Please allow me to add a few additional thoughts to this discussion of what (without the giganatic presence of FDR) would have been a very "interesting" political year.
1. I agree with the others on this thread who have written that Garner would have run for President. I think he was enough of a mean old SOB to run just for the sheer pleasure of harrasing the New Dealers who he truly disliked and he might have though he had at least a chance to get the nomination.
2. Hopkins would have been the best New Dealer candidate from a policy standpoint and he was indeed close to FDR, but as ponted out above, he had made no friends in Congress or the Party with his adminstration of the WPA and by 1940 his health was beginning to fail.
3. In 1940 Jackson and Truman were too unknown to seriously consider running but I could see Truman as Missouri's favorite son candidate at the Convention, hoping for lightening to strike.
4. Wallace could run but I do not see him gaining much support outside of a few Midwestern states.
5. Farley would definitely run, thinking (incorrectly) that he had, or would have, FDR's support. Farley would have the Catholics and the Big cCty bosses behind him but when this religion proved to be too big an obstacle in the South and the Midwest, FDR would cut him loose without a second thought.
6. So that brings me back to Cordell Hull. He as a Southerner but not from the deep South, he was a respected Party elder, his health had not yet seriously deteriated because of the strains of wartime conferences. HIs Good Neighbor and tariff reduction policies gave him the image of a statesman and FDR liked him. I think he is the eventual nominee of a brokered convention.
7. I disagree with some posters who discount Wilkie. Without FDR, 1940 shapes up as a GOP year but the Party is split between Midwestern conservatives and Eastern liberals/moderates. The Indiana born and raised, Wall Street lawyer Wilkie is perfectly placed to exploit this split as he did in OTL and I could see it happening even if it is clear that FDR is not running. Wilkie had tremendous support from the press barons such as Luce of Time/Life and the Whitneys of the Herald Tribune and his position of "the New Deal without the excesses and administrative follies" was a smart one. Finally, Wilkie was a tremendoulsy charismatic and appealing figure (by 1940 standards) and he would be the closest thing to FDR in terms of popular appeal.
8. So. . . Hull vs Wilkie with Wilkie winning a solid but not overwhelming victory. Any thoughts from my fellow posters as to the makeup of a Wilkie Administration and its likely actions?
1. I agree with the others on this thread who have written that Garner would have run for President. I think he was enough of a mean old SOB to run just for the sheer pleasure of harrasing the New Dealers who he truly disliked and he might have though he had at least a chance to get the nomination.
2. Hopkins would have been the best New Dealer candidate from a policy standpoint and he was indeed close to FDR, but as ponted out above, he had made no friends in Congress or the Party with his adminstration of the WPA and by 1940 his health was beginning to fail.
3. In 1940 Jackson and Truman were too unknown to seriously consider running but I could see Truman as Missouri's favorite son candidate at the Convention, hoping for lightening to strike.
4. Wallace could run but I do not see him gaining much support outside of a few Midwestern states.
5. Farley would definitely run, thinking (incorrectly) that he had, or would have, FDR's support. Farley would have the Catholics and the Big cCty bosses behind him but when this religion proved to be too big an obstacle in the South and the Midwest, FDR would cut him loose without a second thought.
6. So that brings me back to Cordell Hull. He as a Southerner but not from the deep South, he was a respected Party elder, his health had not yet seriously deteriated because of the strains of wartime conferences. HIs Good Neighbor and tariff reduction policies gave him the image of a statesman and FDR liked him. I think he is the eventual nominee of a brokered convention.
7. I disagree with some posters who discount Wilkie. Without FDR, 1940 shapes up as a GOP year but the Party is split between Midwestern conservatives and Eastern liberals/moderates. The Indiana born and raised, Wall Street lawyer Wilkie is perfectly placed to exploit this split as he did in OTL and I could see it happening even if it is clear that FDR is not running. Wilkie had tremendous support from the press barons such as Luce of Time/Life and the Whitneys of the Herald Tribune and his position of "the New Deal without the excesses and administrative follies" was a smart one. Finally, Wilkie was a tremendoulsy charismatic and appealing figure (by 1940 standards) and he would be the closest thing to FDR in terms of popular appeal.
8. So. . . Hull vs Wilkie with Wilkie winning a solid but not overwhelming victory. Any thoughts from my fellow posters as to the makeup of a Wilkie Administration and its likely actions?