What if President Custer 1876-1884?

[Tomac]

An analogy here is that Custer sent Reno and Benteen off on wild goose chases to attack both flanks of the camp, but they both kinda cocked up - not actually really their fault though as the Sioux completely outmaneuvered them and trapped them on a hill on the other side of the battlefield. And all three of them detested each other.

That is well-documented. What is less well-known is that some troopers did get into the encampment (I have a hard time calling it a village, it was too damned big). Anyway, despite getting a few rounds off at the Natives, they were never seen again.

It certainly is a question of what he would do. I mean, LBH was essentially a clean-up operation. And most Indian Wars take months, if not years. Montana is vast and on the border of Canada. The Sioux/Cheyenne camp was larger than Custer expected and believed, and at best even if he wins at LBH, he is still going to be there for months if not a couple of years securing the region.
I guess you could say that he may bring an end to the wars earlier, maybe an earlier Wounded Knee analogue, make more Indian Reservations.

I have a problem with some of these thoughts. Most seem to be forgetting that Custer was a Light Colonel and in charge of a Regiment. He was not in charge of the operation, those were Col. John Gibbon, (six companies [A, B, E, H, I, and K] of the 7th Infantry and four companies [F, G, H, and L] of the 2nd Cavalry), Brig. Gen. George Crook (ten companies [A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, L, and M] of the 3rd Cavalry, five [A, B, D, E, and I] of the 2nd Cavalry, two companies [D and F] of the 4th Infantry, and three companies [C, G, and H] of the 9th Infantry) and Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry's column, (twelve companies [A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, and M] of the 7th Cavalry under Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer's immediate command, Companies C and G of the 17th U.S. Infantry, and the Gatling gun detachment of the 20th Infantry).
The only person who seems to have insured his hero status was his wife Libby, who wrote several books about her husband. While he had a large role, he was not the only one in charge and if such a debacle occurred nowadays, he would have been thoroughly blamed for his incompetence.

Regards,
John Braungart

 

[thezerech]

That is well-documented. What is less well-known is that some troopers did get into the encampment (I have a hard time calling it a village, it was too damned big). Anyway, despite getting a few rounds off at the Natives, they were never seen again.





I have a problem with some of these thoughts. Most seem to be forgetting that Custer was a Light Colonel and in charge of a Regiment. He was not in charge of the operation, those were Col. John Gibbon, (six companies [A, B, E, H, I, and K] of the 7th Infantry and four companies [F, G, H, and L] of the 2nd Cavalry), Brig. Gen. George Crook (ten companies [A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, L, and M] of the 3rd Cavalry, five [A, B, D, E, and I] of the 2nd Cavalry, two companies [D and F] of the 4th Infantry, and three companies [C, G, and H] of the 9th Infantry) and Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry's column, (twelve companies [A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, and M] of the 7th Cavalry under Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer's immediate command, Companies C and G of the 17th U.S. Infantry, and the Gatling gun detachment of the 20th Infantry).
The only person who seems to have insured his hero status was his wife Libby, who wrote several books about her husband. While he had a large role, he was not the only one in charge and if such a debacle occurred nowadays, he would have been thoroughly blamed for his incompetence.

Regards,
John Braungart

So, my TL has some major differences in Mexico and Canada by 1870, namely a surviving E. of Mexico, and a bloodier Fenian invasion. I imagine the U.S military would be wary of both Napoleonic France and the U.K because of their terrible relations with the two Great Powers. Custer, with some butterflies might end up, in a more prominent position by '76. LBH might be a totally different or not take place at all, originally I'd planned for this to go as OTL. However considering butterflies within the U.S military, I realized I could do some very interesting things with Custer during this period. Perhaps, he wins a major battle, becomes governor of a state, then runs for President in 1880? Or something along those lines. I since I'm not to knowledgeable on this period was wondering, what would a President Custer's policies be? How would he deal with reconstruction? Monopolies? Trusts?

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

So, my TL has some major differences in Mexico and Canada by 1870, namely a surviving E. of Mexico, and a bloodier Fenian invasion. I imagine the U.S military would be wary of both Napoleonic France and the U.K because of their terrible relations with the two Great Powers. Custer, with some butterflies might end up, in a more prominent position by '76. LBH might be a totally different or not take place at all, originally I'd planned for this to go as OTL. However considering butterflies within the U.S military, I realized I could do some very interesting things with Custer during this period. Perhaps, he wins a major battle, becomes governor of a state, then runs for President in 1880? Or something along those lines. I since I'm not to knowledgeable on this period was wondering, what would a President Custer's policies be? How would he deal with reconstruction? Monopolies? Trusts?

Keeping 1876 the same ensures that the Republican party is seen as corrupt as possible, especially given how Grants terms and how said election turned out.

In 1880 the Democratic Standard bearer is Winfield Scott Hancock. Besides this you also have Thomas F Bayard and Samuel J Randall. Besides this you also have Hancock was the leading contender because he was a Civil War hero and one of the most loyal democrats, who spent the 15 years after the Civil war making himself respectable amongst the former confederate states, but he was a firm believer in States Rights and limited government. Again though, he is a soldier-general and after eight years of Grant not knowing anything about politics - A soldier turned politician - people were wary of him. Yet he was the man the party chose because he carried the principles of the Democratic party, plus being a war hero, and also could unify the South behind him.

Here are the results of OTL though:

Garfield 214 to Hancock's 155.

Custer has nothing of the support base of Hancock, so it will be a hard challenge to unseat him. Having him as a VP though, that could work, but you have to fight the stigma of there being two soldiers in the White House...which, again, Grant's terms soured. (Always comes back to Grant, always. Poor man.)

Anyway, the Democrats would really have to make inroads in the midterms and elections of 1877/1878/1879 depending on when states have their elections to win in 1880. You really have to cast the Republican party as corrupt in the late 1870s and 1880s for the Democrats to have a chance.

THAT SAID.......That said.....

If you want to go the easiest way, and I mean really easy:

You could change tactics completely and have Custer become Garfield's Vice-President. Yes, make Custer a Republican. A victory at LBH changes the political race to ensure a Democratic victory in 1876 and Presidency in 1877-1881. If you go with your "overwhelming victory at LBH, and eventual election to Governor (of northern state) to then being VP," that could work. A Garfield-Custer ticker in 1880, Garfield is assassinated in 1881 just shy of his fiftieth birthday, whereas Custer would be 41 years old, young spry and fresh. Idealistic.

 

[thezerech]

Keeping 1876 the same ensures that the Republican party is seen as corrupt as possible, especially given how Grants terms and how said election turned out.

In 1880 the Democratic Standard bearer is Winfield Scott Hancock. Besides this you also have Thomas F Bayard and Samuel J Randall. Besides this you also have Hancock was the leading contender because he was a Civil War hero and one of the most loyal democrats, who spent the 15 years after the Civil war making himself respectable amongst the former confederate states, but he was a firm believer in States Rights and limited government. Again though, he is a soldier-general and after eight years of Grant not knowing anything about politics - A soldier turned politician - people were wary of him. Yet he was the man the party chose because he carried the principles of the Democratic party, plus being a war hero, and also could unify the South behind him.

Here are the results of OTL though:

Garfield 214 to Hancock's 155.

Custer has nothing of the support base of Hancock, so it will be a hard challenge to unseat him. Having him as a VP though, that could work, but you have to fight the stigma of there being two soldiers in the White House...which, again, Grant's terms soured. (Always comes back to Grant, always. Poor man.)

Anyway, the Democrats would really have to make inroads in the midterms and elections of 1877/1878/1879 depending on when states have their elections to win in 1880. You really have to cast the Republican party as corrupt in the late 1870s and 1880s for the Democrats to have a chance.

THAT SAID.......That said.....

If you want to go the easiest way, and I mean really easy:

You could change tactics completely and have Custer become Garfield's Vice-President. Yes, make Custer a Republican. A victory at LBH changes the political race to ensure a Democratic victory in 1876 and Presidency in 1877-1881. If you go with your "overwhelming victory at LBH, and eventual election to Governor (of northern state) to then being VP," that could work. A Garfield-Custer ticker in 1880, Garfield is assassinated in 1881 just shy of his fiftieth birthday, whereas Custer would be 41 years old, young spry and fresh. Idealistic.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of making Custer a Republican. However, I do like the idea of Custer being Hancock's VP in 1880. I'd like to instill a culture of military officers in the white house to help make the U.S more if not militaristic, certainly jingoistic in the long run. I imagine if Custer is governor of say, Michigan and he's popular it might help him bring around some of those northern states that Garfield won.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Thanks, I hadn't thought of making Custer a Republican. However, I do like the idea of Custer being Hancock's VP in 1880. I'd like to instill a culture of military officers in the white house to help make the U.S more if not militaristic, certainly jingoistic in the long run. I imagine if Custer is governor of say, Michigan and he's popular it might help him bring around some of those northern states that Garfield won.

I hadn't thought of making Custer a republican until right then either as i looked at the results.

Anyway, having a consistent British-American rivalry is most likely going to get you consistent military men in the White House, but you would have to change a bit.

That said though, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur and Benjamin Harrison were all either Generals or Brevet Generals. Mckinley was a Major. Grrover Cleveland was a draft dodger, hired a substitute to fill his draft number.

 

[Wendell]

Why not, if you're willing to elevate Custer, have him be VP under a different Democrat who is victorious in 1884 but dies in office?

 

[thezerech]

Why not, if you're willing to elevate Custer, have him be VP under a different Democrat who is victorious in 1884 but dies in office?

That could be an option too. I kind of wanted to have Reed become President, if only because I think McKinley cheated him of it, though that may be by TR bias showing. Messing with everything might get, for me at least confusing. From 1870-1912 I don't really get the differences between the democrat's and republican's policy even close to as much as I do for other periods, or the recent party platforms. I think I'll have him be Hancock's VP. Would a more interventionist (under Custer) democratic party really change the interventionist wing of the Republican party? Namely guys like H.C Lodge and T. Roosevelt?

 

[Devan Yates]

He is a military man, so him improving the army and navy would be a definite. Custer approving/supporting the Fenian raids, wow, Bold, especially if you want a deliberate Anglo-American was in the 1880s....

Again though, 1876 election was a repudiation of military men, bth parties were clear on that. Hypothetically keeping Custer until 1880, and after about 20 years of republican rule, him running as a Democrat would be a bigger impact, especially as 1876 was corrupt as hell with the results. And the man also had a lot of trouble with his army superiors and politicians. Hell, pretty sure Sheridan was really the only guy who like him in that regards, because he was a daredevil and a a flair for the dramatic. Also, if he wins at LBH in 1876, he could use that a a jumping point to be Governor of Michigan or a Senator from Michigan, apparently he was asked but he said no.

But even to that end, he is only 35-36 in 1876, That being said though, the Constitution is clear that you can be 35 when you run for President - so it is possible. I don't really see anyone picking him as President because of his youth, and if you look at the people who were picked for President, they were all older and widely more experienced. Seasoned veteran. Grant being the exception at 46 because he was the most popular man in the Union and had accomplished one of the most monumental tasks in US history.

The point of divergence is not in 1876. The point of divergence is in 1867 or before. The original poster said as much when he said the Second Mexican Empire was still in existence. (If I had to guess, the ACW drags on for years longer, giving the French the opportunity to really prop up Maximilian.) The political conditions--"repudiating military men"--are not necessarily or even likely to be the same. We don't even know if Grant was a two termer or a one-termer or a no termer. Hell, Grant dying might be the POD. We don't know, so stop concentrating on how Custer would have gotten elected in OTL. It's an irrelevant discussion. The timelines bear little resemblance to one another.

Just concentrate on what a nationalist Democratic President would have proposed in the 1880s.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

The point of divergence is not in 1876. The point of divergence is in 1867 or before. The original poster said as much when he said the Second Mexican Empire was still in existence. (If I had to guess, the ACW drags on for years longer, giving the French the opportunity to really prop up Maximilian.) The political conditions--"repudiating military men"--are not necessarily or even likely to be the same. We don't even know if Grant was a two termer or a one-termer or a no termer. Hell, Grant dying might be the POD. We don't know, so stop concentrating on how Custer would have gotten elected in OTL. It's an irrelevant discussion. The timelines bear little resemblance to one another.

Just concentrate on what a nationalist Democratic President would have proposed in the 1880s.

Point of Order - to an extent:

Even if the POD is 1865 its still 10 years before *Custer tries for a run, and there are still going to be quite a few similarities personality wise, so it is a necessary/relevant discussion to an extent. But overrall, I have been focusing way to much on it trying to actually get a feel for the time period of OTL, so you do have a point. Still though, Custer is 36, there will be far more seasoned people to look at in 1876, 1880s is still a better attempt to be President.

To that end though, @thezerech I would say an 1865 POD, with a more successful assassination of Lincoln, Johnson, Seward,Grant and co would be enough to throw confusion on the government and military in general, especially just after the Civil War. Lafayette Foster, President pro-temp will rise to the Presidency (according to laws of succession at that time) and it could just be enough to throw most of the US into a harsher reconstruction, is enough of a distraction for Maximilian and Napoleon III to revitalize and secure control over the Mexican Empire. OTL all of the French Troops left in 1866....

Harsher reconstruction would lead to a larger union/US army, but it would depend on how large you have it to choose between consistent garrison duty in the south vs the taming of the west. But quite possibly a larger and more professional US army could make the Indian Wars finish earlier.

Lets see, pushing of harsher Alabama claims reparations along with the Fenian raids on the US-Canadian border will hamper any Anglo-British relations. If you count the fact that you have a British-owned Canada to the North and a French dominated Mexico to the South there will probably be a war sometime before the turn of the century. The US are going to push the Monroe doctrine a lot more forcefully because of that....

I really really want to explore this world. I have become insanely curious.

 

[Devan Yates]

Essentially, I was just wondering what his policies would be. Considering I have two big changes, a more successful Fenian raid into Canada and the victory of the Second Mexican Empire, I imagine I could move TTL's equivalent of the LBH earlier in 1874 or 1875, change U.S army size and equipment because there is a much more active threat of war with the U.K and E. of Mexico. Him winning a big victory against the indians in Montana is the easy part. I was just wondering what his policies would be. I understand he was a McClellanite democrat, but also very Jingoistic. I was wondering specifically in regards to reconstruction as something that would have a long lasting effect on U.S history. I imagine him improving the U.S Navy.

FWIW, I think the other posters are right about 1876 being too early. But whatever they're saying about the country not liking military men is overblown. Hayes' biggest claim to fame was battlefield heroism, and in 1880, a former and current military man were nominated (Garfield and Hancock), and it was one of the closest elections in American history. But yada yada. I like the idea of Custer as a Trumpish figure. In 1876, Tilden was for hard money, was anti-Chinese immigration, against granting land to railroads (and for granting it to settlers instead), against the protective tariff, and in favor of civil service reform and letting white Southerners murder, rape, pillage and terrorize black Southerners. Interestingly enough, the Democrats had already begun to split a little about the currency issue. The VP nom was a soft money guy. Also, the Greenback Party had emerged in the West, taking votes largely from Democrats. The 1880 platform was similar, but with a plank about bimetallism. So if the political issues are the same in the ATL (they wouldn't be), and we go with Custer in 1880 as a Democratic demagogue in the mold of Jackson, I'd say we have all of the above except a more forceful push for a generous bimetallic standard (enough to preempt the Greenbackers), a more aggressive Western public land distribution scheme, more hostility toward railroads and monopolies, and supercharged racism, advocating more vigorous genocide against American Indians, the removal (as opposed to the exclusion) of the Chinese, and open hostility towards black people with a ringing endorsement of proto-Jim Crow policies. And perhaps advocating aggression towards Mexico or Cuba.

Hope that helps.

 

[Devan Yates]

Point of Order - to an extent:

Even if the POD is 1865 its still 10 years before *Custer tries for a run, and there are still going to be quite a few similarities personality wise, so it is a necessary/relevant discussion to an extent. But overrall, I have been focusing way to much on it trying to actually get a feel for the time period of OTL, so you do have a point. Still though, Custer is 36, there will be far more seasoned people to look at in 1876, 1880s is still a better attempt to be President.

To that end though, @thezerech I would say an 1865 POD, with a more successful assassination of Lincoln, Johnson, Seward,Grant and co would be enough to throw confusion on the government and military in general, especially just after the Civil War. Lafayette Foster, President pro-temp will rise to the Presidency (according to laws of succession at that time) and it could just be enough to throw most of the US into a harsher reconstruction, is enough of a distraction for Maximilian and Napoleon III to revitalize and secure control over the Mexican Empire. OTL all of the French Troops left in 1866....

Harsher reconstruction would lead to a larger union/US army, but it would depend on how large you have it to choose between consistent garrison duty in the south vs the taming of the west. But quite possibly a larger and more professional US army could make the Indian Wars finish earlier.

Lets see, pushing of harsher Alabama claims reparations along with the Fenian raids on the US-Canadian border will hamper any Anglo-British relations. If you count the fact that you have a British-owned Canada to the North and a French dominated Mexico to the South there will probably be a war sometime before the turn of the century. The US are going to push the Monroe doctrine a lot more forcefully because of that....

I really really want to explore this world. I have become insanely curious.

Custer is too young in 1876, no question. (See my response to one of thezerech's reply posts) But it does seem like a pretty cool idea for a timeline, doesn't it?

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Custer is too young in 1876, no question. (See my response to one of thezerech's reply posts) But it does seem like a pretty cool idea for a timeline, doesn't it?

Custer is a volatile personality. Flamboyant, military, a democrat in a Republican dominated world. Really only liked by Sheridan of the officers. Distrusted by Grant and Sherman, and many politicians for his apparent foot-in-mouth syndrome.

I admit my bias is there, but its a curious world to see if Custer would rise as far as he can. I know you said he'd be Trump, but in all honesty for a military man turned politician, or an attempt to, I would say he is more Douglas MacArthur.

 

[Devan Yates]

Custer is a volatile personality. Flamboyant, military, a democrat in a Republican dominated world. Really only liked by Sheridan of the officers. Distrusted by Grant and Sherman, and many politicians for his apparent foot-in-mouth syndrome.

I admit my bias is there, but its a curious world to see if Custer would rise as far as he can. I know you said he'd be Trump, but in all honesty for a military man turned politician, or an attempt to, I would say he is more Douglas MacArthur.

Lol, MacArthur and Trump are actually kind of alike. They both wildly overestimate their own greatness. Both bloviating loudmouths. Both have a penchant for advocating violent, warmongering, simplistic solutions to complicated problems. Both beloved by racist grandpas far and wide. Both sons of bitches.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Lol, MacArthur and Trump are actually kind of alike. They both wildly overestimate their own greatness. Both bloviating loudmouths. Both have a penchant for advocating violent, warmongering, simplistic solutions to complicated problems. Both beloved by racist grandpas far and wide. Both sons of bitches.

Well Trump does revere MacArthur because he is a "winner" *snicker/cough*

But seriously, Arthur Macarthur JR (Dougy's father) was/is a contemporary of Custer. 5 years apart in age, both military, clashes with civilians, and ironically both beloved by Sheridan....

 

[James XI]

76 is too early, but beyond that I think people are overestimating what it took to be a presidential candidate at the time. A lot of things he was criticized for in the military...showboating, glory hounding, acting outside of policy, etc. fit in nicely with what it took to get/keep your name in the headlines at the time. Further supposing he gets real currency for LBH, why are people assuming he'll sit on that until say '80? Does anything about him speak to that kind of caution? Yes, there's a very good chance he wastes the currency LBH gives him, but there's also the real possibility that he spends it getting other opportunities for glory which may or may not pay off. I don't see him sitting on his hands for years either way.

All that said, I'm not sure a successful LBH generates enough glory, or that Custer's the only/primary beneficiary. A lot of that Otl came hand in hand with the idea of martyrdom. You could write a LBH where his personal heroism saves the day, and then write in some reason it gets widely circulated, I suppose. To me Crook's a more likely hero of a successful LBH, though he never seemed all that interested in office.

 

[thezerech]

I probably should have actually given more about the POD. To date, the U.S relevant stuff in the Mexican "Civil War" (eh eh,) essentially is already over by the end of 1864. In 1866 the Fenian Invasion of Canada actually goes off, and over ~15,000 of them actually make it. To give the short version, sans the actual PODs, the Fenians actually manage some minor victories, and the run out of steam after less than a week then return to the U.S. This environment leaves a weaker Republican party. and a disgraced Johnson. I can kinda mess around with Custer's court martial and Grant's corruption scandal if I want. I think they're enough PODs and butterflies to allow that. Custer in 1880 makes more sense. Just thinking about what I want for the future U.S political spectrum, I think this would lead to a hawk and dove branch of both parties, aswell as progressive and conservative branches for both. I imagine Roosevelt and Lodge to be Progressive Hawk's within the Republican party, an answer to the Hawkish branch of the democrat's that a Custer presidency would bring.


Just so y'all know, if I decide it's viable and do make Custer president. I'm not going to have him be a moron, and probably have him run and win reelection, maybe more than once.

FWIW, I think the other posters are right about 1876 being too early. But whatever they're saying about the country not liking military men is overblown. Hayes' biggest claim to fame was battlefield heroism, and in 1880, a former and current military man were nominated (Garfield and Hancock), and it was one of the closest elections in American history. But yada yada. I like the idea of Custer as a Trumpish figure. In 1876, Tilden was for hard money, was anti-Chinese immigration, against granting land to railroads (and for granting it to settlers instead), against the protective tariff, and in favor of civil service reform and letting white Southerners murder, rape, pillage and terrorize black Southerners. Interestingly enough, the Democrats had already begun to split a little about the currency issue. The VP nom was a soft money guy. Also, the Greenback Party had emerged in the West, taking votes largely from Democrats. The 1880 platform was similar, but with a plank about bimetallism. So if the political issues are the same in the ATL (they wouldn't be), and we go with Custer in 1880 as a Democratic demagogue in the mold of Jackson, I'd say we have all of the above except a more forceful push for a generous bimetallic standard (enough to preempt the Greenbackers), a more aggressive Western public land distribution scheme, more hostility toward railroads and monopolies, and supercharged racism, advocating more vigorous genocide against American Indians, the removal (as opposed to the exclusion) of the Chinese, and open hostility towards black people with a ringing endorsement of proto-Jim Crow policies. And perhaps advocating aggression towards Mexico or Cuba.

Hope that helps.

Okay, thanks for that. I think I'll have to do more research on the currency issue. I bet, this'll help out in my APUSH class come February funnily enough. On a more serious note, was Custer known as a Racist? I know he was a democrat which is pretty much the same thing, but I don't know if he'd do more than turn a blind eye. Could we also expect vigorous anti-monopoly action like Roosevelt? With a hostile Empire of Mexico to his south, and their new ally the U.K in Canada, I imagine a more vigorous military, and especially naval expansion. I think this U.S would still be quite Francophobic, and I don't see a statue of Liberty existing, as the French Third Republic would still have significant business interests in Mexico. As one of the eventual goals of this TL is to have the United States side with Germany in WWI, I would really like to see a much more Germanphilic U.S army. I know in the 1870s and 1880s the Army had very German looking uniforms as opposed to the Francophilic uniforms of the 1850s and 1860s. I don't know if that would be a huge difference practically but it would instill a different mentality, coupled with so many military men in the white house.

 

[Devan Yates]

Okay, thanks for that. I think I'll have to do more research on the currency issue. I bet, this'll help out in my APUSH class come February funnily enough. On a more serious note, was Custer known as a Racist? I know he was a democrat which is pretty much the same thing, but I don't know if he'd do more than turn a blind eye.

One, it was the 1800s. Everyone was a racist. Two, he was a Democrat, which means he was even racist for the time period. Three, he helped orchestrate and personally oversaw a portion of the American Indian genocide. Four, he's Custer. He wasn't a man known for his laconic demeanor and magnanimity. He was known for being a loudmouthed, hypermasculine hothead. Custer in politics would be all about some racism.

 

[Devan Yates]

Okay, thanks for that. I think I'll have to do more research on the currency issue.

Just remember, the currency issue is really a class issue. The currency was really just a proxy for a debt policy, in some ways more advanced than the way we talk about it now and in some ways more primitive. It's kind of hard to imagine now, but capitalism as we think of it today, with wage labor at the foundation of the system, was still a relatively controversial idea in the 1880s. A lot of people though of being "employed" as a little disreputable. You wanted to employ yourself or be a partner in a venture, not some dude's lackey. Inflationary currency policy devalues debt, which allows people to stay on their land and avoid being pulled into the wage system. In their minds, that gave them greater power and autonomy. They were probably right, when it comes down to it. So currency really represented a lot more than it might appear at face value. It was a symbol for an entire vision of economic organization--a society of small owner/producers vs a society of big time employer/owners and employee/renters.

 

[thezerech]

Just remember, the currency issue is really a class issue. The currency was really just a proxy for a debt policy, in some ways more advanced than the way we talk about it now and in some ways more primitive. It's kind of hard to imagine now, but capitalism as we think of it today, with wage labor at the foundation of the system, was still a relatively controversial idea in the 1880s. A lot of people though of being "employed" as a little disreputable. You wanted to employ yourself or be a partner in a venture, not some dude's lackey. Inflationary currency policy devalues debt, which allows people to stay on their land and avoid being pulled into the wage system. In their minds, that gave them greater power and autonomy. They were probably right, when it comes down to it. So currency really represented a lot more than it might appear at face value. It was a symbol for an entire vision of economic organization--a society of small owner/producers vs a society of big time employer/owners and employee/renters.

So if I recall correctly the democrats wanted a silver standard right? At least by the 1890s.This was to make inflation easier? To reduce farmer debt and wage labor? Would Custer follow through we these? I think he would be moderate on economics, not really his area. What about Hancock?

 

[Devan Yates]

So if I recall correctly the democrats wanted a silver standard right? At least by the 1890s.This was to make inflation easier? To reduce farmer debt and wage labor? Would Custer follow through we these? I think he would be moderate on economics, not really his area. What about Hancock?

Yes. They wanted a bimetallic standard, where both gold and silver backed the currency, with a very favorable exchange rate for silver. And that's the idea--the currency is inflated, which devalues debts and creates easy access to credit, because your money will decrease in value if you hold onto it in inflationary times. Easy access to credit and the devaluation of debt make it easier for people to own things. Widespread distribution of ownership means prosperity for all (so the theory goes).

Would Custer support this kind of thing? If he wants to be president, yeah he would. Custer's not a respectable kind of guy, and he's not going to win trying to pretend to be respectable. It's out of character anyway. His strategy would have to be Jacksonian--populist in the Trump sense, and not in the Populist Party sense--combining nationalism, racism, and hostility to finance. What's more, such a strategy would probably have been successful. The Greenbackers got 300,000 votes in 1880 on a platform of hostility to finance and racial liberalism(!). Meanwhile, Hancock lost by less than 2,000 votes. Greenbackers skewed Democrat, so those are 300,000 votes that a small-p populist can really go after. An out and out charismatic racist with a similar economic message to the Greenbackers would have really been a force to be reckoned with IOTL. IN this timeline? I don't know. There's not enough detail to say, but if those economic conditions are similar to OTL, a charismatic racist-nationalist with a pro-debtor economic policy would be a force to be reckoned with.