So I kinda failed w/ the day part of TLIAD here. I'mma just post a synopsis of what would've happened for anyone who's curious.
1797-1801: Thomas Jefferson
1801-1809: John Adams
1809-1813: Andrew Jackson
1813-1821: James Monroe
1821-1825: William Henry Harrison†
1825: James Madison
1825-1833: Zachary Taylor[1]
1833-1841: James Buchanan[2]
1841-1848: John Quincy Adams†[3]
1848-1849: James K. Polk[4]
1849-1857: Martin Van Buren[5]
1857-1862: John Tyler†[6]
1862-1869: Millard Fillmore[7]
1869-1877: Rutherford B. Hayes[8]
1877-1881: Ulysses S. Grant†[9]
1881-1881: Abraham Lincoln[10]
1881-1885: Chester Alan Arthur†[11]
1885-1889: William McKinley[12]
1889-1893: Grover Cleveland[13]
1893-1897:William McKinley[12]
1897-1901: Benjamin Harrison†[14]
1901-1902: Woodrow Wilson[15]
1902-1910: James Garfield[16]
1910-1918: Warren G. Harding[17]
1918-1919: Theodore Roosevelt†[18]
1919-1927: Herbert Hoover[19]
1927-1930: William Howard Taft†[20]
1930-1933:Calvin Coolidge†[21]
1933-:Frank Roosevelt[22]
[1] Taylor was a smart, populist choice for the Nat. Reps. Young and energetic, he unfortunately got a reputation for protecting slavery. The Democrats nominated a popular northerner to succeed him.
[2] James "Buccaneer" Buchanan is one of the more colorful and popular U.S. presidents. Known as an excellent wartime president, he began the Spanish-American War in his 2nd term and with his energy and decisiveness was able to prosecute the war to a successfully liberation of Cuba. If only he had been president later in life, some historians muse, he might have been able to nip the civil war in the bud.
[3] Northern revulsion over the invasion of Cuba leads to "Old Man Eloquent", the Whig Party leader, JQA. He refuses to admit Cuba as a slave state (or at all), to the ire of the south. principled and intelligent, historians admire him for the work he was able to do in fields from education to astronomy. But by the end of his term, the slavery issue is beginning to come to a boiling point.
[4] "Young Zachary" takes from Taylor in appealing to southern Whigs. But he doesn't expand the U.S. at all; and his main achievement is in refusing to be overly cowed by slaveowners.
[5]Van Buren and the Free Soilers win on an explicitly anti-slavery platform. And the south secedes. But after 6 years of war, Van Buren finally leads the nation to victory. Slavery is abolished, but his conciliatory measures at the end of the war give Van Buren a lasting reputation for putting principle above party.
[6]Maybe conciliation came a bit too fast. Barely reconstructed John Tyler wins on the Unionist Democrat platform. Most rights for the former slaves are repealed, unfortunately. Tammany, of course, backs him to the hilt in this.
[7]So Tyler's VP is of course a New Yorker. Fillmore clashes with the party that made him however. He tries (ineffectively) to abandon the immigrant base of the Democrats, and ultimately shakes up the Democratic party a bit too much. He's fairly well-remembered for the trans-continental railroad and other accomplishments though.
[8]The first Republican since Van Buren, Hayes is so squeaky clean that he and his policies become known as "Rutherform". Hayes' reform of patronage, defense of the freedmen and attacks on corruption ensure that '69 to '77 are the beginning of the so-called "Golden Age".
[9]Grant was one of the more minor generals of the Civil War. He makes a good start as an Ohio politician, and is nominated as a dark horse in 1876. Sadly, he dies of throat cancer at the very end of his term, giving power very briefly to his old VP.
[10]Lincoln who?
[11]Arthur continues Hayes' and Grant's reformist policies, standing firm against New York corruption. After the elderly Lincoln, Arthur went for a much younger VP. When he dies of Bright's disease after re-election, the merits of his choice become known.
[12]Young, vital William McKinley serves two unconnected terms, dealing with disparate issues and he becomes known for his progressive policies.
[13]Cleveland? Bookended by McKinley. The Democratic Party is nearly trapped in the solid south, and he can't do much to remedy that.
[14]Old Mr. Harrison, quite a contrast from his energetic grandfather president. But he's still able to fight the Mexican-American War, finally securing Texas and California for the U.S. in a short, splendid war(quite different from the Mexican perspective). Aside from picking on defenseless countries, Harrison/Pingree do little except end in a double vacancy, elevating the Secretary of State to the presidency.
[15]Erudite Mr. Wilson was suited to the Cabinet (his diplomacy making Texas and California "safe for democracy" was quite brilliant) but it's not like he would ever have had a chance in electioneering. He doesn't run in the 1901 special election.
[16]Old warhawk Garfield does run. He puts the U.S. in the first rank when it comes to great power politics.
[17]Harding is one of the more amazing presidents; he both ushers in an age of reform and successfully prosecutes the First World War, fighting in both Europe and the Pacific. However his kind terms at the end of the war lead to a hawkish Democrat succeeding him.
[18] The Georgian Roosevelt is the Grand Old Man of Democratic politics. Conservative, hidebound, and hawkish, his brief presidency is very much a look backwards. how could he help but be overshadowed by his successor?
[19] Hoover's masterful stewardship of the economy causes boom-times and wins him plaudits both then and today. The Roaring 20s make him be considered the most qualified, and one of the best, presidents.
[20]The Republicans are in a bind with only old men. Taft's presidency is preoccupied with an economic crash.
[21]Coolidge's attempts to turn around the depression, restore consumer confidence, and fight the Bonus marchers get him the derisive nickname of "Callous Cal". Maybe if he'd governed a bit more quietly, he might have had success.
[22] And finally, F. Delano "Del" Roosevelt. He chose the other party from relative Theodore to make a name for himself. And his patrician personality and considerable charm go whole-heatedly into the cause of conservatism...
And that's all, folks!