Four Fateful Elections (for the history buffs - Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, FDR and Reagan)

What if Lincoln had lost in 1860, or if Theodore Roosevelt had won in 1912? How did Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932, and Ronald Reagan, in 1980, emerge to lead a dispirited nation?

Among George Washington’s many distinctions, one of the most enduring must be that he was twice elected president unanimously and without opposition. Only one of his successors came close to that feat: the unopposed James Monroe, who, in 1820, won every electoral vote except the one cast for Secretary of State John Quincy Adams by an elector from ever-unpredictable New Hampshire. (The prickly and reserved Adams, who wasn’t even running for president, was embarrassed by the vote.) Since that time, every U.S. presidential election has not only involved multiple candidates but hinged on the choices of a broader public, as more and more states moved to elect rather than appoint their representatives in the electoral college.

The article on 1912 begins:

Against a backdrop of massive change, the election of 1912 marked a defining moment in American history.

That piece is written by James Chace, author of a book on the election of 1912. Regarding Roosevelt that year, Chace mimicks the views of George Mowry, a New Dealer and 1940s historian who set the T.R. record as blessed reformer and social crusader, and forerunner of the New Deal (Chace practically heists several phrases from Mowry, and otherwise swallows whole Mowry's thesis.)

Like Mowry, Chace believes that Roosevelt was entirely correct that America of 1912 needed salvation, and that the Bull Moose campaign was noble and good. So bad were things, according to Roosevelt, that only a very direct "rule of the people" could cleanse America of the evils of the day. So blinded by Roosevelt's "social and industrial justice" (he called for management of the US economy like that of the Kaiser's Germany!) Chace doesn't even mention what was central to Roosevelt's campaign, "direct democracy."

For a different view, see my paper on the subject: The Constitution's Bodyguard,, recently presented to a symposium on that election. The paper is long, but, hopefully, usefull to better understand the period.

The enduring legacy of the Bull Moose campaign is the direct primary, which is universally accepted. What was defeated in Roosevelt's losing campaign was the idea that the Constitution and the law should at all times be subject to majority vote. He demanded "easy and expeditious" amendment of the constitution and popular review of State court decisions (leaving the door open for review of Federal decisions via constitutional amendment). It is a fortunate thing for America that Roosevelt and his program lost in 1912.

A very interesting link. I bookmarked it for rereading later. I found the way that Lou Cannon depicted Reagan's place in history especially effective. It's so often the case that the magnitude of Reagan's impact seems to get diminished in the telling, because in a sense his achievements were passive. He was the spark, and others were the flame.

Did Woodrow Wilson really advocate a "League of Nations" even in 1912 (before WWI)? That's news to me. I wonder if that's just poorly phrased, but I'm gonna have to look up more details when I have the chance. I didn't think that idea came along until much later, with the 14 Points.

What if Lincoln had lost in 1860

Well, the nation probably would not have had the economic and physical disruption that set back its infrastructure for decades, about a million people would not be dead or severely maimed, and the constitution would not have been physically raped for five long and bloody years in the name of wartime expediency.

With the country as divided as it was, the Civil War still would have happened. Stephen Douglas supported the Union and probably would have done a lot of the same things that Lincoln did if he had won and lived to serve a full term. The South still would have lost for economic reasons alone. Lincoln would still have emerged as one of the days' great statesmen and might well have run again in 1864.

Against a backdrop of massive change, the election of 1912 marked a defining moment in American history.

Ah, but another and far less well known election that "marked a defining moment in American history" was in 1828 when Andrew Jackson became POTUS. This marked the end of the Virginia/NE iron-grip on Federal politics in general,and the presidency in particular.

In fact, so horrified, so outraged, so insulted were the NE states that for a time there was genuine talk --- and a very real possibility -- of NE seceding.

Jackson's victory was momentous, and nation changing, precisely, as you say, for his seizing of power from the VA, NY and MA aristocracy for the "west," which translated into the "common man." This was the time of Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book was so inspired by the Jacksonian movement.

Through to the early 20th century, Democrats championed themselves as the party of true democracy for Jackson's breaking down the aristocratic hold. Granted, they were talking white males, but the statement was nevertheless true. It is easy to dismiss Jackson's achievement in light of slavery, and no less meaningful than Jefferson's world-shaking statement that "all men are created equal." In an age when citizenship was defined by property rights, to spread democracy to the common man was an amazing achievement, and true affirmation of the Declaration.

In 1912, Roosevelt took those ideas too far, with his program for simple majority rule. I tend to agree, then, with your statement that 1828 was a larger election than 1912, but only because 1828 marked an affirmative change, where the achievement of 1912 came in what did not happen.

[Btw, the NE states had threatened to secede over the 1812 war, too. None of these movements were anywhere near as strong as that Andy Jackson put down in the SC and MS secession threats over the 1830 tariff.]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.