in the liberal 1930s, Edith Wilson acknowledged as solid acting president?

She didn’t go off on the wild blue yonder. I think she generally tried to make decisions like she thought her husband Woodrow would make.

And a wife taking over for an incapacitated husband is fairly common in human history. As is some people resenting this as usurping power.

All the same, what if Edith Wilson is acknowledged in a generally positive way in the 1930s?
 
As I wrote here a few years ago:

"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." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nt-during-liberal-1940s.404990/#post-13760740
 
"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."
Sounds a lot like an athlete taking a humble approaching and thanking his or her teammates after a victory, doesn’t it?

Which to me comes across pretty well. :)
 
And I really think political capital has a dynamic aspect of use it or lose it. Pick the right issue, and you can both accomplish something you want to accomplish and increase your political capital.

So, done right, the 1930s and 40s may have even been slightly more liberal.

Of course, conservative women have often been first at obtaining high office. For example, in 1974 Pres. Ford at least somewhat seriously considered picking Anne Armstrong for Vice-President (or at least paid her the courtesy of placing her on his short list). Margaret Thatcher won election in ‘79. And in 1981, Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, who generally was on the conservative side for the time, to be the first woman on the Supreme court.

And of course, there are exceptions. For example, the Democrats were the first major U.S. party to nominate a woman on a national ticket, with the solidly liberal Geraldine Ferraro as their V.P. pick in 1984. Although she certainly was not the caricature some Republicans claimed.
 
Last edited:
And I really think political capital has a dynamic aspect of use it or lose it. Picking the right issue, you both accomplish something you want to accomplish and increase your political.

So, done right, the 1930s and even 40s may have been slightly more liberal.

Of course, conservative women have often done better in first obtaining high political office. For example, apparently Pres. Ford at least somewhat seriously considered tapping Anne Armstrong for Vice-President in 1974 (who at least paid her the courtesy of placing her on his short list). Margaret Thatcher won election in ‘79. And in 1981, Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, who generally on the conservative side at the time, to be the first woman on the Supreme court.

And of course, there are exceptions. For example, the Democrats were the first U.S. major party to nominate a woman on a national ticket, with the solidly liberal Geraldine Ferraro as their V.P. pick in 1984. Although she certainly was not the caricature some Republicans claimed.

Why the 30's and how would acknowledging a completely unconstitutional practically illegal arrangement make people more liberal?
 
. . . a completely unconstitutional practically illegal arrangement . . .
Thank you for putting it in strong terms. Many people will agree with this and similar.

But many people will also realize that, things don’t always go per plan. And most of all, that Edith did a pretty good job.

On the plus side, we might get something like the 25th Amendment on presidential disability, and sometime before 1967 for crying out loud!

And in a flight of fancy, instead of the 22nd Amendment limiting the president to two terms, which has the main effect of making him or her a lame duck pretty much the entire second term, we might get a major step toward a parliamentary system. I mean, a person can dream, right?
 
As far as the ‘30s being even more liberal,

Wow, women’s rights are very important to overall society, besides directly affecting the life prospects of just a tad over 50%.

And, I think of standard education in which we’re taught to revere the President and the Supreme Court (but not Congress!) as being conservative, staid, old-fashioned. And an education in which we tell kids the way the world really works, in age-appropriate ways of course, along with various reforms being bandied about, . . . well, we don’t necessarily need to view this as liberal, although I tend to think of it as being such.
 
Why would a Democrat administration admit that the last time they were in office the President was incapacitated and that either a: no one was running the country, or b: the First Lady had carried out a coup?

Edith Wilson's actions were not a good thing for American democracy. No one would want to admit them or legitimise them.
 
I would argue you need to make the 1930s more socially Liberal. Politically, it was New Dealism. But that is not the same as social progress. The 1920s were more libertine with issues of race and gender than the 1930s. If you look at that era, it was the female liberation of the flapper, the first youth rebellion, and pre-code films which often dealt with issues such as racial strife, sex, gender, etc. Yes, they ran up against the moralists and decency leagues, rebirth of the Klan and "Birth of a Nation", but can that be said to be different from the same forces the Boomer generation ran up against in the 1960s, which is considered a liberal era? By the time you get a few years into the 1930s, the mood had changed by the Depression, further imposed upon by the Second World War, and wiped away by a Post-Depression / Post-War era of keeping your head down and enjoying normalcy you had not for 20 years; which spanned the development period and youths of many people. If you were 16 in 1929, in 1945 you were 32; In 1953 (just for the argument of the Eisenhower 1950s after Korea, Truman, the Post-War Recession, etc) you were 40.

In summary, my argument is that the 1930s up until the 1950s or 1960s (depending on the area) were not socially permissive or progressive. Even though economics and the scope and idea of government were New Dealerism.
 
Last edited:
. . . or b: the First Lady had carried out a coup? . .
Not a coup.
https://millercenter.org/president/wilson/essays/wilson-edith-1913-firstlady

“ . . . But in seeking to protect the man she loved, she did in fact assume a major political role. In excluding visitors and deciding which issues should be presented to him, she made political decisions without meaning to do so. At bottom, however, the fault was not hers -- she merely loved her husband -- it was a deficiency of the American political system that, until the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution in 1967, made no provision for the disability of the President.”
But like this says, a serious deficiency in our political system.

So, we look at things openly and come up with reforms. And ironically, Woodrow Wilson himself favored a parliamentary form of democracy à la the UK. Which is a bigger reform than we need! Although I myself actually kind of favor this, or at least the serious consideration thereof.
 
Last edited:
Of course it wasn't a coup in the classic sense of 'tanks parked on the White House lawn.' But the point is that, if we go along with the interpretation that Edith Wilson was running the government- which is by no means settled- then we have to accept that a civilian with no administrative experience or elected office clandestinely took over the job of the elected president. Moreover, by hiding his disability she prevented the Vice-President and Congress from fulfilling their proper constitutional roles.

It is absolutely nothing to celebrate.

And you're shifting the goalposts- 'Could Woodrow Wilson's incapacity help facilitate a more parliamentary democracy' is an entirely different question from 'what if Edith Wilson is acknowledged in a generally positive way in the 1930s?'
 
. . . And you're shifting the goalposts- . . .
I do not mean to shift goalposts. It’s rather that I enjoy dancing multiple possibilities. And personally, I would hope both would happen — that Edith would be acknowledged for doing a generally good job, and perhaps because we’re more relaxed about the whole situation, we could more fully and more openly look for reforms for similar situations in the future.

And in a lot of areas, practice emphatically does not go per theory,

For example, the important Constitutional provision that, whereas the President is Commander-in-Chief, only Congress can declare war, well, . . . not so much during the post-WWII cold war years. And I’ve read during the last weeks of Watergate, either Chief-of-Staff Al Haig or Secretary of Defense Jim Schlesinger told the Joint Chiefs, don’t do anything till you hear from me, and I think that would have carried. That is, this person was acting as the adult in the room, and we should be grateful that they were.
 
Last edited:
I agree- but I also think there's an enormous difference between breaking from established procedure to help defuse a potential constitutional crisis, and subverting the democratic functioning of government for months at a time. Schlesinger was an appointed official. Edith Wilson was a private citizen.

It's irrelevant whether or not she did a good job- she should never have done the job, and it is a major failing of the system that she did so.
 
I would argue you need to make the 1930s more socially Liberal. Politically, it was New Dealism. But that is not the same as social progress. The 1920s were more libertine with issues of race and gender than the 1930s. If you look at that era, it was the female liberation of the flapper, the first youth rebellion, and pre-code films which often dealt with issues such as racial strife, sex, gender, etc. . .
Movies certainly are a big part of my mental landscape, and I think that’s true for a lot of people. And I agree a lot was lost with the Hays Code, but I suspect slowly, as writers internalized smaller horizons. Before that, there’s a hell of a lot you can do with implying, hinting, suggesting. So much so that I think some writers set up a line for purposes of pushing that envelope, and perhaps later breaking through but not always.

Regarding sexual mores . . . I remember as a teenager in the 1970s it was sometimes discussed in a newspaper columns whether a landlord should rent to an unmarried couple, one time in an advice column like Dear Abby and another time in a real estate advice column. I know, sounds very quaint and by the ‘80s, this simply was not an issue. So, I’m going to ask whether some of the improvements in the 1920s simply weren’t an issue in the ‘30s (especially since people had serious economic issues to focus on, other than making a show of “morality”).

And the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition was ratified on Dec. 5, 1933. And by the method of state conventions, not state legislatures.
 
Last edited:
I agree- but I also think there's an enormous difference between breaking from established procedure to help defuse a potential constitutional crisis, and subverting the democratic functioning of government for months at a time. Schlesinger was an appointed official. Edith Wilson was a private citizen. . .
Given how much more the president did and was expected to do by the time of the 1970s and the existence of the arms race with the Soviet Union, I’m going to say several weeks of Nixon equals several months of Wilson.

I welcome a discussion on healthy interplay between theory and practice,

And Sec. of Defense is not next in line in the executive branch, it’s Secretary of State (and of course we’re bypassing Ford who was V.P. from Dec. ‘73 onward, as well as Speaker of the House Carl Albert). And to best of my knowledge, the president’s chief-of-staff is not in line of succession.
 
I agree- but I also think there's an enormous difference between breaking from established procedure to help defuse a potential constitutional crisis, and subverting the democratic functioning of government for months at a time. Schlesinger was an appointed official. Edith Wilson was a private citizen.

It's irrelevant whether or not she did a good job- she should never have done the job, and it is a major failing of the system that she did so.


But you can't stop a POTUS from taking advice where he will.

And what was she to do? Arguably she should have advised her husband to resign, but iirc she feared that this would destroy his will to live. Presumably the same objection would apply to suggesting that he ask the VP to assume Presidential powers "temporarily". So as she saw it he had to stay on, which meant he'd need a lot of helping out. And she thought herself the obvious person to do it, as she was one of the few people that he trusted.
 
d550a755-e87b-42b2-98a9-d74f3c41dfea_1.6202d5a9ac3f5fcff3632cfb13e8890c.jpeg

https://books.google.com/books?id=d... outside the normal chain of command”&f=false

‘ . . . Schlesinger and the Joint Chiefs had “kept a close watch to make certain that no orders were given to military units outside the normal chain of command.” . . . ’
Nixon and Watergate

So, apparently it was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger.
 
d550a755-e87b-42b2-98a9-d74f3c41dfea_1.6202d5a9ac3f5fcff3632cfb13e8890c.jpeg


https://books.google.com/books?id=d...between Nixon and the Pentagon brass"&f=false

" . . . You didn't have to be an editor at the [Washington] Post through the anxious years of Vietnam, détente, the opening of China, and Watergate to grasp the strong visceral distrust between Nixon and the Pentagon brass, who thought he had gone "soft on communism" and the rare opportunities for circumventing the Constitution because of his collapse. . . "
And in the long annals of human history, it's not unheard of even for a colonel to attend a coup, and hope some others go along, and that enough others will acquiesce. Sometimes even to succeed. Argentina, Libya.

To prevent this, you have to be like a seasoned poker played, trusting your instincts, also paying attention to the shifting terrain.

Again, good thing James Schlesinger, as well as the Joint Chiefs, were the adults in the room.
 
Top