Would the 22nd Amendment exist if FDR retired in 1940?

[President Johnson]

Would the 22nd Amendment ever have been adopted if Franklin Roosevelt honored the informal two-term-tradition and retired in 1940? Or at least until the next president is successfully elected to a third term (I'm not sure though any subsequent officeholder would have run again)? Pretty much seems that the Amendment was just a response of him "overreaching".

[OSR stands with Israel]

Probably not since I dont think anyone would run for term 3 until like the late 1990s at least and I doubt by then an amendment like the 22nd would pass

[LBJer]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR. 

[gerritcole]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR. 

Wrong, Congress and state government were dominated by dems at the time, to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states you needed more than vengeful republicans

Also the 22nd amendment does more than 2 term limit, it sets the order of succession

[LBJer]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR.  

Wrong, Congress and state government were dominated by dems at the time, to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states you needed more than vengeful republicans

Also the 22nd amendment does more than 2 term limit, it sets the order of succession

The amendment was introduced in 1947.  There was a Republican Congress at the time--Congress was not "dominated by dems."  And if I'm not mistaken, the amendment was unanimously supported by Republicans but by only a minority of Democrats (I'm talking about in Congress here)--strongly indicating that partisanship played a big role.  

[The Mikado]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR. 

Wrong, Congress and state government were dominated by dems at the time, to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states you needed more than vengeful republicans

Also the 22nd amendment does more than 2 term limit, it sets the order of succession

1946 was one of the biggest midterm wins for the out party of all time.

Senate before: 56-39 Dem. Senate after: 51-45 R.
House before: 242-191 Dem. House after: 246-188 R.

This absolutely was a Congress out for blood against Roosevelt and his legacy. Most notably it passed Taft-Hartley OVER TRUMAN'S VETO. Between the giant R majorities and the sizable Southern Dem conservative bloc you can make a strong case for it being the most right wing Congress in American history.

[Orser67]

I haven't looked into this too deeply, but my understanding is that it very much was a reaction to FDR led by Republicans. The amendment was introduced within a month of Republicans taking control of Congress for the first time since FDR won a third term and at least in Congress it received the bulk of its support from Republicans. Obviously it did also receive some support from Democrats as well, so it wasn't solely a partisan issue, but the main animating force in the passage of the amendment was a reaction to FDR serving >2 terms.

So to answer the question, probably not, no. Also, more generally, I doubt the issue would have enough attention for a constitutional amendment to pass until someone served a third term.

[gerritcole]

I stand corrected about Congress my bad, but you still needed quite a few dem states to ratify it, it wasn’t solely republicans

[StateBoiler]

To go into a what-if, what if Ulysses Grant or Teddy Roosevelt seeking 3rd terms won them earlier. Would the amendment have come into being earlier or would it not have and as we come to FDR serving a 3rd term there would've already been presidents that broke the two-term convention and it would not be seen as a negative?

My initial thought is a Grant 3rd term would've probably led to the amendment coming into being. Like a lot of the recent political norms that have been broken, once you break something once, it's a lot easier to break it again, and I think the Congress of the late 1940s thought that.

[progressive85]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR. 

Wrong, Congress and state government were dominated by dems at the time, to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states you needed more than vengeful republicans

Also the 22nd amendment does more than 2 term limit, it sets the order of succession

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "yes" votes from Democrats came from conservative anti-FDR Democratic legislatures.  I remember he wasn't that popular among conservative Southern elites, even after he died.  He was after all a liberal.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR. 

Wrong, Congress and state government were dominated by dems at the time, to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states you needed more than vengeful republicans

Also the 22nd amendment does more than 2 term limit, it sets the order of succession

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "yes" votes from Democrats came from conservative anti-FDR Democratic legislatures.  I remember he wasn't that popular among conservative Southern elites, even after he died.  He was after all a liberal.

Southern Elites made their accommodations with FDR.  FDR was prepared to accept South Carolina's James F. Byrnes as his running mate in 1944 until Big Labor nixed the pick.  It was Harry Truman and his FEPC who caused the Southern Elites to see him as a threat to States Rights and Home Rule. 

At that time, no Southerner had led the Democratic ticket, and the leading Southern candidate for the Presidency, Sen. Richard Russell (D-GA) was not acceptable to the Big City Bosses and Labor.  What the South wanted was to ensure that the Presidential candidate nominated would be the least likely to challenge "Home Rule".  (That, by the way, was why the South went for Stevenson in 1952 and 1956; Conservative Southerners HATED Estes Kefauver and viewed him as a Scalawag of sorts.) 

[Agonized-Statism]

It was de facto anyway. Assuming some unknown demagogue gets the opportunity to break the two term tradition at some point in an alternate history where Roosevelt doesn't, the opposition would probably make it de jure then. But I can't see any of the post-Roosevelt presidents trying it, also assuming Trump still loses 2020 and doesn't have the opportunity.

[progressive85]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR. 

Wrong, Congress and state government were dominated by dems at the time, to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states you needed more than vengeful republicans

Also the 22nd amendment does more than 2 term limit, it sets the order of succession

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "yes" votes from Democrats came from conservative anti-FDR Democratic legislatures.  I remember he wasn't that popular among conservative Southern elites, even after he died.  He was after all a liberal.

Southern Elites made their accommodations with FDR.  FDR was prepared to accept South Carolina's James F. Byrnes as his running mate in 1944 until Big Labor nixed the pick.  It was Harry Truman and his FEPC who caused the Southern Elites to see him as a threat to States Rights and Home Rule. 

At that time, no Southerner had led the Democratic ticket, and the leading Southern candidate for the Presidency, Sen. Richard Russell (D-GA) was not acceptable to the Big City Bosses and Labor.  What the South wanted was to ensure that the Presidential candidate nominated would be the least likely to challenge "Home Rule".  (That, by the way, was why the South went for Stevenson in 1952 and 1956; Conservative Southerners HATED Estes Kefauver and viewed him as a Scalawag of sorts.) 

oh wow, so I guess by the 1950s there were already those fissures showing... didn't several states in the South vote for a third-party candidate in Kennedy vs. Nixon of 1960? 

Thanks for sharing!

[progressive85]

I see from looking at these Results on Talk Elections that there was a Harry Byrd (don't know much about him though, possibly related to the Senator from West Virginia?) that won actually the Unpledged in 1960 in the state of Mississippi... so I guess even Nixon was too liberal for Mississippi?

[Orwell]

I see from looking at these Results on Talk Elections that there was a Harry Byrd (don't know much about him though, possibly related to the Senator from West Virginia?) that won actually the Unpledged in 1960 in the state of Mississippi... so I guess even Nixon was too liberal for Mississippi?

Nixon was pretty liberal all things considered. But no, This Byrd was not connected to the other Byrd.

[The Mikado]

It was de facto anyway. Assuming some unknown demagogue gets the opportunity to break the two term tradition at some point in an alternate history where Roosevelt doesn't, the opposition would probably make it de jure then. But I can't see any of the post-Roosevelt presidents trying it, also assuming Trump still loses 2020 and doesn't have the opportunity.

I could totally see Bill Clinton going for a third term.

[Senator Incitatus]

Yes; it was part of a general project aimed at preventing popular movements from any sort of lasting power in American government. The idea that FDR was breaking any sort of tradition by running for a third term is entirely false and easy to debunk as well. The 22nd Amendment was an entirely novel idea.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In alternate History all events would of happened but delayed with different Prez but clearly if Bobby Kennedy wouldn't have been killed George Romney without Watergate would have won the Prez instead of Nixon and Bob Dole instead of Reagan would have been Prez

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Yes; it was part of a general project aimed at preventing popular movements from any sort of lasting power in American government. The idea that FDR was breaking any sort of tradition by running for a third term is entirely false and easy to debunk as well. The 22nd Amendment was an entirely novel idea.

No idea how much of this is true, but a point in its favor worth mentioning is that America, beyond the first thirty years or so, never really had regular two-term presidents until after the 22nd Amendment was passed. This isn't cause and effect--party rotation became more regularized, and leaders started living longer. The only three I can think of that served a full eight years and nothing but are Jackson, Grant, and Wilson, and at least one of these had third term aspirations. America was a nation of one-term, assassinated, or accidental presidents, combined with either quick party rotation in office or long periods of one-party presidential rule.

[The Mikado]

Yes; it was part of a general project aimed at preventing popular movements from any sort of lasting power in American government. The idea that FDR was breaking any sort of tradition by running for a third term is entirely false and easy to debunk as well. The 22nd Amendment was an entirely novel idea.

No idea how much of this is true, but a point in its favor worth mentioning is that America, beyond the first thirty years or so, never really had regular two-term presidents until after the 22nd Amendment was passed. This isn't cause and effect--party rotation became more regularized, and leaders started living longer. The only three I can think of that served a full eight years and nothing but are Jackson, Grant, and Wilson, and at least one of these had third term aspirations. America was a nation of one-term, assassinated, or accidental presidents, combined with either quick party rotation in office or long periods of one-party presidential rule.

Madison could've easily run again in 1816, if you want to go far back, and given the mortal weakness of the Federalist Party, he would've won easily if he did. Madison lived a GOOD long time in his post-presidency and was in much better health than the other ex-Presidents ended up being in.

Of course, Madison was hardly possessor of a...flawless...Presidency, but then again, who can judge what we would 've done against the might of the British Empire in the 1810s?

Anyway, I think out of the early Presidents, he's far and away the most likely to try. Washington and Monroe were in poor health on leaving their second terms and Jefferson...very clearly was OK with moving on. He just wouldn't have tried.

[RINO Tom]

No--it was a Republican vendetta against FDR. 

Glad to be on the side of Mr. Washington in such a dichotomy, then.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Truman or some D would have been successful running a 3rd term and an R Congress would have passed it anyways,  Truman or Stevenson would have succeeded A Republican

The 22 and Amendment made it easy for Eisenhower but don't forget Eisenhower introduced the World to Nixon of Eisenhower never been Prez no Nixon

[Vosem]

Yes; it was part of a general project aimed at preventing popular movements from any sort of lasting power in American government. The idea that FDR was breaking any sort of tradition by running for a third term is entirely false and easy to debunk as well. The 22nd Amendment was an entirely novel idea.

No idea how much of this is true, but a point in its favor worth mentioning is that America, beyond the first thirty years or so, never really had regular two-term presidents until after the 22nd Amendment was passed. This isn't cause and effect--party rotation became more regularized, and leaders started living longer. The only three I can think of that served a full eight years and nothing but are Jackson, Grant, and Wilson, and at least one of these had third term aspirations. America was a nation of one-term, assassinated, or accidental presidents, combined with either quick party rotation in office or long periods of one-party presidential rule.

Grant and Wilson both did, with Grant actually seeking a third term at the 1880 RNC and Wilson hoping that the 1920 DNC would end up turning to him as a compromise option. (You also missed TR, who served virtually a full two terms, stepped aside in 1908 in accordance with tradition, but then regretted it for the rest of his life, seeking a third term as a third-party candidate in 1912 and being the initial frontrunner at the 1920 RNC before his untimely death).

Anyway, the tradition definitely existed before FDR but it was never absolute and many interpreted it as a two-consecutive-term limit. The idea that the 22nd Amendment happened as part of a backlash to FDR's policies is true and important, I think; there was a point in the late 1940s/early 1950s when really anti-New Deal politics were quite close to taking power, and it's really the personality of Dwight D. Eisenhower which stopped them.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Yes; it was part of a general project aimed at preventing popular movements from any sort of lasting power in American government. The idea that FDR was breaking any sort of tradition by running for a third term is entirely false and easy to debunk as well. The 22nd Amendment was an entirely novel idea.

No idea how much of this is true, but a point in its favor worth mentioning is that America, beyond the first thirty years or so, never really had regular two-term presidents until after the 22nd Amendment was passed. This isn't cause and effect--party rotation became more regularized, and leaders started living longer. The only three I can think of that served a full eight years and nothing but are Jackson, Grant, and Wilson, and at least one of these had third term aspirations. America was a nation of one-term, assassinated, or accidental presidents, combined with either quick party rotation in office or long periods of one-party presidential rule.

Grant and Wilson both did, with Grant actually seeking a third term at the 1880 RNC and Wilson hoping that the 1920 DNC would end up turning to him as a compromise option. (You also missed TR, who served virtually a full two terms, stepped aside in 1908 in accordance with tradition, but then regretted it for the rest of his life, seeking a third term as a third-party candidate in 1912 and being the initial frontrunner at the 1920 RNC before his untimely death).

I missed TR intentionally because his example is well known and obvious; note my wording: "a full eight years and nothing but".

[Sir Mohamed]

Would it have existed in 1951? Nah. It was clearly a reaction of FDR overreaching in the eyes of many lawmakers. That said, the subsequent list of American presidents would have been different, and I'm sure during the 2nd half of the 20th century, at least one prez would have sought a 3rd term, perhaps even a 4th.

Even if we keep the actual list, I sure think Nixon would have run for the 3rd term in 1976 without Watergate. Clinton may have run in 2000, too. Eisenhower and Reagan would have retired for age reasons, W due to low approvals and Obama because he had enough.