From 1912 and On. . .

[True Democrat]

Here's just a fun, quick alternate history I've created.  I'm mainly just going to post the presidential elections.  I made them up before I started making the timeline, so everything is predetermined.

After losing the 1912 nomination for the Republican Party, former President Teddy Roosevelt embarks on an Independent run for the presidency under the newly created "Progressive Party."  However, on October 14, 1912, Roosevelt is shot and killed by saloonkeeper John Schrank (Roosevelt was actually shot by this man but lived in OTL).  Although Schrank is immediately arrested, Roosevelt is dead.  While the nation mourns, VP candidate Hiram Johnson wonders what he should do.  In the end, he knows that he does not have the charisma or stature of Roosevelt; he knows he cannot hope to win the presidency.  To reconcile with Taft's people, Johnson agrees to not run for President.  He also gives a lukewarm endorsement of Taft.

With Roosevelt out of the race, Taft cruises to an easy victory, though some of Roosevelt's supporters go to Wilson, who is seen as more progressive than Taft in many ways.  Taft wins fairly close margins in both the popular vote and the electoral college.


Taft/Butler: 7,086,027 votes (47.09%), 289 electoral votes
Wilson/Marshall: 6,819,220 (45.32%), 242 electoral votes
Debs/Seidel: 901,551 (5.99%), 0 electoral votes
Chafin/Watkins: 208,156 (1.38%), 0 electoral cotes
Others: 33,880 (0.23%), 0 electoral votes[/color]

Post Election Analysis:

Taft is able to win mostly because he can hold on to progressives out west, specifically in the states of Montana and Nebraska.  However, the West is no longer the solid Republican ground it once was in 1904.  Wilson does very well in the Northeast and midwest, picking up a lot of Republicans who feel disaffected by Taft's policies.  Many immigrants are now moving towards the Democratic party.  The South stays solidly Democratic.

[True Democrat]

In the 1916 election, the main issue if the war raging in Europe.  While Republicans continue to oppose entry into the war, public opinion is moving towards intervention, most notably due to the publicizing of notable attacks on US commercial ships travelling to the United Kingdom.  The Democrats have taken advantage of this and blasted the President and the Republicans.  By the time of the Democratic convention, public opinion has shifted in favor of intervening.

The two main factions in the Democratic party are those who are for intervention and those against.  However, with the 2/3 rule still in place, the two sides cannot compromise.  Finally, on the 47th ballot, a dark horse compromise candidate is found.  Little-known 39 year old Representative Alben Barkley of Kentucky is chosen for President.  Barkley, to hte surprise of all, bucks the party leadership and chooses his own VP.  He chooses New York Senator Franklin Delano Roosevelt (distant cousin of the late President).  Roosevelt had served in the New York State Senate was elected to the US Senate after beating James Gerard in the Democratic nomination for US Senator from NY in 1914. 

At first, most political pundits expect Barkley to fair badly, but he and Roosevelt embark on a nationwide tour speaking to the people.  Barkely promises what calls "controlled intervention" in Europe, which is a compromise between the two sides of the Democratic party.  Also, the economy is going downhill after the Panic of 1916, and Taft is extremely unpopular for this.  By the time election day rolls around, Barkley is expected to easily win.


Barkley/Roosevelt: 9,981,741 votes (53.85%), 462 electoral votes
Taft/Butler: 7,693,855 votes (41.51%), 69 electoral votes
Benson/Kirkpatrick: 590,524 votes   (3.19%), 0 electoral votes
Hanly/Landrith: 221,302 (1.19%), 0 electoral cotes
Others: 49,163 (0.27%), 0 electoral votes[/color]

Post Election Analysis:

Barkley does extremely well out West, mainly due to his promise to bring Western farmers out of the depression.  Taft's best group is surprsingly factory works in the midwest, contributing to Taft's shoting in states like Michigan and Illinois.  Taft actually does  better in the South than last time, due to many Democrats angry with Barkely's willingness to intervene in Europe.  The Northeast is also surprising in how much it supports Barkley.  Many of those descended from English immigrants leave Taft and support Barkley because he will intervene.

[True Democrat]

With the successful end to the war in Europe in 1917, Barkley was riding high.  However, by the 1918 midterms, the Republicans made some gains in Congress, though the Democrats still controlled both houses.  The main reason for this was the dissatisfaction over the lack of economic progress.  However, by 1920, the economy had drastically improved.  Barkley faced no major opposition to the nomination, and Roosevelt was also renominated.

On the Republican side, the Taft wing finally loses control of the party.  Progressive Senator Robert LaFollette.  To balance out the ticket, LaFollette chooses former Postmaster General (under Taft) Frank H. Hitchcock.  LaFollette feels that involvement in the Great War was wrong.  Also, he doesn't think that Barkley has gone far enough to promote econoimc recovery.  Although the public generally likes LaFollette, they see now reason to not vote for Barkley, whose approval is near 70%.

Notably, with Eugene Debs in jail, the Socialist Party makes surprise endorsement of Barkley.  Parley Christiansen, who was thinking of running for President, also chooses to endorse Barkley.


Barkley/Roosevelt: 15,161,880 votes (56.65%), 482 electoral votes
LaFollette/Hitchcock: 11,300,865votes (42.22%), 49 electoral votes
Watkins/Colvin: 188,787 votes, (0.71%), 0 electoral cotes
Others: 113,548 votes (0.42%), 0 electoral votes[/color]

Barkley expands on his improvements in the Northeast (mainly due to him being the more "conservative" candidate economically).  The South and West continue to stay strong for Barkley.  However, in the midwest, specifically the uppermidwest, LaFollette does very well.  His closeness to the region and the lack of economic recovery in this region as a whole contributes to this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's quite some butterfly you've got here if it can affect the course of submarine warfare in World War I.  I presume you are assuming that Taft would have been less forceful than Wilson in complaining about the German U-boats so that they were not reigned in after the Lusitania incident (or the equivalent).  In OTL, from September 1915 to September 1916 there was no U-boat campaign and even after it resumed, neutral ships were not targeted.  I just don't see Judge Taft being less forceful than Professor Wilson here, so I don't buy that.

As for the Panic of 1916, I presume that was a result of Taft being unwilling to allow the Allies to buy war material on credit as Wilson did, thereby causing a sudden contraction in the war economy when the Allies ran out of gold to pay for what they had ordered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Great War ending in 1917!  That I don't see.  The conditions that you presumed to have caused Barkley's electoral victory would have caused the United States to have been less prepared to enter the war and the Allies would have been worse off due to receiving less war material from the United States until at least March 1917 when Barkley was sworn in and maybe not even until December 1917 when the new Congress finally gets sworn in depending on how well the Republicans did in the 1914 elections.

[True Democrat]

That's quite some butterfly you've got here if it can affect the course of submarine warfare in World War I.  I presume you are assuming that Taft would have been less forceful than Wilson in complaining about the German U-boats so that they were not reigned in after the Lusitania incident (or the equivalent).  In OTL, from September 1915 to September 1916 there was no U-boat campaign and even after it resumed, neutral ships were not targeted.  I just don't see Judge Taft being less forceful than Professor Wilson here, so I don't buy that.

As for the Panic of 1916, I presume that was a result of Taft being unwilling to allow the Allies to buy war material on credit as Wilson did, thereby causing a sudden contraction in the war economy when the Allies ran out of gold to pay for what they had ordered.

The Panic resulted from that and also just because I wanted a panic to happen there.  My knowledge of the economy in the 1910s is not so great.  As for the U-Boats and your next comment about the war ending in 1917, you have to think of the whole war as different.  Basically, the whole war is accelerated to an extent.  Germany attacks more vigorously earlier.  Also, the war in the Atlantic is accelerated with Germany making a decision to attack neutral boats in the Atlantic around 1915 or early 1916.  I know this might not make perfect sense, but in my opinion, one event (in this case the assassination of TR) could produce a butterfly effect like this.  As for the war ending earlier, with Barkley winning in 1916, America declares war in March, as soon as Barkley is inaugurated.  Due to greater power by the national government to get the miltiary ready, our troops are on the ground by JUne 1917, where we defeat Germany by November.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The butterfly effect of a more aggressive German naval effort, I can accept, since one can explain almost anything with a butterfly effect, though it still strikes me as unlikely. (It also would have, given the U.S. foreign policy you indicate, likely have knocked Britain out of the war prior to the 1916 election.)

However, the circumstances you cite as leading up to the Barkley victory will leave the United States far less prepared for war as our munitions factories will not be as mobilized and declaring war one month earlier won't be enough to cause an Allied victory a full year earlier than our time line.  It might be enough to lead to a German victory in 1917, but not an Allied one, no matter how many butterflies flap.

The Marines will also likely have not had their adventures south of the border that they did in out time line under Wilson so they'll have less experience, tho that'll be a minor effect at best.

[True Democrat]

The butterfly effect of a more aggressive German naval effort, I can accept, since one can explain almost anything with a butterfly effect, though it still strikes me as unlikely. (It also would have, given the U.S. foreign policy you indicate, likely have knocked Britain out of the war prior to the 1916 election.)

However, the circumstances you cite as leading up to the Barkley victory will leave the United States far less prepared for war as our munitions factories will not be as mobilized and declaring war one month earlier won't be enough to cause an Allied victory a full year earlier than our time line.  It might be enough to lead to a German victory in 1917, but not an Allied one, no matter how many butterflies flap.

The Marines will also likely have not had their adventures south of the border that they did in out time line under Wilson so they'll have less experience, tho that'll be a minor effect at best.

Germany also does very badly in the war in general, which leads to the early allied victory.  France and Britain manage to hold off Germany in the West, the Russians do exceedingly well (don't ask me how) in the Eastern threatre.  Without discontent among the Russian people (the revolution doesn't being until 1920), Russia is able to do better in the war.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now you've got your butterflies conflicting with one another.  If Russia is doing well enough to stay in the war and win, I can't see a Russian Revolution in 1920 under any circumstances whatsoever.  The 1905 revolution only got as far as it did because it was in part a reaction by Russian patriots to losing to the slant-eyed sub-human Japanese who should have surrendered to the obviously superior Russian race.  The 1917 revolutions occurred because the population was tired of war and the governments were unwilling to end it.

You can either have Russia stay in the war to the end as one of the victorious Allied Powers or you can have a Russian Revolution.  Having both is not possible, tho having neither is.

[True Democrat]

Now you've got your butterflies conflicting with one another.  If Russia is doing well enough to stay in the war and win, I can't see a Russian Revolution in 1920 under any circumstances whatsoever.  The 1905 revolution only got as far as it did because it was in part a reaction by Russian patriots to losing to the slant-eyed sub-human Japanese who should have surrendered to the obviously superior Russian race.  The 1917 revolutions occurred because the population was tired of war and the governments were unwilling to end it.

You can either have Russia stay in the war to the end as one of the victorious Allied Powers or you can have a Russian Revolution.  Having both is not possible, tho having neither is.

Russia was victorious in the war, but in the aftermath of the war, Russia was hit by a recession (more like a depression actually) with food shortages and huge inflation.  The Bolsheviks, promising to create a more prosperous society, gained support and took over.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Very interesting....

Only thing I have trouble wrapping around is Taft in 1916. Taft HATED the presidency. I simply couldn't understand him running for a third term. I love the photos on Wilson's inauguaration day and Taft is beaming like crazy because he's leaving the White House.

Nevertheless please continue. You have done fine stories in the past and I'm sure this will be just as good at the others!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I still don't buy it, especially the idea that even if there were an unlikely revolution that the Bolsheviks could take over in the absence of any ability to promise to bring peace, but it's clear that we have very different ideas of what's plausible.

[True Democrat]

At the 1924 Republican convention, Taft and Roosevelt delegates continue to battle for control of the party.  However, once again, the Progressives win, nominating Hiram Johnson on the third ballot.  Johnson, a Senator from California, is extremely popular in his home state.  Although Johnson supports many of the President's reform proposals, he believes that entry into World War I was mistake.  Also, Johnson wishes to focus more on helping struggling farmers out west, whose economic situations have not yet improved from the Panic of 1916.  For Vice President, Johnson chooses Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge, who is a conservative in the party.

For the Democrats, Barkley makes the surprise announcement that he will run for a third term.  He cites that the country needs to him to get out of this economic crisis (which is mostly gone, except in the West).  He is still very popular in the party.  At the convention, Barkley is renominated on the first ballot (though it's not unanimous, he gets 85% in the first round).  Roosevelt is also renominated.

The general election campaign focuses oneconomic recovery.  On economic recovery, Barkley defends his programs and expansion of the federal government.  He cites improved economic situations around the country, specifically in the Northeast.  Johnson continues to attack the President for not helping farmers out west.  In October, Johnson sets out an economic recovery plan favoring farmers and union workers.  This agenda requires even more action by the federal governemtn than Barkley's plans.  Although this plan is very popular out West, the Northeast abandons Johnson.  On election day, the Northeast overwhelmingly chooses Barkley, a Democrat, for the first time in a long time.  Even Vermont goes for Barkley by a fairly large margin.  Most voters in the Northeast feel that they are voting for the lesser of two evils.


Barkley/Roosevelt: 17,153,043 votes (58.95%), 476 electoral votes
Johnson/Coolidge: 11,788,693 votes (40.52%), 55 electoral votes
Others: 155,370 (0.53%), 0 electoral votes

[True Democrat]

In 1928, President Barkley, after serving three terms, announces that he will not run for President again.  The economy is in sound shape, and international  affairs have a created a general feeling of peace around the world.  Barkley says he wants to "go out on top."  Although in 1924 Roosevelt was the presumed nominee before Barkley ran again, this time around he has lost a lot of traction in the party.  Conservatives, led by New York Governor Al Smith, want to reduce the power of the national government now that the panic has officially ended (even out west).  The Democratic nomination goes to the 18th ballot, where Smith finally beats Roosevelt for the nomination.  To balance out his Catholicism, Smith chooses Arkansas Senator and Barkley supporter Joseph Taylor for Vice President.  Taylor, who was second in line in the Senate for the Democrats, helped pass Barkley's legislation that expanded the power of the national government.

The Republicans, after losing three elections in a row by huge margins, choose to pick someone slightly more conservative for the nomination.  California Governor Herbert Hoover is chosen for the presidential nomination on the 2nd ballot.  For Vice President, the Republicans pick Kansas Senator Charles Curtis.

Although Smith's Catholicism is attacked, especially in the South, he runs his campaign with the slogan "Four more years of prosperity" (even though he wants to dismantle Barkley's policies).  The American people, after enjoying Democratic dominance, continue to support the Democrats.  Hoover runs a very dry, bland campaign that only has very broad themes, including focusing more on eastern business interests (a group that abandoned the Republicans in 1924).  On election day, Smith does very well in the Northeast due to his Catholicism, but this hurts him greatly in the South.  Although he wins every Southern state, his margins are sharply reduced from Barkley's historic margins in 1924.  The upper midwest, after years of going Republican, finally votes for the Democrat, in part due to his Catholicism and in part due to Hoover's move away from the progressive ideals of past Republican candidates.  Western farmers, still angry after not being helped for years by the Democrats, go Republican once again.  Although the popular vote is fairly close, it is a huge victory in the electoral college for Smith.


Smith/Robinson: 19,300,889 votes (52.44%), 375 electoral votes
Hoover/Curtis: 17,141,698 votes (46.57%), 156 electoral votes
Thomas/Maurer: 267,478 (0.73%), 0 electoral votes
Others: 96,947    (0.26%), 0 electoral votes

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With a different response (or at the very least a different person in charge of the response) to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 this could well affect or even prevent the shift of the Negro vote from the Republicans to the Democrats.  Also, given the changed politics and events, having Hoover being a Democrat would have been a plausible possibility.  He considered shifting parties in 1920 but decided to rejoin the Republicans instead because he though the political prospects were better for them (he had bolted the party for the Bull Moose Progressives).

[True Democrat]

With a different response (or at the very least a different person in charge of the response) to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 this could well affect or even prevent the shift of the Negro vote from the Republicans to the Democrats.  Also, given the changed politics and events, having Hoover being a Democrat would have been a plausible possibility.  He considered shifting parties in 1920 but decided to rejoin the Republicans instead because he though the political prospects were better for them (he had bolted the party for the Bull Moose Progressives).

I actually considered having Hoover run as a Democrat in 1928, but I decided not to.  It's plausible to say in my timeline that he was a Democrat until 1921 or so, but he didn't like how Barkley expanded the federal government so much, so he switched baCk to being a Republican.  As for the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, just keep the events the same as there normally would be.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wasn't imagining that it affect things much in the 1928 elections, but since presumably, it would be a Democrat instead of Hoover who was placed in charge of the relief efforts, the blame for the appalling treatment of the Negro victims of the flood and Hoover's keeping quiet about it would be laid at the hands of the Democrats instead, certainly keeping the shift in the Negro vote that happened in 1932 from occurring then, tho the Republicans will no doubt have other opportunities to throw that voting block away.

[True Democrat]

I wasn't imagining that it affect things much in the 1928 elections, but since presumably, it would be a Democrat instead of Hoover who was placed in charge of the relief efforts, the blame for the appalling treatment of the Negro victims of the flood and Hoover's keeping quiet about it would be laid at the hands of the Democrats instead, certainly keeping the shift in the Negro vote that happened in 1932 from occurring then, tho the Republicans will no doubt have other opportunities to throw that voting block away.

Just assume the Democrat put in charge did the same crappy job as Hoover.

[PBrunsel]

Hoover did not do a poor job in the Great Flood of 1927. In fact, he did a fine job given the racism of the Deep South. Hoover only had to get the blacks to the refugee camps, and he did that. He was able to scrounge for food and even integrated several twons in Mississippi. Given the limited resources Hoover had he did a fine job. It was not his responcibilty to what happened inside the camps. That was up to the state Governors.