What if U.S. President James A. Garfield would not have had any competent doctors to save him after Charles Guiteau's assassination attempt on him in 1881 and would have thus died from the injuries from this assassination attempt?
Garfield did not "invade" Hawai'i, he annexed them, at the invitation of their republic*; and if you want to argue the government was illegitimate because the monarchy had been deposed you can, but it still existed and predated said annexation.invaded Hawai'i
On the bright side, though, at least the war with Britain allowed the U.S. to annex a large part of Canada. Indeed, doesn't that outweigh the large U.S. casualties in this war?I wonder if this would mean a less aggressive American foreign policy in the late 19th century. While the war with Britain is often seen as President Blaine's doing, he really only continued the work of Garfield, who spearheaded the U.S. Navy's expansion, invaded Hawai'i, and had planned the invasion of Panama, launched in the first year of Blaine's presidency.
So, would Grover Cleveland have won in 1884 in a landslide had Garfield died in 1881?Well, he'd still be the only American president to derive a proof for the Pythagorean Theorem.
In terms of political effects, Arthur would probably not have tackled civic reform not nearly as well as Garfield. Unlike IOTL, the Democrats may win in 1884 because of that.
I doubt it; however, it is also worth noting that Garfield's pro-Chinese immigration stance was ultimately futile due to the fact that the Democrats successfully banned Chinese immigration once they came to power in 1896.I wonder if he would have taken some of the more politically risky ventures Garfield was known for, like pushing for Civil Service Reform or vetoing that bill that tried to ban Chinese immigration.
Semantic quibble -- they banned Chinese immigration in 1896; they came to power 1893 following the 92 election.... the Democrats successfully banned Chinese immigration once they came to power in 1896.