FDR Dies and Long Lives

That actually happens in The People's Flag. Though lots of other things do, too, so it's hardly a fair, isolated test of what might happen.
 
That actually happens in The People's Flag. Though lots of other things do, too, so it's hardly a fair, isolated test of what might happen.

That's also what I'm planning in my future TL as well though it doesn't have the Second Civil War (for America anyway).
 
Brain confusion when I read this as "FDR Dies and Lives Long" !

I was, tho, actually thinking about Huey Long earlier today whilst staring at his never-read book upon my shelves as I put my boots on. People seem to think he would have been a disaster as president, but in most ways he seems like he would have been pretty much a Nixon

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Brain confusion when I read this as "FDR Dies and Lives Long" !

I was, tho, actually thinking about Huey Long earlier today whilst staring at his never-read book upon my shelves as I put my boots on. People seem to think he would have been a disaster as president, but in most ways he seems like he would have been pretty much a Nixon

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

While Long was many things, he was not democratic. He was, simply put, a dictator. His administration remained dependent on his popularity, but he was a dictator nonetheles. Long made a mockery of the legislative proceses, openly telling state lawmakers which bills passed and which were rejected. He did much to help the downtrodden people of Lousiana, but his methods make a lot of people uncomfortable.

Long was a very intelligent man, but I have to wonder how successful his presidency would have been due to his disregard for procedure.
 
While Long was many things, he was not democratic. He was, simply put, a dictator. His administration remained dependent on his popularity, but he was a dictator nonetheles. Long made a mockery of the legislative proceses, openly telling state lawmakers which bills passed and which were rejected. He did much to help the downtrodden people of Lousiana, but his methods make a lot of people uncomfortable.

Long was a very intelligent man, but I have to wonder how successful his presidency would have been due to his disregard for procedure.

I think you can run a state that way, but you certainly can't run a democracy and he would have to compromise. What it would mean is that he would have a solid base behind him, people he could trust etc, but to become president he has to win the electoral college vote, and before that he has to win the nomination, which always required a good deal of deal making, negotiations, compromise etc within the party

Once in power he cannot control the Senate and the House simply by ordering them to do things. He will have to use charisma, charm etc, even if he can pick a cabinet largely made up of his associates

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Long for Dictator

Long would have run for nomination of the Democratic Party for President in 1936, and likely not have won it. Frustrated, he would have considered the Populist gambit as a third party candidate, but mindful of Teddy Roosevelt would have declined. The Republican candidate would have won with a minority of Popular votes, but a plurality of Electoral College votes. The Depression which had started to improve, in 1937, & 1938 would have worsened as spending goes down. In the 1940 election, Long would have by this time, having built up a national organization run again, this time as the Democratic Candidate would win. December 7th 1941 would come and go with no Japanese attack, as there would have been no action taken against Japan in relation to its attack on China. Japan would continue to buy US Oil and other commodities, and continue to flounder in China.

Now the question is, would Great Britain, after allowing France to accept a separate Peace with Germany, also agree to some type of armistice with Germany in light of an internally focused US, that gives no indication of providing support in the short term?
 
I read (okay, understood, I didn't misorder the words) that the same way. Thought it was about two different scenarios. :)

That was probably bad phrasing on my part. I apologize.

The Depression which had started to improve, in 1937, & 1938 would have worsened as spending goes down.

Would it really have though? Most of what I have read on the Recession of 1937 blames the incident on Roosevelt. Production had exceeded levels from the 1920s and wages were stabilizing. As a result of this, Roosevelt and the Congress began cutting funding to various New Deal programs under the belief that the economy had recovered and with fears of rampant inflation.

The result was economic collapse and the stocks plummeting. Would this have happened without Roosevelt?


On another note, what happens to the Second New Deal? Does Garner try to undo Roosevelt's 'liberal' legislation and instead support the traditional Democratic ideas on the economy? Can the Brain Trust and public sentiment convince him otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Would it really have though? Most of what I have read on the Recession of 1937 blames the incident on Roosevelt. Production had exceeded levels from the 1920s and wages were stabilizing. As a result of this, Roosevelt and the Congress began cutting funding to various New Deal programs under the belief that the economy had recovered and with fears of rampant inflation.
It'll be worse because Garner and the Republicans (great band btw) will cut more and earlier than OTL.
 
It'll be worse because Garner and the Republicans (great band btw) will cut more and earlier than OTL.

So, Garner probably rides a wave of sympathy into election day, 1936 and demolishes the Republican nominee. He spends the first few months of his own term watering down Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, probably with the support of the Liberty League. In early 1937, the economy collapses again and the public becomes disillusioned with him. The Democrats in Congress uncomfortably aware of their dropping approval rates accuse Garner of betraying the ideals of the Roosevelt administration. With the general public's support they try to overpower the President and push a Third New Deal through.

Is that an accurate assumption? It certainly makes for an ugly political environment. Garner hardly seems like a man who would not run for re-election.
 
So, Garner probably rides a wave of sympathy into election day, 1936 and demolishes the Republican nominee. He spends the first few months of his own term watering down Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, probably with the support of the Liberty League. In early 1937, the economy collapses again and the public becomes disillusioned with him. The Democrats in Congress uncomfortably aware of their dropping approval rates accuse Garner of betraying the ideals of the Roosevelt administration. With the general public's support they try to overpower the President and push a Third New Deal through.

Is that an accurate assumption? It certainly makes for an ugly political environment. Garner hardly seems like a man who would not run for re-election.
Yes, except Garner would have been so bad the Republicans are back in come January 20, 1937.
 
Yes, except Garner would have been so bad the Republicans are back in come January 20, 1937.

How? Roosevelt has been assassinated less than a year from election season . The sympathy from that should at least be enough to carry Garner and the Democrats one election cycle. He can't screw up that badly, can he? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

It does set the party up for an unpleasant fight in 1938 and an even messier Presidential election in 1940, which is probably what Long wants.
 
Top