1st things 1st: what if TR runs and wins in 1908?

raharris1973

Well-known member
What are the domestic and international consequences of him being elected to a second full-term in 1908 (let's say he never promised not to) and him serving as POTUS again from 1909-1913, and yielding gracefully to another GOP nominee in 1912.

This perfectly reasonable and realistic prospect tends to get glossed over in preference for scenarios where he wins his 1912 comeback, because bloody minded what-offers want to see him in 'war, war, war!'
 
What are the domestic and international consequences of him being elected to a second full-term in 1908 (let's say he never promised not to) and him serving as POTUS again from 1909-1913, and yielding gracefully to another GOP nominee in 1912.

This perfectly reasonable and realistic prospect tends to get glossed over in preference for scenarios where he wins his 1912 comeback, because bloody minded what-offers want to see him in 'war, war, war!'
TR would've served 2 full terms as President for 11 1/2 years.
 
That doesn’t explain anything. Taft won OTL 1908 for GOP. TR wins ATL 1908 for GOP. Neither would kill Dems or GOP.
 
I agree with your sentiment in your edited post. I don't see how it applies in this alternate history scenario though because in what I imagine is, in 1908 Theodore Roosevelt, as incumbent President in 1908, runs again as Republican nominee, not on his own Progressive 'Bull Moose' third party ticket as he attempted in his 1912 comeback. I also imagine he simply defeats the Democratic nominee, probably William Jennings Bryan.
 
What would a 2nd full term of TR look like depending on foreign policy ?
From wikipedia on his successor, William Howard Taft:

Unlike his predecessor, Taft did not seek to arbitrate conflicts among the other great powers. Taft avoided involvement in international events such as the Agadir Crisis, the Italo-Turkish War, and the First Balkan War. However, Taft did express support for the creation of an international arbitration tribunal and called for an international arms reduction agreement.[87]
So I think a second full term Theodore Roosevelt might not be as diplomatically shy toward Europe, and may offer mediation services in any of the crises and wars in the first sentence. However, those situations, not involving China and Pacific trade, may not as urgently involve US interests, and may not also be as 'ripe' for successful American mediation. Roosevelt would be uninterested in the arbitration tribunal and arms reduction agreements, thinking them naive.

He will likely be equally willing as Taft to intervene in Central America and the Caribbean to 'keep order' and reduce the chances of European or Japanese intervention.

He might not be as calm in terms of restraining border troops in reacting to spillover from the Mexican revolution.

One of the biggest differences could be in foreign policy. Whereas Taft sought to ensure the application of the 'Open Door' policy in all parts of China, including Manchuria, even as Russia and Japan were reaching ever more explicit agreements to divide the region into respective spheres of influence for themselves, excluding others, Roosevelt would be far more likely to accept that these spheres of influence would be a more realistic solution than actual Chinese administrative territorial integrity. Additionally, knowing that immigration restrictions on Japanese entry to America were fraying Japanese nerves, Roosevelt would be more sensitive to not make the Japanese feel that America was *also* trying to block Japanese expansion opportunities on the Asian continent as well as the American.
 
One area I am confident we will not see a difference in is complete silence/acquiescence regarding the Japanese annexation of Korea. Like Taft, Theodore Roosevelt would see absolutely no reason for the US to stick up for Korea with Korea not demonstrating much ability, or in his view, effort or talent, for sticking up for or developing itself.

On domestic matters, Theodore Roosevelt would probably be facing a more conservative Republican Congress than his personal inclinations.

I wonder if he nevertheless tries to push progressive legislation their way that is more than they are comfortable with, and if the Republicans in Congress face the strong setback in the midterms which lost them both houses of Congress in real-life 1910.

In American racial policy and politics he might be more positive in a very, very small way than Taft, assuming he continues his personnel policies in a linear manner from his previous term and three quarters in office. He departed from prior Republican practice by *not* reserving certain federal patronage appointments, in the north, south and DC for African-Americans, that had traditionally become reserved for African-American Republicans since Administrations in the Reconstruction era. Seeking to attempt to gain a white constituency for Republicans in the south, he discontinued this tradition and opened up these appointments to all candidates as incumbent appointees retired or died, usually resulting in selection of white men. He wasn't purging or firing black federal officials, but their presence in federal bureaucracy started to decrease through attrition during his OTL terms.

Taft continued the no reservations and attrition policy, but also hastened to suspend federal officials, usually black, whenever local constituencies made a controversy about it and went through an open reappointment process. This quickly taught southern constituencies they could usually get African American federal appointees ousted just by sending enough letters of complaint to Washington. This decimated the rank of African-Americans in civil service in the south, before Woodrow Wilson purged the remains.

Theodore Roosevelt might not encourage mass complaint and turnover by giving in so easily as Taft. Then again, he might, since he did openly say he saw whites as the more important constituency to pay mind to from a political point of view.
 
I do not know how much, as an incumbent Republican, 1909-1912, his views would evolve towards his Progressive Party 1912 platform ideas he ran on in OTL 1912, he certainly couldn't get many of those ideas passed in the Republican Congress of of 1909-1910. He might have a little more luck with a Democratic Congress of 1911-1912, but pretty soon that party's leaders will be eye'ing the Presidency.

And the battle for the GOP nomination would be hard to predict and it is unknowable if Theodore Roosevelt would get the deference he desires in influencing the pick of his successor.

Regardless of whether the midterms went as well for the Dems in 1910 as in OTL or not, or the details of the 1912 GOP nominating contest, I think the Republican candidate would face stiff odds winning in 1912.

The 1912 Democratic win was *not* flukey, contrary to common opinion, and while Republican ascendancy was a thing, it wasn't so absolute that Democrats would not punch through to the White House every other decade.
 
One area I am confident we will not see a difference in is complete silence/acquiescence regarding the Japanese annexation of Korea. Like Taft, Theodore Roosevelt would see absolutely no reason for the US to stick up for Korea with Korea not demonstrating much ability, or in his view, effort or talent, for sticking up for or developing itself.

On domestic matters, Theodore Roosevelt would probably be facing a more conservative Republican Congress than his personal inclinations.

I wonder if he nevertheless tries to push progressive legislation their way that is more than they are comfortable with, and if the Republicans in Congress face the strong setback in the midterms which lost them both houses of Congress in real-life 1910.

In American racial policy and politics he might be more positive in a very, very small way than Taft, assuming he continues his personnel policies in a linear manner from his previous term and three quarters in office. He departed from prior Republican practice by *not* reserving certain federal patronage appointments, in the north, south and DC for African-Americans, that had traditionally become reserved for African-American Republicans since Administrations in the Reconstruction era. Seeking to attempt to gain a white constituency for Republicans in the south, he discontinued this tradition and opened up these appointments to all candidates as incumbent appointees retired or died, usually resulting in selection of white men. He wasn't purging or firing black federal officials, but their presence in federal bureaucracy started to decrease through attrition during his OTL terms.

Taft continued the no reservations and attrition policy, but also hastened to suspend federal officials, usually black, whenever local constituencies made a controversy about it and went through an open reappointment process. This quickly taught southern constituencies they could usually get African American federal appointees ousted just by sending enough letters of complaint to Washington. This decimated the rank of African-Americans in civil service in the south, before Woodrow Wilson purged the remains.

Theodore Roosevelt might not encourage mass complaint and turnover by giving in so easily as Taft. Then again, he might, since he did openly say he saw whites as the more important constituency to pay mind to from a political point of view.
Basically the Civil Rights Movement gets wiped out earlier ?
 
Ugly & disgusting early 20th Century with Karens wreaking havoc.
At first I was thinking of the Karen tribal people of Burma and I was thinking- “WTF? How did we get Burma involved?

Then my pea brain connected the dots to the modern connotation of “Karen” and I remember reed the DAR, and especially the Daughters of the Confederacy did its share for segregation and WASP supremacy.

(Jesus Christmas/ autocorrect is out of fucking control it turned my “pea brain” into a “plantain” for the last 2 hours.)
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top