futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 19, 2016 2:29:32 GMT
What if President Garfield would have narrowly avoided getting shot by Charles Guiteau in 1881 (or afterwards, for that matter)?
How would U.S. history have developed since 1881 in this scenario?
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 19, 2016 7:14:36 GMT
What if President Garfield would have narrowly avoided getting shot by Charles Guiteau in 1881 (or afterwards, for that matter)? How would U.S. history have developed since 1881 in this scenario? Any thoughts on this? Is his term in office a bit short to really know what he might achieve. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 20, 2016 1:43:31 GMT
What if President Garfield would have narrowly avoided getting shot by Charles Guiteau in 1881 (or afterwards, for that matter)? How would U.S. history have developed since 1881 in this scenario? Any thoughts on this? Is his term in office a bit short to really know what he might achieve. Not necessarily.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 20, 2016 3:09:31 GMT
Is his term in office a bit short to really know what he might achieve. Not necessarily. So what do you think he will be able to achieve while he is in office a little bit longer instead of him being assassinated as he was in OTL. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 20, 2016 3:48:46 GMT
Not necessarily. So what do you think he will be able to achieve while he is in office a little bit longer instead of him being assassinated as he was in OTL. Civil service reform. Also, Garfield and his Secretary of State Blaine could try increasing U.S. involvement and influence in Latin America. In addition to this, though, there is a chance (though I am unsure as to how large of a chance) that Garfield will veto the Chinese Exclusion Act. |
|
|
|
Post by hugehandshanz on Jun 25, 2018 19:45:10 GMT
Well the most glaring thing I can see is that there is no longer a President Arthur. Therefore, come the 1884 election President Garfield probably faces off against President Cleveland and wins a 2nd term. It is also possible that we could have used gold-backed currency for a longer period of time or simply never stopped to begin with.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 25, 2018 19:49:11 GMT
Well the most glaring thing I can see is that there is no longer a President Arthur. Therefore, come the 1884 election President Garfield probably faces off against President Cleveland and wins a 2nd term. It is also possible that we could have used gold-backed currency for a longer period of time or simply never stopped to begin with. Looking at Chester A. Arthur record, he is who you refer as President Arthur, i do think we do not see any major changes, but that is just me who does not know much about the 1880s American politics saying. |
|
|
|
Post by hugehandshanz on Jun 26, 2018 5:11:06 GMT
Actually, no, I think we do see major changes. While I agree with you that President Garfield is just as likely to sign the Pendleton Act in 1883 as President Arthur did, since that stance played a role in his assassination. He likely would have pushed for tax cuts as Arthur did.
President Garfield, however, had something that resembled a plan to protect black civil rights, whilst President Arthur was uncertain during the beginning stages of his presidency. Perhaps we could have seen something akin to Brown v. Board much earlier or even Plessy v. Ferguson could have gone the other way.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 29, 2018 20:25:23 GMT
Perhaps we could have seen something akin to Brown v. Board much earlier or even Plessy v. Ferguson could have gone the other way. You're talking about a U.S. Supreme Court which upheld the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama. Expecting them to rule against segregation is thus very likely too much to ask for. |
|
|
|
Post by hugehandshanz on Jun 30, 2018 0:51:19 GMT
No. I'm talking about President Garfield getting to appoint the 2 Justices that President Arthur appointed. It would have been an entirely different court.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 30, 2018 1:08:58 GMT
No. I'm talking about President Garfield getting to appoint the 2 Justices that President Arthur appointed. It would have been an entirely different court. OK, but it is worth noting that Republican Presidents generally had bad luck with the Justices that they appointed. For instance, Pace v. Alabama was a 9-0 decision. |
|
|
|
Post by hugehandshanz on Jun 30, 2018 21:52:41 GMT
Pace v. Alabama took place before the Civil Rights Act/Movement of 1964, racist policies were far more rampant, and it is not wholly unexpected that 1 policy would be upheld unanimously. Perhaps if President Garfield had made the selections that vote would have been 7-2 or something different because the 2 he picked were more persuasive. I do think it is worth mentioning though that the court merely certified that the Alabama statue was not unconstitutional. This is not the same as supporting the measure or giving it any sort of governmental blessing.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 1, 2018 0:15:31 GMT
1. Pace v. Alabama took place before the Civil Rights Act/Movement of 1964, racist policies were far more rampant, and it is not wholly unexpected that 1 policy would be upheld unanimously. 2. Perhaps if President Garfield had made the selections that vote would have been 7-2 or something different because the 2 he picked were more persuasive. 3. I do think it is worth mentioning though that the court merely certified that the Alabama statue was not unconstitutional. This is not the same as supporting the measure or giving it any sort of governmental blessing. 1. Yeah, President Garfield lived in much more racist times. That's certainly not a surprise. 2. It's possible, but I'm not very optimistic. After all, Garfield's SC nominee Stanley Matthews doesn't appear to have been a staunch defender of civil rights. 3. Sure, but it's different from what the U.S. Supreme Court did in the 1950s and 1960s, when it struck down symmetrical equality as being unconstitutional (first in the schools, then in the bedroom, then at the marriage altar). |
|
|
|
Post by hugehandshanz on Jul 1, 2018 4:04:05 GMT
1. It was necessary to reestablish the timeline that we are discussing. It wasn't meant to be groundbreaking information. Plus we were discussing interracial relationships, which were not colloquially welcomed publicly until the Civil Rights Movement.
2. Optimism refers to a future event. We are discussing possible alternatives to what actually took place. So it being possible is the whole point. Justice Matthews was confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, President Garfield surviving assassination likely would have had no impact whatsoever on Matthews' term on the bench.
3. So, what is your point? You are referring to a Supreme Court from 2 different eras. They are hardly comparable. In this timeline, I don't think anybody who we could discuss would even be alive by the time the Supreme Court cases of the 1950s and 1960s are tried. By the time the 50s and 60s rolled around public perception had changed, and the Supreme Court usually reflects public opinion.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jul 1, 2018 18:42:19 GMT
You're the one who was talking about Brown v. Board of Education occurring much earlier in this scenario and about Plessy v. Ferguson being decided differently in this scenario, though.
|
|
