McKinley never get assainated?

McKinley never gets killed by Leon Czolgosz on September 6, 1901. What happens now? is the progressive movement severely weakened? do they have a much harder time pushing for reforms? does the massive monopoly of gilded age not be broken apart?
EDIT: ignore this thread until it get moved
 
Last edited:
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 glamour to the presidency that really made the office of the presidency the center of public attention it had not been for decades. Yet 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 modern 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/20041128...cooperative.org/journals/jga/1.3/calhoun.html
 
Top