Question-would Seward or Chase have been as effective as Lincoln?

On the post-1900 board, I just posted a comment on how Churchill and FDR were indispensable to their respective countries in 1940, although the other alternatives would certainly have been effective under different circumstances (Eden, Attlee, Wilkie, Dewey). It made me think about other leaders who were indispensable, such as Lincoln.

Lincoln is no doubt a great president, and one of my favorites (it's between him and FDR). But Lincoln's resume does pale in comparison to Seward's and Chase's, and Lincoln's lack of experience did hamper him a bit early on in his administration. Seward and Chase were the leading contenders for the Republican nomination in 1860. Would either of them had been as capable as Lincoln if they got the nomination instead? I think Chase's abrasive personality would definitely have hindered his effectiveness; I'm not sure about Seward. None of the 3 had any military experience, so they're equal in that respect (and military experience oddly enough wasn't helpful to Jefferson Davis in being an effective wartime president). What does anyone else think?
 
I don't know a whole lot about Chase or Seward, but I do know that one reason Lincoln was chosen was precisely because he didn't have as much of a national resume as Seward, who had become a rather controversial in some areas (I forget exactly where) because Seward had been on the national scene longer and thus had more time to make enemies. This facet of Seward probably would have hindered Seward to some extant, though how far I don't know.

I could imagine that the idea of a different Republican like Seward or Chase being nominated and then elected would make a very interesting timeline if done well. I might want to keep this idea in storage for sometime when I have the time to make it as well thought through as I would want to do it... Hmm, I ought to put it on my priorities list...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No.

Didn't Seward want to annex Canada?

No. He - like many people - understood a foreign war tends to unite a disunited people (see Britain and Ireland in 1914) but Lincoln, Seward, and the entire cabinet spoke with Galt (the provincial minister for finance) in 1861 upon Galt's visit to Washington and reassured him they had no interest in BNA, which is pretty widely available all over the Internet, including in Galt's entry in the On-line Dictionary of Canadian Biography.

On edit - Sorry, it's on line at Dickinson; here's the interesting quote:

The impression left on my mind has been that the President sincerely deprecates any quarrel with England, and has no hostile designs upon Canada. His statement that his views were those of all his Cabinet is partly corroborated by the statement made to me by Mr. Seward that he should be glad to see Canada placed in a position of defence.

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/38103


 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Neither Seward nor Chase had a fraction of Lincoln's political acumen. Seward got along well with people (one of his closest friends in pre-war Washington was Jefferson Davis), but often misjudged them. He, for example, thought he could run the country as a sort of prime minister during the early days of the Lincoln administration, before realizing just how good Lincoln was. He was always smart and often wise, but not nearly so wise as Lincoln.

Chase would have been worse than Seward, by far. He alienated far more people than he befriended. His sense of political timing was so disastrous as to be almost comic. His craving for the Presidency was so blatant as to be pathetic. He was a fine Secretary of the Treasury, even a great one, but those skills are not what make a good President.
 
Top