18th and 19th Century Presidents Who Could've Pulled a Cleveland

Stolengood

Banned
Just as it says on the tin, folks; Cleveland went twice non-consecutively (and thus screwed up the presidential count), but who else couldn't done it from this time period?

I leave it to you. :)
 
Lincoln. The war ends far earlier. (1863), and he decides to retire. A while later, he runs again (1868?) and wins in a landslide.
 
Grant. There's been a fair amount of speculation on this board about him succeeding in his 1880 bid for a non-consecutive third term.

Postpone the disintegration of the Whigs by a few years, and Fillmore might win a second non-consecutive term in 1856: he and Fremont combined for 54.6% of the popular vote, so he might have won if the opposition vote hadn't been split.
 
The obvious one is TR, had he been given the 1912 Republican nomination. Had he been nominated again instead of Taft, the party would not split and his election of Wilson is very likely.

Perhaps Nixon, assuming he wins in 1960, and looses in 64 he could possibly still be back in 68 or 72.
 
The obvious one is TR, had he been given the 1912 Republican nomination. Had he been nominated again instead of Taft, the party would not split and his election of Wilson is very likely.

Perhaps Nixon, assuming he wins in 1960, and looses in 64 he could possibly still be back in 68 or 72.

Would love to see what that would have done to his persecution complex. RMN of our timeline on speed.
 

Stolengood

Banned
This is for Presidents before 1900, though; TR and Nixon can be dealt with in the other thread I've provided in the After 1900 discussion section. ;)


So... let's list those Presidents who served only one term OTL, and go from there:
  • John Adams
  • John Quincy Adams
  • Martin Van Buren
  • John Tyler
  • James K. Polk (who died right after his term)
  • Millard Fillmore
  • Franklin Pierce
  • James Buchanan
  • Andrew Johnson (who's pretty much an automatic no-go)
  • Rutherford B. Hayes (and, remember, Samuel Tilden was nearly re-nominated in 1880)
  • Chester A. Arthur (who died right after his term)
  • Benjamin Harrison
...and that's the list. So? :)
 
This is for Presidents before 1900, though; TR and Nixon can be dealt with in the other thread I've provided in the After 1900 discussion section. ;)


So... let's list those Presidents who served only one term OTL, and go from there:
  • John Adams
  • John Quincy Adams
  • Martin Van Buren
  • John Tyler
  • James K. Polk (who died right after his term)
  • Millard Fillmore
  • Franklin Pierce
  • James Buchanan
  • Andrew Johnson (who's pretty much an automatic no-go)
  • Rutherford B. Hayes (and, remember, Samuel Tilden was nearly re-nominated in 1880)
  • Chester A. Arthur (who died right after his term)
  • Benjamin Harrison
...and that's the list. So? :)

Martin Van Buren. He was the leading candidate for the Democrat nomination in 1844. He even had a majority of the votes at the convention, but could not reach the 2/3 threshold. (There was IIRC a move to repeal the 2/3 rule, which narrowly fell short.)

Fillmore, of course was a candidate for President in 1856, running a fairly distant third behind Buchanan and Fremont. It is difficult to see how he could have won.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Martin Van Buren. He was the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1844. He even had a majority of the votes at the convention, but could not reach the 2/3 threshold. (There was IIRC a move to repeal the 2/3 rule, which narrowly fell short.)
There, fixed it for you. ;)

Now, question is... could he possibly have won? And what would happen then?
 
There, fixed it for you. ;)

Now, question is... could he possibly have won? And what would happen then?
Well, on the one hand, Polk won in 1844. On the other hand, Van Buren had a bit of a bad reputation when it came to economics and he was anti-expansion.

And if he had won, correct me if I'm wrong but Van Buren had become antislavery by 1844. That'd be a change: an anti-slavery mid-19th-century Democratic president.
 
Does it have to be exactly like Cleveland -- i.e. defeated for a second term, then wins a non-consecutive second four years later? Or can it just be any kind of non-consecutive term?

If it's the latter, Ulysses S Grant is clearly the best bet.
 
This is for Presidents before 1900, though; TR and Nixon can be dealt with in the other thread I've provided in the After 1900 discussion section. ;)


So... let's list those Presidents who served only one term OTL, and go from there:
  • John Adams
  • John Quincy Adams
  • Martin Van Buren
  • John Tyler
  • James K. Polk (who died right after his term)
  • Millard Fillmore
  • Franklin Pierce
  • James Buchanan
  • Andrew Johnson (who's pretty much an automatic no-go)
  • Rutherford B. Hayes (and, remember, Samuel Tilden was nearly re-nominated in 1880)
  • Chester A. Arthur (who died right after his term)
  • Benjamin Harrison
...and that's the list. So? :)

That's not the list. The two term limit only happened after FDR.
 
Grant. There's been a fair amount of speculation on this board about him succeeding in his 1880 bid for a non-consecutive third term.

Postpone the disintegration of the Whigs by a few years, and Fillmore might win a second non-consecutive term in 1856: he and Fremont combined for 54.6% of the popular vote, so he might have won if the opposition vote hadn't been split.


Or he could sit out the 1856 election, and then decide that the Republicans are abetter bet. Fillmore in 1860?
 
Martin Van Buren. He was the leading candidate for the Democrat nomination in 1844. He even had a majority of the votes at the convention, but could not reach the 2/3 threshold. (There was IIRC a move to repeal the 2/3 rule, which narrowly fell short.)


MVB is inded a good bet. Another distinct possibility is James K Polk. If he survives his illness, the deadlocked 1852 convention may well turn to him, and he will have no trouble beating Scott in November.

One interesting side-effect. Polk is likely to take his native Tennessee, and quite probably Kentucky as well, while OTOH Scott may pick up several northern states which he lost OTL. So 1852 is much more sectionally polarised, rather like OTL's 1856. This probably means a significant number of Northern Whigs who were defeated OTL get pulled in on Scott's coat-tails. Since Northern Whigs voted solidly against he Kansas-Nebraska Act, this could easily result in its defeat, and even if it passes, Polk may well have the political nous to veto it.
 
Now, that's interesting. ;)

Polk again as POTUS... would he try annexing more of Mexico, then? :p

Polk, IIRC, said he only wanted to have a one-term presidency. He accomplished his goals, retired, and after the shortest retirement of any president (Just over 100 days) died.

Under those circumstances, I can't see him being an effective president second time round. He'd already accomplished everything he set out to, and not to mention the fact that he was dead by that point IOTL.
 
Polk, IIRC, said he only wanted to have a one-term presidency. He accomplished his goals, retired, and after the shortest retirement of any president (Just over 100 days) died.

Under those circumstances, I can't see him being an effective president second time round. He'd already accomplished everything he set out to, and not to mention the fact that he was dead by that point IOTL.

Circumstances alter cases.

By 1852 Polk has lived through the crisis of 1850, and seen the country come toi the brink of civil war before a compromise was patched up. This might persuade him that his retirement had been premature, and that the Ship of State still needed a firm hand on the tiller.
 
Top