WI TR is shot instead of McKinley

I was looking at the 1901 Assassination switch thread and sparked this question - let's say the Vice President, Theodore Roosevelt, is shot dead in Buffalo. What impact would that have on history?

With WM still as President, the USA might have avoided any sort of interference in the Russo-Japanese war which could have avoided the next 37 years of antagonism between Japan and the USA. WM was an economic hawk at heart - taking Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii was a walk in the park. Standing up to Russia and Japan would probably have proven more intimidating and he might have backed down.

WM might not have encouraged Panama to revolt from Columbia in order to build the Panama Canal and probably would not have launched a crusade against the Party Election Machine leading to increased corruption in US politics. Although he was a tentative union supporter, we can probably count on WM turning a blinder eye to certain underhanded business practices continuing to be carried out rather than being regulated against.

What this might lead to is an economic powerhouse which, the Spanish American War aside, might lead to either an increasing sense of American isolation in world affairs or an America which is too nervous to upset the apple-cart lest it damage the economy. This will, of course, butterfly if/when WW1 breaks out.
 
Well, he still has his Great White Fleet, since its already being built by 1901. And the US has ongoing problems in the Philippines. It also has a presence in China (US warships having been operating in the area for a couple of decades, and involved in the Boxer Rebellion, Taku etc). Thus there is already some sort of China policy, but whether this ever gets formulised as it did under TR/Taft is uncertain.

If Panama is not encouraged to revolt, then is the Panama Canal a de facto Colombian-US venture, or will the US end up intervening in Bogata to get itself a government it can work with ?

One thing is certain, the US won't sit still and stagnate. It will still do SOMETHING, but what ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Sorry, but as a huge TR fan, I have to quibble a bit: TR wasn't in Buffalo at the time; he was vacationing in the Adirondacks. He had to make the trip from a relatively remote location to Buffalo.

Let's set that aside for the moment, though. Without Theodore Roosevelt, the progressive cause would have been delayed significantly, and would have been without its most charismatic spokesman. It would have been left to such individuals as Charles Evans Hughes, Hiram Johnson, Herbert Hadley, and Albert Beveridge to advance a progressive GOP agenda. They would have had a far more difficult time working against the more entrenched conservative types.


Other ripple effects:
  • The Panama Canal would likely have been delayed, or routed through Nicaragua instead without TR taking the isthmus, as he put it.
  • The Russo-Japanese war might well have worn on into 1906, possibly resulting in an earlier, messier revolution in Russia--and a radically different map of the Asian continent in the far east, had Japan tried to get a foothold beyond its conquest of Korea.
  • While McKinley sympathized with the imperialists, there would have been no proponent of naval power quite of TR's impact. Thus, I have to agree that there would have been no Great White Fleet, putting the world on notice that the US was a force to be reckoned with.
  • Relations with Cuba might well have taken a different turn: e.g., perhaps Cuba would have had commonwealth status imposed not unlike Puerto Rico, but at the price of a constant military presence.
McKinley would have finished out his second term in March 1905, succeeded-in my view-by another Republican of the same general ilk. Quite possibly Charles Fairbanks of Indiana would have gotten the nomination (I can't see the GOP going for someone as blatant a plutocrat as Mark Hanna or Nelson Aldrich) with perhaps James Sherman of New York as a running mate; I doubt the Democrats would have put Bryan up for a third consecutive time, going instead with perhaps Champ Clark of Missouri.

No TR means no Taft in the White House, more than likely: it's not inconceivable that Taft would have gone from the post of governor-general of the Phillippines to the Supreme Court. It also means that the real establishment of the national park system would have been delayed, with Gifford Pinchot not being afforded access to the highest levels of power. Many of the other progressive reforms of TR's presidency (e.g., the Pure Food and Drug Act) would have been delayed as well.

Last but not least, after (presumably) sixteen years of conservative Republican presidents, Woodrow Wilson would have seemed like a breath of fresh air to many, his southern proclivities notwithstanding. How the election of 1912 would go would depend entirely upon the GOP nominee. If that had been a "more of the same" conservative type (say, Nicholas Murray Butler), the election would have gone to Wilson. On the other hand, if somehow the progressives behind Hughes could have carried the day, then you're looking at a very tight election, with possibly Hughes winning (in the end, it was a combination of Wilson's incumbency and Hughes' blunders in California that kept Hughes out of the White House).
 

Glen

Moderator
I was looking at the 1901 Assassination switch thread and sparked this question - let's say the Vice President, Theodore Roosevelt, is shot dead in Buffalo.

Possible. McKinley could have caught cold and TR sent in his stead. Of course, the question is whether he really would die if shot. He was shot in the 1912 campaign but just kept giving his speech until the end, and then sought medical assistance. One tough guy!;)

What impact would that have on history?

But let us assume that it does work as you say....

With WM still as President, the USA might have avoided any sort of interference in the Russo-Japanese war which could have avoided the next 37 years of antagonism between Japan and the USA.

They'd possibly still apply to America for mediation, and since initially the negotiations were handled by the Secretary of State who was the same for both men, it would have puttered along much the same. The real difference is TR wouldn't come in personally in '05, and so we might not see a resolution to the war anytime soon. A longer Russo-Japanese War with a lackluster American mediation would have different consequences.

WM was an economic hawk at heart - taking Cuba, the Philippines and Hawaii was a walk in the park. Standing up to Russia and Japan would probably have proven more intimidating and he might have backed down.

Huh?

WM might not have encouraged Panama to revolt from Columbia in order to build the Panama Canal

Maybe, maybe. I wonder if they would have rather simply renegotiated with the Columbians and paid a bit more for the canal rights.

and probably would not have launched a crusade against the Party Election Machine leading to increased corruption in US politics.

Well, continued corruption for a time, at least....

Although he was a tentative union supporter, we can probably count on WM turning a blinder eye to certain underhanded business practices continuing to be carried out rather than being regulated against.

Why? I would rather see him trying to take some action, just less so than TR.

What this might lead to is an economic powerhouse which, the Spanish American War aside, might lead to either an increasing sense of American isolation in world affairs or an America which is too nervous to upset the apple-cart lest it damage the economy. This will, of course, butterfly if/when WW1 breaks out.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.
 

Glen

Moderator
True, there'd be the ships of the Great White Fleet, but there'd be no world-wide propaganda stunt. Which actually might encourage other powers to infringe in US activities at an earlier date.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Why should anybody assasinate a US Vice-president?
It only makes sense, if you want to get rid of the president, too.
Or if it is personal, and not political.
 
Why should anybody assasinate a US Vice-president?
It only makes sense, if you want to get rid of the president, too.
Or if it is personal, and not political.

What I had heard was that the killer was an Anarchist who was simply against government and specifically had nothing against McKinley. Well, assuming he got the same chance although TR would be very much a second chance he might have thought that this was the highest government official he would get a chance to murder.
 
Corrupt

Ever heard of Tammany Hall? That machine makes almost every corruption scandal since look like amateur night.
 
Assuming that TR was assassinated in Buffalo (like LaSalle1940 says: highly unlikley), my big concern/thought would be that the progressive movement might never have become mainstream in American politics. McKinley was a Republican who was squarely in the pocket of big business. Without TR there never would have been a raise in the power of unions, or support of worker action by the federal government (the Anthracite Coal Strike is one example). On the contrary, the feds would have come down hard on the workers - see events like the Pullman strike and others like that through the latter 1800s. There would also be no trust-busting, which was started by TR and continued in an even bigger way by Taft. Huge trusts like Armour, Standard Oil and the like would have continued to hold sway in the US by supporting Republican candidates. I'm sure that the populists would have continued to hammer away at things, and anarchist/socialist/communist/unionists would have continued to struggle against big business, but I doubt they would have succeeded. In fact, it's quite possible that social problems and violence would have gotten considerably worse (the late 1800s/early 1900s were a fairly violent time). Although I can see Wilson running in the 1912 election, I'm not convinced that he would have won. He would certainly have been seen as a "breath of fresh air" by the general population, but the people who held the money and the power - the monopolies, trusts, and other big business - would have done a considerable amount to block his election. Let’s also consider the reformation of government, like the direct election of Senators. I doubt that would have happened with McKinley in power. That would certainly have left the Senate in the control of big business – progressive laws would never have been pasted, especially with a traditional Republican President in the White House.

The assassination of McKinley was an incredibly important turning point in the history of the US. If TR had not come to power, followed by Taft and Wilson, this country would be radically different today. I can see it being completely run by big business with the workers being "kept in their place." Although I know a lot of people think that's how it is today, but I think it would be considerably with the alternate timeline.

My two cents anyway:)
 
What I had heard was that the killer was an Anarchist who was simply against government and specifically had nothing against McKinley.

Untrue. Czolgocz attempted to join the anarchist movement but was rebuffed for being "too intense." He felt that the only way to change things was through violent action. My understanding is that he saw McKinley as the "head of the snake." Kill him, he reasoned, and the problems brought about by big business would lessen for people like himself and other immigrant workers (note: he was born to Polish immigrants, but he was born in Detroit making him a United States citizen). Alients (psychologists) who studied his case following his execution found him to be insane. The progressive viewpoint was that the circumstances that he and his family suffered - caused by the actions of big business and the boom/bust cycle of the American economy - led to his actions. This was scary to many Americans at the time because Czolgocz and his family's history was pretty much the norm for most immigrant families in the US. This meant that almost anyone could "snap" and strike out just as Czolgocz did.
 
In true turtletove fashion, only one things matters. How would this effect WWI?

Well, the advent of WWI so obsessed the American public that the progressive movement fell to the wayside (in fact following the war there was a backlash against the movement). That being the case, I can see there being two more Republican Presidents following McKinley (this assumes he only runs twice). War being good for business and the Republicans being in the pocket of big business it is entirely possible we might have entered the war earlier, though some industrialists like Ford were isolationists.

I think it all comes down to who would be President following McKinley. Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure who would be likely candidates for that position. Sorry:(
 
Top