Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 07:24:25 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  Hamilton vs. Jefferson?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Hamilton vs. Jefferson?  (Read 1594 times)
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14932
United States


View Profile
« on: November 17, 2011, 08:58:08 pm »
Ignore

What would've happened if Hamilton's political career survived long enough that he could be the 1796 Federalist candidate instead of Adams? If Hamilton could win, how might that change American foreign policy, economics, expansion, etc.? What would happen to Jefferson if he won? What happens to either of them if they get second place and become VP?
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27856
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2011, 06:41:42 pm »
Ignore

No, John Adams was always going to be the second President.  However, if Hamilton had not been forced to the sidelines, I think he would have stayed away from the shenanigans that led to Jefferson instead of Pinckney being our second vice-President.  The 1800 election would likely have been between Adams and Clinton, with Adams winning.  I think Adams would have followed Washington's precedent and not run for third term, and Hamilton would have been the most likely candidate for the Federalist nomination.  Hard to say who would have gotten the D-R nomination.  If Hamilton had won in 1804, it's quite likely we would have gotten involved in the Napoleonic Wars sooner than we did and on the side of Britain.  We probably would have invaded Louisiana in 1805 as our contribution to the War of the Third Coalition.  (I don't see a Louisiana or even a New Orleans Purchase happening with Adams as President.)

It would have been interesting to have a few U.S. ships at the Battle of Trafalgar, but I think the small U.S. Navy would have stayed mainly on this side of the Atlantic pond.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14932
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2011, 07:17:19 pm »
Ignore

No, John Adams was always going to be the second President.  However, if Hamilton had not been forced to the sidelines, I think he would have stayed away from the shenanigans that led to Jefferson instead of Pinckney being our second vice-President.  The 1800 election would likely have been between Adams and Clinton, with Adams winning.  I think Adams would have followed Washington's precedent and not run for third term, and Hamilton would have been the most likely candidate for the Federalist nomination.  Hard to say who would have gotten the D-R nomination.  If Hamilton had won in 1804, it's quite likely we would have gotten involved in the Napoleonic Wars sooner than we did and on the side of Britain.  We probably would have invaded Louisiana in 1805 as our contribution to the War of the Third Coalition.  (I don't see a Louisiana or even a New Orleans Purchase happening with Adams as President.)

It would have been interesting to have a few U.S. ships at the Battle of Trafalgar, but I think the small U.S. Navy would have stayed mainly on this side of the Atlantic pond.

An 1804 race between Hamilton and Burr should have an interesting conclusion. Wink

What I was thinking about, primarily, when I made this, was Hamilton's foreign policy given the trouble with the French. I'm wondering if this establishes an early precedent for American foreign intervention, and maybe even makes Conservatives warhawks earlier on than in OTL. Also, how America entering into war so early might effect it. How might these questions be changed with a Hamilton Presidency beginning in 1805?
Logged

Stardust
Full Member
***
Posts: 205
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2011, 11:18:20 pm »
Ignore

Hamilton was ineligible for election to the office of the Presidency.
Logged

Were we forewarned?
Force it to break
Labor of hate
Who are we fooling?
What are we doing?

Skinny Puppy, "Use Less"
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27856
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2011, 05:32:49 pm »
Ignore

Hamilton was ineligible for election to the office of the Presidency.

Actually he was.  You need to either be a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the U.S. as of the adoption of the Constitution to be president.  While Hamilton does not meet the first possibility, he does the second as he was citizen of the United States as of 4 March 1789.

What I was thinking about, primarily, when I made this, was Hamilton's foreign policy given the trouble with the French. I'm wondering if this establishes an early precedent for American foreign intervention, and maybe even makes Conservatives warhawks earlier on than in OTL. Also, how America entering into war so early might effect it. How might these questions be changed with a Hamilton Presidency beginning in 1805?

Not nearly as much as they would have if he'd become President in 1797.  By 1805 it was clear that France was not going to be a bastion of republican virtue.  If Hamilton had tried to side with Britain in 1797, it could well have led to the breakup of the United States.  In 1805, war with France would have been a unifying factor both north and south.  The south would have had Louisiana and Cuba to gain from the war, while the north would have been able to maintain the more profitable trade with Britain.

Conversely, uninterrupted trade with the British will retard the development of Yankee manufactures.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Stardust
Full Member
***
Posts: 205
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2011, 05:41:59 am »
Ignore

While Hamilton does not meet the first possibility, he does the second as he was citizen of the United States as of 4 March 1789.

Quite. I had forgotten that.

Here's how I see the election playing out if it were held today:



327/211

This election is largely a battle between the populist Jefferson and the elitist Hamilton around many of the same issues they waged war over in their day, simply adjusted for twenty decades of development. Hamilton represents a similar sort of political alignment Rudy Giuliani did in the 2008 Republican primaries, namely financial investors hooked into the system of State subsidies and bailouts. Jefferson is able to combine populism with minarchism, excoriating Hamilton and his corrupt capitalist friends for relying on the government for economic support. The high-churcher Hamilton strikes back at Jefferson on social issues, lambasting him as a closet atheist and a radical looking to upset the established order.

The conflict turns on the Southland, with the old New Dealer bastions of Arkansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia giving Jefferson the edge he needs to outflank Hamilton. But Hamilton is able to keep it closer than might otherwise be expected because of the toxicity of Jefferson to religious conservatives. Alaska delivers to Hamilton the highest vote percentage ever recorded in that State, with the many oil businesses there mortified at the prospect of being cut off from Federal patronage.

Michigan, surprisingly, defects from the Jeffersonian camp, alarmed at the possibility of being forced to repay the bailouts of 2008 and frightened by Jefferson's anti-government rhetoric. The Atlantic coastal States also stick with the native Hamilton, buoyed by Wall Street's influence.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 05:45:21 am by Stardust »Logged

Were we forewarned?
Force it to break
Labor of hate
Who are we fooling?
What are we doing?

Skinny Puppy, "Use Less"
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14932
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2011, 04:18:41 pm »
Ignore

I'd think Connecticut would be  shoo-in for Hamilton in the above race. What I'm wondering about is the more Liberal side of Jefferson when reading your description of a modern race. Jefferson was probably majority Minarchist, but he also called for re-distribution in order to level the playing field. That might help in the West, but among the uber-rugged individualists (not saying they'd vote Hamilton), that would still be the sin of government interference. I see Hamilton doing better in Maine, Wisconsin, and Illinois than you give him credit for. (not that I"m a big Hamilton fan. I thinkthey both had good and bad qualities)
Logged

Stardust
Full Member
***
Posts: 205
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2011, 04:24:25 pm »
Ignore

I'd think Connecticut would be  shoo-in for Hamilton in the above race. What I'm wondering about is the more Liberal side of Jefferson when reading your description of a modern race. Jefferson was probably majority Minarchist, but he also called for re-distribution in order to level the playing field. That might help in the West, but among the uber-rugged individualists (not saying they'd vote Hamilton), that would still be the sin of government interference. I see Hamilton doing better in Maine, Wisconsin, and Illinois than you give him credit for. (not that I"m a big Hamilton fan. I thinkthey both had good and bad qualities)

Jefferson believed, as do I, that government intervention in the economy is almost invariably to the benefit of the wealthy elite. Odds are his platform would be a sort-of liberaltarian synthesis, which ought to allay the fears of individualists.
Logged

Were we forewarned?
Force it to break
Labor of hate
Who are we fooling?
What are we doing?

Skinny Puppy, "Use Less"
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27856
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2011, 02:51:53 pm »
Ignore

Always hard to say what would be happen if you take people out of their own times into another.  Do you think Jefferson's wife Sally Hemings Jefferson would help or hurt him electorally?

Yes, I know he never could have married Sally Hemmings in his own time, but if transplanted 220 or so years into the future, I think he might well have. In any case, it's an example of how you can't neglect the effect of history on the man when you consider the effect of the man on history.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2012, 08:15:48 pm »
Ignore

Provided that Hamilton was eligible, a curbstomp for Tommy is inevitable:

Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

---------------------------------------

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14932
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2012, 10:37:14 am »
Ignore

Provided that Hamilton was eligible, a curbstomp for Tommy is inevitable:


By saying "Curbstomp for Tommy" it sounds like you have Jefferson losing. But given how you think of the two men and the colors you're using, I'm guessing you meant the opposite.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2442
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2012, 04:14:26 pm »
Ignore

Provided that Hamilton was eligible, a curbstomp for Tommy is inevitable:
By saying "Curbstomp for Tommy" it sounds like you have Jefferson losing. But given how you think of the two men and the colors you're using, I'm guessing you meant the opposite.
A curbstomp for Tommy meaning he wins in a landslide.  So yeah.
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

---------------------------------------

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines