Winfield Scott Hancock, privately sympathized with the South on slavery, let black codes be established, was Andrew Johnson's favorite general for a reason, running mate also sympathized with the South on slavery (Kansas-Nebraska Act).
You're taking a *lot* of liberties here. At least provide some real information instead of vague generalities.
"Privately sympathized" with the south over slavery? How do you know what he thought privately? I've yet to see any writing of his where he indicates this. He had friends who became confederate generals but so did everyone else who was in the army at that time, including Grant.
Since it sounds like your comments are all focused on his 3.5 months as military governor of the Fifth Military District, here's what he told his wife in a letter en route to his post, "I am expected to exercise extreme military authority over those people. I shall disappoint them. I have not been educated to overthrow the civilian authorities in time of peace. I intend to recognize the fact that the Civil War is at an end, and shall issue my order or proclamation accordingly. I tell you this because I may lose my commission, and I shall do so willingly, rather than retain it at the sacrifice of a life-long principle."
Johnson's favorite? Maybe, since Hancock followed orders and was a Democrat. His correspondence makes it pretty clear that Hancock was made military governor because Johnson hated Sheridan and wanted him out. The papers or both Sheridan and Hancock make it clear they were both unhappy with their new appointments.
Let black codes be established? The ones that were established a full year before he took over as military governor? General Order 40 certainly doesn't allow for that. It provided re-establishment of civil liberties subject to good behavior, "while the general thus indicates his purpose to respect the liberties of the people, he wishes all to understand that armed insurrection or forcible resistence to the law will be instantly suppressed by arms." Any of Sheridan's orders that were withdrawn during his time in New Orleans were all first approved by President Grant.
His platform and Garfield's were almost exactly the same. Slight difference in their approach to tariffs. The popular vote between the two was the closest in US history. I have a hard time believing he wouldn't have made a good president.
Al Smith,1928 was a horrible year for anyone to get elected,and when the stock market crashes the democrats aren’t gonna win in 1932 so not only does Smith not get re elected ,FDR does not win,so that means No New Deal,and if FDR isn’t getting elected then that mean no Truman either so no Truman Doctrine and no Fair Deal,and on top of that in 1932 a Republican is gonna win and the two most important republicans then who had the biggest chances of winning are Alf Landon and Herbert Hoover
You make a compelling case, and I see a lot of parallels between Smith 1928 and Nixon 1960 in that a win by either candidate would stop or hinder the New Deal and Civil Rights/Great Society, respectively. I think my vote would still go to Nixon 1960 because there's one less degree of attenuation between cause and effect, but I wouldn't be too torn up to see Smith 1928 go.
I Choose Smith because The Civil Rights Bill was gonna get passed at some point it was inevitable and thats good but without FDR and Truman,that changes the course of WW2 and Cold War as a whole,in a way,its good Hoover won ‘28 and got destroyed by FDR in ‘32,also forgot about this until now but without FDR and his New Deal,we wouldn’t have gotten LBJ’s Programs as they were mostly inspired by The New Deal
As far as third party guys, he was more in the middle than an edge case. He was willing to change his views during his time in Congress, so people are going to like that. He appealed to both sides of the aisle and had experience in the army and the House of Reps, so he'd likely have a better time than someone like Debs, who both sides would have hated. It's not really about the campaign or if they were a viable candidate, but about how a theoretical Presidency would have gone.
I once again nominate Theodore Roosevelt. Same reason as before. While domestically he would have been good, but half way through his term World War 1 starts and between the 3 major candidates Roosevelt would have been the worst war time leader. The US would have joined way earlier and participated in most of the really bloody fights of the Western front. The Somme probably becomes an Anglo-American offensive. Also let's not forget that the public was already isolationist, but in this timeline the sentiment would have been way stronger because of the unpopular war. And also his Vice President Hiram Johnson was an ardent isolationist and probably resigns and cost TR support on the west coast.
Kind of surprised Mondale hasn't been eliminated yet. Opinions of Reagan aside, 1984 was a much better year for the US than 1980 and Mondale represented a failed Presidency. On top of that, his ideas were unpopular and he was annihilated in public speaking. No wonder he lost by 500.
Again, **Gerald Ford, 1976**
Ford is overdue at this point. Perhaps the biggest reason is his pardon of Nixon. One thing I despise is the logic of "the county needed to move on." The best way for the country to move on was to prosecute those responsible and involved in watergate, and Ford's failure to grasp this really should help my case. Ford also wasn't visionary, and his administration wasn't very good, since he was seen as more of a "caretaker" president than an actual president. His 1976 campaign was also nowhere near as good as Jimmy Carter's, as it was racked with several problems. Overall, I think Gerald Ford has been on here for long enough.
u/peacefulzealot has been banging the drum rather convincingly for Nixon 1960, and since he hasn't yest posted, I'd nominate Nixon 1960 for the same reasons he's outlined.
Winfield Scott Hancock, privately sympathized with the South on slavery, let black codes be established, was Andrew Johnson's favorite general for a reason, running mate also sympathized with the South on slavery (Kansas-Nebraska Act).
You're taking a *lot* of liberties here. At least provide some real information instead of vague generalities. "Privately sympathized" with the south over slavery? How do you know what he thought privately? I've yet to see any writing of his where he indicates this. He had friends who became confederate generals but so did everyone else who was in the army at that time, including Grant. Since it sounds like your comments are all focused on his 3.5 months as military governor of the Fifth Military District, here's what he told his wife in a letter en route to his post, "I am expected to exercise extreme military authority over those people. I shall disappoint them. I have not been educated to overthrow the civilian authorities in time of peace. I intend to recognize the fact that the Civil War is at an end, and shall issue my order or proclamation accordingly. I tell you this because I may lose my commission, and I shall do so willingly, rather than retain it at the sacrifice of a life-long principle." Johnson's favorite? Maybe, since Hancock followed orders and was a Democrat. His correspondence makes it pretty clear that Hancock was made military governor because Johnson hated Sheridan and wanted him out. The papers or both Sheridan and Hancock make it clear they were both unhappy with their new appointments. Let black codes be established? The ones that were established a full year before he took over as military governor? General Order 40 certainly doesn't allow for that. It provided re-establishment of civil liberties subject to good behavior, "while the general thus indicates his purpose to respect the liberties of the people, he wishes all to understand that armed insurrection or forcible resistence to the law will be instantly suppressed by arms." Any of Sheridan's orders that were withdrawn during his time in New Orleans were all first approved by President Grant. His platform and Garfield's were almost exactly the same. Slight difference in their approach to tariffs. The popular vote between the two was the closest in US history. I have a hard time believing he wouldn't have made a good president.
Al Smith,1928 was a horrible year for anyone to get elected,and when the stock market crashes the democrats aren’t gonna win in 1932 so not only does Smith not get re elected ,FDR does not win,so that means No New Deal,and if FDR isn’t getting elected then that mean no Truman either so no Truman Doctrine and no Fair Deal,and on top of that in 1932 a Republican is gonna win and the two most important republicans then who had the biggest chances of winning are Alf Landon and Herbert Hoover
I can never keep Smith, Davis, and Cox straight. All three are just those random Democrats in the 20s who got blown out
You make a compelling case, and I see a lot of parallels between Smith 1928 and Nixon 1960 in that a win by either candidate would stop or hinder the New Deal and Civil Rights/Great Society, respectively. I think my vote would still go to Nixon 1960 because there's one less degree of attenuation between cause and effect, but I wouldn't be too torn up to see Smith 1928 go.
I Choose Smith because The Civil Rights Bill was gonna get passed at some point it was inevitable and thats good but without FDR and Truman,that changes the course of WW2 and Cold War as a whole,in a way,its good Hoover won ‘28 and got destroyed by FDR in ‘32,also forgot about this until now but without FDR and his New Deal,we wouldn’t have gotten LBJ’s Programs as they were mostly inspired by The New Deal
You make a compelling case for wanting Al Smith to win.
Not an expert on the subject, but isn’t John B Anderson getting too far?
As far as third party guys, he was more in the middle than an edge case. He was willing to change his views during his time in Congress, so people are going to like that. He appealed to both sides of the aisle and had experience in the army and the House of Reps, so he'd likely have a better time than someone like Debs, who both sides would have hated. It's not really about the campaign or if they were a viable candidate, but about how a theoretical Presidency would have gone.
I once again nominate Theodore Roosevelt. Same reason as before. While domestically he would have been good, but half way through his term World War 1 starts and between the 3 major candidates Roosevelt would have been the worst war time leader. The US would have joined way earlier and participated in most of the really bloody fights of the Western front. The Somme probably becomes an Anglo-American offensive. Also let's not forget that the public was already isolationist, but in this timeline the sentiment would have been way stronger because of the unpopular war. And also his Vice President Hiram Johnson was an ardent isolationist and probably resigns and cost TR support on the west coast.
Not to mention split the vote in 1912 to help us get Wilson.
Kind of surprised Mondale hasn't been eliminated yet. Opinions of Reagan aside, 1984 was a much better year for the US than 1980 and Mondale represented a failed Presidency. On top of that, his ideas were unpopular and he was annihilated in public speaking. No wonder he lost by 500.
Al Smith
Now would be a good time to knock off Bob Dole
Again, **Gerald Ford, 1976** Ford is overdue at this point. Perhaps the biggest reason is his pardon of Nixon. One thing I despise is the logic of "the county needed to move on." The best way for the country to move on was to prosecute those responsible and involved in watergate, and Ford's failure to grasp this really should help my case. Ford also wasn't visionary, and his administration wasn't very good, since he was seen as more of a "caretaker" president than an actual president. His 1976 campaign was also nowhere near as good as Jimmy Carter's, as it was racked with several problems. Overall, I think Gerald Ford has been on here for long enough.
YES!! Let’s finish him off. William Jennings Bryan 1900
u/peacefulzealot has been banging the drum rather convincingly for Nixon 1960, and since he hasn't yest posted, I'd nominate Nixon 1960 for the same reasons he's outlined.
John Sidney McCain III, wanted to stay in Iraq forever and sang about bombing Iran.
Aaaaaand he is the main reason why the skinny repeal of Obamacare didn’t pass. But you’re right, what a monster singing The Beach Boys.
Why is McCain still here? Nobody likes that Warhawk
Ford. His pardoning of Nixon doomed him
John McCain Loved carpet bombing poor people in other countries Complete Warhawk Unleashed his daughter on us
[удалено]
peas in a pod
 (other gif was redacted due to \[redacted\] being in the image)