Death in Dallas- 1960

WI LBJ had been assassinated at the so-called "Adolphus Riot" in November 1960 as VP-elect? If the Veepship was left vacant, would McCormack become POTUS assuming JFK is assassinated, or would a 25th be proposed to allow for a replacement? Who would the replacement be? Butterflies down the road?
 
The date is surely crucial here. If electors had not voted I assume that Democrat electors would vote for whoever John Kennedy/ or the Democrat National committee suggested
 
Actually, election day, November 8. Which means whomever JFK recommends. Could that mean RFK, because there is nothing prohibiting a Veep from holding a Cabinet post...
 
Edit: They'd have to wait, because RFK wouldn't turn 35 till late Nov... But since the ECV are tallied on Jan. 6, irrelevant.
 
Actually, election day, November 8. Which means whomever JFK recommends. Could that mean RFK, because there is nothing prohibiting a Veep from holding a Cabinet post...

Would that not smack of nepotism? RFK as Attorney General was controversial enough, but the two most powerful roles in Government controlled by the same family? It would be easy to see the establishment of the Kennedy Dynasty as the dominant force of American politics.

Of course, the death of Johnson would possibly prevent criticism of such a decision if opponents of JFK didn't wish to be seen making a political issue of an assassination. As POTUS-elect he would be given an even larger boost in the polls.

As a matter of fact, how on earth could you assume that Kennedy would even be assassinated himself? LBJ's death alone would be enough to up security for all senior politicians.
 
This deserves... a future TL, par moi. RFK would be like a parliamentary DPM as per OTL. Perhaps another Cabinet position in the second term, which they discussed IOTL. I'd say HEW would be best...
 
Jack liked Terry Sanford (considered him for the VP slot in 1964 as a matter of fact), though I'm not sure he liked him yet. But, I think he's the strongest possibilities.

On Bobby, the Kennedy's were as ambitious as any other powerful American family (The Rockefellers, the Bushs -you wouldn't believe how ambitious the Bushs actually were which would compare to anything the Kennedy's could muster-, etc.) but not that ambitious. Bobby needs experience first.

Civil Rights would likely still pass in the 1960's, but it could run into some stronger Congressional opposition than it did (there were a lot of pro-Civil Rights folks in Congress who could twist an arm too, though maybe not as much as Johnson).
Butterflies from there depend on whether Jack lives or not following November, 1963.
 
How about AG in the first term, then VP/HEW in Term Two? I'd say State, but somehow that seems too fast too far. Not like he's the diplomatic sort anyways...
 
This more or less butterflies away the assassination of JFK in dallas, there is no way the secret service is gonna allow him to drive around the city in a convertible after this. chances are that oswald will get arrested long before he gets to even try and take a shot.
 
Dan, not necessarily. After JFK was assassinated, security was still to be desired. Ex: RFK's famous motorcades. Great campaigning, but nightmarish from a security POV. Not to mention his murder. It took his death to pass Service protection for Pres. candidates and effective firearms control.
 
With the election over, JFK could have his pick of VP. In addition to Terry Stanford, you've also got Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Stuart Symington who were considered for the position of VP, as well as Humbert Humphrey...Actually there's a pretty wide field...especially considering that appointing RFK would be nepotistic in the extreme.
 
There is one other problem with RFK being VP. The Twelfth Amendment bars electors for casting electoral votes for two people from the same state. As far as I know, both JFK and RFK were from Massachusetts. Even with the faithless electors, RFK would have been VP, but Lodge would get more electoral votes than Nixon- unless RFK moves and tried the Cheney solution.
 
With the election over, JFK could have his pick of VP. In addition to Terry Stanford, you've also got Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Stuart Symington who were considered for the position of VP, as well as Humbert Humphrey...Actually there's a pretty wide field...especially considering that appointing RFK would be nepotistic in the extreme.

Jackson was too much a hawk for me to think Kennedy would wanna go with him. I do think Terry Sanford is the most likely.

Quote:

"As Mr. Kennedy sat in the rocker in my office, his head resting on its back he placed his left leg across his right knee. He rocked slightly as he talked. In a slow pensive voice he said to me, 'You know if I am re-elected in sixty-four, I am going to spend more and more time toward making government service an honorable career. I would like to tailor the executive and legislative branches of government so that they can keep up with the tremendous strides and progress being made in other fields ... I am going to advocate changing some of the outmoded rules and regulations in the Congress, such as the seniority rule. To do this I will need as a running mate in sixty-four a man who believes as I do.' ... I was fascinated by this conversation and wrote it down verbatim in my diary. Now I asked, ... 'Who is your choice as a running-mate?' He looked straight ahead, and without hesitating he replied, 'At this time I am thinking about Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. But it will not be Lyndon.'"

Or George Smathers, but as time goes by and as Kennedy grows more and more pro-Civil rights, that would prove a bad decision and likely prompt Smathers to be dropped from the 1964 ticket. And if Kennedy is assassinated before the 1964 election...God have mercy on the Black American.
 
FYI, Robert Kennedy disclaimed that quote in Feb. '68 to Schlesinger, saying "Can you ever imagine the President ever talking with Evelyn about a subject like this?" She's the origin of your quote. JFK: "It's preposterous on the face of it. We've got to carry Texas in '64, and maybe Georgia." RFK would go for the Cheney solution, since he lived in NY till he was 18 IOTL, which some forgot in 1964...
 
Last edited:
Jackson was too much a hawk for me to think Kennedy would wanna go with him.

Scoop Jackson might have been too much of a hawk for you, Emperor Norton, but I hardly think that matters for the kneejerk cold warrior Jack Kennedy was before the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crises, the missiles of October...

Emperor Norton said:
I do think Terry Sanford is the most likely.

Yeah. Doing something about the Southern issue would mean getting a racially progressive Southerner on board.
 
The choices for a Southern Veep are either Sanford or Yarborough. Yarborough's too much of a liberal, and not held in much esteem by SoDems, unlike LBJ IOTL. So it's Sanford. Did he have Presidential ambitions? If yes, then it depends how JFK's second term goes.
 
Scoop Jackson might have been too much of a hawk for you, Emperor Norton, but I hardly think that matters for the kneejerk cold warrior Jack Kennedy was before the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crises, the missiles of October...
He would still likely be too much a hawk for Kennedy too. Jack was a Cold Warrior (and I disagree with knee jerk since he was a man who kept the Cold war from going hot where a knee jerker would have called in the marines), but he wasn't a Hawk, and Scoop Jackson drew a lot of flack back in the day for being perceived as a hardliner at best and someone who wanted to bomb every other nation off the map at worst. Similarly, Scoop Jackson wasn't all too well known back then.

The choices for a Southern Veep are either Sanford or Yarborough. Yarborough's too much of a liberal, and not held in much esteem by SoDems, unlike LBJ IOTL.
Keep in mind, though, this was the early 1960's. The New Deal Coalition was in full swing. Back in the day, Liberal was a good word and Conservative was a four letter word, so I don't think Yarborough would do much more than draw the ire of the western Libertarians (who were Republicans anyway) and a portion of the more conservative Dixiecrats.

So it's Sanford. Did he have Presidential ambitions? If yes, then it depends how JFK's second term goes.
Sanford had Presidential ambition up the wazoo, though that was in the 1970's in the OTL.
 
He would still likely be too much a hawk for Kennedy too. Jack was a Cold Warrior (and I disagree with knee jerk since he was a man who kept the Cold war from going hot where a knee jerker would have called in the marines), but he wasn't a Hawk

I shouldn't have been so ambiguous with, "the kneejerk cold warrior Jack Kennedy was before the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crises, the missiles of October..."

JFK in his presidential campaign was a hawk, and a much higher profile one than the junior senator from Washington state. Remember the 'missile gap', and the running to the Right of Nixon on Cuba?

But, as a I wrote above, being confronted with the crises of 1961/62 changed him, and made him realise that a less aggressive stanch was necessary (Berlin might have been the turning point, it appeared more of a flashpoint for starting WWIII than the Bay of Pigs).

I have no idea what reputation, if any, Jackson had at this time for being a foreign policy militant. The seventies is another matter...
 
I've decided to go with the "Double Death" scenario, because it's never been done before. This could go two ways- either a succession of dying Presidents, or a Nixon Presidency.
 
Top