The promise of a socialist dawn in Britain

In the second issue of El Mensajero Catolica there were two letters from Valladolid. One was from a man who had been a Falangist up to early September 1936. He described how he and his comrades had seized opponents of the Nationalists, taken them to the outskirts of the city and shot them. He lost count of the number he killed, but it would have been at least thirty. Some of his comrades having fortified their courage with brandy did not kill, but wounded their victims leaving them to die in agony. He himself had put several wounded men out of their misery. He was consumed with guilt for his crimes.

The other letter was from a woman whose husband was arrested on 22 July 1936 because he was an official in a branch of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party. After a travesty of a trial which consisted of his name and supposed offence being read, he was sentenced to thirty years in prison. Because of gross overcrowding he was in cell with five other men. Every morning he and his fellow prisoners had to have icy cold showers, after which still wet and cold they were forced to run the gauntlet of guards who hit them with truncheons or clubs. They were malnourished and suffered from various diseases. [1]

These letters were also published in other newspapers in government controlled Spain, and having been translated into the relevant languages, in the press, including Catholic journals, in the Western democracies. They caused a sensation with no independent figures believing the claim by the Nationalists that they were all lies.

[1] The descriptions in the first two paragraphs are taken from the account of Nationalist repression in Valladolid in the book The Spanish Holocaust: Inquisition and Extermination in Twentieth-Century Spain by Peter Preston, London: HarperPress, 2013.
 
When the Spanish Civil War broke out in July 1936 President Hoover and his Secretary of State, Henry Stimson. declared the United States to be neutral. This policy was continued when Huey Long became President and William Borah, Secretary of State. It was supported by the Democratic and Republican Parties, but the Labor Party campaigned for American economic and military aid for the Spanish government and they played a major role in the North American Campaign to Aid Spanish Democracy

Elizabeth Page and William Page were active in the above mentioned organisation in Chicago. [1] Elizabeth until prevented by her developing pregnancy. On 28 July 1937 she gave birth to a healthy baby boy, whom his parents named Francis.

[1] For the Pages see https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=8993863&postcount=442 and https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9005549&postcount=444.
 
On 4 July 1937 the Nationalists under the command of General Emilio Mola launched a major offensive against government controlled territory in Aragon. It was proclaimed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Spain as a crusade against Socialists, Liberals, Jews and Freemasons.

The first objective of the offensive was the city of Zaragoza which was close to the border between Nationalist and government controlled areas. After intense street-to-street fighting in which the city was largely destroyed, Zaragosa was taken by the Nationalists on 22 July. With its capture the Nationalists unleashed a reign of terror in the city, killing their political opponents and raping women who supported the Spanish government.

After they had captured Zaragoza, Nationalist troops advanced slowly down south-east down the valley of the Ebro against increasing heavy government opposition, until they ground to a halt just outside the small town of Fuentes de Ebro on 17 August. See this map: http://www.distances-calculator.com...aragoza-spain-to-fuentes_de_ebro-52-spain.htm.
 
I will now turn to the fortunes of the Long administration in the United States. In his book My First Days in the White House Huey Long had published his programme for government and now he wanted to implement it. [1] After the congressional elections on 3 November 1936 the Democrats had 246 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats out of 96 seats in the Senate.

In his first legislative message to Congress in late January 1937, President Long proposed the establishment of a national organisation to survey wealth and property in each state. This was intended to be the first step in the implementation of his Share Our Wealth programme. [2]

[1] See http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/First-House.pdf.

[2] See page 12 of above book.
 
The Republican Party opposed the Share Our Wealth survey and Republican governors, congressmen and senators refused to co-operate with it. After the 1936 congressional and gubernatorial elections there were 92 Republican members of the House of Representatives, 33 senators and five governors of the following states: Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont.
 
Good updates, pip.

Thank you very much.

The Share Our Wealth Survey Bill was bitterly opposed by the Republicans who filibustered it in the Senate. Under Senate rules which had been in force since 1917 cloture, that is a motion to end a filibuster, required a two thirds majority of those voting, which would be 64 if all 96 senators. The composition of the Senate after the elections on 3 November 1936 was as follows:
Democratic Party: 54
Republican Party: 33
Labor Party: 9. They supported the bill.

Peter Norbreck, the Republican senator from South Dakota died on 20 December 1936, and Robert D. Carey the Republican senator from Wyoming died on 17 January 1937, and the Democratic governors of those states appointed Democrats to serve for the remainder of the terms of the deceased senators. [1] Thus there were now 56 Democratic and 31 Republican senators. With the nine Labour senators there was a two-thirds majority for cloture.

[1] These deaths were also as in OTL.
 
After going through the usual lengthy legislative procedure, it was not until 7 December 1937 that President Long signed the Share Our Wealth Survey Bill into law. It provided for the establishment of a survey board in each state. The chairman of each state board would be the senior Senator from that state. The other members would be the junior Senator, the Governor and members of the House of Representatives. But each member of the House would be responsible for the survey only in his or her congressional district.

Each state board would not only make an inventory of all personal wealth, but survey the property to determine as accurately as possible the amount of annual income received by each family earning less that $2,500 a year, which would be guaranteed to them under the Share Our Wealth program. These boards would also take a census of all families who owned homes worth less than $5,000. [1]

The Republican Party filed a legal challenge to the Survey Our Wealth Survey Act in the Supreme Court.

1] For the composition and powers of the state boards see http://www.thechristianidentityforum.net/downloads/First-House.pdf, page 12.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about having the Republican Party legally challenging the Share Our Wealth Survey Act in the Supreme Court. I don't know on what basis they would do so as it did not redistribute wealth, but only provided for an inventory of property, assets and income. In OTL the New Deal was challenged in the Supreme Court. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937.

What do you, the readers of this TL, think about this?
 
I think that the government could argue that it is necessary to avoid tax evasion, but I'm not an expert on US constitutionalism.
 
genusmap.php

1924
Coolidge/Dawes (Republican)
Davis/Bryan (Democratic)
La Follette/Wheeler (Progressive)

genusmap.php

1928
Hoover/Curtis (Republican)
Smith/Robinson (Democratic)
Norris/Hoan (Progressive-Socialist)

genusmap.php

1932
Garner/Baker (Democratic)
Hoover/Curtis (Republican)
Sinclair/Waldman (Labor)

genusmap.php

1936
Long/Martin (Democratic)
Sinclair/La Follette (Labor)
Steiwer/Dickinson (Republican)
 
The Republican Party in the state of Vermont challenged the Share Our Wealth Survey Act as being unconstitutional. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on 7 and 8 December 1938.

When Huey Long was inaugurated as President of the United States on 20 January 1937 the composition of the Supreme Court was as shown in the picture with this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937. By December 1938 Willis Van Devanter and George Sutherland had retired and Benjamin Cardozo had died. Long appointed John B. Fournet, Stanley Forman Reed and James F. Byrnes respectively in their places.

On 11 January 1939 the Supreme Court ruled by 6 votes to 3 votes that the Share Our Wealth Survey Act was unconstitutional. Charles Hughes, the Chief Justice, and Associated Justices Brandeis, Butler, McReynolds, Roberts and Stone voted with the majority. Associated Justices Byrnes, Fournet and Reed provided the minority vote.
 
President Long went ahead with implementing his policies on education and the reform of the criminal justice system. [1]

Whether or not Long was a racist is an issue which has divided historians. African Americans benefited from his economic and social policies when Governor of Louisiana and President of the United States, but he did nothing for Civil Rights.

[1] See here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/hueychapt3.html.
 
In early March 1937 Labour Party congressmen and senators introduced comprehensive civil rights bills in the House of Representatives and the Senate. These would make illegal all discrimation on the grounds of race in all facilities which were open to the public and in all government offices. It was based on the comprehensive civil rights bill as proposed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). [1] Although the bills had the support of most of the Republicans in Congress, they were still short of a majority and were defeated.

[1] See this post: https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showpost.php?p=5488681&postcount=140.
 
The defeat of the Civil Rights Bill in Congress is generally considered by historians to be the catalyst for the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP] and the Labor Party were both at the forefront of the movement.

I don't know how the Civil Rights Movement will develop in this TL. If there will be a Supreme Court ruling analogous to that in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka in OTL.
 
The defeat of the Civil Rights Bill in Congress is generally considered by historians to be the catalyst for the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP] and the Labor Party were both at the forefront of the movement.

I don't know how the Civil Rights Movement will develop in this TL. If there will be a Supreme Court ruling analogous to that in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka in OTL.
Sooner or later, social changes will make the desegregation majoritary in US society.
 
Top