Can anybody refer me to a site that has info re: one of FDR's VPs

(not Truman, of course) being a nazi or communist mole?

I read a thread about this here on DU several years ago but I didn't take it seriously. But I'm ready to read up on it now. Thanks, in advance.

He was a State Department official who was a pretty violent anti-Semite - he would regularly use his power at the State Department to refuse entry to Jews fleeing the Nazis. He was never Vp, though.

ER: He's a fascist.
FDR: You mustn't say that.
ER: Well, he IS!

I'm just guessing here.....he was from my home state. Major agriculturist.
He ran later for President on the Progressive party ticket.
He was way too liberal for the Democrats at the time......but Nazi or Mole??....No way!!

Just looked on Wiki.....says he was at one time a supporter of Stalin, but later denounced him when he learned the truth.
He also was for earth shattering things like letting blacks vote and universal health care....I am surprised he ever made it to VP......He made major discoveries in Agriculture....started a seed company called Pioneer among many other things

a communist.

and, yes, people thought he was a communist.

NOT a good vice president and I can't believe the visitors' center in Hyde Park is named for him and not the Morgenthaus, who were so close to the R's and lived just down Route 9.

But is considered a fascist or a communist at freeper town.

But Wallace had tramped on to many big city bosses toes for him to stay, and given that FDR was NOT healthy in 1944 (no one expected him to outlive the year) the big city bosses wanted someone they could work with, thus Truman was made FDR's VP in 1944.

Please note, the dispute between Wallace and the big city bosses had very little to do with any corruption by the big city bosses (The Real Corrupt big City bosses had been Republicans who controlled most major cities before the 1930s) but the big city bosses needing political support for various projects in their cities, projects that Wallace thought had no advantage to the Country as a whole. Wallace idealism kept getting in the way of the big city bosses keeping their voters happy and something had to give (and in 1944 it was Wallace that had to give, give up the Vice Presidency).

More on Henry Wallace:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1754.html

Some more details on the 1944 Convention (Through this source say FDR was involved, Generally it is considered that FDR was NOT, but he was to sick to fight for Wallace so the big city bosses had they way):
http://books.google.com/books?id=d0uu-j32elUC&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=Henry+Wallace+Big+City+Bosses&source=web&ots=br8Srhtb3-&sig=stlFn4x52kqtIY6LdQPvTLei3LI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

that Wallace was a "bad politician" and had to go when she tried to throw a block in Wallace's favor.

Wish, w i s h WISH William O. Douglas had taken the job!

At the 1944 DNC, the roll call was strongly favoring Wallace on the VP ticket, but the DNC chairman declared that fire safety standards were being violated (which no one else agreed with), adjourned the convention suddenly (against the wishes of the delegates), and back-room deals were made to dump Wallace and pick Truman.

FDR didn't refuse to run without Wallace like he did in 1940, but he did say at the DNC that if he were a delegate, he would've voted for Wallace.

I agree about Douglas.

insisting on Wallace had the 'plus' of sticking a finger in the eyes of conservatives like JNG and Jesse Jones.

FDR liked to stick fingers in people's eyes just for the fun of it. Joe Kennedy as SEC chair, Nathan Strauss as head of POWs, etc.

I'm really enjoying this discussion with folks 'in the know'!

Both sides were playing games that day, The Wallace supporters had managed to get hold of the printing press for passes into the Convention, and flooded the Convention with Wallace supporters who would then yell as loud as they could to get Wallace nominated by Acclamation (As had FDR been nominated earlier in the Convention). It was do to this overwhelming number of Wallace supporters that the Chairmen of the Convention did his famous stunt, asking for an acclamation vote to close the convention for the night, after an overwhelming NAY vote was heard, the Chairman ruled "The Ayes have carried the vote" closed the convention.

Yes, both sides played games at that convention, Conventions were still conventions at that time period not some media circus for Television that Conventions have become since the 1950s. Most delegates went into the Convention NOT committed to any one candidate, so deals was the norm for the time period. In the 1932 Convention FDR asked the head of the Texas delegation for their support and the head of the Delegation told him no, for the first few rounds on the grounds several of the Texas Delegates were they to vote for a home state boy for the job, but he could swing it to FDR on the Fourth Round (Which he did and it was the round FDR won the nomination).

These were real conventions, who was to be nominated was NOT decided till the actual vote in the Convention. Primaries were held and selected delegates but no where near what we do today, and it was NOT unusual for the winner of the Primaries NOT to win the Nomination (TR did this in 1912 against the re-election of Taft, and Humphrey did the reverse in 1968 i.e. did NOT win a single primary but won the nomination). The 1968 Democratic Convention was the last time such a situation could occur, the Rules were changed during that Convention to make sure it would NOT happen again (LBJ agreed to those changes as long as his Vice President was the Candidate that year). Times have changed, conventions have changed, Conventions today rubber stamp who had won in the primaries as opposed to having such winners fight it out in the Convention itself as was the practice prior to the 1950s. Wallace lost out in a Convention held under the old rules, because he was NOT a politician, it was hard for him to work with others who had different agendas then his own. That is why he lost the nomination in 1944, it was his inability to work with his fellow Democratic politician more than any other single factor.

It must be Henry Wallace.


"The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."