What if President Custer 1876-1884?

[thezerech]

So, I'll clarify totally. I'm writing a TL with the intention of U.S entry into the Central powers. The Second Mexican Empire exists in 1914, and the US and terrible relations with the U.K over Venezuala and Canada. This thread isn't to figure out how Custer survives the battle of the LBH, because butterflies will make that easy. I'm here to ask about what a Presidents Custer's policies would be.

I don't actually know that much about this era of American History, so help and resources would be appreciated. Would President Custer actually do many different things than Hayes? He's a democrat, what democratic policies would he implement in '76. How would he, a Union Army veteran, Democrat deal with Reconstruction?

 

[Not Henry G.]

He would declare war on Spain in 1882

 

[Lalli]

He would declare war on Spain in 1882

Why? President can't even do that alone.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

I assume you actually mean 1877 to 1885. And even then I am not even sure that Little Big Horn would be enough to make him that famous to get to the Presidency....

Lets see, June 25-26 was LBH in Montana....

Republican convention is June 14-16, in Ohio, so thats out.

Democratic Convention is June 27-29 in Missouri,

He could be added in as an absentee, but I somehow doubt it, as he really had no political support. LBH victory and survival will make him famous, but in less than a day or two, he would be on clean-up duty in an area with no telegrams it would probably take weeks for the news to get out and by then the Dem convention would already have decided by the time That is really the big problem, he was pretty much sent out to Montana because he had pissed off the politicians. He is most likely not getting near the Presidency until probably 1881 term at the earliest. And he would be 40/41 then. ..

.....


Having said all of that though, Custer was and is to the core a glory hound. A perfect rival of JEB stuart and a clear subordinate of the McClellan school. Very very flashy in substance. So the odd chance would be that Custer would do something politically stupid and inept in his Presidency and most likely become a lame duck for most of his term would not be surprising.

That said he was a military man, so he would most likely try and advance military tech and rifles and equipment...

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Why? President can't even do that alone.

He's referring to a novel by Robert Conroy titled "1882: Custer in Chains". In that case he does go and attack Spain, to get Cuba. I won't spoil it if you haven't read it.

1876 is still too close to LBH for him to have any chance to get ready for any elections. He, as far as I'm aware, was a Republican, so his party is decided. As mentioned above, the convention was past. 1880 is the earliest he could possibly have managed, and even then, would LBH have enough of an impact? Maybe if he captured some famous Sioux leader in battle or something, otherwise I doubt it.

What would his presidency look like? A bit of a shambles, certainly. Probably not quite to the extreme (if you can call it that) of Conroy's work, but certainly headed in that direction. Replace 'Spain' with 'Indians', 'Cuba' with 'some useless place near Oklahoma' and you're good to go.

- BNC

 

[Arkenfolm]

What would his presidency look like? A bit of a shambles, certainly. Probably not quite to the extreme (if you can call it that) of Conroy's work, but certainly headed in that direction. Replace 'Spain' with 'Indians', 'Cuba' with 'some useless place near Oklahoma' and you're good to go.

- BNC

You'd have to be as inept as, well, Custer to lose the Indian Wars at that point, so the military would have to find someone as horrible as him to make any real scandal on that front.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

He's referring to a novel by Robert Conroy titled "1882: Custer in Chains". In that case he does go and attack Spain, to get Cuba. I won't spoil it if you haven't read it.

1876 is still too close to LBH for him to have any chance to get ready for any elections. He, as far as I'm aware, was a Republican, so his party is decided. As mentioned above, the convention was past. 1880 is the earliest he could possibly have managed, and even then, would LBH have enough of an impact? Maybe if he captured some famous Sioux leader in battle or something, otherwise I doubt it.

What would his presidency look like? A bit of a shambles, certainly. Probably not quite to the extreme (if you can call it that) of Conroy's work, but certainly headed in that direction. Replace 'Spain' with 'Indians', 'Cuba' with 'some useless place near Oklahoma' and you're good to go.

- BNC

You'd have to be as inept as, well, Custer to lose the Indian Wars at that point, so the military would have to find someone as horrible as him to make any real scandal on that front.

My understanding was that he was a Democrat in a Republican dominated army....and apparently he supported Tilden. Anyway, regardless, he will only be 36 years old in 1876, and its doubtful they would nominate him anyway. Sure, they nominated Bryan in 1896 and 1900 and wherever else at about the same age, but Bryan had an amazing way with rhetoric that Custer most likely didn't have.

Yes, Custer with a victory at LBH most likely ended 20 years of consistent Indian wars, but that would fade in time. Especially if you compare that achievement with Grant, Taylor and Washington, who were all military men who became President. ANd having said that, Custer is well known for being indecisive, disruptive and rather inept. He was court-martialed twice and almost dismissed from the army. And for better or worse his own subordinates didn't even like him as a leader. THen again, neither did his own superiors like him especially is Montana is in the ass-end of nowhere away from any form of civilization. The territory of Montana is LARGE, Huge. It was only a fluke that he sound Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in the first place.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

One advantage Custer has in the event of a decent victory is the fact that he will ensure his victory is well covered in the press. Probably to the extent that everyone in America is aware of the guy. Custer would certainly use the press as much as possible if he were trying to become president. Quite similar to that tactic Trump is using now, so obviously it has a chance of working.
I don't think Custer is quite as much a fool as everyone believes. Sure, he could have done better with the Gatlings, and his strategy consisted almost entirely of 'charge at the enemy and see what happens'. However, he could just have been slightly more extreme than Patton - after all, there was that soldier slapping incident, attacking Metz head on, boldly accusing the Russians of stuff etc. I'm sure people would not 100% shut down a case for Patton being president (I saw a thread on the post-1900 forum a day or two ago), so we can't really do that with Custer.

You'd have to be as inept as, well, Custer to lose the Indian Wars at that point, so the military would have to find someone as horrible as him to make any real scandal on that front.

Custer wouldn't lose that fight, but he would certainly end up provoking something. He won't go after Britain or France, but the Indians would be quite logical.

- BNC

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

One advantage Custer has in the event of a decent victory is the fact that he will ensure his victory is well covered in the press. Probably to the extent that everyone in America is aware of the guy. Custer would certainly use the press as much as possible if he were trying to become president. Quite similar to that tactic Trump is using now, so obviously it has a chance of working.

QFT. He was rather renowned for getting his name in the papers, but he has no chance in 1876. 1880 is his best bet for a Dem convention, but again that still requires him to have his name in the papers. And its a deliberate repudiation of Grant and the Military that both parties in 1876 went for non-military men (even if both had served in the civil war, they were politicians for over a decade).

I don't think Custer is quite as much a fool as everyone believes.

True, but his record in life was that he was a daredevil, and he was up for court-martial twice and nearly dismissed from the army. And his testifying in front of congress was seen as a mistake, hence why he was sent away to Montana where he could do little damage.

Little Big Horn could restore some of his reputation, but it depends on how much recognition he has four years down the track.

Sure, he could have done better with the Gatlings, and his strategy consisted almost entirely of 'charge at the enemy and see what happens'. However, he could just have been slightly more extreme than Patton - after all, there was that soldier slapping incident, attacking Metz head on, boldly accusing the Russians of stuff etc. I'm sure people would not 100% shut down a case for Patton being president (I saw a thread on the post-1900 forum a day or two ago), so we can't really do that with Custer.

An analogy here is that Custer sent Reno and Benteen off on wild goose chases to attack both flanks of the camp, but they both kinda cocked up - not actually really their fault though as the Sioux completely outmaneuvered them and trapped them on a hill on the other side of the battlefield. And all three of them detested each other.

Custer wouldn't lose that fight, but he would certainly end up provoking something. He won't go after Britain or France, but the Indians would be quite logical.

It certainly is a question of what he would do. I mean, LBH was essentially a clean-up operation. And most Indian Wars take months, if not years. Montana is vast and on the border of Canada. The Sioux/Cheyenne camp was larger than Custer expected and believed, and at best even if he wins at LBH, he is still going to be there for months if not a couple of years securing the region.

I guess you could say that he may bring an end to the wars earlier, maybe an earlier Wounded Knee analogue, make more Indian Reservations

 

[thezerech]

QFT. He was rather renowned for getting his name in the papers, but he has no chance in 1876. 1880 is his best bet for a Dem convention, but again that still requires him to have his name in the papers. And its a deliberate repudiation of Grant and the Military that both parties in 1876 went for non-military men (even if both had served in the civil war, they were politicians for over a decade).



True, but his record in life was that he was a daredevil, and he was up for court-martial twice and nearly dismissed from the army. And his testifying in front of congress was seen as a mistake, hence why he was sent away to Montana where he could do little damage.

Little Big Horn could restore some of his reputation, but it depends on how much recognition he has four years down the track.




An analogy here is that Custer sent Reno and Benteen off on wild goose chases to attack both flanks of the camp, but they both kinda cocked up - not actually really their fault though as the Sioux completely outmaneuvered them and trapped them on a hill on the other side of the battlefield. And all three of them detested each other.




It certainly is a question of what he would do. I mean, LBH was essentially a clean-up operation. And most Indian Wars take months, if not years. Montana is vast and on the border of Canada. The Sioux/Cheyenne camp was larger than Custer expected and believed, and at best even if he wins at LBH, he is still going to be there for months if not a couple of years securing the region.

I guess you could say that he may bring an end to the wars earlier, maybe an earlier Wounded Knee analogue, make more Indian Reservations

Essentially, I was just wondering what his policies would be. Considering I have two big changes, a more successful Fenian raid into Canada and the victory of the Second Mexican Empire, I imagine I could move TTL's equivalent of the LBH earlier in 1874 or 1875, change U.S army size and equipment because there is a much more active threat of war with the U.K and E. of Mexico. Him winning a big victory against the indians in Montana is the easy part. I was just wondering what his policies would be. I understand he was a McClellanite democrat, but also very Jingoistic. I was wondering specifically in regards to reconstruction as something that would have a long lasting effect on U.S history. I imagine him improving the U.S Navy.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Essentially, I was just wondering what his policies would be. Considering I have two big changes, a more successful Fenian raid into Canada and the victory of the Second Mexican Empire, I imagine I could move TTL's equivalent of the LBH earlier in 1874 or 1875, change U.S army size and equipment because there is a much more active threat of war with the U.K and E. of Mexico. Him winning a big victory against the indians in Montana is the easy part. I was just wondering what his policies would be. I understand he was a McClellanite democrat, but also very Jingoistic. I was wondering specifically in regards to reconstruction as something that would have a long lasting effect on U.S history. I imagine him improving the U.S Navy.

He is a military man, so him improving the army and navy would be a definite. Custer approving/supporting the Fenian raids, wow, Bold, especially if you want a deliberate Anglo-American was in the 1880s....

Again though, 1876 election was a repudiation of military men, bth parties were clear on that. Hypothetically keeping Custer until 1880, and after about 20 years of republican rule, him running as a Democrat would be a bigger impact, especially as 1876 was corrupt as hell with the results. And the man also had a lot of trouble with his army superiors and politicians. Hell, pretty sure Sheridan was really the only guy who like him in that regards, because he was a daredevil and a a flair for the dramatic. Also, if he wins at LBH in 1876, he could use that a a jumping point to be Governor of Michigan or a Senator from Michigan, apparently he was asked but he said no.

But even to that end, he is only 35-36 in 1876, That being said though, the Constitution is clear that you can be 35 when you run for President - so it is possible. I don't really see anyone picking him as President because of his youth, and if you look at the people who were picked for President, they were all older and widely more experienced. Seasoned veteran. Grant being the exception at 46 because he was the most popular man in the Union and had accomplished one of the most monumental tasks in US history.

 

[thezerech]

He is a military man, so him improving the army and navy would be a definite. Custer approving/supporting the Fenian raids, wow, Bold, especially if you want a deliberate Anglo-American was in the 1880s....

Again though, 1876 election was a repudiation of military men, bth parties were clear on that. Hypothetically keeping Custer until 1880, and after about 20 years of republican rule, him running as a Democrat would be a bigger impact, especially as 1876 was corrupt as hell with the results. And the man also had a lot of trouble with his army superiors and politicians. Hell, pretty sure Sheridan was really the only guy who like him in that regards, because he was a daredevil and a a flair for the dramatic. Also, if he wins at LBH in 1876, he could use that a a jumping point to be Governor of Michigan or a Senator from Michigan, apparently he was asked but he said no.

But even to that end, he is only 35-36 in 1876, That being said though, the Constitution is clear that you can be 35 when you run for President - so it is possible. I don't really see anyone picking him as President because of his youth, and if you look at the people who were picked for President, they were all older and widely more experienced. Seasoned veteran. Grant being the exception at 46 because he was the most popular man in the Union and had accomplished one of the most monumental tasks in US history.

Fenian Raid in question will be the largest OTL raid, in 1866, essentially having go them fairly far, but ultimately and inevitably losing steam before the walls of Montreal. Causing very bad Anglo-American relations, in 1866. This I think could butterfly some important events to make LBH very different. Overall the goal of the TL, is the U.S joining in the Central Powers, but I don't really want things to be to different before 1914. With the exception of the Second Mexican Empire and the poor Anglo-American relations. I thought a Custer administration would be an interesting and fun thing to write. I've read about the little big horn, but nothing about his life after that, for obvious reasons. So I don't really know what his policies would be. Even if he is elected in 1880, what would he do in the White House? Would he end reconstruction, try to buy Cuba? I see him letting his VP making alot of domestic/economic policies, while Custer raises public support handles military and foreign affairs.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Fenian Raid in question will be the largest OTL raid, in 1866, essentially having go them fairly far, but ultimately and inevitably losing steam before the walls of Montreal. Causing very bad Anglo-American relations, in 1866. This I think could butterfly some important events to make LBH very different. Overall the goal of the TL, is the U.S joining in the Central Powers, but I don't really want things to be to different before 1914. With the exception of the Second Mexican Empire and the poor Anglo-American relations. I thought a Custer administration would be an interesting and fun thing to write. I've read about the little big horn, but nothing about his life after that, for obvious reasons. So I don't really know what his policies would be. Even if he is elected in 1880, what would he do in the White House? Would he end reconstruction, try to buy Cuba? I see him letting his VP making alot of domestic/economic policies, while Custer raises public support handles military and foreign affairs.

If you want a CP USA, you don't need to go back as far as 1880. America in 1914 was friendly enough with Germany that an alliance is possible. Sinking the Lusitania and the Zimmermann telegram busted that hope, but if you avoid those two events, and probably anti sub warfare in general, it could be accomplished with some kind of agreement like 'we promise to let you keep all this stuff we once had a claim on, America is the greatest power in that part of the world, England sucks and we'll give you some money to join'. Replacing Wilhelm II with a better diplomat would of course be a good idea.

In the 1860s, Amerca-England relations weren't very good (England helping the CSA a little with shipbuilding, memories of 1776 and 1812). A war could conceivably occur between the two powers, especially if someone decides Canada is somehow against the idea of Monroe doctrine.

- BNC

 

[thezerech]

If you want a CP USA, you don't need to go back as far as 1880. America in 1914 was friendly enough with Germany that an alliance is possible. Sinking the Lusitania and the Zimmermann telegram busted that hope, but if you avoid those two events, and probably anti sub warfare in general, it could be accomplished with some kind of agreement like 'we promise to let you keep all this stuff we once had a claim on, America is the greatest power in that part of the world, England sucks and we'll give you some money to join'. Replacing Wilhelm II with a better diplomat would of course be a good idea.

In the 1860s, Amerca-England relations weren't very good (England helping the CSA a little with shipbuilding, memories of 1776 and 1812). A war could conceivably occur between the two powers, especially if someone decides Canada is somehow against the idea of Monroe doctrine.

- BNC

Yeah, I don't see the United States going to war with the U.K because no Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram. There is no way, they'd stay out, or even support Germany but war, impossible. While the USA in the CP is the main goal/focal point, it's not the only one. However I don't the United States realistically going to war with Britain without a POD pre 1900, barring some major luck/coincidence.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Yeah, I don't see the United States going to war with the U.K because no Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram. There is no way, they'd stay out, or even support Germany but war, impossible. While the USA in the CP is the main goal/focal point, it's not the only one. However I don't the United States realistically going to war with Britain without a POD pre 1900, barring some major luck/coincidence.

Well, the Venezuela Crisis of 1895 or even the Spanish-American War may begin an Anglo-American war.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Yeah, I don't see the United States going to war with the U.K because no Lusitania and Zimmerman telegram. There is no way, they'd stay out, or even support Germany but war, impossible. While the USA in the CP is the main goal/focal point, it's not the only one. However I don't the United States realistically going to war with Britain without a POD pre 1900, barring some major luck/coincidence.

The USA at that time had been at war with England twice (1776 and 1812), and nearly fought them again in the Civil War. They also had a decently sized German community of approx. 6 million out of a total population of close to 100 million, which is similar to the number of blacks there at the time.

'Major luck/coincidence' defined the event that pulled the US into the Entente camp in the first place, so it is possible this would happen the other way.

From the perspective of Germany, the only thing they need to get the US to do is to close, or even limit, their ports to the British. A lot of Britain's food came from the US, and they were pushed to the brink of starvation even so. Knocking even 10% of that off would probably count as a CP victory, which would almost have the same effect as USA joining the war outright.

- BNC

 

[thezerech]

Well, the Venezuela Crisis of 1895 or even the Spanish-American War may begin an Anglo-American war.

Yeah, I want to avoid a large Anglo-American war before 1914. Though I also want to help make the U.S more Germanophilic. Essentially I think I have it down in general fairly well. The thing is, aside from events in Mexico, I haven't changed much. I'd like to add something interesting to the U.S political scene, and what the hell is Custer if not interesting? Though to be honest, I still don't know what any of his policies would be... What issues where there in the 1870s and 1880s? Aside from reconstruction? I know more about the 1860s, and the 1890s than this period.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Yeah, I want to avoid a large Anglo-American war before 1914. Though I also want to help make the U.S more Germanophilic. Essentially I think I have it down in general fairly well. The thing is, aside from events in Mexico, I haven't changed much. I'd like to add something interesting to the U.S political scene, and what the hell is Custer if not interesting? Though to be honest, I still don't know what any of his policies would be... What issues where there in the 1870s and 1880s? Aside from reconstruction? I know more about the 1860s, and the 1890s than this period.

The 1870s and 1880s were mostly the beginning of admitting the Mid west to the Union as states, building lots of railroads, Scramble for Africa (although USA had a limited role), finishing up the Indian Wars, trying to patch things up a little with the British after the Civil War. Those are all I could think of anyway.

As for Germany, it only really became a nation in 1871, and was still trying to sort itself out internally. There was an AustriaHungary-Russia-Germany pact for a while (1879?), and of course Bismarck trying to make Germany important with the 1884 conference.

- BNC

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

The 1870s and 1880s were mostly the beginning of admitting the Mid west to the Union as states, building lots of railroads, Scramble for Africa (although USA had a limited role), finishing up the Indian Wars, trying to patch things up a little with the British after the Civil War. Those are all I could think of anyway.

As for Germany, it only really became a nation in 1871, and was still trying to sort itself out internally. There was an AustriaHungary-Russia-Germany pact for a while (1879?), and of course Bismarck trying to make Germany important with the 1884 conference.

- BNC

Pretty much. for the second half of the 19th century the US was practically more or less expanding and consolidating control of the West. Not much else.

 

[thezerech]

Pretty much. for the second half of the 19th century the US was practically more or less expanding and consolidating control of the West. Not much else.

So just Custer consolidating the U.S? Okay, I won't make his policies that different from OTL then, aside from some military reforms and anti corruption measures. Who would make a good running mate?