Replies

The reference to Wilson there I understood you to say came in 1912. That came in 1916, which I'm sure you either implied here or meant. Sorry to be confused or confusing.

Roosevelt, of course, had picked Taft, who had been a Roosevelt Cabinet member, as his successor circa 1910, following T.R.'s trips abroad to Europe and on safari in Africa. Teddy was more than a bit upset when he found Taft in the pocket of the Republican conservatives who had schemed against his administration and were celebrating its finale. The progressive wing of the party still supported him, as did crossover voters from other camps, and he challenged Taft in the Republican primary. When the nomination went to Taft, Roosevelt and the Republican progressive *wing*, then led by Bob LaFollette of Wisconsin, left the Republicans to become the Progressive Party, better known as the Bull Moose Party. The Democrats nominated the then-president of Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson as their candidate.

Taft campaigned very little; having no doubt as to what was coming; and the Republicans of the day were aware that a vote for him was as good as a vote for Wilson. Following the August assassination attempt on Roosevelt's life, both Taft and Wilson halted their campaigning until Roosevelt left the hospital and Roosevelt's campaign never regained the momentum it had begun. When the votes were counted, Wilson won his first four years of the presidency with more than 6 million votes; Roosevelt and the Progressives received some 4 million and Taft took hind place [well, except for Debs' Socialists, and even Debs didn't vote for himself] with just over 3 million.

Thus, after the election, Woodrow Wilson began his first term. Following the next presidential election of 1916, during which Wilson sucessfully ran against Republican challenger Charles Evans Hughes, Wilson began his second term in office as president.

The only confusion remaining was whether the little moose collar pins of 1912 designated Roosevelt supporters or members of the fraternal organization, as they were likely intended to do. The lodge pins were marked *P.A.P.* standing for the order's stated virtues; those of the political group were sometimes marked *P.P* for *Progressive Party*. I suppose there were those who wore both....

Thanks for the outline there. I'll object to a couple of things, especially the reason for Roosevelt's "disapointment" with Taft and the party conservatives.

During his final two years, Roosevelt was useless with the lawmakers. He caved to Congress and took his fights elsewhere, such as to his "commissions" and public moralizing. This empowered the Congress, which left Taft with no choice but to work with it as it was. Roosevelt, in fact, convinced Taft of this. Taft had earlier planned to challenge Cannon.

Then, amazingly, Taft found that Congress would work with him. The 61st Congress got more done than any Congress in years, including the 59th, which Roosevelt praised to the skies, Cannon, Aldrich, and all. Taft actually advanced the "Roosevelt agenda" in law further than Roosevelt himself had done over the previous three, and, arguably, all seven of his years in office.

Meanwhile, the left wing of the party went ballistic. They tried to beat Taft and take over the party. They lost. So they turned to Roosevelt for help; he refused. Instead, in 1912 he took over their movement. Taft campaigned like a tiger during the Republican primary -- the first time a President had ever done so. After winning at the Convention, Taft sat back and didn't campaign at all. I call it the first and only "Golf Course" campaign. Taft's sole concern was to salvage the party. He knew Roosevelt would lose in November. From the golf course (and motoring around New England), he turned up the conservative rhetoric in order to keep Republican regulars in line. It worked. The party thereafter was his, not Roosevelt's.

Most importantly, during the Republican primary, and during the previous year, actually, Taft defined and defended constitutional government. He pointed to the logical conclusions of Roosevelt's populism and "Direct democracy."

More on this later, as I've got to get back to work. I'm making final revisions on a book on the Taft presidency. It will be published next Spring by McFarland & Co.

Thanks for the banter.