hcallega Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Hey folks. This scenario proposes that the south won the civil war after Sherman was defeated by Hood at Atlanta. With this defeat, the Democrats (running on a peace platform) win the November election and negotiate a peace settlement. During the ensuing decades the north becomes the bastion of the small farms and industry. The expansion fast is more rapid, though Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Cuba fall to the C.S.A. Politically the north is divided, though it leans GOP. The Democrats are composed of the blue-collar, pro-worker wing, as well as the more rural and laissez-faire wing. They are united by a sympathy for the little man. They're most influential presidents were: Horatio Seymour, William J. Bryan, Al Smith, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan (yes, him) The GOP is divided into two major factions as well: The reform minded progressives and the isolationist, pro-buisness conservatives. The GOP's most influential presidents: Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollete, Prescott Bush, Robert Taft, and George Bush The current president is California centrist Pete Wilson-R. He is retiring and popular VP Bob Smith of New Hampshire (a swing state) has declined to run. Thus they're is a power vacuum, with both parties aiming for the white house. I NEED HELP WITH CANDIDATES That being said I do have some ideas as to who would be potential candidates. GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee Gov. Mitt Romney VP Bob Smith (OFF) DEM Sen. Joe Biden Sen. Chris Dodd Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani Sen. John Kerry (Off) Sen. Evan Bayh (Off) Buisnessman Mark Warner (Off) Green Ralph Nader Socialist (Has a solid block of support out west) Bernie Sanders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patine Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Looks quite intriguing. Will there be a Confederacy '08 as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny08 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 As far as background, Maryland, DC, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Kansas would all probably have seceeded to if it meant maintaining slavery. Your focus is too much on the NE. Move out to the west some. Add some people like Feingold, Thune, Schweitzer, Boxer, Hoeven, Pawlenty, Coleman, Kitzhaber, Huntsman, Pence, Ensign, etc. I'm not saying all of them, but the West Coast especially California would be a pretty powerful electoral prize. Also what state does Warner come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoteGOP Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Ever read turtledove? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dan Quayle. Without H.W. Bush he never would have had his rather disastrous Vice Presidency, and thus would by now be a experienced senator with presidential ambitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcallega Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 I'll adress the questions in order 1-Yes there will be a confederacy '08 once this one is complete. It will be a little harder because the dems would be very powerful in the south, though the whigs (supple-siders, big buisness) and constitution (christian right) have some power 2-I was just throwing out some candidates. Of course the west will have a lot of influence, and schweitzer will be a candidate. As far as the other states seceding, that dosen't happen in this scenario because the union millitary holds things down and there are permanent bases until the early 1900s. Warner is actually not from Virginia and spent most of his life in connecticut. He will hail from there. 3-Yup but he's not as much alternate history as science fiction. 4-Bush was president in this scenario. He would represent Connecticut. W however never got going in the intellectual politics of the north or the more populist politics of the west. Plus, Quayle would be more of a candidate in the '90s then now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matvail2002 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 About the South, another great idea for P4E+P or PM4E (but improbable) is to do a what-if scenario as Louisiana (and its enormous territory) would have not been bought by the US and have stayed French or had become an independant country. There will be two parties: PARTI ROUGE:: Centre Marie Landrieu Michel Landrieu Jean Domengeaux Jérôme Domengeaux Catherine Babineaux Edwin Brouillette Charles Melancon Raymond Bertrand Jean Breaux PARTI BLEU: Centre-Right Robert Jindal William Lastrapes Robert Tauzin PARTI RADICAL: Right-Wing, Rural Based, Populist: Édouard Robert Marc LeBlanc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcallega Posted November 13, 2008 Author Share Posted November 13, 2008 GET OUT OF MY THREAD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicWarrior Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 "3-Yup but he's not as much alternate history as science fiction. " With the exception of his 11-book Southern Victory series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoteGOP Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 "3-Yup but he's not as much alternate history as science fiction. "With the exception of his 11-book Southern Victory series. That I've got three pages left in. We really need to do scenarios based on those books. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcallega Posted November 14, 2008 Author Share Posted November 14, 2008 Oh I understand that he qualifies as an alternative historian, but i feel like most of his scenarios are rather fanciful, and while they make good reading are not practical. I consider myself a amateur alternate historian, and I believe that a realistic alternate history should have as few points of divergence as possible. In this case, the only major difference is that at the Battle of Atlanta, the CSA takes the gap in the Union line and breaks the Army of the Tennessee (USA). Hood then divides and takes down the other union armies around Atlanta. This defeat (or lack of a major victory) gives the Dems the guts to nominate the anti-war Horatio Seymour, who wins a very close victory over Lincoln. An example of one of my alternate histories is that Mario Cuomo runs for president in 1992. The reason is simple, he just has a change of heart and runs. He defeats Clinton in the primaries and wins a closer general election. As president he governs to the left of Clinton, but not substantially. Less tax-cuts, no welfare reform, less emphasis on cutting spending, no NAFTA, less deregulation and more regulation, and a fairly moderate health care reform (Cuomo compromises with Senate Dems and passes the bill, which is more like insurance reform). The results in '94 aren't as bad for the DEMS as Cuomo is viewed as competent, if very liberal. For the next eight years a true battle between the left and the right is fought. Cuomo wins in 1996, and dosen't do too much in his second term, besides Kyoto. In Turtledove's world, Cuomo would have passed single-payer reform and America would divulge into a civil war between buisness and labor and all sorts of crazy stuff would go down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the dems nominate McClellan who, if I'm correct, said the war should be ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcallega Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Yeah they did nominate McClellan, and you kicked his ass. But McClellan was nominated as a pro-war Dem, as it looked difficult to beat you. So in this ATL Sherman was defeated at Atlanta before the convention, so they nominate Horatio Seymour, Anti-War and more nationally known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauai Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 They nominated McClellan whom was Pro-War, but on an Anti-War platform which he personally disagreed with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.