• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Three Term US Presidents other than FDR

RyanF

Most Likely atm Enjoying a Beer
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
Location
NYC (né Falkirk)
Pronouns
he/him
Historically, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the only US President to have served more than two terms in that office. Since then, the unofficial tradition established by George Washington was enshrined into the US Constitution via the 22nd Amendment. It limits Presidents to two terms, or 1 term of their own if they succeeded to the position and served more than two years of that term. Of the OTL US Presidents, which of them could have possibly served a third term?

Starting at the start, George Washington certainly could have been elected to a third-term if he wanted. Not wanting it was one of the main reasons, on a personal and political level. Had he wanted it, his probable death during the third term may create the impression the office is for life, which was one of the reasons Washington declined to seek a third term. The first time two-terms had the opportunity to become tradition was with Thomas Jefferson. Again, he did not want another term. His last couple years were marked by the Embargo Act, and during 1808 he was spending more and more time at his plantation. There's actually a recurring theme with the early two-term Presidents retiring from the role because their slave operations were losing money. Andrew Jackson, for instance, remained involved in politics following his presidency despite his popularity waning because of the 1837 Panic and bouts of illness. Jackson is perhaps more likely than both Washington and Jefferson, but it probably requires a better last couple years in the office.

Sure I've seen some mention of a third term for Lincoln had he lived, but there's a lot of other stuff that has to be considered for that to transpire. Ulysses S. Grant did want a third term, but only from the 1880 election and had declined for 1876. He was actually leading nominations at the Republican National Convention, before those backing James G. Blaine bolted and nominated James A. Garfield as a compromise candidate. John Sherman's candidates followed suit and Garfield won the nomination and eventually the election. Grant's wife, Julia, suggested he make a surprise appearance but he refused fearing how it would look. Could it have swung the delegates to him? Could this create a new precedent of no more than two terms consecutively?

Speaking of non-consecutive terms, Grover Cleveland did win three presidential elections but only the popular vote. If he had won his second term in 1888 is it possible he would have gone for a third in 1892? He also refused the nomination of the Gold Democrats in 1896, probably for the best since their meagre would have been embarrassing for a sitting President. Similar to Grant, Theodore Roosevelt had refused to run for a third consecutive term but came back after another election cycle. He had originally tried to be a power behind the throne before falling out with his successor. In a case of history rhyming, amongst the first to nominate Roosevelt for a third term as President was the son of the man drafted to stop that in 1880: James R. Garfield. William Howard Taft handily won the ballot at the 1912 Republican Convention, though Roosevelt and mates cried shenanigans. They made an attempt as a third party but that just threw the election to the Democrats and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt was later seen as a leading contender in 1918 for the 1920 Republican nomination despite declining health.

There is a slim chance that the 1920 Presidential election could have been between two men both seeking a third term. Since Woodrow Wilson also hoped to be the on the ballot for the Democrats. This was despite being incapacitated for most of 1919 by a stroke and his popularity nosediving. Ironically, he did outlive his immediate successor as President. Like Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge had only served part of his predecessors term when the prospect of a third was raised. Some thought he could walk the 1928 election, but after informing the media "I do not choose to run" there's debate to whether he was ardent in his lack of desire for another term or if he was waiting to be asked.

There would be two further instances of Presidents who acceded upon the death of their predecessor seeking two full terms of their own, but neither got very far. Despite the 22nd Amendment being passed, Harry S. Truman was exempted from its provisions as incumbent. He did seek early on to run again in 1952, but was talked out of it after poor polling in the New Hampshire primary. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson (by virtue of serving less than two years of John Kennedy's term) but a surprisingly strong showing by Eugene McCarthy (the only one to challenge Johnson in New Hampshire) and the entry of Robert Kennedy into the race caused Johnson to pull out when he realised he could not unite the party long enough to win the election.

Of these, I personally think Grant and Coolidge are the most plausible ones to win a nomination for a third term. Neither would have a smooth sailing. Garfield's eventual assassin, Charles J. Guiteau, originally supported Grant and might go down the same path of delusion he had with Garfield. Coolidge would occupy the White House at the onset of the Great Depression, and he would die historically during his would-be third term. Roosevelt is more difficult, but still possible, it all depends on winning the Republican nomination. This needs a chairman more inclined to Roosevelt than Taft at the National Convention. He'd likely win the resulting election, and that puts Roosevelt in the White House at the time the First World War kicked off OTL.
 
I’m honestly sort of curious about William Jennings Bryan. He has long struck me as a person who very much could have been a truly groundbreaking, radical President who completely rewrote political orthodoxy. Imagine the Depression of 1893 happening under a Republican administration, after, say Benjamin Harrison winning re-election in 1892. Could William Jennings Bryan, who was a mere 36 when nominated for the first time have gone on to seek a third term? Who knows…
 
I’m honestly sort of curious about William Jennings Bryan. He has long struck me as a person who very much could have been a truly groundbreaking, radical President who completely rewrote political orthodoxy. Imagine the Depression of 1893 happening under a Republican administration, after, say Benjamin Harrison winning re-election in 1892. Could William Jennings Bryan, who was a mere 36 when nominated for the first time have gone on to seek a third term? Who knows…
Bryan only barely won his House race in 1892, and with a Republican victory in the Presidential election, he’d surely lose his race. His loss in the 1894 Senate race also gave him enough of a profile to start his national speaking tour.

An easier way to get a three term Bryan presidency is to have him sit out 1908, and defeat a divided GOP in 1912. He’d almost certainly stay out of the Great War, and he could run for a third term as the stability candidate while Europe is engulfed in revolution and counter-revolutions.
 
If MacArthur doesn't push for the Yalu River and the Korean War ends with the South Korea in control of 2/3 of the peninsula by the end of 1950, Truman won't have a two-year-long conflict hanging over his head going into the 1952 election.
 
Can we look to any AH fiction in which we have longer serving US Presidents? The only one I can think of is Philip K. Dick is Dead, Alas (1987) by Michael Bishop in which Nixon keeps winning additional terms into the 1980s. I am sure there must be others.
 
I'm pretty sure Bryan came out strongly against the principle of third terms IOTL (Jefferson was his hero) but I can't remember the context and I can't find a source. Even putting that aside I'm hugely doubtful he could mount the political strength to pursue a hypothetical third term.

T. Roosevelt must be one of the if not the closest instance(s) we came to having three terms before FDR, given he clearly regretted saying he'd stick to two terms. Just have him not say that, basically.
 
Ronald Reagan runs in 1988 and then resigns halfway through after his diagnosis, perhaps. Or Grant 1876.

That said, TR was probably the only President who was 1) eligible, 2) popular enough to seek it and 2) healthy enough to do so. If he lived I could see him easily getting elected in 1920.
 
I'm pretty sure Bryan came out strongly against the principle of third terms IOTL (Jefferson was his hero) but I can't remember the context and I can't find a source. Even putting that aside I'm hugely doubtful he could mount the political strength to pursue a hypothetical third term.

T. Roosevelt must be one of the if not the closest instance(s) we came to having three terms before FDR, given he clearly regretted saying he'd stick to two terms. Just have him not say that, basically.
I still think Grant would’ve been likelier than Teddy Roosevelt, but it’s either of the two really.
 
RE: Lincoln, I think he was pretty upfront before his death about post-presidential plans and his health was not the best. So that's not going to happen I think unless some very weird reconstruction-period shit goes down.
 
T. Roosevelt must be one of the if not the closest instance(s) we came to having three terms before FDR, given he clearly regretted saying he'd stick to two terms. Just have him not say that, basically.
Yep, I was looking at him getting it in 1912 but the simplest route is just to have him not make that statement and run again in 1908.
I still think Grant would’ve been likelier than Teddy Roosevelt, but it’s either of the two really.
Of course if Grant does get it then it might make it easier for anyone who comes later. On the other hand, the Washington/Grant tradition might mutate into no more than two-terms consecutively.
 
Last edited:
Cup of tea?
To get out of parody for a second, one wonders how Barry would've done if we handwave the 22nd. IIRC his numbers were good but not 'holy shit he'd walk it' good (which people talk about Bill 2000 being, I don't know if that's true). But given Hill-Rod lost in part because her campaign assumed she'd get Obama-levels of minority turnout (and she just got Pretty Good, She's A Clinton levels of minority turnout), Obama probably would've been okay.

You have to make him want a third term though - knowing what we know now, 2016 feels like a pivotal election, but it didn't in the run-up until Trump was on the ballot. It's not France Has Just Fallen territory.

Trump vs Actual Obama would've been horrendous to watch, for lots of reasons.
 
To get out of parody for a second, one wonders how Barry would've done if we handwave the 22nd. IIRC his numbers were good but not 'holy shit he'd walk it' good (which people talk about Bill 2000 being, I don't know if that's true). But given Hill-Rod lost in part because her campaign assumed she'd get Obama-levels of minority turnout (and she just got Pretty Good, She's A Clinton levels of minority turnout), Obama probably would've been okay.

You have to make him want a third term though - knowing what we know now, 2016 feels like a pivotal election, but it didn't in the run-up until Trump was on the ballot. It's not France Has Just Fallen territory.

Trump vs Actual Obama would've been horrendous to watch, for lots of reasons.

I wonder how we handwave whatever deal was cut with Hillary if we also handwave the 22nd though.
 
which people talk about Bill 2000 being, I don't know if that's true
To digress from your main point to go onto Bill, at the time he indicated that had it not been for the 22nd, he would have run; on one hand, I do think there is a genuine part of him that does think he should have run if he could have, he was only 54, he was previously a three-term Governor, and his approvals was regularly running at a 40-50pp approval margin. On the other, the interview came after Gore lost, so of course a two-time winner like Clinton would have thought he could have beaten Bush if Gore nearly could have, and there has been some debate over if Clinton's polling could have survived him actually having to campaign on a record which included Lewinsky and if it was just buoyed by him being an affable lame duck incumbent, but then again, if voters could have overlooked Clinton's issues in '96 because the economy was good, they might have done the same for '00 (the early-00s recession didn't begin in earnest until just after Clinton gave that Rolling Stones interview about wanting to run again in '00).
 
Back
Top