U.S. Presidential Assassinations

Let's switch some Presidential assassination successes and failures. What differences in the world would we see if the assassinations of Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy failed and the attempts against Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan succeeded?
With President Lincoln I see an easier reconstruction, maybe a little less bitterness in the South. With President Garfield the "Spoils System" of giving government jobs remains in place. With President Reagan dead, maybe the Soviet Union remains solvent longer, since Reagan is not there forcing them to spend to keep up with the US.
What are your thoughts?
 
I hope you mean for this to be done on a case by case basis, otherwise you likely will not even see half those men president.
 
Some of those belong in pre-1900, but let's deal with TR, FDR, JFK and Reagan.

TR: no major changes, he was a private citizen. Just that the GOP will not cherish hopes of nominating him in 1916 and 1920.

FDR: Garner takes a more isolationist stance, though like all SoDems is staunchly pro-British and will follow FDR's course to WWII. Domestically his Bourbonism will show and apart from the First Hundred Days, perhaps minus Social Security, not much legislation or economic interventionism will be forthcoming. No ASB Man In the High Castle crap.

JFK: continued Vietnamization policy, all the stalled NF legislation gets rammed through in 1965-6 except Medicare, no UHC as was proposed in 1962. Massive landslide in 1964, slightly smaller than LBJ's (who stays on the ticket, contrary to popular myth) IOTL. Aims for a moon landing but no long-term space program, tax cut gets passed. No GS programs either- or much smaller in scope and federalist rather than centralist. McNamara goes to State, Bobby to Defense, Katzenbach to Justice and Rusk to the UN.

Reagan: Bush takes over, a more realist approach to the Soviets in the first term and a monetarist rather than supply-side fiscal policy. Religious right's influence in the GOP somewhat diminished.
 
FDR: Garner takes a more isolationist stance, though like all SoDems is staunchly pro-British and will follow FDR's course to WWII. Domestically his Bourbonism will show and apart from the First Hundred Days, perhaps minus Social Security, not much legislation or economic interventionism will be forthcoming. No ASB Man In the High Castle crap.

Cactus Jack would neither be as interventionist as Roosevelt, nor would he have the same kind of popular appeal. My impression is that Garner would be viewed like a second coming of Herbert Hoover. FDR himself faced criticism from the left, so one can imagine how that wing of the party will view Garner. I could be wrong, but there seems to be the possibility that Garner is unpopular enough to lose in 1936. Garner's Presidency is just about the only scenario in which Alf Landon might actually become President.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Garner's presidency in the political climate of the 1930s would simply lead to both the Democrats and Republicans being permanently discredited and you could seriously see a Socialist president getting elected in 36.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Here's another one that wasn't considered. In 1997 Bill Clinton was on crutches for a while after falling. Suppose that his fall had been fatal and Gore becomes president.
 
Let's switch some Presidential assassination successes and failures. What differences in the world would we see if the assassinations of Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy failed and the attempts against Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan succeeded?

With President Lincoln I see an easier reconstruction, maybe a little less bitterness in the South. With President Garfield the "Spoils System" of giving government jobs remains in place. With President Reagan dead, maybe the Soviet Union remains solvent longer, since Reagan is not there forcing them to spend to keep up with the US.
What are your thoughts?


Lincoln is huge. If he survives, he rides the wave of anti-racism in the the Republician Party to prevent Jim Crow from ever emerging in the South. He will not be the #1 or #2 President in US History, but he does get to choose a successor in 1868, who will probably not be US Grant and he probably does buy Alaska as well.



You've already IDed what happens if Garfield survives. The Spoils System probably remains in place. Ominously enough, this is all happening in the Gilded Age; Garfield himself had a minor role in the Credit Mobilier Scandal and I fear for the worst with a corrupt president collaborating with big(ger) business.


Someone's either going to fix the system, or those USSA banners are going up. Whoever Succeeds Garfield in 84 or 88 is going to have a hard think about it. The outcome may well be a William Jennings Bryan Presidency in 1896 after decades of Capitalist Junta Presidents, which would probably make FDR look like a wallflower. Eugene Debs may also gain something big as well...


McKinley would probably run for a second term in 1900; he's won in Cuba and got a massive warchest from Mark Hanna. I suspect that McK pulls out of the Phillipines instead of fighting a guerrilla war against the Filipinos--McK was not much of an adventurer. I also think that McK is likely to be less of a trust-buster than TR. TR was pro fair play, but McK was Pro-Business in General...


A lot of people think JFK would be utopian president if he lived out his term, mostly because of Vietnam. I'm unsure about what happens to JFK and womanizing tendencies, or whether he eventually gets hit with some kind of scandal over a lovechild or scandalous expose. JFK probably doesn't run for a second term because of his health issues.


...


Jackson dies...when? Too many assassination attempts to work out there.


TR's assassination attempt in 1912 postdates his own presidency. It does kill the Bull Moose movement, and may well lead to Taft's re-election over Woodrow Wilson.


If FDR is killed in 1933, Garner isn't going to launch a New Deal or engage the USA abroad. While I've made silly ideas on the USA going totally down the drain, one thought that's fairly plausible is Huey Long emerging as President in 1936. Long simply takes the logical step to improve his own security after the President is shot, and thus averts his own assassination.


Long ends the depression through massive infrastructure spending. Unfortunately, he's an isolationist and things are likely to be sour during WWII. Still, the USA will support the UK and France with aid, as well as Nationalist China. An Alt-Cold War emerges with the USA friendly with the UK and profoundly unhappy with the German Reich and Japan.


Interesting TL Material. Long, like FDR, serves as president until the day he dies if the votes are behind him.


Reagan dies in 1981: Reagan's VP is an OTL President and the former head of the CIA. Reaganomics dies with the former president; Bush is perhaps a bit more hawkish than Carter, but he's not going to play the Reagan buildup while slashing taxes. Nor does Bush decide to conduct an exercise that nearly starts a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.


The biggest impact is that the Republican Party essentially remains sane to the modern day. Bush probably gets re-elected, and his VP has chances of winning in 88' as well.
 
You've already IDed what happens if Garfield survives. The Spoils System probably remains in place. Ominously enough, this is all happening in the Gilded Age; Garfield himself had a minor role in the Credit Mobilier Scandal and I fear for the worst with a corrupt president collaborating with big(ger) business.
Now you're takin' on my baby. Garfield was never convicted and his involvement is debateable.

The talk of the day was patronage vs. civil service. Garfield was likely for the latter, and the assassination attempt would have still proven a sufficient means of shock to the national system to see the patronage supporters lose and the civil service supporters win.

A lot of people think JFK would be utopian president if he lived out his term, mostly because of Vietnam. I'm unsure about what happens to JFK and womanizing tendencies, or whether he eventually gets hit with some kind of scandal over a lovechild or scandalous expose.
The press didn't investigate those matters back in those days, nor exploit them in a tabloid-like matter. So nothing happens.

JFK probably doesn't run for a second term because of his health issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Read the Kennedyarchy fact page.
 
Some of those belong in pre-1900, but let's deal with TR, FDR, JFK and Reagan.

TR: no major changes
With no TR third party bid Taft wins...

No Wilson! :D But TR dies! :eek::(

A True Hero is One Who Gives His Life Not to His Country, but to Give Woodrow Wilson the Bird.
 
Top