CS presidential elections: 1867 - ...

[galileo-034]

I wanted to explore this topic for some times.

CS presidential election - November 1867

Background:
The 'Second Revolution' has been won with the armistice of 1865 (about a year after the election of McClellan).
The naval blockade has been lifted, even if the Union has decreed a trade embargo.
Western and northern Virginia, eastern Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, northern Arkansas, and several coastal strips in Carolinas and Florida remain under 'occupation'.
Kentucky and Missouri, despite being occupied, have still delegations in the Congress, which is not without triggering some electoral controversies.
There are no formal political parties; instead, several factions have appeared, mainly centered around state delegations and ambitious congressmen.
The capital is still Richmond.

Vice President A.H. Stephens (GA) / J. Longstreet (AL) ; 57 electoral votes (37.6 % of the popular vote)
Governor Z.B. Vance (NC) / Governor T.O. Moore (LA) ; 40 electoral votes (34.4 % of the popular vote)
J.C. Breckinridge (KY) / Governor P. Murrah (TX) ; 26 electoral votes (17.4 % of the popular vote)
P.G.T. Beauregard (LA)/ S.R. Mallory (FL) ; 8 electoral votes (9.8 % of the popular vote)
Minor candidates; 0 electoral votes (0.8 % of the popular vote)
　
None of the tickets receive a majority of the electoral vote (66).
# In the House of Representatives, the delegations of Florida and Louisiana join Vance while the delegations of Texas and Kentucky join Stephens; the delegation of Arkansas proves to be the key (32,8% to Stephens and 32,5% to Vance during the election) and finally pronounces for Stephens:
Vice President A.H. Stephens (GA) : 7 delegations
Governor Z.B. Vance (NC) : 6 delegations
　
# In the Senate, the Senators from Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Texas vote for Stephens, while the Senators from North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana vote for Vance. Arkansas become again the key state, but the election comes into a deadlock as both Longstreet and Moore get a senator from the state:
J. Longstreet (LA) : 13 Senators
Governor T.O. Moore (LA) : 13 Senators

Stephens, as Vice President, gives his casting vote to his running mate.
　
Final Result:
Elected 2nd President of the CSA

Alexander Hamilton Stephens
from Georgia

Elected 2nd Vice President of the CSA

James Longstreet
from Alabama

[Johnrankins]

Well, I have to say the map is pretty realistic, although I wonder how the CSA got Western TN at that late date. Still it is a lot more realistic than most. Kentucky and Missouri would not be under "occupation" if you mean that they won't have representation in Congress or won't be able to vote for POUS. Neither left the Union so both were represented during the entire Civil War and Reconstruction.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

Kentucky and Missouri would not be under "occupation" if you mean that they won't have representation in Congress or won't be able to vote for POUS. Neither left the Union so both were represented during the entire Civil War and Reconstruction.

Which means they would be under "occupation" from the Confederate perspective.

I'm also wondering how the Union got East Tennessee. There was a very valuable rail line running down the western panhandle of Virginia through Knoxville; the Confederates were defending that rather vigorously. They'd certainly demand that in a peace agreement.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Evan

Which means they would be under "occupation" from the Confederate perspective.

I'm also wondering how the Union got East Tennessee. There was a very valuable rail line running down the western panhandle of Virginia through Knoxville; the Confederates were defending that rather vigorously. They'd certainly demand that in a peace agreement.

The Union took that fairly early and their army is sitting on it. That isn't the question. The question is how the CSA is getting West TN that late.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The Union took that fairly early and their army is sitting on it. That isn't the question. The question is how the CSA is getting West TN that late.

A little more research shows me the Union occupied East Tennessee in late 1863. I suppose the PoD could be after that, which answers my question. As for West Tennessee... I'm guessing Hood's insane gallivant somehow succeeded?

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Evan

A little more research shows me the Union occupied East Tennessee in late 1863. I suppose the PoD could be after that, which answers my question. As for West Tennessee... I'm guessing Hood's insane gallivant somehow succeeded?

War ends in late 1865 which means the Union Army has been sitting on it for over two years as West TN fell earlier. As you said Hood's attack on TN was insane and had no chance of success.

[galileo-034]

I've made this map in a political perspective mainly, under some vague postulates, without a precise POD:
#Kentucky and Missouri had never really been under control of the Confederacy; but because of a few politicians of these states having proclaimed secession just before their occupation by Union armies, they were recognized by the Confederates as members of the Confederacy. It's I've understood.
#In this scenario, New Orleans has repulsed several attacks.
With less pressure at south, it has seemed obvious to me that this would greatly help Confederates in Tennessee. We can also consider many scenarios with more success at Shiloh, during the Heartland Offensive, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign...
In New Mexico, the Confederates are also more successfull and secure the Rio Grande as western border, however without being able to threaten Denver.
#There is no peace treaty, no formal recognition by the Union of the indepence of the CSA. This more like in North Korea and South Korea, technically still at war. The borders of the Confederacy are roughly the frontlines at the time of the signature of the Armistice.

[Cathcon1]

Pretty cool. I'd love to see where the main debates on foreign, social, and economic issues form and what parties eventually emerge.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by galileo-034

I've made this map in a political perspective mainly, under some vague postulates, without a precise POD:
#Kentucky and Missouri had never really been under control of the Confederacy; but because of a few politicians of these states having proclaimed secession just before their occupation by Union armies, they were recognized by the Confederates as members of the Confederacy. It's I've understood.
#In this scenario, New Orleans has repulsed several attacks.
With less pressure at south, it has seemed obvious to me that this would greatly help Confederates in Tennessee. We can also consider many scenarios with more success at Shiloh, during the Heartland Offensive, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign...
In New Mexico, the Confederates are also more successfull and secure the Rio Grande as western border, however without being able to threaten Denver.
#There is no peace treaty, no formal recognition by the Union of the indepence of the CSA. This more like in North Korea and South Korea, technically still at war. The borders of the Confederacy are roughly the frontlines at the time of the signature of the Armistice.

I didn't notice that before but there is NO chance that the CSA gains anything west of TX. It was nearly empty of population which means whoever gets the most troops there wins. That is a contest the Union wins EVERY TIME.

[Elsie93]

Well, I have to say the map is pretty realistic

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Elsie93

Well, I have to say the map is pretty realistic

One of the more realistic, yes. The only big problem I have with it is out west. The CSA had almost no offensive capability and could not hope to hold territory that far west.

[Elfwine]

Not to mention that if West Tennessee is in Confederate hands, there's little chance of a Union offense into East Tennessee - logistics are a bitch.

It's not impossible, just not likely to be done by any Union general.

[galileo-034]

When I've drawn the border for Tennessee, I've thought to something like: Union conquers the whole Tennessee first, then towards the end of the war, only western Tennessee is reconquered by the Confederates (free to use ressources they had not IOTL, as New Orleans has resisted to several attempts of conquest).
At west, I imagined the scenario with the supply train of the Confederates being not destroyed at Glorieta Pass. The territory of Colorado could be threatened for some times, but the campaign would end into a stalemate in Arizona, with the Confederates enjoying the Rio Grande as supply route.

[Elfwine]

The problem is that the Confederates in New Mexico are so far from anything like a friendly supply base that having the Rio Grande's help doesn't exactly matter.

The Tennessee thing - odd, but not necessarily impossible.

[SPJ]

Originally Posted by galileo-034

　
Final Result:
Elected 2nd President of the CSA

Alexander Hamilton Stephens
from Georgia

Elected 2nd Vice President of the CSA

Joseph Eggleston Johnston

from Virginia

Shoot! Here I was hoping for Vance.

Say is it okay if I take some of your ideas from this TL and use it for one I'm working on? I was inspired by another thread that I believe you had started before that listed Vance as a moderate and I've actually been considering having Vance become president in my ATL, but still have few ideas what long term repercussions that would provide.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Not to mention that if West Tennessee is in Confederate hands, there's little chance of a Union offense into East Tennessee - logistics are a bitch.

It's not impossible, just not likely to be done by any Union general.

Could you give some more reasons as to why? I figured that keeping the eastern parts of Tenn. would be rather easy for the Union b/c of the high sympathy they had from the people in that region. Plus I thought that the Appalachias would be a benefit for them as well.

[galileo-034]

Say is it okay if I take some of your ideas from this TL and use it for one I'm working on? I was inspired by another thread that I believe you had started before that listed Vance as a moderate and I've actually been considering having Vance become president in my ATL, but still have few ideas what long term repercussions that would provide.

It's okay.

[Nytram01]

Originally Posted by galileo-034

Elected 2nd Vice President of the CSA

Joseph Eggleston Johnston
from Virginia

Johnston would not have entered politics that soon after the war. He was, above all esle, a military man and his whole life had been pretty much apethetic to the issues of politics. The only reason he entered politics in OTL was because his surrender agreement meant that he could never be part of the military again.

In a Confederate victorious secnario Johnston would remain with the army and become the top ranking general in the country in due course. He might eventually seek political office but it wasn't in his nature to put politics before military affairs.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by SPJ

Could you give some more reasons as to why? I figured that keeping the eastern parts of Tenn. would be rather easy for the Union b/c of the high sympathy they had from the people in that region. Plus I thought that the Appalachias would be a benefit for them as well.

Mountains. Lack of roads and/or railroads.

Union generals for the first half of the war plead that excuse until it got old - but it's very valid, especially with western-middle Tennessee taken back by the Confederates.

Nytram: For some reason that gives me the image of him as a Confederate Sherman - the whole "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." - if phrased a little less roughly.

[Nytram01]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Nytram: For some reason that gives me the image of him as a Confederate Sherman - the whole "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." - if phrased a little less roughly.

It might have been a similar situation if the Confederacy had won its independence. After all Johnston was a committed military man who had dedicated his entire adult life to the army, cared little for politics or most politicians and was never happy in any other profession. Mrs. Lydia Johnston once expressed the view that she could not see Johnston in any other profession save that of arms simply because he had no training or experiance in anything other than military service.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

It might have been a similar situation if the Confederacy had won its independence. After all Johnston was a committed military man who had dedicated his entire adult life to the army, cared little for politics or most politicians and was never happy in any other profession. Mrs. Lydia Johnston once expressed the view that she could not see Johnston in any other profession save that of arms simply because he had no training or experiance in anything other than military service.

This explains a lot.

But that aside, if not Johnston, who?