Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1848
- Thread starter Nerdlinger
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it automatically works that way. Remember how in the 19xx elections, people have been talking about President Debs imposing socialist economic policies and universal healthcare by 1920. A President Copperhead could easily keep slavery at least until 1900.
Well, if we're imagining this as an entire timeline and not as a single localized PoD, then: Yes, I am sure that future Presidents Hale, Fremont and Lincoln will do their best to maintain slavery.
What I'm sure saying is that Smith, who is a definitive radical and most certainly mentally unbalanced, is hardly the last chance for slavery to end in this TL. Given the options ahead, slowly restricting and limiting slavery until its eventual abolition (which may be closer than you think - remember, in this TL the liberty party is a major force in politics and already elected a president) is really the reasonable and sane option here.
Well, if we're imagining this as an entire timeline and not as a single localized PoD, then: Yes, I am sure that future Presidents Hale, Fremont and Lincoln will do their best to maintain slavery.
Yes, Hale and Fremont are my best guesses for who will win the next two elections. Lincoln is a given in 1860 and virtually a given in 1864 (even though it's effectively Johnson who you're voting for). However, for the elections from 1868 through 1896, I'm really very uncertain who will win. The Republicans are pro-civil rights but terribly corrupt, while the Democrats are anti-corruption but pro-big business and soft on the South. I imagine the Greenbacks will give them a run for their money (pun partially intended) from 1876-1884, though I don't know if they'll fit the bill (pun definitely intended).
Hercule Poirot
Banned
Actually business interests supported the Republicans due to support for high tariffs. Democrats were more of a party of anti-corruption along with serving the consumer by lowering the price of gooods. In addition in was Arthur, a Republican, who institued civil service reform.
And Smith has been doing quite well here, especially considering that in OTL, he only appeared on the ballot in New York and garnered just 2,545 votes (0.56%) there.
We've been assuming that the South did not secede under President Birney but got quite upset, and that Clay was elected as a last-ditch compromise candidate. So, I'm guessing that Clay's compromise rankled the North, and that Smith and Van Buren rode that wave?
I wonder how the South is going to react to President Smith. Will we see an early Civil War?
I wonder how the South is going to react to President Smith. Will we see an early Civil War?
You know, a lot of people committed to asylums weren't "insane", but simply didn't fit into social norms and were not content to be quiet about it. (check out this book as an example)
We're going to see an early Civil War every election for the next 12 years, I think.
Unless they're defeated in time for the next election, by Scott and Taylor together.
As generals, I mean, generals! Not President!
Pff why not both. President Scott personally leading his armies south to string up the nearest rebel he can find. It'll be awesome.
Except that with Liberty and Free Soil parties major political forces in this ATL, a President Scott would look a lot better to the South. I don't think they'd secede under him.
Of course, it looks like he's going to get decisively stomped in this election.
Though you're right; it would be awesome!
- Status