The family history behind a Roosevelt betrayal, Woodrow Wilson shuns Wall Street while Roosevelt Jr. finds a job there, and what makes Washington D.C. laugh. (Click here for an introduction to The 1912 Project; click here for previous installments.)
Battle for California With all the attention on Theodore Roosevelt's big speech in Columbus tomorrow, where he's expected to sound like a presidential candidate without actually declaring himself one, there's not much actual news on the campaign trail today aside from his travel plans. As The Pittsburg Press dutifully reports, "Col. Roosevelt will be here at 6 o'clock tonight in a private car attached to the regular Pennsylvania train. He will reach Columbus at 10 o'clock tomorrow and will while there be the guest of Rev. Dr. Washington Gladding. He expects to start back for New York at 3 o'clock over the New York Central." But there is a bit of action out on the Pacific Coast. It's no secret that California Gov. Hiram Johnson, who had backed La Follette, is a Roosevelt supporter. He has been in New York for weeks and was a member of the lunch party at The Outlook's offices last week, so his statement in today's New York Times pledging California progressives to the ex-President does not come as a surprise. But it's clear in its political calculus behind the Roosevelt boom: Democratic victory against Taft or a Republican win with Roosevelt? "Shall the people rule, and shall Roosevelt, their choice, be nominated," reads Johnson's statement, " or shall Republicans court certain defeat by the nomination of one whose trusteeship has wrecked the party?"
Impressive stuff. But it may be timed to take a bit of the sting from yesterday's announcement that Col. Charles Mifflin Hammond, who The New York Times describes as "a brother-in-law of Col. Roosevelt," had predicted that California would go for Taft. The Times adds, "Representative Nicholas Longworth, Col. Roosevelt's son-in-law, on his return from a trip to Oyster Bay, has taken the same course." You might expect such close relatives to be on Roosevelt's side in the race, but The Times doesn't go into details for the intra-family political split. Hammond's statement only praises Taft, except for this slight dig: "California can be and will be carried for him. Statements to the contrary are misleading and designed for the effect they may have elsewhere."