Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2014, 11:29:19 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  Tippecanoe and Tyler too.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Tippecanoe and Tyler too.  (Read 1832 times)
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« on: March 22, 2012, 01:46:03 pm »
Ignore

Hello there.

In the General Election of 1840, William Henry Harrison became the first man to campaign for the Presidency actively. He portrayed his opponent, President Van Buren as an elitist snob, living high upon the hog on the tax payer's money.

He wasn't exactly a hobo himself, but apparently that wasn't important.

His campaign strategy of slinging mud and not even looking at the issues worked marvels. He got in by landslide numbers, 234 Electoral College votes to sixty.

Then, he died.

His replacement, John Tyler, had been chosen as Vice-President mainly to get Harrison supporters in the southern States. He was a former Democrat, a champion of States' rights, and once he was in the White House, he opposed nearly the entire Whig program.

Now, suppose President Harrison didn't die? How would his actions and policies have differed from Mr. Tyler's? Also, would he have sought a second term in 1844, and how do you think he would have done in that election, assuming he were to be nominated again.

Maps are handy for the 1844 election predictions, but not essential.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 01:52:08 pm by A Proud Republican »Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2012, 03:40:54 pm »
Ignore

The main problem was the brewing conflict between the Whig leader, Clay, and its President, my man Harrison.  If they can get past that, they should have the recipe to ensure, or at least prolong, the survival of the Whigs as a party for a few more years. In 1844 with a successful Harrison Presidency, they're set up much better for the future as a major party. In RL, both men they elected died in office. Withthis, I think they'd have mroe success, especially without the disaster in Congress that Tyler was.
Logged

A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2012, 03:51:25 pm »
Ignore

The main problem was the brewing conflict between the Whig leader, Clay, and its President, my man Harrison.  If they can get past that, they should have the recipe to ensure, or at least prolong, the survival of the Whigs as a party for a few more years. In 1844 with a successful Harrison Presidency, they're set up much better for the future as a major party. In RL, both men they elected died in office. Withthis, I think they'd have mroe success, especially without the disaster in Congress that Tyler was.

Do you see them lasting perhaps long enough to have a realistic candidate in 1856, or do the Republicans still take over?
Logged
Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2484
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2012, 05:30:34 pm »
Ignore

I would recommend "A long and Flowing Whig" on ah.com, but many believe higher tariffs, a third national bank, and an expanded military aren't unrealistic.
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:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

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

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2012, 06:13:00 pm »
Ignore

I'm wondering who the Dems might nominate in 1844. Polk, after all, was a real dark horse (and a good President, though he's long since faded from people caring). The three main candidates were former Pres. Van Buren, Senator James Buchanan, and Lewis Cass. Might one of them be able to pull off a victory before the convention turns to dark horses? I'll have to read up on Tyler's Presidency and find out how it all went down. All I know is what I remember from US History earlier this school year.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2012, 06:27:24 pm »
Ignore

Buchanan might actually be a good choice. With 24 years of experience in national politics including a stint as Ambassador to Russia, being a dough-heard (Northerner with Southern sympathies), and coming from Pennsylvania, he might be able to land the nom.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2484
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2012, 08:53:19 pm »
Ignore

Buchanan might actually be a good choice. With 24 years of experience in national politics including a stint as Ambassador to Russia, being a dough-heard (Northerner with Southern sympathies), and coming from Pennsylvania, he might be able to land the nom.

Screw Buchanan!  Polk 44!  Fillmore 52!  Btw, I hope he's POTUS in your Washington TL.  Otherwise, there will be Hell to pay Wink
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:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

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

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2012, 09:51:39 pm »
Ignore

Well, in this scenario Harrison doesn't die and so Tyler's tenure in office doesn't happen, so they have Harrison to start with. The question for me would be whether or not somebody like Clay is likely to challenge him for the nomination in 1844.

Henry Clay wanted the Whig nomination bad, as I understand.
Logged
Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2484
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2012, 10:10:06 pm »
Ignore

Well, in this scenario Harrison doesn't die and so Tyler's tenure in office doesn't happen, so they have Harrison to start with. The question for me would be whether or not somebody like Clay is likely to challenge him for the nomination in 1844.

Henry Clay wanted the Whig nomination bad, as I understand.

Harrison promised to only serve one term if elected.  He wouldn't run for a second term unless to prevent Clay from winning it.
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:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

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

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2012, 10:30:10 pm »
Ignore

Harrison promised to only serve one term if elected.  He wouldn't run for a second term unless to prevent Clay from winning it.

I hadn't known that. I have to wonder, why did he make such a promise to start with?

How long do you see the Whigs lasting, with a successful President Harrison?
Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2012, 08:49:58 am »
Ignore

Buchanan might actually be a good choice. With 24 years of experience in national politics including a stint as Ambassador to Russia, being a dough-heard (Northerner with Southern sympathies), and coming from Pennsylvania, he might be able to land the nom.

Screw Buchanan!  Polk 44!  Fillmore 52!  Btw, I hope he's POTUS in your Washington TL.  Otherwise, there will be Hell to pay Wink

Alternate history doesn't always play out the way you'd prefer it. Tongue

1844
By the time Harrison's four years are up, the Whigs have made great strides in domestic policy with the National Bank, internal improvements, etc. Meanwhile, foreign policy has been successful with the Webster-Ashburton Treaty and a number of other successful moves. While President Harrison would like a candidate that supports expansion into the West, at the Whig convention, Secretary of State Daniel Webster is endorsed by Harrison in a move against Clay, the main other leading Whig. Webster wins the nomination narrowly and Senator John Crittenden is nominated for Vice President to appease Clay. Meanwhile, the Democrats face a crowded convention as three major candidates have emerged. Lewis Cass of Michigan, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, and former President Martin Van Buren of New York. After a number of ballots, the young "doughface" James Buchanan is nominated for President. A Northerner who can appeal to Southerners, the combination of him and Tennessee Governor James Polk for Vice President is hoped to be able to successfully beat the Webster/Crittenden ticket. In a narrow election, however, Daniel Webster is elected President.

Secretary of State Daniel Webster (W-MA)/Senator John J. Crittenden (W-KY) 150 electoral votes
Senator James Buchanan (D-PA)/Former Governor James K. Plk (D-TN) 116 electoral votes
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2012, 09:39:57 am »
Ignore

1848
At age 68, Webster, following a Presidency where he had successfully defended the National Bank against Democratic attempts to destroy it and continued internal improvements, decided that he too would not be seeking a second term. This left the Whig field wide open and the most obvious man for the job, Henry Clay, took the job happily. The Democrats, following eight years of losses, at last relented and nominated the last man who had been able to beat a Whig for the Presidency, former President Van Buren. The campaign was an energetic one as two of the nation's greatest statesmen went head to head for the Presidency.

Former President Martin Van Buren (D-NY)/Senator William Rufus King (D-AL) 148 electoral votes
Senator Henry Clay (W-KY)/Comptroller Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 129 electoral votes

Taking office, Van Buren's second term could only be called good in comparison to the economic troubles of his first term. The stalemate that had existed over annexation of Texas was still occurring and Van Buren had no intention of strengthening the power of the slave states. In economics, Van Buren successfully repudiated a number of the more costly Whig projects and returned control of a number of infrastructure projects to the states. However, that was as far as his success went as the debate over slavery and annexation dominated the political discourse.

1852
Come 1852, the Democrats found themselves splitting wide apart as the so-called "Free Soilers" led by Senator John Hale of New Hampshire, went their own way following the nomination of Vice President William R. King by the Democrats. The Whigs on the other hand, seeing the chance to reclaim power, nominated former Vice President John J. Crittenden and 1848 Vice Presidential nominee Millard Fillmore for President and Vice President, respectively. With Democrats splitting and the Whig party being just as energized as in 1840, they won a large victory, crushing the Democrats who were isolated to the South, and the "Free Soilers", tucked away in New England.

Former Vice President John J. Crittenden (W-KY)/Governor Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 192 electoral votes
Vice President William Rufus King (D-AL)/Senator Stephen A. Douglas (D-IL) 50 electoral votes
Senator John P. Hale (FS-NH)/former Senator Charles F. Adams (FS-MA) 36 electoral votes
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2012, 09:43:20 am »
Ignore

Pardon me if I get carried away with this. I feel quite inspired right now. Tongue
Logged

A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2012, 10:46:42 am »
Ignore

Pardon me if I get carried away with this. I feel quite inspired right now. Tongue

There's certainly no need to apologize. Those last few posts are exactly the kind of speculation and writing I wanted. Very nicely done, very clear, and certainly interesting.

I like studying politics, especially the election years.
Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2012, 11:20:34 am »
Ignore

Pardon me if I get carried away with this. I feel quite inspired right now. Tongue

There's certainly no need to apologize. Those last few posts are exactly the kind of speculation and writing I wanted. Very nicely done, very clear, and certainly interesting.

I like studying politics, especially the election years.

Well then this is just the forum, and just the board, for ya! Coming up, 1856 if you don't mind. Then I'll stop.
Logged

A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2012, 11:22:23 am »
Ignore

Well then this is just the forum, and just the board, for ya! Coming up, 1856 if you don't mind. Then I'll stop.

Continue as long as you wish. 1856 should be an especially interesting year, for this scenario, considering what happened then in reality. I mean, the Whigs had pretty much fallen apart then, as my memory informs me.
Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2012, 11:41:27 am »
Ignore

Coming into office, President Crittenden forged the Compromise of 1853. It entailed use of the method called popular sovereignty, mainly advocated by Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL). As well, it called for the quick annexation of Texas, something that was accomplished by summer of 1854 despite the ensuing war with Mexico. With a number of other compromises, including a settling of the issue of fugitive slaves (one of the stranger elements of the compromise, there was to be a strict policing of the border, but any man that made it to free territory and managed to stay there for ten years, was by law no longer property), Crittenden ensured yet another compromise to preserve the union.

1856
Crittenden was popular and chose to run for re-election, the first of the three Whig Presidents to do so. Re-nominated unanimously but for a small amount of complaints from the radical "Conscience Whigs", he and Vice President Fillmore sought re-election and many expected them to win. However, the Democrats, having been pushed out of control in 1852 and having lost both Houses of Congress in 1854 believed they had finally learned their lesson. The popular and charismatic Senator Stephen J. Douglas, architect of popular sovereignty, admirer of Henry Clay, and from the swing state of Illinois, was easily nominated after dealing with two lesser known rivals. For Vice President, Senator Charles G. Atherton of New Hampshire was nominated. The nomination of two "doughfaces" was not unintentional as Douglas successfully tied in Westerners, Southerners, and moderates, and Atherton was from New England.

Senator Stephen J. Douglas (D-IL)/Senator Charles G. Atherton (D-NH) 148 electoral votes
President John J. Crittenden (W-KY)/Vice President Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 136 electoral votes
Logged

A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2012, 11:50:27 am »
Ignore

Senator Stephen J. Douglas (D-IL)/Senator Charles G. Atherton (D-NH) 148 electoral votes
President John J. Crittenden (W-KY)/Vice President Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 136 electoral votes

I find that somewhat ironic. The first two Whigs to be President in this timeline don't want a second run, and when they finally find a guy who does want one, he isn't able to get one.

Funny, and also realistic.

I looked up John Crittenden. It seems he was often mentioned as a prospective candidate for the Presidency in reality, but always refused to run. These days, it's hard to imagine anybody who has been as high up as Attorney General who wouldn't leap at a chance to be elected.

Different times.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 12:01:15 pm by A Proud Republican »Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2012, 12:00:04 pm »
Ignore

Senator Stephen J. Douglas (D-IL)/Senator Charles G. Atherton (D-NH) 148 electoral votes
President John J. Crittenden (W-KY)/Vice President Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 136 electoral votes

I find that somewhat ironic. The first two Whigs to be President in this timeline don't want a second term, and when they finally find a guy who does want one, he isn't able to get one.

Funny, and also realistic.

I looked up John Crittenden. It seems he was often mentioned as a prospective candidate for the Presidency in reality, but always refused to run. These days it's hard to imagine anybody who has been as high up as Attorney General who wouldn't leap at a chance to be elected.

Different times.

Well Douglas was quite the campaigner and Crittenden in some people's eyes had run his course. This is pure speculation of course, but that's how things go around here. Start with a what-if and see how far you can take it.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2484
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2012, 03:52:34 pm »
Ignore

Senator Stephen J. Douglas (D-IL)/Senator Charles G. Atherton (D-NH) 148 electoral votes
President John J. Crittenden (W-KY)/Vice President Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 136 electoral votes

I find that somewhat ironic. The first two Whigs to be President in this timeline don't want a second term, and when they finally find a guy who does want one, he isn't able to get one.

Funny, and also realistic.

I looked up John Crittenden. It seems he was often mentioned as a prospective candidate for the Presidency in reality, but always refused to run. These days it's hard to imagine anybody who has been as high up as Attorney General who wouldn't leap at a chance to be elected.

Different times.

Well Douglas was quite the campaigner and Crittenden in some people's eyes had run his course. This is pure speculation of course, but that's how things go around here. Start with a what-if and see how far you can take it.

I like Crittenden, Fillmore, Van Buren, etc.  Can't you put Milly somewhere?!  Wink
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:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

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

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2012, 05:20:23 pm »
Ignore

I like Crittenden, Fillmore, Van Buren, etc.  Can't you put Milly somewhere?!  Wink

I could see Fillmore being the Whig's candidate around 1860 in this timeline if President Douglas isn't doing so well by then.

I'm curious, does Lincoln still come to prominence? What about the slavery issue?

Big questions.
Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2012, 05:25:51 pm »
Ignore

I like Crittenden, Fillmore, Van Buren, etc.  Can't you put Milly somewhere?!  Wink

I could see Fillmore being the Whig's candidate around 1860 in this timeline if President Douglas isn't doing so well by then.

I'm curious, does Lincoln still come to prominence? What about the slavery issue?

Big questions.

From what I remember reading, Lincoln, when in the House, vowed not to run for re-election in 1848. However, as the only Whig member of the delegation during his short tenure there, he would still be one of the leaders of the IL Whigs. In OTL he was willing to sit back 'til about six years later when in 1854 he began speaking and by 1858 he had emerged as one of the GOP's greatest debaters. I could see him picking up some position in the Crittenden administration. Secretary of the Interior, or maybe something in the justice department, or some sub-cabinet thing. By 1857, he could be elected to the Senate to replace Douglas.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2484
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2012, 06:05:11 pm »
Ignore

I like Crittenden, Fillmore, Van Buren, etc.  Can't you put Milly somewhere?!  Wink

I could see Fillmore being the Whig's candidate around 1860 in this timeline if President Douglas isn't doing so well by then.

I'm curious, does Lincoln still come to prominence? What about the slavery issue?

Big questions.

From what I remember reading, Lincoln, when in the House, vowed not to run for re-election in 1848. However, as the only Whig member of the delegation during his short tenure there, he would still be one of the leaders of the IL Whigs. In OTL he was willing to sit back 'til about six years later when in 1854 he began speaking and by 1858 he had emerged as one of the GOP's greatest debaters. I could see him picking up some position in the Crittenden administration. Secretary of the Interior, or maybe something in the justice department, or some sub-cabinet thing. By 1857, he could be elected to the Senate to replace Douglas.

IRL Mr. Lincoln also declined the governorship of Oregon (offered by Taylor; Abe thought it would end his legal and IL political careers).  Just thought someone would find that interesting.
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:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

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

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2012, 08:40:57 pm »
Ignore

I for some reason was inspired to continue this, so I guess I'll do 1860 and 1864.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15339
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2012, 09:38:35 pm »
Ignore

Since it's late and I have a huge test tomorrow (the AP US History test), I'll just put a list of presidents.

8. Martin Van Buren (D-NY)/Richard M. Johnson (D-KY) 1837-1841
9. William Henry Harrison (W-OH)/John Tyler (W-VA) 1841-1845
10. Daniel Webster (W-MA)/John Crittenden (W-KY) 1845-1849

11. Martin Van Buren (D-NY)/William Rufus King (D-AL) 1849-1853
12. John J. Crittenden (W-KY)/Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 1853-1857
13. Stephen Douglas (D-IL)/Charles Atherton (D-NH) 1857-?
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines