Wi McKinley survived

Random fact I found in my research: Did you know McKinley, the President after him (T. Roosevelt) and the President preceding him (Benjamin Harrison) did not have middle names?

Sorry, not quite; Grover Cleveland preceded McKinley, and he had a middle name -- it was Grover :p
 
Here's something else -- say WWI breaks out in 1914, as OTL, and in 1916 TR is elected to a third term.

First, how does this affect the peace? I see an earlier deal being made not long after the February Revolution in Russia.

Main effect is that both the US and Britain are marginalised. If France still has her Russian ally, the two of them together can dictate what happens on the continent, and needn't pay much attention to what the Anglo-Saxons think. Ironically, having the assertive TR at Versailles drastically reduces American influence there.

The big question is what happens when Russia's democratic experiment fails (a dead cert, given Russia's history) and she becomes a dictatorship of either left or right. Unlike Hitler, the new dictator won't need to spend time rearming, as Russia, a victor power, was never disarmed in the first place. Could get lively.


Second, assuming the POTUS still dies 1919, does his VP stand a good chance in 1920? (I'm seeing Hiram Johnson, FWIW...) My point is, could this significantly weaken the Denocrats permanently, forcing another realignmnet? I know RB says they'll turn to the Boubons, but I wonder if that'll save them, or even help...

If (as we seem to be assuming) TR still takes America into WW1, then if OTL is any guide his VP (or indeed any Republican) doesn't stand a chance in 1920.

After a year or two of war, Americans were fed up to their back teeth with all the rules and regulations, sacrifices, etc, and inevitably took it out on those in power. So the administration party (OTL the Dems, of course) took a hefty blow in 1918, and was all but annihilated in 1920, holding only 22 HoR seats outside the Solid South and the Border States. Had the Reps been the "in" party, there is no obvious reason for them to have fared any better.

Imnsho, we can virtually take it as read that whoever wins in 1916, regardless of party, is doomed to lose (and probably lose badly) in 1920 unless he can stay out of the war altogether - and TR is not a promising choice for that :).

If the Republicans (under TR or anyone else) take America into WW1, that for good or ill means a 1920s dominated by the Dems, much as OTL's were dominated by the Reps.
 
Last edited:
For all he gets talked up as a trust-busting President, Taft launched 4 times as many antitrust suits in his 4 years as TR did in his 8; TR only prosecuted the ones he was absolutely certain of winning but made sure they were highly publicized. Taft tried not to overpublicize even as he prosecuted more aggressively and effectively.

Which leads to interesting reflections on how Taft would be remembered had he come directly after McKinley, with no TR in between. Might he now live in history as the great "trust buster" and Progressive hero, with TR a forgotten former VP?
 
If (as we seem to be assuming) TR still takes America into WW1, then if OTL is any guide his VP (or indeed any Republican) doesn't stand a chance in 1920...

Imnsho, we can virtually take it as read that whoever wins in 1916, regardless of party, is doomed to lose (and probably lose badly) in 1920 unless he can stay out of the war altogether - and TR is not a promising choice for that :).

As it happens, I actually see TR taking a more aggressive diplomatic approach to ending the war, and negotiating a peace mid 1917. Something like his approach to the Russo Japanese War OTL*.

Which leads to interesting reflections on how Taft would be remembered had he come directly after McKinley, with no TR in between. Might he now live in history as the great "trust buster" and Progressive hero, with TR a forgotten former VP.

I don't know... did Taft have the connections and the momentum (not to mention sheer drive) that TR would have to be elected in 1908?

*And yes, I remember that the war had its own determining factors which brought it to an end, but then so would WWI in TTL -- Russia's still hot from the February Revolution, and the other nations are tired enough to sit down.
 
Who's the leading candidate for that little Democrat slot we seem to be giving between McKinley and TR, for that matter (1904-?)? If its a strong candidate, it could be a two termer. Parker was a compromise candidate and a seemingly good one in actual history, so it may be reasonable to think he'd be nominated in this alternate 1904 rather that Bryan. I think we've given too little focus to Parker and how he'd turn out.

BTW, I don't think we should jump the gun on TR serving three terms yet. :p
 
Who's the leading candidate for that little Democrat slot we seem to be giving between McKinley and TR, for that matter (1904-?)? If its a strong candidate, it could be a two termer. Parker was a compromise candidate and a seemingly good one in actual history, so it may be reasonable to think he'd be nominated in this alternate 1904 rather that Bryan. I think we've given too little focus to Parker and how he'd turn out.

Should we necessarily assume that it will be a Democrat at all?

Given the temper of the times, whoever the Republicans nominate will need to make some progressive noises, but that shouldn't be too hard. Taft could do it, and probably numerous others. The Reps are the majority party, so as long as the economy hasn't nosedived under McKinley, their candidate should be quite electable, even if he isn't TR. Agreed, his majority won't be anything like TR's 56-38 landslide - probably more like the 52-46 that McKinley got in 1900 - but I don't see any reason to suppose he's foredoomed to defeat. And even if he only does about what Taft did OTL, that will look impressive enough if there's been no TR Administration to compare it with.

BTW, I don't think we should jump the gun on TR serving three terms yet. :p

Or even one, necessarily. No doubt there were some Republicans who'd have been ok with TR as their candidate, but whether they could have rallied a majority of Convention delegates is far less certain - especially if the party had a reasonable chance of winning with a more conventional choice.
 
One thing you guys are forgetting. The Panama Canal. Without TR and separating the Panama isthmus from Columbia, Panama doesn't become a country that soon. Yellow fever isn't wiped out as soon and industry doesn't grow as fast due to not having the canal.

Yeah, there might be one built in Nicaragua, eventually, but it would take a lot longer to get done
 
Yeah, there might be one built in Nicaragua, eventually, but it would take a lot longer to get done

I don't know about "a lot" -- after all, we're not talking about a route that much longer, one that had been been in the works for a while, and was on much friendlier terrain.

Interesting point about Yellow Fever, though...
 
As it happens, I actually see TR taking a more aggressive diplomatic approach to ending the war, and negotiating a peace mid 1917. Something like his approach to the Russo Japanese War OTL*.


Trouble here is that when it comes to "brokering" a peace TR has the same difficulty as Wilson - and it could be an even bigger difficulty for him.

Essentially, the POTUS has a lot of clout if he's willing to use it - but only one way, and from his pov the wrong way. By threatening economic sanctions, he can force the Allies to accept German demands, but not vice versa. Germany is already blockaded, so there isn't much to cut off. His only sanction against Germany is the threat to declare war on her, and by the end of 1916 the Germans seem to have become resigned to that anyway.

This obviously doesn't matter to a "stay out at any price" type who just wants the war ended and ain't too fussed about who wins it. Bryan and Hearst are in this category, and probably Clark. But I'm not sure Wilson really was (though nearer to it in 1916 than in 1915), and TR certainly wasn't. It is of course possible that as POTUS, wranglings over blacklists and mail interception may make him less pro-Allied than OTL, but would he change that much?
 
Last edited:
Is the POD McKinley surviving getting shot, or not getting shot period?

Czolgosz approaches McKinley, gun bundled in bandages, fires and the gun jams; as he tries again, he's tackled, and the gun goes off, but the President is unhurt.
 
Alternate POTUSes

McKinley 1897-1905
Bryan 1905-1909
Roosevelt 1909-1917
Parker 1917-1921
Wilson 1921-1925
Pershing 1925-1929
Coolidge 1929-1937
FDR 1937-1941
Pershing 1941-1945
Barkley 1945-1949
Joe Kennedy 1949-1953
Stevenson 1953-1955
Kefauver 1955-1961
Humphrey 1961-1965
Goldwater 1965-1969
Wallace 1969-1973
Mondale 1973-1977
Muskie 1977-1981
Reagan 1981-1989
Quayle 1989-1993
McCain 1993-1997
Rick Scott 1997-2001
Mark Kirk 2001-2005
Pelosi 2005-2009
Boehner 2009-
 
McKinley 1897-1905...


Pershing serving non-consecutive terms? Bryan and Wallace elected? The same people being born and still becoming national politicians after the POD?

Combining gibberish and butterfly killing in one small post is quite a feat.
 
McKinley 1897-1905
Bryan 1905-1909
Roosevelt 1909-1917
Parker 1917-1921
Wilson 1921-1925
Pershing 1925-1929
Coolidge 1929-1937
FDR 1937-1941
Pershing 1941-1945
Barkley 1945-1949
Joe Kennedy 1949-1953
Stevenson 1953-1955
Kefauver 1955-1961
Humphrey 1961-1965
Goldwater 1965-1969
Wallace 1969-1973
Mondale 1973-1977
Muskie 1977-1981
Reagan 1981-1989
Quayle 1989-1993
McCain 1993-1997
Rick Scott 1997-2001
Mark Kirk 2001-2005
Pelosi 2005-2009
Boehner 2009-

Part of the problem with projecting ATLs too far out is that butterflies so big that it becomes meaningless.

I mean think about it: if you're changing major world leaders at the start of the 20th C., the butterflies are enough to seriously change the world wars, and the butterflies resulting from that -- deaths, emigration, marriages -- probably mean that almost none of us would even exist.

That goes for many of the people on your list too.
 
Top