WI:William McKinley never assassinated

The problem for the Republican elites is that they have no obvious second candidate after Hanna. While Roosevelt hasn't alienated half the party like he had done in 1912. And since McKinley himself had always refused to be kingmaker, I think the Republican elites' only chance to stop Roosevelt is to convince McKinley to run for a 3rd term.


How much "stopping" would be required?

There were far fewer Direct Primary sates in 1904 than in 1912, so a primary campaign stands no chance. McKinley's successor will be picked in "smoke filled rooms", and by much the same men who buried TR in the Vice-Presidency to remove him from any position that really mattered

SoW Elihu Root or AG Philander Knox are obvious possibilities, but there would have been many others.
 
Jello_Biafra wrote a timeline about this possibility. Essentially, no assassination ---> no progressive reforms ---> progressives defect to socialist party ---> socialist party wins election, military junta doesn't let them take office ---> socialist revolution.
 

bguy

Donor
No TR is going to change a lot; he tamped down a lot of the excesses of the Gilded Age. Without him, one probably sees a greater expansion of trust/corporate power and quite likely a larger backlash against it when that finally comes, perhaps a combined Progressive Era/New Deal in the '20s.

Some sort of anti-trust action is likely from McKinley in his second term even if he won't be as flashy about it as TR was. The 1900 Republican platform condemned trusts, and McKinley spoke out against them on several occasions in 1899 and 1900. Hanna also apparently warned the Northern Securities Company sometime in 1901 that McKinley might have to move against them. And remember the conservative Taft launched twice as many anti-trust law suits as the progressie TR ever did, so at least some conservative Republicans at this time were willing to support vigorous anti-trust action.
 
McKinley may have been significantly to TR's right on some things, but both men were broadly compatible ideologically. Some reforms may be slower, and there may be missteps along the way, but there's no reason for this to result in revolution.
 
Also, without TR, I'm thinking that the US likely won't participate in peace negotiations after the Russo-Japanese war. As a result Russia may pay reparations and Japan will gain more territory in Russia. Does Japan gaining all of Sakhalin and Primorsky Krai sound realistic? How much will Russia pay in reparations?
 
Last edited:
Also, without TR, I'm thinking that the US likely won't participate in peace negotiations after the Russo-Japanese war. As a result Russia may pay reparations and Japan will gain more territory in Russia. Does Japan gaining all of Sakhalin and Primorsky Krai sound realistic? How much will Russia pay in reparations?

This probably depends on events during the years between 1901 and 1905Japan and the U.S. at this time retain good relations. However, if you're right, then the 1907 Gentlemen's Agreement may not occur, nor is Japanese annexation of Korea as readily accepted.
 
Also, without TR, I'm thinking that the US likely won't participate in peace negotiations after the Russo-Japanese war. As a result Russia may pay reparations and Japan will gain more territory in Russia. Does Japan gaining all of Sakhalin and Primorsky Krai sound realistic? How much will Russia pay in reparations?


Sakhalin maybe. Primorske is much less likely, as it means a siege of Vladivostok as long drawn out as that of Port Arthur - and Japan was getting pretty exhausted.

Not so sure about the indemnity, but if it happened at all, probably pretty modest. Continuing the war for money was problematic, as the cost of the war might exceed the money obtained. Russia was losing, but not that badly.
 
Top