The Denouement in Chicago: An Alternate 1932 DNC

Prologue: November 7, 1928
OTTINGER ELECTED GOVERNOR BY SLIM MARGIN
Republicans Recapture Governor's Mansion by Estimated Margin of 50,000

Alfred P. Ottinger, Republican Attorney General of the State of New York, has defeated Democratic nominee Franklin D. Roosevelt for the Governorship. With returns from 7,718 out of 8,267 election districts in the State, Mr. Ottinger leads Mr. Roosevelt by a plurality of about 45,000 votes, though returns from the missing districts are thought to favor the Republican, potentially growing his margin of victory beyond 50,000...

-The New York Times, November 7, 1928


Albert_Ottinger_%28New_York_Attorney_General%29_2.jpg

Albert P. Ottinger, 44th Governor of the State of New York
 
Chapter 1: The Front-Runners
Chapter 1: The Front-Runners

As the Democrats convened in Chicago to pick a presidential nominee in the summer of 1932, there was a palpable sense that the future of the party, and perhaps, the future of America itself, was to be decided in that city. For twelve years, they had been out of power, suffering three consecutive landslide presidential defeats. Bereft of the leadership and patronage opportunities afforded by national political power, the Democratic Party had been beset with infighting, preventing the party from offering a unified alternative to the Republicans. Social issues, especially Prohibition, had been at the forefront of the divisions in the party in the 1920s, pitting the business interests and big-city machines of the Northeast against the agrarians of the South and West. Amid the prosperity of the Roaring Twenties, there seemed to be little public appetite for widespread federal intervention in the economy, and economic questions were largely put on the backburner during the decade.

By 1932, however, the economy had gone from a relatively minor issue to being at the forefront of American politics. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 had plunged the country into unforeseen levels of economic hardship, sending tens of millions of Americans from riches to rags. President Hoover, once renown as a strong leader, quickly became reviled coast to coast for his inept response to the economic calamity engulfing the nation and empty promises that prosperity was just around the corner. Democrats made enormous gains in the 1930 midterm elections, narrowly taking control of the House of Representatives by the time Congress convened in December of 1931. Since then, things had only gotten worse for the Republicans. In 1930, most Americans had seen the crisis as a particularly bad but not necessarily unprecedented crisis, cautiously optimistic that the country's leaders could chart a way out. By 1931 however, the Great Depression had begun in earnest. By the end of the year, as unemployment skyrocketed, bread lines swelled, and banks fell like dominoes with no end in sight, it was clear that the worldwide economic collapse was truly unprecedented. In 1932, a reporter for the Saturday Evening Post asked John Maynard Keynes if there was any historical equivalent to the Depression. "Yes," Keynes replied. "It was called the Dark Ages, and it lasted 400 years."

To make the dismal economy the centerpiece of the Democratic campaign would seem a no-brainer. But John J. Raskob, the millionaire chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a former corporate executive, had very different plans for how to return the party to the presidency. A firm believer in limited government, he believed that the prosperity of the 1920s, spearheaded by captains of industry like himself, had thoroughly discredited progressives' demand for federal intervention to help the less fortunate of society. To return to power, the Democrats would need to abandon the radicalism of William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson and return to the laissez-faire conservatism of Grover Cleveland. The issue Raskob cared most about was Prohibition, which he regarded as a grotesque intrusion on individual rights. By 1932 the Eighteenth Amendment had become highly unpopular with the American public, and Raskob believed that positioning the Democratic Party squarely in favor of its repeal was the path to victory.

With "wet" standard-bearer Al Smith declining to seek the White House in 1932[1], Raskob had to turn to another candidate to support, settling on the popular Gov. Albert Ritchie of Maryland. Ritchie was a staunch supporter of Repeal and laissez-faire government like Raskob. More importantly to Raskob, Ritchie seemed to lack many of Smith's downsides. An urban Catholic of immigrant stock with strong connections to Tammany Hall, Smith was deeply unappealing to rural Protestant Democrats. This was especially true in the rabidly fundamentalist South, where anti-Catholic bigotry gave Smith the worst showing for any Democrat since Reconstruction. In contrast, Ritchie was of aristocratic Virginian stock, making him the perfect candidate to appeal to Southerners in Raskob's eyes. The DNC chairman had long sought to forge a coalition between Northeastern and Southern Democrats on common grounds of economic conservatism and limited government. There was no reason, he believed, that the South should continue to align itself with the Western radicals against the conservative East who they shared a common belief in states' rights and limited government. Ritchie seemed the perfect candidate to make Raskob's "conservative coalition" a reality.

Ritchie launched a two-prong campaign for the nomination. Thanks to the support of Al Smith, the Northeastern bosses quickly lined up behind the Marylander, and the region became his strongest. The second part of Ritchie's strategy centered upon the South, where he hoped his Virginian upbringing and support for states' rights would allow him to succeed where Smith had failed. Raskob centered much of his "southern strategy" for Ritchie on Virginia's Harry Byrd. He had frequently reached out to Byrd in efforts to forge his conservative coalition, and with Ritchie hailing from a neighboring state, believed that the Virginian could win over the South to his side. Unfortunately for Raskob, this effort fell through for two main reasons. Prohibition was one: Byrd was a dry and believed that Raskob's plan to make repeal of the 18th Amendment the focus of the campaign threatened to tear the party apart. In 1928, Al Smith had become the first Democrat to lose Virginia since Reconstruction in no small part due to his wetness, and Byrd had no desire to reopen that wound. Perhaps more importantly, Byrd was busy mounting his own campaign for the nomination, hoping to be a compromise candidate in the likely event of a deadlock. It was clear that rather than uniting with the eastern conservatives as Raskob and Ritchie had hoped, the Virginian was determined to chart his own course at the convention.

Despite the setback with Byrd, Raskob remained confident of victory for in Chicago. For one, Mayor Anton Cermak was a staunch wet, and while publicly neutral at the convention, was considered to privately favor Ritchie. Moreover, the standard bearer for the progressives was a man the conservatives had already denied the nomination before: William Gibbs McAdoo of California. Treasury Secretary under President Wilson, McAdoo had been the clear favorite to win the nomination in 1924, up until revelations that he had received payments from oil tycoon Edward Doheney of Teapot Dome fame. The Doheney scandal, combined with his refusal to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, spectacularly derailed McAdoo's campaign, leading to a 103-ballot stalemate at the convention that led to the nomination of a complete nobody: conservative congressman John W. Davis. The collapse of his 1924 campaign had made many of McAdoo's allies uneasy about his chances of nomination in 1932. Nevertheless, the former Treasury Secretary was confident that the Eastern conservatives' preoccupation with Prohibition in spite of the Depression would allow him to win on a message of economic reform. To campaign solely on the right to get drunk at a time when twelve million were out of work struck McAdoo as ludicrous. Like most progressives, he maintained that "bread, not beer" should be the focus of the Democratic campaign.

The biggest, but by no means the only issue with McAdoo's chances, as stated before, was that his campaign had collapsed so spectacularly eight years ago. Furthermore, he was best known for his staunch Prohibitionism, and while he had moderated on the issue somewhat by 1932 he remained opposed to immediate repeal of the 18th Amendment, instead favoring its resubmission to the states. With Prohibition increasingly unpopular, his dryness was a liability, especially with the national Democratic organization under wet control. Nevertheless, McAdoo pressed ahead with his campaign, determined to obtain what had been denied him in 1924. Early on his campaign was dealt a major blow in the North Dakota primary, where despite backing from most prominent Democrats in the state, he was narrowly defeated by "Alfalfa Bill" Murray of Oklahoma in a stunning upset[2]. Nevertheless, he pressed on. By the opening of the convention, he appeared to be ahead of Ritchie in the delegate count. However, he was well below the two-thirds majority needed for nomination, putting his chances of nomination in serious doubt.

Despite his own misgivings about McAdoo's ability to win at the convention, his campaign manager Daniel C. Roper began sketching out a convention strategy: hold onto the Southern and Western delegations that had formed the base of his support in 1924, emphasize the economy as much as possible, wait for Ritchie to peak, then clinch the two-thirds majority needed for nomination by winning over the numerous favorite son candidates who would hold the balance of power. McAdoo had paid the "sons" little attention in 1924, believing that they would inevitably fall in line behind him once he gained momentum. This had been a significant factor in his defeat that year, and he was determined to avoid the mistake this time around. Behind the scenes, pessimistic about their chances of victory, McAdoo's allies hoped to simply keep a united front at the convention that could nominate a suitably progressive compromise candidate after their candidate inevitably failed.

By no means were Ritchie and McAdoo the only candidates with a serious chance at the nomination. The two-thirds rule meant that Democratic conventions were usually a prolonged, messy affair, filled with intrigue in smoke-filled rooms and opportunities for dark horses to arise. The 1920 and 1924 conventions had been bitter, grinding wars of attrition in which the early front runner failed to win the nomination[3], and 1932 promised to be no different. Observers from all sides paid close attention to delegate polls and steeled themselves for a bloody fight. With a prolonged deadlock seeming inevitable, a bevy of favorite sons and minor candidates positioned themselves in the wings, waiting to emerge as compromise candidates when the time was ripe. It was anybody's game.

As the delegates prepared to vote on a nominee, the stakes could not have been higher. As the economy continued to crumble, most Democrats were certain of victory against Hoover and the Republicans in November. After a decade-long interregnum, the party seemed poised to finally emerge from the wilderness. Whoever emerged victorious at the convention would likely be tasked with leading the nation through the its deepest crisis since the Civil War. In Chicago, three-quarters of a million were out of work and 39 city banks had failed in June alone. The city government was on the brink of bankruptcy and teachers and policemen were being paid in scrip. As delegates arrived at Chicago Stadium for the convention, they were greeted by thousands of destitute Chicagoans sleeping on the streets. Like everywhere else in America, the Depression was inescapable.

On the afternoon of June 27, 1932, the Democratic National Convention officially convened. The first four days brought two defeats to the McAdoo camp. Jouett Shouse, a conservative Raskob ally, was elected permanent chair of the convention despite McAdoo's efforts to block him[4], and the party platform included a plank calling for the repeal of the 18th Amendment in full. But these were just eyewash. It was finally time for the main event: the presidential nominations. On the morning of July 1, the voting began, and with it, the final battle for the future of the Democratic Party.

[1] IOTL the main reason Smith ran in 1932 was animosity towards FDR. Without FDR as governor of New York there isn't really any reason for Smith to throw his hat in the ring again.
[2] IOTL FDR trounced Murray 62-38. With progressives less than enthused about McAdoo, Alfalfa Bill is able to pull off a massive upset.
[3] Al Smith got the nomination on the first ballot in 1928 but this was mostly because most of his opponents realized that no Democrat would have a good chance of beating Hoover and they were more than happy to let Smith get shellacked.
[4] IOTL he was the frontrunner to chair the convention but FDR's forces managed to block him in favor of Sen. Thomas Walsh, who was much friendlier to him. ITTL, McAdoo is in a much weaker position than FDR, so Shouse succeeds. This will have significant impacts on the convention
 
Last edited:
So here it is: my first timeline! Really excited to finally get this off the ground, so please let me know what you think! Later this week I'll hopefully have another update detailing the first ballot and its aftermath, as well as more on some of the favorite sons and minor candidates maneuvering behind the scenes. This isn't a two-man race just yet ;)
 
[1] IOTL the main reason Smith ran in 1932 was animosity towards FDR. Without FDR as governor of New York there isn't really any reason for Smith to throw his hat in the ring again.

Ou of curiosity who is NY Governor now?

The second part of Ritchie's strategy centered upon the South, where he hoped his Virginian upbringing and support for states' rights[2]
I believe you are missing a footnote here.
 
Ou of curiosity who is NY Governor now?


I believe you are missing a footnote here.
The current governor of NY is John A. Hastings, a charismatic Tammany loyalist who defeated Gov. Ottinger in 1930, becoming the youngest governor in state history at just 30 years old. He is currently leading the Ritchie movement in the Empire State and is often mentioned as the next Al Smith.

Don't worry, we'll come back to him shortly 🤫
 
The current governor of NY is John A. Hastings, a charismatic Tammany loyalist who defeated Gov. Ottinger in 1930, becoming the youngest governor in state history at just 30 years old. He is currently leading the Ritchie movement in the Empire State and is often mentioned as the next Al Smith.

Don't worry, we'll come back to him shortly 🤫
Well, he’s too young at the moment…but a Tammany Man always has a part to play at the convention.
 
The current governor of NY is John A. Hastings, a charismatic Tammany loyalist who defeated Gov. Ottinger in 1930, becoming the youngest governor in state history at just 30 years old. He is currently leading the Ritchie movement in the Empire State and is often mentioned as the next Al Smith.

Don't worry, we'll come back to him shortly 🤫
Wait a minute - If Ottinger was elected in '28 the next election for governor wouldn't be until '32 so Hastings couldn't have defeated him in '30. Or am I missing something with NY politics?
 
Could FDR still be the nominee? I mean 1924 to 103 ballots, and unknown named Franklin Pierce somehow became the candidate in 1852, this is not a party that does things normally, and unlike in 1924 they have a real shot at winning no matter who they throw in there but that was true in 1852 also.

Given the possible chaosI'm willing to believe to someone could put Babe Ruth up for nomination! (Granted I don't know his political party but still..)

And here's a blast from the past, one that was considered in 1904 as a possibility... William Randolph Hearst.

Yeah, in fact put that down of my guess. He'd be a bit more liberal than some of the more conservative ones and willing to do something about the economy more than Hoover is, he'd have the newspapers for certain, bet you if he is a nominated he will play a big part. Despite that being 28 years ago he is only going to turn 70 in April of 1933 from what I just looked up.
 
Chapter 2: The First Two Ballots New
It took two hours for all of the delegations to cast their votes. When it was finally complete the results were as follows:

Results of the first ballot:
770 needed for nomination
William Gibbs McAdoo: 441.5
Albert Ritchie: 334
Harry Byrd: 77
J. Hamilton Lewis: 58
George White: 52
John Nance Garner: 46
Harry Moore: 32
William H. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray: 31.5
James Reed: 30
Huey Long: 20
Joseph Robinson: 18
Newton D. Baker: 14
0ghPH4z.png


The first ballot brought the long-expected stalemate. McAdoo controlled around 38% of the delegates, compared to 29% for Ritchie and the remainder split among the various favorite sons. All observations suggested that McAdoo's support was built on shaky ground, and unless he quickly built momentum his delegates would begin jumping ship. This was not lost to the Ritchie campaign, who pushed for a second ballot as soon as possible to deny the McAdoo camp time to work out a deal with the favorite sons. The Marylander believed that to win he simply had to wait for McAdoo to peak, at which point the convention would quickly unite behind him. With McAdoo opponent Jouette Shouse chairing the convention, the second ballot began soon after the end of the first.

Results of the second ballot:
770 needed for nomination
William Gibbs McAdoo: 456
Albert Ritchie: 333.5
Harry Byrd: 77
J. Hamilton Lewis: 58
George White: 52
John Nance Garner: 46
Harry Moore: 32
William H. "Alfalfa Bill" Murray: 31.5
James Reed: 26
Huey Long: 24
Newton D. Baker: 18
James M. Cox: 0.5
9NOx3SN.png


McAdoo made a small gain on the second ballot, mostly due to Arkansas favorite son Joseph Robinson abandoning his campaign and throwing his support behind him. However, with the Arkansas delegation uninstructed, four of the delegates instead voted for populist firebrand Huey Long of neighboring Louisiana. The de facto dictator of his state, Long wasn't particularly enamored by any of the candidates and coveted the presidency himself. Thus, Long had himself nominated as Louisiana's favorite son by a delegation of loyalists to influence the convention. Other than Arkansas, the second ballot was virtually identical to the first, and Shouse called a brief recess for lunch, planning to resume balloting later in the afternoon.

Daniel C. Roper, McAdoo's floor manager, spent most of the recess meeting with members of the Garner campaign, hoping to swing Texas' 46 votes behind his candidate. As House Speaker, Garner was the highest-ranking Democrat in the country and was often mentioned as a candidate himself. To many southern Democrats he seemed a modern Andrew Jackson, a tall, rough-hewn, frontiersman who could herd cattle and ride the range. His nomination at the Texas state convention had been met with whoops and cheers from all corners of the Lone Star State, and had he actively sought the nomination he likely would have been the front-runner. But Garner stood firm in his refusal to seek the White House. He was perfectly happy as House Speaker, and feared that throwing his hat into an already crowded field would only threaten Democratic unity at a time when the American people desperately needed strong leadership. After visiting the White House to negotiate an economic relief package with President Hoover, Garner remarked "I always thought of the White House as a prison, but I never noticed until today how much the shiny latch on the Executive office door looks like the handle on a casket."

Garner had loyally supported McAdoo in his earlier campaigns, and given his apparent disinterest in the presidency, Roper assumed that it would be easy to win over the Texas delegation, giving the Californian the convention floor momentum he sorely needed. Over lunch, he met with Garner floor manager, congressman Sam Rayburn in a sweltering Sherman House hotel room to request that the delegation switch to McAdoo on the third ballot. “Hell no,” Rayburn replied. “We’ve got a lot of people up here who’ve never been to a convention before, and they’ve got to vote for Garner a few times.” Roper's warning that McAdoo's support would collapse if he wasn't nominated by the fourth ballot and offering the vice presidency to Garner failed to sway the Texans. While Rayburn didn't rule out switching the delegation to McAdoo down the road, Roper feared that it would come too little, too late. The Texan delegation was enthusiastically behind Garner and were determined to drag their man, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the White House.

Robert B. Ennis, floor manager for the Ritchie campaign, was involved with negotiations of his own. While McAdoo's chances were fast approaching nil, he still controlled nearly 40% of the delegates, giving him veto power over any would-be nominee. Ennis laid out a roadmap to victory. He would persuade one or more of the favorite sons to switch to Ritchie on the third ballot, giving him momentum as McAdoo stalled. As McAdoo's coalition fractured, Ennis would make a play for his Southern support by playing up Ritchie's Virginian upbringing and conservative leanings. In the event that his "Southern strategy" failed, he would work to get the Southern delegations behind Virginia's Harry Byrd. Byrd had much in common with Ritchie: both were Southern governors of aristocratic Virginian stock who held firm to the Jeffersonian maxim that the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Ennis believed that their ideological similarities would allow Ritchie to win over Byrd, perhaps by offering him the vice presidency.

The Virginian, meanwhile, was watching the unfolding deadlock with excitement. Harry Byrd had been a rising star in politics since his election as governor in 1925, and anticipating a prolonged floor fight in 1932, believed he had a good chance of nomination as a compromise candidate. In addition to his native Virginia, where his "organization" held a stranglehold on politics, Byrd controlled the delegations of neighboring Kentucky and North Carolina, where he had cultivated strong support among the states' business communities. With McAdoo faltering and Ritchie facing an uncertain path to victory, the Byrd forces sensed an opportunity. Word on the convention floor was that Byrd was the second choice of many of the Southern delegates backing McAdoo, and Byrd believed that after McAdoo fell, he would have a good shot at uniting the South. For the first time, the Byrd camp began making tentative efforts to win over delegates north of the Mason-Dixon line, laying the groundwork for victory once the South had been won over.

Meanwhile, Ritchie's pandering to Southern conservatives had largely failed to reap the expected benefits. His uncompromising wetness remained a bitter pill to swallow for many, and the McAdoo camp seized upon his strong support from Al Smith and the urban machines as proof that Ritchie was a "Tammany Trojan Horse" every bit as beholden to boss politics as Smith. It didn't help that Ritchie had a strong relationship with boss Frank Kelly of Baltimore, infamous for his corruption and election fixing[1].

Worse for Ritchie's campaign was the spectacular corruption scandals shaking the state of New York. Since 1930, attorney Charles Tuttle[2] had been investigating corruption in New York City government with astounding findings. Government jobs were doled out to Tammany stooges with no regard for competency, politicians grew fat off of graft, and the city courts were rife with fixing and bribery. Perhaps one of Tuttle's most infamous findings was a ring of Vice Squad officers who arrested women on baseless prostitution charges and imprisoned them unless they paid the right people, who were of course Tammany loyalists. Medical reports of one woman arrested by the ring showed clear evidence of assault[3]. By the spring of 1932, Tuttle's investigation had led him straight to the top, and he charged New York's mayor, the flamboyant womanizer Jimmy Walker[4] with accepting nearly $300,000 in bribes as mayor. Tuttle's investigation of Walker led him to an even higher politican, state Governor John A. Hastings.

A former State Senator, Hastings had narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Albert Ottinger in 1930, becoming the youngest governor in state history at just 30 years old. A charismatic Tammany ally, Hastings had often been mentioned as the next Al Smith and even a potential presidential candidate someday. But over the course of a few weeks in 1932, it all came crashing down. Tuttle uncovered evidence that while a State Senator, Hastings had recieved cash payments from a private bus company that employed him in return for lobbying on their behalf. By the time the convention had meet, impeachment proceedings were underway in the state legislature. The staggering levels of corruption uncovered by the Tuttle investigation gained national attention and shone a renewed light on corrupt urban machine politics. More importantly for the Democratic National Convention, it forced Albert Ritchie into a difficult corner. Coming out too strongly against Tammany's corruption risked alienating critical machine support, while appearing soft on the issue would hurt his chances of wooing crucial Southern delegations.

As the convention reconvened that afternoon, it was clear that it was nowhere close to picking a nominee. The McAdoo camp had all but conceded defeat after the Texas delegation refused to switch sides and meetings with the other favorite son campaigns were equally fruitless. Nevertheless, the campaign was still determined to win over any delegate to increase their bargaining power. Even if McAdoo had no chance of winning the nomination himself, he was still determined to pick the next nominee. The Ritchie camp was looking for a burst of momentum to establish the Marylander as the clear frontrunner, while Byrd worked to position himself as the natural compromise candidate.

[1]In 1919 the Republican nominee for governor of Maryland, Harry Nice, was a strong Kelly ally even though Kelly was a Democrat. When Nice promised to clean up corruption in Baltimore, Kelly threw his support behind the Democratic nominee, Albert Ritchie. Ritchie won by just 165 votes thanks to a huge margin out of Baltimore, where there was considerable evidence of voter intimidation/ballot stuffing
[2]IOTL FDR asked Judge Samuel Seabury to conduct the investigation into Tammany. With the Republican Ottinger in office in 1930, the job instead goes to Tuttle, a Republican prosecutor known for his crusades against corruption.
[3]All OTL
[4]From what I've read Walker was basically Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons
 
Well,New York is in a world of hurt. Thatplace is such a mess now. Although the convention is just as bad.

Last time they had a pretty sure win, it took over 50 ballots. Will it here. And more importantly, if there's a conservative chosen, will the Liberals bolt?

THere was a more progressive wing of the REpublican Party with men like Irvine Lenroot, if they coud draw some votes away from there, they might figure they have a shot at winning. There's way more urgency than there was in 1912, after all.
 
Top