Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 17, 2017, 03:15:14 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  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] Print
Author Topic: What do you feel the most important election of US history is?  (Read 987 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34068
United States


View Profile WWW
« 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.
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13292
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2017, 07:41:35 am »
Ignore

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

MillennialMAModerate
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 96
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2017, 09:48:44 am »
Ignore

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.
—————————————————-
Economic score: -3.61 • Social score: -1.91
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 829
United States


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2017, 11:21:44 am »
Ignore

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 ❤
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2244
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2017, 01:17:19 pm »
Ignore

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

"For it is both a great honor, and my righteous duty, to eat that booty" - Abraham Lincoln
 
Rest in Peace John B. Anderson (1922-2017).
FF. Great sig.
Harry S Truman, GM
Harry S Truman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7238


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2017, 10:45:29 pm »
Ignore

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: 771
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2017, 12:43:52 am »
Ignore

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: 143
View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2017, 09:32:19 am »
Ignore

1800 ... set the standard for the peaceful transition of power.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4772
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2017, 10:31:04 am »
Ignore

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 the wonderful state of California, devoted liberal Democrat. Any questions?

Endorsements:
- President: Kamala Harris
- CA Governor: Gavin Newsom
- CA Senate: Kevin de Leσn

Congratulations to Doug Jones for making the impossible possible!

Alabama_Indy10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1497
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2017, 10:41:46 am »
Ignore

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: 7238


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2017, 04:17:51 pm »
Ignore

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 280
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2017, 10:18:23 am »
Ignore

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

"I just want to say - you know - can we all get along? Can we, can we get along?"

-Rodney King, May 1, 1992



Congratulations Doug Jones! I'm so happy for you.
Lechasseur
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2374
France


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2017, 10:47:14 am »
Ignore

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

This
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 305


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2017, 10:35:31 pm »
Ignore

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)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
and literally anyone who runs against John McCain
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16163
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2017, 09:39:57 am »
Ignore

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

"America now is stumbling through the darkness of hatred and divisiveness. Our values, our principles, and our determination to succeed as a free and democratic people will give us a torch to light the way." - Gerald Ford

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

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
America's Sweetheart ❤
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2244
United States


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2017, 12:21:34 pm »
Ignore

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

"For it is both a great honor, and my righteous duty, to eat that booty" - Abraham Lincoln
 
Rest in Peace John B. Anderson (1922-2017).
FF. Great sig.
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7884


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2017, 11:41:34 pm »
Ignore

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


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
American2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 269
CΓ΄te d'Ivoire


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2017, 06:34:59 am »
Ignore

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: 16163
United States


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2017, 04:47:41 pm »
Ignore

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

"America now is stumbling through the darkness of hatred and divisiveness. Our values, our principles, and our determination to succeed as a free and democratic people will give us a torch to light the way." - Gerald Ford

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

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines