John Nance Garner as President in 1933

[Deleted member 1487]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner

In 1932, he was elected the 32nd Vice President of the United States, serving from 1933 to 1941. A conservative Southerner, Garner opposed the sit-down strikes of the labor unions and the New Deal's deficit spending. He broke with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in early 1937 over the issue of enlarging the Supreme Court, and helped defeat it on the grounds that it centralized too much power in the President's hands.

Garner was popular with his fellow House members in both parties. He held what he called his "board of education" during the era of Prohibition, a gathering spot for lawmakers to drink alcohol, or as Garner called it, "strike a blow for liberty."

During Roosevelt's second term, Garner's previously warm relationship with the President quickly soured, as Garner disagreed sharply with him on a wide range of important issues. Garner supported federal intervention to break up the Flint Sit-Down Strike, supported a balanced federal budget, opposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 to "pack" the Supreme Court with additional judges, and opposed executive interference with the internal business of the Congress.[5]


During 1938 and 1939, numerous Democratic party leaders urged Garner to run for President in 1940. Garner identified as the champion of the traditional Democratic Party establishment, which often clashed with supporters of Roosevelt's New Deal. The Gallup Poll showed that Garner was the favorite among Democratic voters, based on the assumption that Roosevelt would defer to the longstanding two-term tradition and not run for a third term. Time magazine characterized him on April 15, 1940:

Cactus Jack is 71, sound in wind & limb, a hickory conservative who does not represent the Old South of magnolias, hoopskirts, pillared verandas, but the New South: moneymaking, industrial, hardboiled, still expanding too rapidly to brood over social problems. He stands for oil derricks, sheriffs who use airplanes, prairie skyscrapers, mechanized farms, $100 Stetson hats. Conservative John Garner appeals to many a conservative voter.[6]

Some other Democrats did not find him appealing. In Congressional testimony, union leader John L. Lewis described him as "a labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man".[7]
​

If FDR had fallen to the assassin's bullet in 1933:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara
Then John Nance Garner would have been his successor before FDR was even inaugurated.

Based on the above it sounds like most of the New Deal would not have happened with Garner in office. He'd likely repeal Prohibition, do some work on solving the Dust Bowl being a rural Texan originally of a farming constituency, and probably do things to stabilize the banks, but beyond that given his policy against going for court packing and his balanced budget ideas means that most of the New Deal is not going to happen either by his veto or lack of support or SCOTUS strike down. On top of that he'd go after labor and certainly not create the Labor Relations Board, not hesitate to use the military and FBI against unions, and not cultivate them as a constituency for the party.

Frankly if he were in office in the event of FDR's death the country would have been badly messed up by his positions and could well see a Republican like John Dewey (an isolationist) get elected in 1940, while leaving the Democratic party fractured and labor very militant with a high chronic unemployment rate near 20% even as late as 1939.

What sort of president would he make in your opinion and what would it mean for the country and world?

 

[Octosteel]

He seems like he would very much leave an opening for Huey Long.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

He seems like he would very much leave an opening for Huey Long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
Assuming Huey isn't assassinated in 1935 and can get passed the party structure.

 

[KorgusCyborgus]

 

[Octosteel]

I feel bad for Garner. The world ends every week because he becomes President. Even Breckinridge doesn't get it as rough in alternate history.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Exactly where the idea came from, but the book doesn't get into specifics about what happens in the US from 1933-40.

 

[1940LaSalle]

By the way, it's Thomas (not John) Dewey who was one of many GOP candidates in 1940. Probably the candidate wouldn't have been Dewey-he was all of 38 at the time and only a high-profile attorney general-but more likely Robert Taft. Still, Taft was very much an isolationist.

A Garner presidency might make it tough for Willkie but not impossible. Willkie would have to raise a flag about the threat to the US, especially the west coast, posed by Japan, and point out the alliance between Japan and Germany. Conceivably a GOP candidate like Willkie might run on a "preparedness" platform, raising the spectre of foreign nations invading Hawaii, closing in on the US east coast in submarines, etc. OK, it might not play well in, say, the Dakotas, but they didn't (and still don't) count for a lot in the electoral college. On the other hand, that might play on either coast, which might be just enough to put Willkie in the White House.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

By the way, it's Thomas (not John) Dewey who was one of many GOP candidates in 1940. Probably the candidate wouldn't have been Dewey-he was all of 38 at the time and only a high-profile attorney general-but more likely Robert Taft. Still, Taft was very much an isolationist.

Thanks for the correction. I chose Dewey because Taft was a junior senator (only two years on the job) and an outspoken libertarian that nearly lost his second election, while Dewey was a 'compassionate conservative' that was actually somewhat supportive of most of the New Deal, which would make him more moderate and an easier choice for the public still scarred by the Hoover years. But if Garner makes a mess of things and triggers a violent labor movement that alienates the public, Taft could well be the choice of the public, as Taft was very pro-military and wanted a large build up to defend US borders, which would have been a version of stimulus and helped the US economy. Plus if labor splits from the Garner led Democratic party and splits the vote of the left like Perot did in 1992 for the GOP then perhaps someone like Taft has a shot nationally.

A Garner presidency might make it tough for Willkie but not impossible. Willkie would have to raise a flag about the threat to the US, especially the west coast, posed by Japan, and point out the alliance between Japan and Germany. Conceivably a GOP candidate like Willkie might run on a "preparedness" platform, raising the spectre of foreign nations invading Hawaii, closing in on the US east coast in submarines, etc. OK, it might not play well in, say, the Dakotas, but they didn't (and still don't) count for a lot in the electoral college. On the other hand, that might play on either coast, which might be just enough to put Willkie in the White House.

The German-Japanese defensive alliance (the Tripartite Pact) didn't happen until September 1940 and prior they had just some minor anti-Soviet agreements.

The question is whether a nation still mired in poverty and depression with an increasingly militant and violent labor movement picked on by the Garner government would distract people from what was going on in the world. I suppose for Wilkie the issue is what happens in the primary, as IOTL he waffled on the issues of isolationism that alienated both sides of the party, but he was able to pull a primary win regardless; however if the country is split more than IOTL on economic issues/labor problems, then things could shake out very differently. We'd likely not have the prepartory defense expansions in the late 1930s, so would likely be starting from scratch in 1940.

 

[GeographyDude]

I think John Garner would have come round to public works programs for job creation. And he may well have adopted New Deal type programs to push up agricultural prices.

But he may not have moved as quickly and that may have made a big difference.

FDR was very good at delegating, not dumping. And he very much had the approach of an experimentalist.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I think John Garner would have come round to public works programs for job creation. And he may well have adopted New Deal type programs to push up agricultural prices.

But he may not have moved as quickly and that may have made a big difference.

FDR was very good at delegating, not dumping. And he very much had the approach of an experimentalist.

The problem is that he was conservative and against court packing, so SCOTUS, which kept striking down those job creation laws as unconstitutional will block the legislation and Garner won't intimidate them into backing down like FDR did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

 

[HongCanucker]

Exactly where the idea came from, but the book doesn't get into specifics about what happens in the US from 1933-40.

Well, Garner serves two terms followed by John Bricker, who seems to be the one to preside over the end and partition of the United States of America.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Well, Garner serves two terms followed by John Bricker, who seems to be the one to preside over the end and partition of the United States of America.

I know that was in the book, but I don't think that was plausible given how unknown Bricker was IOTL in 1940.

 

[bguy]

Based on the above it sounds like most of the New Deal would not have happened with Garner in office. He'd likely repeal Prohibition, do some work on solving the Dust Bowl being a rural Texan originally of a farming constituency, and probably do things to stabilize the banks, but beyond that given his policy against going for court packing and his balanced budget ideas means that most of the New Deal is not going to happen either by his veto or lack of support or SCOTUS strike down.

Disagree with most all of this. Garner was a big supporter of deposit insurance (much more than FDR), so you will definitely get that (which was probably the single most useful New Deal program.) He also co-sponsored the Garner-Wagner relief bill in 1932 (a $2 billion dollar public works bill that was vetoed by Hoover), so you'll also get large scale public works spending from President Garner as well. He was enthusiastic about securities regulation and the Public Utility Holding Company Act, so you will see that legislation. And he supported the Rural Electrification Act (which was the baby of his protege Sam Rayburn), so you'll definitely see that as well.

Garner was skeptical about the NRA (he didn't think it would be workable and feared it would lead to cartelization) but indicated he was willing to see it tried, so he won't veto it if it is passed. I've never been able to find his views on the Agricultural Adjustment Act, but given that Garner was a Wilsonian progressive from rural Texas, its very difficult to believe he wouldn't have supported something like it. I also don't know his view on the TVA, but OTL he helped pushed the TVA legislation through Congress, and Garner certainly wasn't afraid to go against the President when he disagreed with him, so that suggests Garner was at least neutral on it. And as for the Social Security Act, I don't know what Garner's views on it were, but OTL it passed by veto proof margins in both houses of Congress, so even if Garner opposes it he probably won't be able to stop it. (Though I very much doubt Garner would veto a bill with as much popular support as Social Security.)

Thus most of the New Deal still happens under President Garner. The only major New Deal bill that is questionable is the Wagner Act, and even that might get through. (OTL the Wagner Act passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses, so it might be able to get enacted over a presidential veto, though unlike the Social Security Act, I think Garner will veto this bill unless it is majorly watered down.)

(I also think you are over-estimating how aggressive the Supreme Court was in striking down New Deal legislation. The only legislation the Supremes really went after were business regulations. The relief programs like the WPA, PWA, and CCC were never touched.)

On top of that he'd go after labor and certainly not create the Labor Relations Board, not hesitate to use the military and FBI against unions, and not cultivate them as a constituency for the party.

This I agree with. Garner's relations with labor will be bad. (He really hated sit-down strikes.) This will probably lead to significant labor militancy in Garner's second term.

What sort of president would he make in your opinion and what would it mean for the country and world?

The economy will probably do somewhat worse under Garner than under Roosevelt since Garner probably won't spend as much on public works as Roosevelt did and will likely raise taxes much more than Roosevelt did in order to pay for his programs. (Garner did take balanced budgets seriously.) Still, Garner will obviously be doing more than Hoover did and will have some definite achievements going into the 1936 election (the banking system will be stabilized, the securities market will be regulated, Social Security will be enacted, and millions of people will be getting jobs through government programs), so he should be able to win a comfortable reelection.

Garner's second term will likely be rocky due to increased labor unrest. A Republican winning in 1940 is a real possibility.

As for Garner's foreign policy OTL he opposed recognition of the Soviet Union, so that probably doesn't happen. He seems to have been a non-interventionist in Latin American affairs (he advised FDR to not get involved in Cuba when President Machado was overthrown), so likely nothing happens on that front. He had favored Philippine independence since 1902, so that definitely goes forward. He hated the Smoot-Hawley tariff, so we probably see him pushing for tariff reciprocity. He opposed the embargo clause in the Neutrality Acts (though he probably won't be any more successful than Roosevelt in keeping that from being enacted.) And perhaps most significantly, he was very suspicion of Japan. Garner was already advocating cutting off the export of petroleum, scrap metal, and war material to Japan in 1939, so he will probably take a much harder line against Japan than even FDR did. I don't know if it would be possible for Garner to get an embargo against Japan enacted that early, but if he can then we could see the Pacific War start a good year earlier.

The problem is that he was conservative and against court packing, so SCOTUS, which kept striking down those job creation laws as unconstitutional will block the legislation and Garner won't intimidate them into backing down like FDR did.

Exactly what job creation legislation do you think the Supreme Court struck down during that period?

 

[sciscisciortino]

I think there's a real possibility a Labor Party emerges. Garner will definitely push most of the New Deal but I don't think anything can stop labor for asserting itself politically and he may very well poison the well for them.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Disagree with most all of this. Garner was a big supporter of deposit insurance (much more than FDR), so you will definitely get that (which was probably the single most useful New Deal program.) He also co-sponsored the Garner-Wagner relief bill in 1932 (a $2 billion dollar public works bill that was vetoed by Hoover), so you'll also get large scale public works spending from President Garner as well. He was enthusiastic about securities regulation and the Public Utility Holding Company Act, so you will see that legislation. And he supported the Rural Electrification Act (which was the baby of his protege Sam Rayburn), so you'll definitely see that as well.

Garner was skeptical about the NRA (he didn't think it would be workable and feared it would lead to cartelization) but indicated he was willing to see it tried, so he won't veto it if it is passed. I've never been able to find his views on the Agricultural Adjustment Act, but given that Garner was a Wilsonian progressive from rural Texas, its very difficult to believe he wouldn't have supported something like it. I also don't know his view on the TVA, but OTL he helped pushed the TVA legislation through Congress, and Garner certainly wasn't afraid to go against the President when he disagreed with him, so that suggests Garner was at least neutral on it. And as for the Social Security Act, I don't know what Garner's views on it were, but OTL it passed by veto proof margins in both houses of Congress, so even if Garner opposes it he probably won't be able to stop it. (Though I very much doubt Garner would veto a bill with as much popular support as Social Security.)

Thus most of the New Deal still happens under President Garner. The only major New Deal bill that is questionable is the Wagner Act, and even that might get through. (OTL the Wagner Act passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses, so it might be able to get enacted over a presidential veto, though unlike the Social Security Act, I think Garner will veto this bill unless it is majorly watered down.)

(I also think you are over-estimating how aggressive the Supreme Court was in striking down New Deal legislation. The only legislation the Supremes really went after were business regulations. The relief programs like the WPA, PWA, and CCC were never touched.)



This I agree with. Garner's relations with labor will be bad. (He really hated sit-down strikes.) This will probably lead to significant labor militancy in Garner's second term.



The economy will probably do somewhat worse under Garner than under Roosevelt since Garner probably won't spend as much on public works as Roosevelt did and will likely raise taxes much more than Roosevelt did in order to pay for his programs. (Garner did take balanced budgets seriously.) Still, Garner will obviously be doing more than Hoover did and will have some definite achievements going into the 1936 election (the banking system will be stabilized, the securities market will be regulated, Social Security will be enacted, and millions of people will be getting jobs through government programs), so he should be able to win a comfortable reelection.

Garner's second term will likely be rocky due to increased labor unrest. A Republican winning in 1940 is a real possibility.

As for Garner's foreign policy OTL he opposed recognition of the Soviet Union, so that probably doesn't happen. He seems to have been a non-interventionist in Latin American affairs (he advised FDR to not get involved in Cuba when President Machado was overthrown), so likely nothing happens on that front. He had favored Philippine independence since 1902, so that definitely goes forward. He hated the Smoot-Hawley tariff, so we probably see him pushing for tariff reciprocity. He opposed the embargo clause in the Neutrality Acts (though he probably won't be any more successful than Roosevelt in keeping that from being enacted.) And perhaps most significantly, he was very suspicion of Japan. Garner was already advocating cutting off the export of petroleum, scrap metal, and war material to Japan in 1939, so he will probably take a much harder line against Japan than even FDR did. I don't know if it would be possible for Garner to get an embargo against Japan enacted that early, but if he can then we could see the Pacific War start a good year earlier.



Exactly what job creation legislation do you think the Supreme Court struck down during that period?

Thanks for all of this, it really helps flesh out Wikipedia's limited info on him. Mind if I ask where you got this from? I'd like to read more. It would seem this jibes with what I've been able to find on him, though is foreign policy is a pretty big blank spot for me. As to what SCOTUS did I was operating from memory and seem to have really overestimated what they did against the New Deal; it does make Garner's position against Court Packing make a lot more sense.

I think there's a real possibility a Labor Party emerges. Garner will definitely push most of the New Deal but I don't think anything can stop labor for asserting itself politically and he may very well poison the well for them.

How much of the New Deal came from below, how much from the Presidency? If Garner picks a fight with labor going into the 1936 election he'd still win, but the issue is what happens over the next 4 years as labor starts to really push back? Does Garner really sick the FBI on them and expose ties to the USSR? Would we see violence in the streets? Would a Labor/Socialist party be able to split the Democrats enough to get a non-interventionalist Republican elected?

 

[bguy]

Thanks for all of this, it really helps flesh out Wikipedia's limited info on him. Mind if I ask where you got this from? I'd like to read more.

My main source was Garner of Texas by Bascom Timmons. It's an old book (1948), but it's the only biography I've ever been able to find on Garner. (Everything on Garner's foreign policy views came from it.)

Otherwise I mainly relied upon Profiles in Power:Twentieth Century Texans in Washington which was edited by Kenneth Hendrickson, Michael Collins, and Patrick Cox.

It would seem this jibes with what I've been able to find on him, though is foreign policy is a pretty big blank spot for me. As to what SCOTUS did I was operating from memory and seem to have really overestimated what they did against the New Deal; it does make Garner's position against Court Packing make a lot more sense.

Well I don't want to understate what the Supreme Court was doing either. They did kill a lot of progressive laws during the 30s (and not just New Deal legislation either but a lot of business regulations enacted at the state level). And there is a very real chance that Social Security (and the Wagner Act if it gets enacted over a presidential veto) will be declared unconstitutional in a President Garner timeline. But the Supreme Court's ire was primarily directed against business regulations. I'm not aware of their ever being any serious court challenge to the constitutionality of any of the New Deal's public works programs, so those will be fine ITTL.

And ultimately the court packing plan proved unnecessary simply because the conservative Supreme Court justices were all really old and about to start dying off anyway. (Butler dies in 1939, Van Deveanter dies in 1941 and Sutherland dies in 1942.) Unless Garner and his successor replace them with equally conservative justices (which seems unlikely), the court will shift to the left over the next few years anyway, so the main thing FDR accomplished by pressuring the court was simply to speed that shift up by a few years.

How much of the New Deal came from below, how much from the Presidency? If Garner picks a fight with labor going into the 1936 election he'd still win, but the issue is what happens over the next 4 years as labor starts to really push back? Does Garner really sick the FBI on them and expose ties to the USSR? Would we see violence in the streets? Would a Labor/Socialist party be able to split the Democrats enough to get a non-interventionalist Republican elected?

Not sure about who were the originators for most of the New Deal legislation OTL, but Garner by temperment is very much a Congress man (and was leery of presidential power), so he will likely defer to Congress more than Roosevelt did.

From the Timmons book it seems like Garner was really concerned about communist infiltration, so I imagine he would expose any ties the labor movement has to the Soviets. Garner was also willing to use force to break up sit-down strikes (which Garner considered to be theft of other people's property), so it is very likely that at least one sit-down strike will end in bloodshed.

As for the election question, possibly, though I imagine whoever the Democrats run in 1940 will try really hard to build fences with labor. Huey Long (assuming his OTL assassination gets butterflied) is probably a more likely spoiler for the Democrats in 1940 than the Socialists.

1940 could also conceivably end up as an election with two isolationist candidates running each other (maybe Burton Wheeler vs Robert Taft). Though Garner will probably try and secure the Democrat presidential nomination for someone like Cordell Hull or James Farley.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

You're point about SOCTUS is interesting, but if we get a GOP president in 1940 wouldn't that stop the shift leftward of the court?

 

[bguy]

You're point about SOCTUS is interesting, but if we get a GOP president in 1940 wouldn't that stop the shift leftward of the court?

A GOP president in 1940 would probably be too late to stop the leftward shift. There were basically six conservative justices on the court in the 30s, Hughes, Roberts, McReynolds, Butler, Sutherland, and Van Devanter. (And Hughes and Roberts were really more swing votes anyway as they sometimes sided with the liberal block on the court in upholding New Deal legislation.) President Garner will at a minimum get to replace at least one of the conservative justices when Butler dies. And if Van Devanter and Sutherland retire at the same time as they did in OTL (1937 and 1938 respectively), then Garner gets to replace two more of the conservative justices. It's also possible that McReynolds may be willing to retire earlier than he did in OTL (he will probably prefer Garner appointing his successor than any of Garner's likely replacements), so that potentially lets Garner replace a fourth conservative justice as well.

Now balanced against that is the liberal wing of the court (Brandeis, Cardozo, and Stone) is also going to lose some members during Garner's second term. (OTL Cardozo died in 1938 and Brandeis retired in 1939.) Brandeis probably doesn't retire with Garner as president, but Cardozo will still die on schedule, so the court will be down at least one liberal justice.

Thus Garner will likely have four to five Supreme Court picks in total. If even three of the replacements are progressive justices then the court will thereafter have a progressive majority (at least in regards to the government's power to regulate the economy). And most likely all of Garner's picks will favor expanded government power over the economy. After all even racial reactionaries like Byrnes and Russell supported the New Deal's economic policies. It's also very unlikely that Garner would be able to get an arch-conservative nominee ratified by the Senate even if he wanted to. (Hoover wasn't able to get John Parker confirmed in 1930 and that was when the Republicans still controlled the Senate. The Senate is going to be a lot more liberal by Garner's second term than it was in 1930, so any arch-conservative Supreme Court nominee is going to be DOA.) Thus you probably have from 5 to 7 economic progressives on the Supreme Court by the end of Garner's presidency.

Also it must be remembered that a Republican president elected in 1940 is not guaranteed to appoint conservative justices either. A President Taft or Vandenberg might appoint conservative justices, but a President Dewey or Wilkie would probably appoint moderates.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Even Garner is going to appoint anti-labor people, as will any GOP candidate. Which makes any labor reform impossible and without the NLRB there is guaranteed to be a lot of social unrest as a result.

 

[bguy]

Even Garner is going to appoint anti-labor people, as will any GOP candidate. Which makes any labor reform impossible and without the NLRB there is guaranteed to be a lot of social unrest as a result.

It's going to be very hard to get openly anti-labor people confirmed though. Labor unions played a big part in killing John Parker's nomination because he was viewed as an anti-labor jurist, and they will probably also be able to block any other candidate they view as anti-labor.