@Zyobot @Skallagrim @History Learner @stevep @Earl @Atarlost @raharris1973 If John Hinckley succeeds in killing Ronald Reagan in 1981, does he still get acquitted on insanity grounds or is he instead found guilty? If the latter, then does he get sentenced to death or to life in prison?
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
I don't know about the actual legal case but the additional anger at the death of another President in an assassination could well prompt a harsher reaction and pressure for him to at least be found guilty. Execution is definitely a possibility but since the attempt was in DC rather than a state I'm not sure what rules would apply.
Note it says in his wiki article "Public outcry over the verdict led to the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which altered the rules for consideration of mental illness of defendants in Federal Criminal Court proceedings in the U.S. " so there presumably was a tightening of the rules for the insane defence plead.
One interesting butterfly was that his obsession with Jodie Foster occurred in response to the film Taxi Driver in 1976 and he actually tried going for Jimmy Carter 1st. "Eventually, he settled on a scheme to impress her by assassinating the president, thinking that by achieving a place in history, he would appeal to her as an equal. Hinckley trailed President Jimmy Carter from state to state, and was arrested in Nashville, Tennessee, on a firearms charge. " If he had actually tried killing Carter, whether successful or not that could have had some impact on future events.
Buba
A total creep
What sort of President Mondale could had been? Any chance against RR in '80?
Possibly Yes due to the sympathy vote.
AFAIK, he failed to kill Carter in large part because he ran out of time due to Carter not being reelected, after which point he decided to target Reagan, the new US President. Had Carter been reelected he would have been targeted instead, no doubt.
Also, what are your thoughts on my AH question in post #2,900 here?
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarists are the New Subhumans
Question: How possible is it for the Austrian branch of the Hapsburgs to inherit the entirety of the Hapsburg Netherlands? And would Spain be able to inherit the Duchy of Milan and the other Italian holdings in northern Italy?
I would suspect that for this to happen, Mary Tudor (OTL Bloody Mary) would have to marry a different Habsburg groom in this case. However, it doesn't help that in OTL, Mary was older than her husband, Philip II of Spain.
I would suspect that for this to happen, Mary Tudor (OTL Bloody Mary) would have to marry a different Habsburg groom in this case. However, it doesn't help that in OTL, Mary was older than her husband, Philip II of Spain.
Buba
A total creep
Charles gifts Netherlands not to son but to brother. Ferdinand does not provoke rebellion.
If the 1st occurred I think the 2nd very likely. Which means the united Netherlands stays part of the HRE. Could mean a lot of it ends up largely Germanified? Gives Austria more capability to control central Europe and earlier fighting with France although which could end up as overload even with the considerable resources of a very wealthy Burgundy/Netherlands. A hell of a lot of potential butterflies here.
Seeing a German Netherlands would be epic since then it could eventually become a part of a unified German state in due time were such a state to ever develop in this TL in place of the very weak Holy Roman Empire, which was merely a confederation, no?
HRE was not even confederation.
And yes,if german Habsburgs get Netherlands,they would be stronger.And probably unite german states instead of prussia.
Better for everybody,including prussians.
AHC:
Have something comparable to the Ohio curse for US Presidents for a different US state:
In real life, we had four US Presidents from Ohio die in office and almost had a fifth follow in the same footsteps:
-1841: William Henry Harrison
-1881: James Garfield
-1901: William McKinley
-1923: Warren Harding
Near-miss (he almost defeated Eisenhower for the 1952 GOP nomination and would have likely won the US Presidency in 1952 had he been nominated by the GOP that year):
-1953: Robert Taft
Have something comparable to the Ohio curse for US Presidents for a different US state:
In real life, we had four US Presidents from Ohio die in office and almost had a fifth follow in the same footsteps:
-1841: William Henry Harrison
-1881: James Garfield
-1901: William McKinley
-1923: Warren Harding
Near-miss (he almost defeated Eisenhower for the 1952 GOP nomination and would have likely won the US Presidency in 1952 had he been nominated by the GOP that year):
-1953: Robert Taft
@Zyobot What do you think? Also, here's an additional AHC for you:
Have a single US presidential candidate run for the US presidency on a major party platform three times in a row. In real life, this was done by:
-Andrew Jackson in 1824, 1828, and 1832
-Grover Cleveland in 1884, 1888, and 1892
-FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944
William Jennings Bryan's three runs were not in a row and thus don't count for this.
Which additional realistic examples of this could there have been? Obviously there's Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024, but I can also think of Woodrow Wilson in 1912, 1916, and 1920 if his near-fatal 1919 stroke is delayed until after the 1920 election, as well as James Garfield in 1880, 1884, and 1888 in the unlikely event that he loses in 1884 after surviving his assassination attempt and also George W. Bush in 2000, 2004, and 2008 in the unlikely event that he loses in 2004. I can of course also think of Al Gore in 2000, 2004, and 2008 without 9/11.
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarists are the New Subhumans
PC: Have the Carlists Win the Third Carlist War
Was there any possible way that the First Spanish Republic never comes to existence? What were the factors that led to the liberal victory that allowed said republic to be formed in the first place?
Was there any possible way that the First Spanish Republic never comes to existence? What were the factors that led to the liberal victory that allowed said republic to be formed in the first place?
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarists are the New Subhumans
The Third Carlist War broke out in 1872, while the First Spanish Republic was formed in 1874.
Buba
A total creep
Thanks. I though that the Republic was formed in the late '60's - me bad.
liberals get England help,carlists - only spanish people helped them.You must either remove England help,or made France help carlists.Which need monarchist France - which was possible.
Then,we would have France with King,and Spain ruled by carlists.Since they do not fucked economy,spanish empire could live.
Its funny that you imply that you need to support autocracy to be Spanish.
Plus at that time Britain was uninvolved in Spanish affairs and the attempted Carlist military coup.Its far too late to save what's left of the ramshakled Spanish empire - unless of cause the liberals win and provide political and economic reform. In that cause you could have a markedly stronger Spain and also a less alienated colonies if their allowed decent living standards and rights.
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarists are the New Subhumans
Alfonso XII did proclaim something called the Sandhurst Proclamation, which served as a basis for his restoration on the Spanish throne.
What autocracy? carlist fought for ancient freedoms.And,they were not statists,so they would not fuck economy.Its funny that you imply that you need to support autocracy to be Spanish.
Its far too late to save what's left of the ramshakled Spanish empire - unless of cause the liberals win and provide political and economic reform. In that cause you could have a markedly stronger Spain and also a less alienated colonies if their allowed decent living standards and rights.
Europe was free in medieval times without liberals and masons - or,to be precise,lost its freedom thanks to them.