1868 U.S. Presidential Election

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Lincoln

And it's nice to know the Party of Adams has now nominated someone who IRL opposed the Civil War much of Reconstruction, including the Civil Rights Acts.

It was long in the blueprints, and Dallas happened to agree, that the real life "Bourbon Democrats" would be a presence among the Unionists. The earliest signs of this can be seen with the presidency of Van Buren himself and the presence of what we might like to term "classical liberals" in the party since its foundation.

True, true, they've always had a naughty streak about them - IIRC the party was founded so that classically liberal Republicans could run for President without being tainted by slavery and things, but then JQA was all like "actually nope I'm the President now". It does seem strange that the relatively right-wing party is winning (against Abraham Lincoln, no less), but there are analogues of that awful, awful period from 1876 to 1884 in the first Atlamerica when we had Tilden and Cleveland - good thing we got over that quickly. It seems that the Populist-era Republicans are that TL's equivalent of the Manifesters in this time period: draining off just enough leftists to maybe ensure a Bad People victory.

I just realized I made a mini-effort post on the second iteration of a fake election series, and completely independently also realized that I should maybe rethink my life choices and rant in a more normal thread, like the Update.

Do you really think your views are just entitled to victory? I suppose one party rule is the only acceptable path.

Naturally, Mr. Con. Did you not already know that?

F#cking disgusting. With only one party rule, there'd be no point in even doing this.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Lincoln

And it's nice to know the Party of Adams has now nominated someone who IRL opposed the Civil War much of Reconstruction, including the Civil Rights Acts.

It was long in the blueprints, and Dallas happened to agree, that the real life "Bourbon Democrats" would be a presence among the Unionists. The earliest signs of this can be seen with the presidency of Van Buren himself and the presence of what we might like to term "classical liberals" in the party since its foundation.

True, true, they've always had a naughty streak about them - IIRC the party was founded so that classically liberal Republicans could run for President without being tainted by slavery and things, but then JQA was all like "actually nope I'm the President now". It does seem strange that the relatively right-wing party is winning (against Abraham Lincoln, no less), but there are analogues of that awful, awful period from 1876 to 1884 in the first Atlamerica when we had Tilden and Cleveland - good thing we got over that quickly. It seems that the Populist-era Republicans are that TL's equivalent of the Manifesters in this time period: draining off just enough leftists to maybe ensure a Bad People victory.

I just realized I made a mini-effort post on the second iteration of a fake election series, and completely independently also realized that I should maybe rethink my life choices and rant in a more normal thread, like the Update.

Do you really think your views are just entitled to victory? I suppose one party rule is the only acceptable path.

Naturally, Mr. Con. Did you not already know that?

F#cking disgusting. With only one party rule, there'd be no point in even doing this.

Well, we'd have token opposition, and the primaries would be a thing .

But seriously, I'm preemptively endorsing Salmon P. Chase in '72, so that can be a thing.

Also, isn't it weird that our last twelve vice-presidents have all come in groups of four from the same party? Adams, Harrison, Clay, Webster (all Nationals), Morris, Perry, Morton, Smith (all Unionists), Lincoln, Houston, Douglas, Seymour (all Whigs).

[Zioneer]

Yet no Manifesters/Radicals.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Lincoln

And it's nice to know the Party of Adams has now nominated someone who IRL opposed the Civil War much of Reconstruction, including the Civil Rights Acts.

It was long in the blueprints, and Dallas happened to agree, that the real life "Bourbon Democrats" would be a presence among the Unionists. The earliest signs of this can be seen with the presidency of Van Buren himself and the presence of what we might like to term "classical liberals" in the party since its foundation.

True, true, they've always had a naughty streak about them - IIRC the party was founded so that classically liberal Republicans could run for President without being tainted by slavery and things, but then JQA was all like "actually nope I'm the President now". It does seem strange that the relatively right-wing party is winning (against Abraham Lincoln, no less), but there are analogues of that awful, awful period from 1876 to 1884 in the first Atlamerica when we had Tilden and Cleveland - good thing we got over that quickly. It seems that the Populist-era Republicans are that TL's equivalent of the Manifesters in this time period: draining off just enough leftists to maybe ensure a Bad People victory.

I just realized I made a mini-effort post on the second iteration of a fake election series, and completely independently also realized that I should maybe rethink my life choices and rant in a more normal thread, like the Update.

Do you really think your views are just entitled to victory? I suppose one party rule is the only acceptable path.

Naturally, Mr. Con. Did you not already know that?

F#cking disgusting. With only one party rule, there'd be no point in even doing this.

Well, we'd have token opposition, and the primaries would be a thing .

But seriously, I'm preemptively endorsing Salmon P. Chase in '72, so that can be a thing.

Also, isn't it weird that our last twelve vice-presidents have all come in groups of four from the same party? Adams, Harrison, Clay, Webster (all Nationals), Morris, Perry, Morton, Smith (all Unionists), Lincoln, Houston, Douglas, Seymour (all Whigs).

Salmon Chase as a unionist? Or do you see him party-flipping like in real life?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Lincoln

And it's nice to know the Party of Adams has now nominated someone who IRL opposed the Civil War much of Reconstruction, including the Civil Rights Acts.

It was long in the blueprints, and Dallas happened to agree, that the real life "Bourbon Democrats" would be a presence among the Unionists. The earliest signs of this can be seen with the presidency of Van Buren himself and the presence of what we might like to term "classical liberals" in the party since its foundation.

True, true, they've always had a naughty streak about them - IIRC the party was founded so that classically liberal Republicans could run for President without being tainted by slavery and things, but then JQA was all like "actually nope I'm the President now". It does seem strange that the relatively right-wing party is winning (against Abraham Lincoln, no less), but there are analogues of that awful, awful period from 1876 to 1884 in the first Atlamerica when we had Tilden and Cleveland - good thing we got over that quickly. It seems that the Populist-era Republicans are that TL's equivalent of the Manifesters in this time period: draining off just enough leftists to maybe ensure a Bad People victory.

I just realized I made a mini-effort post on the second iteration of a fake election series, and completely independently also realized that I should maybe rethink my life choices and rant in a more normal thread, like the Update.

Do you really think your views are just entitled to victory? I suppose one party rule is the only acceptable path.

Naturally, Mr. Con. Did you not already know that?

F#cking disgusting. With only one party rule, there'd be no point in even doing this.

Well, we'd have token opposition, and the primaries would be a thing .

But seriously, I'm preemptively endorsing Salmon P. Chase in '72, so that can be a thing.

Also, isn't it weird that our last twelve vice-presidents have all come in groups of four from the same party? Adams, Harrison, Clay, Webster (all Nationals), Morris, Perry, Morton, Smith (all Unionists), Lincoln, Houston, Douglas, Seymour (all Whigs).

Salmon Chase as a unionist? Or do you see him party-flipping like in real life?

Isn't he already a Unionist? And don't worry, Zioneer, I'll strongly consider your people - the Whigs don't seem to have much of a promising future ahead and the Unionists' last hope is maybe Chase.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Noted, Zioneer. How does gold sound? Or perhaps if I bolded it?

Also, in response to Cathcon and Alfred, I don't mind including Chase in the next one, but in real life he died in 1873. I tried doing some research but nothing indicates it was anything but natural causes.

[Zioneer]

Noted, Zioneer. How does gold sound? Or perhaps if I bolded it?

Also, in response to Cathcon and Alfred, I don't mind including Chase in the next one, but in real life he died in 1873. I tried doing some research but nothing indicates it was anything but natural causes.

That would be helpful, thanks! Bolded would be preferable, but gold instead of yellow is fine. I have to scroll my mouse over the yellow text to be able to read it, and it was straining my eyes. Thanks again for the change.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also, in response to Cathcon and Alfred, I don't mind including Chase in the next one, but in real life he died in 1873. I tried doing some research but nothing indicates it was anything but natural causes.

That's what makes it fun!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Lincoln

And it's nice to know the Party of Adams has now nominated someone who IRL opposed the Civil War much of Reconstruction, including the Civil Rights Acts.

It was long in the blueprints, and Dallas happened to agree, that the real life "Bourbon Democrats" would be a presence among the Unionists. The earliest signs of this can be seen with the presidency of Van Buren himself and the presence of what we might like to term "classical liberals" in the party since its foundation.

True, true, they've always had a naughty streak about them - IIRC the party was founded so that classically liberal Republicans could run for President without being tainted by slavery and things, but then JQA was all like "actually nope I'm the President now". It does seem strange that the relatively right-wing party is winning (against Abraham Lincoln, no less), but there are analogues of that awful, awful period from 1876 to 1884 in the first Atlamerica when we had Tilden and Cleveland - good thing we got over that quickly. It seems that the Populist-era Republicans are that TL's equivalent of the Manifesters in this time period: draining off just enough leftists to maybe ensure a Bad People victory.

I just realized I made a mini-effort post on the second iteration of a fake election series, and completely independently also realized that I should maybe rethink my life choices and rant in a more normal thread, like the Update.

Do you really think your views are just entitled to victory? I suppose one party rule is the only acceptable path.

Naturally, Mr. Con. Did you not already know that?

F#cking disgusting. With only one party rule, there'd be no point in even doing this.

Well, we'd have token opposition, and the primaries would be a thing .

But seriously, I'm preemptively endorsing Salmon P. Chase in '72, so that can be a thing.

Also, isn't it weird that our last twelve vice-presidents have all come in groups of four from the same party? Adams, Harrison, Clay, Webster (all Nationals), Morris, Perry, Morton, Smith (all Unionists), Lincoln, Houston, Douglas, Seymour (all Whigs).

Salmon Chase as a unionist? Or do you see him party-flipping like in real life?

Isn't he already a Unionist? And don't worry, Zioneer, I'll strongly consider your people - the Whigs don't seem to have much of a promising future ahead and the Unionists' last hope is maybe Chase.

Yeah, that's the point with the "or". In real life, he was a Democrat by 1872, so I was just wondering what party you saw him in as of that year in this timeline.

[tmthforu94]

Young

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Lincoln

And it's nice to know the Party of Adams has now nominated someone who IRL opposed the Civil War much of Reconstruction, including the Civil Rights Acts.

It was long in the blueprints, and Dallas happened to agree, that the real life "Bourbon Democrats" would be a presence among the Unionists. The earliest signs of this can be seen with the presidency of Van Buren himself and the presence of what we might like to term "classical liberals" in the party since its foundation.

True, true, they've always had a naughty streak about them - IIRC the party was founded so that classically liberal Republicans could run for President without being tainted by slavery and things, but then JQA was all like "actually nope I'm the President now". It does seem strange that the relatively right-wing party is winning (against Abraham Lincoln, no less), but there are analogues of that awful, awful period from 1876 to 1884 in the first Atlamerica when we had Tilden and Cleveland - good thing we got over that quickly. It seems that the Populist-era Republicans are that TL's equivalent of the Manifesters in this time period: draining off just enough leftists to maybe ensure a Bad People victory.

I just realized I made a mini-effort post on the second iteration of a fake election series, and completely independently also realized that I should maybe rethink my life choices and rant in a more normal thread, like the Update.

Do you really think your views are just entitled to victory? I suppose one party rule is the only acceptable path.

Naturally, Mr. Con. Did you not already know that?

F#cking disgusting. With only one party rule, there'd be no point in even doing this.

Well, we'd have token opposition, and the primaries would be a thing .

But seriously, I'm preemptively endorsing Salmon P. Chase in '72, so that can be a thing.

Also, isn't it weird that our last twelve vice-presidents have all come in groups of four from the same party? Adams, Harrison, Clay, Webster (all Nationals), Morris, Perry, Morton, Smith (all Unionists), Lincoln, Houston, Douglas, Seymour (all Whigs).

Salmon Chase as a unionist? Or do you see him party-flipping like in real life?

Isn't he already a Unionist? And don't worry, Zioneer, I'll strongly consider your people - the Whigs don't seem to have much of a promising future ahead and the Unionists' last hope is maybe Chase.

Yeah, that's the point with the "or". In real life, he was a Democrat by 1872, so I was just wondering what party you saw him in as of that year in this timeline.

Ah. He does/did support fiat money IIRC, so that'd put him at odds with the Union establishment.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Having done a tiny bit of reading while I'm supposed to be working on Statistics homework for tomorrow, I noticed that Thomas F. Bayard only became a Senator in 1869. What year was he elected in this timeline, and what of his father, James, who held the seat previously?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

President Abraham Lincoln (Whig-Illinois)/Vice President Horatio Seymour (Whig-New York) 250 electoral votes, 50.00% of the popular vote
Senator Thomas F. Bayard (Union-Delaware)/Senator Zachariah Chandler (Union-Michigan) 50 electoral votes, 32.00% of the popular vote
Former Governor Brigham Young (Radical-Iowa)/Activist Horace Greeley (Radical-New York) 8 electoral votes, 18.00% of the popular vote

1872 to be posted tomorrow.

Also, in response to Cathcon, Bayard became a Senator in 1865 ITTL.