stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406 
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2018 21:59:28 GMT
Hi
On a web site on the USCW, civilwartalk, there's a small AH section and an interesting link to this idea. Which seems unlikely but might have really set the cat among the pigeons. See president-joseph-lane for the actual idea. Sounds crazy but possibly might make for a vastly different world as it seems to suggest a very chaotic situation in the US.
Not sure whether there would be an attempt at northern succession as suggested but wonder what people think would/might happen.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,774
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2018 2:48:17 GMT
Hi On a web site on the USCW, civilwartalk, there's a small AH section and an interesting link to this idea. Which seems unlikely but might have really set the cat among the pigeons. See president-joseph-lane for the actual idea. Sounds crazy but possibly might make for a vastly different world as it seems to suggest a very chaotic situation in the US. Not sure whether there would be an attempt at northern succession as suggested but wonder what people think would/might happen. Steve
Nice find stevep, never heard of this Senator Joseph Lane until now. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2018 9:29:06 GMT
Hi On a web site on the USCW, civilwartalk, there's a small AH section and an interesting link to this idea. Which seems unlikely but might have really set the cat among the pigeons. See president-joseph-lane for the actual idea. Sounds crazy but possibly might make for a vastly different world as it seems to suggest a very chaotic situation in the US. Not sure whether there would be an attempt at northern succession as suggested but wonder what people think would/might happen. Steve
Nice find stevep , never heard of this Senator Joseph Lane until now.
Neither had I.  Does seem like an oddity, although apparently he was only really connected to Oregon as he was made its governor when it was a territory, then when it became a state he obtained electoral office, which meant he spent a lot of his time in Washington.
Have asked on the ACW site why the article thinks that if it came down to the senate selecting one of the VPs from the top two claimants why they would definitely pick Lane rather then Hamlin. Just checked and no reply yet but will let you know when I see one.
Does seem a rather convoluted system that with a tie in the electoral college it goes to the Representatives to select the President and if that doesn't work you then have the upper house select from the VP candidates of the top two campaigns.
Ironically it was apparently thought that blocking Lincoln in this way would result in Douglas winning the support of the lower house and hence becoming a compromise President. However while he was the 2nd most popular candidate in the popular vote by quite a way, because his vote was spread quite evenly across the country he only came 4th in the electoral college and was hence excluded from the process as only the top three in the electoral college went through to the next stage. Hence how, if it had worked you could well have had Lane ending up as President!
I do remember the fusion option coming up when playing Douglas in that electoral game that was only in 2016. However thought it was a case of an agreement to split the vote so that in New York one anti-Lincoln candidate would get all the votes and in a numbers of others they would go to other candidates. Sounds from this it was to split the New York vote so no one got their electoral college votes at all which sounds counter-productive to me.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,774
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2018 16:27:19 GMT
Nice find stevep , never heard of this Senator Joseph Lane until now. Neither had I. Does seem like an oddity, although apparently he was only really connected to Oregon as he was made its governor when it was a territory, then when it became a state he obtained electoral office, which meant he spent a lot of his time in Washington. Have asked on the ACW site why the article thinks that if it came down to the senate selecting one of the VPs from the top two claimants why they would definitely pick Lane rather then Hamlin. Just checked and no reply yet but will let you know when I see one. Does seem a rather convoluted system that with a tie in the electoral college it goes to the Representatives to select the President and if that doesn't work you then have the upper house select from the VP candidates of the top two campaigns. Ironically it was apparently thought that blocking Lincoln in this way would result in Douglas winning the support of the lower house and hence becoming a compromise President. However while he was the 2nd most popular candidate in the popular vote by quite a way, because his vote was spread quite evenly across the country he only came 4th in the electoral college and was hence excluded from the process as only the top three in the electoral college went through to the next stage. Hence how, if it had worked you could well have had Lane ending up as President! I do remember the fusion option coming up when playing Douglas in that electoral game that was only in 2016. However thought it was a case of an agreement to split the vote so that in New York one anti-Lincoln candidate would get all the votes and in a numbers of others they would go to other candidates. Sounds from this it was to split the New York vote so no one got their electoral college votes at all which sounds counter-productive to me.
Makes me wonder how he would try to preserve the Union. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2018 21:16:26 GMT
Neither had I. Does seem like an oddity, although apparently he was only really connected to Oregon as he was made its governor when it was a territory, then when it became a state he obtained electoral office, which meant he spent a lot of his time in Washington. Have asked on the ACW site why the article thinks that if it came down to the senate selecting one of the VPs from the top two claimants why they would definitely pick Lane rather then Hamlin. Just checked and no reply yet but will let you know when I see one. Does seem a rather convoluted system that with a tie in the electoral college it goes to the Representatives to select the President and if that doesn't work you then have the upper house select from the VP candidates of the top two campaigns. Ironically it was apparently thought that blocking Lincoln in this way would result in Douglas winning the support of the lower house and hence becoming a compromise President. However while he was the 2nd most popular candidate in the popular vote by quite a way, because his vote was spread quite evenly across the country he only came 4th in the electoral college and was hence excluded from the process as only the top three in the electoral college went through to the next stage. Hence how, if it had worked you could well have had Lane ending up as President! I do remember the fusion option coming up when playing Douglas in that electoral game that was only in 2016. However thought it was a case of an agreement to split the vote so that in New York one anti-Lincoln candidate would get all the votes and in a numbers of others they would go to other candidates. Sounds from this it was to split the New York vote so no one got their electoral college votes at all which sounds counter-productive to me.
Makes me wonder how he would try to preserve the Union.
Well given he seems to have been a die-hard supporter of slavery I doubt the south would have defected. Whether as the article seems to consider elements of the north seeking to secede would actually actually occur I don't know, but if an ardent slaver gained the Presidency by such a method a lot of Republicans are likely to be unhappy. If he tried to ease the spread of slavery then that would cause more discontent but not sure if he would actually be able to do much if anything. If a significant element of the northern states did try to leave would a Lane Presidency oppose this or allow it, possibly with some happiness as it would boost the position of slavery in the remaining US states.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,774
Likes: 45,894
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 10, 2018 7:59:33 GMT
Makes me wonder how he would try to preserve the Union. Well given he seems to have been a die-hard supporter of slavery I doubt the south would have defected. Whether as the article seems to consider elements of the north seeking to secede would actually actually occur I don't know, but if an ardent slaver gained the Presidency by such a method a lot of Republicans are likely to be unhappy. If he tried to ease the spread of slavery then that would cause more discontent but not sure if he would actually be able to do much if anything. If a significant element of the northern states did try to leave would a Lane Presidency oppose this or allow it, possibly with some happiness as it would boost the position of slavery in the remaining US states.
Would be something if the North succeeds, but i think that is something that never will happen. |
|
insect
Banned
Posts: 380
Likes: 71
|
Post by insect on Sept 2, 2018 8:07:04 GMT
Lincoln would not of been blocked.
|
|
kyng
Consul General
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 840
|
Post by kyng on Sept 2, 2018 22:38:13 GMT
My guess is that the north would secede, and the south would let them go (because: a) they'd likely still lose the resulting war, and b) letting them go means that they get to keep slavery, which is all they really care about).
If this happens, then I guess the remaining USA (essentially the South plus some random border states) becomes less dependent on slavery over time, and eventually either loses states to the North or faces a civil war of its own. In that civil war, I'm guessing the North backs the anti-slavery factions, the USA is crushed, and the nation is reunited under a new name.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,406
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Sept 3, 2018 8:48:28 GMT
My guess is that the north would secede, and the south would let them go (because: a) they'd likely still lose the resulting war, and b) letting them go means that they get to keep slavery, which is all they really care about). If this happens, then I guess the remaining USA (essentially the South plus some random border states) becomes less dependent on slavery over time, and eventually either loses states to the North or faces a civil war of its own. In that civil war, I'm guessing the North backs the anti-slavery factions, the USA is crushed, and the nation is reunited under a new name.
The big question, if this happened, is how many states would have seceded? A lot of the interior states depended on access to the Mississippi-Missouri river system for a lot of their trade and hence would have suffered by leaving the union. Those further west might well have little interest in the issue of slavery plus also what about the large sections of the US that were still territories rather than states at that point. They could be stuck with a slavery dominated rump US and quite possibly having substantial pressure to allow slavery. Although in most of those cases they were unsuitable for plantation slavery and probably for other forms as well because of the climate, landscape and thin population. [Not to mention many still being dominated by the local Indian populations]. Plus as there was a strong reaction against the secession OTL you could see a lot of people seeing a northern secession as illegal and many not wanting to go along with it.
Also what happens to the free western states of California and Oregon? Would they form a separate republic or try and link up with whatever new republic the eastern states form despite the fact the [pro-slavery] rump US controlled territory between them? Might the US decide it would allow the northern states to leave but not California as some thought slavery would be practical there? If so are the break-away northern states going to go to war to aid California in such a case?
There are a lot of potential issues with a northern secession.
|
|
Does seem like an oddity, although apparently he was only really connected to Oregon as he was made its governor when it was a territory, then when it became a state he obtained electoral office, which meant he spent a lot of his time in Washington.