, modern day conservatives still would hate on him, but this time, it's isolated to economic policy.

In terms of re-election, he might lose given that his re-election slogan, was in fact "He Kept us out of the War". So Hughes, or whoever else the GOP nominee is in 1916, might win.
It would be supremely ironic if the US was then dragged into the war under Hughes:rolleyes:
 
Without the war at all he would be judged on his domestic record which was mixed. He certainly had Progressive credentials. His major domestic actions were the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission and the Clayton Act, lowering the tariff in 1913, support of child labor laws (declared unconstitutional by the Court) and his acceptance/support of segregation. With the exception of his racial views I think he would be generally well regarded today.

As to the 1916 election I think a lot would have depended upon the economy. He inherited a recession that was reversed largely due to World War I induced exports. If the economy did not rebound absent the war stimulus that would have been a powerful argument for Hughes.

Concerning the collapse of Austria-Hungary or for that matter Russia or the Ottoman Empire, I don’t see much of a role for the United States or its President. Presumably he would have favored Czechoslovak and Polish independence but without a seat at the peace conference his influence would have been limited.

Without the war there may have been more opportunity and will to intervene in the Russian revolution from several countries—Britain, France, Germany and the United States. Since the US Army prior to the war mobilization was small I don’t see the US leading such an effort.
 
I agree he is remember as one of the progressive presidents.
The question is can he be reelected without the he kept us out of war. Then maybe we look back on TRoosevelt, Taft, Wilson and Hughes as the progressive presidents.
 
Top