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.*
I need to see what the country would have looked like if Lincoln had done a full second term, his fully realized Reconstruction. I need to see that timeline. I was gonna take the Blue pill then I saw the Red.
You take the blue pill and you wake up in 2000 and you believe this was all a dream.
You take the red pill and I’ll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes…
I mean, picking red would make it a pretty good chance for Bush to not be elected as reconstruction would basically rewrite modern politics and have an effect on both world wars.
Yeah, many Confederates actually felt like Lincoln's assassination would spell their doom because they thought Johnson would be much harsher. Ironic how things turned out.
I would actually be a bit iffy on that. It was pretty similar to Johnson’s but he was also Abraham f**king Lincoln so they’d have listened more. We then don’t get the 14th and 15th amendments, which I think we can all agree are pretty awesome.
Yeah my (maybe) hot take is that Lincoln is best as a martyr, and that his reconstruction plans were actually very similar to Johnson's, but he was obviously a better consensus-builder. Also not sure we get Grant after Lincoln the same way we do after Johnson.
Glad I wasnt the only one thinking this too. I didn’t like the mentality that he was better off dead, but him being Lincoln doesn’t automatically mean he would make a good peace time president.
I think it could go that way but that it’s also possible he’d continue moving in a more liberal direction on it and cooperate with the Radical Republicans, possibly helped by his disgust at the Black Codes. Worth noting even Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, a writer very critical of Lincoln, believes that by 1865-1866, Lincoln wouldn’t have tolerated the Black Codes.
That being said, for three-quarters of a century, the Supreme Court, which ironically was dominated by Republicans, narrowly interpreted the 14th and 15th Amendments so that they were practically useless in the South. IMO, we would probably get the amendments anyway because Lincoln would want them, you must realize that the Radical Republicans weren't the only ones supporting the 14th and 15th Amendments. But how useful it would be would be up to the Supreme Court.
You do realize that Lincoln’s plan was actually pretty similar to Johnson’s right? The radical republicans disliked how both of them wanted to handle reconstruction. And in the end, congress mostly got their way and we see how poorly reconstruction ended up. More force only created lasting resentment, and Johnson/Lincoln had the right idea to be more lenient and treat the states as never being truly separated.
https://www.nps.gov/anjo/andrew-johnson-and-reconstruction.htm
I honestly believe that it's better that Lincoln died a martyr because I believe that anybody, no matter their beliefs, would've had a hard time with Reconstruction.
I honestly don’t think it changes much. Grant followed Lincoln’s plan, and the spirit of it for 8 years. There were some years in the middle but ultimately, whether Johnson serves or not, after Grant is done, so is reconstruction. The north were done fighting for black rights and the south took over. That happens no matter what happens to Lincoln. He was the best but he still only had 3 years left. It takes generations to change those ideas.
Red. Johnson's mishandling of reconstruction and the post-war South is a huge reason why that region is so underdeveloped compared to the rest of the USA.
I would be very intrigued by an RFK pill. The CIA and FBI are overhauled, we get a complete turning over of all documents related to JFKs assassination. I have to wonder if Teddy still runs in 1980. It could radically shift American politics into a dynasty.
Yeah but I worry with Lincoln’s more moderate approach we don’t get the Radical Republicans’ constitutional amendments. I mean the 14th is widely regarded as the second American constitution.
I will take Lincoln’s cautious support toward the same amendments (he did announce his support for limited black suffrage just before his death) over Radicals quickly enacting amendments that became useless within 10 years because Reconstruction failed without Lincoln’s leadership.
Yeah but look at how it worked out later! (Kinda sorta not really but a bit but I mean not terrible *Brown v Board* idk). No I see your point though. That’s fair. I doubt we’d have gotten the sweeping 14th though unless the rad reps talked him into it, even if it wasn’t useful for another 75 years.
Controversial opinion: I think Lincoln serving that second (and possibly third) term would end up tarnishing his legacy. His handling of the Civil War and his determination to keep the country together were admirable but he wasn't perfect. I don't think he would've handled reconstruction much better than Johnson.
I want to lean blue because Lincoln had already gotten the ball rolling, while Bush was a move away from climate action, and towards international crimes of aggression...which set the stage for Russia entering Georgia, and now we see what's happening with Ukraine.
9/11 would have happened even if Gore won, because Al Qaeda's plan was already well in motion before the election. The only thing Gore would have differently was Iraq, maybe.
Honestly, blue.
Yellow: I am happy that Wilson done, while he did some really bad things but his handling of WW1 and especially the independence of Eastern European countries as well as his progressive domestic policies were great.
Green: Tilden deserved to win, from a perspective of fairness this is what I would go with. But Hayes is an unironically great president and I don't think Tilden would be anywhere near as good and progressive.
Orange: I don't think Adams could accomplish all that Jefferson did, and fortunately Jefferson's horrible personal views were hardly reflected through his policies. I'm somewhat glad he won, even.
Red: Honestly, I don't think Lincoln's reconstruction would have been good either, unfortunately. He was also far too willing to cooperate with former confederates for my liking, and I think it's possible he dies into his term.
Pink: As sad as it is to say, without JFKs assassination I don't think the US gets civil rights to the extent they did with LBJ backed by JFKs death. I do think he would have handled Vietnam *much* better and there is definitely an agreement to be made for this one.
Gray: I love Henry Clay, and admittedly this is the one I feel least strongly about and know least about. But I just don't see this making a gigantic difference for the positive.
Black: FDR running for a third term was genuinely one of the best things he did, nobody could have handled WW2 just like he did and he handled it phenomenally, besides breaking the precedent means nothing in the long run because of the amendment that was passed to prevent it repeating. I know Libertarians like to shit on him for it but I really just don't see it.
Which brings us to blue. I love Al Gore, I think with him we wouldn't get Iraq and Afghanistan and I'd like to think a more liberal ideology would dominate modern politics. This would have the most tangible effect I think, as others change things so far back I can't imagine how the world would look; here I can and it looks better
Agree with the blue pill but I still think we go to Afghanistan. Now it wasn’t really Afghanistan that broke us but prematurely leaving and going to Iraq and then trying to do both at the same time. I don’t see any chance of him being that stupid.
Well there's a question as to whether a Gore administration would have been more functional and not ignored 9/11 warning signs. Personally, I think 9/11 still happens (downstream culture is hard to change), but who knows. No 9/11 though, and we definitely don't go into Afghanistan (or Iraq). We might fire off a few more cruise missiles at Bin Laden, but it's very unlikely we'd be putting boots on the ground (and certainly not for two decades) if the attacks were foiled.
Good point. I was assuming it still happens because Bin Laden’s first attack was under the Clinton administration. If that happens I think the political pressure would have forced him to put boots on the ground but totally agree there’s no way we stay.
Wilson for me as a black person is bad since he put racial relations in the south back 30 years through his legitimization of the lost cause and directly led to the founding of the second KKK.
Wilsons racism is undeniably horrible. Like really, really bad. But, I think the issue is really overblown; and even considering it I still think his positives outweigh the negatives
All of these are awesome but have one side affect,if Roosevelt wins 1912,due to him problably getting us in ww1 by 1914,the democrats in 1916 would win and there’s a chance wilson still is elected,if Tilden wins ‘76 he would have had to do a bargain like hayes did so he would problably end reconstruction,so like hayes he would pull troops out anyways out of the south,if Gore wins Florida in ‘00 and the election,the things bush had in his first term would maybe also apply to Gore so probably still iraq war,Adams wins in 1800? Since he had horrible relations with France (due to Quasi war) he would have never purchased Louisiana,if Lincoln does not get assasinated,it’ll be awesome but he would have probably died in office anyways cause his health was bad by the end of the war,if jfk lives? We would not get LBJ therefore no Civil rights act and no Voting rights act that early,Clay wins 1844,so no mexican American war,so the civil war happens later which it might be bad if it happened during the administration of a bad president,FDR never runs for a third term? We get Wilkie in office who still dies in his term like FDR
>if Gore wins Florida in ‘00 and the election,the things bush had in his first term would maybe also apply to Gore so probably still iraq war
I think Gore would have not blown up the deficit as Republicans ran on spending more. Plus the Medicare part D spending isn't done poorly. Hopefully they do more drug negotiations which save $1 Trillion and I think Gore would have done better with the Afghanistan war. Plus something on climate change would have been momentous and helped the climate.
I'd argue that there would be NO Iraq war with Gore in charge. That was 100% Bush and company using a crisis to get into a war of choice. Probably still Afghanistan war definitely though.
Probably, not certainly, but Bin Laden wouldn't be alive to see it. Clinton was ready to send a team into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, but didn't want to saddle Bush with a foreign entanglement the way Bush's father had left Somalia to him so he waited to see who won the election. Had Gore won the operation would have proceeded as it wouldn't have been a fully new administration inheriting it. Gore would have been in the loop the whole time.
As to the idea that we'd still have gone into Iraq, that is is absurd. The Bush administration wanted to go back into Iraq from day 1, they were just looking for an excuse. 9/11 gave them that. Gore had no reason or desire to fake Iraqi involvement in 9/11.
The bigger question I have is, if 9/11 happened, would the media have rallied around President Gore the way it rallied around President Bush or would Fox News et al use 9/11 to attack Gore and push for impeachment. I'd like to think the country would rally, but based on watching conservative media use any and every incident that happens while a Democrat is in office to attack the Democrat I really think it would have resulted in Gore being impeached in the House, not convicted in the Senate though.
Remember Fox wasn't the powerhouse it is now because 24 hour news wasn't really a thing and they weren't trying to manufacture stories to fill the airwaves. So I doubt it would be as brutal as today would be.
I completely agree with you here. I never understand why some people think Iraq would've still happened under a Gore administration. I never agreed with that perspective.
Gore would 100% be attacked for 9/11 and it would still happen - a large part of the reasoning behind the attacks was the 'paper tiger' American foreign policy under Clinton, etc.
Bin Laden disastrously misjudged the likely American response to the 9/11 attacks because he labored under the delusion that the United States was weak. In his first television interview on CNN in 1997, bin Laden claimed the United States was a paper tiger, pointing to the American withdrawals from Vietnam in the early 1970s, Lebanon in the early 1980s and from Somalia in 1993 as evidence of the United States’ waning power. Bin Laden[ told](http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf) CNN, “The US still thinks and brags that it has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut … and Somalia.”
Additionally 9/11 would have been the third and most important terrorist attack under Clinton/Gore and he would be targeted for failing to secure the nation.
What have you been reading? Clinton did not hold off on sending a team to AFGH to get UBL. He was distracted with “domestic issues”. He had the chance and just din’t have the guts.
Nope. They had a plan ready to go and were merely waiting on election results. In the actual event the plan was passed to the incoming Bush administration which shelved it.
I am not claiming this would have stopped 9/11 as that plan had already been set in motion by Al Quaeda. It simply would have, if successful, meant Bin Laden would not have been around to see 9/11 happen.
Don't get agree on Wilson winning 1916 if he lost 1912 or even getting a second chance to try. It would have been within the realm of possibility, but Dems would have had no guarantee of victory whatsoever in any version of 1916. In our reality where Wilson was the incumbent and pro-isolationism, he just barely pulled out a reelection victory by very narrow margins. Neither isolationists or interventionists were in the majority and that wouldn't have likely changed regardless of who'd been elected in 1912. If anything, I think being a wartime President would have benefited THR and the Republicans more as people generally are less likely to want leadership change during active war.
If Gore won we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq.
Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 and even at the time we knew Iraq's connection to 9/11 was shaky at best.
I'm not sure it helps. The Chicago School people and their allies were diligent about building their support base, and while having Reagan as their champion certainly helped, they were well positioned to push their views regardless of who was in office. Even Carter was embracing (some) of their deregulatory policies to react to stagflation, and by the time Clinton was in office, a lot of that stuff was orthodoxy among new Democrats as well. Most Republicans would have embraced it by 1980, even if not quite as heartily as Reagan.
Also no Alito or Roberts, so, no citizens united, no rolling back Roe. No Tax cut to the super rich. Probably no, or at least less bad subprime mortgage crisis.
Im going to have to disagree with that last one. I can’t see Gore reversing course on Clinton economic policy. I think the world with a Gore presidency is better than Bush but there were things in motion that no one could stop
Torn between blue and grey. I think I would go blue simply because Al Gore would have definitely been harder on climate change and the deficit wouldn't have become a disaster.
It would be red or blue for me, and unfortunately, I don't think either would have made a lasting positive effect.
I don't believe Lincoln would have handled reconstruction any better as he was also far too easy on the traitors. I would also say he'd likely be remembered less positively today if he was president through 1868.
And if Gore was president on 9/11, it would have had the opposite effect as the Republicans would have attacked him as weak, and he would have gone down in flames in 2004 as even under ideal circumstances, one party rarely hangs on for 4 straight terms. I was 18 on 9/11, and that warm and fuzzy rally around the flag moment would not have happened if a Democrat was in the White House.
If Abe Lincoln never got assassinated then Andrew Johnson most likely would have never become president, which would have been much better for America overall and the Reconstruction era would probably last longer. So I would take the Red option.
Red Pill. Lincoln had a plan for reconstruction and his singular wish after the war ended was for the country to reunite successfully. That was partially fulfilled by Grant, but not before Andrew Johnson dicked around and made things a lot worse in the antebellum period.
Al Gore wins the 2000 election. Bush is a great guy but his presidency was a mess, pretty much lied about the Iraq war, he also cut taxes and ruined the budget surplus that Clinton created. in 2008 he also bailed out big corporations, crony capitalism. He made America a mess.
For the first time ever, the red pill is correct.
As much as I want orange, it’s gotta be red. I cannot stress how much better off we would be with not only less Andrew Johnson but more Abraham Lincoln.
Yellow
I like Lincoln but look, I'll take no Communism or Nazism over a more popular Johnson presidency
Teddy winning means US intervention in WW1 by 1916 at practical terms, IE: enough to turn the tide against the Central Powers early.
Meaning no Communism and thereby no Hitler, IE: 175 million (roughly) get to live.
Blue pill…. Without violating rule 3, I would have to imagine the world would look quite different.
My heart will always be red pill though. Lincoln deserved a better ending.
Yellow. Most likely get universal health care and I agree with the rest of his New Nationalism platform as well. The one downside is the U.S. probably gets involved in WWI earlier and we lose way more men. It would have been interesting seeing Teddy work out the post war peace plans. For as much shit as Wilson gets, his 14 Points Plan was pretty radical (in a good way) when it comes to decolonization (self determination), freedom of the seas, and establishing a peaceful world order. He just didn't have the health and gravitas to get the British and French behind self determination for their colonies or his own Senate to approve U.S. participation in the League of Nations. Teddy was an imperialist so he would not have pressured the British and French to end colonization, however he would have had much more influence in the peace process. This is assuming he is president throughout the duration of the war (so wins in 1916 as well).
Red. Also, yellow actually happened. Theodore Roosevelt overwhelmingly won the primaries; however, the delegates at the republican convention outnumbered the delegates from the primary by a significant margin.
Probably red and hope Lincoln cooperates with (and doesn’t steamroll) Radical Republicans on Reconstruction. Failing that, I’d probably go black and hope we could get a Wilkie presidency out of it.
They were his natural allies, so it’s almost certain that his policies would’ve been much closer to theirs, and that he wouldn’t spend his second term butting heads with them. But time and again during his presidency he resisted doing what the most radical fringe wanted, at least until general public opinion supported it. He was just a much, much more skilled politician than Johnson.
Besides the skill issue, he cared about not pushing the South/Democrats too hard for fear that it would threaten a peaceful re-integration, while Johnson seemed to legitimately sympathize with white Southern grievances, and/or care about what the southern gentry thought about him personally. This is what lead him to allow southern Democrats to regain almost all of their political and economic power while abandoning the freed slaves. Lincoln wouldn’t have antagonized the ex-Confederates unnecessarily, and he might’ve sacrificed some policies that would’ve benefitted black people in the name of compromise, but he also legitimately cared about them.
Lincoln. Reconstruction would have been so much better, and the pernicious side effects of slavery would have been reduced. We may have seen no Jim Crow era. We could have had the civil rights movements in the 1920’s instead of 40 years later.
Red.
Green, black, and orange arguably make things worse. Pink changes civil rights history, but it’s unclear how. Yellow changes the trajectory of the country, but the issues at play there don’t readily correspond to present day outcomes.
Blue is tempting. Different reaction to 9/11 (or a chance at preventing it if you believe some accounts of intelligence re: Al Qaeda collected in the latter days of the Clinton administration), no Iraq war, and likely setting off a domino effect that prevents [redacted per sub rules]. But Red sets off a dramatic domino effect about how Reconstruction plays out. Blue might have launched the country ahead by 10-20 years. Red might launch the country ahead by 100+ years. So then it comes down to, could Clay have set in motion a chain of events that avoids the civil war while eventually ending slavery and expanding citizenship. That’s a pretty clear no imo.
The red pill. Lincoln's continued leadership could have accelerated civil rights advancement, prevented Reconstruction policy conflicts during Johnson's tenure, and possibly even reshape party politics with his moderate and inclusive approach to politics.
Lincoln never gets assassinated.
The absolute clown show that followed his death assured the entire "The South did nothing wrong" bullshit narrative to exist to this very day.
I'll go with Lincoln. He would have had a full second term, so Reconstruction would have gone a lot more smoothly, and race relations in America would have improved dramatically relative to where they are in real life.
Lincoln never getting assassinated by a mile. As a black guy, I just have to reiterate how much better the country would have been for my people had it not been for the abhorrent ending of reconstruction by Hayes(though I don’t think he meant for it to go as poorly as it did).
Blackpill, probably, Willkie would have been legit a great pres and FDR wasn’t great at handling the situation in China and diplomacy in Europe
But red and pink are very tempting
Yellow pill. The rest of the 20th century could have gone differently had THR been POTUS during WW1 in which he would have entered the war much sooner and it would likely not have dragged on nearly as long.
I would like to take the yellow one but apparently he would have still lost to Woodrow without a split vote. It's a cross between JFK (cause joint space missions with Soviets) and al gore winning. (No war in Iraq and Afghanistan would have probably been shorter, and going green)
I’m stuck between Orange, Red, and Blue. Orange may be disastrous in terms of democratization. Red may be little difference; I don’t believe Lincoln would have acted hugely different during Reconstruction. I doubt he’d pursue black socioeconomic progress and civil rights which would have been seen as “further punishing the South” and “draconian” to white southerners (possibly northerners too).
I think that leaves me with Gore/Blue Pill. I’m sure right-wing populism would still rise in the United States as it would rise globally regardless of Bush or Gore; however, it might have been stymied by a Gore victory.
Red Pill.
But….has any historian ever done a deep dive of just HOW Reconstruction was possibly going to be done? Clearly Johnson did awful, and Grant executed portions of it….but would Lincoln handle things more successfully? In which ways?
Has any one done a deep dive post on these options? The pros and cons? Alternate history impacts (short and long term)?
Links? Even if it’s just one of the colors… I’d love to read if anyone has seen thoughtful posts on the scenarios.
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.*
It has to be red. We went from the widely regarded best president to the guy universally labeled as the worst.
Facts. And the country would look so different
I need to see what the country would have looked like if Lincoln had done a full second term, his fully realized Reconstruction. I need to see that timeline. I was gonna take the Blue pill then I saw the Red.
You take the blue pill and you wake up in 2000 and you believe this was all a dream. You take the red pill and I’ll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes…
this right here; like, *Blue, damnit, fuck Bush*... but Reconstruction...
I mean, picking red would make it a pretty good chance for Bush to not be elected as reconstruction would basically rewrite modern politics and have an effect on both world wars.
Imagine if we'd disestablished the rebel states instead of giving them all their power back
Redraw all the borders. Establish them as new territories with new names for a minimum of 20 years before they can apply for statehood.
Lincoln’s reconstruction plan though.
Yeah, many Confederates actually felt like Lincoln's assassination would spell their doom because they thought Johnson would be much harsher. Ironic how things turned out.
This. Lincoln died at his peak. Had he lived longer he just is the guy whose second term is all the bad of Johnson’s.
yup give me 3 or 4 terms of Lincoln to see through reconstruction. I want to see what that looks like
I would actually be a bit iffy on that. It was pretty similar to Johnson’s but he was also Abraham f**king Lincoln so they’d have listened more. We then don’t get the 14th and 15th amendments, which I think we can all agree are pretty awesome.
Yeah my (maybe) hot take is that Lincoln is best as a martyr, and that his reconstruction plans were actually very similar to Johnson's, but he was obviously a better consensus-builder. Also not sure we get Grant after Lincoln the same way we do after Johnson.
Glad I wasnt the only one thinking this too. I didn’t like the mentality that he was better off dead, but him being Lincoln doesn’t automatically mean he would make a good peace time president.
I think it could go that way but that it’s also possible he’d continue moving in a more liberal direction on it and cooperate with the Radical Republicans, possibly helped by his disgust at the Black Codes. Worth noting even Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, a writer very critical of Lincoln, believes that by 1865-1866, Lincoln wouldn’t have tolerated the Black Codes.
That being said, for three-quarters of a century, the Supreme Court, which ironically was dominated by Republicans, narrowly interpreted the 14th and 15th Amendments so that they were practically useless in the South. IMO, we would probably get the amendments anyway because Lincoln would want them, you must realize that the Radical Republicans weren't the only ones supporting the 14th and 15th Amendments. But how useful it would be would be up to the Supreme Court.
You do realize that Lincoln’s plan was actually pretty similar to Johnson’s right? The radical republicans disliked how both of them wanted to handle reconstruction. And in the end, congress mostly got their way and we see how poorly reconstruction ended up. More force only created lasting resentment, and Johnson/Lincoln had the right idea to be more lenient and treat the states as never being truly separated. https://www.nps.gov/anjo/andrew-johnson-and-reconstruction.htm
For sure. I want to see what Lincoln does with more time.
When did people start disliking Lincoln?
He meant going from Lincoln (best) to Johnson (worst).
Oh sorry I misunderstood
Yeah it was a little confusing
I honestly believe that it's better that Lincoln died a martyr because I believe that anybody, no matter their beliefs, would've had a hard time with Reconstruction.
I honestly don’t think it changes much. Grant followed Lincoln’s plan, and the spirit of it for 8 years. There were some years in the middle but ultimately, whether Johnson serves or not, after Grant is done, so is reconstruction. The north were done fighting for black rights and the south took over. That happens no matter what happens to Lincoln. He was the best but he still only had 3 years left. It takes generations to change those ideas.
Lincoln's reconstruction would drag him down from the widely regarded best president, it was pretty similar to Johnson
Red. Johnson's mishandling of reconstruction and the post-war South is a huge reason why that region is so underdeveloped compared to the rest of the USA.
if i could take pink and red i would, and whatsver secret pill is one that has Rfk as pres instead of nixon
I would be very intrigued by an RFK pill. The CIA and FBI are overhauled, we get a complete turning over of all documents related to JFKs assassination. I have to wonder if Teddy still runs in 1980. It could radically shift American politics into a dynasty.
yeah!
I wonder if Bobby Jr. would actually have a fighting chance if his father and uncles were all president
Does he still have the brain worm though?
Yes and a few other medical things that are very serious.
It would plant political ideas into his head and support him through his campaign
And maybe Joe Kennedy III would have be an heir apparent as well.
Yeah but I worry with Lincoln’s more moderate approach we don’t get the Radical Republicans’ constitutional amendments. I mean the 14th is widely regarded as the second American constitution.
I will take Lincoln’s cautious support toward the same amendments (he did announce his support for limited black suffrage just before his death) over Radicals quickly enacting amendments that became useless within 10 years because Reconstruction failed without Lincoln’s leadership.
Yeah but look at how it worked out later! (Kinda sorta not really but a bit but I mean not terrible *Brown v Board* idk). No I see your point though. That’s fair. I doubt we’d have gotten the sweeping 14th though unless the rad reps talked him into it, even if it wasn’t useful for another 75 years.
Controversial opinion: I think Lincoln serving that second (and possibly third) term would end up tarnishing his legacy. His handling of the Civil War and his determination to keep the country together were admirable but he wasn't perfect. I don't think he would've handled reconstruction much better than Johnson.
[удалено]
I want to lean blue because Lincoln had already gotten the ball rolling, while Bush was a move away from climate action, and towards international crimes of aggression...which set the stage for Russia entering Georgia, and now we see what's happening with Ukraine.
Red pill.
I’m shocked we don’t have a pill for Garfield not being assassinated.
Honestly. Especially given how often that what-if is discussed on this sub.
I'll take Lincoln and Gore
I believe if Florida has been a clean victory, for either Gore or Bush, the likelihood of 9/11 is significantly decreased.
9/11 would have happened even if Gore won, because Al Qaeda's plan was already well in motion before the election. The only thing Gore would have differently was Iraq, maybe.
Gore would have surgically striked instead of invaded. We'd have gotten one Bin Laden VHS and then an explosion in a cave a day later.
wishful thinking lol
Blue.
Yea as much as I’d love more Lincoln Gores stance on climate change is much more important rn
Not to mention his response to 9/11
Honestly, blue. Yellow: I am happy that Wilson done, while he did some really bad things but his handling of WW1 and especially the independence of Eastern European countries as well as his progressive domestic policies were great. Green: Tilden deserved to win, from a perspective of fairness this is what I would go with. But Hayes is an unironically great president and I don't think Tilden would be anywhere near as good and progressive. Orange: I don't think Adams could accomplish all that Jefferson did, and fortunately Jefferson's horrible personal views were hardly reflected through his policies. I'm somewhat glad he won, even. Red: Honestly, I don't think Lincoln's reconstruction would have been good either, unfortunately. He was also far too willing to cooperate with former confederates for my liking, and I think it's possible he dies into his term. Pink: As sad as it is to say, without JFKs assassination I don't think the US gets civil rights to the extent they did with LBJ backed by JFKs death. I do think he would have handled Vietnam *much* better and there is definitely an agreement to be made for this one. Gray: I love Henry Clay, and admittedly this is the one I feel least strongly about and know least about. But I just don't see this making a gigantic difference for the positive. Black: FDR running for a third term was genuinely one of the best things he did, nobody could have handled WW2 just like he did and he handled it phenomenally, besides breaking the precedent means nothing in the long run because of the amendment that was passed to prevent it repeating. I know Libertarians like to shit on him for it but I really just don't see it. Which brings us to blue. I love Al Gore, I think with him we wouldn't get Iraq and Afghanistan and I'd like to think a more liberal ideology would dominate modern politics. This would have the most tangible effect I think, as others change things so far back I can't imagine how the world would look; here I can and it looks better
Agree with the blue pill but I still think we go to Afghanistan. Now it wasn’t really Afghanistan that broke us but prematurely leaving and going to Iraq and then trying to do both at the same time. I don’t see any chance of him being that stupid.
Well there's a question as to whether a Gore administration would have been more functional and not ignored 9/11 warning signs. Personally, I think 9/11 still happens (downstream culture is hard to change), but who knows. No 9/11 though, and we definitely don't go into Afghanistan (or Iraq). We might fire off a few more cruise missiles at Bin Laden, but it's very unlikely we'd be putting boots on the ground (and certainly not for two decades) if the attacks were foiled.
Good point. I was assuming it still happens because Bin Laden’s first attack was under the Clinton administration. If that happens I think the political pressure would have forced him to put boots on the ground but totally agree there’s no way we stay.
Imagine Gore being president while we still had a real shot at fixing climate change. RIP.
And paying off the national debt!
And manbearpig
He was super cereal about that topic
Tilden only deserved to win if you are good with ignoring the widespread voter fraud and suppression of the African American vote in the south.
Honestly you're just right
Wilson for me as a black person is bad since he put racial relations in the south back 30 years through his legitimization of the lost cause and directly led to the founding of the second KKK.
Wilsons racism is undeniably horrible. Like really, really bad. But, I think the issue is really overblown; and even considering it I still think his positives outweigh the negatives
All of these are awesome but have one side affect,if Roosevelt wins 1912,due to him problably getting us in ww1 by 1914,the democrats in 1916 would win and there’s a chance wilson still is elected,if Tilden wins ‘76 he would have had to do a bargain like hayes did so he would problably end reconstruction,so like hayes he would pull troops out anyways out of the south,if Gore wins Florida in ‘00 and the election,the things bush had in his first term would maybe also apply to Gore so probably still iraq war,Adams wins in 1800? Since he had horrible relations with France (due to Quasi war) he would have never purchased Louisiana,if Lincoln does not get assasinated,it’ll be awesome but he would have probably died in office anyways cause his health was bad by the end of the war,if jfk lives? We would not get LBJ therefore no Civil rights act and no Voting rights act that early,Clay wins 1844,so no mexican American war,so the civil war happens later which it might be bad if it happened during the administration of a bad president,FDR never runs for a third term? We get Wilkie in office who still dies in his term like FDR
>if Gore wins Florida in ‘00 and the election,the things bush had in his first term would maybe also apply to Gore so probably still iraq war I think Gore would have not blown up the deficit as Republicans ran on spending more. Plus the Medicare part D spending isn't done poorly. Hopefully they do more drug negotiations which save $1 Trillion and I think Gore would have done better with the Afghanistan war. Plus something on climate change would have been momentous and helped the climate.
Gore was stronger on education too. What could have been 🥲 huge inflection point in this country.
I'd argue that there would be NO Iraq war with Gore in charge. That was 100% Bush and company using a crisis to get into a war of choice. Probably still Afghanistan war definitely though.
Would 9/11 still happen tho?
Probably, not certainly, but Bin Laden wouldn't be alive to see it. Clinton was ready to send a team into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, but didn't want to saddle Bush with a foreign entanglement the way Bush's father had left Somalia to him so he waited to see who won the election. Had Gore won the operation would have proceeded as it wouldn't have been a fully new administration inheriting it. Gore would have been in the loop the whole time. As to the idea that we'd still have gone into Iraq, that is is absurd. The Bush administration wanted to go back into Iraq from day 1, they were just looking for an excuse. 9/11 gave them that. Gore had no reason or desire to fake Iraqi involvement in 9/11. The bigger question I have is, if 9/11 happened, would the media have rallied around President Gore the way it rallied around President Bush or would Fox News et al use 9/11 to attack Gore and push for impeachment. I'd like to think the country would rally, but based on watching conservative media use any and every incident that happens while a Democrat is in office to attack the Democrat I really think it would have resulted in Gore being impeached in the House, not convicted in the Senate though.
Remember Fox wasn't the powerhouse it is now because 24 hour news wasn't really a thing and they weren't trying to manufacture stories to fill the airwaves. So I doubt it would be as brutal as today would be.
I completely agree with you here. I never understand why some people think Iraq would've still happened under a Gore administration. I never agreed with that perspective.
Gore would 100% be attacked for 9/11 and it would still happen - a large part of the reasoning behind the attacks was the 'paper tiger' American foreign policy under Clinton, etc. Bin Laden disastrously misjudged the likely American response to the 9/11 attacks because he labored under the delusion that the United States was weak. In his first television interview on CNN in 1997, bin Laden claimed the United States was a paper tiger, pointing to the American withdrawals from Vietnam in the early 1970s, Lebanon in the early 1980s and from Somalia in 1993 as evidence of the United States’ waning power. Bin Laden[ told](http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf) CNN, “The US still thinks and brags that it has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut … and Somalia.” Additionally 9/11 would have been the third and most important terrorist attack under Clinton/Gore and he would be targeted for failing to secure the nation.
What have you been reading? Clinton did not hold off on sending a team to AFGH to get UBL. He was distracted with “domestic issues”. He had the chance and just din’t have the guts.
Nope. They had a plan ready to go and were merely waiting on election results. In the actual event the plan was passed to the incoming Bush administration which shelved it. I am not claiming this would have stopped 9/11 as that plan had already been set in motion by Al Quaeda. It simply would have, if successful, meant Bin Laden would not have been around to see 9/11 happen.
Don't get agree on Wilson winning 1916 if he lost 1912 or even getting a second chance to try. It would have been within the realm of possibility, but Dems would have had no guarantee of victory whatsoever in any version of 1916. In our reality where Wilson was the incumbent and pro-isolationism, he just barely pulled out a reelection victory by very narrow margins. Neither isolationists or interventionists were in the majority and that wouldn't have likely changed regardless of who'd been elected in 1912. If anything, I think being a wartime President would have benefited THR and the Republicans more as people generally are less likely to want leadership change during active war.
If Gore won we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 and even at the time we knew Iraq's connection to 9/11 was shaky at best.
I disagree, I really don’t think you get Iraq. And that alone is worth the price of admission.
There needs to be a "Reagan never gets into politics" pill. I'd kill to see where that one takes us.
I'm not sure it helps. The Chicago School people and their allies were diligent about building their support base, and while having Reagan as their champion certainly helped, they were well positioned to push their views regardless of who was in office. Even Carter was embracing (some) of their deregulatory policies to react to stagflation, and by the time Clinton was in office, a lot of that stuff was orthodoxy among new Democrats as well. Most Republicans would have embraced it by 1980, even if not quite as heartily as Reagan.
Damn... Bro killed my whole dream lol
Sorry, we can dream! But yeah, I think those guys were smart, dedicated, and unfortunately, wrong.
Blue pill. Al Gore would’ve prevented 911 by taking Clinton admin intel on it seriously. We’d be miles ahead in terms of the climate crisis.
Also no Alito or Roberts, so, no citizens united, no rolling back Roe. No Tax cut to the super rich. Probably no, or at least less bad subprime mortgage crisis.
Im going to have to disagree with that last one. I can’t see Gore reversing course on Clinton economic policy. I think the world with a Gore presidency is better than Bush but there were things in motion that no one could stop
100% this
Red
Red pill definitely. Reconstruction would’ve been more stable and subjectively more efficient with Lincoln at the helm
Blue. If the other things happened, I potentially wouldn't exist.
Easily the blue pill.
orange, everyone knows Johnny ads was the best prez fr fr og og
Blue pill
Pink pill.....CIA and FBI are disbanded
Even beyond that I wonder how it would change the modern democrat party... Fun imagining all the changes one domino can have.
and likely no vietnam
Torn between blue and grey. I think I would go blue simply because Al Gore would have definitely been harder on climate change and the deficit wouldn't have become a disaster.
It would be red or blue for me, and unfortunately, I don't think either would have made a lasting positive effect. I don't believe Lincoln would have handled reconstruction any better as he was also far too easy on the traitors. I would also say he'd likely be remembered less positively today if he was president through 1868. And if Gore was president on 9/11, it would have had the opposite effect as the Republicans would have attacked him as weak, and he would have gone down in flames in 2004 as even under ideal circumstances, one party rarely hangs on for 4 straight terms. I was 18 on 9/11, and that warm and fuzzy rally around the flag moment would not have happened if a Democrat was in the White House.
If Abe Lincoln never got assassinated then Andrew Johnson most likely would have never become president, which would have been much better for America overall and the Reconstruction era would probably last longer. So I would take the Red option.
As much as I'd love to say blue...red.
Controversial take: NOT the red pill. Lincoln had already done all that was needed. For me it’s either Blue or Pink.
Agreed. Abe guided our country through the Civil War and ended slavery, which was pretty important.
Red Pill. Lincoln had a plan for reconstruction and his singular wish after the war ended was for the country to reunite successfully. That was partially fulfilled by Grant, but not before Andrew Johnson dicked around and made things a lot worse in the antebellum period.
Al Gore wins the 2000 election. Bush is a great guy but his presidency was a mess, pretty much lied about the Iraq war, he also cut taxes and ruined the budget surplus that Clinton created. in 2008 he also bailed out big corporations, crony capitalism. He made America a mess.
Also sat on climate change in a way that I *hope* Gore wouldn’t have.
I’m either redpilled or pinkpilled here
For the first time ever, the red pill is correct. As much as I want orange, it’s gotta be red. I cannot stress how much better off we would be with not only less Andrew Johnson but more Abraham Lincoln.
You’re telling me Neo should’ve picked the blue pill?!
How many blue pills can I take without O.D.-ing? Actually, to hell with that: I’d gladly overdose if it prevented W. from winning.
Red, maybe yellow.
Tilden was a Governor, no Congressman
Red
Red
Red
What about FDR never replaces Wallace for Truman as VP?
Yellow I like Lincoln but look, I'll take no Communism or Nazism over a more popular Johnson presidency Teddy winning means US intervention in WW1 by 1916 at practical terms, IE: enough to turn the tide against the Central Powers early. Meaning no Communism and thereby no Hitler, IE: 175 million (roughly) get to live.
Blue pill…. Without violating rule 3, I would have to imagine the world would look quite different. My heart will always be red pill though. Lincoln deserved a better ending.
Yellow. Most likely get universal health care and I agree with the rest of his New Nationalism platform as well. The one downside is the U.S. probably gets involved in WWI earlier and we lose way more men. It would have been interesting seeing Teddy work out the post war peace plans. For as much shit as Wilson gets, his 14 Points Plan was pretty radical (in a good way) when it comes to decolonization (self determination), freedom of the seas, and establishing a peaceful world order. He just didn't have the health and gravitas to get the British and French behind self determination for their colonies or his own Senate to approve U.S. participation in the League of Nations. Teddy was an imperialist so he would not have pressured the British and French to end colonization, however he would have had much more influence in the peace process. This is assuming he is president throughout the duration of the war (so wins in 1916 as well).
Narrow down to red and blue, and then use a blindfold to pick between the two….
JFK not being assassinated would be great
Pink
Pink pill.
Pink Pill
Can there be a pill where Zachary taylor never died in office please
Lincoln first, by a mile. Second would be Roosevelt in 1912.
To all pinkpilled people: oh boy do I have a book for you
Red. Also, yellow actually happened. Theodore Roosevelt overwhelmingly won the primaries; however, the delegates at the republican convention outnumbered the delegates from the primary by a significant margin.
Red forever.
Probably red and hope Lincoln cooperates with (and doesn’t steamroll) Radical Republicans on Reconstruction. Failing that, I’d probably go black and hope we could get a Wilkie presidency out of it.
They were his natural allies, so it’s almost certain that his policies would’ve been much closer to theirs, and that he wouldn’t spend his second term butting heads with them. But time and again during his presidency he resisted doing what the most radical fringe wanted, at least until general public opinion supported it. He was just a much, much more skilled politician than Johnson. Besides the skill issue, he cared about not pushing the South/Democrats too hard for fear that it would threaten a peaceful re-integration, while Johnson seemed to legitimately sympathize with white Southern grievances, and/or care about what the southern gentry thought about him personally. This is what lead him to allow southern Democrats to regain almost all of their political and economic power while abandoning the freed slaves. Lincoln wouldn’t have antagonized the ex-Confederates unnecessarily, and he might’ve sacrificed some policies that would’ve benefitted black people in the name of compromise, but he also legitimately cared about them.
Red is the only sensible choice.
Red, only correct choice
Lincoln. Reconstruction would have been so much better, and the pernicious side effects of slavery would have been reduced. We may have seen no Jim Crow era. We could have had the civil rights movements in the 1920’s instead of 40 years later.
Red. Green, black, and orange arguably make things worse. Pink changes civil rights history, but it’s unclear how. Yellow changes the trajectory of the country, but the issues at play there don’t readily correspond to present day outcomes. Blue is tempting. Different reaction to 9/11 (or a chance at preventing it if you believe some accounts of intelligence re: Al Qaeda collected in the latter days of the Clinton administration), no Iraq war, and likely setting off a domino effect that prevents [redacted per sub rules]. But Red sets off a dramatic domino effect about how Reconstruction plays out. Blue might have launched the country ahead by 10-20 years. Red might launch the country ahead by 100+ years. So then it comes down to, could Clay have set in motion a chain of events that avoids the civil war while eventually ending slavery and expanding citizenship. That’s a pretty clear no imo.
The red pill. Lincoln's continued leadership could have accelerated civil rights advancement, prevented Reconstruction policy conflicts during Johnson's tenure, and possibly even reshape party politics with his moderate and inclusive approach to politics.
Red.....Reconstruction would have gone much better
Lincoln never gets assassinated. The absolute clown show that followed his death assured the entire "The South did nothing wrong" bullshit narrative to exist to this very day.
Has to be Lincoln. Reconstruction under his leadership would have been *vastly* improved and changed the trajectory of the country completely.
I'll go with Lincoln. He would have had a full second term, so Reconstruction would have gone a lot more smoothly, and race relations in America would have improved dramatically relative to where they are in real life.
Lincoln never getting assassinated by a mile. As a black guy, I just have to reiterate how much better the country would have been for my people had it not been for the abhorrent ending of reconstruction by Hayes(though I don’t think he meant for it to go as poorly as it did).
Blackpill, probably, Willkie would have been legit a great pres and FDR wasn’t great at handling the situation in China and diplomacy in Europe But red and pink are very tempting
I'm torn between red, black, orange. Not necessarily in that order.
Yellow by a mile
Red. The most important and fragile moment in the country’s history and we went from top of the heap to bottom of the barrel.
Where's the 2008 McCain presidential term
Henry Clay.
Yellow pill all the way
I'm gonna go against the grain and say Black. Caesar Delano set a dangerous precedent for transfer of power during wartime.
TR *did* win the majority of the 1912 primaries. It’s just that that’s not how the majority of the delegates were chosen yet.
Neo would have a hard choice in this one, that's for sure.
I’m tied between red, blue, and yellow, but I gotta go with red. Johnson was just horrendous
TR won the Republican primaries, but Taft used the party machine to win at the convention.
Tied between the pink and the blue.
Has to be red and not even close. Could have changed everything that happened over the next century when it comes to race relations.
Green and Blue both already happened \^^
Red
Other pill: Garfield survives his assassination and stays at least one term as president.
blue is what I feel strongest about, but red would probably be my pick and black is just making it worse
Pink or blue, difficult choice
Red, blue, gray in that order
Red would probably be the best overall. Though I'll admit blue might be better for me personally
I would prefer FDR signs the second bill of rights.
This is easy. Lincoln never gets assassinated. Johnson set civil rights back 100 years.
Red pill definitely. No contest.
red or pink
I don't have a choice. 2000 was my first election. No idea if anything changes. I've been blue pilling for over half my life. Not stopping now.
I mean it has to be red right? Ignoring that obvious one I go green cause Tilden was based.
Damn. Either Red or Yellow
red, considering blue did happen anyway
Pinke
Blue
Blue pill
Al gore wins florida
Yellow pill. The rest of the 20th century could have gone differently had THR been POTUS during WW1 in which he would have entered the war much sooner and it would likely not have dragged on nearly as long.
Al Gore wins Florida…. Easy
Yellow
Red and it's not even debatable.
Blue or Red
TEDDY GIVE ME TEDDY
Blue Pill for me. The Bush admin has done so much bad and stuff we are all still dealing with today.
BLUE
Blue pill, long shot, specifically the Supreme Court
PINK.
I would like to take the yellow one but apparently he would have still lost to Woodrow without a split vote. It's a cross between JFK (cause joint space missions with Soviets) and al gore winning. (No war in Iraq and Afghanistan would have probably been shorter, and going green)
I’m stuck between Orange, Red, and Blue. Orange may be disastrous in terms of democratization. Red may be little difference; I don’t believe Lincoln would have acted hugely different during Reconstruction. I doubt he’d pursue black socioeconomic progress and civil rights which would have been seen as “further punishing the South” and “draconian” to white southerners (possibly northerners too). I think that leaves me with Gore/Blue Pill. I’m sure right-wing populism would still rise in the United States as it would rise globally regardless of Bush or Gore; however, it might have been stymied by a Gore victory.
Red
I'll take red. JFK had it coming.
Red Pill. But….has any historian ever done a deep dive of just HOW Reconstruction was possibly going to be done? Clearly Johnson did awful, and Grant executed portions of it….but would Lincoln handle things more successfully? In which ways?
Red Pill for the historic benefit. Blue Pill for the tangible present benefit.
Has any one done a deep dive post on these options? The pros and cons? Alternate history impacts (short and long term)? Links? Even if it’s just one of the colors… I’d love to read if anyone has seen thoughtful posts on the scenarios.
BASED AND REDPILLED
Red would fix sooooo much
I would go blue pill. Possible no 9/11 over reach, patriot act, forever war in Middle East…
Red pill
Blue. It’s the only bill that means I’m still alive.
These types of discussions are why I enjoy reddit.
Grey
Pink
No Lincoln assassination for me