Comments already written over the weekend and posted here before I read what else has been said
It strikes me that post-ACW politics seem to have resolved themselves in OTL back to a kind of North-South divide, in effect if not in detail. For instance the talk on the Democrats acting to stifle Reconstruction, Freedman Bureau actions etc, indicate that the money-motive and the fear of big-government essentially seems to have mitigated in favour of a revival of Southern interests as the 1870s went on.
All true, but don't discount the money motive or the fear of big-government. Or for that matter, resurgent Northern racism.
To posit something different, I was wondering about the following as ideas :-
- the guerialla/terrorist nature of Southern resistance would go on into the 1870s and 1880s and eventually develop into a situation where it becomes its own rationale, like one might have been able to see in N Ireland were it not for the ability of Sinn Fein leaders to acept negotiation - without a political wing, the Southern 'freedom fighters' could well be doomed to the cycle of violence we see with such as ETA in OTL.
- instead of letting up on the South, the 'North' continues to push the agenda there as heavily as it can, not as a prelude to laying off but in order to get all the legislation from Congress and the Supreme Court enacted, even if at the point of a gun. Imagine militia being deployed against their own populations (as per Civil Rights enforcement in OTL) but here, of course, membership of the state militia (IIRC predecessors to the National Guard) would be strictly controlled and perhaps initially restricted to Northern settlers etc
Hmm, the North could certainly push their agenda much harder than they did, OTL. The first way to do this is by executing at least some of the top Confederate leaders for treason and rebellion. This could go a long way to creating the impetus for the kind of resistance movement described above. This is coupled with much stricter disenfranchisement of any Confederate army officers than OTL. Thus the Party of Reconstruction (Sherman's Party) wants to create a voting base in the South of Freedmen and the poor whites who did not support the Confederacy.
More than likely it's not the state militia that's used, but actual Federal troops that remain on "occupation" duty in the South. They did OTL until 1876. The removal of these forces was the major part of the "Compromise of 1877" that ended OTL's Reconstruction.
While there were some northern settlers to the South (Carpetbaggers), I don't think they would have the numbers to create a state militia large enough to counter the ex-Confederates/CSA sympathizers. That could change if they start to admit Freedmen, but at some point somebody in the North's going to get awful edgy about that.
- there is not a revival at national level of the Democrats, instead the two Whig-successor parties (ie represented in the later 1850s by Fremont and Seward) evolve into two distinct power blocks within the USA. In time they would come to espouse different things - this is especially the case according to the maxim that opposition breeds reform. The successors to Fremont would adopt positions on issues opposed to those espoused by Seward and Sherman, and would see a distinct and cohesive ideology emerge out of this
I suppose it's possible that the split which saw Seward replace Fremont results in a fissure of the Republican party. OTL the original former whig/anti-slavery party was the Free Soil Party. There could perhaps be a major split between the Free Soilers and the Republicans over issues like the Homestead Act, tarrifs, and immigration. Eventually the Free Soilers can evolve into the Party of the farmer, per my comments on Populism in the previous post. The question is will this party be able to absorb former Democratic elements in the East in order to become a national prescence? Most likely they are for low tarrifs, against the gold standard, internal improvements and for some kind of Homestead regime that lets already in the West get more land. TTL Republicans are for high tarrifs, using Homesteading to compensate veterans of the war, favor immigration, and Reconstruction policies rather than internal improvements (they prefer to spend money on justice before roads, for example). They are in short the Party of Eastern industrialists. There's still the issue that in the east, there will be a faction of folks that is anti-immigrant, a large power base of OTL's northern Democrats. I don't think it's possible for any kind of North in the US to avoid a split on this issue, so Sherman's Recontruction Republicans can't simply co-opt the old Northern Democrats.
Also, in OTL, the Republican party had encountered difficulty in the 1870s with their own "liberal wing" who defected to Horace Greeley in 1872. This did a lot to remake the Democats into a national party again. Liberal again means small government, low taxes, low budget, no standing army--all fears created by the scale of Reconstruction. A similar effect might happen, but with the Free Soilers (Fremont's Opposition Party).
There might be the possiblity to create a temporary three party system of sorts. The Northern Democrats remain a power in New York and Boston and Philadelphia, but the Free Soilers remain powerful in the budding West Coast. In the South, people are probably divided between the Free Soilers and the Republicans and the Democrats. Given the first-past-the-post elections, three party systems are "predicted" not to emerge, but they can if they are regional. The situtation will be not dissimilar from the dynamic of Labour, LibDems, and Tories in present day Britain, where Labor runs candidates in most places, but runs against alternatively a Tory or a LibDem depending on the region (my understanding is Tory in the South and LibDem in the North). That is there are really a number of different two-party systems: in the West one between Republicans and Free-Soilers; in the Northeast, between the Republicians and Democrats; in the South, it may be a bit more of a three-way race as electoral patterns emerge following Reocnstruction, but it's probably the Republicans-Free Soilers (who are more unified in the military atmosphere of the South) and very unreconstructed Democrats. It may be harder for any kind of "Solid South" to emerge if disenfrachisement is more wide-spread and there are two parties to hate.
I'm not sure however how stable this situation will be, since the obvious paring will be Free Soilers and Northern Democrats. Also, there's not a real East-West divide here that you were looking for. More on this below.
- I am wondering if we can get a lasting West-East split as far as identity is concerned out of this, not one that could lead to secession, but where the Opposition (what would Fremont's party have been called anyway, and would it have changed its name in the wake of his mid-war defeat ?) could rely on votes in California and the Oregons, for example
The main problem will be population in the west: the West won't have enough for a very long time, unless one radically accelerates the pace of settlement. One solution is to have some party create more, smaller states in the West (the example of North and South Dakota in OTL, which the Republicans created to gain more electoral votes than if they had made one state). In the east the main problem with an East-West split is that the East can't agree on anything due to the differing interests of the industrial cities, whether they be immigration policies, unions, or tarrifs.
There is potential for something like an East-West split if you presume an earlier rise of Grange/populist politics due to a very fragmented party system as suggested above. This is why it'd be nice if Fremont's party is the Free Soil Party, since name-wise they can transform very nicely into a pro-Farmer party.
I would imagine three-way politics to continue through 1876. It might be funny, however, if the 2nd Homestead Act, which passes on the support of Republicans and Northern Dems, is the final straw which catapults the Free Soilers to National prominence. The existing farmers in the west would get very angry if the Federal government decided to help freed-slaves to what they viewed as their brithright.
As is suggested, the election of 1876 could be crucial here. After two terms of Seward, and two of Sherman, the country is ready to ditch the Republicans and this West-focused successor party to Fremont is the Opposition.
Again, I'm kind of liking a three-party system for TTL's 1870s. The election of 1876 will be crucial, but only because the Republicans only manage to win with Democratic support. Civil Rights, etc. are probably in place but I still think the fate of the Freedman's Bureau would be the issue and a compromise deleterious to the interests of Western farmers will prompt the Free Soilers to gain a national following, since "Western farmer" usually means all farmers.
If Sumner is the VP on the ticket for 1872, and he thus follows Thaddeus Stephens to an early grave (1874) leading this time, if not the previous one, to the need for a constitutional amendment to allow for a replacement VP mid-term, then the 1876 election is going to see a new generation of politicians on both sides
The fun of a three-party system is that it creates a situation rife for constitutional reform, since it will probably force a Presidential election to go to Congress. Hence, fixing the Vice-Presidency could be one of host of issues to fix. I think the solution for appointing the VP will probably be followed TTL, but maybe not the part of OTL's 25th Amendment which deals with the disability of the President (i.e. the VP acting as President if the President is in a coma).
This election occurs also in the MIDST of US involvement in a joint canal project with Germany in Gran Colombia's province of Panama. Commitment to this project will probably be a given for both major parties, but they could have vastly different strategic visions as to where this should go
I might wonder whether the Opposition (as defined above) would feel that the USA has not focused enough energies on N Oregon (OTL British Columbia), feels that allowing Canada to buy Alaska was a betrayal of their interests, and favours a Pacific-first policy that up to this date has not been in evidence ? If the 1876 election is fought on a foreign policy platform these issues could be at the fore ?
I would say that no US election, indeed no election in any country, is ever fought on a solely foreign policy platform during a time of peace. That being said, there may be significant difference on questions of expansion and the nature of US power projection (isolationism, imperialism, constructive engangment, etc.). I would imagine that the Free-Soilers like the Canal Project: it will compete with transcontinental rail for shipping prices and may force the RRs to lower their rates (gosh darn US Grant and his Standard Food!). The Repulicans, who probably represent Northern Industrialists, will probably like it because it is a big project rife with contracts to bid-out. The Democrats, or whatever the anti-immigration, low tarrif party call themselves, manage not to like it because it spends money and involves the US overseas. This probably adds to their slow decline into a minor regional party.
If Blaine emerges as the Republican candidate, one note to make is that in the 19th century (and even in this century if you look at Stephenson and Nixon), defeat in one election does not mean that he would not make a recovery and stand again later.
Thus, Blaine could be the defeated Republican candidate, but could still emerge as the Republican candidate 4 or even 8 years hence (if he's still alive ?)
Certainly.
But who is fronting the Opposition ? The past 20 years would have seen a completely different political evolution to OTL, which whilst good for differences in the timeline would bring about a wide variety of different fates for politicians we know of in OTL, as well as greater prominence for those who never rose to great-enough prominence.
For example, history tells us that politician A joined the Number 1 Party and did xyz, but in this timeline the Number 2 Party could have been closer to his ideology at that time, and with better opportunities instead of being a bit-player he may have emerged as a leading figure in his party
So, suggestions for leading Opposition candidates in 1876 ?
I'll refer you
the wikipedia article on OTL's 1872 presidential elections. It contains a great list of people, along with vote counts, since that year Democratic candidate Horace Greeley died before the electoral college, meaning that electors voted for all kinds of people for the Democratic VP (who would assume the Presidency upon inauguration).
Also, if the party of Seward and Sherman is more radical, than I'm not sure why they'd split with Fremont. Sure there's the issue of fighting the war, but Fremont was rabidly anti-slavery? Perhaps Seward thinks Fremont is too focued on abolition and it keeps him from winning the war?