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.)
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.)