PoD: Wilson is removed from office. Thomas Marshall replaces him.

PoD: Wilson is removed from office. Thomas Marshall replaces him.


Premise: The RTL stroke that Wilson suffered October 2, 1919 wrecked the US government at a moment when strong leadership was needed. This one event and Edith Wilson’s actions thereafter^1, are often cited as the reason that the United States senate refused to consider and ratify both the Versailles treaty and the proposed League of Nations which was part of the package that came with it.


The curious factor often overlooked by many historians is the inaction of vice president Thomas Riley Marshall, a progressive democrat from the state of Indiana. Now, based on his history as Indiana governor, when he refused to interfere with the democrat party machine; who filled the state offices during his administration with utterly corrupt office seekers; his inaction to take up the reins of governance by this passive politician seems to be entirely within his character. He was non-confrontational.


Woodrow Wilson paralyzed kind of sums up the US government at a time when Europe was setting up the series of mistakes that would plunge the world into war, some twenty years later.


The what if: is this; Democratic party bosses urge Thomas Marshall to assume the office of President. He picks up this gentleman, Frederick H. Gilbert, a virtual nonentity and Speaker of the House, as his vice president.


Discuss the ensuing chaos that results.


^1 Edith Wilson, it is my opinion, probably obstructed due process of succession, when Woodrow Wilson suffered his stroke. Add to this situation, that Woodrow Wilson, probably because of his own proclivities and hardening attitudes, refused good advice, and he separated from close confidants such as Edward M House. There is no doubt, in my mind, that Woodrow and Edith, chose to hang onto power. I will not speculate on their motives, since there is conflicting information from this period as to what happened in the Wilson administration.
 
But one good thing would have come of it:
Marshall, not being the stiff-necked you-
know- what Wilson was, would have com-
promised & the U.S. would have joined the
League of Nations.(I'm assuming here that
Wilson is successfully pushed out of the
Oval Office).

Oh just one small point if I may McPherson.
Before the passage of the 25th Amendment
in 1967 IOTL, if a vacancy occurred in the
office of Vice-President, we just didn't have
a Vice-President until the next Presidental
election(& nobody seemed to care!) So
Marshall would not have picked Gilbert-
or anyone else- as his VP.
 
Without the 25th Amendment, how is Wilson removed? He had done nothing to warrant impeachment (you can't prosecute stubbornness/shortsightedness) and in 1919, that was the sole means within the bounds of the Constitution for removing a sitting president.
 
Without the 25th Amendment, how is Wilson removed? He had done nothing to warrant impeachment (you can't prosecute stubbornneDss/shortsightedness) and in 1919, that was the sole means within the bounds of the Constitution for removing a sitting president.

And the votes weren't there anyway.

The emocrats were firmly loyal to Wilson, and without massive Democratic support the necessary two-thirds majority was unattainable.
 
Without the 25th Amendment, how is Wilson removed? He had done nothing to warrant impeachment (you can't prosecute stubbornness/shortsightedness) and in 1919, that was the sole means within the bounds of the Constitution for removing a sitting president.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution: "In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

The hypothesis that Marshall would have a Republican rammed down his throat and it would be Gilbert is based on the above constitutional provisions in effect.

Health would be an "inability". So would "obstruction" on account of concealing the health issue. Impeachment would follow.
 
Last edited:
This one event and Edith Wilson’s actions thereafter, are often cited as the reason that the United States senate refused to consider and ratify both the Versailles treaty and the proposed League of Nations which was part of the package that came with it.
I thought it was as much that Wilson was a stubborn egotist who refused to appoint a suitable a Republican to the American diplomatic mission to Versailles that could have later helped convince other Republicans in the Senate?
 
I thought it was as much that Wilson was a stubborn egotist who refused to appoint a suitable a Republican to the American diplomatic mission to Versailles that could have later helped convince other Republicans in the Senate?

Wilson was many things. That was part of it, but Ms. Wilson was the de facto barrier that prevented Colonel House and others, democratic, from reaching across in "Wilson's name" to Lodge and co. during the critical months when he, Wilson, was under Grayson's care.

It is only my opinion, but I believe Edith was very active as a reinforcer of Woodrow's stubbornness and refusal to compromise.
 
The hypothesis that Marshall would have a Republican rammed down his throat and it would be Gillett is based on the above constitutional provisions in effect.

Health would be an "inability". So would "obstruction" on account of concealing the health issue. Impeachment would follow.
OK, let's take that provision as a given. Who starts the removal process based on inability? And how does it proceed? Everyone involved on what I'll call the prosecution side will be making it up as they go along-that is, writing the necessary legislation and somehow getting it through Congress-since there weren't any precedents, and any move made could have been challenged in the Supreme Court. And indeed anything that managed to get through the GOP-controlled Congress would likely be challenged by Wilson loyalists. Long story short: deadlock lasting until 1921 with Wilson remaining in the White House--in other words, all but indistinguishable from OTL. Not a chance would Wilson be nominated for another term: the masquerade would fall apart completely. Looks to me like this may be an interesting idea in theory but I don't see how you'd get the engine started, never mind get it out on the road. That language in the Constitution is not exactly specific or practical.
 
OK, let's take that provision as a given. Who starts the removal process based on inability?

Cary T, Grayson. But there is a problem...

Braisted, William C. and Bell, William Hemphill. The Life Story of Presley Marion Rixey, Surgeon General, U.S. Navy 1902-1910: Biography and Autobiography. Strasburg, Va.: Shenandoah Publishing House, 1930. Republished by Kessinger Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-4286-5334-1. p. 390.

Dr. Grayson, navy doctor and White House/personal physician to Woodrow Wilson, was rapidly and corruptly advanced to the rank of rear admiral from Lt.(sg) due to the personal influence of Edith Wilson. One must understand that when she was Edith Pool and Wilson's first wife died, Dr. Grayson introduced Edith to Woodrow and "facilitates the romance". Nevertheless, the doctor swore an oath to defend the United States and another to practice medicine competently. He is duty bound to report Wilson's condition accurately to proper authority and to seek out the best health interests of his patient.

And besides that necessity, the "doctor^1" was well aware of Wilson's decade and half long episodes of mini-strokes that rendered the man unfit for the Presidency even in 1916.

^1 My opinion of Dr. Grayson is unprintable. YMMV.

And how does it proceed? Everyone involved on what I'll call the prosecution side will be making it up as they go along-that is, writing the necessary legislation and somehow getting it through Congress-since there weren't any precedents, and any move made could have been challenged in the Supreme Court. And indeed anything that managed to get through the GOP-controlled Congress would likely be challenged by Wilson loyalists. Long story short: deadlock lasting until 1921 with Wilson remaining in the White House--in other words, all but indistinguishable from OTL. Not a chance would Wilson be nominated for another term: the masquerade would fall apart completely. Looks to me like this may be an interesting idea in theory but I don't see how you'd get the engine started, never mind get it out on the road. That language in the Constitution is not exactly specific or practical.

1. Appoint a medical commission.
2. Examine Wilson. Get a medical incapacitation verdict and present THAT to the joint session of congress and if necessary with the SCOTUS in attendance. Establish precedent John Marshall style.
3. Remove Wilson by joint resolution. Wilson can fight it out while Marshall runs the country. He'll lose.
4. Or do to Wilson what is happening to Al Franken. Political assassination by own party in the press to jettison dead wood for a new rising star.
 
Well, maybe the stroke is more severe and it puts him in a coma or kills him. I'm probably sounding pretty nuts here, but it is a shot in the dark. Then Marshall would become President
 
I'm sorry but IOTL, under our Constitution,
Congress has no authority- no way- to remove a President EXCEPT BY IMPEACH-
MENT. Doesn't matter if every single member
of it hates the POTUS' guts. I agree that a
President in the physical condition WW was in 1919-1921 should not be in office but that
does not constitute "high crimes & misde-
meanors".
 
I'm sorry but IOTL, under our Constitution,
Congress has no authority- no way- to remove a President EXCEPT BY IMPEACH-
MENT. Doesn't matter if every single member
of it hates the POTUS' guts. I agree that a
President in the physical condition WW was in 1919-1921 should not be in office but that
does not constitute "high crimes & misde-
meanors".

Wilson's situation probably fell under "inability to discharge the powers and duties" of the Presidency, and for the sake of the POD we can make it even worse, possibly even make him kill it.

In that case, we get President Marshall, a man who was removed from the inner circle and non-confrontational. I think it wasn't Wilson, but rather isolationist Republicans, who blocked the US from joining the League of Nations, so even with Marshall in place that probably doesn't happen. The League was largely his idea anyway, so it might not be created at all.

Some of the more interesting repercussions come when it comes time for the election, since I think that Marshall almost certainly would have run, and very likely would have been nominated. For VP they may would have gone with McAdoo, who has Wilson's son-in-law and political ally. Roosevelt probably isn't likely since Marshall was already a progressive, though since he was Midwestern you could maybe swing not getting a southerner on there.

However, since 1920 was sort of a move away from Wilson's foreign policy and progressivism, Marshall probably loses anyway. However, its possible that he doesn't lose to Harding, instead maybe to Leonard Wood or Frank Lowden, either of whom could have taken it in OTL 1920, or to another darkhorse candidate like Coolidge or Nicholas Butler.
 
In that case, we get President Marshall, a man who was removed from the inner circle and non-confrontational. I think it wasn't Wilson, but rather isolationist Republicans, who blocked the US from joining the League of Nations, so even with Marshall in place that probably doesn't happen. The League was largely his idea anyway, so it might not be created at all.

Actually it was the Democrats who defeated it. An attempt to ratify the ToV with the Lodge Reservations failed by only seven votes, because Dems loyal to Wilson refused to support it. Under Marshall that probably won't happen.
 
Without the 25th Amendment, how is Wilson removed? He had done nothing to warrant impeachment (you can't prosecute stubbornness/shortsightedness) and in 1919, that was the sole means within the bounds of the Constitution for removing a sitting president.

If the cover-up of his condition became public, I'd argue that it was impeachable. It was a gross breach of the public trust. Alternatively, I'd argue that having an incapacitated president is an intolerable situation and that impeachment, as the only available remedy, is arguably justified in order to avoid paralysis in the Executive Branch.
 
If the cover-up of his condition became public, I'd argue that it was impeachable. It was a gross breach of the public trust. Alternatively, I'd argue that having an incapacitated president is an intolerable situation and that impeachment, as the only available remedy, is arguably justified in order to avoid paralysis in the Executive Branch.

Question is, would the Republicans (who controlled both House and Senate) really want to.

From their pov, wasn't it better to just leave Wilson swinging in the wind rather than install another Democrat who might attract more support?
 
Question is, would the Republicans (who controlled both House and Senate) really want to.

From their pov, wasn't it better to just leave Wilson swinging in the wind rather than install another Democrat who might attract more support?

Impeaching or removing a Democrat from office with only a year left until the election is a really bad look for the Democrats and probably hurts their chances, no matter who is in office after the fact.

Actually it was the Democrats who defeated it. An attempt to ratify the ToV with the Lodge Reservations failed by only seven votes, because Dems loyal to Wilson refused to support it. Under Marshall that probably won't happen.

Why would Marshall being in office encourage them to sign?
 
Question is, would the Republicans (who controlled both House and Senate) really want to.

From their pov, wasn't it better to just leave Wilson swinging in the wind rather than install another Democrat who might attract more support?

That's not a bad question, tbh. But the question of whether impeachment is proper is a different question than whether the will exists to impeach. Of course, with Wilson incapacitated and that fact publicly known, the public may insist upon something being done regardless of what the Republicans want.
 
Top