John W. Foster dies in American Civil War

Let's say that John W. Foster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Foster who volunteered for the Union Army in 1861, was killed early in the American Civil War. This deprives the US of two future Secretaries of State--Foster himself and his grandson John Foster Dulles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foster_Dulles Also a CIA Director https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles and a cardinal of the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Dulles

Leaving aside butterflies, what difference would the absence of these people make? Foster himself was only Secretary of State for six months, but that time included the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy--an overthrow which Foster, an ardent annexationist, very much favored. My first reaction was that the absence of Foster would make little difference because Harrison himself was a strong annexationist, and would simply find a different Secretary of State to implement the same policies. However, "One writer arrives at a diametrically opposed conclusion—that Harrison was reluctant to approve annexation and did so only after the arrival of the treaty. George W. Baker, Jr., "Benjamin Harrison and Hawaiian Annexation: A Reinterpretation," 295-309. On Foster's role see Michael J. Devine, "John W. Foster and the Struggle for the Annexation of Hawaii," 29-50. Devine believes that Foster took over direction of American policy toward Hawaii during Harrison's "lame duck" period." https://books.google.com/books?id=Pn8SDywYRssC&pg=PA237 (Unfortunately neither Baker's nor Devine's article is available for free online.)
 

Marc

Donor
What you have touched on is the bete noire of fans of alternate history: that once you change one event, however minor, everything changes not linearly, but exponentially, and invariably in directions you can't possibly predict - history being a non-equilibrium system.
For purposes of imaginative fiction, it's fine to just ignore all that, as long as you're not really trying to pretend to be realistically plausible. One of the very best, albeit extreme examples of just ignoring change outside of what the author wanted to play with is The Dragon Waiting, by John Ford. A great literary romp with the departure from history being a successful Julian the Apostate in the 4th century, but having most of the history of Renaissance Italy and England being the same, Medicis and Richard the 3rd etc... Bizarre but wonderful. (some low-level fantasy as well, just for spice - John was in a kitchen sink mood).
But it makes a point, how trying to be rational about how history would actually change because of one altered event, is basically irrational.
The best we can do is take that Kierkegaardian leap of faith and just be imaginative, once you change facts, it does become fiction.
 
Last edited:
Top