The Spanish-American War under William Jennings Bryan?

SA Smith

If Bryan had been elected President in 1896, would the Spanish-American War still have occurred? I have a few specific questions on whether it would turn out the same or would it take a different course.

I’ve read a couple of older timelines about a Bryan presidency and they seemed to gloss over the war, as though it would broadly turn out the same. Is that a fair assumption?

The Cuba Libre movement was active and growing for a few years, so I think the buildup could be similar, even if details like the specific date or circumstances of an incident like the USS Maine were different. Bryan supported Cuban independence in OTL, would he be as enthusiastic as President?

How important was George Dewey to the victory in Manila? Without Teddy Roosevelt preparing the Asiatic Fleet and ensuring Dewey was in charge, would it have gone worse for the Americans, or was Dewey’s importance overrated? [Would Bryan have appointed him commander, or someone else like John Adams Howell?]

Would the Rough Riders be formed, or would there be different regiments with different leaders? (TR and Bryan weren’t on good terms, but TR would want to fight even if it was as a private.) Is it fair to assume that the Americans would win in Cuba either way?

There are other questions like US domestic politics and the peace treaty, but for now I’m focusing the military campaign and outcome.
 

Comte de Geneve

First of all, I doubt that the Maine would be in Havana Harbor, so there is nothing to remember there. It is totally in character for Bryan to supprt Cuban Independence and totally out of character for him to proceed with military intervention, especially lacking the faux causus belli of the Maine. I am not sure what would be the status of the Asiatic fleet in a Bryan Presidency since, IIRC, he was opposed to Hawaiian annexation as well. As for the Philippines, he is not going to intervene there either. Or he might ask the Swiss Navy for assistance.
 
Moltke

Moltke

Definitely a huge change. I don't think there is any chance of war during a Bryan presidency, as only a large causus belli is going to convince Congress into a declaration of war. I suppose goading Spain into declaring war first through ultimatums or arms assistance to the rebels might force a war into being. You don't have Teddy preparing the Asiatic elements, so you probably don't have the Philippines being a factor. I think Teddy attempts to get into the fight regardless , but in a later war post Bryan he might be obstructed from doing so.

But assuming the Cuban movement forced a war. If war came, and after an Atlantic clash, perhaps we see the Spanish squadron making some kind of trek across the ocean ala Russian Baltic fleet in 1904. In the event that happens and you don't have an American force ready or in the area, you wonder if the Germans jump on the Philippines, forcing American annexation of Guam and Hawaii. Under that umbrella, peace talks without the Philippines option might push for more Cuban annexation.
 

SA Smith

Anarch King of Dipsodes said:
Quite so, though Bryan served as a militia colonel during the war.
Click to expand...
In fairness, McKinley was also reluctant to go to war after the Maine and sought to negotiate with Spain for peaceful Cuban independence. Or at least he gave a good performance of reluctance. And the war was popular with most Americans, it was what to do with Spain’s colonies afterwards that created the great controversy.
 

SA Smith

Mikestone8 said:
He also supported WW1 *after* it had been declared, despite having consistently opposed US entry.

"My country, right or wrong" was not a cliché in those days, but taken quite seriously.
Click to expand...
Senator Robert La Follette did not support WWI after it was declared and was accused of being a traitor. A lot of people who didn’t turn around and support WWI were arrested under the Sedition and Espionage Acts. And groups like the American Protective League created a climate of paranoia, trampled on civil liberties, and ruined a lot of lives. And all of that just after Woodrow Wilson had been re-elected with the promise “He kept us out of the war”.

It's a shame they didn't remember the whole phrase. “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” The phrase was coined by Carl Schurz, who became a vocal anti-imperialist after the Spanish-American War and supported Bryan in 1900. It's the difference between jingoism and patriotism. Sometimes people who oppose their government’s actions or criticize something about their society do not hate their country. They love their country and want it to be better.
 

Mikestone8

SA Smith said:
Senator Robert La Follette did not support WWI after it was declared and was accused of being a traitor. A lot of people who didn’t turn around and support WWI were arrested under the Sedition and Espionage Acts. And groups like the American Protective League created a climate of paranoia, trampled on civil liberties, and ruined a lot of lives. And all of that just after Woodrow Wilson had been re-elected with the promise “He kept us out of the war”.

It's a shame they didn't remember the whole phrase. “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” The phrase was coined by Carl Schurz, who became a vocal anti-imperialist after the Spanish-American War and supported Bryan in 1900. It's the difference between jingoism and patriotism. Sometimes people who oppose their government’s actions or criticize something about their society do not hate their country. They love their country and want it to be better.
Click to expand...

Yet it is perfectly possible to think that entering a war was a mistake, but that nonetheless, now that you *are* in one, winning it is a lesser evil than losing it.
 

SA Smith

Mikestone8 said:
Yet it is perfectly possible to think that entering a war was a mistake, but that nonetheless, now that you *are* in one, winning it is a lesser evil than losing it.
Click to expand...
That’s probably a fair take on Bryan’s opinion. But WWI is a bit off topic, and I got a bit carried away because of the “My country” quote. It is such a famous saying, yet most versions only use the first part and I wanted to comment on that.
 

Mikestone8

prester.john208 said:
How does the US lose in WW1? Financial losses? Germany can't invade the US or defeat the RN.
Click to expand...
Well, President Wilson apparently did not share your confidence - at least not if Edward N Hurley can be believed. [1]

If Edward N Hurley, Chief of the Shipping Board , can be believed, President Wilson certainly thought defeat a real possibility. "Hurley", he said, "with the success of the Germans in driving a wedge between the well-seasoned troops of the British and the French in the Cambrai sector, if by any chance they were to repeat their onslaught with a like result on our front and capture a hundred thousand or more of our soldiers, I dread to contemplate the feeling which would arise in the minds of the American people. Unless we send over every man possible to support the Allies in their present desperate condition, a situation may develop which would require us to pay for the entire cost of the war to the Central Powers." Wilson, normally more given to over-confidence than to defeatism, clearly saw nothing impossible about a German victory, in which the AEF, or a considerable part of it, would be swept up and captured in the general rout. .

[1] A Bridge to France, Ch XIV P93

I do not of course suppose that Wilson was right, but if he believed that an American defeat was at least conceivable, then Bryan may well have believed the same.
 
prester.john208

prester.john208

Mikestone8 said:
Well, President Wilson apparently did not share your confidence - at least not if Edward N Hurley can be believed. [1]

If Edward N Hurley, Chief of the Shipping Board , can be believed, President Wilson certainly thought defeat a real possibility. "Hurley", he said, "with the success of the Germans in driving a wedge between the well-seasoned troops of the British and the French in the Cambrai sector, if by any chance they were to repeat their onslaught with a like result on our front and capture a hundred thousand or more of our soldiers, I dread to contemplate the feeling which would arise in the minds of the American people. Unless we send over every man possible to support the Allies in their present desperate condition, a situation may develop which would require us to pay for the entire cost of the war to the Central Powers." Wilson, normally more given to over-confidence than to defeatism, clearly saw nothing impossible about a German victory, in which the AEF, or a considerable part of it, would be swept up and captured in the general rout. .

[1] A Bridge to France, Ch XIV P93

I do not of course suppose that Wilson was right, but if he believed that an American defeat was at least conceivable, then Bryan may well have believed the same.
Click to expand...
Routs like that were rare in WW 1, the Germans were foot bound and suffered from hunger. They also never beat an American division, let alone a US Corps or Army.
 

Mikestone8

prester.john208 said:
Routs like that were rare in WW 1, the Germans were foot bound and suffered from hunger. They also never beat an American division, let alone a US Corps or Army.
Click to expand...
Please note the final sentence of my message.

I never said that I *agreed* with Wilson's concern. Its significance lies not in its correctness or otherwise, but in the fact that a man in his position could *believe* it, and that if he did, then so probably did others.
 
prester.john208

prester.john208

Mikestone8 said:
Please note the final sentence of my message.

I never said that I *agreed* with Wilson's concern. Its significance lies not in its correctness or otherwise, but in the fact that a man in his position could *believe* it, and that if he did, then so probably did others.
Click to expand...
That perhaps explains why he backed Pershing, who would never allow US forces to get in that position.
 

Hugh Third of Five

Bryan was very dovish. Assuming the war still broke out, I think he'd want a base in the Philippines but wouldn't turn the country into a US colony/territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top