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!'
 

49ersfootball

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!'
TR would've served 2 full terms as President for 11 1/2 years.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
That doesn’t explain anything. Taft won OTL 1908 for GOP. TR wins ATL 1908 for GOP. Neither would kill Dems or GOP.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
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.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top