Title asks it all, really. Which Vice-President’s succession to the office of President of the United States on the death, disability, or resignation of the President would have made the most difference to events, in both the United States and the world?
I have arbitrarily set the time to begin as the election of 1920, which election I believe to be within the lifetime of the oldest Dopers.
I have also arbitrarily chosen to omit those Vice-Presidents who did succeed to President, even if immediately re-elected, such as Coolidge and Lyndon Johnson; and to include those who first became President by election, such as Nixon and Bush the Elder.
Those who feel that the correct answer is Hamlin succeeding Lincoln, or Lyndon Johnson succeeding Kennedy in 1961 instead of 1963–y’all should feel free to select “Other”.
I think Henry Wallace would have changed the history of the U.S. and the world in ways that are almost incalculable.
He was far more liberal than either Roosevelt or Truman, and was far more trusting of the Soviet Union. Domestically, the fight for social and racial equality would have been pursued with greater vigor, and internationally, his trust of Stalin would have meant that the potential for future Soviet gains would have been even greater than it was.
Oh, yeah, there was a war going on as well. I don’t think he would have pursued the war in any great difference from Roosevelt. Had he been re-elected in 1944 (which I’m fairly sure would have happened), he may not have dropped the atomic bombs.
For good or for ill, Wallace’s succeeding Roosevelt in the middle of World War II would not only have changed the history of the war, but of the United States during the war, and of the post-war world.
While I agree with everything you said about Wallace, I picked Garner instead. Suppose Zangara had brought a footstool along and successfully killed Roosevelt and Garner was inaugurated President in 1933. Garner never would have pushed the New Deal like Roosevelt did and the Great Depression would have dragged on for another four years. By 1936, both mainstream parties would have been discredited and the real radicals like Long, Coughlin, Thomas, Browder, Noble, Smith, Townsend, Kuhn, and Pelley would have become serious contenders for power.
I agree with Nemo. The U.S. in 1933-1937 was teetering in ways we can’t even relate to today. I think a Garner presidency might have pushed it over the edge.
I would lean toward Garner, though a lot would depend on when he succeeded FDR. If it was in his first year or so, things would have been very different. If it was after that, he would have followed through on many of FDR’s programs.
That’s why I suggested February 1933. There was the actual assassination attempt that month. And if it had succeeded, Garner would have been President for the full term.
Henry Wallace-would have been a dupe of the Commies in the Cold War and probably means the Republicans win in 1948-if we’re unlucky we’ll get Robert Taft who’s idea of fighting off the Reds mean hiding under a rock with nukes and the letting the rest of the world go to hell.
I voted other and add a non-Vice President, Harry Truman’s Secretary of State James Byrnes. He would have had a small window for succession before Truman changed it to the Speaker of the House. He shared Truman’s about the Soviet Union, but wasn’t as aggressive until 1946. Given his supposed resentment of not being picked as FDR’s Vice-President, he might have been more aggressive in the Cold War to upstage Truman.
I agree, but I wonder if President Wallace would have won re-election in 1944, or even been nominated for a second term. I know that sounds unthinkable in the middle of WW2, but Wallace seems to have burned bridges with even the liberal faction of the party.
I voted for Wallace, but had I read the above I would have gone along. The only question in my mind was whether a weak president would have convinced the American people that what was needed was renewed attention to national debt (which had risen, though not current levels in the 20s). In other words, we would have had a foretaste of the coming 2012 election.
I’ve always wondered how the last half of the 20th century would’ve gone had JFK not been assassinated; who hasn’t really? (I can’t wait for King’s new book on that topic, 11/22/63)
I went with Garner for the same reasons above. Had Garner taken the helm at such a pivotal point in American history: economy, foreign policy, interest groups and labor unions, the inevitable attack on Pearl Harbor, and WWII… well, we were damn lucky to have FDR during such a harrowing 12 years.
I think you may just be surprised, my friend. Think about what he did during the Cuban Missle Crisis… Yep. Now just apply that to Zombies. And Vampires.
