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

[raharris1973]

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-iffers want to see him in ‘war, war, war!’

[mspence]

I think TR, being who he was, wouldn't have wanted to just sit out 1912; he might have tried to be a kingmaker at the Republican convention.

[raharris1973]

Jul 16, 2023 4:30:18 GMT mspence said:

I think TR, being who he was, wouldn't have wanted to just sit out 1912; he might have tried to be a kingmaker at the Republican convention.

Absolutely would have tried. And he might have picked the King (nominee) of the Republicans. Does not guarantee the voters would pick that person over the opposing Party nominee for President, but they could be lucky.

Party regulars may have also fought off TR’s attempt to be kingmaker in the 1912 GOP convention. If he loses, I think he’d be a sore loser, not graceful one.

[miletus12]

Jul 11, 2023 13:47:52 GMT raharris1973 said:

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!’

Kind of not who he actually was after the Spanish American War.

He had seen the elephant and wanted none of that again for America, wherein she would enter into the inevitable unready. It was from this :"preparedness movement" misinterpretation that we see armchair historians assume TR wanted to jump into WWI. TR knew Wilson was a poltroon, egomaniac and inept narcissist Unreconstructed Confederate, who would stumble and bumble the Americans into a war for which they were unready. Kettle Hill and the other debacles around Santiago de Cuba had schooled TR into the Roman lesson.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum."

    

[raharris1973]

Jul 16, 2023 21:36:59 GMT miletus12 said:

Jul 11, 2023 13:47:52 GMT raharris1973 said:

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!’

Kind of not who he actually was after the Spanish American War.

He had seen the elephant and wanted none of that again for America, wherein she would enter into the inevitable unready. It was from this :"preparedness movement" misinterpretation that we see armchair historians assume TR wanted to jump into WWI. TR knew Wilson was a poltroon, egomaniac and inept narcissist Unreconstructed Confederate, who would stumble and bumble the Americans into a war for which they were unready. Kettle Hill and the other debacles around Santiago de Cuba had schooled TR into the Roman lesson.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum."

    

Right - but based on my experience with boards discussing alternate history for the last twenty-five years, this 'armchair historian assumption' is so dominant I felt the need to call it out, and deliberately focus on a more plausible scenario, more plausibly timed, that happens to not caricature Theodore Roosevelt as well.  

Thanks for keeping this going.

[miletus12]

Jul 16, 2023 22:55:06 GMT raharris1973 said:

Jul 16, 2023 21:36:59 GMT miletus12 said:

Kind of not who he actually was after the Spanish American War.

He had seen the elephant and wanted none of that again for America, wherein she would enter into the inevitable unready. It was from this :"preparedness movement" misinterpretation that we see armchair historians assume TR wanted to jump into WWI. TR knew Wilson was a poltroon, egomaniac and inept narcissist Unreconstructed Confederate, who would stumble and bumble the Americans into a war for which they were unready. Kettle Hill and the other debacles around Santiago de Cuba had schooled TR into the Roman lesson.
    

Right - but based on my experience with boards discussing alternate history for the last twenty-five years, this 'armchair historian assumption' is so dominant I felt the need to call it out, and deliberately focus on a more plausible scenario, more plausibly timed, that happens to not caricature Theodore Roosevelt as well.  

Thanks for keeping this going.

Now I have a question for you. Would TR try to head WWI off or at least negotiate an end to it, if he were in Wilson's position? The Europeans had no respect for the Princeton pettifogger, but they held TR to a higher standard. They did not like him at all, but they respected him. Could he have used that leverage to pull off another Portsmouth?