WI: William McKinley survives assassination attempt

First off, to preclude confusion, I am not talking about McKinley avoiding the assassination attempt entirely, but rather surviving it; say the second bullet doesn't hit him in the abdomen, misses him entirely, or better medical services are available.

Having assumed those variables,

1) What is the response of McKinley and the government as a whole to the assassination? Does McKinley crack down on anarchism, or does he have an epiphany and decide to pursue some measure of reform wrt labor, etc.?

2) What does the 1904 election look like? Who succeeds McKinley as the GOP's standard-bearer? A progressive or a conservative? Or does McKinley opt for a third term?

3) What is the legacy of a McKinley who finishes both his terms (or more)?
 
Progressives had a huge base in reform, and so some reform would probably begin. I would expect that there would be a huge crackdown, and possibly execution and imprisonment, of anrachists if he survived.

From what I know, which isn't much mind you, McKinley was very popular for the spanish-american war. He would have gone for only a second term though. I would definetly see another progressive, by my guess probably theodore roosevelt, becoming the canidate. The republicans would probably become the progressive party or would diminish as a seperate (possibly bull moose) progressive party is created while the conservatives dominate the democrats.

As for long term effects and his legacy. I could see possible annexation of cuba and hawaii. Along with that progressivism would be more right leaning, based more in reform, than in the modern day where it is based on equality. This possibly means means no LGBTQ rights as that is more based on equality but also an earlier end to the jim crow laws as it is more social reform. In the modern day I could see the possibility of the phillipines never becoming independent and the USA including guam, phillipines, etc.
 
From an old (2004) post of mine in soc.history.what-if:

***

Kevin Phillips's recent biography of McKinley...depicts him as a surprisingly
progressive president who was likely to propose important new initiatives
with respect to the tariff and trusts. McKinley's last speech to the Pan-American
Exposition in September 1901 heralded a campaign for tariff reciprocity. Actions
against trusts would likely follow in 1902 when the United States
Industrial Commission appointed by McKinley in 1898 reported back. This
report, as Phillips notes "wound up laying out much of what would be the
Progressive corporate and antitrust agenda through 1914." (Phillips,
*William McKinley*, p. 136)

Also, at least according to Mark Hanna, McKinley himself might have
undertaken a prosecution against Northern Securities as TR famously did in
OTL: "I warned Hill that McKinley might have to act against his damn
company last year. Mr. Roosevelt's done it. I'm sorry for Hill, but just
what do you gentlemen think I can do?"

Furthermore, Phillips notes McKinley's pro-labor record, which included
naming Terence V. Powderly, onetime leader of the Knights of Labor, as
commissioner general of immigration, and of Samuel Gompers of the AFL to
the Industrial Commission. McKinley frequently consulted with Gompers.

IMO the second McKinley term would differ from TR's first OTL term more in
style than substance, so far as domestic policy is concerned--one must
remember that TR was not really much of a reformer until his second term,
and not really a radical reformer until briefly in 1910-12. On foreign
policy, McKinley might have been more patient with Colombia than TR was,
and while this might have meant a slight delay in building the canal, it
would also mean less anti-US sentiment in Latin America.

Apart from policy differences, of course, there is the fact that TR
brought a new glamor to the White House that really made the office of the
presidency the center of public attention it had not been for decades. It
is hard for me to see any successor of McKinley, other than TR himself,
doing that--certainly not Fairbanks or Root. (Could TR have gotten the
nomination in 1904? The bosses would certainly find him hard to swallow,
but they were also reluctant to accept McKinley in 1896. As with McKinley,
they might accept him if there was enough grass roots support for him and
if they thought nobody else could win.)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/nX_7F-qB9so/tp99GQWS9uQJ
 
Top