DBWI: U.S. President James A. Garfield Dies in 1881

CaliGuy

Banned
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?
 
Don't know that much about his VP, other than he was named Chester A Arthur, he was picked for both of Garfield's terms, and didn't seem to make much news one way or another (which I guess is a good thing). 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.

Would the Department of Justice an Arthur presidency have the same record on Civil Rights for the freedmen? Would his Solicitor General argue for the constitutionality of the [1875] Civil Rights Act as OTL? Would be clash with the "redeemers" in the southern state legislatures trying to pass segregation and disenfranchisement laws (or worse) in the aftermath of reconstruction?

More generally, would the US government, absent President Garfield, have been so reliably pro-business in the 1880's? What about Native American policy?
 
Last edited:
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?

I dunno. Garfield was fairly decent overall but Arthur had shown some real promise prior to his death in 1887 IOTL, as I recall-perhaps he would have been seen as a worthy successor?

OOC: Welcome, CaliGuy! Interesting that we share such similar usernames, by the by. ;)
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:
invaded Hawai'i
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.

As to Panama, Garfield wasn't so much planning an invasion as trying to diplomatically pressure Columbia to sit down and negotiate with the separatists rather than crush them; the naval and marine maneuvers were toward this end. It was Blaine who took a contingency plan and turned it into policy, months after Columbia had backed down.

*OOC: Bayonet Constitution of 1887 more quickly becomes republic when the opportunity of annexation presents itself.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
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?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
So, would Grover Cleveland have won in 1884 in a landslide had Garfield died in 1881?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
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.
 
... the Democrats successfully banned Chinese immigration once they came to power in 1896.
Semantic quibble -- they banned Chinese immigration in 1896; they came to power 1893 following the 92 election.

OOC: I realized we had Republicans winning every presidential election since 1860 through at least 1888, and thought that was getting a little wankish as is.
 
Top