Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Nov 17, 2009.
Suppose Honest Abe lost the 1864 election.
How do you think that would have changed history?
I wasn't aware that the election needed to be loosed.
But on topic, I dont' beleve one can change the major cours of history with minor deviations such as who won or lost an election. Had Lincoln lost, the South eventually would have seceded, albeit probably a year or two later. A civil war was inevitible. WIthout Lincoln, however, the South would have won, and seceded. After about 20 years or so, it would have sought reunification, either state by state, or as a whole, with the North. Since federalism was an argued issue since the signing of the Declaration in 1776, the powers of the federal government today would be similar, perhaps even stronger, had the south seceded. The only major difference would have been that the civil right movement might have happenned at a slightly different time. Other than that, there might have been an additional constitutional amendment banning secession. Since SCOTUS has ruled that the existing language of the Constitution regarding statehood does not permit secession, such an amendment has been unnecessary.
Actually the South did seceded after Lincolns first election (1860). It is surprising that Lincolns opponent in 1864 was a former General who served under Lincoln.
I tend to agree with your theory of a Lincoln election loss, except that the South would never have unified if an anti-secession Amendment had been ratified. . Had they reunited before such a proposed amendment would have been passed, then it never would have - with Southern States or Commonwealths strongly opposing said amendment.
I believe they would have reunified if an antisecession amendment had been in place, based on the idea that they would have grown weary of the toll which seceding places on a state. The idea of reunifying, only to possibly secede again, and then reunify and secede again, would not have appealed to a post-secession war-weary southerner.
It's all speculation, of course, but intersting nonetheless.
Ever see that documentary movie CSA? It was so rediculous it was funny. Not the same as what you're talking about though. It was based on if the south had won the war.
No, but I would love to - do you remember the name?
This stupid mockumentary was created by Spike Lee. I think that explains everything about it. It is all about mocking the south.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a mockumentary (a movie or television program shot in the form of a documentary but with fictitious and often satirical subject matter).
Very interesting - more to the plot?
McClellan's election would have been a disaster and the American people knew it, hence his carrying of only three states.
He was an indecisive, wishy washy leader who would led to the nation's destruction. Britain was waiting in the wings to reclaim what she still saw as her territories.
The US would not have existed as we know it. It would have been much more like Europe with small, insignificant, powerless nations constantly fighting each other.
Not a bog Lincoln fan, but the country needed a strong determined leader. Like him or not that's what Lincoln was an he hung around long enough to make a post-war difference.
Intresting theory - I was never aware of that before.