Which of these three Republicans would've lost the Union the Civil War as President in 1860? William Seward, Hannabi Hamilin, or John Frémont?
Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Get Denmark-Norway into Newfoundland and Canada as a whole like they periodically had plans for in the early 16th century based on medieval Norse exploration and settlement in that era.
With the sheer superhuman will Lincoln had as commander and chief for the entirety of the war, and the countless times the war almost swung in the other direction, I'd say it's likely all three of them could have failed to reunite the country. We don't know the extent of a person's abilities until they're truly tested. It's a good thing Lincoln was the man he was.
Scotland could have had more peaceful yet less dependent relations with England during the 17th century, which could bump up its endeavors from "go bankrupt trying to start a colony" to "establish oneself as a colonial player" with luck.
I would say that all three would more than likely win the war for the Union sans some catastrophic blunder (as in getting the other major powers to side with the South militarily, which is already unlikely) or major ASBs. Abraham Lincoln was almost certainly the best man for the job IOTL, but considering that the Union had so many overwhelming advantages working for it IOTL and the Confederacy had so many fundamental flaws, it is hard to see the Union losing militarily without some degree of bad faith going on with the government.
For the very narrow paths the Confederacy might have had to securing a victory in the Civil War in a plausible setting, none of them are reliant on “Republican A” being president instead of “Republican B”. Lincoln was an excellent wartime president, and did many things behind the scenes in political settings to help win the war (and no man was more crucial in winning the moral aspect of the war), but the immediate conflict would be resolved on the battlefield at the discretion of the generals at hand. As long as a Republican president holds to an even moderately sane course of action, the Union is going to win the war 95 times out of 100.
If Portugal never went to a regency under Catherine of Austria, Brunei would be Siamized by Portugal with Brunei controlling the Philippines and them having control over trading ports in both Borneo and the Philippines.
Last edited:
You really think so? The US had all the ingredients to win the war (population, industrial capacity, infrastructure, resources), but so many things could have gone differently. A battle goes one way or another and moral collapses and the public's fragile support of the war goes with it, a border state remains neutral, foreign military or diplomatic intervention, etc. How things went in OTL made the Union almost seem like it was following Newtonian physics with, "an object in motion" and all. But I hardly think that was inevitable across all TLs once you throw a wrench into the mix.
The beginning of that sentence is the key part of it. The Union is going to lose the war is the presidential administration royally screws up, but as long as there is a competent hand at the helm the Union is going to win the war 95 times out of 100. An administration bring even moderately careful and reasonable is going to keep the Union Border States from OTL in the Union due to the strong Unionist (if not Republican) sympathies running through them (with the exception of Maryland, but the military is going to for sure keep Maryland in line to secure DC). Meanwhile, it is not like the other great powers were chomping at the bit to militarily intervene on the side of the CSA. The only potential factor mostly out of the hands of the president would be battlefield defeats, but the population of the Union showed themselves willing to hold on even after a string of defeats IOTL, as long as a victory was eventually scored. The very slight chance that the Confederacy manages to score only victories in the lead-up to the 1862 midterms, causing the Republicans to lose the House and the war to be stalemated until 1864, is reflected in the 5 times out of 100 where the Confederacy wins.
I’m inclined to agree that the Union was the probable Victor on paper but wars aren’t fought on paper. There are quite a few instances (not including obvious ones like Antietam or Gettysburg) where had things gone to plan for the Confederates, the wrench would have been thrown in. Glendale and Malvern Hill come to mind, both of which are relatively early in the conflict. Unlike WW1, numbers on the ground and industrialization mattered but military leadership was still more important. Not to say a CSA victory would have been a good thing, of course.
If the deportation of anti-British Acadians to Spanish Louisiana hadn’t happened and the British had instead raised taxes in Nova Scotia [which at the time also included New Brunswick and St Pierre Island], is it possible that they would have become the Fourteenth Colony they were sometimes nicknamed in truth? And if so, how might it affect American and indeed global history? PoD might be in the 1760s.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Fremont, he believed he had far more ability than he really did, and his hubris would probably lead to disaster
Calculon
Banned
I agree with TheRockofChickamauga's points. None of those *would* have lost the Union the civil war. Maybe they had a slightly higher chance of losing than Lincoln did, but the fact is demographics and technology and industry and immigration won't change no matter who is president. Cabinet members and leadership of the armed forces might change. But short some massive diplomatic and administrative blunders the Union will win every time.
I'm going to disagree with that, to an extent. Once again, as @PGSBHurricane said, on paper the Union would win. They had the distinct advanage when it comes to to industry, manpower and the rest. But it's not like massively overpowered opponents haven't lost in wars throughout history (indeed, Britain should have won the American Revolution on paper). The key will be public perception (and public opinion was far closer than some like to think it was) both nationally and internationally. If the Union stumbles bad enough to fall below the water level on those issues, it'll lose. It's not a likely outcome by any means, but it can happen - I'd say that the Union has a 19 out of 20 chance of pulling off a victory, but there is always that 1 out of 20 where the Confederacy sneaks through. Which isn't to say, of course, that this would be a GOOD thing by any means of the imagination.
Calculon
Banned
That's pretty much what I said though, I think we're in agreement. You say stumble bad enough, I say blunder, isn't it the same thing? Definitely there is always a chance. What gets me is at points the war seemed to be unpopular in the north, especially in industrial areas with draft riots and all. Might not need a big POD to turn draft riots into a mutiny.
Last edited:
What if Stephen had died at the Battle of Lincoln in 1141? What would that mean for Matilda and her supporters?
I'm pretty sure Matilda just wins, frankly. Yes, Matilda of Boulogne would probably try to rally support around her son(s), and Stephen's older brother Theobald might press a claim, but there's no way any of them are crowned and anointed before Empress Matilda does. By then the ball would be in the other court; the Blois family would be the ones trying to displace the crowned and anointed Queen Matilda, whose side had been vindicated by God through battle.
That's not to say it'll all be smooth sailing for Matilda, given that plenty of people still dislike her. But I don't think that dislike would be enough to displace her from the throne, honestly. Plenty of kings had to deal with discontent and came out of it just fine, after all.
What would happen if Sebastian I had married and had a daughter before he died?
Let's say he accepted to marry Margaret of Valois and she proved to be fertile?
@FalconHonour @EdwardRex @VVD0D95 ?
Let's say he accepted to marry Margaret of Valois and she proved to be fertile?
@FalconHonour @EdwardRex @VVD0D95 ?