A different way to make Oscar W. Underwood president

Discussions of Oscar W. Underwood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Underwood becoming president of the United States usually are based on his winning the Democratic presidential nomination in either 1912 or 1924. I don't see either of these as likely. In 1912, like Harmon of Ohio, he was considered a bit too conservative for a convention held at the height of the Progressive Era--though neither man was really a conservative. As for 1924, his nomination was unlikely given the hostility of not only the Klan (which hated him almost as much as they hated Al Smith) but also of some "drys" and progressives who had nothing to do with the Klan. Moreover, even if he had been nominated in 1924, his chances of winning the presidency that year would be negligible in the face of "Coolidge prosperity" and a divided Democratic Party and the likelihood that the La Follette Progressives will hurt Underwood much more than they will Coolidge (just as in OTL "La Follette, the analysts agreed, took more votes from Davis than from Coolidge." https://books.google.com/books?id=rNFpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA297)

*But* how about Underwood for *Vice*-President in 1912? Both the Wilson and Clark camps wanted his support, and there seem to have been overtures from both camps suggesting he take the vice-presidential nomination, but he turned all such overtures down, making clear that if he couldn't get the presidency, he preferred to stay in the House "as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and leader of his party on the floor."
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F2071EF8355813738DDDA90B94DE405B828DF1D3

Suppose Underwood had thought otherwise, and had agreed to be nominated as Vice-President on the Wilson ticket. (There might be some grumbling, but nothing like 1924--the bitterness generated in 1924 by the Prohibition and Klan issues was not there in 1912.) Having Underwood on the ticket would probably not much affect the ticket's fortunes in 1912 or even in the close election of 1916. (True, not having Thomas Marshall on the ticket might hurt the Democrats in Indiana, but Hughes carried that state anyway.) There is no particular reason to think that having Underwood as Vice-President would make Wilson's 1919 stroke fatal, but it came sufficiently close to being fatal that almost any "butterfly" could conceivably make it so. In any event, even if this particular way of making Underwood President is not very likely, it is still the likeliest method I know...

So if Underwood does become President, how does he handle the League/Versailles Treaty fight? In OTL, he was a Wilson loyalist on the Treaty, but eventually, when it was clear it did not have the votes, supported the idea of making peace with Germany and leaving the League issue until later:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30B16FB395F1B728DDDAD0994DA415B898DF1D3

It seems to me that as an Alabaman vitally concerned with the cotton trade with Europe--which to him required getting *some* peace arrangement ratified as soon as possible--Underwood as President would probably have shown more flexibility than Wilson.
 
Istr something about Wilson having narrow escape from a train crash during the 1912 campaign. Agreed, there's no obvious reason why a change of VP should affect this, but like the stroke it's an "any butterfly might do it" situation.

If Wilson is killed then (unless the DNC goes for someone else) Underwood is elected in November.
 
BTW, does anyone know what Senator Underwood's views were about the proposed "Single-six-year-term" Amendment that passed the Senate in Feb 1913? He doesn't seem to have voted on it, but I don't know whether he abstained or was simply absent.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
BTW, does anyone know what Senator Underwood's views were about the proposed "Single-six-year-term" Amendment that passed the Senate in Feb 1913? He doesn't seem to have voted on it, but I don't know whether he abstained or was simply absent.

At the time, Underwood was still Representative Underwood, Chairman of House Ways and Means, and had not yet gone to the Senate (he was elected in 1914). So he didn't get to vote on it, as thanks to Palmer and Wilson it never reached the House floor.
 
At the time, Underwood was still Representative Underwood, Chairman of House Ways and Means, and had not yet gone to the Senate (he was elected in 1914). So he didn't get to vote on it, as thanks to Palmer and Wilson it never reached the House floor.

Whoops! My goof.

Still, given that every Southern Senator who voted save one (a Tennessee Republican appointed to a vacancy by one of TN's rare GOP Governors) did so in the affirmative, I would guess that he would probably have supported it.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Whoops! My goof.

Still, given that every Southern Senator who voted save one (a Tennessee Republican appointed to a vacancy by one of TN's rare GOP Governors) did so in the affirmative, I would guess that he would probably have supported it.

I would suspect so as well -- there seems to have been general support for the concept up until Wilson quietly had it scotched, and a few years later there was no longer the threat of a third TR term so the momentum was lost.
 
I would suspect so as well -- there seems to have been general support for the concept up until Wilson quietly had it scotched, and a few years later there was no longer the threat of a third TR term so the momentum was lost.

And in the 1914 midterms, the Republicans made heavy gains, which were mostly won by the Regulars rather than by TR's Progressives - s fact which TR bemoaned in his letters. This gave the Republicans hope that they stood a good chance of unseating Wilson in 1916 (as indeed they almost did) and made them a lot less willing to extend his term two extra years.
 
Top