A Bucket of Warm Piss: A World without FDR(Take two)

Alright, this is the same timeline as before, except modified for betterness.

A Bucket of warm piss:
A world without FDR
The nation was in the throws of depression and the people were looking for hope. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the man they put their hope in. He easily achieved victory over the highly unpopular progressive republican incumbent, Herbert Hoover. He has big plans and the desire for power to full fill his big promises.

February 15th, 1933 will be a day that will live in infamy. The President-Elect Franklin D. Roosevelt was in Miami, Florida. Roosevelt delivers a short speech at Bay Front Park in front of 25,000 people. The crowd cheers the President to be, but soon those cheers will turn to shrieks of terror. From the shadows of the crowd, an angered Italian immigrant by the name of Giuseppe Zangara pulled out a pistol and fired 5 shots at Roosevelt. The first two shots miss. The third shot hit Roosevelt in head, and the 4th and 5th hit him in the chest. The assassin was tackled as the President-Elect fell to the ground.

The crowd goes into a panic, while the assassin is trampled to death. Police are called in to quell the riot. Roosevelt is rushed to a nearby hospital, but to no avail. He is pronounced dead less then an hour after he is shot. News papers and radio stations broadcast this across the country “Roosevelt is Dead”. Speaker of the House and Vice President-Elect John Nance Garner is made aware of the situation an hour after Roosevelt is pronounced dead. President Hoover is alerted of the situation. He is reported to have said “I weep for my country, and I weep for democracy”.

The Proper arrangements are made. On February 20th there is a funeral in Albany, New York for the slain Roosevelt. On March 4th however, the nation inaugurated a new man into the position of commander and chief. Roosevelt’s southern running mate, John Nance Garner, was sworn in as the 32nd President of the United States. He was not the man that the his Party had chosen, but he was the man they had now.

In his inaugural address, he laid out his plan for the nations economic recovery: repeal of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Abolishment of the 18th Amendment, and building and investment projects in rural areas. His most famous quote from this address was “With God and Government on our side, we shall prosper”.
 
A great and fitting title, and I'm glad that you used the non-family friendly version. Looking forward to the rest.
 
Constitutional Changes
Twenty-First Amendment: Back in 1919, the 18th Amendment, banning the sale and manufacturing of alcohol in the United States, led to a surge in crime and smuggling in the 1920’s. Gangsters like Al Capone gained enormous fame and power in cities like Chicago and New York. One of FDR’s campaign promises was to abolish the 18th Amendment. Congress proposed the 21st Amendment on February 25th, 1933, and was adopted by December 10th, officially ending Prohibition.

Twenty-Second Amendment: In the early days of his presidency, President Garner had much political capital, especially after the death of President Elect Roosevelt, giving Garner and his administration much sympathy. Garner, being a fiscal conservative, wanted to balance the Federal Budget and pay down the national debt. To do this he spoke to both houses of Congress and requested a constitutional Amendment to legalize a Federal Sales Tax. This idea was unpopular with Republicans, but the progressive democrats, and the other fiscally conservative democrats liked the idea. On March 20th Congress formally proposed the amendment. Just as they did with the 21st Amendment, they called for a convention to ratify the Amendment. The convention was held in the summer of 1933. It was close, but the Amendment Passed. It would officially be ratified on February 4th, 1934, becoming the 22nd Amendment.
 
Garner’s Cabinet, 1933
Secretary of State: Cordell Hull
Secretary of War: George H. Dern
Secretary of the Treasury: William H. Woodin
Secretary of Justice: Homer S. Cummings
Post Master General: James A. Farley
Secretary of the Navy: Theodore Roosevelt Jr.
Secretary of the Interior: Harold L. Ickes
Secretary of Agriculture: Henry A. Wallace
Secretary of Commerce: Daniel C. Roper
Secretary of Labor: Frances C. Perkins
 
Last edited:
The New Deal, 1933
FDR had had many ideas for a series of new programs he called the “New Deal”. Garner, not being as liberal as FDR, had his own ideas. Using some of his political capital, along with the negotiating and arm twisting skills he developed while in congress, he would propose and pass several of his ideas.

Education: The first item he tackled was education. He proposed to congress the creation of the Federal Education Administration(FEA). The main purpose of FEA would be to distribute money to the states for their school systems. It would also provide free lunches to school children(at least to those at white schools). FEA would also conduct national standardized tests to asses the intelligence level of American children and compare that to children in other countries. This would also create the position of Secretary of Education. This would easily be passed by both houses, and President Garner would sign it into law on March 29th, 1933.

Roads: Another issue that President Garner would touch on would be road construction. He would propose a “Federal Interstate Road Act”, that would allot money for the creation of an interstate road system that would be maintained by the Federal government. This bill would also be passed. Construction on the roads would start in early summer of 1933, when weather conditions were best.

Work Relief: The progressives in congress aching to get their own legislation in the New Deal. They proposed a work relief program called the “Civilian Conservation Corp”. This would provide young men, 18-25, unskilled manual labor jobs related to conservation and the development of natural resources. A program like this would get more attention in the south, which would strengthen the democratic party’s already iron tight grip on the south. President Garner agreed to anything that would give him more political capital, so he consented and signed this into law as well.
 
-----------------------------
comments?
Questions?

Does anybody have nominations for the Secretary of Education?
 
Banking and Financial Reforms
President Garner declared a Bank Holiday in the fall of 1933, closing all banks for a certain amount of time. Legislation was drafted by Congress. The Emergency Banking Act would quickly be passed by Congress. It provided for the Treasury Department to initiate reserve requirements, and a federal bailout to failing institutions, which Garner wasn’t too fond of, but was willing to put up with. However, the legislation would also take America off the gold standard. This did not suit well with Garner, and when the bill came across his desk, he vetoed it with a note saying that he would not sign a bill that would take America off the gold standard. A week after his veto the bill returned to his desk, this time without the removal of the gold standard. With this he signed the bill on September 12th. The Banks had been closed on September 1st, and a third of the banks reopened on the 20th. The last banks that were proven solvent reopened in November. The Act also required a yearly bank holiday to be taken and federal inspection to occur.

Break with the Left
President Garner was never thrilled with the left wing of the Democratic Party that Roosevelt had so enamored. He, being of the bourbon tradition, disliked the progressives led by people like Henry Wallace, and much of the rest of his cabinet. Over the late months of 1933 and the early months of 1934 Garner would have a falling out with many of his cabinet members.
One of these acts that would begin to separate him from the left of the party was the Economy Act of 1933. This legislation was done in order to close a billion dollar deficit. The bill would cut salaries of government employees and cut pensions to veterans by as much as 15%. Being an economic conservative, and a deficit hawk himself, he who heartedly signed the bill.

The Second act that would break Garner from the left of his party was the Agricultural Adjustment Act, developed by Henry Wallace. The bill was designed to protect farmers from uncertainties through subsidies and production controls. It laid a framework for long-term government control in planning of the Agricultural sector. To Garner this sounded too much like the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union(which the United States had not yet recognized). Fellow conservative politicians said that this would be the beginning of an American 5 year plan. When the act reached Garner, he vetoed it. There was an attempt to override the veto, but it failed.

At the same time as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Federal Emergency Relief Act, and the Tennessee Valley Authority Act. Both were work relief bills that would establish public works projects. Not being a big fan of public works projects, he vetoed these bills as well, making a greater break from the left. By Spring of 1934, Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace, Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, Secretary of the Treasury, William H. Wooding, and Secretary of Commerce Daniel C. Roper would all resign their positions.

He would also veto the National Recovery Act, which to him was just more unneeded government control on the economy. With all of these bills he vetoed there were override attempts, which all failed. Garner was becoming more popular with Republicans then he was with the left wing democrats.
 
 
Last edited:
Garner won't have a VP until he wins a second term short of a much earlier analogue to the 25th amendment.
 

bguy

Donor
Education: The first item he tackled was education. He proposed to congress the creation of the Federal Education Administration(FEA). The main purpose of FEA would be to distribute money to the states for their school systems. It would also provide free lunches to school children(at least to those at white schools). FEA would also conduct national standardized tests to asses the intelligence level of American children and compare that to children in other countries. This would also create the position of Secretary of Education. This would easily be passed by both houses, and President Garner would sign it into law on March 29th, 1933.

Could Garner realistically get something like this passed? Any federal aid to education bill in this period is going to have to resolve the questions of whether federal money can go to segregated schools and whether it can go to parochial schools. Either of those issues could easily torpedo the bill and potentially split the Democrats wide open.

As for a possible Veep for Garner in '36 what about James Farley? An experienced politician who would provide regional balance to the ticket and help Garner with Catholic voters.
 
Absolutely not: I'm pretty sure a Dixiecrat of Garner's generation was quite anti-"papist" and school lunches are definitely off the table. You're making Garner much more liberal than he really was. Garner was the last of the Bourbons in active politics and this sort of statist interventionism is precisely the antithesis of the Bourbon mantra. An Education Department in the 1930s is ASB. In the 1960s the controversy over parochial schoools pitted JFK against his own Church's bishops, with the irony of ironies of the anti-Catholic organizations from '60 asking their members to side with him. It was that period's version of abortion: an emotional, viciously divisive issue on both sides of the aisle that no one wanted to touch with a 100-foot pole.
 
Garner’s Cabinet, 1933
Secretary of State: Cordell Hull
Secretary of War: George H. Dern
Secretary of the Treasury: William H. Woodin
Secretary of Justice: Homer S. Cummings
Post Master General: James A. Farley
Secretary of the Navy: Theodore Roosevelt Jr.
Secretary of the Interior: Harold L. Ickes
Secretary of Agriculture: Henry A. Wallace
Secretary of Commerce: Daniel C. Roper
Secretary of Labor: Frances C. Perkins

Teddy Jr. might be better as Army secretary. Considering his WWI service and Medal of Honor. Although I enjoy the historical synergy of 3 Roosevelts as Navy Secretary in 40 years
 
Could Garner realistically get something like this passed? Any federal aid to education bill in this period is going to have to resolve the questions of whether federal money can go to segregated schools and whether it can go to parochial schools. Either of those issues could easily torpedo the bill and potentially split the Democrats wide open.

As for a possible Veep for Garner in '36 what about James Farley? An experienced politician who would provide regional balance to the ticket and help Garner with Catholic voters.

The money going to schools is funneled through the states, and then to the schools. The states funnel the money the way they want, using loopholes and other tricks to funnel the money to the "Right" school, which usually means to white schools.

Absolutely not: I'm pretty sure a Dixiecrat of Garner's generation was quite anti-"papist" and school lunches are definitely off the table. You're making Garner much more liberal than he really was. Garner was the last of the Bourbons in active politics and this sort of statist interventionism is precisely the antithesis of the Bourbon mantra. An Education Department in the 1930s is ASB. In the 1960s the controversy over parochial schoools pitted JFK against his own Church's bishops, with the irony of ironies of the anti-Catholic organizations from '60 asking their members to side with him. It was that period's version of abortion: an emotional, viciously divisive issue on both sides of the aisle that no one wanted to touch with a 100-foot pole.
The FEA doesn't provide money to private schools.

Teddy Jr. might be better as Army secretary. Considering his WWI service and Medal of Honor. Although I enjoy the historical synergy of 3 Roosevelts as Navy Secretary in 40 years

I made him secretary of the navy for 3 reasons, 1). It was the same position he had under Hoover and Coolidge, 2). I too love the synergy, 3). I want him to follow the same path as his father(spoiler).
 
You didn't read the rest of my critique: that this is out of line with Garner's philosophy and he would never have proposed such a thing, which was not on the radar of any Democrat until the 1960s at the earliest.
 

bguy

Donor
The money going to schools is funneled through the states, and then to the schools. The states funnel the money the way they want, using loopholes and other tricks to funnel the money to the "Right" school, which usually means to white schools.)

Except the liberals in Congress aren't stupid. They know that is what is going to happen in the South if the money is administered through the states. They will insist the Federal government insures the money is distributed in an equitable manner, which southern Democrats will never support.

So what happens is either Garner accomodates the south (the much more likely option) in which case the liberals of both parties join with the conservative Republicans (who will oppose any federal spending on education on general principles) in killing the bill, or if by some flash of conscience Garner decides to accomodate the liberals than the southern Democrats join with the Republicans in killing the bill. Either way it dies, and Garner has just split his party wide open. There is a reason that FDR, Truman, and Kennedy could not get federal aid to education passed. It is political poison at this time.


The FEA doesn't provide money to private schools.)

Which is another huge problem, because Catholic voters are going to insist the money be made equally available to parochial schools. Garner is already going to have a tough time winning renomination in 1936. Liberals and labor both hate him, so his only chance is an alliance of the South with the northern political machines. Those machines are heavily Catholic. They will not support Garner if he spits in their eye on this issue. And the south will turn on him if he does make money available to parochial schools. There is just no way for Garner to win if he pushes federal aid to education, and he would be smart enough to know that.
 
Garner risks causing a political realignment (the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party might see a need in reviving the Progressive Party, and eventually attract the Liberal/Progressive/Moderate Republicans, if the Republican Party gets controlled by its conservative wing).
He also risks prolonging the Depression if he doesn't enact enough measures to put back the economy in good shape.
 
Garner risks causing a political realignment (the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party might see a need in reviving the Progressive Party, and eventually attract the Liberal/Progressive/Moderate Republicans, if the Republican Party gets controlled by its conservative wing).
He also risks prolonging the Depression if he doesn't enact enough measures to put back the economy in good shape.

The Democratic Party has always been something of a house divided. If the party could contain segragationists and integrationists, "Wets" and "Drys" and Socialists and Syndicalists during the 1930's, then I think it can hold together in this scenario. What's more, the "Progressive" wing of the Republican party had been dying a slow death since the 1910's. Most of the true believers left with Robert La Follete in 1924. A left wing exodus from the Democratic party would be a one way ticket to the political wilderness, which they would enter without the the company of many Republicans.

By the way, I great TL IchBinDieKaiser. I think Roguebeaver has a point with his critique of the Education bill here, but I can suggest a kind of "middle path." Southern Democrats were in favor of spending federal money for internal improvements in their districts ("pork" in today's political jargon). Federal money for building public schools probably would not be objectionable to most of them, especially if the funding took the form of a block grant.
 
Garner risks causing a political realignment (the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party might see a need in reviving the Progressive Party, and eventually attract the Liberal/Progressive/Moderate Republicans, if the Republican Party gets controlled by its conservative wing).

Perhaps that is my intention.
 
Top