Minty_Fresh
Banned
The 1880 Republican convention eventually came down to a compromise candidate in the person of James Garfield. However, it is often forgotten that Grant had the most first ballot votes and a strong base of support through the Conklite faction of the party.
If Grant was to win the nomination, what are his chances against Hancock in the general election, and how would that campaign end up looking (remember, the two men were friends and Grant campaigned for Garfield but refused to say anything negative about Hancock)?
Would this lead to more deviations from the two term tradition going forward?
And lastly, what would a Grant term 3 look like? Keep in mind who in the party backed him to the hilt. A combination of the Conklinites and the more radical and racially progressive party members. This might mean that Grant would seek to overturn the Southern Redeemers victories from '76 onwards. It also might mean a gross amount of corruption infects the federal government.
The 1870s and rapid industrialization that kicked off the gilded age was a hell of a lot worse in the 1880s in terms of machine politics and corruption. Grant, while personally honest, was well known to be an easy mark, trusting people who were gratuitously corrupt, and not really having much of a grasp of economics or of the massive changes occurring to the US economy during the period. I think a Grant term 3 would lead to a watershed period of economic corruption and government dysfunction. At the same time, it might be more judicious in its dealings with Native American tribes and do a better job of promoting civil rights for African Americans.
Any thoughts?
If Grant was to win the nomination, what are his chances against Hancock in the general election, and how would that campaign end up looking (remember, the two men were friends and Grant campaigned for Garfield but refused to say anything negative about Hancock)?
Would this lead to more deviations from the two term tradition going forward?
And lastly, what would a Grant term 3 look like? Keep in mind who in the party backed him to the hilt. A combination of the Conklinites and the more radical and racially progressive party members. This might mean that Grant would seek to overturn the Southern Redeemers victories from '76 onwards. It also might mean a gross amount of corruption infects the federal government.
The 1870s and rapid industrialization that kicked off the gilded age was a hell of a lot worse in the 1880s in terms of machine politics and corruption. Grant, while personally honest, was well known to be an easy mark, trusting people who were gratuitously corrupt, and not really having much of a grasp of economics or of the massive changes occurring to the US economy during the period. I think a Grant term 3 would lead to a watershed period of economic corruption and government dysfunction. At the same time, it might be more judicious in its dealings with Native American tribes and do a better job of promoting civil rights for African Americans.
Any thoughts?