The Pinchot-Ballinger Controversy

History tends to follow a series of predictable events. Generally, a period of war is followed by a period of peace and isolation. Similarly, a period of social unrest and economic downturn is followed by reform and prosperity. It's clear that the Roaring 1920s, with the growth of big business under Republican presidents and overuse of credit, led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. It's clear that World War II was, among other reasons, the result of the Treaty of Versailles which drained the German economy and solely blamed it as the belligerent of World War I. Thus, following the development of industry during the Reconstruction and corruption of the Gilded Age, it proceeds that the area of reform would lie with the Progressives of the early 1900s.

From 1901-1909, President Teddy Roosevelt, a truly pro-American demagogue who sided with neither business nor union, lead the Progressive movement with his confidence and impulsiveness. During his presidency, the Progressives completed reformist goals of a graduated income tax in the Sixteenth Amendment, Prohibition in the Eighteenth Amendment, women's suffrage in the Nineteenth Amendment, and the busting of several "bad" trusts using the Sherman Antitrust Act. Teddy Roosevelt also promoted an aggressive foreign policy, named his "Big Stick" policy. After him came William Taft for a term who followed his "Dollar Diplomacy" ideology. Then came the Election of 1912.

Teddy Roosevelt, the excitable and passionate former president, had just returned from Africa after a hunting escapade and wanted to run for a third term. William Taft, who was morbidly overweight, was hoping he could win the reelection from a moderately successful first term. Then, a reserved and intelligent man, named Woodrow Wilson, was nominated by the Democratic Party. Relative to the boisterous Teddy, how did Woodrow Wilson ever defeat him in the Election of 1912?

In March 1909, Taft appointed Richard Ballinger as Secretary of Interior. Ballinger soon became a disappointment to Progressives and conservationists alike because he opened public lands in Alaska for development, returning 3 million acres of land to private use. When Gifford Pinchot, Chief of the Forest Service, publicly criticized Ballinger for his mistreatment of natural resources, Taft immediately fired Pinchot from his office for insubordination. As it happened, Gifford Pinchot was actually a good friend of Teddy Roosevelt. When an upset Teddy received the news Taft's action, he left the Republican Party and created the Progressive Party to run against Taft in the Election of 1912. Taft, on the other hand, stayed with the Republican Party. During the election, votes that would have usually gone to the Republican Party were now split between the Republican nominee and the Progressive nominee. The rest of the American public voted for Woodrow Wilson of the Democratic Party.

When the election results returned, it is clear why Woodrow Wilson won. While Woodrow Wilson received 41.8% of the popular vote, Teddy received 27.4%, and Taft 23.2%. Clearly, had the Republican party divided, the Republicans would have had the majority of 50.6% over Wilson. In addition, the 435 electoral votes that had gave Wilson his victory would have been greatly reversed had the Republicans had a united popular vote. With more popular votes in each state, the Republicans would have won far more states and gained a greater electoral count. However, their split led to the election of President Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

What's so significant about Wilson becoming president? Maybe the United States wouldn't have joined World War I. Without World War I, maybe no Roaring 20s. Without the Roaring 20s, no Great Depression. No Great Depression means no FDR and the entrance of the United States into World War II. The list goes on. And to think, all of this could have changed had it not been for two men: Pinchot and Ballinger.

Sources:
"The Pinchot-Ballinger Controversy." Wikipedia.
Gary B. Nash and Julie Roy Jefferey, The American People: Creating a Nation and Society. New York, Pearson Education: 2006.