Ulysses S. Grant in 1880

General Mung Beans · Aug 22, 2009

What if the Republican Party had nominated Ulysses S. Grant again in 1880? Running against Winfield Scott Hancock could he have won?

Fiver · Aug 28, 2009

Grant was more popular than Garfield and not personally involved in any scandals, so he'd probably win. Grant was one of the best supporters the free blacks and pro-Union white of the south had. OTOH, "Redeemer" governments had taken over in the south so there was a limited to what he could do.

There's also the question of whether Guiteau will focus on Grant and if his aim will be as good and the doctors as bad as in OTL. If so, that leads to little change from OTL.

thehistorysage · Aug 28, 2009

Grant was very popular, but after two terms of a scandal-ridden administration rolled up with some of the most blatant nepotism in the history of the presidency, I'm not sure he could have convinced Americans for a third term. Possible though.

Atreus · Aug 28, 2009

Grant in 1880 means that roscoe conkling and the Stalwarts come out on top at the convention. Grant probably has to take a more moderate VP candidate in order to get elected. However, Grant probably manages to survive his third term, so no civil service reform is carried out. I'm still working out all the effects of this, but without Garfield and Arthur the republican party will probably be far more bitterly divided. Stalwarts in control may mean that the federal control over the south ceded by Hayes may be somewhat restored.

lothaw · Aug 28, 2009

I think the combination of Grant's scandalous Presidency, him breaking the precident of the 3rd term, and the fact that elections tend to go against the party in power, would ensure Grant would lose to Hancock.

If Grant insisted on running, it could possibly split the Republican Party.

TNF · Aug 28, 2009

There's also the question of whether Guiteau will focus on Grant and if his aim will be as good and the doctors as bad as in OTL. If so, that leads to little change from OTL.

I doubt that Guiteau makes an attempt on Grant's life. Wasn't the only reason Garfield was assassinated because of his denial of an Ambassadorship to Guiteau in the first place? Would Grant be so inclined to deny such a request in the first place? Or would Guiteau even be interested? It all depends on the butterflies here.

Also, if Grant wins a third term in 1880, does he stick around in 1884 for a fourth?

Fiver · Sep 2, 2009

Atreus said:
Grant in 1880 means that roscoe conkling and the Stalwarts come out on top at the convention. Grant probably has to take a more moderate VP candidate in order to get elected. However, Grant probably manages to survive his third term, so no civil service reform is carried out.

Actually, Grant was the first president to recommend and attempt civil service reform. He appointed the members of the first Civil Service Comission, but Congress did not support him.

Fiver · Sep 2, 2009

The New Freedom said:
Wasn't the only reason Garfield was assassinated because of his denial of an Ambassadorship to Guiteau in the first place? Would Grant be so inclined to deny such a request in the first place? Or would Guiteau even be interested?

Guiteau was in desperate financial circumstances and had deluded himself that the few hundred copies of his printed speech "Garfield vs Hancock" had been the only thing that saw Garfield into the White House. (The speech had originally been titled "Grant vs Hancock" till Garfield won the Republican nomination.)

Guiteau lacked any qualifications for an ambassadorship, but the Garfield adminstration was remarkably patient with him, putting up with his harassment from March 8th to May 14th, when Secretary of State Blaine finally rejected Guiteau in a blunt enough manner that Guiteau switched from harassing the President to planning to kill him.

I so no reason that Guiteau would be less obsessive and delusional in TTL than in OTL. And there was never any chance he'd get an ambassadorship.

The New Freedom said:
Also, if Grant wins a third term in 1880, does he stick around in 1884 for a fourth?

That probably depends on the state of his throat cancer.

Atreus · Sep 2, 2009

Fiver said:
Actually, Grant was the first president to recommend and attempt civil service reform. He appointed the members of the first Civil Service Comission, but Congress did not support him.

Yes, but in 1880 Grant was being touted as a candidate by the Stalwarts, under the influence of Senator Conkling (although he might have been brought out by Blaine and company, or perhaps as a compromise, with different results). So, going by who his backers were, Conkling and company are responsible for electing him, and he probably owes them. Now, if he is proposed by Conkling as a compromise candidate, or wins out as a representative of the Blaine camp, then we may still see some form of civil service reform. But if we take the most direct POD, and have the stalwarts push through grant at the convention, then he isnt going to be able to act on civil service reform for a while.