Fremont wins in 1856
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:17:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  Fremont wins in 1856
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Fremont wins in 1856  (Read 2678 times)
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 16, 2005, 07:19:35 PM »

Say John Fremont lands an upset victory against James Buchanan in the 1856 election. How would history have panned out? Could the U.S. have averted the Civil War? Or would it have started even earlier than it did?
Logged
Burn baby, Burn
pellaken
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 397
Political Matrix
E: -0.38, S: -1.08

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2005, 12:40:50 PM »

started earlier, without a lincoln. north would win without emancepation, and reconstruction would take 50 years, followed by a second civil war in which the south wins. slavery would still exist today allbeit in a modern form.
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2005, 02:50:58 PM »

Fremont was not a leader or a politician. South Carolina secedes in December 1856, followed by most of the South. Pierce does noth.ing, and Fremont takes the Union Army into several disasterous campaigns into the Deep South.

General Scott manages to hold the Capitol, but dies of a heart attack due to the strain of dealing with an ignoramus in the White House. Without Scott, the Union War effor starts to fall apart.

In 1860, Stephen Douglas defeates Fremont in the Presidential Election, puts an end to the disasterous war, and the nation splits in two. But by 1900 the nation reunites due to President McKinley's "reunification" war (Spanish-American) that combines but Confederate and Union Armies. Also slavery is no longer needed due to modern technology, so by 1902 the nation is reunified.

Fremont ranks with the worst of the Presidents, two from the 1880's:

James Sherman (elected in 1880 under extremely anti-Confederate Platform, and declares martial law several times due to riots against high inflation.)

James G. Blaine (elected in 1884 after defeating President James Sherman for the nomination, is known as "The Patron Saint of Lobbyists".)

Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2005, 02:27:12 AM »

I don't even want to think about that possibility.

The South most likely would have seceded as they did in 1860...

But with the war concentrated far more on abolition & emancipation than it was in real life--and conducted by a near-crazy loon (who would want to take personal command of the armies a la President Taylor)...It's likely that the North gives up by the 1858 midterms.

Speaking of President Taylor, let's all be glad that he died of food poisoning.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2006, 11:55:20 AM »

Bump. It would be interesting to see more opinions.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2006, 12:04:51 PM »

Possibility 1: Civil War breaks out in 1856 just as in 1860.
Two choices: North wins anyways, continues much as OTL.
Or, North does badly, Dem wins in 58 midterms and 60 presidentials force peace. Utah declares independence. South quickly splinters and is now several 90odd% Black countries de facto dependent on North, mostly freed by violent revolution ŕ la Haiti. Western history becomes very, very, interesting. Whole post-1914 World history might also be different, with European Nations stronger compared to US than in OTL.

Possibility 2: Southern States and Southern public opinion are unprepared to and shocked by result, no secession except perhaps an abortive South Carolinan effort ensues. Slavery dies a long drawn out and ugly death somewhere in the 1880s or 90s.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2006, 03:33:12 PM »

First, in order to make a reasonable counterfactual, tell us how Fremont won.  Just saying "what if he won" doesn't cut it.

Perhaps Fillmore dropping out and endorsing him could have done it? (and was there a realistic possibility that Fillmore would have actually done so?  Perhaps someone will set me straight on this.  I know many Know-Nothings eventually came over to the Republicans, but then again Fillmore was very moderate on slavery, signing the Compromise of 1850.  He obviously didn't believe in the "key" ideal of the Republican Party, banishing all slavery from the territories.)
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2006, 05:26:41 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2006, 05:30:58 PM by Michael Z »

First, in order to make a reasonable counterfactual, tell us how Fremont won.  Just saying "what if he won" doesn't cut it.

Oh come on, you make it sound like there's a universal law in this forum where we absolutely have to point out how someone would win an election in such a scenario. I mean, what about Tweed's "What if Communist William Foster had won the Presidency in 1932?"-thread? Or the countless other threads which are vague about their electoral outcomes and just say "What if..."? Do they have to give detailed explanations as well?
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2006, 05:52:15 PM »

First, in order to make a reasonable counterfactual, tell us how Fremont won.  Just saying "what if he won" doesn't cut it.

Oh come on, you make it sound like there's a universal law in this forum where we absolutely have to point out how someone would win an election in such a scenario. I mean, what about Tweed's "What if Communist William Foster had won the Presidency in 1932?"-thread? Or the countless other threads which are vague about their electoral outcomes and just say "What if..."? Do they have to give detailed explanations as well?
Well I generally ignore most of those....

One can't just make a timeline and say "right here, history completely changed in the blink of a second," which is the effect of stating a major change in an election without providing the context in which that happened. 
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2006, 06:47:01 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2006, 06:58:04 PM by Michael Z »

First, in order to make a reasonable counterfactual, tell us how Fremont won.  Just saying "what if he won" doesn't cut it.

Oh come on, you make it sound like there's a universal law in this forum where we absolutely have to point out how someone would win an election in such a scenario. I mean, what about Tweed's "What if Communist William Foster had won the Presidency in 1932?"-thread? Or the countless other threads which are vague about their electoral outcomes and just say "What if..."? Do they have to give detailed explanations as well?
Well I generally ignore most of those....

One can't just make a timeline and say "right here, history completely changed in the blink of a second," which is the effect of stating a major change in an election without providing the context in which that happened. 

Says who? These discussions are not necessarily about discussing the circumstances in which someone is elected, but about the consequences of such a scenario. I don't know about you, but I think it can be fun to ponder, just for one second, what would have happened had, for instance, Geraldine Ferraro become President thanks to some great big cosmic accident. I think it's fair to say that we should be allowed to have these hypothetical discussions without the Realism Police coming along and ruining it for everyone concerned.

In other words (and I'm sorry to be rude here), if you don't like it, sod off and create your own bloody thread.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2006, 07:04:12 PM »

One can hardly discuss the consequences in detal without knowledge of teh circumstances.  I don't see handwaving as being sufficient to account for Fremont winning in 1856.  If he wins every single free state he wins by a margin of 180-116.  But I can't see even Fillmore and the Whig Party's support raising Fremont past the 140-156 level.  There's no way for him to win Indiana or Pennsylvania in 1856 without changing something else as Buchannan got over 50% of the vote in those two states.

That said, the South is both less likely and more able to successfully seceed in 1857 than in 1861.  Cotton is in the middle of its boom era.  Britain doesn't need northern grain as much in the late 1850's as it did in the early 1860's.  Those two factors make it more likely that the South will suceed should it secede.  But there had been no Panic of 1857 to feed southern hubris or a Harpers Ferry to fuel Southern fears.  The South was not psychologically prepared for a split in 1857.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2006, 01:59:13 AM »

Maybe to get how this happens...

Bare with me.  Seeing common goals and fearful of what a Buchanan presidency might hold, the Whigs and Republicans nominate together.  The original presidential nominees join together to form a Fremont/Fillmore ticket.  The create a unified more moderate platform and run close races in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey.  Buchanan skates by in Indiana, Maryland (fearing Fremont), and New Jersey, but narrowly fails to overcome the Unity ticket in Illinois and most importantly, Pennsylvania.  Fremont wins 152 electoral votes, giving him a small electoral victory.

Then I will say, the South does not secede, for like others said they aren't prepared.  However, traitorous South Carolina, always ready to leave the country at a moment's notice, does secede, but is quelled.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2006, 11:18:49 AM »

First, in order to make a reasonable counterfactual, tell us how Fremont won.  Just saying "what if he won" doesn't cut it.

Oh come on, you make it sound like there's a universal law in this forum where we absolutely have to point out how someone would win an election in such a scenario. I mean, what about Tweed's "What if Communist William Foster had won the Presidency in 1932?"-thread? Or the countless other threads which are vague about their electoral outcomes and just say "What if..."? Do they have to give detailed explanations as well?
Well I generally ignore most of those....

One can't just make a timeline and say "right here, history completely changed in the blink of a second," which is the effect of stating a major change in an election without providing the context in which that happened. 

Says who? These discussions are not necessarily about discussing the circumstances in which someone is elected, but about the consequences of such a scenario. I don't know about you, but I think it can be fun to ponder, just for one second, what would have happened had, for instance, Geraldine Ferraro become President thanks to some great big cosmic accident. I think it's fair to say that we should be allowed to have these hypothetical discussions without the Realism Police coming along and ruining it for everyone concerned.

In other words (and I'm sorry to be rude here), if you don't like it, sod off and create your own bloody thread.
The thing is though, what happens after Frémont's win depends a lot on whether people expected him to win - ie, whether Southerners had been talking about secession all through 1856.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2006, 10:45:57 PM »
« Edited: August 21, 2006, 09:59:07 AM by Winfield »

Republican John C Fremont is elected President of the Untied States in 1856 on an anti-slavery platform.

This infuriates the slave states in the border areas and in the south.  The border and south (Green states) secede from the union on April 5, 1857.

Jefferson Davis is declared as President and Andrew Stephens is declared as Vice President of the Confederate States of America.

Union States Blue
Confederate States Green
Territories Red



President Fremont declares the union will not tolerate the secession and declares war on April 7, 1857, "to bring a free union together."  The north and the south fight a bitter and bloody war to a standstill until June 14, 1860, when a truce is declared.

In the famous "Slave Rebellion" of July, 1860, led by heroic slave Josiah James, slaves who have formed a militia, aided by northern white and black sympathizers, bring down the Confederate capital in Richmond, Virginia.  The Confederacy had moved the capital from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond, Virginia, in 1859.

The Confederate government, including cabinet, and members of the Confederate Congress are taken captive.

President Jefferson and Vice President Stephens escape and set up a government in exile in the Arizona territory.

Emboldened by this move, the slave rebellion is broadened throughout the south, doing battle with a by now dispirited and drastically weakened Confederate army, lacking official governmental direction.

The famed black freedom fighter Moses Sinclair, inspired by the heroic expolits of Josiah James, rallys slaves throughout the south to the cause of liberty, and they are able to force the Confederate army, and President in exile Jefferson Davis, to sign the historic "Freedom Order," on September 16, 1860, freeing all slaves, giving them land, farm animals, equipment, and cash, the same order which re-unites the north and the south into one strong union. 

Jefferson and Stephens return to Richmond, and Jefferson signs official surrender documents with the union. 
   
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 13 queries.