WI: James A. Garfield not assassinated in 1881?

James Garfield’s assassination is definitely the least well-known presidential assassination out of the 4, but after reading of Garfield’s political stances and positions, it’s actually very unfortunate that he was assassinated. From what I’ve read of him, he was an avid supporter of black civil rights and wanted to reform the government greatly. I believe I also read (I don’t know if this is true) he believed that the economic system should have been reformed (aka he could have done Teddy Roosevelt’s reforms 2 decades early). So, does much change if he isn’t assassinated? Do the reforms of Teddy Roosevelt occur over 2 decades early under Garfield and do black civil rights get a major advancement early, or does Garfield become just another forgotten Gilded Age President? Is there any way we can speculate with reasonable assumption as to whether he would be one of the greatest presidents of all time or just a forgotten president?
 
I don't know what would happen if Garfield survived his assassination, though I think he would still end up being one of the more obscure presidents today. In fact if he wasn't killed in office, he may be even less well known than he already is. For example, do most people really know or care much about William Henry Harrison aside from how he died within a month of becoming President? With some exceptions, most of the 19th century US Presidents get neglected in popular culture/history.
 
For example, do most people really know or care much about William Henry Harrison aside from how he died within a month of becoming President?

There is that other neat presidential fact about William Henry Harrison that I imagine some people know- him being a part of a grandfather/grandson Presidential duo alongside his equally obscure grandson Benjamin.
 
James Garfield’s assassination is definitely the least well-known presidential assassination out of the 4, but after reading of Garfield’s political stances and positions, it’s actually very unfortunate that he was assassinated. From what I’ve read of him, he was an avid supporter of black civil rights and wanted to reform the government greatly. I believe I also read (I don’t know if this is true) he believed that the economic system should have been reformed (aka he could have done Teddy Roosevelt’s reforms 2 decades early). So, does much change if he isn’t assassinated? Do the reforms of Teddy Roosevelt occur over 2 decades early under Garfield and do black civil rights get a major advancement early, or does Garfield become just another forgotten Gilded Age President? Is there any way we can speculate with reasonable assumption as to whether he would be one of the greatest presidents of all time or just a forgotten president?


He might get some civil service reform through, but that's probably about it.

There's no support in Congress for any drastic economic reforms, and any attempt to resume intervention n behalf of Blacks will just result in the Republicans losing control of Congress in 1882.
 
One interesting difference that Garfield's survival might have made (from an old soc.history.what-if post of mine):

"In November 1883, Haiti's president Louis Lysius Félicité Salomon, bedeviled by irate British creditors, tried to solve his country's financial problems by offering Mole St. Nicholas to the United States. This was an excellent anchorage commanding the Windward Passage between Haiti and Cuba, but the Arthur adminstration was not interested in acquiring it. (Not that Arthur and his Secretary of State Frelinghhuysen were by any means always cautious in foreign policy. Toward the end of the Arthur administration, they became very bold indeed--they wanted a Nicaraguan canal and for that purpose arrived at the Frelinghuysen-Zavala treaty which would have established a virtual US protectorate over Nicaragua. Even Blaine thought that this was going too far. But Arthur and Frelinghuysen were not interested in acquisitions in the Caribbean islands.) On February 1, 1884, Frelinghuysen informed his envoy at Port-au-Prince that the US had never deemed it necessary "to maintain
impregnable fortresses along the world's highways of commerce." In words that would infuriate Mahan he added "Even as simple coaling stations, such territorial acquisitions would involve responsibility beyond their utility." If Garfield had not been killed, and Blaine had still been Secretary of State, the US reaction might have been different--though there is still the question of whether a treaty would have been approved by the Senate...

"The problem was that when the Haitian government was most anxious to offer the Mole to the US (1883) the US was not interested; and that when the US did become very interested (under Harrison) the Haitian government was just too
afraid of adverse public reaction to agree to the terms the US wanted.

"Question: If the US had obtained the Mole, would it have found it necessary to get Guantanamo Bay after the Spanish-American War? After all, it would seem that the Windward Passage could be as easily commanded from the East as from the West. OTOH, the US might well still have felt that what it regarded as its extraordinary interests in Cuba required a base actually on Cuban soil..."

https://soc.history.what-if.narkive...e-in-1880s-or-1890s-part-one-mole-st-nicholas
 
He might get some civil service reform through, but that's probably about it.

There's no support in Congress for any drastic economic reforms, and any attempt to resume intervention n behalf of Blacks will just result in the Republicans losing control of Congress in 1882.
I'm just curious, what was different between TR's presidency and Garfield's hypothetical presidency such that Congress was willing to pass economic reforms in TR's time but not in the 1880's?
 
I'm just curious, what was different between TR's presidency and Garfield's hypothetical presidency such that Congress was willing to pass economic reforms in TR's time but not in the 1880's?

There was more popular interest in it by then. Bryan's 1896 campaign had scared a lot of people, so there was wider acceptance of the need for at least some changes.
 

DougM

Donor
Well not much happened under his successor so I doubt much would have happened if he stayed alive so odds are he is still unknown. Probably less well known as has been pointed out as he is chiefly noted for getting assassinated and for his doctors contributions to his death.
So by living he eliminates his chief claim to fame
 
Top