At pivotal moments in our history like the present — with indictments of a former president on multiple, substantive criminal charges — historians tend to look to circumstances and challenges of the past for insights or comparisons, and to speculate on what outcome of trials might be: like what would our history have been had Lincoln survived assassination, or had Roosevelt lived to the end of his term in 1948?

In the case of Lincoln we can ask: Under his wise leadership, would the fate of Blacks have been better? In that of Roosevelt, we can at least surmise there would not have developed a Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Lincoln’s persuasiveness might have won the day. For Roosevelt, there was wisdom in befriending a very paranoid dictator, building trust, helping his country survive war, and keeping the promise to his people to help rebuild after the devastation of that war. These had already demonstrably altered Stalin’s distrust of the West. Peaceful co-existence with a democratic Russia could have evolved.

Instead, their chosen form of government was targeted. In time, belligerence, the creation of NATO, and eastward pressing of hostile arms buildup helped perpetuate hostility and, eventually, the reactionary and dangerous Vladimir Putin.

So the historian looks for what went wrong back then. As we shall see, the two cases mentioned are oddly linked.

Henry Wallace, the brilliant Iowa farmer Roosevelt brought to Washington as agriculture secretary, then named vice president in 1940, might be remembered today as the most accomplished and revered of our vice presidents. He and Labor Secretary Frances Perkins created the most important New Deal legislation. (And, yes, Roosevelt was the first to appoint a woman to a presidential cabinet.) Their two histories are significant.

When Hitler and Mussolini entered the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), helping Francisco Franco crush Spain’s democracy, Roosevelt kept the U.S. neutral. Later, he admitted his mistake. Even after aiding the Nazi war in Russia, dictator Franco survived in power until 1975. Wallace argued U.S. engagement in Europe in World War II should begin, not in North Africa, but in Spain.

Now came the 1944 Democratic convention. Roosevelt’s health was declining and his death, which did soon after occur, would elevate the VP to the presidency. Wallace was the delegates’ favorite to continue as vice president. Then a group of powerful men who thought Wallace too progressive conspired to promote “anyone else.”

Here is that Lincoln-Roosevelt linkage. Southern Democrats wanted someone else because Wallace was an outspoken supporter of civil rights for Blacks. Less competent Truman became the “someone else.”

With respect to postwar policy with the Soviet Union, Wallace posed to Truman a circumstance in which it was, instead, the Soviets who dominated us with atomic bombs and long-range bombers. How insecure would we feel? He reminded Truman that Russian losses had been great. Roosevelt had promised to help them rebuild their devastated country. Instead they are “being left alone to lick their wounds.”

Advocating a policy of conciliation, Wallace wrote to Truman suggesting we negotiate a treaty to establish international control and development of atomic energy to “counteract irrational fear … (and) clear away the fog of political misunderstanding.”

Instead of giving due consideration to the Roosevelt-Wallace perspective on relations with Stalin and the Soviet Union, Truman chose to follow the advice of career diplomat George Kennan, defined as “containment.” Like Truman, Kennan saw Russia narrowly, as a hostile foe threatening the interests of the United States.

Retained in Truman’s Cabinet for his valued competence, Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace delivered an address to a progressive gathering in New York. “To achieve lasting peace,” he said “we must study in detail just how the Russian character was formed … by invasions of Tartars, Mongols, Germans, Poles, Swedes, and French; by the czarist rule based on ignorance, fear and force; by the intervention of the British, French, and Americans in Russian affairs (1919-21) …

“Add to all this the tremendous emotional power which Marxism and Leninism gives to the Russian leaders then we can realize that we are reckoning with a force which cannot be handled successfully by a ‘Get tough with Russia policy’ … Under friendly peaceful competition, the Russian world and the American world will gradually become more alike. The Russians will be forced to grant more and more personal freedoms; and we shall become more and more absorbed with the problems of social-economic justice.”

Truman’s response was to mindlessly remove Wallace from office. He then prohibited all members of his cabinet from making speeches on national affairs.

Charlemont resident Carl Doerner is an author and historian, currently editing his new work, “Breaking the Silence: Revisioning the American Narrative.”

]]>