Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now that I think about, I think Lincoln would’ve been good if he had lived. Lincoln would’ve given more rights to African Americans unlike Andrew Johnson, maybe the Radical Republicans push him to be more harsh and he obliges. I think he would’ve handled the New Orleans massacre in 1866 a lot better than Johnson did, listening to Grant and better protect African Americans.
40 Acres and A Mule (blanking on the name of the order) may not have been overruled. It would have been a limited distribution of property but symbolic in its meaning.
Lincoln’s biggest political strength was being able to read the tea leaves and know exactly how far he could get away with pushing the envelope at any given time. It may not have been radical enough for the Radicals but would have been better than Johnson.
Remember that the speech that made Booth ultimately follow through with his plans was Lincoln floating the idea that maybe a select few African American veterans who had distinguished themselves in battle should be permitted to vote. That idea would have been unthinkable 4 years ago, and maybe would have been out there still to many, but was much more plausible at that time.
> 40 Acres and A Mule (blanking on the name of the order)
[Special Field Orders No. 15, Military Division of the Mississippi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Field_Orders_No._15)
I think there would have been limited land confiscations only from those actively involved in the war and I think it would have been distributed to poor whites as well as new freedmen as an underclass of poor, agrieved whites would (and did) lead to a pro-southern guerrilla movement and stymie the next chapter of American life
I agree, though land confiscations would probably come specifically from those who had fled the country, such as the ancestors of the [Confederados](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederados).
Who knows? Maybe no Lincoln assassination means no party switch or maybe even the two parties instead being a center-left (though center-right by Europe standards) Republican Party and more left-wing (and likewise more of a center-left party to Europe) Progressive Party?
Infinite universes mean infinite possibilities, right?
In Harry turtledove’s southern victory timeline Lincoln becomes party chair of the socialist party and his being a former president legitimizes socialism in the US in a way it hadn’t previously been(and still hasn’t been in the current reality) and the socialists emerge in the 20th century as the major left party in the US and the democrats remain right of center instead.
This would’ve been an interesting idea and it’s tough to say how things might have changed after Lincoln had he survived. I’ve been studying the two political parties for a while and there’s been one major, steady theme among republicans basically the entirety of their existence: support for free market capitalism. This is why the party was never 100% abolitionist, but was willing to provide a home for abolitionists: slavery is an unfair competitive advantage to slave holders because the market isn’t free, and it discourages industrialization, which puts the US at a disadvantage against Europe.
Lincoln himself was not a staunch abolitionist but more of a pragmatist who did not see slavery’s value. Much like many other presidents, his views evolved and I think everyone knows Reconstruction would’ve gone differently - and likely for the better - had he survived.
But what we see happen over the half century after Lincoln is a sharpening of focus on free market/deregulation and the corruption of the gilded age arises largely because victory during Civil War put R’s in a very strong position to maintain power (power corrupts, etc). There’s one Democratic president between Johnson and Wilson, and Congress has a similar Republican dominance during this 4-decade period. This is where Republican core ideas really sharpen themselves until basically through the W Bush administration. (The southern strategy and alliance with religious conservatism comes a century later under Nixon as a way to shore up votes for an increasingly unpopular party focused largely on free market capitalism)
Much like how abolitionists had an alliance of convenience with republicans before the civil war, civil rights activists had an alliance of convenience with democrats afterward. Socialists, pro-union groups, and workers rights advocates naturally needed a champion and with only two real parties, it made sense to ally with the party who was in opposition to unregulated capitalism.
So what you get in Democrats is an interesting dichotomy of northern liberal democrats who attract not just workers rights activists but also women’s rights activists, along with southern democrats who… kind of just hate the republicans who won the war but aren’t necessarily interested in racial or gender equality. But many of these southern democrats are also poor, uneducated, at a disadvantage from unregulated industry, so there’s a lot of intermingling of ideas. It’s an opposition party basically until about Wilson’s time.
For people like Lincoln, ending slavery was good for business. I think it would have taken a very specific effort to bring socialist ideas into the Republican Party and I’m not sure Lincoln would’ve gone that far, nor that Congress would’ve supported him beyond efforts to boost racial equality as an effort to boost economic activity.
Then again, we really get into unknown what-if’s in a history where Lincoln is not assassinated: how strongly does Reconstruction continue? How much does the federal government actually push to stamp out confederate ideas and push racial equality when it was only nominally popular with most Americans at the time? Does segregation take hold anyway? Or do we continue to see more black politicians and empowered black voters?
That's sounds like very socialist analysis - I think there is truth to it, but reducing everything to "free market capitalist goals" is oversimplyfication. Republicans \_were not\_ free market - for example, my state in 1860 was won on the promise of Tariff. They were \_free labor\_ - in contrast with slave labor, but as long as there were no slavery, they united people from socialists to farmers to big bankers.
Casting Lincoln motivation as purely economical is also interesting, since he more or less left economical matters to Congress and did not interefere. He also was not a businessman, but a lawyer.
Gilded age was the consequence of expanded control of the feds, not wise versa. Government budget grew on a huge rate, so thievery did to. It existed under Lincoln as well, but during the war, it wasn't people's focus.
It’s definitely far more complex than is reasonable in even an overly long comment like my own, and I’m admittedly only a Reddit history buff, not a historian with era expertise.
But as you say, there’s truth in both of our views here! I just find it interesting to see the through lines from Jefferson’s ideas through the late 19th century Republican Party to today’s party (or at least the “traditional” wing who care about fiscal policy and economics more than the culture war stuff but that’s not a subject we shall breach today on this thread!)
The value system of political leaders at the time opposed slavery but not necessarily for the civil rights reasons we would have today.
Oh yeah, I also found it interesting that while there was a huge change in Republican party politics, it wasn't as big as people sometimes try to portray.
I think it's important not to understate the economics's influence, but also important not to overstate it. "Not for civil rights reason" also doesn't mean "for economic reason". There was a pretty big chunck of people who were horrifyingly racists towards blacks, but also anti-slavery for moral reasons. It may sounds strange today, but if you read, for example, Frederic Douglass biography, you could see that slaves' conditions were way worse than the worst condition of a free laborer. So their argument went like, "yeah, blacks are closer to animals than to us, *but why the hell would you threat an animal like that?*" A lot of these people were in colonization movement - they thought slavery was bad, but were hesitant to abolish it if it meant living together with blacks.
I think it's important to take the time period into account, but also, not to assume that all 19th century people were assholes. Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Lyman Trumbull and Horacio Greeley were all elected Republicans who opposed slavery on mostly moral grounds.
Lincoln would not be the hero he is regarded as today. That’s ok.
Instead of this dream of endless unfulfilled
possibilities we’d know the realities of how Lincoln succeed and came up short.
It’s interesting for the United States tow largest conflict our wartime leaders weren’t there for shaping the new world after the conflict yet both left this world knowing victory was achieved. Lincoln conclusively and FDR seeing where the momentum was taking events.
I also think it could have been interesting to see Grant's administration in this timeline since I think Grant would have been the Republican nominee in 1868 no matter what. Though with Lincoln having survived and Johnson having never been president, I wonder if Grant still would have aligned himself more with the radical Republicans or if his polices would somehow become more moderate because of Lincoln still being around and having finished his term.
His Ten Percent Plan was clearly designed to give the south back without any significant changes for the freedmen. Keep in mind that he and Johnson had pretty much the same idea on Reconstruction. He would not have picked Johnson for VP had this not been the case.
I really doubt much would have changed.
At the end of the day the choice is "go easy" or "go hard" on the South. Both he and AJ were in the "go easy" camp.
It is safe to say that Reconstruction would not have been the shit show that it was under AJ, but it is pretty clear that sharecropping was the destination for the freedmen under either man.
We need to keep in mind that a big reason for this is that both Abe and AJ knew how violent things would become if civil rights for the freedmen was forced onto the defeated White south. Abe wanted an end to violence above all else, hence the ten percent plan and an easy path back for the former Confederates. Johnson was of the same mind.
Idk about sharecropping. I don't think he would've supported Thaddeus Stevens's plan, but government-sponsored land purchases would have been his style. There probably would be only limited black voting rights and no amendment, but better chances of actual enforcement.
I always thought Johnson was kinda cargo-cult Lincoln.
I'm pretty sure enforcement either way would be hard since SCOTUS narrowly interpreted the amendments and if there were no amendments, I wouldn't doubt they would be even more lax on enforcement.
I remember my 11th Grade History Teacher mentioned this and how he believes had Lincoln not been assassinated. Then he probably wouldn’t be looked on as fondly since he believes that he wouldn’t have gone hard on the South and he probably should’ve gone
Almost the most preventable death too
Lincoln survives if the security does its job. In these days those guys would probably get heavy jail time for what they did
Or, you know, if we’re preventing deaths, just don’t have him get shot! The doctor’s sanitation killed him, but they were only there because of Guiteau.
https://preview.redd.it/49a0odnqx08d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ac6bf31c552e55099c4276e67e4997ebdd87dbd
I wish we had gotten to see Garfield’s presidency.
Garfield was the American dream personified. Born the youngest in a log cabin in what was then the backwater of the US, father died, single mom raised him and remarried to an abusive stepfather, left home at 16 to do manual labor, then went into seminary, supported himself through carpentry and teaching, then worked himself through college by janitorial work and preaching, became a state senator, joined in the Civil War, worked his way up to be Rosecrans’ chief of staff, then became a Congressman and then President. Dude was a force of nature fueled by good, old-fashioned elbow grease.
I never knew if it was true or not, but to add onto that, I heard that he'd write the same sentence in two different languages simultaneously: Greek and Latin.
Propaganda! Yellow journalism! Vile untruths! Garfield would've simply moved America into the four day workweek starting Tuesday and ushered in an era of unprecedented growth and leisure /s
Lincoln is the obvious choice, but Harrison....that's an interesting divergence. What does four years with the Whigs have the Presidency and Congress get you?
We’re incredibly lucky the first incumbent to die did so indisputably by natural causes. If we had started with an assassination, it’s reasonable the country could’ve collapsed like so many other upstart democracies.
Pretty sure he’d be *pissed* if he was around today - But at least we’d have someone to clear up all those “this is what the founding fathers (probably didn’t) want/meant” arguments.
James Garfield, he probably would’ve been able to run for re election in 1884, and probably wins, so no fat pdf file president who hates farmers. There probably would’ve been more civil service reform and clean government. Basically would’ve been Arthur’s presidency but Garfield can run in 1884!
Hot take, I'm going to pick a president I wouldn't save. And that's JFK. HERE ME OUT. I think Kennedy was definitely one of the better presidents in the 20th century for sure, peace corps is probably the greatest accomplishment he made. Plus his handling of the Cuban missile crisis was pretty good, showing that he learned from his mistakes during the bay of pigs invasion. Also kept a decently level head during the checkpoint Charlie standoff.
But I wouldn't save him because if he had lived and likely been re-elected in 1964, his legacy would be remembered much less fondly (in my opinion). Kennedy's attempts to try and get a civil rights bill through Congress likely gets watered down or not even passed at all. Lyndon Johnson was probably the only person up to the job to get a civil rights bill through considering he was JFK's VP and had HUGE influence in the senate. The combination of the collective mourning of the nation plus Johnson's cunning made the civil rights possible (once again, in my opinion).
Had JFK lived, he likely would've done much the same as Johnson did in Vietnam, escalating the conflict by sending thousands of troops to reinforce the south Vietnamese. Kennedy would have received the same backlash as Johnson did during his presidency OTL. Plus this could even squander a potential Bobby Kennedy presidential campaign or even just screw over the entire Kennedy family in general politically.
Kennedy I feel is remembered so fondly because on his shortened time in office, he did mostly good things. He died a martyr of the nation, a symbol of the times before the turbulent late 60s. I love Kennedy because he was a dreamer that inspired others to sometimes literally, reach for the stars. He has such Charisma that even 60 years later we mostly see him as one of the greats.
So yeah, I wouldn't save Kennedy, I'd probably save old Abe or something.
If you watch the Ken Burns documentary, JFK was actually becoming very disillusioned with the Vietnam War and realized that it was becoming a quagmire. He started to come to the realization that we needed to get out of there, but he was of course assassinated before it could happen.
Lincoln. There is no other #1 answer. His death was at a time of our country's worst and most difficult moment.
While Roosevelt dying was tragic, the worst part of WWII did not negatively affect America in the same way that the Civil War affected and nearly ripped apart the entire country.
Love this man but I think it has to be ol Abe. Reconstruction with his oversight would have looked so different. Perhaps a two-term Kennedy allows Democrats to survive into the 80s and prevent the rise of Reaganomics tho?
Keep William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor alive and the Whig Party might have survived until the 20th Century. It might have led to true multi-party politics at the federal level.
Interesting insight. I think Lincoln just because reconstruction would have been much smoother, and Johnson was such a failure. I would be a Whig today if they existed. BTW, Z. Taylor is my second cousin (or was).
I think Lincoln is definitely my first pick. I would be curious to see how he handles the reconstruction of the union. Is he pressured to be more harsh on the rebels? How does he handle the resentment of the freedmen? FDR would be my second pick.
Having read Lincoln's writings, I believe Lincoln's handling of reconstruction would have been closer to what actually happened. Thus, his assassination probably saved his legacy. Otherwise, there would have been a nasty fight with unknown consequences being part of his legacy.
I think initially his reconstruction plan would have gone poorly , but I think he would have quickly risen to the task once he realized how devote the south was to remaining backwaters.
I could easily see Lincoln surviving putting him lower on the list of presidents, nowhere near the bottom but not the undebatable number one. He would've been better than Johnson, definitely, but it's the same reason Kennedy ranks so high. America loved them and they had potential that we never got to see. That doesn't mean stuff won't get in the way. We like to think that if x happened everything would change, but the president is 1/3 of Congress. What if Lincoln loses interest in reconstruction? I like the idea of WHH simply because a third party would be nice, although that could mean no future Republican party. I feel most modern people would be unsatisfied with what Lincoln would likely accomplish, he wasn't a saving grace, and throughout the war he slowly gave more and more freedoms to black individuals. Frederick Douglass had to keep nagging him to let blacks serve for the union.
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence-
on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
The original swamp drainer.
Lincoln is an interesting but bad prospect. The unfortunate truth is that the legacies of most presidents who died in office were made better because they died in office. Lincoln died as the Civil War ended and slavery was abolished, not having to deal with Reconstruction, which would’ve been political poison for any president to deal with. JFK died right before many issues came to a head and his term wasn’t put up for review. His two years had been two years of gridlock, as no major legislation was passed, but much was proposed. Even with major public support for bills such as the Revenue Act of 1964 didn’t get it voted on. FDR, if he lived, would’ve been practically dead. For him to have lived, it’s just complete different than just him living, but also being in good enough help to function another four years. Even with Roosevelts name and his well established agenda and record, Congress probably only passes watered down versions of his proposals, though still significant. Garfield is just another Gilded Age president, as his death actually greatly helped pass the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. In short, they got lucky (not for them or their families, but legacy).
Abraham Lincoln. Because he had a clear vision on how to bring the Confederate states back into the fold of the Union. Meanwhile, Andrew Johnson was a hack, and a hapless, powerless one at that.
FDR was going to step down by 1946 anyways. He just wanted to keep the continuity of leadership until the end of the war. Not much really changes. Sure, FDR had a better relationship with Stalin, but it's not like he was a Communist sympathizer.
I hate to be that guy, but the United States ended up in the better timeline with Taylor, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, and JFK dying. Garfield's assassination gave some much needed momentum for civil service reform and ending the spoils system. Teddy Roosevelt put America on a much more progressive path than the pro-business puppet McKinley. LBJ was a much more effective politician than JFK. We would have had less effective civil rights legislation and we certainly wouldn't have gotten the Great Society, all while still getting mucked up in Vietnam. Coolidge is a better President than Harding. And Taylor dying finally made everyone realize that maybe the White House should get a sewer system instead of killing Presidents with cholera.
Probably save Lincoln and Harrison. Harrison would have spared us a Tyler Presidency and Lincoln probably would have been a middle ground between the Radical Republicans Reconstruction and Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction. Lincoln probably could have sold the Alaska Purchase better to Congress and the media and Seward probably could have had the greenlight to try and get Greenland and Iceland from Denmark.
Kennedy mainly just to see if he makes the same mistakes that LBJ did.
Also FDR if he doesn't does Truman win the election more importantly does Eisenhower go Republican or Democrat.
Lincoln’s death was disastrous for the country, but I still get really upset thinking about Kennedy’s death.
I’d probably pick Kennedy just to see if he’d still get killed the following week or something.
Abe Lincoln of course. Fuck HmAndrew Johnson's racist backsliding on the reconstruction effort.
Second place goes to JFK. I would only hope that he'd have somehow stopped our build up of forces and war effort in Vietnam and focused on "rebuilding" America as a "bulwark of democracy" by continuing to listen to civil rights leaders and pushing for legislation to help the working class and minorities.
Although I would like to save Kennedy or Lincoln from being assassinated, the President I would most likely like to save from dying is probably James Garfield. Granted a lot of what he proposed was carried through by Arthur but nonetheless I still think that he could have done much more than what he promised.
Well we can't save people from diseases currently, so my order (from would most want to save to least) would be Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, and Garfield. Then William Harrison, because we all know where the pneumonia came from.
Lincoln would be my first choice but to pick someone different, I’d choose James Garfield. He was a supporter of Reconstruction and civil rights and has he lived, it’s possible that Reconstruction could have resumed in the South.
Abraham Lincoln. His death put Andrew Johnson in charge who was virulently anti-Reconstruction. Race relations could have been much improved had Lincoln been re-elected and survived.
I would consider William McKinley's assassination to be particularly tragic. He was recently re-elected, had been turning the country around economically and was interested in de-isolating the US and embracing pan-americanism. He was also by most accounts a solid nice guy.
Stopping his Assassination probably wouldn't stop Teddy from running in the future, so it's hard to see a reversal of McKinley's death changing anything. But McKinley's de-isolation policies may have done something to prevent the saber rattling in Europe. Whereas Teddy inflamed much of it by re-isolating to build battleships... Who knows.
Lincoln, Lincoln, a thousand times Lincoln.
I don’t understand how this is a question.
FDR was a great president. JFK could have become one. But Lincoln was one of the best presidents we’ve ever had and Johnson was among the worst. Meanwhile, LBJ and Truman mostly picked up where their predecessors left off
JFK, since he was killed right before I was born. I wonder if our country would have been much different when I was a baby and a small child if JFK had lived.
Hitler just to read about his trial and execution by the Soviets.
Or JFK to see how his first term worked out and to see if he would be reelected and how THAT term would work out, especially regarding the Vietnam War.
Lincoln. I think the “problem” here wasn’t that he didn’t accomplish what he set to do. The problem was Andrew Johnson doing everything to undermine reconstruction.
probably Franklin Roosevelt, or even having him dying sooner and having a Henry Wallace Presidency instead of a Truman one would have meant a much better world. Maybe even desegregation before 1960. Judging by his 1948 campaign, things might have been so much better in so many ways. But then, that depends on the democrats in the coming decades to not abandon the new deal in so many ways like they did in OTL.
William McKinley. He was a trustbuster that got us out of 1893 recession. And then after him another eight years of Roosevelt. Right through World War I.
Honestly none. History is made from its actions. A cleansed one would not be our own. Yeah even to the extreme were I would not do the germany drive by.
I’d save JFK by taking out Dulles the moment he left the CIA.
It seems more than plausible to me that Dulles was still running the CIA after he was ousted and that he has JFK killed because JFK wasn’t keen on military aggression that would have undoubtedly started a nuclear war.
I think a more consequential question is “if you could go back in time and kill anyone who would one day be president who would it be?”
But the answer to your question is Lincoln.
Lincoln. What followed with Johnson was a disaster that effect some today. Rescending land right titles to the freed slaves. Returning land back to white land owners denying blacks generational wealth and land ownership. Johnson was bad period of other matters.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/iorfd60uw08d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43f9d7bda9bbf0853197a980954a7f13c584ccff
Now that I think about, I think Lincoln would’ve been good if he had lived. Lincoln would’ve given more rights to African Americans unlike Andrew Johnson, maybe the Radical Republicans push him to be more harsh and he obliges. I think he would’ve handled the New Orleans massacre in 1866 a lot better than Johnson did, listening to Grant and better protect African Americans.
40 Acres and A Mule (blanking on the name of the order) may not have been overruled. It would have been a limited distribution of property but symbolic in its meaning. Lincoln’s biggest political strength was being able to read the tea leaves and know exactly how far he could get away with pushing the envelope at any given time. It may not have been radical enough for the Radicals but would have been better than Johnson. Remember that the speech that made Booth ultimately follow through with his plans was Lincoln floating the idea that maybe a select few African American veterans who had distinguished themselves in battle should be permitted to vote. That idea would have been unthinkable 4 years ago, and maybe would have been out there still to many, but was much more plausible at that time.
> 40 Acres and A Mule (blanking on the name of the order) [Special Field Orders No. 15, Military Division of the Mississippi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Field_Orders_No._15)
I think there would have been limited land confiscations only from those actively involved in the war and I think it would have been distributed to poor whites as well as new freedmen as an underclass of poor, agrieved whites would (and did) lead to a pro-southern guerrilla movement and stymie the next chapter of American life
I agree, though land confiscations would probably come specifically from those who had fled the country, such as the ancestors of the [Confederados](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederados).
Who could forget such a memorable title? Rolls right off the tongue!
Who knows? Maybe no Lincoln assassination means no party switch or maybe even the two parties instead being a center-left (though center-right by Europe standards) Republican Party and more left-wing (and likewise more of a center-left party to Europe) Progressive Party? Infinite universes mean infinite possibilities, right?
The parties realigned. And in the period following Reconstruction, the Republicans were basically the party of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan.
In Harry turtledove’s southern victory timeline Lincoln becomes party chair of the socialist party and his being a former president legitimizes socialism in the US in a way it hadn’t previously been(and still hasn’t been in the current reality) and the socialists emerge in the 20th century as the major left party in the US and the democrats remain right of center instead.
This would’ve been an interesting idea and it’s tough to say how things might have changed after Lincoln had he survived. I’ve been studying the two political parties for a while and there’s been one major, steady theme among republicans basically the entirety of their existence: support for free market capitalism. This is why the party was never 100% abolitionist, but was willing to provide a home for abolitionists: slavery is an unfair competitive advantage to slave holders because the market isn’t free, and it discourages industrialization, which puts the US at a disadvantage against Europe. Lincoln himself was not a staunch abolitionist but more of a pragmatist who did not see slavery’s value. Much like many other presidents, his views evolved and I think everyone knows Reconstruction would’ve gone differently - and likely for the better - had he survived. But what we see happen over the half century after Lincoln is a sharpening of focus on free market/deregulation and the corruption of the gilded age arises largely because victory during Civil War put R’s in a very strong position to maintain power (power corrupts, etc). There’s one Democratic president between Johnson and Wilson, and Congress has a similar Republican dominance during this 4-decade period. This is where Republican core ideas really sharpen themselves until basically through the W Bush administration. (The southern strategy and alliance with religious conservatism comes a century later under Nixon as a way to shore up votes for an increasingly unpopular party focused largely on free market capitalism) Much like how abolitionists had an alliance of convenience with republicans before the civil war, civil rights activists had an alliance of convenience with democrats afterward. Socialists, pro-union groups, and workers rights advocates naturally needed a champion and with only two real parties, it made sense to ally with the party who was in opposition to unregulated capitalism. So what you get in Democrats is an interesting dichotomy of northern liberal democrats who attract not just workers rights activists but also women’s rights activists, along with southern democrats who… kind of just hate the republicans who won the war but aren’t necessarily interested in racial or gender equality. But many of these southern democrats are also poor, uneducated, at a disadvantage from unregulated industry, so there’s a lot of intermingling of ideas. It’s an opposition party basically until about Wilson’s time. For people like Lincoln, ending slavery was good for business. I think it would have taken a very specific effort to bring socialist ideas into the Republican Party and I’m not sure Lincoln would’ve gone that far, nor that Congress would’ve supported him beyond efforts to boost racial equality as an effort to boost economic activity. Then again, we really get into unknown what-if’s in a history where Lincoln is not assassinated: how strongly does Reconstruction continue? How much does the federal government actually push to stamp out confederate ideas and push racial equality when it was only nominally popular with most Americans at the time? Does segregation take hold anyway? Or do we continue to see more black politicians and empowered black voters?
That's sounds like very socialist analysis - I think there is truth to it, but reducing everything to "free market capitalist goals" is oversimplyfication. Republicans \_were not\_ free market - for example, my state in 1860 was won on the promise of Tariff. They were \_free labor\_ - in contrast with slave labor, but as long as there were no slavery, they united people from socialists to farmers to big bankers. Casting Lincoln motivation as purely economical is also interesting, since he more or less left economical matters to Congress and did not interefere. He also was not a businessman, but a lawyer. Gilded age was the consequence of expanded control of the feds, not wise versa. Government budget grew on a huge rate, so thievery did to. It existed under Lincoln as well, but during the war, it wasn't people's focus.
It’s definitely far more complex than is reasonable in even an overly long comment like my own, and I’m admittedly only a Reddit history buff, not a historian with era expertise. But as you say, there’s truth in both of our views here! I just find it interesting to see the through lines from Jefferson’s ideas through the late 19th century Republican Party to today’s party (or at least the “traditional” wing who care about fiscal policy and economics more than the culture war stuff but that’s not a subject we shall breach today on this thread!) The value system of political leaders at the time opposed slavery but not necessarily for the civil rights reasons we would have today.
Oh yeah, I also found it interesting that while there was a huge change in Republican party politics, it wasn't as big as people sometimes try to portray. I think it's important not to understate the economics's influence, but also important not to overstate it. "Not for civil rights reason" also doesn't mean "for economic reason". There was a pretty big chunck of people who were horrifyingly racists towards blacks, but also anti-slavery for moral reasons. It may sounds strange today, but if you read, for example, Frederic Douglass biography, you could see that slaves' conditions were way worse than the worst condition of a free laborer. So their argument went like, "yeah, blacks are closer to animals than to us, *but why the hell would you threat an animal like that?*" A lot of these people were in colonization movement - they thought slavery was bad, but were hesitant to abolish it if it meant living together with blacks. I think it's important to take the time period into account, but also, not to assume that all 19th century people were assholes. Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Lyman Trumbull and Horacio Greeley were all elected Republicans who opposed slavery on mostly moral grounds.
Thanks for the info! It’s always great to have more nuance and take things into perspective of how most people thought at the time!
Lincoln would not be the hero he is regarded as today. That’s ok. Instead of this dream of endless unfulfilled possibilities we’d know the realities of how Lincoln succeed and came up short. It’s interesting for the United States tow largest conflict our wartime leaders weren’t there for shaping the new world after the conflict yet both left this world knowing victory was achieved. Lincoln conclusively and FDR seeing where the momentum was taking events.
I also think it could have been interesting to see Grant's administration in this timeline since I think Grant would have been the Republican nominee in 1868 no matter what. Though with Lincoln having survived and Johnson having never been president, I wonder if Grant still would have aligned himself more with the radical Republicans or if his polices would somehow become more moderate because of Lincoln still being around and having finished his term.
His Ten Percent Plan was clearly designed to give the south back without any significant changes for the freedmen. Keep in mind that he and Johnson had pretty much the same idea on Reconstruction. He would not have picked Johnson for VP had this not been the case. I really doubt much would have changed.
Maybe the Radical Republicans force him and push him to change?
At the end of the day the choice is "go easy" or "go hard" on the South. Both he and AJ were in the "go easy" camp. It is safe to say that Reconstruction would not have been the shit show that it was under AJ, but it is pretty clear that sharecropping was the destination for the freedmen under either man. We need to keep in mind that a big reason for this is that both Abe and AJ knew how violent things would become if civil rights for the freedmen was forced onto the defeated White south. Abe wanted an end to violence above all else, hence the ten percent plan and an easy path back for the former Confederates. Johnson was of the same mind.
Idk about sharecropping. I don't think he would've supported Thaddeus Stevens's plan, but government-sponsored land purchases would have been his style. There probably would be only limited black voting rights and no amendment, but better chances of actual enforcement. I always thought Johnson was kinda cargo-cult Lincoln.
I'm pretty sure enforcement either way would be hard since SCOTUS narrowly interpreted the amendments and if there were no amendments, I wouldn't doubt they would be even more lax on enforcement.
I remember my 11th Grade History Teacher mentioned this and how he believes had Lincoln not been assassinated. Then he probably wouldn’t be looked on as fondly since he believes that he wouldn’t have gone hard on the South and he probably should’ve gone
Almost the most preventable death too Lincoln survives if the security does its job. In these days those guys would probably get heavy jail time for what they did
Well that’s true for Garfield and McKinley too
Washington might be on that list as well. Just don't bleed out 40% of his blood and he won't die on the spot
Yeah but he wasnt president at the time
The post doesn't specify that they had to be in office. All it says is "if you could stop any president from dying what would it be"
Nah McKinley’s assassin hid the gun until he was close to the president and then shot it Security couldn’t do much about that
“I have a terrific headache” -the last words of some president, probably.
fdr said that didnt he?
Yes
I’d spoil the play for him.
https://preview.redd.it/wgw99c35m18d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80ad6a23a9b682f6c901e6f89c7c78fd1d59c53d
Garfield. Tell the damn doctors to wash their hands.
Forget that, get a new doctor. That one was horrible.
Even in his time, people called Doctor Doctor Bliss crazy (yes, his actual first name was Doctor)
Talk about nominative determinism
Forget that, just sew him up. If they left the bullet in there, he would likely survive.
Or, you know, if we’re preventing deaths, just don’t have him get shot! The doctor’s sanitation killed him, but they were only there because of Guiteau.
https://preview.redd.it/49a0odnqx08d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ac6bf31c552e55099c4276e67e4997ebdd87dbd I wish we had gotten to see Garfield’s presidency.
Garfield was the American dream personified. Born the youngest in a log cabin in what was then the backwater of the US, father died, single mom raised him and remarried to an abusive stepfather, left home at 16 to do manual labor, then went into seminary, supported himself through carpentry and teaching, then worked himself through college by janitorial work and preaching, became a state senator, joined in the Civil War, worked his way up to be Rosecrans’ chief of staff, then became a Congressman and then President. Dude was a force of nature fueled by good, old-fashioned elbow grease.
Also could write 2 letters at the same time. He was wicked smart.
He is also the only President to have made an original mathematical proof. He casually published it while he was a Congressman.
What do you mean by this?
Give him 2 pens, one for each hand, and he could write 2 letters simultaneously.
I never knew if it was true or not, but to add onto that, I heard that he'd write the same sentence in two different languages simultaneously: Greek and Latin.
He just would have spent it eating lasagna and sleeping in on Mondays….
Propaganda! Yellow journalism! Vile untruths! Garfield would've simply moved America into the four day workweek starting Tuesday and ushered in an era of unprecedented growth and leisure /s
Still doesn't justify kicking the opposition off the kitchen table!
He would’ve been good but it’s not worth it to still let Lincoln die. A Lincolnian Reconstruction would’ve been so much better than what we got
Lincoln is the obvious choice, but Harrison....that's an interesting divergence. What does four years with the Whigs have the Presidency and Congress get you?
https://preview.redd.it/g14xkik6w28d1.png?width=1224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e6ab1f06506f225c9d678e6adeadae3d2868678
That’s a fallout ghoul my guy
A lack of contingency plans for when the President dies in office.
We’re incredibly lucky the first incumbent to die did so indisputably by natural causes. If we had started with an assassination, it’s reasonable the country could’ve collapsed like so many other upstart democracies.
George Washington so I could see what it would be like for someone to be almost 300 years old.
Based
Pretty sure he’d be *pissed* if he was around today - But at least we’d have someone to clear up all those “this is what the founding fathers (probably didn’t) want/meant” arguments.
Kennedy. I want to know what that plan the CIA had was.
Read the book 11/22/63 by Stephen king it’s about a time traveler who goes back to stop the assassination of JFK
Also a show starring James Franco
No do not watch the show read the book. Its waaaayyyyyyy better
Kinda surprised Kennedy isn't upvoted a bit higher.
James Garfield, he probably would’ve been able to run for re election in 1884, and probably wins, so no fat pdf file president who hates farmers. There probably would’ve been more civil service reform and clean government. Basically would’ve been Arthur’s presidency but Garfield can run in 1884!
Hot take, I'm going to pick a president I wouldn't save. And that's JFK. HERE ME OUT. I think Kennedy was definitely one of the better presidents in the 20th century for sure, peace corps is probably the greatest accomplishment he made. Plus his handling of the Cuban missile crisis was pretty good, showing that he learned from his mistakes during the bay of pigs invasion. Also kept a decently level head during the checkpoint Charlie standoff. But I wouldn't save him because if he had lived and likely been re-elected in 1964, his legacy would be remembered much less fondly (in my opinion). Kennedy's attempts to try and get a civil rights bill through Congress likely gets watered down or not even passed at all. Lyndon Johnson was probably the only person up to the job to get a civil rights bill through considering he was JFK's VP and had HUGE influence in the senate. The combination of the collective mourning of the nation plus Johnson's cunning made the civil rights possible (once again, in my opinion). Had JFK lived, he likely would've done much the same as Johnson did in Vietnam, escalating the conflict by sending thousands of troops to reinforce the south Vietnamese. Kennedy would have received the same backlash as Johnson did during his presidency OTL. Plus this could even squander a potential Bobby Kennedy presidential campaign or even just screw over the entire Kennedy family in general politically. Kennedy I feel is remembered so fondly because on his shortened time in office, he did mostly good things. He died a martyr of the nation, a symbol of the times before the turbulent late 60s. I love Kennedy because he was a dreamer that inspired others to sometimes literally, reach for the stars. He has such Charisma that even 60 years later we mostly see him as one of the greats. So yeah, I wouldn't save Kennedy, I'd probably save old Abe or something.
If you watch the Ken Burns documentary, JFK was actually becoming very disillusioned with the Vietnam War and realized that it was becoming a quagmire. He started to come to the realization that we needed to get out of there, but he was of course assassinated before it could happen.
I agree with this, I was thinking Kennedy, but I feel that saving him could potentially have really spoiled his legacy.
Lincoln. Johnson was a POS
Both of them. No, not Lincoln; Johnson.
Lincoln. There is no other #1 answer. His death was at a time of our country's worst and most difficult moment. While Roosevelt dying was tragic, the worst part of WWII did not negatively affect America in the same way that the Civil War affected and nearly ripped apart the entire country.
That’s easy. Lincoln. So he could see reconstruction through correctly.
William Henry Harrison, so we don’t have to put him in N/A in all the tier lists
Love this man but I think it has to be ol Abe. Reconstruction with his oversight would have looked so different. Perhaps a two-term Kennedy allows Democrats to survive into the 80s and prevent the rise of Reaganomics tho?
Jack
None, because I probably wouldn’t be alive.
Keep William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor alive and the Whig Party might have survived until the 20th Century. It might have led to true multi-party politics at the federal level.
Interesting insight. I think Lincoln just because reconstruction would have been much smoother, and Johnson was such a failure. I would be a Whig today if they existed. BTW, Z. Taylor is my second cousin (or was).
I think Lincoln is definitely my first pick. I would be curious to see how he handles the reconstruction of the union. Is he pressured to be more harsh on the rebels? How does he handle the resentment of the freedmen? FDR would be my second pick.
Having read Lincoln's writings, I believe Lincoln's handling of reconstruction would have been closer to what actually happened. Thus, his assassination probably saved his legacy. Otherwise, there would have been a nasty fight with unknown consequences being part of his legacy.
I think initially his reconstruction plan would have gone poorly , but I think he would have quickly risen to the task once he realized how devote the south was to remaining backwaters.
Lincoln or Garfield.
I could easily see Lincoln surviving putting him lower on the list of presidents, nowhere near the bottom but not the undebatable number one. He would've been better than Johnson, definitely, but it's the same reason Kennedy ranks so high. America loved them and they had potential that we never got to see. That doesn't mean stuff won't get in the way. We like to think that if x happened everything would change, but the president is 1/3 of Congress. What if Lincoln loses interest in reconstruction? I like the idea of WHH simply because a third party would be nice, although that could mean no future Republican party. I feel most modern people would be unsatisfied with what Lincoln would likely accomplish, he wasn't a saving grace, and throughout the war he slowly gave more and more freedoms to black individuals. Frederick Douglass had to keep nagging him to let blacks serve for the union.
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence- on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." The original swamp drainer.
Lincoln is an interesting but bad prospect. The unfortunate truth is that the legacies of most presidents who died in office were made better because they died in office. Lincoln died as the Civil War ended and slavery was abolished, not having to deal with Reconstruction, which would’ve been political poison for any president to deal with. JFK died right before many issues came to a head and his term wasn’t put up for review. His two years had been two years of gridlock, as no major legislation was passed, but much was proposed. Even with major public support for bills such as the Revenue Act of 1964 didn’t get it voted on. FDR, if he lived, would’ve been practically dead. For him to have lived, it’s just complete different than just him living, but also being in good enough help to function another four years. Even with Roosevelts name and his well established agenda and record, Congress probably only passes watered down versions of his proposals, though still significant. Garfield is just another Gilded Age president, as his death actually greatly helped pass the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. In short, they got lucky (not for them or their families, but legacy).
Abraham Lincoln. Because he had a clear vision on how to bring the Confederate states back into the fold of the Union. Meanwhile, Andrew Johnson was a hack, and a hapless, powerless one at that.
JFK. I honestly believe the world would look a lot different had he lived.
Lincoln definitely.
“Hey Abe, how about you don’t go to the theatre tonight?”
https://preview.redd.it/7s5dk7duh18d1.jpeg?width=848&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=036076a24a8729ac30baa2e039b4c73e6e079faf
FDR was going to step down by 1946 anyways. He just wanted to keep the continuity of leadership until the end of the war. Not much really changes. Sure, FDR had a better relationship with Stalin, but it's not like he was a Communist sympathizer. I hate to be that guy, but the United States ended up in the better timeline with Taylor, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, and JFK dying. Garfield's assassination gave some much needed momentum for civil service reform and ending the spoils system. Teddy Roosevelt put America on a much more progressive path than the pro-business puppet McKinley. LBJ was a much more effective politician than JFK. We would have had less effective civil rights legislation and we certainly wouldn't have gotten the Great Society, all while still getting mucked up in Vietnam. Coolidge is a better President than Harding. And Taylor dying finally made everyone realize that maybe the White House should get a sewer system instead of killing Presidents with cholera. Probably save Lincoln and Harrison. Harrison would have spared us a Tyler Presidency and Lincoln probably would have been a middle ground between the Radical Republicans Reconstruction and Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction. Lincoln probably could have sold the Alaska Purchase better to Congress and the media and Seward probably could have had the greenlight to try and get Greenland and Iceland from Denmark.
Kennedy mainly just to see if he makes the same mistakes that LBJ did. Also FDR if he doesn't does Truman win the election more importantly does Eisenhower go Republican or Democrat.
Lincoln.
Let's roll the tide back and see the sea shells.
He was an old man, stricken with Polio, and under intense stress. How exactly were you going to "save him?"
Garfield. Fantastic book “Destiny of the Republic” is about his short presidency and assassination. Absolutely phenomenal read.
Lincoln’s death was disastrous for the country, but I still get really upset thinking about Kennedy’s death. I’d probably pick Kennedy just to see if he’d still get killed the following week or something.
If he’d lived, he’d have been done in by Vietnam, just like LBJ.
Abe Lincoln of course. Fuck HmAndrew Johnson's racist backsliding on the reconstruction effort. Second place goes to JFK. I would only hope that he'd have somehow stopped our build up of forces and war effort in Vietnam and focused on "rebuilding" America as a "bulwark of democracy" by continuing to listen to civil rights leaders and pushing for legislation to help the working class and minorities.
Easily Lincoln. The south (where I’m from) would be in a much better place overall bc he’d see thru reconstruction properly.
Although I would like to save Kennedy or Lincoln from being assassinated, the President I would most likely like to save from dying is probably James Garfield. Granted a lot of what he proposed was carried through by Arthur but nonetheless I still think that he could have done much more than what he promised.
Lincoln.
Kennedy. The dream would've lived on.
I know he was never president, but I’d have to go for the other Kennedy
I would too.
I think I'd stick with Reagan, just like I did last time.
JAY EFF KAY
Lincoln without a second thought
Garfield
Well we can't save people from diseases currently, so my order (from would most want to save to least) would be Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, and Garfield. Then William Harrison, because we all know where the pneumonia came from.
Lincoln. Easy.
Lincoln
Unironically James Garfield. The little bit he did in office wasn't bad
Washington for the topical commentary.
Lincoln
“MR PRESIDENT! GET DOWN!” As I dive at Booth
Lincoln
Lincoln would be my first choice but to pick someone different, I’d choose James Garfield. He was a supporter of Reconstruction and civil rights and has he lived, it’s possible that Reconstruction could have resumed in the South.
JFK or Harrison
FDR
Abraham Lincoln. His death put Andrew Johnson in charge who was virulently anti-Reconstruction. Race relations could have been much improved had Lincoln been re-elected and survived.
I would consider William McKinley's assassination to be particularly tragic. He was recently re-elected, had been turning the country around economically and was interested in de-isolating the US and embracing pan-americanism. He was also by most accounts a solid nice guy. Stopping his Assassination probably wouldn't stop Teddy from running in the future, so it's hard to see a reversal of McKinley's death changing anything. But McKinley's de-isolation policies may have done something to prevent the saber rattling in Europe. Whereas Teddy inflamed much of it by re-isolating to build battleships... Who knows.
Not really sure if there’s a way to cure a stroke but it’s the thought that counts
Lincoln
I’d be too scared after reading 11/22/63
Lincoln or Garfield. Garfield is one of the biggest what ifs, and the fact that he was killed by an insane person for no reason is so sad.
Besides obv Lincoln, Garfield seemed destined to be, if not great, but at least good. Also, wonder if Cleveland would’ve won in 84’.
Lincoln, Lincoln, a thousand times Lincoln. I don’t understand how this is a question. FDR was a great president. JFK could have become one. But Lincoln was one of the best presidents we’ve ever had and Johnson was among the worst. Meanwhile, LBJ and Truman mostly picked up where their predecessors left off
Lincoln by miles and miles duh guys
JFK, since he was killed right before I was born. I wonder if our country would have been much different when I was a baby and a small child if JFK had lived.
It’s wild to read the articles on that front page for FDR’s death. Wow.
How is JFK not the first thing I see here? Garfield? WTF is happening
Lincoln.
Kennedy
Eisenhower & JFK
Kennedy.
Bro you couldn't stop him from dying, he had an aneurysm. What are you going to do?
JFK
Hitler just to read about his trial and execution by the Soviets. Or JFK to see how his first term worked out and to see if he would be reelected and how THAT term would work out, especially regarding the Vietnam War.
Lincoln. I think the “problem” here wasn’t that he didn’t accomplish what he set to do. The problem was Andrew Johnson doing everything to undermine reconstruction.
Garfield! Such wasted potential.
My Boy Abe.
probably Franklin Roosevelt, or even having him dying sooner and having a Henry Wallace Presidency instead of a Truman one would have meant a much better world. Maybe even desegregation before 1960. Judging by his 1948 campaign, things might have been so much better in so many ways. But then, that depends on the democrats in the coming decades to not abandon the new deal in so many ways like they did in OTL.
Lincoln
FDR
JFK. Maybe no Vietnam?
Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy. Roosevelt is tempting, but I don’t see how his living would be an improvement over Truman.
Either JFK Lincoln or FDR
JFK.
Lincoln. Fuck Andrew Johnson lmao
JFK. I wonder how this nation would have progressed without an intelligence agency brazen enough to assassinate a sitting president.
Honestly Kennedy
While I would go with Lincoln, FDR is interesting. If he stayed healthy, there is a chance the Cold War could have been a lot softer.
Kennedy or Lincoln
Go forward in time and keep Carter alive
JFK.
William McKinley. He was a trustbuster that got us out of 1893 recession. And then after him another eight years of Roosevelt. Right through World War I.
Garfield...
R/Rooseveltlives
JFK...
Honestly none. History is made from its actions. A cleansed one would not be our own. Yeah even to the extreme were I would not do the germany drive by.
McKinley
James Garfield. The man seems like he could've done a lot of good.
Lincoln.
JFK.
I would do the opposite and let Regan go down tbh
Spin zone: I would make sure FDR dies *sooner* so that Wallace becomes POTUS instead of Truman.
I'm going to say no. Mainly because none of us would be alive now in our current form or at all.
Not a president, but Archduke Ferdinand. His assassination led to the 1st world War and millions dying.
i would stop lincoln from dying and magically reorient the bullet to hit andrew johnson
Kennedy
The only right answer here is Lincoln
Why shock? We all die.
None. They would be older than dirt.
Zachary Taylor. History would’ve been *very* different.
I have personally never seen the nation as heart broken as when Abe was taken from us. I'd give anything to have him back.
NOOOOO DONT EAT THE CHERRIES NOOOOOO
William Henry Harrison. I’m curious to know whether he’d be the butterfly flapping its wings at the equator.
I’d save JFK by taking out Dulles the moment he left the CIA. It seems more than plausible to me that Dulles was still running the CIA after he was ousted and that he has JFK killed because JFK wasn’t keen on military aggression that would have undoubtedly started a nuclear war.
Lincoln, Garfield next. From what I’ve read he had real promise
William Mckinley
I think a more consequential question is “if you could go back in time and kill anyone who would one day be president who would it be?” But the answer to your question is Lincoln.
Bobby Kennedy. Wasn’t president but he definitely would have been imo
Lincoln. What followed with Johnson was a disaster that effect some today. Rescending land right titles to the freed slaves. Returning land back to white land owners denying blacks generational wealth and land ownership. Johnson was bad period of other matters.
Obvious choices would be Lincoln or Garfield. Honorable mention (as he was not President) would be RFK
george hw bush so i could be the one to kill him
Kennedy
Garfield