Al Smith: First Catholic President

bard32

Banned
What if the results of the 1928 election had been different, and Al Smith, not
Herbert Hoover, had been elected POTUS? Despite opposition from the KKK.
This would have made him, and not JFK, our first Catholic President. President-
elect Smith is sworn in on March 4, 1929, in a fairly good economy. Then, in
October, Wall Street, in the immortal words of Daily Variety, "laid an egg."
I'm talking about the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and the Great Depression.
How would the Great Depression have affected the Smith Administration, and
would have led to the election of Herbert Hoover in 1932?
 
What policies might Al Smith follow in the event of the Crash?

I've heard contradictory things about Hoover.

1. He did nothing, the more common view.
2. He tried to stop wages and prices from falling and instead made things worse.

The Democrats in those days, IIRC, were free-traders. I don't think Smith would sign the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, for example.
 

bard32

Banned
What policies might Al Smith follow in the event of the Crash?

I've heard contradictory things about Hoover.

1. He did nothing, the more common view.
2. He tried to stop wages and prices from falling and instead made things worse.

The Democrats in those days, IIRC, were free-traders. I don't think Smith would sign the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, for example.

Probably #2. Neither do I. There could be a third, unspecified, choice.
 

HueyLong

Banned
He opposed FDR's programs, so I imagine he would take as much of the blame as Hoover did IOTL..... which invariably leads to a Republican in 1932.
 
Good point- it's unlikely they would have done the same thing. (NOTE: If View 1 were true, the claim they would have the same effect would be reasonable. I support View 2, which is why I said what I did)
 
If President Al Smith vetoed Smoot-Hawley, I think a smaller drop in the stock exchange would butterfly away OTL Crash of 1929. There might be an economic reason instead of a Great Depression. Nevertheless, Republicans still win back the White House.

Since Smith was a wet, Prohibition might come to an end by a constitutional amendment.
 

HueyLong

Banned
FDR was his vice presidential running mate in 1928.

First off, he was not. :rolleyes: Secondly, he couldn't and wouldn't be. Two New York politicians? I think not. Smith's Catholicism was bad enough in the South.

Al Smith IOTL went on to join the American Liberty League- of Business Plot fame. Opposed the New Deal on every count. He won't enact anything like the New Deal, he'll sit on his hands and do less than even Hoover tried. He might end Prohibition earlier but that is about it.

Which leads to a Republican in 1932 as Smith seeks re-election. If its Hoover, expect a program similar to what he began to outline IOTL. Still not as good of an end to the Depression and not as much for public morale, but better than a do-nothing.
 
Also, Smith winning in 1928 would require huge changes -- changes substantial enough that the Democrats would know they had a chance to win and hence wouldn't nominate Smith.

However, if you do just hand-wave him into office, then the biggest change on the top of things is what he does with Smoot-Hawley, per above. What the results of that might be are the subject of debate, but the Depression should at least be lessened if not reduce to a simple Panic, as had occured every 10-20 years since 1800 or so.
 
If President Al Smith vetoed Smoot-Hawley, I think a smaller drop in the stock exchange would butterfly away OTL Crash of 1929. There might be an economic reason instead of a Great Depression. Nevertheless, Republicans still win back the White House.

Since Smith was a wet, Prohibition might come to an end by a constitutional amendment.

I can see the latter: by 1928, prohibition was clearly a failure even though many didn't want to admit it.

As to the former...I don't know. The Wall Street boom of the '20s was built in no small part on very small margins (the figure of ~10% of value comes to mind, as opposed to the ~90% that I recall for this day and age), so there was a bubble due to burst at some time. Had the margins been reined in during the mid-1920s, the drop might have been mitigated, but that's another story for another time. I do agree, however, that likely Smith would have been a one-term president, succeeded by a Republican in 1932 (more to follow later). In fact, I 'd go so far as to say (1) Smith wouldn't even get re-nominated (the Democrats might well put up FDR or Garner instead), and (2) the one-time experience with the economy going down the tubes, albeit entirely unrelated, would form an association in the minds of the great unwashed such that it would be a long, long time before another Catholic would get any kind of serious consideration for the national ticket. You could pretty well forget about Joe Kennedy Sr. or any of his sons, for example: it would be pure guilt by distant association, but it would be plenty effective.
 
Top