How America nearly forged a different path in 1916

Now in 1916, Republicans were eager to deny Wilson a second term. To do so, it was imperative to find a candidate who was acceptable to both the traditional and progressive wings of the party, someone who had not been embroiled in the 1912 GOP civil war. And no one fit that need better than Charles Evans Hughes.

...

He’d demonstrated his political independence by defying Republican leaders on everything from patronage appointments to consumer protection laws and had won a second two-year gubernatorial term in 1908.

...

In late August, Johnson[, Republican Governor of California,] was staying at the Virginia Hotel in Long Beach, California. Hughes happened to be at the same hotel, but had no idea that Johnson was there as well and so made no effort to meet up for even a brief chat. Johnson, however, knew of Hughes’ presence and assumed the radio silence was meant as a snub — to him and the party’s progressives.

...

As far as Johnson was concerned, Hughes had thrown in his lot with the conservatives; there would be no rapprochement. And that meant Johnson and his California progressives would not lift a finger to help Hughes carry the state in November.

...

On Election Day, Hughes took a substantial lead in the early counting — leading in the electoral vote while trailing in the popular vote. The New York Times declared him elected. But the Times had gone to press before California’s vote was tallied; with nearly a million votes cast, Wilson won with a margin of just 3,773 votes — and California’s 13 electoral votes gave Wilson a second term.

...

In the days during and after World War I, Wilson also presided over some of the most flagrant assaults on civil liberties in U.S. history.

...

Charles Evans Hughes, by contrast, may have been the most progressive major politician on racial matters of either party, and he was a longtime defender of civil liberties.

I'm curious what people here think of Wilson's legacy, on balance. I'm increasingly convinced the country and the world simply would've been better off had he lost in 1912 or 1916. A Republican would've set us on a radically better trajectory for civil rights, while taking a more realist posture on WW1 (entering the war early, while not trying to financially ruin Germany). We also would've seen less expansion of the power of the executive and less centralization of government, which I think would've allowed for continued collaboration between conservatives and progressives instead of the union we saw between libertarians and segregationists that led to the Southern Strategy and eventually Fusionism. Though, Wilson's legacy is very complicated and I can see arguments in his favor.