DBWI: Stephen Douglas loses

Of course its possible. Just move all the stuff the southern "fire-eaters" tried to pull during the Douglas and Johnson administrations to the Buchanan administration and earlier. Both the Douglas nationwide popular vote margin, and his margins in the key states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and California were tight. People don't realize this, but it wouldn't have taken much to have given the Republicans an electoral college majority, with less than 40% of the popular vote.

Just having the Supreme Court resolve a case like Nelson vs. New York earlier, there was actually a somewhat similar case, Dredd Scott vs. Sanford where they could have given a similar ruling, would work. It would have been funny to see the southern hard-core "slavery must expand types" react to the election of a Yankee Republican president.
 
Well there is no way a Republican could become President because someone would shoot him well before Inauguration Day.
 
I think you'd have to butterfly Abraham Lincoln's last minute decision to stay in the Senate in 1860 for that to happen, TBH; there's a pretty good argument one could make that Lincoln may well have the best possible alternate candidate for a hypothetical counter-factual AH nomination in 1860: Salmon Chase was undoubtedly a fairly good candidate himself, but alas, were it not for his stumbles in October, he might well have won himself!

That said, though, from what we know of Lincoln, he did take a fairly more moderate stance on the overall issues of slavery & sectionalism, than President Fremont would prior to his election in 1868; so I'd suspect that, much as in Timeline 162(the AH community's nickname for a certain classic counter-factual novel published in 1975), we might possibly end up with both an earlier Civil War(in 1862 or even 1861, as opposed to 1870 IOTL) and a somewhat less harsh Reconstruction period than IOTL(which might well butterfly West Florida in particular, as well as the splitting of Texas into it's two halves in 1877 as per OTL).
 
I think you'd have to butterfly Abraham Lincoln's last minute decision to stay in the Senate in 1860 for that to happen, TBH; there's a pretty good argument one could make that Lincoln may well have the best possible alternate candidate for a hypothetical counter-factual AH nomination in 1860: Salmon Chase was undoubtedly a fairly good candidate himself, but alas, were it not for his stumbles in October, he might well have won himself!

That said, though, from what we know of Lincoln, he did take a fairly more moderate stance on the overall issues of slavery & sectionalism, than President Fremont would prior to his election in 1868; so I'd suspect that, much as in Timeline 162(the AH community's nickname for a certain classic counter-factual novel published in 1975), we might possibly end up with both an earlier Civil War(in 1862 or even 1861, as opposed to 1870 IOTL) and a somewhat less harsh Reconstruction period than IOTL(which might well butterfly West Florida in particular, as well as the splitting of Texas into it's two halves in 1877 as per OTL).

Who would have even led the Union Army in an earlier Civil War? Robert E. Lee? IIRC, Robert E. Lee had a stroke in 1869 upon hearing the news of his beloved Virginia’s secession from his beloved country.
 

Toraach

Banned
I think the earlier civil war would have been a much worse for the Union, and lasting longer. Still the Union had bigger potential, so it would win, but 60s were a decade of great economic industrial development and migration to the North, so the Union was stronger in 1869 than in 1860.
 
I think you'd have to butterfly Abraham Lincoln's last minute decision to stay in the Senate in 1860 for that to happen, TBH; there's a pretty good argument one could make that Lincoln may well have the best possible alternate candidate for a hypothetical counter-factual AH nomination in 1860: Salmon Chase was undoubtedly a fairly good candidate himself, but alas, were it not for his stumbles in October, he might well have won himself!.
Sorry, I don't think there's any way a light-weight like Lincoln could have been the nominee; if by some miracle Seward loses the nomination (already close to ASB territory-what could happen, a split between him and Greeley?) Chase would have stepped in. Some backwoods guy who's read a couple of lawbooks is not going to be the Republican candidate.
 
Last edited:
Who would have even led the Union Army in an earlier Civil War? Robert E. Lee? IIRC, Robert E. Lee had a stroke in 1869 upon hearing the news of his beloved Virginia’s secession from his beloved country.

That's a good question. Going back to James Turtledove's Timeline 162, I do recall that, in that universe Lee ended up joining the Confederate forces in 1861, but mainly only because Va. had already seceded and he felt that he could not simply abandon his home state; Turtledove's inspiration for that did come from P.G.T. Beauregard in particular, as well as a couple of Texan officers, as I recall.....perhaps not the most plausible possible action, truthfully speaking, though in TL-162's defense, Lee's sharp turn against the Fire-Eaters and the like didn't quite happen in earnest until 1862, when the incident at Paint Creek occurred, so it's not totally baseless.

I think the earlier civil war would have been a much worse for the Union, and lasting longer. Still the Union had bigger potential, so it would win, but 60s were a decade of great economic industrial development and migration to the North, so the Union was stronger in 1869 than in 1860.

It might well have been, and considering the OTL war lasted until October 1874.....
 

Thomas1195

Banned
That's a good question. Going back to James Turtledove's Timeline 162, I do recall that, in that universe Lee ended up joining the Confederate forces in 1861, but mainly only because Va. had already seceded and he felt that he could not simply abandon his home state; Turtledove's inspiration for that did come from P.G.T. Beauregard in particular, as well as a couple of Texan officers, as I recall.....perhaps not the most plausible possible action, truthfully speaking, though in TL-162's defense, Lee's sharp turn against the Fire-Eaters and the like didn't quite happen in earnest until 1862, when the incident at Paint Creek occurred, so it's not totally baseless.



It might well have been, and considering the OTL war lasted until October 1874.....
This was because of the CSA's stubborness to continue guerrilla warfare. They already lost the conventional warfare by 1872.

The result was a very harsh Reconstruction that made German Kulturkampf look like child play. The number of Southern EVs were reduced by a half, and hence basically turned the US into a one-and-a-half party system until the rise of the Liberal Republican which displaced the Democrats.
 
Abraham Lincoln's political resume was thin, and he is mainly known for his defeat of Douglas in that 1858 Senate race, but he was no backwoodsman. He was a respected corporate lawyer and nominated for the Supreme Court, though he died in 1869 before the Senate could vote on his confirmation. I agree that the Republican nominees in 1860 were either going to be Chase or Seward, and I don't see Lincoln flipping any states except Illinois. Anyway, I think Chase could have gotten an electoral college majority with fairly minor timeline divergences.

Robert Lee also died in 1869, but he had heart problems and I think the start of the Civil War was just a coincidence. I'm even more surprised to see him mentioned than the mention of Lincoln. he is known among military history hobbyists for designing much of the American system of coastal fortifications but otherwise completely unknown. An earlier Civil War would have put all sorts of personalities that were unknown or minor figures into the spotlight, while people prominent in the 1870s in our timeline would now be obscure.
 
Abraham Lincoln's political resume was thin, and he is mainly known for his defeat of Douglas in that 1858 Senate race, but he was no backwoodsman. He was a respected corporate lawyer and nominated for the Supreme Court, though he died in 1869 before the Senate could vote on his confirmation. I agree that the Republican nominees in 1860 were either going to be Chase or Seward, and I don't see Lincoln flipping any states except Illinois. Anyway, I think Chase could have gotten an electoral college majority with fairly minor timeline divergences.

Robert Lee also died in 1869, but he had heart problems and I think the start of the Civil War was just a coincidence. I'm even more surprised to see him mentioned than the mention of Lincoln. he is known among military history hobbyists for designing much of the American system of coastal fortifications but otherwise completely unknown. An earlier Civil War would have put all sorts of personalities that were unknown or minor figures into the spotlight, while people prominent in the 1870s in our timeline would now be obscure.

He had been a great general in the Mexican-American War, and had come close to being the Democratic Party’s nominee in 1868. So not really much of an unprominent Guy.
 
Abraham Lincoln's political resume was thin, and he is mainly known for his defeat of Douglas in that 1858 Senate race, but he was no backwoodsman. He was a respected corporate lawyer and nominated for the Supreme Court, though he died in 1869 before the Senate could vote on his confirmation. I agree that the Republican nominees in 1860 were either going to be Chase or Seward, and I don't see Lincoln flipping any states except Illinois. Anyway, I think Chase could have gotten an electoral college majority with fairly minor timeline divergences.

William Seward might have done well, but prior to his decision to drop out in June 1860, Lincoln was, if anything, running a fair bit ahead of him(despite Seward's resume being a bit thicker) and even running it close with Chase. Here, this excerpt from Anthony Crossley's award winning 1860: The Election That Shaped Modern America, may help shed some light on this. I do generally agree that after June 11, 1860 Chase and Seward had pretty much the whole race to themselves, but prior to that it was definitely a more complicated race.

He had been a great general in the Mexican-American War, and had come close to being the Democratic Party’s nominee in 1868. So not really much of an unprominent Guy.

True, true. Unfortunately for Lee, though, Clement Vallandigham was just too damned strong to be shoved aside, and enough northern Democrats were willing to back him because he promised peace, so that really screwed him over big time.(and yet, it didn't stop Jefferson Davis from winning most of the Deep South, anyway, save Louisiana and Florida-and even then, might not have taken too much for Davis to win those states, too)

An earlier Civil War would have put all sorts of personalities that were unknown or minor figures into the spotlight, while people prominent in the 1870s in our timeline would now be obscure.

Quite possibly this could be, yeah, though not inevitably so; it'd depend in part on circumstances.
 
William Seward might have done well, but prior to his decision to drop out in June 1860, Lincoln was, if anything, running a fair bit ahead of him(despite Seward's resume being a bit thicker) and even running it close with Chase. Here, this excerpt from Anthony Crossley's award winning 1860: The Election That Shaped Modern America, may help shed some light on this. I do generally agree that after June 11, 1860 Chase and Seward had pretty much the whole race to themselves, but prior to that it was definitely a more complicated race.



True, true. Unfortunately for Lee, though, Clement Vallandigham was just too damned strong to be shoved aside, and enough northern Democrats were willing to back him because he promised peace, so that really screwed him over big time.(and yet, it didn't stop Jefferson Davis from winning most of the Deep South, anyway, save Louisiana and Florida-and even then, might not have taken too much for Davis to win those states, too)



Quite possibly this could be, yeah, though not inevitably so; it'd depend in part on circumstances.

Who would’ve even been President of the Confederacy in an 1860 Civil War? John Breckinridge, whose write-in campaign nearly cost Douglas the election IOTL?
 
Who would’ve even been President of the Confederacy in an 1860 Civil War? John Breckinridge, whose write-in campaign nearly cost Douglas the election IOTL?

TL-162 saw Jeff Davis become President of the C.S.A. in 1861.....though it is true that Turtledove was largely just copying OTL's result and moving it back a decade, so perhaps it'd be a stretch.

That aside, Robert Rhett seems like a fairly interesting candidate for the 1861 C.S. Presidency-he was from South Carolina and one of the most notorious Fire-Eaters IOTL; though he retired from politics due to failing health in 1868(and was assassinated just two and a half years later), he was still very much active in 1860.

Edit: Just realized the typo. Darn.
 
Last edited:
TL-162 saw Jeff Davis become President of the C.S.A. in 1860.....though it is true that Turtledove was largely just copying OTL's result and moving it back 8 years, so perhaps it'd be a stretch.

That aside, Robert Rhett seems like a fairly interesting candidate for the 1861 C.S. Presidency-he was from South Carolina and one of the most notorious Fire-Eaters IOTL; though he retired from politics due to failing health in 1868(and was assassinated just two and a half years later), he was still very much active in 1860.

Was Jeff Davis even enough of a national figure to be the President in 1860?
 
Was Jeff Davis even enough of a national figure to be the President in 1860?

I don't believe so, but he wouldn't have necessarily needed to be known nationally, TBH. The biggest obstacle I'm aware of was that Davis himself, while pro-slavery, wasn't exactly as strongly pro-secession in 1860-61 as he was by 1870(not to mention that Fremont winning in 1868 was what finally drove him off the deep end).
 
I don't believe so, but he wouldn't have necessarily needed to be known nationally, TBH. The biggest obstacle I'm aware of was that Davis himself, while pro-slavery, wasn't exactly as strongly pro-secession in 1860-61 as he was by 1870(not to mention that Fremont winning in 1868 was what finally drove him off the deep end).

Interesting.

Do you think Kentucky and Southern Missouri still secede in a TL where the Civil War happened sooner?
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

Do you think Kentucky and Missouri still secede in a TL where the Civil War happened sooner?

Erm, what? Missouri was a loyal Union state during the war, as was Kentucky, for the most part-yes, some bits of both broke off-namely the southeastern counties around Cape Girardeau in the former and some of the westernmost bits in the latter, but I'd hardly call that the equivalent of entire states breaking off.

OOC: Hate to break character here, but, TBH, if MO and KY weren't going to secede in 1860.....they sure as heck wouldn't in 1870.
 
Erm, what? Missouri was a loyal Union state during the war, as was Kentucky, for the most part-yes, some bits of both broke off-namely the southeastern counties around Cape Girardeau in the former and some of the westernmost bits in the latter, but I'd hardly call that the equivalent of entire states breaking off.

OOC: Hate to break character here, but, TBH, if MO and KY weren't going to secede in 1860.....they sure as heck wouldn't in 1870.

OOC: The idea is they seceded because of more dependence on slavery
 
Top