"As a form of life insurance for President Roosevelt, the nomination of Senator Fairbanks as Vice-President would be intelligible. Certainly, the maddest anarchist would never think of killing Roosevelt to make Fairbanks President. For other grounds for his selection, however, one would search in vain..." *The Nation*, June 23, 1904. https://books.google.com/books?id=zV45AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA483
Let's say it happens! Not that this particular anarchist believes that Fairbanks will make a better president than TR; he just favors killing presidents and other lackeys of the capitalists on principle. (He might even be motivated by a "the worse, the better" attitude--at least with Fairbanks the workers won't have any illusion the government is anything but a tool of the bosses, etc. But probably even that is too subtle for the assassin's mind.)
So the US gets a conservative president in the midst of the Progressive Era--though probably even Fairbanks will have to make concessions to the spirit of the age (e.g., the Pure Food and Drug Act). Can Fairbanks win in 1908? Unlike Taft, he won't have TR around to boost him.
Let's say it happens! Not that this particular anarchist believes that Fairbanks will make a better president than TR; he just favors killing presidents and other lackeys of the capitalists on principle. (He might even be motivated by a "the worse, the better" attitude--at least with Fairbanks the workers won't have any illusion the government is anything but a tool of the bosses, etc. But probably even that is too subtle for the assassin's mind.)
So the US gets a conservative president in the midst of the Progressive Era--though probably even Fairbanks will have to make concessions to the spirit of the age (e.g., the Pure Food and Drug Act). Can Fairbanks win in 1908? Unlike Taft, he won't have TR around to boost him.
Last edited: