WI Grant wins the Presidency in 1880.

[Ak-84]

WI US Grants near miss in securing a third term nomination had not been a miss and he had been nominated and elected. What changes? Will he be more proactice on Civil rights, Jim Crow law began about this time. What about other areas.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Personally, i think that he needed a to come out with a better reputation from his previous administrations for this to actually be a possibility.

 

[Ak-84]

Yes, but this thread explores the events of a Grant third term, not the possibility of the same.

 

[Mikestone8]

WI US Grants near miss in securing a third term nomination had not been a miss and he had been nominated and elected. What changes? Will he be more proactice on Civil rights, Jim Crow law began about this time. What about other areas.

He'll have trouble being proactive about anything, assuming the Congressional results are as OTL, since the GOP has only a slim majority in the House, while the Senate is equally divided. There's a lot of demand for Civil Service reform, so he might have a go at that, but in the end probably not a lot changed from Garfield and Arthur. The presidency was far less imperial in those days.

 

[Maniakes]

Grant's 1880 candidacy IOTL was as the champion of the Stalwart faction, whose defining charactaristic was belief in continuing the patronage system and opposition to civil service reform. If Grant won the nomination and the election on a pro-patronage platform (which he would, unless our POD is him switching sides pre-convention and running as a pro-reform candidate), he'd be very unlikely to push civil service reform.

I'd expect a third Grant administration to completely drop civil service reform and perhaps roll back some of Hayes's reforms. I'd expect him to push civil rights considerably harder than Garfield and Arthur did IOTL (Grant was an aggressive supporter of civil rights during his two terms in office, and the main backers of his 1880 campaign were also strong supporters of civil rights), but might not be able to get much through Congress. I think Grant was also pro-Tariff, whereas Arthur was more of a free-trader (Arthur tried and failed to get substative tariff cuts, but in the process he triggered the reemergence of the tariff as a major political issue).

 

[Ak-84]

How would it affect Civil Rights? With a Presidency which supported the same, at least the Southern States might have been compelled to pay lip service to the same and instead of disenfranchisement they might have tried something else, say separate electorates something Grant per his memoirs supported.

 

[Mikestone8]

How would it affect Civil Rights? With a Presidency which supported the same, at least the Southern States might have been compelled to pay lip service to the same and instead of disenfranchisement they might have tried something else, say separate electorates something Grant per his memoirs supported.

They paid lip service anyway till about the turn of the century. Most places Blacks were not formally deprived of the franchise, just "discouraged" from exercising it. More formal disfranchisement waited a generation, till the whole Reconstruction business was buried and forgotten.

 

[Polish Eagle]

He'll have trouble being proactive about anything, assuming the Congressional results are as OTL, since the GOP has only a slim majority in the House, while the Senate is equally divided. There's a lot of demand for Civil Service reform, so he might have a go at that, but in the end probably not a lot changed from Garfield and Arthur. The presidency was far less imperial in those days.

If that's the case, the most significant effect might be the breaking of the 2-term custom set up by Washington. Presidents who IOTL dropped out after just two terms might feel more confident in running for a third. Teddy Roosevelt is the most prominent example.

 

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

If that's the case, the most significant effect might be the breaking of the 2-term custom set up by Washington. Presidents who IOTL dropped out after just two terms might feel more confident in running for a third. Teddy Roosevelt is the most prominent example.

Either that or people think of it as an "only 2 consecutive terms" tradition. Some people interpreted it that way in OTL I think, so if Grant comes back, I'm sure he'll try to spin it that way.

 

[Ak-84]

They paid lip service anyway till about the turn of the century. Most places Blacks were not formally deprived of the franchise, just "discouraged" from exercising it. More formal disfranchisement waited a generation, till the whole Reconstruction business was buried and forgotten.

Well then, you could have a situation where Blacks are able to hold on to some real rights. Say perhaps it is accepted that there be Black Congressmen or two representing (perhaps Gerrymandered) heavily black districts in the Southern States. In OTL some Southern Congressmen did work hard for blacks interests but this was usually a personal effort by said Congressman, not a policy.

What about Foreign Policy, Grant gets US involved in the Scramble for Africa perhaps?

 

[Craigo]

Well then, you could have a situation where Blacks are able to hold on to some real rights. Say perhaps it is accepted that there be Black Congressmen or two representing (perhaps Gerrymandered) heavily black districts in the Southern States. In OTL some Southern Congressmen did work hard for blacks interests but this was usually a personal effort by said Congressman, not a policy.

What about Foreign Policy, Grant gets US involved in the Scramble for Africa perhaps?

1880 is too late to reverse the tide on civil rights. There's nothing a different President can do at this point to stop the Supreme Court from tossing out the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or to keep southern whites from introducing Jim Crow laws.