If Hancock is still the 1880 Democratic nominee in this TL, who'd the GOP nominate in 1880? Still Garfield?
But remember in OTL that a faction of the republicans tried to bring Ulysses Grant back into power, but lost to Garfield.
If Hancock is still the 1880 Democratic nominee in this TL, who'd the GOP nominate in 1880? Still Garfield?
Yes, I know.But remember in OTL that a faction of the republicans tried to bring Ulysses Grant back into power, but lost to Garfield.
Why?Sherman might be stronger here with Republicans having been the out-party going into 1880 in this timeline.
A reform message resonates more when a party is out of power than when they are in power.Why?
Was Sherman the most reformist of the 1880 GOP candidates?A reform message resonates more when a party is out of power than when they are in power.
Yes. It's ultimately what cost him the nomination and it's why Garfield's speech on his behalf was supposed to have had a different result. Stalwarts versus half-breeds. Garfield arguably walked the line between both camps.Was Sherman the most reformist of the 1880 GOP candidates?
OK.Yes. It's ultimately what cost him the nomination and it's why Garfield's speech on his behalf was supposed to have had a different result.
No, probably not. Guiteau was a madman, but he had a specific grievance which may or may not be in play in this timeline. The assassination is likely butterflied away entirely. The VP is probably a Conkling man; a stalwart to counterbalance the half breed.OK.
Also, if Sherman wins in 1880 in this TL, is he likely to get assassinated by Charles Guiteau?
If so, who would his VP pick have been? (After all, it's important when the VP becomes President just several months after becoming VP.)
Guiteau was pissed off at Garfield for not being grateful at his (Guiteau's) "help" in securing his victory. Why exactly would this change in this TL?No, probably not. Guiteau was a madman, but he had a specific grievance which may or may not be in play in this timeline. The assassination is likely butterflied away entirely. The VP is probably a Conkling man; a stalwart to counterbalance the half breed.
He may very well. Conversely, the reformist tenor of the Tilden era may push him towards other pursuits. Or, he still goes on that cruise, but is not lucky enough to survive it.Guiteau was pissed off at Garfield for not being grateful at his (Guiteau's) "help" in securing his victory. Why exactly would this change in this TL?
After all, if Guiteau still writes a speech titled "Grant v. Hancock" and then changes it to "Sherman v. Hancock" and delivers it once or twice, wouldn't he feel entitled to some government post if Sherman wins? Also, once Sherman will refuse him, wouldn't he want to install the Stalwart VP (who might or might not be Chester Arthur in this TL) as President?
David T said that Tilden is no more likely to achieve civil service reform that Hayes was in our TL, though.He may very well. Conversely, the reformist tenor of the Tilden era may push him towards other pursuits. Or, he still goes on that cruise, but is not lucky enough to survive it.
True, but the issue would probably be larger. It would be discussed in the papers if the president pushed for it, even without success.David T said that Tilden is no more likely to achieve civil service reform that Hayes was in our TL, though.
I would say Grant would be renominated, as a failure to procure the presidency in 1876 would be viewed by the delegates as what happens when you "Rock the boat" as it were. Not to mention Grant is still pretty popular around this time still I believe