Dewey Wins 1944 - Domestic Effects

If Thomas Dewey wins the 1944 election, then putting aside how this affects this affects the world at large, what kind of impact does this have on domestic issues? I'm specifically intersted here in the legacy of the New Deal and the GI Bill, and in the movement toward civil rights.

(If the manner of wwii's end and soviet relations is indispensable to how this question is anewered, I'm seeing this as a likely event in this fine TL.)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Dewey would probably keep the New Deal and still push for the GI Bill. As for civil rights, I don't think that he would have done more than Eisenhower did in our TL.

However, in regards to civil rights, a possibly important PoD here is the fact that Earl Warren wouldn't be on the U.S. Supreme Court at the time of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In turn, this would almost certainly mean that this decision won't be unanimous and it is even possible that, without Warren's larger-than-life influence, we would see this decision narrowly go the other way.
 
I think people overrate how much the 60's changed the South. The shift towards the GOP started in the 20's, and really hit its stride in the 40's and 50's as the Democrats started pursuing more civil rights legislation. That being the case, I think Dewey would be able to peel off enough Southern Democrats to do whatever he wanted, within reason. And that might be a lot - this was the guy who shut down New York's childcare system, and called the complainers commies.

Of course, I'll confess I've never really understood the Deweys and the Rockefellers of the GOP, since they could talk or act like residents of Rumsfeldia one moment, and outflank Obama from the left the next. They're hard for a modern observer to model.
 
However, in regards to civil rights, a possibly important PoD here is the fact that Earl Warren wouldn't be on the U.S. Supreme Court at the time of the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
On the other hand, it's also possible with a 1944 PoD, for an equivalent Brown decision to come years earlier; Morgan v Virginia (1946) was one such opportunity.
 

bguy

Donor
However, in regards to civil rights, a possibly important PoD here is the fact that Earl Warren wouldn't be on the U.S. Supreme Court at the time of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In turn, this would almost certainly mean that this decision won't be unanimous and it is even possible that, without Warren's larger-than-life influence, we would see this decision narrowly go the other way.

Why wouldn't Warren end up on the Supreme Court? If Dewey is elected in 1944 then that means John Bricker is Vice President not Earl Warren, so Warren is still available for a Supreme Court position. And there's really no reason for President Dewey not to nominate Warren. They are ideologically compatible, Warren is from an important state that the Republicans need to woo, and Warren certainly has the legal experience to make a plausible Supreme Court pick. (The Republican bench is otherwise a little thin for suitable Supreme Court candidates in the 1940s, since the Democrats have held the presidency for the last 12 years and thus most of the younger federal judges are Democrats.) Thus Warren still seems a likely Supreme Court appointment to me.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Why wouldn't Warren end up on the Supreme Court? If Dewey is elected in 1944 then that means John Bricker is Vice President not Earl Warren, so Warren is still available for a Supreme Court position. And there's really no reason for President Dewey not to nominate Warren. They are ideologically compatible, Warren is from an important state that the Republicans need to woo, and Warren certainly has the legal experience to make a plausible Supreme Court pick. (The Republican bench is otherwise a little thin for suitable Supreme Court candidates in the 1940s, since the Democrats have held the presidency for the last 12 years and thus most of the younger federal judges are Democrats.) Thus Warren still seems a likely Supreme Court appointment to me.
You're right; I confused Dewey's VP picks from 1948 and 1944 here.

On the other hand, it's also possible with a 1944 PoD, for an equivalent Brown decision to come years earlier; Morgan v Virginia (1946) was one such opportunity.
Would the political will have been there on the U.S. Supreme Court to make a ruling such as Brown--let alone to unanimously make such a ruling--in the 1940s, though?

Also, please keep in mind that, while the U.S. Supreme Court developed the "one person, one vote" doctrine in the 1960s, it was unwilling to do so in 1946 with the Colegrove v. Green case. Thus, I am skeptical that the U.S. Supreme Court would have been progressive enough to make a Brown-like ruling in the 1940s in this TL.
 
Would the political will have been there on the U.S. Supreme Court to make a ruling such as Brown--let alone to unanimously make such a ruling--in the 1940s, though?

Also, please keep in mind that, while the U.S. Supreme Court developed the "one person, one vote" doctrine in the 1960s, it was unwilling to do so in 1946 with the Colegrove v. Green case. Thus, I am skeptical that the U.S. Supreme Court would have been progressive enough to make a Brown-like ruling in the 1940s in this TL.
FWIH, it was within the realm of possibility OTL.
 

bguy

Donor
Would the political will have been there on the U.S. Supreme Court to make a ruling such as Brown--let alone to unanimously make such a ruling--in the 1940s, though?

Also, please keep in mind that, while the U.S. Supreme Court developed the "one person, one vote" doctrine in the 1960s, it was unwilling to do so in 1946 with the Colegrove v. Green case. Thus, I am skeptical that the U.S. Supreme Court would have been progressive enough to make a Brown-like ruling in the 1940s in this TL.

Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge will all definitely vote to find segregation unconstitutional, so you only need one more vote, and Dewey should have opportunities to fill Supreme Court slots in both 1945 (retirement of Justice Roberts) and 1946 (death of Chief Justice Stone.) If Dewey puts either Earl Warren or Herbert Brownell on the Supreme Court (both likely nominations from a President Dewey) for one of these slots then that's the fifth vote (at least until 1949 when the Court will lose both Murphy and Rutledge).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge will all definitely vote to find segregation unconstitutional, so you only need one more vote, and Dewey should have opportunities to fill Supreme Court slots in both 1945 (retirement of Justice Roberts) and 1946 (death of Chief Justice Stone.) If Dewey puts either Earl Warren or Herbert Brownell on the Supreme Court (both likely nominations from a President Dewey) for one of these slots then that's the fifth vote (at least until 1949 when the Court will lose both Murphy and Rutledge).
What exactly makes you so sure that Murphy and Rutledge would have voted to overturn Plessy?
 

bguy

Donor
What exactly makes you so sure that Murphy and Rutledge would have voted to overturn Plessy?

Justice Murphy's dissent in Korematsu.

Justice Frank Murphy said:
I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must, accordingly, be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment, and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

There's absolutely no way that the man who in the middle of World War 2 delivered such a thundering denouncement of the internment of Japanese-Americans would ever vote to uphold segregation.

As for Justice Rutledge, I don't know as much about him as Justice Murphy, but he has a reputation for being an activist judge and liberal on racial issues. Moreover, per the post from Jonathan Edelstein (that is included as a link in Post 7 in this thread), during oral arguments for Morgan v. Virginia (a 1946 case where the Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause to justify striking down segregation in interstate carriers), Justice Rutledge tried to get the NAACP's attorneys to advance the argument that the Virginia law at issue was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment (which strongly suggests that Justice Rutledge was sympathetic to such an argument).

Justice Rutledge also joined Justice Murphy's concurring opinion in Oyama v. California where Justice Murphy argued that the California Alien Land Laws were unconstitutional. In that case Justice Murphy asserted that the California Alien Land Law was “nothing more than an outright racial discrimination. As such, it deserves constitutional condemnation.” That Justice Rutledge joined in that opinion necessarily means he shared Justice Murphy's viewpoint and thus I would be astonished if he did not join Justice Murphy in voting to strike down segregation if the chance presented itself.
 
Getting back to the OP more generally -- I think we can safely say that the GOP will not be taking control of Congress in 1946 TTL, meaning we don't see Taft-Hartley; then again, that does leave open the question of how Dewey, and the country at large, responds to labor challenges following the war (if there is still a strike wave, etc).
 
Getting back to the OP more generally -- I think we can safely say that the GOP will not be taking control of Congress in 1946 TTL, meaning we don't see Taft-Hartley; then again, that does leave open the question of how Dewey, and the country at large, responds to labor challenges following the war (if there is still a strike wave, etc).

The bill passed so resoundingly as to beat Truman's veto IOTL. I don't think it follows that you'd need a Republican majority for the bill to get a simple majority ITTL.
 
The bill passed so resoundingly as to beat Truman's veto IOTL. I don't think it follows that you'd need a Republican majority for the bill to get a simple majority ITTL.
That's a fair point; then again, if the Democrats hold onto the Senate, it should be a simple matter, even with a level of Dixiecrat support, to keep the bill from ever coming to the floor for a vote. Plus, if the Strike Wave (of 46) that led to the law OTL still happens TTL, it will happen under the watch of a Republican president, which could complicate things.
 
Top