What if FDR limited by health to one term?

Several people have explored in timelines and posts what might have happened had FDR not run in 1940, and there was a depressing timeline in the old UseNet news group about FDR not even surviving the assassination attempt. Garner doesn't do the New Deal and everything's bad.

I don't think anyone's done for this that I've seen, though. What if that assassination attempt only injures Roosevelt. He can give his inaugural address on March 4th though he is clearly still a bit weak, he does all he does and America is on its way back slowly, all the jobs programs there, the military is being slowly built up, and so on. But, his health is just worse enough that he considers not running, or at least knows he might not make it past 1937 or 38 and so he better dump Garner because his heart is weaker.

If he steps down, who runs in his place? I suppose Al Smith as possible though I think he was a bit older, but he might do for a one-termer who can them continue much of Roosevelt's work.

Or, does Roosevelt gamble on himself but still dump Garner and figure that like in 1945 he will just select someone who he knew would be a good president. Obviously, that couldn't be Smith. I'm not sure who it could be, I suppose Cordell Hull. It would have to be someone who would support the New Deal wholeheartedly and that wasn't Garner, plus Roosevelt could use the excuse that he would be 70 and in as bad as shape as him anyway. I presume Roosevelt has the Democrats so enamored with him that he could choose pretty much anyone. But, I don't think it would be Wallace either because wasn't he a Republican until around 1936?
 
. . . and that wasn't Garner, plus Roosevelt could use the excuse that he would be 70 and in as bad as shape as him anyway. . .
On first reading, I thought you were talking about Roosevelt, now I see you're talking about Garner.

FDR was born Jan. 30, 1882, and come Jan. '37, he was 55 years old. Just to make it clear for other people. I mean, he was a guy who died relatively early with (?) congestive heart issues as I remember.
 
Dewey, of course, was a Republican, but looking at the possible VPs if FDR decides he'd rather run and risk dying in office (basically like OTL's 1944 but in 1936), it's amazing how many of his closest people were from New York, so he couldn't put someone like Farley in that slot unless he wanted to force the New York electors to vote for someone else for VP. And if Farley wasn't a shoo-in in 1940, I caan't see FDR pushing him through for President in '36. Although one name that would work is Wendell Willkie; especially since, though he had no previous business experience, FDR could groom him as a successor to the point where he puts him on the ticket replaacing Garner. (Wallace was still a relatively new Democrat, Willkie had been one his whole life.)
 
FDR IOTL wanted his Secretary of State Cordell Hill to be the nominee in 1940 so why not put him on the ticket in 1936?
 
I don't know that much about Garner, except that in TLs with him, things tend to go down. Was he that much of a fool? And what is Henry Wallace doing ITTL?
 
If ITTL- & I admit its a big if- the Republicans
still nominate Wilke than I see them winning
in 1940(remember, IOTL Wilke gave FDR a
strong race in 1940 & with no FDR around
ITTL I just can’t come up with any other Democrat who possessed FDR’s magnetism
& sheer vote-winning ability). What a Pres-
ident Wilke during WWII would have been like I’m not even going to try to guess. On
the one hand, he lacked FDR’s extensive
governmental experience. On the other, he
was as staunchly pro-British as FDR.
 
Last edited:
Just thought of someone, and it being less than 3 weeks figured I'd post: Alben Barkley.

He was VP under Truman in '48 so I don't normally think of him in '36 but he was old - older than FDR in fact.

More importantly, he was a big FDR supporter in '40 so in a world where FDR is wounded he might either step down and let Barkley run in '36 or replace Garner and let Barkley be his VP. (Barkley would be 10 years younger than Garner and still somewhat a Southerner so it would seem rational.) Of course, all theat could be said about Hull, too.

I agree about Willkie winning in '40.
 
Top