Edith Wilson widely and respectfully viewed as first women president during liberal 1940s?

And the average American citizen becomes more open to a women president and might so elect before the UK elects Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister in 1979?

And the whole story of the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and of the U.S. to join the League of Nations might be re-told and, in light of WWII, is viewed as a first-rate tragedy, at least in losing this chance to prevent the second war. Might there even be a push for a Constitutional Amendment to change the Senate requirement from two-thirds to a simple majority in order to ratify a treaty?
 
Last edited:
The Treaty of Versailles was more the cause of WW 2, than a League of Nations that was useless in any case. How would US involvement be seen to change anything?
 
As a matter of fact the (dubious) narrative that the US failure to join the League of Nations was a tragedy that helped to lead to World War II *did* have considerable influence, and was one reason the vote to join the United Nations was so overwhelming.

But that has nothing to do with Edith Wilson having been viewed as "president"--it was only *anti*-Wilsonians who said that. The reasons pro-Wilsonians didn't regard her as such are obvious. First, her "presidency" would obviously have been constitutionally illegitimate. Second, she herself denied it, though rather disingenuously: "I studied every paper sent from the different Secretaries or Senators," she wrote later of her role, "and tried to digest and present in tabloid form the things that, despite my vigilance, had to go to the President. I, myself, never made a single decision regarding the disposition of public affairs. The only decision that was mine was what was important and what was not, and the very important decision of when to present matters to my husband." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Wilson Third, the whole idea is dubious. She certainly had considerable power by controlling the flow of information to her husband, but nevertheless, she did not make policy. The real problem the country had in those months was not so much that Mrs. Wilson was running the country as that in effect *nobody* was. Wilson could only block things--like any reservations which would give the League a chance of actually passing; he could not do anything constructive. And Wilson was just as stubborn before the stroke (and therefore before his dependence on her) as after it.
 
The League's going to be like any large organization with an overly ambitious mandate -- some successes as long as we lower our damn standards!
 
It's a good thing that Edith -- who was probably still living in the 1940s -- downplayed her own contributions. For example, if she had said, I just remembered what priorities my husband had when he was still healthy. Don't know if she said this specifically, but sounds like she said a lot of things like this. To me, this is all for the good. It's like a baseball player who wins the MVP for the World Series complimenting his teammates.

Other people can still compliment Edith. Just wondering in a more liberal '40s how that may have played out.

=======

After Woodrow Wilson's probably stroke, it was both Mrs. Edith Wilson and the president's personal physician Cary Grayson who essentially ran the executive branch, and I think Mrs. Wilson was the more influential of the two.

Anyway, I'm interested in an alternate 1940s in which she was perceived as the more influential of the two.
 
Last edited:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/lea...ersailles-for-second-and-final-time/?referer=

By THE LEARNING NETWORK
MARCH 19, 2012
On March 19, 1920, the United States Senate rejected for the second time the Treaty of Versailles, by a vote of 49-35, falling seven votes short of a two-thirds majority needed for approval.

The Treaty of Versailles was a formal peace treaty between the World War I Allies and Germany. The leaders of the “Big Four” Allies (Britain, France, Italy and the United States) met in Paris in early 1919 to draft the treaty. President Woodrow Wilson presented his Fourteen Points, . . .
I think because a swing of 7 votes would make the tally 56-28.
 
United States Constitution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Article II [executive powers]

" . . . Section 2. . . . He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; . . . "
"two third of the Senators present" This is different from the several other parts of the Constitution which require two thirds from one or both Houses.

So, I think it's absolute majority plus two thirds of Senators present in order to ratify treaties, although it just says two thirds of those present.
 
As a matter of fact the (dubious) narrative that the US failure to join the League of Nations was a tragedy that helped to lead to World War II *did* have considerable influence, and was one reason the vote to join the United Nations was so overwhelming. . . .
Thank you for drawing the distinction between reality and perception. Often are similar, but often are not! :cool:

What if the general public becomes skeptical of requiring supermajorities? What if people's general view is, it doesn't lead to greater discussion, but rather just leads to a minority becoming more entrenched. People could focus the failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, and that this was made quite a bit more difficult by requiring two-thirds of the Senate (only got 49 votes in any case per above). People could also focus on the failure of the Senate to remove Andrew Johnson, even though a clear majority of Senators did vote for removal.
 
What if the general public becomes skeptical of requiring supermajorities? What if people's general view is, it doesn't lead to greater discussion, but rather just leads to a minority becoming more entrenched. People could focus the failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, and that this was made quite a bit more difficult by requiring two-thirds of the Senate (only got 49 votes in any case per above).

Wouldn't have made any difference.

The version of the ToV that came closest to two-thirds was an amended one that included the Lodge Reservations. Had it passed, Wilson would have withdrawn the Treaty from consideration, as he disapproved of these.

The unamended ToV never got even a majority.


People could also focus on the failure of the Senate to remove Andrew Johnson, even though a clear majority of Senators did vote for removal.

How is that relevant? Presidents do not hold office at the pleasure of the Senate, and the Framers never intended them to.

The two-thirds threshold was set in order to prevent a President from being punished for employing his veto, by ensuring that if the Senators lacked the necessary votes to override a veto, they would also lack the votes needed to remove him.
 
. . . Presidents do not hold office at the pleasure of the Senate, and the Framers never intended them to. . .
That's the textbook answer, but I don't like the textbook answer.

Although the failure of Reconstruction cannot totally be laid at the feet of Andrew Johnson, the failure of Radical Republicans in Congress to be able to carry through a real Reconstruction led to a century of a racial injustice. Too high a cost. And if we want to be less idealistic and more pragmatic, the failure also led to a century of economic stagnation for the south. Also, too high a cost.

And there's a scarier possibility. Allowing minority presidents in critical times, opens the door to military coup, as has happened in at least several countries. And perhaps a contributor more familiar with world history than I might be able to tell us if it's more than just a few. Way too high a cost.

We would have been far better off with merely a tradition of not impeaching and removing from office except for really important reasons, and letting it stay vague as traditions often do. Hardwiring in a two-thirds requirement is one of the bum parts of our U.S. Constitution. And if a change led to more of a Parliamentary system, that's a far more acceptable cost than any of the above.
 
Last edited:
That's the textbook answer, but I don't like the textbook answer.

Although the failure of Reconstruction cannot totally be laid at the feet of Andrew Johnson, the failure of Radical Republicans in Congress to be able to carry through a real Reconstruction led to a century of a racial injustice. Too high a cost. And if we want to be less idealistic and more pragmatic, the failure also led to a century of economic stagnation for the south. Also, too high a cost.

How would removing Johnson have changed any of the above? Reconstruction "failed" not because of anything this or that President did, but because most Northerners had little interest in protecting Black rights, while Southern whites were very deeply committed to rejecting them. One side cared, while the other mostly didn't, hence the outcome. As you yourself note, this situation continued for the better part of a century after AJ has passed from the scene. There were literally generations in which nobody thought the matter worth pursuing.

Incidentally, why would the Southern economy be any less stagnant just because Black sharecroppers went on being able to vote? Both they and huge numbers of whites would still be just as dirt-poor.


And there's a scarier possibility. Allowing minority presidents in critical times, opens the door to military coup, as has happened in at least several countries. And perhaps a contributor more familiar with world history than I might be able to tell us if it's more than just a few. Way too high a cost.

Not sure what you're driving at. "Minority" Presidents have been elected four times (five if we count1824) without any hint of a military coup. Afaik, the only POTUS against whom such a coup was even slightly seriously contemplated was FDR, who had just won thumping majorities of both popular and electoral votes.

In any case, how does making impeachment easier reduce the chances of such a coup?

We would have been far better off with merely a tradition of not impeaching and removing from office except for really important reasons, and letting it stay vague as traditions often do. Hardwiring in a two-thirds requirement is one of the bum parts of our U.S. Constitution. And if a change led to more of a Parliamentary system, that's a far more acceptable cost than any of the above.

If a POTUS could be removed by simple majorities in Congress, you'd need a revolving door on the White House. Trdu=itions are respected just as long as people feel like respecting them.
 
. . . because most Northerners had little interest in protecting Black rights, while Southern whites were very deeply committed to rejecting them. . .
This would also be true in the 1950s and '60s, and yet there was a pretty successful Civil Rights movement (imcomplete, still in progress!)
 
. . . Not sure what you're driving at. "Minority" Presidents . . .
I'm mainly thinking of Pinochet in Chile.

I remember a college film in which President Allende of Chile needed to receive one-third of the vote in some kind of referendum in order to stay in power. It would have been far better if Allende had announced that he was asking for a clear majority, or else he would resign in orderly fashion. What happened is Allende got the one-third, but then Pinochet led a military coup in which a number of persons were killed and a tyrannical government for about 20 years. So, of course it would have also been far better if Pinochet had not appointed himself God Almighty!

More generally, I have read that in the post-WWII period, meaning also the period of decolonization, parliamentary forms of democracy have done better than presidential forms of democracies. Meaning, that a number of president-style governments have been lost to coup, at least for a while. I am by no means an expert on this aspect of world politics. Maybe someone who is or at least has an interest and knows more than me, could jump in and help to inform us.
 
This would also be true in the 1950s and '60s, and yet there was a pretty successful Civil Rights movement (imcomplete, still in progress!)

That was in an utterly different world. .

Firstly, the Cold War had put the US and SU in competition for the support of non-white ex-colonies. The Southern racial set up constituted an intolerable handicap in this contest, about which Something Must Be Done.

Secondly the development of mechanical cotton-pickers meant that all that stoop labour suddenly became redundant. The economic base of the old Southern set up was undermined.

Thirdly, with the Great Depression and the advent of the New Deal, the Southern States became increasingly dependent on Federal largesse. Their resistance was about as effective as the child's defiance of the parent who paid his pocket money. Southern Governors might do a bit of grandstanding in schoolhouse doors, but it was an empty gesture.

Incidentally, despite all this, the process might have been a great deal slower had simple-majority impeachment been allowed. This would presumably have applied to all office-holders, not just Presidents, so Chief Justice Warren and other Justices too liberal for 1950s tastes could easily have been voted off the Court by simple majorities in Congress. Somehow I don't think the cause of Civil Rights would have benefited from that.
 
First, her "presidency" would obviously have been constitutionally illegitimate.

Exactly. She was not the President, and any Presidential power she may have exercised as a result was illegal. If Wilson was unable to fulfill his duties (and he was unable), then in one way or another those duties should have fallen to the Vice President. Many people urged VP Thomas Marshall to become acting president, but he refused for fear of setting a precedent by "forcibly" removing the President. He laid out a method by which he would be willing to serve, but since it required Wilson voluntarily allowing it, it couldn't happen. Eventually procedures on this were established under the 25th amendment in 1967.

Purely on the basis for Edith Wilson's refusal to allow people to see the President, and her purposeful denial to inform Congress and the people of Wilson's true condition, she should be condemned. How she acted was immoral and unjustifiable.
 
. . . Many people urged VP Thomas Marshall to become acting president, but he refused for fear of setting a precedent by "forcibly" removing the President. He laid out a method by which he would be willing to serve, but since it required Wilson voluntarily allowing it, it couldn't happen. . . . . Purely on the basis for Edith Wilson's refusal to allow people to see the President, and her purposeful denial to inform Congress and the people of Wilson's true condition, . . .
You bring up quite a challenge and I thank you for doing so. She certainly could have been perceived just as you say.

But I'm more interested in the timeline where she's perceived as a steady eddie person we were lucky to have. And within the context of a more liberal post-war 1940s.
 
The Republicans won in the 1946 Congressional elections running on the slogan "Had Enough?" I've heard this refer to the wave of strikes sweeping the country, although this source refers to Truman or the New Deal, or both. A page later it does acknowledge the wave of strikes.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0...Congressional elections "Had enough/"&f=false

Maybe if the unions had better paced themselves, and called only the most important strikes? Or better made their case to the public? Or, maybe if members of the general public had made more of an effort to understand how post-war economics may shake out.
 
. . . had simple-majority impeachment been allowed. This would presumably have applied to all office-holders, not just Presidents, so Chief Justice Warren and other Justices too liberal for 1950s tastes could easily have been voted off the Court by simple majorities in Congress. . .
I will view this as a meatball right down the middle of the plate and drive it to left field! ;)

Brown vs. Board of Education might be one of the few exceptions, but generally the Supreme Court has been a bust. There's the Dred Scott decision, Plessy vs. Ferguson, the two child labor decisions, the decision(s) striking down New Deal legislation, etc, etc. What I might add to the usual list is Buck vs. Bell (1927) in which the Supreme Court ruled it was just fine for the state of Virginia to sterilize a so-called mental defective.

And even with Brown, Justice Frankfurter may have been entirely right. Without the Court specifying a remedy, we weren't really making progress. Please remember, a lot of actual desegregation in the American south didn't happen to the Nixon Administration in 1969 and the early '70s. Yes, really.
 
Top