[List of US and CS Candidates for President/VP in TL-191 moved to more recent post]
Last edited:
TL-191: Filling the Gaps
- Thread starter Craigo
- Start date
bguy
Donor
If Sherman had been the Vice President wouldn't that have been mentioned when Clements met Colonel Sherman?
I still think Bryan makes a lot more sense as a Republican candidate than a Socialist one.
It seems like it would have been mentioned in one of Flora's POV chapters if Zuckerman had once ran for Vice President.
Agreed that Jackson seems an unlikely president. How about E. Porter Alexander as an alternative?
All fair points. I don't know enough about Alexander to say if he would be a good fit.
Confederates States presidential election, 1879
Early Confederates had been proud of their country’s lack of political parties, believing that it demonstrated a national unity and will that was lacking the weak and divided United States.
However, two consecutive chaotic elections had changed a lot of minds. In 1867, the shift of a few thousand votes in a couple of states would have either elected a man who had sworn not to serve, or thrown it to the House of Representatives, which is exactly what happened in the multi-sided contest of 1873.
The observant could already see that factions, if not outright parties, were already forming. Both Zebulon Vance of North Carolina and Joseph Brown of Georgia had run in fiery opposition to the landed aristocracy which dominated the Confederacy. Their combined totals would only have been about 20%, but those votes were heavily concentrated, and an “opposition” ticket would have won Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, while running second in Alabama, Virginia, and Kentucky - a viable route to the Gray House.
President Fitzhugh Lee - who had presided over a period of demographic, economic, and geographic expansion (the latter thanks to the purchase of Cuba from Spain in 1876), was universally beloved near the end of his term, despite its inauspicious beginnings, and it was commonly wished that he could run again. But in his absence, the usual array of worthies appeared ready to fight amongst themselves once more. They planned on the usual Confederate method of state nominating conventions, which in 1873 had only served to create regional candidacies.
The Cuban rebellion of 1878-1879 complicated matters even more. Though it was quickly crushed by an Army contingent under John Hunt Morgan, it produced one significant casualty: Major General Zebulon Vance, appointed to command by Lee in an act of solidarity, contracted malaria shortly after landing at Guantanamo Bay, and died without ever leading his troops in battle. Now the opposition vote had one candidate: Joseph Brown, the fierce protector of Georgia’s liberties.
All of this weighed heavily on Governor James Longstreet. During his own campaign in Georgia he had not needed to face Brown, who had been sent to the Senate, and had instead defeated his former subordinate, John Gordon. Longstreet of course had presidential ambitions himself, but so did Governor Goode, General Morgan, Senator Semmes, Senator Hampton, and others. General-in-Chief Thomas Jackson appeared to be the only Confederate with no presidential designs at all. It seemed inevitable to Longstreet that the great men of the Confederacy would destroy themselves and elect Brown.
Any direct call for a national party to unite against Brown would have instantly brought unwanted attention down upon Longstreet and ruined his candidacy; so in good military fashion, he outflanked the problem. He asked his political supporter Richard Peters, the founder of Atlanta and one of the Confederacy’s wealthiest men, to suggest to James DeBow, editor of the influential DeBow’s Review, that their young country hold a convention of leading men for the “promotion of industry.” DeBow, who had spearheaded a similar convention thirty years before, jumped at the idea; it was even he suggested that Atlanta be the host, just as Longstreet had intended.
With the call echoed by such men as Kirby Smith, James Sloss, George Rains, and Joseph Anderson - the who’s who of Confederate industry - the Confederate Convention of Commerce met in Atlanta during the final week of June. It was a rousing success for the erstwhile “Whiggish” element of the South, who passed resolutions calling on Congress to raise the tariff from its current rate of 10%, fund railroad construction, and to charter a national bank.
The master stroke came on the final day of the convention. Peters, the chairman recognized Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Senator from Mississippi, who moved that the convention give its thanks and endorsement to its gracious host, James Longstreet (Lamar’s cousin by marriage). The happy delegates passed the motion by acclamation, news of the success spread quickly, and by the time the state nominating conventions began to assembly a few weeks later, Longstreet had become the man of the hour (and had burnished reputation as a cunning political warrior).
He won the state conventions in Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and his home state of Georgia (defeating Brown). Mississippi was won by his proxy, Lamar, while favorite sons Semmes, Hampton, and Goode gracefully declined to stand for President. Only Morgan, military governor of Cuba, and Brown appeared on ballots against Longstreet in every state:
James Longstreet/L.Q.C. Lamar: 52%, 84 electoral votes
Joseph Brown/Isham Harris: 31%, 51 electoral votes
John Hunt Morgan/John Barbour: 17%, 0 electoral votes
The previous election had divided the South into upper, lower, and western, but Longstreet and Brown (who had belatedly been nominated by a Nashville convention of “Liberals” opposed to centralized power) managed to win six states each, roughly divided between the modernizing east and the traditional west.
Longstreet had won a majority in every one of his states except Alabama, and those five themselves brought an electoral majority. But the opposition vote had showed surprising strength against his “Whig” platform, and without the benefit of his sterling war record, it’s doubtful that the forces of industrialization would have carried the day.
Early Confederates had been proud of their country’s lack of political parties, believing that it demonstrated a national unity and will that was lacking the weak and divided United States.
However, two consecutive chaotic elections had changed a lot of minds. In 1867, the shift of a few thousand votes in a couple of states would have either elected a man who had sworn not to serve, or thrown it to the House of Representatives, which is exactly what happened in the multi-sided contest of 1873.
The observant could already see that factions, if not outright parties, were already forming. Both Zebulon Vance of North Carolina and Joseph Brown of Georgia had run in fiery opposition to the landed aristocracy which dominated the Confederacy. Their combined totals would only have been about 20%, but those votes were heavily concentrated, and an “opposition” ticket would have won Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, while running second in Alabama, Virginia, and Kentucky - a viable route to the Gray House.
President Fitzhugh Lee - who had presided over a period of demographic, economic, and geographic expansion (the latter thanks to the purchase of Cuba from Spain in 1876), was universally beloved near the end of his term, despite its inauspicious beginnings, and it was commonly wished that he could run again. But in his absence, the usual array of worthies appeared ready to fight amongst themselves once more. They planned on the usual Confederate method of state nominating conventions, which in 1873 had only served to create regional candidacies.
The Cuban rebellion of 1878-1879 complicated matters even more. Though it was quickly crushed by an Army contingent under John Hunt Morgan, it produced one significant casualty: Major General Zebulon Vance, appointed to command by Lee in an act of solidarity, contracted malaria shortly after landing at Guantanamo Bay, and died without ever leading his troops in battle. Now the opposition vote had one candidate: Joseph Brown, the fierce protector of Georgia’s liberties.
All of this weighed heavily on Governor James Longstreet. During his own campaign in Georgia he had not needed to face Brown, who had been sent to the Senate, and had instead defeated his former subordinate, John Gordon. Longstreet of course had presidential ambitions himself, but so did Governor Goode, General Morgan, Senator Semmes, Senator Hampton, and others. General-in-Chief Thomas Jackson appeared to be the only Confederate with no presidential designs at all. It seemed inevitable to Longstreet that the great men of the Confederacy would destroy themselves and elect Brown.
Any direct call for a national party to unite against Brown would have instantly brought unwanted attention down upon Longstreet and ruined his candidacy; so in good military fashion, he outflanked the problem. He asked his political supporter Richard Peters, the founder of Atlanta and one of the Confederacy’s wealthiest men, to suggest to James DeBow, editor of the influential DeBow’s Review, that their young country hold a convention of leading men for the “promotion of industry.” DeBow, who had spearheaded a similar convention thirty years before, jumped at the idea; it was even he suggested that Atlanta be the host, just as Longstreet had intended.
With the call echoed by such men as Kirby Smith, James Sloss, George Rains, and Joseph Anderson - the who’s who of Confederate industry - the Confederate Convention of Commerce met in Atlanta during the final week of June. It was a rousing success for the erstwhile “Whiggish” element of the South, who passed resolutions calling on Congress to raise the tariff from its current rate of 10%, fund railroad construction, and to charter a national bank.
The master stroke came on the final day of the convention. Peters, the chairman recognized Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Senator from Mississippi, who moved that the convention give its thanks and endorsement to its gracious host, James Longstreet (Lamar’s cousin by marriage). The happy delegates passed the motion by acclamation, news of the success spread quickly, and by the time the state nominating conventions began to assembly a few weeks later, Longstreet had become the man of the hour (and had burnished reputation as a cunning political warrior).
He won the state conventions in Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and his home state of Georgia (defeating Brown). Mississippi was won by his proxy, Lamar, while favorite sons Semmes, Hampton, and Goode gracefully declined to stand for President. Only Morgan, military governor of Cuba, and Brown appeared on ballots against Longstreet in every state:
James Longstreet/L.Q.C. Lamar: 52%, 84 electoral votes
Joseph Brown/Isham Harris: 31%, 51 electoral votes
John Hunt Morgan/John Barbour: 17%, 0 electoral votes
The previous election had divided the South into upper, lower, and western, but Longstreet and Brown (who had belatedly been nominated by a Nashville convention of “Liberals” opposed to centralized power) managed to win six states each, roughly divided between the modernizing east and the traditional west.
Longstreet had won a majority in every one of his states except Alabama, and those five themselves brought an electoral majority. But the opposition vote had showed surprising strength against his “Whig” platform, and without the benefit of his sterling war record, it’s doubtful that the forces of industrialization would have carried the day.
Last edited:
As for Lincoln, I have him running in 1884 because A) There's precedent in Van Buren and Fillmore for one-term Presidents to run as third-party candidates, and B) He's clearly the most distinguished and famous Socialist, many of whom will be foreign-born Germans and Scandinavians.
Last edited:
And he's utterly hated by many. His running in 1884 might kill off the Socialist Party in its cradle.
He's divisive, certainly. The Democrats hate him of course, but it never seems like his intent was to go straight for the Democrats - he wanted first to take over the GOP, and after that to peel off its supporters (and the Socialists did indeed manage to take about a third of the GOP voters).
By 1884 the Radicals have had four straight doughface Presidents and another, much more recent failure in Blaine - by contrast, old Abe probably doesn't look so bad to many. And many younger voters and immigrants frankly aren't going to care so much about a war that happened two decades ago, when the US just lost another two years before the election.
Honestly, Blaine is the only President who seems universally despised by the GW period, and I included Lincoln '84 as a sign of his (partial) rehabilitation.
(What was the name of Lincoln's German partner, btw?)
Good job with the 1879 election update, Craigo. Helped me to fill in the list a bit, too.
I think the strongest argument against Lincoln's running for the Socialists in 1884 is that it was never mentioned in the later books. Something like that almost certainly would have come up.
Friedrich Adolph Sorge was Lincoln's German partner.
As for Stonewall Jackson in 1885, I still don't buy it. If Turtledove's characterization of the man in How Few Remain is at all accurate, he wouldn't touch a run for office with a ten-foot pole.
I think the strongest argument against Lincoln's running for the Socialists in 1884 is that it was never mentioned in the later books. Something like that almost certainly would have come up.
Friedrich Adolph Sorge was Lincoln's German partner.
As for Stonewall Jackson in 1885, I still don't buy it. If Turtledove's characterization of the man in How Few Remain is at all accurate, he wouldn't touch a run for office with a ten-foot pole.
Last edited:
How about J.E.B. Stuart as a possible Confederate candidate? After all, his ITL death in 1864 has been totally butterflied away by the POD. He probably had the ego to run, yet also the sense of service to his state and nation.
And he always looked so dandy with that ostrich feather in his hat!!
And he always looked so dandy with that ostrich feather in his hat!!
I've never been in the "If it happened HT would have mentioned it" camp. Being President (or running for President) is going to be mentioned at every chance if that's the singular accomplishment of your lifetime, but if there is something else in your life which is just as or more notable, like Grant or Eisenhower, then it's understandable that fifty years later your presidency will not figure into every single conversation about your life.
Daniel Webster and Henry Clay are good examples - they ran for President a half dozen times between them, but they are far better known for other things - founding the Whigs, the Compromises, beating the Devil, etc.
I tend to take the view that HT's viewpoint characters are not like us - they don't know every single detail of American history, just the broad outlines. And calling Abraham Lincoln "the founder of the Socialist Party" is just broad enough to give his role justice without specifically noting that he was a standard bearer as well.
As for Jackson - again, the portrayal in that book is not static, as the final chapters clearly show him not only evolving politically, but Longstreet hints that he favors Jackson as well.
And there is a pragmatic reason - in The Guns of the South, HT at least had the decency to have the story's time travel provide the impetus for abolition. HFR, on the other hand, has manumission being shoved into the story without regard for whether it actually made sense. (There used to be an excellent essay online about how absurd it would be for a proud martial society to abolish their peculiar institution because foreign powers insisted upon it.)
Because it's so unrealistic, it needs to be written around. Jackson, at the end of HFR, is the most respected man in the Confederacy - if anyone can get them to accept manumission and forestall a rebellion, it's him.
And there is a pragmatic reason - in The Guns of the South, HT at least had the decency to have the story's time travel provide the impetus for abolition. HFR, on the other hand, has manumission being shoved into the story without regard for whether it actually made sense. (There used to be an excellent essay online about how absurd it would be for a proud martial society to abolish their peculiar institution because foreign powers insisted upon it.)
Because it's so unrealistic, it needs to be written around. Jackson, at the end of HFR, is the most respected man in the Confederacy - if anyone can get them to accept manumission and forestall a rebellion, it's him.
The thing is that Lincoln was mentioned multiple times in the post-HFR books, even during Flora's POV, who would know more of the Socialist Party's history than probably any other POV character. Plus, there is the dubiousness of Lincoln's candidacy in the first place. Here's a quote of mine from when I was discussing the issue with Turquoise Blue as part of her TL-191 election project:
Add everything up, and it just seems quite improbable that Lincoln would be the man.
The "HT didn't mention it" argument is not 100% sound in every case, as you say, but there are some cases where it does apply. Besides Lincoln, there's the issue over whether Myron Zuckerman would have run for VP. Flora and the other Socialists lament the man's death in more than one chapter, saying how much of a inspirational leader he was. Surely, his run for VP would have been brought up.
Don't you think, based on Jackson's personality, that he'd have the same stance as Sherman did in OTL -- if elected, I will not serve, etc.? There must be other, more politically-inclined candidates out there who could run and win in 1885. What about Longstreet's VP Lamar? I thought what you were trying to do here was to add to the realism of TL-191 rather than go along with the unrealistic qualities of it.
Well, I just disagree with all of those.
For Zuckerman: It's not like they were writing obituaries for him. They speak of him, very briefly, as a great man and a mentor, not details of his career.
For Lincoln: what younger generation? There wouldn't be a Socialist Party to speak of if he hadn't brought in refugees from the GOP. It's not generally appreciated how concentrated the real Socialists of this period were among the foreign-born. The nascent labor movement was also very clearly not socialist, and was conservative in many ways. I also don't buy that he would "kill" the party, since it's clear that opinions of him were wildly divergent. (If he were so unpopular, why would a third of the party flock to him?)
Lamar was a Mississipian and seemed committed to slavery.
Jackson also had a very strong sense of duty to his country. I don't think he would have wanted to be president exactly but he would have served if called.
What I'm saying is that Lincoln is old -- if he won in 1884, he'd be 76 on Inauguration Day. Even disregarding his age, yes, he was fairly popular within the new Socialist Party, which included his faction of the Republican (though there's some uneasiness among Socialists even by 1920 about his losing the War of Secession). But he's generally reviled amongst the rest of American voters. He'd have no appeal to independents. If Lincoln wanted to give his party a better chance of success, he'd step aside for someone younger and less controversial to run instead, and then campaign from the sidelines.
OK, I was just throwing a name out there with Lamar. There has got to be some politician in the CSA who'd support Longstreet's manumission plan (although it's manumission only in law, and not in practice) who's more likely to run for president than the very, very unlikely Stonewall.