Effects of a Dewey victory

Lovett was a big proponent of missiles over bombers, so I would expect Atlas to get a big funding boost.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U9UgyWiCcrAC&pg=PA556&dq=Lovett+rockets+rather+than+bombers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidhZGz7qbZAhVLHqwKHXAfAGIQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=Lovett rockets rather than bombers&f=false

Any thoughts on Dewey's likely Supreme Court picks?

Yup which is why "Dewey" getting elected is one of the possible POD's or leading events for my notes on a "Big Atlas" timeline :)

As I noted the "plan" was to put Hoover on the SC despite the platform of "only" proven judges and jurists. Though as I noted I suspect that was to get him clear of the FBI so it could be used to address organized crime which was very low on Hoovers priority list.

Randy
 
Lovett was a big proponent of missiles over bombers, so I would expect Atlas to get a big funding boost.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U9UgyWiCcrAC&pg=PA556&dq=Lovett+rockets+rather+than+bombers&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidhZGz7qbZAhVLHqwKHXAfAGIQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=Lovett rockets rather than bombers&f=false

Any thoughts on Dewey's likely Supreme Court picks?

In 1946, the U.S. had a project to research a prototype ICBM with theoretical range of 8000 miles; that may be the basis for Dewey's boys to focus on and thus get us an earlier ICBM arsenal.
 

bguy

Donor
As I noted the "plan" was to put Hoover on the SC despite the platform of "only" proven judges and jurists. Though as I noted I suspect that was to get him clear of the FBI so it could be used to address organized crime which was very low on Hoovers priority list.

Hoover's just one pick though. If Dewey wins a second term, he'll have at least four Supreme Court picks total, so who does he nominate for the other three appointments? (I suspect John Marshall Harlan gets one of the slots, since Harlan is exactly the kind of practicing lawyer that Dewey said he wants on the court and was also a friend of Dewey's closest advisor, Herbert Brownell.)
 
In 1946, the U.S. had a project to research a prototype ICBM with theoretical range of 8000 miles; that may be the basis for Dewey's boys to focus on and thus get us an earlier ICBM arsenal.

Yep that was the "Big-A"
atlas-5-engine-jpg.303727


But! Keep in mind it might not be that simple either as operationally the Big-A is worse than the OTL Atlas we got. It is far to large to be silo based and since no one really understood how much 'war' in general had changed the initial operating plan was worse than useless. (When the concept was being planned they assumed the missile would be delivered by truck from the 'nearby' factory, set up, checked out, propellant loaded, warhead installed, guidance programmed and fired off like a slow artillery duel. I found some mention of a plan to try what something similar to what the Nazi's initially planned for the V2 in having an underground factory/assembly built in the south side of a mountain in Colorado or there-abouts with linked underground transport tunnels to several launch sites where the missiles would be fired from. The Air Force semi-liked the idea but everyone else seemed to think it would have 'worked' about as well as it did for the V2.

While Convair could obviously ramp things back up North American was already working hard on the Navajo who's booster could also have been adapted to missile. Meanwhile the Navy wants the USS United States really because they wanted a carrier that could launch strategic bombers but that was because the Air Force was getting all the money because they could have strategic bombers. Meanwhile everyone was counting out the Army because they had nothing strategic BUT they were ahead on developing missiles of all stripes which is why they were tasked with developing warhead technology for the Air Force...

Dewey and company are coming in on a military in decline and a foreign policy that depended on a single service with questionable capability to actually support that policy and an overall military that was significantly limited. And as we've discussed the blows are just going to keep coming for at least a few more years.

So first and foremost there needs to be a serious Defense review done. This happened OTL but not until 1949 after the Soviets detonated an A-bomb and Truman, (despite running on a "war scare" platform) had rapidly used his 'reelection mandate' to further reduce defense spending, (despite the "supplement" voted by Congress in 1948 the majority of which went to the Air Force) despite reinstating the peacetime draft and calling Russia a threat. Dewey can immediately increase the budget, (despite Republican calls for "normallcy" they were well aware the Truman defense spending was spotty at best and the asymmetric growth of the Air Force was not seen as wise in all sectors) but the overall system at this point is damaged as well.

Truman spent the budget on all domestic programs as a priority, then followed with aid and economic incentives to allies to fight Communism, (the Truman Plan) and after all that what was "left over" was handed to the military with a preference to the Air Force due to the planning being any future war would be one won by Air Power dropping A-bombs on any potential enemy. That didn't mean the Air Force was fat with money, in fact they had major personnel and equipment issues and were hardly prepared for rapid response to any given crisis. (A point driven home during the sequential crisis' between 1948 and 1952) The Navy and Army were of course worse off and despite repeated attempts to play off "inter-service rivalry" as being a thing of the past it was far from so. The Department of Defense was not unified group and the Joint Chiefs often were at logger-heads which the Secretary of Defense could not resolve. This is not going to get resolved over-night and in fact even if Dewey and company WANT to change things swiftly this has been an ongoing issue since the end of WWII if not before and the 'fixes' are not going to make anyone happy.

Assume Lovett gets in as SoD and wants to push missiles. Immediately the Navy will pitch putting missiles on the USS United States instead of aircraft, (they won't LIKE it mind you as testing in 1946 showed that an exploding missile near a ship was ALWAYS going to end badly) as that is the 'new' way to get money and influence. Similarly the Army will push an advanced Redstone mobile, (because the mobile V2 launchers were such a PITA) which they'd already semi-pitched as THE best choice. (And granted they had a point and one which the Navy eventually supported hence the Jupiter program but left once solid propellant came of age) Then the Air Force will point out that bombers are so much better, (more accurate, more controllable, can be re-targeted in flight, can be re-called, yes the arguments they use OTL, as they weren't wrong) and are developing air-breathing supersonic cruise missiles which can be deployed in a few years where as missiles are at least a decade away. (Got a head scientist named Von Karman who spends over 12 volumes tell you so) But if the government insists then they have this Weapons System MX776 that just needs priority and a big budget and we'll have the ultimate weapon....

Meanwhile China is in danger of falling to the Communists, the Soviets are blockading Berlin and taking over Eastern Europe, their conventional forces in Europe outnumber ours 10-1, they have submarines off our coasts and our military is still using mostly WWII equipment which is falling apart. (And did I mention that our primary striking power of the Air Force MISSED Cleveland Ohio on a training mission by several miles? Our Navy is having issues with patrolling our shores let alone out actual commitments because of a lack of manpower and ships and our Army has run exercises where we barely manage to beat an "invasion" during exercises due to the same manpower and equipment issues?)
It's not going to be either easy nor straightforward and getting a handle on what is wrong with the DoD and fixing that is going to need to come first otherwise the increased money will just go to waste.

And, loathe as I am to admit it the "lean" times actually had some positive effects though they got 'drowned' in the later years of extensive funding. For example the Army realized it needed to learn to fight not just 'conventional' but asymmetric and unconventional battles. They created a kick-butt "Aggressor Forces" which were initially used to simulate a peer opponent but in both unconventional and conventional combat. (http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/Trigons/Trigons.htm) The Navy realized how the submarine was both a very effective attack platform, (missile subs) and defense platform (attack subs) when used against enemy submarines. Meanwhile they refined the "super-carrier" into a long range quick reaction unit capable of projecting air power, (and with increased Marine strength) and US combat forces in a "quick reaction" defense. Meanwhile the Air Force finally realized that they in fact could NOT "do it all" and that both offensive (missiles and bombers) and defensive (fighters and interceptors) were required, (still didn't quite get it right till Vietnam though) in a balanced force. Still most of this didn't get really running till the mid-to-late 50s and even then it was spotty.

"Fixing things" will take more than just throwing money at the problems.

Randy
 
Hoover's just one pick though. If Dewey wins a second term, he'll have at least four Supreme Court picks total, so who does he nominate for the other three appointments? (I suspect John Marshall Harlan gets one of the slots, since Harlan is exactly the kind of practicing lawyer that Dewey said he wants on the court and was also a friend of Dewey's closest advisor, Herbert Brownell.)

Don't know enough to suggest any others, who do you see? Note that the Hoover appointment is simply going to be the first opening to get him moved. There will still be a lot of ripples from that as I doubt Dewey is going to want to leave whomever Hoover picks in charge but getting them out risks Hoover's ire.

But assume Hoovers number one and Harlan is number two, how will they effect some of the decisions made?

Randy
 

bguy

Donor
Don't know enough to suggest any others, who do you see?

Well as to each vacancy:

When Frank Murphy dies, Dewey will be under a lot of pressure to appoint a Catholic to replace him One possibility there is former Connecticut senator, John Danaher. Danaher was the first Catholic Republican senator and a Dewey ally IOTL (he had been the Dewey camp's candidate to head up the RNC in 1946).

When Wiley Rutledge dies, this is presumably when Hoover gets appointed.

When Fred Vinson dies, Hoover presumably gets promoted to Chief Justice and maybe John Sherman Cooper gets nominated to fill the vacancy on the court. (Cooper was a liberal from Kentucky and had prior judicial experience which hits a lot of boxes that Dewey will want to check off, though he might be a little too much of a maverick for Dewey's comfort.)

And when Robert Jackson dies, that is presumably when John Marshall Harlan gets appointed.

Of course Dewey would almost certainly be willing to appoint Herbert Brownell in any of these slots should Brownell ever express an interest in being on the court. (Though IOTL Brownell didn't seem that interested in serving on the Supreme Court.)

But assume Hoovers number one and Harlan is number two, how will they effect some of the decisions made?

The most immediate and important impact of Hoover on the court is how it effects TTL's equivalent to the Brown case. Hoover is a likely vote to uphold segregation, and if Hoover votes for segregation there is a good chance that Stanley Reed does as well. (IOTL it took a lot of persuading from Chief Justice Warren to convince Reed to join the majority opinion on Brown. No Warren on the court and without having to be the lone vote for separate but equal and Reed probably goes the other way.) The Brown opinion itself might be much more aggressive ITTL as well. IOTL the court accepted gradual integration ("with all deliberate speed") so as to insure a unanimous opinion. ITTL it will be clear that a unanimous opinion is impossible, so the progressive block on the court might decide to go all out and just order an immediate end to segregation. (Though if they do that they risk losing the votes of Felix Frankfurter and Robert Jackson, both of whom were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of court overreaching on Brown.) At any rate with Black, Douglas, Burton, Danaher, and Cooper there should still be a majority to strike down segregation, but the South may be even more emboldened than IOTL in how they resist desegregation if they have a dissenting opinion or two to rally around.

The Red Monday cases may not even happen if President Dewey succeeds in shutting down McCarthyism before it really gets going. If some sort of major domestic security case does still happen, Hoover will definitely vote in favor of upholding domestic security legislation but will inevitably get outvoted. (Even Justice Harlan will side with the court's liberal block on this issue, so Hoover might well end up a lone dissenter.)

Beyond that there's no real way to predict how the Hoover Court will rule on subsequent major cases without knowing who succeeds President Dewey. (Since the new president will presumably get to replace Harold Burton, Stanley Reed, and (if they win a second term) Felix Frankfurter.) Hoover can be expected to usually vote conservative. Cooper will probably usually vote liberal. I'm not sure about Danaher, though he had a reputation for being conservative on criminal justice issues.

Hoover presumably is no more willing to leave the court ITTL than he was to leave the FBI IOTL, so he will be Chief Justice until 1972, and Danaher and Cooper would also have long terms on the court. (IOTL Danaher received a federal appellate judgeship and did not assume senior status until 1969 and didn't retire completely until 1980, and Cooper remained active in public life all the way to 1981 and didn't retire from the practice of law until 1989.)
 
Last edited:
Bguy wrote:
Well as to each vacancy:

When Frank Murphy dies, Dewey will be under a lot of pressure to appoint a Catholic to replace him One possibility there is former Connecticut senator, John Danaher. Danaher was the first Catholic Republican senator and a Dewey ally IOTL (he had been the Dewey camp's candidate to head up the RNC in 1946).

While there'd be 'pressure' to do so his replacement OTL wasn't and the general understanding as I get it was 'first available' opening so I'm not so sure this would be how it works. I suspect Danaher will have to wait for Rutledge, as this is one 'deal' Dewey would have to move on. Dewey may have an opportunity to catch Hoover by "surprise" so that he has less time to 'prepare' his successor which will give Dewey a chance to influence the replacement. If Hoover delays then Dewey might either threaten to or actually call the deal off, real or not Hoover will have to jump and it will establish who's actually in 'charge' here which will stand Dewey well in the future.

When Wiley Rutledge dies, this is presumably when Hoover gets appointed.

See above and here's where I see Dewey actually getting on with 'agenda' of appointments.

When Fred Vinson dies, Hoover presumably gets promoted to Chief Justice

What exactly is the criteria for Chief Justice because I'm not sure it would be what either Hoover, (may be too high profile) or Dewey would want. Hoover is going to be a divisive rather than uniting figure no matter what and the Chief Justice is supposed to reflect that compromise and reconciliation attitude. He's really going to be a 'dissenter' on just about everything that he feels does not reflect his personal goals.

Depending on who you believe Hoovers 'main' motivation was to secure a position from which he could not be 'removed' by political whim or age and from which he could either continue to control and expand the FBI powers and/or use a Court seat to reverse the 'diminution' and limitations on the Justice Department and FBI that he felt severely limited 'his' (and by extension the afore mentioned agencies) ability to find, arrest, prosecute and convict people whom he considered to have 'dangerous' political opinions. (This didn't 'boil over' OTL till around 1956 when he organized COINTELPRO to covertly go after such people)

You have to wonder though since having a seat on the Court will definitely ensure the former as a single member his power to do anything about the latter is questionable at best. If this all comes about as suggested I don't see him actually working very hard within the Court and spending most of his time simply 'shadow managing' the FBI through his chosen successor Clyde Tolson.

and maybe John Sherman Cooper gets nominated to fill the vacancy on the court. (Cooper was a liberal from Kentucky and had prior judicial experience which hits a lot of boxes that Dewey will want to check off, though he might be a little too much of a maverick for Dewey's comfort.)

Granted the let 40s/early50s RNC wasn't our present one but wouldn't they lean towards loading the bases while they can? That's what I got the impression Truman did despite claiming he wanted a 'balanced' court.

And when Robert Jackson dies, that is presumably when John Marshall Harlan gets appointed.

Ok but how does this balance not only the court, (of does Dewey and company really care?) and especially balance Hoover?

Of course Dewey would almost certainly be willing to appoint Herbert Brownell in any of these slots should Brownell ever express an interest in being on the court. (Though IOTL Brownell didn't seem that interested in serving on the Supreme Court.)

Draft him? :)

The most immediate and important impact of Hoover on the court is how it effects TTL's equivalent to the Brown case. Hoover is a likely vote to uphold segregation, and if Hoover votes for segregation there is a good chance that Stanley Reed does as well. (IOTL it took a lot of persuading from Chief Justice Warren to convince Reed to join the majority opinion on Brown. No Warren on the court and without having to be the lone vote for separate but equal and Reed probably goes the other way.) The Brown opinion itself might be much more aggressive ITTL as well. IOTL the court accepted gradual integration ("with all deliberate speed") so as to insure a unanimous opinion. ITTL it will be clear that a unanimous opinion is impossible, so the progressive block on the court might decide to go all out and just order an immediate end to segregation. (Though if they do that they risk losing the votes of Felix Frankfurter and Robert Jackson, both of whom were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of court overreaching on Brown.) At any rate with Black, Douglas, Burton, Danaher, and Cooper there should still be a majority to strike down segregation, but the South may be even more emboldened than IOTL in how they resist desegregation if they have a dissenting opinion or two to rally around.

Hoover saw everything through the lens of "Communist" or "anti-American" activity. In every aspect he cared little about "justice" or "crime" and considered the FBI's main "job" to be political. He wanted it to become a vastly more powerful version of the earlier "Alien Enemy Bureau" with the interpretation of "Enemy" being anyone (alien or American) who opinions he deemed a 'danger' to the United States.

His main issue with Civil Rights was simply that in general it embraced "thoughts and opinions" of a similar nature to Communism and was therefore ripe territory for subversion and infiltration and thereby a danger to the US. He's going to be trying to move the court in the direction of more Federal oversight and control in the ability to pursue and remove "dangerous" elements in society, (political not criminal) by any means necessary so I don't see him voting in favor of very many of the post 1949 decisions either for Civil Rights or limitation of Federal reach.

In Brown I'd agree he will probably vote to uphold and Reed with him but I don't think it will be as smooth as that given the personalities and attitudes of those involved. To put it mildly Hoover is going to rub EVERYONE the wrong way and Reed isn't going to get along with him and his views on Federal oversight and reach. It's not likely but possible Reed may in fact 'go with the majority' anyway BECAUSE of Hoover rather than the other way around. He may still write a dissent but I suspect he may not, given the knowledge of how it would be used post-case. (And I suspect that Hoover will write an "opinion" no matter if it's official or not :) ) I doubt the overall opinion will be much more aggressive though I suspect that Hoover will be of the "opinion" that anything the Court decides should allow more power and intervention by the FBI.

Assuming Tolson takes over and is not literally a Hoover sock-puppet then relations actually might be a bit better with the filtering. As is we can assume that Dewey will appoint someone to be Deputy Director that isn't a Hoover fanatic.

(And I just realized he's going to be serving with the man he claimed in 1919 as the "most dangerous man n the United States" Felix Frankfurter! Wow the fireworks here are going to be epic!)

I really see Hoover, despite his best efforts, as being a minimal figure in the Court. His real 'mission' is to "protect" America from "Un-American" things which makes me think wonder how he could use the position to enhance McCarthy if he wanted to? Speaking of...

The Red Monday cases may not even happen if President Dewey succeeds in shutting down McCarthyism before it really gets going. If some sort of major domestic security case does still happen, Hoover will definitely vote in favor of upholding domestic security legislation but will inevitably get outvoted. (Even Justice Harlan will side with the court's liberal block on this issue, so Hoover might well end up a lone dissenter.)

If the OTL cases don't come out I'm pretty sure he would have Tolson and whatever TTL's version of COINTELPRO try and use the situation to pursue such 'radicals' as they can and keep both Congress and HUAC informed. I don't see not having Hoover at the actual helm of the FBI changing much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#J._Edgar_Hoover_and_the_FBI

And again any time he 'dissents' he'll likely spam "friendly" media with his "unofficial/official" opinion. As the above article notes, "McCarthyism would probably be called Hooverism" had we know what we know since the 70s. In fact I begin to get the picture from some of the open sources, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Concealed_espionage_discoveries, amongst others) that Hoover may have very well been responsible indirectly if not directly in providing McCarthy with his information and egging him on...

Beyond that there's no real way to predict how the Hoover Court will rule on subsequent major cases without knowing who succeeds President Dewey. (Since the new president will presumably get to replace Harold Burton, Stanley Reed, and (if they win a second term) Felix Frankfurter.) Hoover can be expected to usually vote conservative. Cooper will probably usually vote liberal. I'm not sure about Danaher, though he had a reputation for being conservative on criminal justice issues.

Which btw is another 'good question' as under the circumstances I don't see Eisenhower entering politics TTL. Would the GOP go for Dewey's last VP to 'carry on' or someone else and if so who? I'm wondering if Nixon will even get a shot under the circumstances as he wasn't really a figure until he became VP.

Hoover presumably is no more willing to leave the court ITTL than he was to leave the FBI IOTL, so he will be Chief Justice until 1972, and Danaher and Cooper would also have long terms on the court. (IOTL Danaher received a federal appellate judgeship and did not assume senior status until 1969 and didn't retire completely until 1980, and Cooper remained active in public life all the way to 1981 and didn't retire from the practice of law until 1989.)

Pretty much unless his dual-jobbing gets in the way or he's forced out, which recall is the reason he wanted this job so I don't see that happening :)

Randy
 
As the south became less racist, it became more Republican

I don't think that is quite accurate. Besides his home state, only the Deep South voted for Barry Goldwater. Goldwater himself was not a racist (desegregated his division in the army I believe and was also a supporter of the Arizona NAACP) but was a staunch libertarian who wanted the federal government out of a lot of things. Southern whites generally wanted the federal government out of Southern racial issues, and so they voted for him to support their racist agenda. I'm not blaming Goldwater for injecting racism and I actually like him but lot of people south of the Mason-Dixon line liked him for other reasons.

I don't think Strom Thurmond become a Republican the year the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed is a sign of Southerners becoming less racist and more Republican. A coalition of northern liberals and blacks with Southern segregationists was just not gonna hold. The Democrats could only have one, and they chose the former. Remember, David Duke was the Republican nominee for the Louisiana Gubernatorial election in 1991. He was thoroughly condemned by the national party (including President Bush Sr. He was awesome), but many (not all) local Southern Republicans in the state thought that his racial views were just fine and dandy. In fact, as the local Southern White population is declining in the South, the Democratic party is actually growing. Look at Virginia, North Carolina and even Georgia. Mississippi on the other hand is staunch Republican.

Now that's not to say majority of Southern Republicans are super racist today. They legitimately support the GOP due to their conservative Christian values, and there is nothing wrong or racist about that. But there is a reason Mississippi is so racially polarized in voting, and I don't think its because the black population has similar views to people in Brooklyn.

In short, I find the correlation wrong. If under Nixon the Civil Rights Act was signed, and blacks became 99% Republican, and then with a coalition of white evangelicals they voted together for the Republicans and the South became a GOP stronghold, then yes the argument would hold. But if even Carter couldn't create such a coalition long-term, I don't see it working out back then. The Republican party is certainly not the party of white supremacy, but neither are the Democrats.

But I do agree that racism isn't the only major reason why the South is so Republican. Especially today. Lot more nuanced than that. By now, Fiscal conservatism, evangelical values, and recent tradition make up much bigger reasons. Bush being called stupid by a bunch of coastal elites didn't hurt in maintaining their loyalty either.

This is just my opinion, so if you have a counter, please elaborate. I love debates :). I actually haven't been that exposed to a countering viewpoint on this specifically, so I think it would be healthy for me to hear one (instead of being stuck in an echo chamber).


P.S. I am only countering that as racial views in the South became less racist, they became more Republican. I believe racist Southerners switched first, and their religious and conservative but not racist sons and daughters stayed Republican. I am not very knowledgeable about this, but I've heard the Reagan era was a decisive switch in the Southern GOP (for the better in terms of race). There's the famous opening rally in Philadelphia Mississippi, but Reagan throughout his presidency did fully condemn racism.

(On YouTube there's a video of Reagan giving a speech to the NAACP in 1981. It's very good.)
 
Last edited:
Goldwater himself was not a racist (desegregated his division in the army I believe and was also a supporter of the Arizona NAACP) but was a staunch libertarian who wanted the federal government out of a lot of things.

Now that's not to say majority of Southern Republicans are super racist today. They legitimately support the GOP due to their conservative Christian values, and there is nothing wrong or racist about that. But there is a reason Mississippi is so racially polarized in voting, and I don't think its because the black population has similar views to people in Brooklyn.

In short, I find the correlation wrong. If under Nixon the Civil Rights Act was signed, and blacks became 99% Republican, and then with a coalition of white evangelicals they voted together for the Republicans and the South became a GOP stronghold, then yes the argument would hold. But if even Carter couldn't create such a coalition long-term, I don't see it working out back then.

This is just my opinion, so if you have a counter, please elaborate. I love debates :).

Evangelical Christianity is inescapably intertwined with racism. It arose in its modern form out of backlash to civil rights. Evangelicals voted for Trump in higher numbers than the actual born-again Christian Bush. Why do you think that would be?
 

A mix of reasons. Some racist. I know all about religion and racism mixing in the South, but then again, religion mixes with everything in the South. Klansmen and Civil RIghts leaders used the same Bible to justify their views. The South is very literalist on the bible.

Trump is very brash, and seen as an "America F Yeah" kinda guy. Lots of Southerners (and quite a few northerners and westerners) like that too. I'm not denying race in the Trump factor (it's a big part. White racial anxiety is definitely up there), but there are numerous reasons. One was Pence, and another (the bigger reason to me) was the Supreme Court. They wanted a staunch conservative on the court, so they made a completely political alliance with Trump. It actually debases their values at it shows how political everything is, but its similar to feminists supporting Bill Clinton in the 90's after the allegations because that's how political coalitions function in a transactional world.
 
Top