Project Hula

@rjpeters70:

What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

Interesting – I didn’t know this about the FDR/Truman relationship.  I wonder if his non-grooming of Truman may have owed anything to constitutional factors.  From what little I know about the subject, the US Constitution does designate the VP as the President’s successor (if this is needed) but doesn’t really prescribe any other role except the chairing of Senate.  There probably wasn’t anything that would have prevented Roosevelt from informally training Truman and allowing him to be present during important meetings, but there may have been legal reasons that would have prevented him from formally designating Truman as his Chief of Staff. (Is that a position which requires Congressional confirmation?  The Republicans might have had one or two words to say about the idea of the VP simultaneously holding two different high-level jobs within the administration)  I also suspect there are no constitutional provisions for designating a Deputy President, if such an office even exists – but I could be completely wrong about this.

@rjpeters70:

Was one of the weird things about FDR, who he trusted and did not.  He did seem far more trusting of Stalin than of Churchill.

He did not trust Truman one iota, when he knew he was dying.  This is one of the things that has always bothered me about Roosevelt.  He was dying.  Everyone knew it (Churchill writes about how the Brits even knew that Marshall was drafting FDR’s telegrams for him, because FDR was too weak to do so for himself).  Harry Hopkins knew.  Churchill knew at Yalta.  FDR had to know… and yet, he ran for a fourth term.  What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

If we take into account the political aims of FDR and his wife, I don’t find it surprising at all. There is historical suggestion that Ellenor would have liked FDR to become the dictator of the USA! FDR curbed this idea somewhat, but had he lived longer I believe he would had continued to run for president beyond a fourth term were it possible. Â

@CWO:

@rjpeters70:

What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.�  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.�  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

Interesting – I didn’t know this about the FDR/Truman relationship.  I wonder if his non-grooming of Truman may have owed anything to constitutional factors.  From what little I know about the subject, the US Constitution does designate the VP as the President’s successor (if this is needed) but doesn’t really prescribe any other role except the chairing of Senate.  There probably wasn’t anything that would have prevented Roosevelt from informally training Truman and allowing him to be present during important meetings, but there may have been legal reasons that would have prevented him from formally designating Truman as his Chief of Staff. (Is that a position which requires Congressional confirmation?  The Republicans might have had one or two words to say about the idea of the VP simultaneously holding two different high-level jobs within the administration)  I also suspect there are no constitutional provisions for designating a Deputy President, if such an office even exists – but I could be completely wrong about this.Â

You know It really is funny. As an American I think we as a nation for the most part subconsciously see the presidents and vice-presidents as “buddies”. In most cases it’s a totally different story. Even knowing this you still might think that Barrack Obama and Joe Biden go out for beers or play cards together.

Thank you for that information on Roosevelt. Had no idea.
So Truman could have not been the next President if Roosevelt had not stood and chosen a successor! Did the Republicans have no chance of winning, even if he had not stood?

@toblerone77:

@CWO:

@rjpeters70:

What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.��  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.��  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

Interesting – I didn’t know this about the FDR/Truman relationship.�  I wonder if his non-grooming of Truman may have owed anything to constitutional factors.�  From what little I know about the subject, the US Constitution does designate the VP as the President’s successor (if this is needed) but doesn’t really prescribe any other role except the chairing of Senate.�  There probably wasn’t anything that would have prevented Roosevelt from informally training Truman and allowing him to be present during important meetings, but there may have been legal reasons that would have prevented him from formally designating Truman as his Chief of Staff. (Is that a position which requires Congressional confirmation?�  The Republicans might have had one or two words to say about the idea of the VP simultaneously holding two different high-level jobs within the administration)�  I also suspect there are no constitutional provisions for designating a Deputy President, if such an office even exists – but I could be completely wrong about this.�

You know It really is funny. As an American I think we as a nation for the most part subconsciously see the presidents and vice-presidents as “buddies”. In most cases it’s a totally different story. Even knowing this you still might think that Barrack Obama and Joe Biden go out for beers or play cards together.

There have been a few very contentious prez-VP pairings in history, with JFK and LBJ being one of the most famous.

@rjpeters70:

My understanding was that the Democrats needed to shore up their support with middle America, given the excesses of Henry Wallace and the rising support for Republicanism after 12 years in the wilderness.  Truman represented middle America (Missouri), agrarianism (was a farmer before being a Senator), hawkish, and moderate for the Democrats (which is one of the reasons Truman is seen in such good light today by both parties:  he appealed to both liberal and conservative principles, albeit more hawkish in foreign policy and more progressive in domestic policy).

I’m not as well read as your or many others here rjpeters, but adding to your post I believe Truman at some point heavily encouraged Eisenhower to run for president on the Democratic ticket.

@LOL General Veers! Yes you are most correct. I almost posted that, but feared de-railing the thread by encouraging a long JFK conspiracy fest LOL!
Yes, I agree with your post.

@rjpeters70:

My understanding was that the Democrats needed to shore up their support with middle America, given the excesses of Henry Wallace and the rising support for Republicanism after 12 years in the wilderness.  Truman represented middle America (Missouri), agrarianism (was a farmer before being a Senator), hawkish, and moderate for the Democrats (which is one of the reasons Truman is seen in such good light today by both parties:  he appealed to both liberal and conservative principles, albeit more hawkish in foreign policy and more progressive in domestic policy).

Thank you.

@General:

There have been a few very contentious prez-VP pairings in history, with JFK and LBJ being one of the most famous.

On the other side of the Atlantic, in 1940, when Chamberlain lost the confidence of Parliament after the Noway fiasco, there was initial speculation within the political establishment that Halifax (regarded as a weak but safe known quantity) would succeed him as PM and that Churchill (seen as a fighter but also as a dangerous loose cannon) would be made Minister of War, with the result that “Churchill would run the war under Halifax.”  It was a model which appealed to a great many people, with one unsurmountable exception: Winston Churchill.

@CWO:

@General:

There have been a few very contentious prez-VP pairings in history, with JFK and LBJ being one of the most famous.

On the other side of the Atlantic, in 1940, when Chamberlain lost the confidence of Parliament after the Noway fiasco, there was initial speculation within the political establishment that Halifax (regarded as a weak but safe known quantity) would succeed him as PM and that Churchill (seen as a fighter but also as a dangerous loose cannon) would be made Minister of War, with the result that "Churchill would run the war under Halifax."  It was a model which appealed to a great many people, with one unsurmountable exception: Winston Churchill.

Indeed Sir!