McKinley lives! What next?

Bomster

Banned
President McKinley surviving his assassination is a popular POD in several TLs, especially those dealing with a leftist America such as the phenomenal Reds! However, what would actually happen had McKinley lived? A different 1910s? A continued Gilded Age? Socialism? WW1 under another president?
 
Kevin Phillips's biography of McKinley depicts him as a surprisingly progressive president who was likely to propose important new initiatives with respect to the tariff and trusts. McKinley's last speech to the Pan-American Exposition in September 1901 heralded a campaign for tariff reciprocity. Actions against trusts would likely follow in 1902 when the United States Industrial Commission appointed by McKinley in 1898 reported back. This report, as Phillips notes "wound up laying out much of what would be the Progressive corporate and antitrust agenda through 1914." (Phillips, William McKinley, p. 136)

Also, at least according to Mark Hanna, McKinley himself might have undertaken a prosecution against Northern Securities as TR famously did in OTL: "I warned Hill that McKinley might have to act against his damn company last year. Mr. Roosevelt's done it. I'm sorry for Hill, but just what do you gentlemen think I can do?" https://books.google.com/books?id=B0Jr8Ypal1UC&pg=PA392

Furthermore, Phillips notes McKinley's pro-labor record, which included naming Terence V. Powderly, onetime leader of the Knights of Labor, as commissioner general of immigration, and of Samuel Gompers of the AFL to the Industrial Commission. McKinley frequently consulted with Gompers.

IMO the second McKinley term would differ from TR's first OTL term more in style than substance, so far as domestic policy is concerned--one must remember that TR was not really that much of a reformer until his second term, and not really a radical reformer until briefly in 1910-12. On foreign policy, McKinley might have been more patient with Colombia than TR was, and while this might have meant a slight delay in building the canal, it would also mean less anti-US sentiment in Latin America.

Apart from policy differences, of course, there is the fact that TR brought a new glamor to the White House that really made the office of the presidency the center of public attention it had not been for decades. It is hard for me to see any successor of McKinley, other than TR himself, doing that--certainly not Fairbanks or Root. (Could TR have gotten the nomination in 1904? The bosses would certainly find him hard to swallow, but they were also reluctant to accept McKinley in 1896. As with McKinley, they might accept him if there was enough grass roots support for him and if they thought nobody else could win.)
 
I would also note that even on the question of TR and the "revitalizing" of the presidency, there may have been more continuity between McKinley and TR than was once believed. To recycle an old post of mine:

***

In general, the positive reappraisal of McKinley by historians (H. Wayne Morgan's 1963 *William McKinley and His America* was a pioneering work here) is part of a larger trend to question the earlier tendency to draw a sharp line between the "Gilded Age" and the "Progressive Era." In particular, the idea that Theodore Roosevelt "revitalized" the presidency--as if it had been "devitalized" before him--has been questioned. See Charles W. Calhoun, "Reimagining the 'Lost Men' of the Gilded Age: Perspectives on the Late Nineteenth Century Presidents" in the *Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era* (July 2002):

"Many scholars now believe that it was McKinley who created the modern presidency and gave it the preeminence in national affairs it has enjoyed ever since. As a congressional leader, McKinley had witnessed Harrison's legislative techniques first-hand. As president, he proved even more successful in applying these techniques, for he did so with a warmer personal sensitivity and greater political skill. Moreover, whereas Cleveland had badgered members of Congress, McKinley petted and cajoled them. A frequent recipient of the president's touch, veteran Illinois Senator Shelby Cullom concluded, 'We have never had a President who had more influence with Congress than Mr. McKinley.'72 61

"McKinley also recognized the importance of carefully managing the flow of information to the nation. His staff briefed reporters twice daily and provided them with work space in the White House. McKinley himself became an accomplished "leaker" of information to individual reporters to float ideas before the public. These efforts paid off in generally favorable press coverage for the president's policies.73 62

"Building on the examples of predecessors such as Hayes and Harrison, McKinley established the presidency as an independent source of influence by using public appearances and speeches to carry his proposals directly to the people. He traveled extensively, and to ensure that the president's message reached far beyond the immediate audience, his staff took reporters on his trips and provided the technical means to send their stories to their home papers. Thus, effectively exploiting technological developments--the national rail network with telegraph wires paralleling the tracks--McKinley and his staff seized upon the new tools of modernity to modernize the presidency. McKinley demonstrated to his successors that the president's direct access to the public gave him the opportunity to build a power base independent of his constitutionally defined relationship with Congress. As one contemporary observer wrote, with understandable hyperbole, "The pivot upon which we revolve as a nation is no longer the Capitol, where the people's representatives assemble, but the White House, where one man sits in almost supreme power."74 63

"In assessing the performance of the presidents in the Gilded Age, one should not lose sight of the broader political context, which profoundly influenced their effectiveness. Nineteenth-century Americans' abiding suspicion of concentrated power persisted and was deepened by the experience of Andrew Johnson. Moreover, for most of the period the two major political parties were locked in an equilibrium in electoral strength that restrained presidents and other party leaders from taking stands so strong that they would offend some indispensable party constituency. The closeness in party strength also deprived most of these presidents of a clear electoral mandate, and it usually resulted in a divided national government, with the legislative and the executive branches at loggerheads on many issues. One of the reasons McKinley was able to lead with the dynamism he showed, besides his inherent talent for conciliation, was the major realignment that had occurred in 1894 and 1896, making the Republicans the nation's undisputed majority party. 64

"Despite these contextual and systemic handicaps, the presidents of the Gilded Age presided over a gradual but undeniable accretion of authority and influence in their office from the depths to which it had plunged in the Johnson years. Presidents became more influential in their relations with Congress, and in a variety of ways, including travel and press manipulation, they increasingly attracted public attention and influenced public attitudes. By 1888 even James Bryce saw 'reasons for believing that
[the presidency] may reach a higher point than it has occupied at any time since the Civil War. The tendency everywhere in America to concentrate power and responsibility in one man is unmistakable.' Because the president was 'in some respects better fitted both to represent and to influence public opinion than Congress,' Bryce forecast 'still undeveloped possibilities of greatness in store for the Presidents of the future.'75 Theodore Roosevelt did not will the modem presidency into being simply by the assertion of his own indomitable personality. Instead, he recognized the potential foreshadowed by the efforts of his late-nineteenth century predecessors. Building on their accomplishments and advances, he moved the presidency to the center of national political and governmental life where it has remained ever since. 65"
http://web.archive.org/web/20041128072909/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jga/1.3/calhoun.html
 
If Theodore Roosevelt is able to obtain the 1904 nomination as Vice-President (and in my opinion that is a big if), then he'll win the general election provided that McKinley is popular. He'd easily be re-elected in 1908. The 1912 will see a united Republican Party, but if TR's preferred successor Elihu Root is the nominee then the Democrats have a good chance of winning that year.
 
Mark Hanna, his right hand man. Problem is that Hanna would die before the 1904 Republican Convention.
Ah. In lieu of Hanna, who do you think would people would want for the 1904 GOP if not Roosevelt? Do you think the Democrats are going to win or lose next election?
 
Ah. In lieu of Hanna, who do you think would people would want for the 1904 GOP if not Roosevelt? Do you think the Democrats are going to win or lose next election?

Fairbanks perhaps. The outcome in 1904 depends on the success or failure of McKinley's second term.
 
McKinley's own choice for a successor is said to be Charles Fairbanks. He would certainly be a "safe" choice; a friend of McKinley's, popular with Republican senators, a conservative who was not too offensive to more progressive Republicans.

"When William McKinley ran for president in 1896, he made his friend Fairbanks a key player in his campaign strategy. Fairbanks ran McKinley's campaign in Indiana and delivered a united Hoosier delegation for McKinley at thwepublican National Convention in St. Louis. As temporary chairman of that convention, Fairbanks uncharacteristically delivered a stirring keynote address, in which he lambasted the Democrats and advocated the gold standard for currency.9 McKinley won the Republican nomination handily, then defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan in the general election. Indiana, which he won by only about 18,000 votes, proved instrumental to his victory.10

"On the state level, the Republicans also did well enough to regain control of the Indiana legislature, guaranteeing that they would determine that body's choice of a United States senator. Speculation naturally turned to Charles Fairbanks. The wealthy lawyer had assisted many of the Republican legislators during their campaigns; now they could return the favor. With a little help from President McKinley, Fairbanks easily won election to his first political office...

"Fairbanks' Senate career proved competent if unspectacular. He stuck to the party line and was well respected among his colleagues. As chairman of the Immigration Committee, he favored restricting immigration and requiring a literacy test before entry into the United States—both popular positions. When the Immigration Committee proved too contentious for his liking, Fairbanks moved to the chairmanship of the more agreeable Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. Although he had originally opposed the pressure for war with Spain in 1898, he faithfully followed President McKinley's lead when war came. The president appointed him to the Joint-High Commission to decide the U.S.-Canadian boundary in Alaska. No settlement was reached, but Fairbanks helped his own popularity by declaring, "I am opposed to the yielding of an inch of United States territory." The people of Alaska showed their appreciation by naming the city of Fairbanks in his honor. Perhaps Fairbanks' only controversial stand in the Senate was his support for the demands of black soldiers fighting in Cuba that they be commanded by black officers. Thanks to the senator's intervention, Indiana became the first state to accept this position as general policy for its militia units.12

"Fairbanks' calm demeanor and "safe" Republican views made him very popular in the Senate. As a senator from a pivotal state and a consistent defender of the McKinley administration, Fairbanks emerged as a natural successor to McKinley. He certainly looked like a president: tall (approximately six feet, four inches), dignified, always clad in a proper Prince Albert coat.13 In 1900 some conservatives, most notably Ohio Senator Mark Hanna, tried to maneuver Fairbanks into a vice-presidential nomination.14 The conservative attempt to block the nomination of New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt ended in failure, but the mention of Fairbanks for vice president fueled the senator's already growing ambition. The Indianan turned down Hanna's offer for practical reasons and because he had set his sights higher. As one journalist put it, "[Fairbanks] had dreams of the White House. He preferred to remain in the Senate until the real call came."15

"Charles Fairbanks' political fortunes changed dramatically on September 6, 1901, when President McKinley was assassinated while visiting the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo. He lost not only a friend, but also a political patron. Although McKinley's successor, Theodore Roosevelt, promised to continue the fallen president's policies, Fairbanks' close connection to the White House was severed..."

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/charles_fairbanks.pdf
 
TR would definitely not get the Republican nomination in 1904, the vice-presidency was still a black hole that swallowed political careers. TR himself was studying for a law career before the assassination in preparation for leaving office once the term was over. Fairbanks seems like the most likely option, I don't think Hanna tries it if it looks like the party would select someone from the old guard. Taft was pretty popular from his work in the Philippines, but it feels like a reach to go with him in 1904. If we want to get crazy let me suggest Fredrick Funston, he was a general who gained popularity and national attention for capturing Emilio Aguinaldo. I remember reading something about people wanting him to run but that talk died after the assassination.
 
Top