FDR Dies on the Way Back from Europe in 1918

In 1918, Franklin D. Roosevelt finally persuaded Secretary of the Navy Daniels to let him make an inspection tour in Europe. This tour almost cost FDR his life, not because of anything happening to him on the battlefields, but because of illness on the way back home:

"As the ship made its way across the Atlantic, Franklin fell ill, suffering from a debilitating combination of Spanish influenza and double pneumonia. Like Teddy, he sweat his way through a fever that would almost end his life. The flu cut a deadly path through the crew and passengers, resulting in a series of funerals at sea, but Franklin managed to survive. He arrived in New York so frail that he needed help getting off the ship and up the stairs to his mother’s townhouse..." https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014...ar-brought-teddy-roosevelt-and-franklin-delan

So suppose FDR actually dies a few months before Theodore (FDR having famously described their relationship as "fifth cousin by blood and nephew by law")? Of course in some respects this question is similar to one we have discussed in the past--"What if FDR had lost the close New York gubernatorial race in 1928"? In each case, there is the question of who the Democrats would nominate for president in 1932--Smith? (unlikely IMO after 1928--delegates from outside the Northeast would prefer almost anyone else) Garner? Baker? McAdoo? Etc.

However, while we can go into that, I am also interested in a relatively short-run consequence--who do the Democrats nominate as Cox's running mate (I assume they still nominate Cox for president) in 1920? You may say that this is unimportant because the ticket is doomed to go down to a landslide defeat, anyway. Agreed, but simply getting the vice-presidential nomination could bring someone to national attention (as it did to FDR in OTL) and enable him to have a better chance at a future presidential nomination. (As with FDR, few people will blame the vice-presidential nominee for the ticket's defeat.)
 
Last edited:
Off the top of my head, I'd say the immediate, 1920 consequences would have been that Cox, not finding anyone in the
east who he wanted, would have decided to
appease Bryan & pick a southern/western running mate. He would not have tabbed
McAdoo. Being in Wilson's cabinet McAdoo
would have been a symbol of the Wilson
administration, & by 1920 Wilson was so
unpopular that the Democrats were trying to distance themselves from him. So
who would Cox have picked? Well, how
about Oscar Underwood?

As for the consequences in 1932, let me
get back to you on this, for I have some
thoughts on this matter.
 
Last edited:
Underwood was arguably one of the best senators of the era. Certainly his anti-Klan and anti-Prohibition stances are worth applauding in retrospect. The major obstacle to his nomination for a national office was his adoptive home state of Alabama: at the time, the south was a sure thing for the Democrats, and there was no need to throw any bones, even in the form of the second spot on a national ticket. Speculating wildly, had Underwood represented, say, Missouri or Kentucky instead of Alabama, he might well have gotten the nod. But that's multiple PODs.

Getting back to the original premise, I'd take a shot at Burton Wheeler. Wheeler at the time was a former congressman, would-be governor of Montana, and noted advocate of organized labor. OK, something of a long shot, but IOTL, FDR didn't exactly have all that stellar a resume at the time either.
 
Underwood was arguably one of the best senators of the era. Certainly his anti-Klan and anti-Prohibition stances are worth applauding in retrospect. The major obstacle to his nomination for a national office was his adoptive home state of Alabama: at the time, the south was a sure thing for the Democrats, and there was no need to throw any bones, even in the form of the second spot on a national ticket. Speculating wildly, had Underwood represented, say, Missouri or Kentucky instead of Alabama, he might well have gotten the nod. But that's multiple PODs.

Getting back to the original premise, I'd take a shot at Burton Wheeler. Wheeler at the time was a former congressman, would-be governor of Montana, and noted advocate of organized labor. OK, something of a long shot, but IOTL, FDR didn't exactly have all that stellar a resume at the time either.


Good points re Underwood- I'd forgotten(&
should have remembered)that Underwood was from a section of the country that was
already in the bag for Cox.
 
Off the top of my head, I'd say the immediate, 1920 consequences would have been that Cox, not finding anyone in the
east who he wanted, would have decided to
appease Bryan & pick a southern/western running mate. He would not have tabbed
McAdoo. Being in Wilson's cabinet McAdoo
would have been a symbol of the Wilson
administration, & by 1920 Wilson was so
unpopular that the Democrats were trying to distance themselves from him. So
who would Cox have picked? Well, how
about Oscar Underwood? .

The Bryanites disliked Cox, but they *hated* Underwood for his conservatism, his ties to Wall Street, his opposition to women's suffrage, and his "wet" views on Prohibition. https://books.google.com/books?id=tt67UmTL8MwC&pg=PA299 No, it is definitely not going to be Underwood.
 
Last edited:
OK, here I am to follow up on my earlier post. The absence of FDR in the 20's would have meant little(he
was of course an important Alfred E Smith ally & worker but not so important that Smith ITTL would
not, as IOTL, be elected Governor of New York & then secure the Democratic Presidental nomination in
1928). It's when we get to 1932 that things would have gotten interesting. Assuming ITTL, as IOTL,
that the Great Depression would have hit(& considering all the economic factors @ work, that's a
safe assumption to make)& Hoover would be- to say the least- rather unpopular, you'd have had a
HORDE of candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Smith, who IOTL in 1932 was a major
candidate, here would be the leading one as he would have picked up a lot of votes that otherwise
would have gone to FDR. But he wouldn't have been nominated. First, there would be so many
candidates it'd be impossible for any one to get too many votes- & in 1932 here too, to get nom-
instead you needed not a simple majority but a TWO-THIRDS majority, which Smith wouldn't have
been within spitting distance of. Second, many Democrats would have shrugged that a Catholic like
Smith couldn't win in November & refuse to support his nomination.

So we most likely would have a deadlock. This party leaders would have wanted to avoid- so
they'd just look for a dark-house, compromise candidate everyone could accept. IOTL @ the 1932
Democratic Convention, one such possibility was actually present- former Secretary of War under Wilson Newton D. Baker. As historian Ralph G Martin pointed out, while he had few votes
pledged to him, neither had previous nominees Harding & John W Davis, while he was known &
liked by many Democrats; many of FDR's delegates went so far as to list Baker as a 2nd choice
(SEE Ralph G. Martin, BALLOTS AND BANDWAGONS, 1964, 4th section). The powerful William
Randolph Hearst was in fact, IOTL, so concerned Baker- a well-known proponent of the League Of
Nations- would be nominated that he swung to FDR, thus helping to nominate him. So ITTL Baker
would be nominated. Given Hoover's unpopularity(it was said then any Democrat would have won)
Baker would have been elected.

What type of a President would he have been? In his youth Baker was a staunch Progressive but many people who are liberal in their youth turn conservative in their old age(& in 1932 Baker was 61). I'm certain he lacked FDR's willingness to experiment, to try new things. Most likely he
would have followed a moderate-to-conservative course- which was not what the thirties called for
& what the nation needed & would have liked. By 1936 he might have been in Hoover's most
unenviable position, paving the way for a certain Southern Senator....

So I guess Corjomc is right after all: this thread IS a POD for a Huey Long presidency....
 
Last edited:
Top