• Post made for three hours last night (9pm-12am EST) have been deleted. This was necessary due to some problems with server maintenance. Anyone who had problems logging into their account during this time should be fine now.

AHC: have the civil war be caused by two rival president elects

With a PoD no more than 4 years before the election of 1860, have the civil war be caused by two competing claims to the president elect.
it's up to you whether this dispute is caused by unclear wins in several states, tampered ballots, a tie in the electoral college, or something else entirely.

here's a map for one possible take on this idea:
USA1860.png
 
Last edited:
Would claims of fraud work during the 1860s?
Probably not, communication was to slow to convince enough people of such a thing. Maybe have it be a proto-communist with the people’s backing and a proto-fascist with the elites backing?
 
Prehapse get a repeat of 1824 where you have a guy who does not win the electoral college, populer vote or even number of states still become president due to the syestem breaking down do to more then 2 populer candidates (a 4 way split caused our electoral process to grind to a halt in 1824 and a repeat could be the cival war fual your looking for)
Seeing as you once again have a 4 way election in 1860 and almost the exact same populer vote % between Lincoln and Douglass that Lincoln and adams had, and Breckinridge a ok spread of states in 1860 I dont think it's out of the question that it could happen again if you had a diffrent list of candidates or if existing ones campaigned differently or formed joint tickets. (If Breckinridge [southern democrat] and Douglas [one of Lincoln great rivals having most recently beat Lincoln in the 1958 Illinois senate race] can reconcial thier diffrances and form a joint democratic ticket in united in opposition of Lincoln even if they did not see eye to eye on slavery it looks like they might be able to beat Lincoln in the populer vote but still conceivably lose the electoral vote)
Becuse we have a 4 year window prior prehapse effect the Lincoln Douglass and damage Lincoln before he takes the national stage to campaigne in the 1860 election. Or stire up more bad blood between the two by makeing thier prior senate races get ugly (mud slighing, bad faith arguments, personal attacks, ect) so Douglass is more willing to sign up for a anti Lincoln ticket.
 
Last edited:
Prehapse get a repeat of 1824 where you have a guy who does not win the electoral college, populer vote or even number of states still become president due to the syestem breaking down do to more then 2 populer candidates (a 4 way split caused our electoral process to grind to a halt in 1824 and a repeat could be the cival war fual your looking for)
Seeing as you once again have a 4 way election in 1860 and almost the exact same populer vote % between Lincoln and Douglass that Lincoln and adams had, and Breckinridge a ok spread of states in 1860 I dont think it's out of the question that it could happen again if you had a diffrent list of candidates or if existing ones campaigned differently or formed joint tickets. (If Breckinridge [southern democrat] and Douglas [one of Lincoln great rivals having most recently beat Lincoln in the 1958 Illinois senate race] can reconcial thier diffrances and form a joint democratic ticket in united in opposition of Lincoln even if they did not see eye to eye on slavery it looks like they might be able to beat Lincoln in the populer vote but still conceivably lose the electoral vote)
Becuse we have a 4 year window prior prehapse effect the Lincoln Douglass and damage Lincoln before he takes the national stage to campaigne in the 1860 election. Or stire up more bad blood between the two by makeing thier prior senate races get ugly (mud slighing, bad faith arguments, personal attacks, ect) so Douglass is more willing to sign up for a anti Lincoln ticket.
Perhaps you could have a scenario where the Republican vote is split between Seward and Lincoln, and the South split between Breckenridge and Bell
 
I don't think this would be very difficult to do. Pretty much since the beginning the United States seemed on the verge of breaking up until the final break up during the Civil War. I think if you avoid the Era of Good Feelings, say with a worse outcome during 1812, then having two candidates claiming the presidency one representing the North and the other the South.
 
Tricky. Procedurally, there will be a Congress. That Congress will almost certainly recognize a President, one way or another. And this may be hindsight-biased, but "the body we rely on to come to a national consensus is wrong, here's the actual national consensus" doesn't seem as strong a basis for rebellion as "this compact of association is going against our community interests, so we're abrogating it and setting up a better one", which wouldn't fulfill the challenge. Probably you'd need to delegitimize Congress first. Say there's an armed, politically motivated force in the capital whose supporters are fine meeting and taking action under the influence of but whose opponents can't approach without fearing arrest or worse.
 
Top