Surviving Presidents (19th Century edition)

[Frodo]

Give your best guess on how differently American history would have been impacted had any of the following U.S. presidents had served out their full term (first terms for Harrison, Taylor, and Garfield, and second terms for Lincoln and McKinley):

William Henry Harrison (March 4 - April 4, 1841)

Zachary Taylor (March 4, 1849 - July 9, 1850)

Abraham Lincoln (March 4, 1861 - April 15, 1865)

James Garfield (March 4 - Sept. 19, 1881)

William McKinley (March 4, 1897 - Sept. 14, 1901)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without a doubt the most impactful of those would have been the survival of William Henry Harrison.  The ex-Democrat, John Tyler proved to have been a WINO (Whig In Name Only) and with him as President the Whig agenda was stopped cold before it even got a start.

The United States would have had a central bank again to curb somewhat the excesses of the banking system; we would have a tariff high enough to encourage industrial development in all parts of the country; and speculation concerning public land sales would have been curbed.  Also, one reason the Texas question reared its ugly head was because of Tyler's efforts to find an issue that he could build a political base for a run for office in 1844.  (Tyler had abandoned the Whigs and the Democrats didn't trust him to change his colors a third time.)

The annexation of Texas and California were pretty much inevitable, but the former might have been achieved without a war with Mexico which helped to accentuate the regional differences in the United States.  More importantly, with a stronger Whig Party, it might have been the Whigs and not the Jacksonian Democrats who survived the collapse of the Second Party System.  The Civil War would have been delayed and possibly averted.  Part of the success of the Republican Party was due to its support of a considerable part of the Whig agenda that would not have been as helpful if the Whig agenda had been largely put into place.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Harrison would have the most impact, because he was the furthest back.

But I'd like to see Abe survive the most.

[Dr. Cynic]

Lincoln would most definately have had a confrontation with the Radicals and probably would've been more skillful with the problem.

[Frodo]

Without a doubt the most impactful of those would have been the survival of William Henry Harrison.  The ex-Democrat, John Tyler proved to have been a WINO (Whig In Name Only) and with him as President the Whig agenda was stopped cold before it even got a start.

The United States would have had a central bank again to curb somewhat the excesses of the banking system; we would have a tariff high enough to encourage industrial development in all parts of the country; and speculation concerning public land sales would have been curbed.  Also, one reason the Texas question reared its ugly head was because of Tyler's efforts to find an issue that he could build a political base for a run for office in 1844.  (Tyler had abandoned the Whigs and the Democrats didn't trust him to change his colors a third time.)

The annexation of Texas and California were pretty much inevitable, but the former might have been achieved without a war with Mexico which helped to accentuate the regional differences in the United States.  More importantly, with a stronger Whig Party, it might have been the Whigs and not the Jacksonian Democrats who survived the collapse of the Second Party System.  The Civil War would have been delayed and possibly averted.  Part of the success of the Republican Party was due to its support of a considerable part of the Whig agenda that would not have been as helpful if the Whig agenda had been largely put into place.

Would either Henry Clay and/or Daniel Webster been more likely to win the presidency had William Henry Harrison lived long enough to implement the Whig platform?  And why wasn't Clay nominated for the VP spot in 1840? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would either Henry Clay and/or Daniel Webster been more likely to win the presidency had William Henry Harrison lived long enough to implement the Whig platform?  And why wasn't Clay nominated for the VP spot in 1840? 

Clay likely agreed with Webster about the worth of the Vice Presidency.  Webster was offered the slot several times and on one of those occasions said, "I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead and in my coffin."

John Tyler got the VP slot in 1840 in large part because he had been a loyal Southern supporter of Clay at the Whig Convention.  I suspect that if Clay had wanted the VP slot he could have had it.  Remember that despite his age, Harrison was reasonably vigorous and his death came as a major surprise.

Harrison was more in line with Webster's wing of the party (which is one reason why Webster was named Secretary of State, a post that had provided several Presidents) so I suspect that if Harrison had had a successful one or two term Presidency, Webster likely would have gotten the nomination to succeed Harrison as the Whig Presidential nominee.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Lincoln surviving would surely change the course of an Reconstruction. Abe was pretty intending a reconciliation (though, naturally, never to such a foolish extend Johnson represented), but would be much more skilfull with dealing with Radical Republicans. Probably, wounds after war would be healed quicker and progress would be preserved, without pro-White Southern Johnson fights against Radicals.

[Elyski]

William Mckinley would be interesting. He was an expansionist after all.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Lincoln surviving would surely change the course of an Reconstruction. Abe was pretty intending a reconciliation (though, naturally, never to such a foolish extend Johnson represented), but would be much more skilfull with dealing with Radical Republicans. Probably, wounds after war would be healed quicker and progress would be preserved, without pro-White Southern Johnson fights against Radicals.

I think Lincoln would have been even softer on the Confederates than Johnson was. Lincoln was a better politician, so he would be able to get away with it more than Johnson.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If the Bullets missed.

Lincoln-1809-1892-President 1861-1869-His second term would include his plan for Reconstruction being pushed through(with nasty battles with radicals),  the continued growth of the Transcontinental Railroad, and probaly suceded by Grant or Johnson. Maybe he runs a railroad company, or serves on a Board somewhere. Id say he dies anywhere between 1875-1895, depending on his health after the war.

Garfield-1831-1905-President 1881-1885-I cant see Republicans holding on that long, probaly losses to Cleveland in the end. Maybe some reforms, like Arthur advocated.

McKinley-1843-1919-President 1897-1905-He seems like the type who would take a third term, but I will leave him for two..I really think this would only delay Roosevelts era....

Kennedy-1911-1990-President 1861-1869-He would likely continue on as Johnson did, Civil Rights and the like...I cant see him living too long, he was very sick.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Bullets missed.

Lincoln-1809-1892-President 1861-1869-His second term would include his plan for Reconstruction being pushed through(with nasty battles with radicals),  the continued growth of the Transcontinental Railroad, and probably succeeded by Grant or Johnson. Maybe he runs a railroad company, or serves on a Board somewhere. Id say he dies anywhere between 1875-1895, depending on his health after the war.

No chance Johnson is nominated in 1868, If he stays on the ticket at all, it will be as Grant's running mate.

Garfield-1831-1905-President 1881-1885-I cant see Republicans holding on that long, probably loses to Cleveland in the end. Maybe some reforms, like Arthur advocated.

Arthur wasn't an advocate of civil service reform until Garfield was shot.  Quite the opposite in fact.

McKinley-1843-1919-President 1897-1905-He seems like the type who would take a third term, but I will leave him for two..I really think this would only delay Roosevelts era....

Until 1913 at least. Roosevelt would not have gotten the nod in 1908, but he would likely have been able to become Governor of New York, if he wanted it.  He might not have.

[nevadacrab]

Harrison's survival might be the most impactful, not because of anything he'd do or not do (although that could lead to major change), but because Tyler's reaction to Harrison's death solidified a very murky constitutional sucession proceedure. If Millard Fillmore had been the first to follow a President's death, we might have a very different republic today.
All would depend on Fillmore's reaction. If he did not completely assume the office of President (he might have - he was in favor of the Compromise of 1850 and Taylor was not), Andrew Johnson could've been pushed aside and the Radical Republicans turned loose on the South. Arthur would have had even less impact than he did. Teddy Roosevelt could have been marginalized, leaving him to become president later, perhaps changing the direction of WWI (and all that came after). Coolidge might have become president later, probably not changing much. Truman would probably not been chosen by FDR, who knew he could likely die in office and essentially handpicked a sucessor.
And, there is much to suggest that the Civil rights acts of the 60's might have not been as effective. What Nixon might have done as his resignation loomed is totally unpredictable....

[Mikestone8]

Teddy Roosevelt could have been marginalized, leaving him to become president later, perhaps changing the direction of WWI (and all that came after).

Question is, would Teddy be willing to become a Democrat?

There's no way the Republicans would have nominated him had he not been the incumbent, by the grace of Czolgosz. Running on a third party ticket would just throw the election to a Democrat, as in 1912. So he'd have to change parties, and even if the Dems wanted him I'm not sure he'd be willing.

Edit to fix broken quoting

[nevadacrab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Assuming that McKinley was reelected in 1904, who would his heir apparent be? TR brought Taft into prominence.
It's all too possible that TR would have stepped down after one term as VP and built his power base back in NY. The powers that were in the GOP then might not have been able to stop him.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

McKinley being elected to a third term in 1904 is not probable.  Actually, Senator Charles Fairbanks of Indiana is the most likely Republican nominee in 1904 if McKinley serves two full terms, and he most likely wins in November.

It is doubtful that Teddy gets to be Fairbanks running mate.  That means that if Teddy tries to stay in an elective office, he'll need to either replace a Republican incumbent if he runs either for a first term as U.S. Senator or a second term as N.Y. Governor.  Governor is more likely, since I don't think the incumbent ran for a third term, but the incumbent Senator did run for a second term, and beat back an intraparty challenge to do so.  If Teddy is elected Governor in both 1904 and 1906, then Charles Evans Hughes likely never makes it to the Supreme Court, or a presidential nomination, since his stepping stone to national office was as Governor of New York 1907-1910.

Senator Platt did not seek a third term in 1908, so Teddy could make it to the Senate fairly easily then.  However, I don't see him ever getting back on a Presidential ticket.

By this point butterflies are so prevalent, it is hard to see who wins the nomination of an undivided Republican Party in 1912, but whoever does likely beats Wilson handily in November.

[Mikestone8]

By this point butterflies are so prevalent, it is hard to see who wins the nomination of an undivided Republican Party in 1912, but whoever does likely beats Wilson handily in November.

If things follow OTL until 1912, but that's doubtful.

If it's been all dull, conservative Republicans since 1896, then by 1908 the Progressive insurgency is likely to be building up a real head of steam. It could be third time lucky for Bryan.

Even if not, 1912 won't necessarily be a straight fight Even if TR doesn't head a third-party ticket, LaFollette most probably will. Even if he doesn't, reaction against 16 years of Republican standpatters will make a Democratic win highly likely. Of course, it doesn't have to be Wilson. Clark, Hearst or Bryan are also distinct possibilities.

[nevadacrab]

McKinley being elected to a third term in 1904 is not probable. 

I am one with the doofii.

McKinley died during his second term, not first. Upside my head with a nerf bat.

So....the GOP turns it's back on it's VP? I realize that VPs weren't automatic candidates in those days, but TR was still very popular (why they made him VP in the first place). TR could kick up a lot of "dust" in 1904 if denied. Could cause a Dem victory eight years before 1912. And, with the caliber of Dem candidates, the GOP could easily be back in 1n 1908. And then who rides in to save the GOP....Teddy!

Or not.

[Mikestone8]

So....the GOP turns it's back on it's VP? I realize that VPs weren't automatic candidates in those days, but TR was still very popular (why they made him VP in the first place).

And also to get him out of the NY governorship and "kick him upstairs" to a job where he'd have no power.

Incidentally, choosing a VP for President wasn't just "not automatic" it was virtually unheard of.  The last VP to become President other than through death was Martin Van Buren in 1836. Since then, the only one to be even nominated for the Presidency had been Breckinridge in 1860. There wouldn't be another until Nixon in 1960.

 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By this point butterflies are so prevalent, it is hard to see who wins the nomination of an undivided Republican Party in 1912, but whoever does likely beats Wilson handily in November.

If things follow OTL until 1912, but that's doubtful.

If it's been all dull, conservative Republicans since 1896, then by 1908 the Progressive insurgency is likely to be building up a real head of steam. It could be third time lucky for Bryan.

Even if not, 1912 won't necessarily be a straight fight Even if TR doesn't head a third-party ticket, LaFollette most probably will. Even if he doesn't, reaction against 16 years of Republican standpatters will make a Democratic win highly likely. Of course, it doesn't have to be Wilson. Clark, Hearst or Bryan are also distinct possibilities.

While LaFollette made some noise in our 1912, it wasn't just Roosevelt running that kept him from running for President that year.

Still your point about standpatters does serve to indicate that whoever is nominated to head the Republican ticket after Fairbanks is likely to come from the progressive wing of the party.

[Mikestone8]

Still your point about standpatters does serve to indicate that whoever is nominated to head the Republican ticket after Fairbanks is likely to come from the progressive wing of the party.

Depends how broadly you define "Progressive".

I'd expect them to do roughly what they did OTL in 1916, ie pick someone far enough to the Progressive side to stand some chance of holding on to that wing - but no further. FTM, wasn't Taft viewed as a Progressive when first nominated? The GOP bosses imho will move just as far left as they are forced to, no more.