WI: No president dies while in office or resigns

The following presidents either died in office or resigned:
William Henry Harrison
Zachary Taylor
Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
William McKinley
Warren G. Harding
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon(resigned)

The question to you is this:
What if the listed presidents fulfilled their term as president? How would they have done differently than the guys that followed them?
 
The following presidents either died in office or resigned:
William Henry Harrison
Zachary Taylor
Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
William McKinley
Warren G. Harding
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon(resigned)

The question to you is this:
What if the listed presidents fulfilled their term as president? How would they have done differently than the guys that followed them?

This is fascinating, but it's more like a series of questions: choosing any one of these men as a POD would yield repercussions for all of those succeeding (OK, some more than others: probably those following survival of James Garfield would be the least, with those following William Henry Harrison running second; on the other hand, the FDR repercussions might be the greatest but it would be a photo finish with the McKinley repercussions (no TR = an elongated succession of relatively weak presidents, leading to a later emergence of the US as a world power--if at all).
 

HelloLegend

Banned
The following presidents either died in office or resigned:
William Henry Harrison
Zachary Taylor
Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
William McKinley
Warren G. Harding
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon(resigned)

The question to you is this:
What if the listed presidents fulfilled their term as president? How would they have done differently than the guys that followed them?

Does a second term for JFK butterfly away Nixon's Presidency?
If JFK lives, does his brother? If not, does LBJ beat Nixon?
 
It's easier to just have different people with with a few of them.

Or, in the case of FDR, have WW II end early. Who runs in '44 for the Democrats if, say, the Weimar Republic survives, and the japanese attack us and are defeated early? Or, would he even run in '40 without hte threat of war; Europe was a bigger threat at the time he decided to run, IIRC. Robert Taft?
 
Harrison surviving would have big effects- Tyler was much more of a Democrat than Harrison, if Harrison was President things like the Bank of the United States could be brought back in his term.
 
It's easier to just have different people with with a few of them.

Or, in the case of FDR, have WW II end early. Who runs in '44 for the Democrats if, say, the Weimar Republic survives, and the japanese attack us and are defeated early? Or, would he even run in '40 without hte threat of war; Europe was a bigger threat at the time he decided to run, IIRC. Robert Taft?

Absent the threat of war in 1940, the contest for the GOP nomination was largely between Taft and Thomas Dewey, with Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan as a sort-of-close third contender: at least, that's the way it shaped up until just weeks before the convention when Willkie came out of nowhere. Had there been no threat of war, I'd guess Taft would have gotten the nomination. His running mate would be more problematic: do the Republicans look for a balanced ticket, and thus choose someone from the northeast (say, Leverett Saltonstall of Massachusetts) for the second slot, or do they go for ideological purity and take someone even more "orthodox" than Taft (say, Karl Mundt of South Dakota, or Thorkelson [don't recall the first name] of Montana)?

But go back forty years more and say McKinley is only wounded (Czolgosz sneezed at the critical instant, throwing his aim off) and serves a full second term. Now TR is only another vice-president (although admittedly a very dynamic one) who will try to secure the nomination for himself, but it'll be an uphill battle: he'll have to go against the moneyed conservative wing of the party, which is likely to want someone along the lines of Philander Knox or Charles Fairbanks as the nominee. Besides, no sitting vice-president has gotten the nomination since Van Buren. And since the Democrats have nominated the conservative Alton Parker, it looks like it's safe to nominate someone friendly to Wall Street. As such, the GOP puts forth a ticket of Knox and Fairbanks in 1904, resulting in a relatively close GOP win by plurality (there's enough revulsion in the working classes to give Eugene Debs significant support).

Now you've set the stage for another four years of a conservative, relatively weak presidency--at a minimum. And even if the Panic of 1907 ensues as it does in OTL, the Democrats will likely nominate Bryan again to run against Knox and Fairbanks, but Bryan is not exactly the model of a powerful president, either: he'll preach, but not act. Power will remain consolidated on Capitol Hill, rather than at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Fortunately, TR is still young--only 50 in 1908--so that he may well have the chance to run again after, say, another term as governor of New York. But by then, a lot of damage has been done, and it'll take a lot of doing to break the US loose from its insular model and transform it into a real world power (from its status as a regional power at best).
 
Top