• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Woodrow Wilson doesnt survive major stroke in 1919?

Well, aside from Edith Wilson not being able to hijack the Executive Branch for 2 and a half years, how will Thomas Marshall handle that period?

the desire for "a return to normalcy" as that Ohio Senator put it, will see Marshall's defeat in 1920 if he chooses to run.

Despite what The Other Place thought, Wilson's death won't lead to murmurings about a constitutional amendment, as, in this timeline, he's simply died and not been crippled and reduced to a shadow of himself.

It will take the atmosphere of something like the Cold War to really spur an amendment covering a disabled or incapacitated President.
 
Wilson's wife and his aides hated VP Marshall and thought he was a light-weight who wasn't fit to be president and fought any effort to clue Marshall or Wilson's Cabinet as to the grave nature of Wilson's condition.

Calling Edith Wilson a female president is an insult to the first woman who becomes U.S. president constitutionally.
 
Wilson's wife and his aides hated VP Marshall and thought he was a light-weight who wasn't fit to be president and fought any effort to clue Marshall or Wilson's Cabinet as to the grave nature of Wilson's condition.

Calling Edith Wilson a female president is an insult to the first woman who becomes U.S. president constitutionally.
Who are you responding to?
 
And? There had been talk about such an Amendment to straighten out presidential sucession since the Tyler Administration.

What exactly are you arguing here, that the 25th Amendment would have occurred even if the Cold War hadn't forced the issue? If so, highlighting the fact that people had been vaguely talking about it for a hundred years without taking any action on the issue hardly seems to make a strong case.
 
What exactly are you arguing here, that the 25th Amendment would have occurred even if the Cold War hadn't forced the issue? If so, highlighting the fact that people had been vaguely talking about it for a hundred years without taking any action on the issue hardly seems to make a strong case.
Pressure had been building for ages. The amendments passage had as much to do with recent presidential health and the fact that Jack Kennedy had been murdered then nuclear war did. Any sort of series of presidential death and near death could have triggered such a development.
 
If Wilson’s death doesn’t force the issue, Harding’s death will definitely scare them half to death. Two presidents dying in office in a row? Heaven forbid!

Meanwhile, Marshall’s a lame duck who can’t really do much different from IOTL. I guess he isn’t as stubborn as Wilson about accepting compromises on the League of Nations, and he does pass the treaty in the end. Of course, America’s presence will have just as much impact on things ITTL as its absence did IOTL (ie. fuck-all impact and WWII happens on schedule), but that’ll be Marshall’s legacy, if anything. At the very least, he won’t be as horribly racist in office as Wilson.

Also, I guess the first VP to last two consecutive terms in office is now...Richard Nixon. Wow.
 
If Wilson’s death doesn’t force the issue, Harding’s death will definitely scare them half to death. Two presidents dying in office in a row? Heaven forbid!

Meanwhile, Marshall’s a lame duck who can’t really do much different from IOTL. I guess he isn’t as stubborn as Wilson about accepting compromises on the League of Nations, and he does pass the treaty in the end. Of course, America’s presence will have just as much impact on things ITTL as its absence did IOTL (ie. fuck-all impact and WWII happens on schedule), but that’ll be Marshall’s legacy, if anything. At the very least, he won’t be as horribly racist in office as Wilson.

Also, I guess the first VP to last two consecutive terms in office is now...Richard Nixon. Wow.
Ignoring butterflies, wouldn’t it be Garner from 1933-1941?
 
Last edited:
If Wilson’s death doesn’t force the issue, Harding’s death will definitely scare them half to death. Two presidents dying in office in a row? Heaven forbid!

Meanwhile, Marshall’s a lame duck who can’t really do much different from IOTL. I guess he isn’t as stubborn as Wilson about accepting compromises on the League of Nations, and he does pass the treaty in the end. Of course, America’s presence will have just as much impact on things ITTL as its absence did IOTL (ie. fuck-all impact and WWII happens on schedule), but that’ll be Marshall’s legacy, if anything. At the very least, he won’t be as horribly racist in office as Wilson.

Also, I guess the first VP to last two consecutive terms in office is now...Richard Nixon. Wow.
In addition to getting the US into the League of Nations, Marshall also might actually push to have the US Senate ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France--thus creating a post-WWI defensive alliance between the US and these two countries.
 
In addition to getting the US into the League of Nations, Marshall also might actually push to have the US Senate ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France--thus creating a post-WWI defensive alliance between the US and these two countries.
What Secret Treaty?
 
What Secret Treaty?
Not Secret Treaty, but rather Security Treaty. Lloyd Ambrosius discusses this treaty in this book of his:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_...Ag#v=onepage&q=lloyd ambrosius wilson&f=false

And also in this book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=z...loyd ambrosius french security treaty&f=false

You can type in phrases such as "security treaty" in the search engines for these books in order to find the relevant pages of these books. For what it's worth, a sizable number of Republicans in the US Senate actually supported this Security Treaty in 1919--viewing it as a better alternative to the League of Nations' open-ended commitments. Henry Cabot Lodge certainly supported this treaty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_Reservations#Henry_Cabot_Lodge_and_Republicanism

"if there had been no proposition such as is included in Article 10, but a simple proposition that it would be our intention to aid France, which is our barrier and outpost, when attacked without provocation by Germany, I should have strongly favored it for I feel very keenly the sacrifices of France and the immense value her gallant defense was to the whole world. But they have made the French treaty subject to the authority of the League, which is not to be tolerated. If we ever are called upon to go to the assistance of France as we were two years ago, we will go without asking anybody's leave. It is humiliating to be put in such an attitude and not the least of the mischief done by the League is that Article 10 will probably make it impossible to do anything for France as Root recommends and as many of our Senators desire."

Wilson foolishly focused on the League of Nations instead of on this Security Treaty and ultimately ended up getting neither of these two things. :(
 
Back
Top