LBJ primaried, 1954

In 1954, Gov. Allan Shivers considered challenging LBJ in the Dem primary, but decided not to. He'd led the Shivercrat movement, the first of the Southern crossovers to the GOP (next being Strom) by delivering Texas for Ike in '52. WI he'd challenged LBJ and won? Would he start a movement to lead the conservative and ultra SoDems into the GOP?
 
Well, it is hard to say. Being the governor and everything, Shivers would have a good chance of unseating Senator Johnson, though the Democratic Party didn't really have any reason to unseat LBJ in 1954. Still, with Shivers being of the conservative faction which really dominated Texas, he did have a good chance at defeating LBJ. I'd be guessing he had a 50-50 chance of unseating Johnson.

If he did, he probably would have won; most of the South was reliably Democratic (in 1952, every state that Democrat Adlai Stevenson won was southern), especially for Congress, and it was like that until the early 1960s. In 1954, LBJ won re-election to the US Senate with 84%-14% against Republican Carlos Watson. If he unseated LBJ in the Democratic primary, Governor Shivers would have won. He had the experience, he was governor, and again, the state was reliably Democratic.

So, if Shivers is elected, he probably resigns the governorship sometime in December, maybe late November, and on January 3, 1955, is sworn in as U.S. Senator from Texas, succeeding Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson. With that, Senator Shivers could have led conservative Democrats to the G.O.P. pretty quickly and easily. I don't know how, but I'm sure that is possible.

So, if that happens, the Republican Party will have the majority in the Senate. What effect does that have on the Eisenhower presidency? That means President Eisenhower will have an easier presidency and an easier way of getting legislation past the Senate. Most likely, bills that were not passed under the Eisenhower Administration would be passed, and this could have a good or bad effect on the presidency, though, knowing that most of the bills proposed were OK, it would probably have a good effect on the presidency.

So, does this have an effect on 1956? Probably not much. Adlai Stevenson is probably nominated again to fight Eisenhower for the presidency, and loses again. There's no chance of him doing better than he did in '56, and two things happen in 1956: Either he does about the same, or he loses more states. Again, every state Stevenson won in 1956 was southern, so perhaps this "Republicanization," if I may coin that term, gives some more states to Eisenhower. I doubt that Eisenhower will win every state in 1956, but there is a really good chance that Eisenhower may win more states than he did, if that's even imaginable.

Then, what about 1960? Do to the massive defeat by Eisenhower in '56, Stevenson probably won't even run a third time, and if he does, he's probably ignored and doesn't win a single primary or delegate at the Democratic convention. Plus, Johnson isn't the Senate Majority Leader, and if it isn't William Knowland anymore, it's Everett Dirksen. If anything, JFK may have an easier time at winning the Democratic nomination for president. Most likely, Richard Nixon wins the GOP nomination, but who knows? Butterflies may see an upset for the GOP nomination by Senate Majority Leader Dirksen, though I doubt it. Most likely, Eisenhower has an even better approval rating, and considering it was already at a good level in OTL 1960 and Nixon lost barely in 1960 to JFK, he has a really good chance at winning the presidency in 1960. I'm guessing Nixon wins in 1960, and on January 20, 1961, is inaugurated as the 35th President of the United States and Eisenhower's successor.

Overall, it may have a big chance at changing history. So, that's my two cents on the subject.
 
Last edited:
So, if Shivers is elected, he probably resigns the governorship sometime in December, maybe late November, and on January 3, 1955, is sworn in as U.S. Senator from Texas, succeeding Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson. With that, Senator Shivers could have led conservative Democrats to the G.O.P. pretty quickly and easily. I don't know how, but I'm sure that is possible.

I don't see it happening. Strom is really the earliest you can get Dixiecrat senators to go and join the GOP senate conference ('64).

You pointed out that Texas was still an effective one party state at this point--Shivers wouldn't want to alienate the power brokers back home, not if he wants to win reelection in '60. Anyway, he didn't reigister as a Republican until after he left the governor's mansion in OT.

I don't even know if a Republican could continue to sit in the fifties Southern Caucus--and being one of the Solid South bloc is where a freshman Senator Shivers would deprive his power from.

If he becomes a Republican in this decade he might end up as a Rightwing version of the ostracised Southerners like Kefauver, Gore. It's best for him to do what Ohio conservative Dem Frank Lausche did, and just behave like an actual Eisenhower loyalist.

DudeAlmighty947 said:
So, if that happens, the Republican Party will have the majority in the Senate. What effect does that have on the Eisenhower presidency? That means President Eisenhower will have an easier presidency and an easier way of getting legislation past the Senate. Most likely, bills that were not passed under the Eisenhower Administration would be passed, and this could have a good or bad effect on the presidency, though, knowing that most of the bills proposed were OK, it would probably have a good effect on the presidency.

Ike really didn't have any problems with the congressional Democratic majorities led by LBJ and Sam Rayburn.

There was no 'Eisenhower agenda' blocked by the opposition party in OTL (unlike the the Truman policies blocked by Truman's own party). On the contrary, the proposed Bricker amendment debated during the first congress of the Ike era demonstrated how the conservative GOP leadership in the upper house could easily be 'wedged' by LBJ and the Dems being more pro-Eisenhower than Eisenhower's own party.

It really was a different time in US politics. Eisenhower's great achievement was to go with the flow, only making difficult choices in domestic policy when he was forced to (the SCOTUS decision on school integration, the Russians taking the lead in the space race, halting an inflationary economy in the lead up to the '58 elections, f'rinstance).

I have to disagree with your assesment of a political domino effect helping the Republicans if LBJ leaves politics in '57.

What about the anti-GOP landslide of the '58 midterms? Why does the absence of Johnson change the US economy?

If LBJ had disappeared at this time (and he almost did IOTL--he suffered a massive coronary soon after Ike's heart attack) then the effect on US politics are, IMO, (a.) senate procedures don't begin to be reformed as they were at this time. Seniority continues to rule, and the powerful majority leader who served in the late fifties isn't around to give committee assignments to talented young senators, or to coordinate the creation of policy coming out of the standing committees, and (b.) the path towards passing Civil Rights legislation is slowed to (and stays at) the point it was during the Kennedy administration--no master legislative tactician in either the senate or the White House means that the voting- and civil-rights acts/amendments are delayed until towards the end of the sixties. And I don't have to tell you how big that is.
 
If that happens, what will the effects be on '60? That would make it a straight Kennedy v. Humphrey fight. Then the Kennedys could use Soviet-style steamrolling: eight-digit sums, division-size field armies, etc. To give you an idea, IOTL RFK spent 2 million in Indiana alone in '68. That's 12 million in 2008 USD. By WV '60, Humphrey had to spend his own grocery money.
 
If that happens, what will the effects be on '60? That would make it a straight Kennedy v. Humphrey fight. Then the Kennedys could use Soviet-style steamrolling: eight-digit sums, division-size field armies, etc. To give you an idea, IOTL RFK spent 2 million in Indiana alone in '68. That's 12 million in 2008 USD. By WV '60, Humphrey had to spend his own grocery money.

I handwaved Shivers beating LBJ in '54. Otherwise I don't remember either Dalek or Caro giving much credence to potential challengers for Johnson after he entered the senate.

Anyway, as to '60--yeah, I imagine Kennedy ends up the prohibitive favourite... unless Stuart Symington comes through and has a presidential boom, thanks to the absence of a strong leader who IOTL had fallen out with the senator from Missouri by the late fifties.

Good luck with the Kennedy's trying to buy the nomination if the demise of LBJ inspires the party to get behind a sensible candidate early on. Remove the fallback of Johnson as the safe-pair-of-hands candidate going into the convention and it's a much different nomination.
 
Who else would run besides Humphrey and Kennedy with a realistic shot at winning? I can see Shivers perhaps becoming Nixon's running mate in '60, and then Tricky Dick would wipe the floor with JFK or HHH, with maybe even a majority of Dixie states falling into the GOP's hands. Without LBJ, neither will be protected from Dixiecrat loathing of liberals. IOTL (Adolphus riot), they even called LBJ a Judas and a vendu (traitor/sellout).
 
Who else would run besides Humphrey and Kennedy with a realistic shot at winning?

Stuart Symington is the man.

In OTL he had fallen out with LBJ, having gone from someone who used to get invited to the ranch to someone whom Johnson wouldn't acknowledge on the floor of the senate.

If we assume that a dead/defeated Lyndon Johnson can't keep the talented former businessman and ex-secretary of the air force's reputation down, then the Southrons might turn to the Missourian in '60. He might get the lion's share of the support that LBJ had going into the convention.

Just a thought.

Anyway, I don't see Senator Shivers being a greater influence on US politics than he was in OTL as governor, even if he turns to the GOP & is eventually chosen Nixon's VP. The Republican annexation of Southern conservative politics actually needed LBJ's presidency in order to occur.

Shivers helping swing Texas to Eisenhower both times was a breakthrough, but it didn't change the fact that the state government was Democratic, that the congressional delegation was Democratic (John Tower became the exception to the rule in '60 because liberal voters were willing to shake things up in that state by acting as a pivotal swing group--the Rightwing GOPer who organised the violent protest against the Johnson's in '60 didn't hold a safe seat, no safe Republican US House seats existed in Texas until GHW Bush brought a court challenge that created a new district in suburban Houston .)

No LBJ on the ticket in '60 is big, but I don't think Nixon can just go ahead and choose his own Texan powerbroker--people like Nelson Rockefeller will still exist in this GOP.
 
Top