WI: No Grant in 1868

Thomas1195

Banned
What if Grant either died or had a mental breakdown before 1868?

Who would win the Republican Nomination in 1868?

Wade? Sumner? Chase? Greeley? Colfax? Henry Wilson? Banks? (these guys were the most significant Republicans by that time)

How would the equivalent of the IOTL Liberal Republican look like?
 
None of those have any war record to speak of. Banks was a general but a relatively obscure one.

It will almost certainly be another prominent General - Sherman if he'll take it, otherwise possibly Sheridan. Admiral Farragut might be a long shot candidate.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
None of those have any war record to speak of. Banks was a general but a relatively obscure one.

It will almost certainly be another prominent General - Sherman if he'll take it, otherwise possibly Sheridan. Admiral Farragut might be a long shot candidate.
Other generals, especially Sherman, seemed to be not interested in politics.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yet with the solitary exception of Blaine in 1884, every Republican candidate through 1900 had served in the ACW. No obvious reason why 1868 should be different.
They were already accomplished politicians long before becoming Potus.

Such individuals in 1868 only limited to Banks, Butler and Fremont.
 
They were already accomplished politicians long before becoming Potus.

Such individuals in 1868 only limited to Banks, Butler and Fremont.

Didn't stop them nominating Grant.

One other point. If the Republicans don't nominate a soldier, the Democrats surely will - probably General Hancock. Will the Republicans really choose someone who has sat out the war in the halls of Congress, when they could well be running against a Hero of Gettysburg?

Finally, if they do opt for a civilian politician of political experience, why not Seward? He has ample name recognition, and a degree of "martyr" status due to his close brush with death in 1865. Sumner and Greeley are the only others half as well known, and either of them would be highly controversial
 
But it seems that Sherman or other generals might turn down the offer.

Maybe - but their OTL attitude was in the knowledge that Grant had it in the bag, and might have been different w/o him in the running. And thr Reps wd want a soldier if the could possibly find one.
 
One possibility I hadn't thought of.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was Governor of Maine, so clearly happy to go into politics. As a Union general, he had distinguished himself at Gettysburg. Would be an obvious "counter" to Hancock should the latter be nominated, and a perfectly credible one against any Dem.

Slogan. "He saved Little Round Top. Now let him save the nation!"
 
One possibility I hadn't thought of.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was Governor of Maine, so clearly happy to go into politics. As a Union general, he had distinguished himself at Gettysburg. Would be an obvious "counter" to Hancock should the latter be nominated, and a perfectly credible one against any Dem.

Slogan. "He saved Little Round Top. Now let him save the nation!"

Chamberlain also probably fits the bill of not being soft on reconstruction, which Sherman definitely would not. IMO it's him or Sharridan, if not Grant.

The real question is who becomes General-in-chief if Grant dies or has a break-down? Grant and Stanton were both very sympathetic to reconstruction. Sherman, Grant's logical successor, was not. This could make congressional Republicans even more anti-Johnson. So you have to step back and reflect on the fact that, absent Grant, there's a non-tryvial chance Johnson gets impeached. So to avoid that butterfly, you'd need Grant to be incapacitated as late as possible.

Assuming it's Chamberlain--and that seems to me to be the most likely outcome in 68--the question is, who become his key advisors? I think we can assume the Conkling machine won't play as pivotal a role in his admin as they did in Grant's. Who are his political backers? Blaine? Sumner? Other New England politicians? How does he handle issues of foreign policy?

Could be interesting times.
 
Chamberlain also probably fits the bill of not being soft on reconstruction, which Sherman definitely would not. IMO it's him or Sharridan, if not Grant.

The real question is who becomes General-in-chief if Grant dies or has a break-down? Grant and Stanton were both very sympathetic to reconstruction. Sherman, Grant's logical successor, was not. This could make congressional Republicans even more anti-Johnson. So you have to step back and reflect on the fact that, absent Grant, there's a non-tryvial chance Johnson gets impeached. So to avoid that butterfly, you'd need Grant to be incapacitated as late as possible.


How big a butterfly would it be? At worst, Wade would only be keeping the seat warm for nine months.

FTM, if Congress starts considering impeachment a year or two sooner, will Wade be President of the Senate? If they're already seeing the position as a stepping-stone to the White House, the Senators may well pick someone less controversial.

And eve if impeachment comes early, it will still be a pretty narrow window. If it is voted on before Oct 1867, that triggers a Presidential election in November of the same year.
 
Top