Could we see an earlier war on the mob here? Perhaps Truman's old patron Jim Pendergast can be turned and spill his guts about machines in both parties connections to Costa Nostra.
Watching From San Diego - A Two for One July 20th 1944 TL
- Thread starter Bigby
- Start date
- Status
Defense Production Act of 1950 - Wikipedia
This is from OTL, actually, unless I've grossly misinterpreted the language. Such can happen with law.
{{meta.fullTitle}}
www.oyez.org
I also remembered this case from my Constitutional Law course from law school. Similar idea, but it's not happened ATL yet. The idea matches SCOTUS's OTL view, albeit.
I will need to research that and get back to you.
Don't worry, we're already close to that. Senator Kefauver is just waiting to begin his committee hearing.
McCarran Gives Up Filibuster Attempt, September 15th, 1949.
McCarran Gives Up Filibuster Attempt, September 15th, 1949.
After receiving minimal support from his own party, Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada has withdrawn attempts to filibuster Morse-Cooper. While 67 Senators would be needed to override a filibuster under current rules, Senator McCarran found minimal support. Only 13 Senators, himself included, back McCarran's scheme to block the Morse-Cooper version of the Defense Production Act. With this death knell for the opposition, Morse-Cooper quickly passed in the House with over a four out of five majority and then headed to the Senate, where it was expected to pass without issue.
Other then Senator McCarran himself, twelve other Senators joined him. Many of these were Southern segregationist Democrats, which surprised many since Civil Rights had no connection to the legislation at hand. Even Senator Harry F. Byrd refused to join a filibuster. Outside of the South, the most interesting supporters of the filibuster were Senators Glenn Taylor and Joseph Kennedy. Taylor used the support to block legislation like this altogether, while Kennedy continued his McCarran-esque ultraconservative streak. Senator Harry Cain, originally a supporter of Truman-McCarran, opposed filibuster at the last minute. The bill was expected to reach the President's desk before the conclusion of the month of September.
Other then Senator McCarran himself, twelve other Senators joined him. Many of these were Southern segregationist Democrats, which surprised many since Civil Rights had no connection to the legislation at hand. Even Senator Harry F. Byrd refused to join a filibuster. Outside of the South, the most interesting supporters of the filibuster were Senators Glenn Taylor and Joseph Kennedy. Taylor used the support to block legislation like this altogether, while Kennedy continued his McCarran-esque ultraconservative streak. Senator Harry Cain, originally a supporter of Truman-McCarran, opposed filibuster at the last minute. The bill was expected to reach the President's desk before the conclusion of the month of September.
Morse-Cooper Becomes Law, September 23rd, 1949
Morse-Cooper Becomes Law, September 23rd, 1949
After a brief discussion in the Senate, Morse-Cooper passed 80-13, the Nay's matching the filibuster attempt verbatim. During Senate deliberation, Senator McCarran looked sour and said absolutely nothing. In contrast, Senator Truman sported a wide smile, energetically arguing in favor of Morse-Cooper. This in turn led to Morse-Cooper becoming the official version of the Defense Production Act of 1949 that would reach President Wallace's desk. Before it reached Wallace, however, commentators could not help but notice the weird bipartisan yet partisan nonetheless breakdown.
Conservative Republicans voted unanimously for the bill, in spite of its increase in the ability for the federal government to impose itself on private industry during wartime. Many suggested that the likes of Truman, Morse, and Cooper, all of whom belonged to the progressive side of the spectrum, introduced Truman-McCarran to make Morse-Cooper more palatable. McCarran's insistence against Morse-Cooper was the biggest objection to this theory. The most ardent Dixiecrats also opposed the bill, preferring Truman-McCarran, and many wondered if this was a reactionary backlash to the progressive swing of the Democratic Party. Finally, archprogressive Glenn Taylor opposed both bills, showing that radical progressivism was not aligned with the nation quite yet.
President Henry Wallace signed the Defense Production Act of 1949 into law on September 23rd, 1949. Senator Harry Truman was spotted celebrating with him after the signing, smoking and drinking the same cigars and whiskey they enjoyed during their meeting. Senator McCarran's rocky record with this legislation made many wonder if he would announce retirement soon, given how the Democratic Party was leaving conservatives like him behind. Meanwhile, the Republicans were overwhelmingly conservative, with only a handful of progressive Republicans having survived the downballot butchering of the GOP back in 1948, ironically caused by a Republican Presidential candidate that was far too conservative.
Conservative Republicans voted unanimously for the bill, in spite of its increase in the ability for the federal government to impose itself on private industry during wartime. Many suggested that the likes of Truman, Morse, and Cooper, all of whom belonged to the progressive side of the spectrum, introduced Truman-McCarran to make Morse-Cooper more palatable. McCarran's insistence against Morse-Cooper was the biggest objection to this theory. The most ardent Dixiecrats also opposed the bill, preferring Truman-McCarran, and many wondered if this was a reactionary backlash to the progressive swing of the Democratic Party. Finally, archprogressive Glenn Taylor opposed both bills, showing that radical progressivism was not aligned with the nation quite yet.
President Henry Wallace signed the Defense Production Act of 1949 into law on September 23rd, 1949. Senator Harry Truman was spotted celebrating with him after the signing, smoking and drinking the same cigars and whiskey they enjoyed during their meeting. Senator McCarran's rocky record with this legislation made many wonder if he would announce retirement soon, given how the Democratic Party was leaving conservatives like him behind. Meanwhile, the Republicans were overwhelmingly conservative, with only a handful of progressive Republicans having survived the downballot butchering of the GOP back in 1948, ironically caused by a Republican Presidential candidate that was far too conservative.
Charles Fahy Nominated to the Supreme Court, October 7th, 1949
Charles Fahy Nominated to the Supreme Court, October 7th, 1949
Associate Justice Wiley Rutledge had died in late September 1949, shortly after the controversy surrounding the Defense Production Act. Although only 55, Rutledge suffered a stroke and his life came to an unexpected early close. This gave President Wallace his fourth Supreme Court Justice nomination, an impressive amount were it not overshadowed by FDR's ability to shape the entire court in his twelve years of office. While Wallace's choice of Justice Walker was rather moderate, his choices for Justices Stevenson and Chief Justice Biddle were not so moderate. Given this, President Wallace decided to throw a bone and elect a moderate Justice to replace Rutledge.
D.C. Attorney Charles Fahy was offered to the President by his underlings as an excellent option. Fahy was born a Southerner in Rome, Georgia, and had lived in D.C. and the state of New Mexico as well, where he served as city attorney. Fahy also boasted an impressive, if not controversial win in the Korematsu case, and proposed an increasingly popular notion that D.C. should have its own appellate level judge seat (which would pass a few weeks later after his nomination). At the time, Fahy's involvement in the Korematsu case had not been as controversial as it would become in more modern times. Wallace announced his choice as Fahy during the last week of September.
Fahy became the official replacement for Rutledge as Associate Justice on October 7th, 1949, after a quick confirmation hearing. The Senate found themselves impressed by Fahy's record, and many wondered if future Justices would need a similarly detailed past like Fahy before becoming eligible for SCOTUS. Fahy received confirmation in a 93 - 1 vote, with Senator Glenn Taylor being the sole opposition. At this point, the former Wallace ally had made enemies with the President. Senator Taylor brought up Korematsu, arguing that Fahy was a racist choice and "[was] flabbergasted why the President would choose a backwater regressive." This had antagonized many Senators on the fence, however, and ensured Fahy's nomination easily.
D.C. Attorney Charles Fahy was offered to the President by his underlings as an excellent option. Fahy was born a Southerner in Rome, Georgia, and had lived in D.C. and the state of New Mexico as well, where he served as city attorney. Fahy also boasted an impressive, if not controversial win in the Korematsu case, and proposed an increasingly popular notion that D.C. should have its own appellate level judge seat (which would pass a few weeks later after his nomination). At the time, Fahy's involvement in the Korematsu case had not been as controversial as it would become in more modern times. Wallace announced his choice as Fahy during the last week of September.
Fahy became the official replacement for Rutledge as Associate Justice on October 7th, 1949, after a quick confirmation hearing. The Senate found themselves impressed by Fahy's record, and many wondered if future Justices would need a similarly detailed past like Fahy before becoming eligible for SCOTUS. Fahy received confirmation in a 93 - 1 vote, with Senator Glenn Taylor being the sole opposition. At this point, the former Wallace ally had made enemies with the President. Senator Taylor brought up Korematsu, arguing that Fahy was a racist choice and "[was] flabbergasted why the President would choose a backwater regressive." This had antagonized many Senators on the fence, however, and ensured Fahy's nomination easily.
Cantonese Recognize British and Portuguese Rule over Hong Kong and Macau, October 1949.
Cantonese Recognize British and Portuguese Rule over Hong Kong and Macau, October 1949.
Hong Kong, 1949.
Hong Kong, 1949.
The Cantonese in southern China had been nominally independence since 1947, and officially independent as of 1948. Cantonia established itself as a liberal democracy with an open economy, one that benefitted from the post-war economic miracle. Although it did not own Hong Kong and Macau, Cantonia's close relationship with the Western powers allowed it an economic boon from cooperation with the British and Portuguese owners of the city respectively. Guangzhou, the capital, quickly became one of the richest cities of the breakaway Chinese states. This made the Nanking government jealous, however, and they wanted Cantonia back.
Former warlord Huang Shaohong was elected President back in mid 1948, and had led a broadly pro-Western administration. Huang further solidified himself as a friend of the Western powers in an October 1949 speech addressing the city ports of Hong Kong and Macau. While many Cantonese desired direct control over the cities, most of the rich elite preferred Western cooperation, and the rising middle class agreed with the wealthy on this issue. Most opponents of Western occupation were the working poor, who were already the most receptive to Chinese revanchism and unification.
"Currently, we border Hong Kong, a British territory, and Macau, a Portuguese territory, both to the south. While we do not govern the two cities, we benefit directly from trade and commerce with these port cities, and have secured strong allies in our independence efforts against the tyrant Yan Xishan. In accordance with our desire for continued friendship, I am officially announcing that I consider these territories British and Portuguese, as long as Britain and Portugal desire them. I only request continued economic and cultural cooperation, as well as more rights for the native Cantonese and special native recognition to mitigate any issues."
For the Westerners, this came as a sigh of relief. Cantonia remained too frightened to join SEATO, but its economic ties tightened further to the West. Its economy spiked even higher, and the general public was rather approving of Huang's position. President Yan Xishan derided this move, naturally. "The Western whore Huang Shaohong is trading Chinese sovereignty for the sake of his own pockets. People of Cantonia, do not listen to the collaborator. Cantonia is Chinese. Hong Kong and Macau are Cantonian. Ergo, Hong Kong and Macau are Chinese. Huang is nothing more than a modern Wang Jingwei, albeit a servant of Europeans and Americans rather than Japanese."
Former warlord Huang Shaohong was elected President back in mid 1948, and had led a broadly pro-Western administration. Huang further solidified himself as a friend of the Western powers in an October 1949 speech addressing the city ports of Hong Kong and Macau. While many Cantonese desired direct control over the cities, most of the rich elite preferred Western cooperation, and the rising middle class agreed with the wealthy on this issue. Most opponents of Western occupation were the working poor, who were already the most receptive to Chinese revanchism and unification.
"Currently, we border Hong Kong, a British territory, and Macau, a Portuguese territory, both to the south. While we do not govern the two cities, we benefit directly from trade and commerce with these port cities, and have secured strong allies in our independence efforts against the tyrant Yan Xishan. In accordance with our desire for continued friendship, I am officially announcing that I consider these territories British and Portuguese, as long as Britain and Portugal desire them. I only request continued economic and cultural cooperation, as well as more rights for the native Cantonese and special native recognition to mitigate any issues."
For the Westerners, this came as a sigh of relief. Cantonia remained too frightened to join SEATO, but its economic ties tightened further to the West. Its economy spiked even higher, and the general public was rather approving of Huang's position. President Yan Xishan derided this move, naturally. "The Western whore Huang Shaohong is trading Chinese sovereignty for the sake of his own pockets. People of Cantonia, do not listen to the collaborator. Cantonia is Chinese. Hong Kong and Macau are Cantonian. Ergo, Hong Kong and Macau are Chinese. Huang is nothing more than a modern Wang Jingwei, albeit a servant of Europeans and Americans rather than Japanese."
Status of the United States Supreme Court, Winter 1949
Status of the United States Supreme Court, Winter 1949
Chief Justice:
Francis Biddle (Wallace Appointee)
Associate Justices:
Hugo Black (FDR Appointee)
Stan Forman Reed (FDR Appointee)
Felix Frankfurter (FDR Appointee)
William O'Douglass (FDR Appointee)
Robert Jackson (FDR Appointee)
Frank Comerford Walker (Wallace Appointee)
Adlai Stevenson (Wallace Appointee)
Charles Fahy (Wallace Appointee)
Chief Justice:
Francis Biddle (Wallace Appointee)
Associate Justices:
Hugo Black (FDR Appointee)
Stan Forman Reed (FDR Appointee)
Felix Frankfurter (FDR Appointee)
William O'Douglass (FDR Appointee)
Robert Jackson (FDR Appointee)
Frank Comerford Walker (Wallace Appointee)
Adlai Stevenson (Wallace Appointee)
Charles Fahy (Wallace Appointee)
The United States Supreme Court by 1949's end boasted appointees all of which were nominated by Democratic Presidents. Originally, all nine were chosen by FDR, but four of them were replaced by Wallace appointees from 1945 to 1946. Chief Justice Harlan Stone died in 1945, making his tenure the shortest of any Chief Justice, and Wallace replaced him with committed liberal Francis Biddle. Though not as liberal, Adlai Stevenson was also considered relatively liberal. Most scholars and pundits saw Frank Walker as the most moderate, and Charles Fahy as the least liberal. All four men seemed to get along well with each other, and with the FDR appointees remaining. Though some hardcore conservatives objected to Wallace's choices, most American jurists were satisfied.
As of 1949, none of the major decisions decided by the Court have been deemed excessively controversial. The Biddle Court's first major case was International Shoe, which eased litigation by expanding the permissiveness of personal jurisdiction through a "minimum contacts" analysis for civil procedure. Another hallmark case was the 1946 case Marsh v. Alabama, where Biddle's majority ruled that a company town could not prohibit someone from peacefully passing out religious flyers under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Controversially, Biddle made a concurring opinion in a plurality decision for Everson v. Board of Education, which not only allowed public funds to be used for secular activities of a Catholic parochial school, but also incorporated the First Amendment's free exercise clause to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
This itself was not controversial, but Biddle argued that incorporation was automatic and complete for all of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, Biddle argued that Slaughterhouse and Twining were erroneous and that selective incorporation was an insufficient method of incorporating the rights in the first ten amendments to apply to state governments' actions through the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, rumors persisted about Biddle opposing segregation, and this irked segregationists. However, no major caselaw arose on this topic as no major suits were granted cert about the topic. The Supreme Court by nature served as a reactive force rather than a proactive one.
As of 1949, none of the major decisions decided by the Court have been deemed excessively controversial. The Biddle Court's first major case was International Shoe, which eased litigation by expanding the permissiveness of personal jurisdiction through a "minimum contacts" analysis for civil procedure. Another hallmark case was the 1946 case Marsh v. Alabama, where Biddle's majority ruled that a company town could not prohibit someone from peacefully passing out religious flyers under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Controversially, Biddle made a concurring opinion in a plurality decision for Everson v. Board of Education, which not only allowed public funds to be used for secular activities of a Catholic parochial school, but also incorporated the First Amendment's free exercise clause to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
This itself was not controversial, but Biddle argued that incorporation was automatic and complete for all of the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, Biddle argued that Slaughterhouse and Twining were erroneous and that selective incorporation was an insufficient method of incorporating the rights in the first ten amendments to apply to state governments' actions through the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, rumors persisted about Biddle opposing segregation, and this irked segregationists. However, no major caselaw arose on this topic as no major suits were granted cert about the topic. The Supreme Court by nature served as a reactive force rather than a proactive one.
Last edited:
Who would have expected the Chinese to be the main Cold War enemy here?
November 1st, 1949 - Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley Announces Retirement Plans.
November 1st, 1949 - Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley Announces Retirement Plans.
With the 1949 Congressional session coming to a close, the Wallace administration prided itself on its accomplishments. Short of civil rights legislations, Wallace had accomplished everything he wanted as President in terms of congressional cooperation. The Interstate Highway system finally earned actualization, the Housing Crisis began to reverse with nationalized housing starting up, and the government was streamlined to run more efficiently. Many wondered if the next three years would simply be smooth sailing, or if Wallace had more planned. However, the President's main ally in the Senate, Alben Barkley, announced his plans for retirement after the 1950 midterms.
"Friends, I have enjoyed my time as a Senator, as Majority Leader, and as a servant of the American people. However, I am reaching my twilight years, and wish to retire. I have been Majority Leader since 1937, and although I am proud of my record, my health is catching up to me. I will dutifully carry out my duties as Majority Leader and Senator of Kentucky until 1951 when my term ends, and will not be running again for the Senate in 1950. Thank you all for a wonderful time, and I will be looking back fondly as I enjoy my retirement with my family."
Everyone expected the Democrats to retain a majority in the Senate, given how 65 Senators were currently Democrats. However, Barkley refused to directly suggest a successor for Majority Leader out of principle. Illinois Senator Scott Lucas served as the incumbent Majority Whip, but he seemed more interested remaining where he was in the totem pole. James Murray of Montana was the frontrunner among Democrat Senators, though he too was approaching an old age and a sizeable minority of Senators expressed concern. The second most likely candidate was Florida Senator Claude Pepper, a famous progressive and a firm Wallace ally. However, segregationist conservatives were eyeing to primary him, and his chances hinged on if he could maintain his seat or not. Conservatives rallied around Guy Gillette of Iowa, though he too faced reelection in 1950 and was losing support among the increasingly progressive Democratic Party in his home state.
"Friends, I have enjoyed my time as a Senator, as Majority Leader, and as a servant of the American people. However, I am reaching my twilight years, and wish to retire. I have been Majority Leader since 1937, and although I am proud of my record, my health is catching up to me. I will dutifully carry out my duties as Majority Leader and Senator of Kentucky until 1951 when my term ends, and will not be running again for the Senate in 1950. Thank you all for a wonderful time, and I will be looking back fondly as I enjoy my retirement with my family."
Everyone expected the Democrats to retain a majority in the Senate, given how 65 Senators were currently Democrats. However, Barkley refused to directly suggest a successor for Majority Leader out of principle. Illinois Senator Scott Lucas served as the incumbent Majority Whip, but he seemed more interested remaining where he was in the totem pole. James Murray of Montana was the frontrunner among Democrat Senators, though he too was approaching an old age and a sizeable minority of Senators expressed concern. The second most likely candidate was Florida Senator Claude Pepper, a famous progressive and a firm Wallace ally. However, segregationist conservatives were eyeing to primary him, and his chances hinged on if he could maintain his seat or not. Conservatives rallied around Guy Gillette of Iowa, though he too faced reelection in 1950 and was losing support among the increasingly progressive Democratic Party in his home state.
What will happen with the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (aka Escuela de las Américas)?
marathag
Banned
I imagine that the Venona Intercepts would still occurred, as that dated to 1943, and US had gotten into the Soviet Codes from their incredibly sloppy re-use of one time pads with encryption.
So was very, very secret, and OTL it did ID the Rosenbergs, Fuchs, Alger Hiss and the Cambridge Five.
However, so secret these were, could not be used in a court of law.
So what in this timeline?
Wild Bill has the Rosenbergs whacked when out of country, disguised as a petty robbery gone bad.
That would be the best bet. They got lucky and fled the US before any trials, but nothing is keeping them from the punishment of a bullet.
It was founded in 1946 OTL, and I imagine it's here too. The U.S. will have to be careful with nativist groups moreso than communist groups.
I'd imagine HK and Macau would continue to be ruled by their colonial masters way past their OTL handover dates?
So in TTL we will see the US intervention on Paraguay (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_Civil_War_(1947)) as OTL?
Maybe alternative interventions against El Ochenio in Peru (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_A._Odría) or against La Violencia in Colombia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia)?
How POTUS Wallace see Peron?
Last edited:
No wonder why I feel like I've missed something. Let me draft something after some research.
- Status