• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the Confederate candidate had won the presidency in 1860...

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
58,623
Reaction score
29,865
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Imagine the confederate candidate had defeated Lincoln in 1860. Then imagine he had set out to destroy all parts of the government that did not agree with the confederacy. Seizing tyrant power, defunding anything he wanted, attacking every national institution to force its serving him and the confederacy. Transforming the country into the confederacy. Imagine he had Congress and the Supreme Court enabling it.

If that had happened, history wouldn't say 'that is when the United States was overthrown in a coup, and replaced by a confederacy'. The victor writes history, and it would simply have been a great evolution and improvement to the country.

If Women's Suffrage hadn't been enacted, it wouldn't have been the feat of Progress, but the defense of our national values and traditions. If JFK and LBJ hadn't passed the civil rights bills, it would just be ongoing grumbling, and again our successfully defending our values and traditions.

That's what we're seeing now. As the oligarchs defeat our democracy and replace it with oligarchy, part of the country recognizes that, but another part does not, and has its own version of history and what is happening. Nothing of value is being destroyed, rather the country is being 'strengthened' by removing harmful elements, by having the monarch we should, by essentially having an equivalent of 'the Confederacy'.

This is one reason the reaction to the coup and destruction and overthrow of our democracy traditional Americans expect of revolt and defense of our system isn't as strong as expected for such revolutionary changes. Another is that one side has 'political organization' far more than the public. Much as the Nazis had little organized resistance, the public has no Heritage Foundation, no Federalist Society, and apparently no dedicated billionaires.

Hopefully the point is clear; it could be expanded, such as an alternate history with a Fascist-friendly president instead of FDR embracing the world's growing Fascist movement, which much of the US supported, and how that history would not have looked like people think, either. This is our situation - a confederate instead of Lincoln winning in 1960, and radically trying to replace our governmental system, with a powerful army of oligarchs behind it.
 
Imagine the confederate candidate had defeated Lincoln in 1860. Then imagine he had set out to destroy all parts of the government that did not agree with the confederacy. Seizing tyrant power, defunding anything he wanted, attacking every national institution to force its serving him and the confederacy. Transforming the country into the confederacy. Imagine he had Congress and the Supreme Court enabling it.

If that had happened, history wouldn't say 'that is when the United States was overthrown in a coup, and replaced by a confederacy'. The victor writes history, and it would simply have been a great evolution and improvement to the country.

If Women's Suffrage hadn't been enacted, it wouldn't have been the feat of Progress, but the defense of our national values and traditions. If JFK and LBJ hadn't passed the civil rights bills, it would just be ongoing grumbling, and again our successfully defending our values and traditions.

That's what we're seeing now. As the oligarchs defeat our democracy and replace it with oligarchy, part of the country recognizes that, but another part does not, and has its own version of history and what is happening. Nothing of value is being destroyed, rather the country is being 'strengthened' by removing harmful elements, by having the monarch we should, by essentially having an equivalent of 'the Confederacy'.

This is one reason the reaction to the coup and destruction and overthrow of our democracy traditional Americans expect of revolt and defense of our system isn't as strong as expected for such revolutionary changes. Another is that one side has 'political organization' far more than the public. Much as the Nazis had little organized resistance, the public has no Heritage Foundation, no Federalist Society, and apparently no dedicated billionaires.

Hopefully the point is clear; it could be expanded, such as an alternate history with a Fascist-friendly president instead of FDR embracing the world's growing Fascist movement, which much of the US supported, and how that history would not have looked like people think, either. This is our situation - a confederate instead of Lincoln winning in 1960, and radically trying to replace our governmental system, with a powerful army of oligarchs behind it.
Which of the 4 main candidates do you consider the "confederate candidate"?
 
I don't think Breckinridge could have won, even though he got second most electoral votes Douglas got more votes total, and Douglas got votes in the North, which Breckinridge just didn't get. Even if Douglas and Bell hadn't run, I just think Lincoln would have won anyways. Breckinridge would probably have picked up Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia (the States won by Bell) which would not have beaten Lincoln. Douglas might have been able to beat Lincoln, as a Northern Democrat would have somewhat worked in the South if Breckinridge wasn't running, and also challenge Lincoln in the North, but Douglas was not a radical pro- slavery candidate like Breckinridge. Also Bell need to not run for this scenario to work, running as a Southern Conservative Whig did work very well in the border States (where he won).
 
I don't think Breckinridge could have won

With no offense, I stopped reading there because that disqualifies the response as completely missing the point. It's an analogy to trump, did he win? This isn't a thread about a hypothetical second trump administration and odds in elections.
 
With no offense, I stopped reading there because that disqualifies the response as completely missing the point. It's an analogy to trump, did he win? This isn't a thread about a hypothetical second trump administration and odds in elections.
The politics of the time where completely different than today. Trying to draw comparisons with today is a sure way to fail.
 
I'd rather imagine John McCain had won. I liked McCain. Voted for him.

If McCain had won, we would have no need for this thread.
 
I'd rather imagine John McCain had won. I liked McCain. Voted for him.

If McCain had won, we would have no need for this thread.

Had McCain won, we would still be having all these issues. The question would be who would be running with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom