Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread

Turquoise Blue

Turquoise Blue

Nerdlinger said:
That bolded part is a rather damning admission.

Anyway, what's the difference whether the Civil War starts under Fremont or under Lincoln? It was pretty much inevitable, no? Lincoln was a better leader than Fremont, I'll grant.
Click to expand...
Far longer and bloodier, plus Fremont would have sent in the troops to South Carolina, leading to a quicker and more complete secession of the South.
 

Nerdlinger

Turquoise Blue said:
Far longer and bloodier, plus Fremont would have sent in the troops to South Carolina, leading to a quicker and more complete secession of the South.
Click to expand...

How do you know it would have been longer and bloodier? If the South secedes quicker, who's to say it won't collapse quicker? What are you basing your claims on?

Remember, what happens in your TL is not necessarily what would have happened. You seem to be confusing the two.
 

d32123

Banned
Nerdlinger said:
How do you know it would have been longer and bloodier? If the South secedes quicker, who's to say it won't collapse quicker? What are you basing your claims on?
Click to expand...

One could assume that more people would sympathize with the Confederacy if Fremont sent troops to South Carolina. The North would be viewed entirely as the aggressor, vs. OTL where many who would otherwise sympathize with the Confederacy sided with the Union when the Confederates looked like the aggressors.
 

Nerdlinger

d32123 said:
One could assume that more people would sympathize with the Confederacy if Fremont sent troops to South Carolina. The North would be viewed entirely as the aggressor, vs. OTL where many who would otherwise sympathize with the Confederacy sided with the Union when the Confederates looked like the aggressors.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but who's to say Fremont would have been the one to make the first move? He's aggressive, but that doesn't mean he's stupid.
 
Turquoise Blue

Turquoise Blue

Nerdlinger said:
Fair enough, but who's to say Fremont would have been the one to make the first move? He's aggressive, but that doesn't mean he's stupid.
Click to expand...
First, look at his Mex-American war record. Then say to yourself, would a man who did all that, send troops to South Carolina to quash rebels?
 

Nerdlinger

Turquoise Blue said:
First, look at his Mex-American war record. Then say to yourself, would a man who did all that, send troops to South Carolina to quash rebels?
Click to expand...

A hardliner against the South like Fremont is better than a collaborator like Buchanan. Would you continue to allow blacks to remain slaves or would you do something about it?
 
Turquoise Blue

Turquoise Blue

Nerdlinger said:
A hardliner against the South like Fremont is better than a collaborator like Buchanan. Would you continue to allow blacks to remain slaves or would you do something about it?
Click to expand...
Hold on. I see where I'm going. If I continue this discussion, I'll end up trying to justify slavery. Could we talk about something else?
 
Abhakhazia

Abhakhazia

Banned
Turquoise Blue said:
Hold on. I see where I'm going. If I continue this discussion, I'll end up trying to justify slavery. Could we talk about something else?
Click to expand...

Sure. As a conservative, I learn never to defend my opinions too far.


How about this- how many posts do you have in the whole retrospective project.
 
Ariosto

Ariosto

Turquoise Blue said:
Buchanan would have been a great president at another time. That, I still maintain.
Click to expand...
Given what I have read, Buchanan would never have made a good President. He was one of those individuals that for the most part bungled up everything he tried to accomplish, and flew into the face of public opinion if he thought he was in the right.
​
 
Abhakhazia

Abhakhazia

Banned
I have blown away 314 posts on this project.

Now, because it was in B&M, we can calculate what percentage that is of my on topic post.

314 out of 1070 is-

29.345% of my posts.
 
Turquoise Blue

Turquoise Blue

Ariosto said:
Given what I have read, Buchanan would never have made a good President. He was one of those individuals that for the most part bungled up everything he tried to accomplish, and flew into the face of public opinion if he thought he was in the right.
​
Click to expand...
That's not true.

Link.
Look at Evans' post here... He makes the point that Buchanan would have been better in another time.


And here, Komodo20 argues that Buchanan would have been a good president in any other time, while Fremont would only be good in Reconstruction. Link.
 
Plumber

Plumber

Turquoise Blue said:
That's not true.

Link.
Look at Evans' post here... He makes the point that Buchanan would have been better in another time.


And here, Komodo20 argues that Buchanan would have been a good president in any other time, while Fremont would only be good in Reconstruction. Link.
Click to expand...
Both of them do so only because they think that Buchanan's Coolidge-style "Do Nothing" pro-states' rights approach is a good thing. It isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top