Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House
- Thread starter BiteNibbleChomp
- Start date
- Status
Why would Harry F. Byrd, a lifelong democrat, support Taft? A mere cabinet slot is hardly a reason to throw away a lifetime of party loyalty.
Taft was known for his conservatism. He also had a base of support in the south that was unusual for a Republican at the time. In fact, Eisenhower got the nomination over him in 1952 because he got the party to throw out some of Taft's southern delegates. Its not at all unlikely for Taft to get support from a couple or so of the conservative southern democrats if they were to be unhappy with the options from their own party.
Last edited:
Everything I have read has suggested that Taft and Byrd were at least fairly good friends, and Byrd has been brought up in just about every thread I've found on the site about a Taft presidency (and a smaller number of MacArthur threads)
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/could-taft-beat-truman-in-1948.441149/ ... post #8
MacArthur is POTUS in 1953
POD is Robert Taft getting the 1952 nomination and picking MacArthur as his running mate like he promised to do. Then, when Taft kicks the bucket in '53, the general steps up. What would his administration be like? What are the consequences for the Cold War and the Korean War?
www.alternatehistory.com
President Robert A. Taft: 1952
What if… In May of 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower suffers a heart attack and dies. Now, with the Republican Convention only two months away, two candidates emerge from the pack: The first is “Mr. Republican,” Robert A. Taft. Taft has dominated the Republican Party for nearly ten years...
www.alternatehistory.com
The last thread in particular mentions that Taft wanted Byrd for the Treasury spot, while I haven't got a biography of Taft to verify it (and honestly I've probably bought enough books for TTL as it is!), I'm 99% sure I've seen it repeated elsewhere too. All that stuff put together is enough for be to be happy with him being Taft's ally in this election.
As for party loyalty, if Byrd was a "loyal Democrat", he really didn't do a good job showing it. Wikipedia puts him as an opponent of the New Deal, favouring reduced spending, as well as reducing to endorse Truman in '48, Stevenson in '52, and, for a time, blocking LBJ's tax cuts in '64. Seems reasonable to me that he'd ignore the (D) next to his name in order to help a friend on the other side.
- BNC
Byrd wouldn’t want a Cabinet post, he’s a lifer who’ll leverage the idea/offer into more Senate power. Aside from that his Taft supporting position is entirely logical from the classic Midwest Republican/South Democratic conservative coalition that prevented even meagre Civil Rights from oh 1875-1957. Really though he’d say nothing about the Dem (unless they were strongly for civil rights), talk up Taft constantly with the refrain “but I’m a loyal Democrat of course” which just makes him effective.
I’m more interested in LBJ as the potentially dominant figure in the Democratic Senate (MacArthur instead of Eisenhower is a heck of a wrench in his plans) followed by wild if polite racist Richard Russell. It’s a real tough pair and Nixon is about the only person on the Republican side capable of mounting a fight against LBJ in the era. If he isn’t VP than he’s the Republican counterweight to engage LBJ. It would be fascinating to see him as Senate Republican Whip destroy the filibuster on Rule 22 and defeat LBJ over bigger civil rights as he came close to doing as VP IOTL. Might even break the Democratic Party, although perhaps a touch outside the scope of this Turtledove award winning timeline
.
I’m more interested in LBJ as the potentially dominant figure in the Democratic Senate (MacArthur instead of Eisenhower is a heck of a wrench in his plans) followed by wild if polite racist Richard Russell. It’s a real tough pair and Nixon is about the only person on the Republican side capable of mounting a fight against LBJ in the era. If he isn’t VP than he’s the Republican counterweight to engage LBJ. It would be fascinating to see him as Senate Republican Whip destroy the filibuster on Rule 22 and defeat LBJ over bigger civil rights as he came close to doing as VP IOTL. Might even break the Democratic Party, although perhaps a touch outside the scope of this Turtledove award winning timeline
.
Last edited:
Fair enough, though your great points do screw up my plans for him a little down the track, and an edit might be in order for ch28. Have to think on that one.
The focus in going to be mostly on MacArthur, but now you've gotten me interested in the Senate shenanigans as well (Mac had a view that Congress should mostly do its own thing with the President staying out of the way, but he also had an ego that liked to get in the way of things...). Doesn't hurt that Russell is the guy that made Mac look like a fool in those 1951 hearings OTL - perfect character for a TL.
I would be interested to read some more on LBJ's Senate career, do you know of any good sites about this?
Not sure the butterflies of TTL will be that bigMight even break the Democratic Party, although perhaps a touch outside the scope of this Turtledove award winning timeline
- BNC
bguy
Donor
IIRC it was mentioned in the James Patterson biography of Taft, "Mr. Republican" that Taft wanted Byrd as his Secretary of Treasury. (Though like Electric Monk said I'm skeptical Byrd would actually accept the position as its arguably a demotion for him given his power in Virginia and the senate.)
It's an interesting idea but is Nixon really likely to get a position in the Senate Republican leadership? William Knowland has been in the Senate longer, is less controversial than Nixon, and at least IOTL had enough clout to be made Senate Majority Leader once Taft died, and if Knowland gets a leadership position then I can't really see the Republicans giving a second leadership position to a Californian.I’m more interested in LBJ as the potentially dominant figure in the Democratic Senate (MacArthur instead of Eisenhower is a heck of a wrench in his plans) followed by wild if polite racist Richard Russell. It’s a real tough pair and Nixon is about the only person on the Republican side capable of mounting a fight against LBJ in the era. If he isn’t VP than he’s the Republican counterweight to engage LBJ. It would be fascinating to see him as Senate Republican Whip destroy the filibuster on Rule 22 and defeat LBJ over bigger civil rights as he came close to doing as VP IOTL. Might even break the Democratic Party, although perhaps a touch outside the scope of this Turtledove award winning timeline
Another interesting option for Nixon could be for MacArthur to make him Attorney General.
Nixon seems like the more like Secretary of State material to me, he hated being a lawyer.
bguy
Donor
I'm sure Nixon would prefer being Secretary of State but as of 1952 he really doesn't have the foreign policy experience necessary for such a position. (And especially when compared against John Foster Dulles, the likely Secretary of State for any non-isolationist Republican president elected in 1952.)
Conversely, Nixon's time on HUAC and his fame from the Alger Hiss case give him the credentials necessary to be a plausible AG. (Especially to a President MacArthur who is going to want a strong anti-communist as his Attorney General.) And it's not like the AG has to do any actual lawyering (that's the Solicitor General's job). But the AG position would give Nixon a major role in a lot of the biggest issues of the 1950s (e.g. communist subversion, civil rights, organized crime, union corruption) and that would certainly appeal to someone as ambitious as Nixon. And it's not like Nixon had no interest in law enforcement. (He had applied to be a FBI agent once after all.)
Another thing is that its not like an AG Nixon wouldn't have influence on other matters if he were to work his way into MacArthur's inner circle. He would be well aware of that fact too.
Websites I dunno, I’ve been reading Caro’s bio of him. The relevant book for this timeline and you is the third volume (Master of the Senate), Chapter 16 for MacArthur and Part IV for LBJ under Eisenhower and his and Nixon’s fight over civil rights (as Knowland got rolled by LBJ, Nixon came in.)Fair enough, though your great points do screw up my plans for him a little down the track, and an edit might be in order for ch28. Have to think on that one.
The focus in going to be mostly on MacArthur, but now you've gotten me interested in the Senate shenanigans as well (Mac had a view that Congress should mostly do its own thing with the President staying out of the way, but he also had an ego that liked to get in the way of things...). Doesn't hurt that Russell is the guy that made Mac look like a fool in those 1951 hearings OTL - perfect character for a TL.
I would be interested to read some more on LBJ's Senate career, do you know of any good sites about this?
Not sure the butterflies of TTL will be that big
- BNC
If MacArthur is popular than much like OTL LBJ will lead the Dems to back him as the isolationist Republicans don’t back him.
No one really cared about the Senate leadership back then except as a bad job to have lol. You’re totally right Nixon wouldn’t have the official title, but if he’s in the Senate he’ll be deputized a lot. Especially because in the era it’s a dead even Senate
LBJ being able to (correctly) count votes and deploy staffers on Bill creation and detail work was a revolutionary sea change in the sleepy Senate. Like the existing Senators didn’t even hire the staff they were allowed to!
I quite like Nixon as AG / unofficial liaison to the Senate so MacArthur never has to think about it kinda role. You’re right he’d be a top contender for the AG slot.
Last edited:
bguy
Donor
That actually raises an interesting point in that LBJ might not end up as the Democratic Senate Leader either.
IOTL the Democratic Senate Leader Ernest McFarland lost reelection in 1952 after he made a gaffe late in the campaign when, in trying to defend the Truman's administration conduct of the Korean War, he described it as a "cheap war" and credited the war for American prosperity. There's no reason for McFarland to make such a gaffe ITTL since by 1952 the war is already over and thus he won't be having to try and justify a stalemated conflict to his voters, and given how close his election was otherwise (even with his gaffe McFarland only lost by about 7,000 votes), a timeline where he doesn't make his "cheap war" statement likely sees him defeat his opponent, Barry Goldwater, and carry on as the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. (Though of course even if he's not officially the leader, LBJ would still be very powerful as the Democratic Senate Whip.)
- Status