alternatehistory.com

The scenario isn't that unbelievable. FDR dies in say, 1943 rather then 1945 and one of the most prominent members of the 20th century progressive-left in America becomes president. Certainly the party would have renominated him in '44 as the argument for not changing presidents in the middle of the countries biggest war was quite powerful. Moreover I think the coattails of being a war time president would also have pulled him in easily in the general electino of '44. Doubtlessly the effects would be deeply felt and chances are America would be a very different country today. However, specifically, two questions of the utmost importance to any scenario immediately arise.

Would Wallace have dropped the bomb?
Truman did and Truman always would have, most politicians of the time could be said the same of. Wallace, however, is not the same. He was a deeply moral man, very concerned by the loss of life in the war. The idea of him dropping the bomb on Japan seems very stretched to say the least. So then, if he doesn't drop it, what happens? Does the alleged punch-out, drag-out really occur, or does America still push forward relatively easily? Or, alternatively, do we find the mainland too difficult and thus resolve to leave imperial Japan with in tact if they agree to a few conditions? The international significance here is obvious.

An egalitarian America?
How much of his domestic agenda could Wallace have gotten through against a growing Conservative Coalition and moreover a relatively moderate core who didn't agree with much of his relative-radicalism. Two specifics differences here spring to mind. First, there would have been no Taft-Hartley Act, plain and simple. A President Wallace would never have signed any bill limiting the power of trade unions. As such, the CIO would never have collapsed and folded into the AFL and a more powerful, more radical labor movement would have come to prominence in the United States, an alternative which bears many effects of its own. On the civil rights front, would Wallace have been successful? He was notable in '48 when he ran as a progressive for involving a number of African-Americans in his campaign. As president could have shifted the debate 20 years earlier?


I look forward to your feedback and these two and any other issues.
Top