Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2018, 03:46:48 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  What do you feel the most important election of US history is?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: What do you feel the most important election of US history is?  (Read 2842 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,584
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2017, 11:09:03 pm »

1860 is objectively the correct answer. No other electoral contest has so fully and irrevocably decided the national character.

No that's 1800. 1860 had the most important nominating convention as who the Republicans chose would have a major impact, but the South acting like spoiled brats was inevitable that year.
Is not that nominating convention a part of the election? It's beyond dispute that the South was going to try and break off from the Union in 1861 no matter what.

That assumes that the Republicans win the White House in 1860.  Assume for the moment that Democrats either hadn't had their 2/3 rule or Douglas manages to get nominated in Charleston despite it. The result is a Douglas victory:


Alternatively, assume that Bell isn't kept off the New York ballot, allowing him to split off some of the ex-Whig vote that Lincoln got, handing the State to Douglas:


There are a few other scenarios that lead to the election going to Congress, but the essential thing is that the Senate was solidly Democratic, so given a choice between the running mates of Lincoln and Breckenridge, it would undoubtedly pick Lane over Hamlin.  That leaves the Republicans with the choice of either supporting Douglas in the House or leaving the Presidency vacant because the House was unable to elect a President with an ardently pro-slavery Vice President serving as Acting President.

Roll Call of the States: U.S. House Election for President in 1860 (36th Congress):

I'm uncertain how Tennessee and Delaware would have voted, but I'm fairly certain that Texas and California would have both been split 1-1 between Douglas and Breckenridge.  This assumes of course that the Republicans accept a Douglas presidency as the lesser of two evils, If they don't, then Lane serves as Acting President until at least December 1861 when the 37th Congress takes office.



Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
The Voice of America
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,834
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2017, 07:41:35 am »

1992. I submit the idea that the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 paved the way for Waco ->Oklahoma City, possibly Columbine and then 9/11.

If George Bush had been re-elected, I anticipate that Waco wouldn't have gone the way it did, thus no Oklahoma City. The Columbine Killers would have been nutjobs either way but the date they selected was the anniversary of Waco and Oklahoma City so who knows if that would have occurred.

Also, I believe the Bush/Quayle administration from 1993-1997 would have been much more aggressive with Al Qaeda after the 1993 World Trade Center and Embassy Bombings. With the case of 9/11, any little change to the thread would have quite possibly prevented those attacks.

Bush's re-election in 1992 would have took America on a much, much different path.
Logged
MillennialModerate
MillennialMAModerate
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 447
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2017, 09:48:44 am »

1992. I submit the idea that the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 paved the way for Waco ->Oklahoma City, possibly Columbine and then 9/11.

If George Bush had been re-elected, I anticipate that Waco wouldn't have gone the way it did, thus no Oklahoma City. The Columbine Killers would have been nutjobs either way but the date they selected was the anniversary of Waco and Oklahoma City so who knows if that would have occurred.

Also, I believe the Bush/Quayle administration from 1993-1997 would have been much more aggressive with Al Qaeda after the 1993 World Trade Center and Embassy Bombings. With the case of 9/11, any little change to the thread would have quite possibly prevented those attacks.

Bush's re-election in 1992 would have took America on a much, much different path.

That’s some strong Kool-aid
Logged

John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The Presidential GOAT.

MillennialMAModerate • Moderate Pragmatic Dem • Fiscal Moderate
• Social Liberal • Anti-Gun • Reasonably Pro-Choice • Moderate Hawk

Economic score: -3.61 • Social score: -1.91
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,690
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2017, 11:21:44 am »

The Columbine Killers would have been nutjobs either way but the date they selected was the anniversary of Waco and Oklahoma City so who knows if that would have occurred.
Actually, it was intended to be the anniversary of Hitler's birthday. I haven't read anything  suggesting that Harris or Klebold cared about Waco or Oklahoma City. However, if there was a war going on at the time, they may have dropped out of school to join the military.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 11:39:33 am by darklordoftech »Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,736
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2017, 01:17:19 pm »

1992. I submit the idea that the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 paved the way for Waco ->Oklahoma City, possibly Columbine and then 9/11.

If George Bush had been re-elected, I anticipate that Waco wouldn't have gone the way it did, thus no Oklahoma City. The Columbine Killers would have been nutjobs either way but the date they selected was the anniversary of Waco and Oklahoma City so who knows if that would have occurred.

Also, I believe the Bush/Quayle administration from 1993-1997 would have been much more aggressive with Al Qaeda after the 1993 World Trade Center and Embassy Bombings. With the case of 9/11, any little change to the thread would have quite possibly prevented those attacks.

Bush's re-election in 1992 would have took America on a much, much different path.
There's so much wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin.
Logged
Harry S Truman, GM
Harry S Truman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,413


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2017, 10:45:29 pm »

1860 is objectively the correct answer. No other electoral contest has so fully and irrevocably decided the national character.

No that's 1800. 1860 had the most important nominating convention as who the Republicans chose would have a major impact, but the South acting like spoiled brats was inevitable that year.
Is not that nominating convention a part of the election? It's beyond dispute that the South was going to try and break off from the Union in 1861 no matter what.

That assumes that the Republicans win the White House in 1860.  Assume for the moment that Democrats either hadn't had their 2/3 rule or Douglas manages to get nominated in Charleston despite it. The result is a Douglas victory:
[snip]
That's the issue, though: Douglas could not keep the support of Southern Democrats without giving up the Freeport Doctrine wholesale, and he could not do that without loosing the support of his Northern base. Bear in mind that, to win or even deadlock the electoral college, Douglas would have needed to improve on his actual performance in Illinois and Indiana; I don't see how he could do that while simultaneously winning over the Breckinridge camp. The two-thirds rule was not what split the Democratic Party; it was the insistence of Southern Democrats on nothing less than total commitment to the unfettered expansion of slavery into the territories. That ticket simply could not carry Illinois or Indiana in 1860 (or even 1856), and popular sovereignty was no longer acceptable to the Davises and Breckinridges of the party. Douglas made his choice in 1858 when he sired the Freeport Doctrine as the antidote to Dred Scott, and as a result was nearly as unpalatable to the Southern states as Lincoln was.

The only quasi-realistic chance of preventing civil war in 1860 was to throw the election to the House and somehow elect Bell as a compromise candidate; but the math and the passions of the times combine to make that scenario, at best, a long shot.

EDIT: Come to think of it, this would make an interesting alt-history timeline on the What If board.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 10:51:23 pm by Prime Minister Truman »Logged

MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,336
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2017, 12:43:52 am »

1932

The ushering in of the New Deal represented a fundamental shift in Americans' relationship to the federal government and dramatically increased its powers.
Logged

Rewrite the 14th Amendment!
States should have clear guidelines what laws they cannot pass, and the federal courts should have far less discretion in choosing what laws to strike down. Take away from the federal courts the power to define liberty and the power to define equality. Those are legislative powers and should be in the hands of legislators. Rewrite Section 1 of the 14th to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
Wakie77
Full Member
***
Posts: 166
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2017, 09:32:19 am »

1800 ... set the standard for the peaceful transition of power.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,183
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2017, 10:31:04 am »

1864. Had Lincoln not won reelection, McClellan would have allowed the South to secede from the Union in order to end the war sooner. The United States would have been split in two countries, if not more since a seccession precedent was set.
Logged

United Arab Emirates Immigrant, naturalized US citizen, resident of wonderful California, devoted liberal Democrat. Any questions?

Endorsements:
- President: Kamala Harris
- CA Governor: Gavin Newsom
- CA Lt. Governor: Ed Hernandez
- CA Senate: Kevin de León

Turn congress blue again in 2018! #BlueWave
Alabama_Indy10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,021
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2017, 10:41:46 am »

1992. I submit the idea that the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 paved the way for Waco ->Oklahoma City, possibly Columbine and then 9/11.

If George Bush had been re-elected, I anticipate that Waco wouldn't have gone the way it did, thus no Oklahoma City. The Columbine Killers would have been nutjobs either way but the date they selected was the anniversary of Waco and Oklahoma City so who knows if that would have occurred.

Also, I believe the Bush/Quayle administration from 1993-1997 would have been much more aggressive with Al Qaeda after the 1993 World Trade Center and Embassy Bombings. With the case of 9/11, any little change to the thread would have quite possibly prevented those attacks.

Bush's re-election in 1992 would have took America on a much, much different path.

Are you smoking something?
Logged
Harry S Truman, GM
Harry S Truman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,413


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2017, 04:17:51 pm »

1864. Had Lincoln not won reelection, McClellan would have allowed the South to secede from the Union in order to end the war sooner. The United States would have been split in two countries, if not more since a seccession precedent was set.
McClellan himself was never actually in favor of a negotiated peace, and explicitly repudiated the peace plank in his original letter accepting the Democratic nomination. Considering Lee's surrender came a little more than a month after the inauguration, I rather doubt a McClellan victory dramatically changes that outcome; on the other hand, the prospect of Lincoln's impending retirement likely removes the incentive for outgoing Democratic congressmen to vote for the 13th Amendment in January 1865, which certainly changes the legacy of the war.
Logged

fluffypanther19
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,321
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2017, 10:18:23 am »

1992. I submit the idea that the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 paved the way for Waco ->Oklahoma City, possibly Columbine and then 9/11.

If George Bush had been re-elected, I anticipate that Waco wouldn't have gone the way it did, thus no Oklahoma City. The Columbine Killers would have been nutjobs either way but the date they selected was the anniversary of Waco and Oklahoma City so who knows if that would have occurred.

Also, I believe the Bush/Quayle administration from 1993-1997 would have been much more aggressive with Al Qaeda after the 1993 World Trade Center and Embassy Bombings. With the case of 9/11, any little change to the thread would have quite possibly prevented those attacks.

Bush's re-election in 1992 would have took America on a much, much different path.


wtf???
Logged

AM I DOING THIS RIGHT ATLAS?

"Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil." - Mary Wollstonecraft
Lechasseur
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,820
France


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2017, 10:47:14 am »

All elections have potential to directly influence the course of history.

This
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 483


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2017, 10:35:31 pm »

1860. Honorable mentions: 1912 and 1800
Logged

I endorse: President Donald Trump
Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
David Perdue (R-GA)
Steve King (R-IA)
Lou Barletta (R-PA)
Dave Brat (R-VA)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
and literally anyone who runs against John McCain
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,836
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2017, 09:39:57 am »

1860, 1896, 1916, 1940, 1944, 1960, 1976
Logged

“Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason. It is our part, by religion and reason joined, to counteract them all we can.“ - John Wesley

"Good speech and good looks covers man's every vice. Plain speech and plain looks covers man's every virtue." - Yours Truly

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,736
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2017, 12:21:34 pm »

1860, 1896, 1916, 1940, 1944, 1960 , 1976
Why were '60 and '76 so important?
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,751


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2017, 11:41:34 pm »

1864. Had Lincoln not won reelection, McClellan would have allowed the South to secede from the Union in order to end the war sooner. The United States would have been split in two countries, if not more since a seccession precedent was set.


Thats not true the War ended in April of 1865 , one month after Lincoln would have left office. The Confederacy was done the moment Atlanta fell.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 12:52:38 am by Old School Republican »Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1
American2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 492
CĂ´te d'Ivoire


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2017, 06:34:59 am »

Major change of the US history:
  • Civil War
    Great Depression and WWII

So the most important elections were: 1860, 1864, 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944.
Logged

Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,836
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2017, 04:47:41 pm »

1860, 1896, 1916, 1940, 1944, 1960 , 1976
Why were '60 and '76 so important?

1960 was the beginning of the Nixonian electoral map, and 1976 was the last electoral map that had existed for at least seventy-five years.
Logged

“Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason. It is our part, by religion and reason joined, to counteract them all we can.“ - John Wesley

"Good speech and good looks covers man's every vice. Plain speech and plain looks covers man's every virtue." - Yours Truly

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
megameow
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,023
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2017, 05:12:17 am »

Twist: least important: 2012. Or 1996. Or 1824.
Logged

dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,360
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 03, 2018, 02:26:34 pm »

Twist: least important: 2012. Or 1996. Or 1824.

I'd throw 2004 in there as well. Even if Kerry won that election, not much, if anything, would've changed from 2005-2009 due to the GOP controlling Congress. You might say the Supreme Court, but Kerry would most likely be force to pick moderate justices to get them through a Republican Senate.
Logged
fluffypanther19
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,321
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2018, 03:07:17 am »

1800, and the setting of a precedent for a peaceful transfer of power.

1860 is definitely important, but I don't think there was much that could have been done at that point to avoid some sort of civil strife.

I'd say 1932 is important in that a competent President was elected, avoiding a fascist America.
Logged

AM I DOING THIS RIGHT ATLAS?

"Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil." - Mary Wollstonecraft
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,098


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2018, 11:44:09 am »

Maybe, 1932 and 1980 were more important than 1860.

Slavery would be abolished anyway. Every western country abolished slavery until the end of the 19th century.

But 1932 started a progressive era and 1980 started a conservative era that could be different if the election results were different.
Logged
john1565
Rookie
*
Posts: 22
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2018, 06:29:47 am »


Have we ever seen a president like Trump? Why don't anyone think 2016 election is significant in history?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,584
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2018, 09:45:16 am »

Why don't anyone think 2016 election is significant in history?
There's no evidence so far that Trump's election has fundamentally changed our political system in any respect.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines