What was the most pivotal presidential election in American history

[HatCapitol]

Other thread got me thinking about this. Two factors are required for what I consider a "pivotal" race:

1) Race must be close and could have easily gone the other way given a small change in one or two factors.

2) A different outcome would have had a significant impact on the future.

Since the first criterion is more objective, I restricted the choices based on that, though I may have missed some, hence the other option. Vote based on which you think most satisfies criterion 2.

Edit: 1828 should have said 1824. My b.

[Guerilla poster]

I would go with Reagan/Carter in modern times but because it was blow out, though only in the last few days, it does not meet your criteria. Could have went either way.

[Apache Leap]

Other thread got me thinking about this. Two factors are required for what I consider a "pivotal" race:

1) Race must be close and could have easily gone the other way given a small change in one or two factors.

2) A different outcome would have had a significant impact on the future.

Since the first criterion is more objective, I restricted the choices based on that, though I may have missed some, hence the other option. Vote based on which you think most satisfies criterion 2.

Edit: 1828 should have said 1824. My b.I agree with 2, but why is 1 a factor for considering it to be a pivotal race?

[HatCapitol]

I would go with Reagan/Carter in modern times but because it was blow out, though only in the last few days, it does not meet your criteria. Could have went either way.

So "other" then? I didn't know that about it being close up to the last few days. Turns out Carter was right about Reagan being a jacklunaticass, just not in a nuclear way.

[homeys66]

Why not Lincoln winning in 1860 with 40% of the vote with Democratic vote split among a couple candidates? Certainly more consequential that Rutherford B Hayes.

Wilson also slid in with a fractured Republican vote, so I'll put that 2nd.

[HatCapitol]

I agree with 2, but why is 1 a factor for considering it to be a pivotal race?

Maybe not a criterion for being "pivotal," I just thinks it helps to narrow the discussion and make it meaningful. 1984 may have been a "pivotal" election, but there was no way Reagan was going to lose, so what's the point of discussing it?

[HatCapitol]

Why not Lincoln winning in 1860 with 40% of the vote with Democratic vote split among a couple candidates? Certainly more consequential that Rutherford B Hayes.

Wilson also slid in with a fractured Republican vote, so I'll put that 2nd.

Yeah, Roosevelt wanted to sabotage Taft and give it to Wilson. That's not a bad choice, considering how much was changing in the world at that time. Could have been significantly different with Taft as president up to 1916. Probably no federal reserve, the absence of which may have stopped American entry into the war in 1917. Sounds pretty pivotal. I was leaning toward Bush vs. Gore.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

[daaaave]

I voted for the election of 1800, not so much because of the result of the election but because of the response to the election. It was the first election in which the incumbent party lost, and they willingly and peacefully gave up power, thereby giving this democracy thing a chance to work. Best thing that Adams did as President.

[JUICE]

While I'm no history buff, the answer is quite clear to me: 2000 election. Not only was it a close race, but the Supreme Court decision to hand the election to Bush on the basis of "a recount would do the country harm" was unprecedented and hopefully unparalleled.

Since Bush was elected, the Arabs attacked and brought down the Towers, we got involved in two very expensive wars as a consequence, DHS was created vastly expanding the scope of the Federal Government, an accounting surplus was squandered and huge deficits rung up, all the while eyes looked the other way as Wall St pillaged the world and ultimately collapsed the global economy.

Ya, I'd say W Bush was without a shred of doubt the worst President in United States history. Thus, the close election was pivotal.

[Pseudolus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

That would be my first choice.

[Pseudolus]

Since Bush was elected, the Arabs attacked and brought down the Towers, we got involved in two very expensive wars as a consequence, DHS was created vastly expanding the scope of the Federal Government, an accounting surplus was squandered and huge deficits rung up, all the while eyes looked the other way as Wall St pillaged the world and ultimately collapsed the global economy.And Gore would have prevented all this while inventing the double-internet and farting rainbows?

[DownInTexas]

I voted for the election of 1800, not so much because of the result of the election but because of the response to the election. It was the first election in which the incumbent party lost, and they willingly and peacefully gave up power, thereby giving this democracy thing a chance to work. Best thing that Adams did as President.

:iatp:

Shaped the course of this country. Close second is 1860.

[JUICE]

And Gore would have prevented all this while inventing the double-internet and farting rainbows?

It would be naive to suppose that the Bush election appointment was not directly related to the subsequent attacks. Moreover, the increasing push by Senators and military officials to re-investigate 9/11 casts yet more doubt.... if the Bush administration knew and in any way encouraged or allowed the attacks, well, I don't even want to say it....

[Lucy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
This would have been my vote.
1800 is a strong contender, too.

[DownInTexas]

While I'm no history buff, the answer is quite clear to me: 2000 election.
Clearly


Not only was it a close race, but the Supreme Court decision to hand the election to Bush on the basis of "a recount would do the country harm" was unprecedented and hopefully unparalleled. The corrupt bargain of 1824 was worse. Adams lost the popular vote and electoral college, and was still elected.


Since Bush was elected, the Arabs attacked and brought down the Towers, we got involved in two very expensive wars as a consequence, DHS was created vastly expanding the scope of the Federal Government, an accounting surplus was squandered and huge deficits rung up, all the while eyes looked the other way as Wall St pillaged the world and ultimately collapsed the global economy.

Ya, I'd say W Bush was without a shred of doubt the worst President in United States history. Thus, the close election was pivotal.

Bush being elected caused 9/11? What had he done to provoke it that Gore had not have done? Your logic is very shaky.

[MountainHawk]

I went with other for the 1860, but 1912 has to be close as well, given it was Wilson that handed the keys to the Federal Reserve (something he later regretted ... see quote in sig.)

[HatCapitol]

Many people seem to be focusing on Lincoln, presumably because he preciptated the Civil War. I wonder whether the Civil War was really that critical of an event in American history. That is, if it hadn't happened, how different would things be today?

In my opinion, the northern hegemeny of wage labor, industrialism, and credit would have prevailed in any plausible scenario, so I don't see how Lincoln's election is really a critical event. Anybody have an alternative historical analysis?

[Pseudolus]

I wonder whether the Civil War was really that critical of an event in American history.:megafacepalm:

[Lucy]

We could have split into two countries. The states could have declined to send troops to support the federal government. Lots of stuff could be different.

[Lucy]

:megafacepalm:I get the feeling that the hat guy didn't grow up in the US.

[MountainHawk]

Many people seem to be focusing on Lincoln, presumably because he preciptated the Civil War. I wonder whether the Civil War was really that critical of an event in American history. That is, if it hadn't happened, how different would things be today?

In my opinion, the northern hegemeny of wage labor, industrialism, and credit would have prevailed in any plausible scenario, so I don't see how Lincoln's election is really a critical event. Anybody have an alternative historical analysis?
Without the Civil war fresh in our memories, do we stay neutral in WWI as long as we did? If we don't, does that war end much quicker, and with less destruction, meaning that Germany doesn't suffer as much from the Treaty of Versailles?

[HatCapitol]

:megafacepalm:

After the Civil War, the south became largely irrelevant to the American economy and politics for 50 years at least. The question is if they would have been any more relevant without the war. I don't know that they'd have been that much more. Hence, Civil War not necessarily a critical event.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/facepalming.gif

[DownInTexas]

Many people seem to be focusing on Lincoln, presumably because he preciptated the Civil War. I wonder whether the Civil War was really that critical of an event in American history. That is, if it hadn't happened, how different would things be today?

In my opinion, the northern hegemeny of wage labor, industrialism, and credit would have prevailed in any plausible scenario, so I don't see how Lincoln's election is really a critical event. Anybody have an alternative historical analysis?

General George McClellan ran in 1864 on a ballot of ending the war and recognizing the Confederacy's independence. Clearly, not everyone was convinced that the North would win. The longer the war dragged on, the more it favored the South. If Grant hadn't come along, the South probably would have won.

[whisper]

The election of 1796 - in that there was a contested election in 1796.

[HatCapitol]

Without the Civil war fresh in our memories, do we stay neutral in WWI as long as we did? If we don't, does that war end much quicker, and with less destruction, meaning that Germany doesn't suffer as much from the Treaty of Versailles?

This is a very good point that I hadn't thought of. I still think the answer is yes, we stay neutral for just as long. Neutrality wasn't so much due to the recent memory of war. The war was fifty years old and would have only been remembered by the elderly. Neutrality, especially in European affairs, was a long-established principle of American foreign policy.

Also, the decision of going to war or not largely depends on whether there is a Fed or not, since war on that scale requires a large supply of credit. So the real question is how the Civil War affected the development of the current capitalist structure in the north. Maybe it did, but I think minimally. That's my point.

[llcooljabe]

What about 1960? Would the cuban missle crisis have been different with Nixon?

2000: It is retarded to think that Bush's election caused the attack. But it is an interesting discussion to guess what Gore would have done in response. Methinks that there definitely would have been an afghanistan attack, but how prolonged?

1912: having just finished a big novel/history text on WW1, another what if: would taft have jumped aboard WW1 at all? Earlier? Would the United nations (league of nations) ever have come to be? Would the treaty of Versailles be different?

disclaimer: I grew up in Canada, so have never studied U.S. political history.

[homeys66]

I wonder whether the Civil War was really that critical of an event in American history. That is, if it hadn't happened, how different would things be today?


Its official....nothing can be agreed upon. I mean is 2+2 really 4?

[JUICE]

Bush being elected caused 9/11? What had he done to provoke it that Gore had not have done? Your logic is very shaky.

The HW Bush administration, in particular, was well known for ignoring the Israel-Palestine conflict. While Clinton was entirely unsuccessful, some attempt at compromise was made. Under W Bush we again saw willful ignorance of the situation, as expected. So to me, and others, the attacks soon after the Bush appointment were of little surprise. This of course is my opinion, and one that is shared by others including friends and family that work/ed within the state department/CIA.

[Lucy]

In many ways the Civil war was the first modern war. The first war with an emormous casualty rate, the first war that was photographed so the folks back home got to see the gore. Before modern warfare, war was glorious. After modern warfare, war was hell.

Yes, I think the Civil War was pivotal in America wanting to stay out of WWI, which was Europe's first modern war.

[Lucy]

The HW Bush administration, in particular, was well known for ignoring the Israel-Palestine conflict. While Clinton was entirely unsuccessful, some attempt at compromise was made. Under W Bush we again saw willful ignorance of the situation, as expected. So to me, and others, the attacks soon after the Bush appointment were of little surprise. This of course is my opinion, and one that is shared by others including friends and family that work/ed within the state department/CIA.

Also, Gore was interested in terrorism and terrorists. (As was Clinton). Bush II didn't believe until quite a while after the WTC attack that it could have been pulled off by a non-governmental organization. Heck, maybe he never really believed it, he built up Al Qaeda into some sort of shadow government of Afghanistan. I think there is a non-trivial chance that a Gore administration would have noticed some of the warning signs (of which there were apparently many) and prevented the attack.

Even if that's true, I don't think the Gore/Bush election could be described as "more pivotal" than others mentioned.

[Chronus]

In many ways the Civil war was the first modern war. The first war with an emormous casualty rate, the first war that was photographed so the folks back home got to see the gore. Before modern warfare, war was glorious. After modern warfare, war was hell.

Yes, I think the Civil War was pivotal in America wanting to stay out of WWI, which was Europe's first modern war.

The civil war was also instrumental in modern industrialization and really pushed the technology of interchangeable parts. It also helped shape the railroads and food production in the country.

[Arthur Kade]

FDR v Hoover 1932 was the most important election of the 20th century, your criterion of close notwithstanding.

[Arthur Kade]

Why not Lincoln winning in 1860 with 40% of the vote with Democratic vote split among a couple candidates? Certainly more consequential that Rutherford B Hayes.
Lincoln 1860 should definitely have been in the poll list, but don't discount the importance of the end of reconstruction with the election of Hayes.

[Standtall]

Also, Gore was interested in terrorism and terrorists. (As was Clinton). Bush II didn't believe until quite a while after the WTC attack that it could have been pulled off by a non-governmental organization. Heck, maybe he never really believed it, he built up Al Qaeda into some sort of shadow government of Afghanistan. I think there is a non-trivial chance that a Gore administration would have noticed some of the warning signs (of which there were apparently many) and prevented the attack.
Even if that's true, I don't think the Gore/Bush election could be described as "more pivotal" than others mentioned.

This is amusing to me. After 9/11 we did things like instigating body scanners, wire tapping etc... people (moreso liberals than conservatives) freak out! Imagine if we had taken nail clippers away before 9/11? or singled out Muslims for special searches etc...

What do you think Gore would have done differently, given he would have been President for less than 8 months that would have stopped 9/11 from happening?

:popcorn:

[Arthur Kade]

Wilson also slid in with a fractured Republican vote, so I'll put that 2nd.
Who cares about 1912? Any election in which Taft was the "conservative" candidate wasn't going to materially alter US history no matter who won.

[Arthur Kade]

Since Bush was elected, the Arabs attacked and brought down the Towers...
:shake:

[Arthur Kade]

It would be beyond idiotic to suppose that the Bush election was directly related to the subsequent attacks.
IFYP.

Apparently your ignorance extends to the fact that the attack was in preparation well before November 2000.

[Arthur Kade]

The question is if [the South] would have been any more [economically] relevant without the war.
Yes, that is certainly the most important question about the Civil War's impact. No doubt about it. (I don't really need red font, do I?)

:megafacepalmevenbiggerthanpseudolus:

[Loner]

This is amusing to me. After 9/11 we did things like instigating body scanners, wire tapping etc... people (moreso liberals than conservatives) freak out! Imagine if we had taken nail clippers away before 9/11? or singled out Muslims for special searches etc...

What do you think Gore would have done differently, given he would have been President for less than 8 months that would have stopped 9/11 from happening?

:popcorn:

I don't think it would have been so much Gore "doing something differently" as in "would have handled it better" but rather in the sense that with a lot of staffing being already in place, less noise of transition and a greater likelihood of whatever intelligence there was of the plot not getting lost in the shuffle of personnel/management turnover.

[Pseudolus]

It would be naive to suppose that the Bush election appointment was not directly related to the subsequent attacks. Moreover, the increasing push by Senators and military officials to re-investigate 9/11 casts yet more doubt.... if the Bush administration knew and in any way encouraged or allowed the attacks, well, I don't even want to say it....

Go ahead. Say it. It would be entertaining.

[homeys66]

Who cares about 1912? Any election in which Taft was the "conservative" candidate wasn't going to materially alter US history no matter who won.

True. Progressivism was definitely en vogue in 1912. I still don't know if we get the Fed or WWI (and WWII) without Wilson though.

[Arthur Kade]

What about 1960? Would the cuban missle crisis have been different with Nixon?
Maybe it wouldn't have happened at all.

If the Bay of Pigs invasion had been supported by American airpower (as Nixon would undoubtedly have ensured), Castro might well have been overthrown.

If Nixon had met with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, as JFK did, he is not likely to have impressed the Soviet leader with his weakness and inexperience, as JFK did — which would probably have prevented the construction of the Berlin Wall and the installation of offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba, which would have meant no Cuban Missile Crisis.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/jfk-palooza-faux-correction-more

[Lucy]

This is amusing to me. After 9/11 we did things like instigating body scanners, wire tapping etc... people (moreso liberals than conservatives) freak out! Imagine if we had taken nail clippers away before 9/11? or singled out Muslims for special searches etc...

What do you think Gore would have done differently, given he would have been President for less than 8 months that would have stopped 9/11 from happening?

:popcorn:
Read the intelligence reports that said these guys wanted to attack the US and were learning to fly but not to land? Investigated them? Prosecuted them?

No, I don't think Gore would have preemptively instituted stealing personal grooming products from airplane passengers. Nor do I think that doing so would have prevented 9/11. You can make a pretty decent weapon out of a broken china plate from first class, or a coke can.

[Standtall]

Read the intelligence reports that said these guys wanted to attack the US and were learning to fly but not to land? Investigated them? Prosecuted them?

No, I don't think Gore would have preemptively instituted stealing personal grooming products from airplane passengers. Nor do I think that doing so would have prevented 9/11. You can make a pretty decent weapon out of a broken china plate from first class, or a coke can.

So he would have arrested or detained Muslims that took flying lessons? What would he charge them with? WOuld he arrest everyone that took flying lessons or just Muslims? Would he have expanded information gathering police forces or tried to set up something like homeland security before 9/11?

Bush loved crap like that but he didn't have any way of getting things like that set up before 9/11. Thinking Gore, who seems to dislike all of that, would have is disingenous.

[HatCapitol]

Maybe it wouldn't have happened at all.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/jfk-palooza-faux-correction-more

Possible, but you couldn't have picked a more biased source.

[Lucy]

Gore did not dislike all that. And there was quite a lot of evidence agaisnt some of those hijackers. Some other administration might not have put all the pieces together in time to stop it, either, but few recent administrations have been as blind to non-governmental terrorism as Bush II.

[Standtall]

Gore did not dislike all that. And there was quite a lot of evidence agaisnt some of those hijackers. Some other administration might not have put all the pieces together in time to stop it, either, but few recent administrations have been as blind to non-governmental terrorism as Bush II.

Do you honestly think Gore could have locked up or prevented from flying in a commercial aircraft some Muslim people because they had taken flying lessons?

Do you think security at airports, changing plane design, retraining staff, etc... could have been improved enough in 8 months to have prevented 9/11? If so, wouldn't Clinton have done that stuff already?

One of those two things would basically be what you would have to have done to have stopped 9/11.

Bush didn't do them and there is no shot that Gore would have either.

Those flying lessons were mostly pre-2001, weren't they?

[HatCapitol]

Without the Civil war fresh in our memories, do we stay neutral in WWI as long as we did? If we don't, does that war end much quicker, and with less destruction, meaning that Germany doesn't suffer as much from the Treaty of Versailles?

The Civil War is the big war that we all remember now because it's emphasized in our elementary and high school history classes. How did the US citizens of 1910 think of it? They didn't think of it, at least not nearly as much as we do. Their familiarity with war was through the numerous smaller expeditions that the US was making to Latin America and East Asia, most of which are now forgotten, but were quite extensive. WWI happened in a different world from the Civil War, which wasn't significantly in the American consciousness. How much did we think about the Korean War when considering whether to invade Iraq?

[MightySchoop]

True. Progressivism was definitely en vogue in 1912. I still don't know if we get the Fed or WWI (and WWII) without Wilson though.

and without US involvement in WWI, we don't get the Selective Service act. Without Wilson in office, the League of Nations is probably not formed. Without the League, we probably don't get the UN. Without the UN, Israel doesn't exist. Korea remains a civil war without UN involvement (though probably with Chinese backing in the North).

[Pseudolus]

The Civil War is the big war that we all remember now because it's emphasized in our elementary and high school history classes. How did the US citizens of 1910 think of it? They didn't think of it, at least not nearly as much as we do.They didn't think of a war that their Dads/Granddads fought in 54 years earlier? The one that killed the largest number of Americans in any war in US history (not even adjusting for population size changes since)? The one that was fought on US soil? Good grief.

[Blue Man]

1860 really wasn't that important of an election overall. By the time Lincoln was elected, Civil War was pretty much inevitable. He just made sure that the North won by any means necessary.

But if John Fremont had been elected president in 1856, instead of Buchanan, things would have gone very differently. What's funny is that Buchanan's biggest attack against Fremont was that his platform of opposing the expansion of slavery, but keeping it legal in states where it was already legal, would inevitably lead to Civil War. When, in fact, Buchanan's abolitionism led to the Civil War. Technology and expansion would have ended slavery eventually, almost certainly within a generation or two, and without much bloodshed.

[HatCapitol]

General George McClellan ran in 1864 on a ballot of ending the war and recognizing the Confederacy's independence. Clearly, not everyone was convinced that the North would win. The longer the war dragged on, the more it favored the South. If Grant hadn't come along, the South probably would have won.

Very possible the south wins. Here's how I think the scenario plays out.

Things in the north go forward pretty much as they did in real history. Without the southern delegation holding back the growth of the federal government, the government grows into a state of patronage toward industry, including a military industrial complex, and an aggressive military that supports industrial interests abroad. Ergo, the north is on the same developmental path it ended up on.

The south attempts to continue on as it did antebellum, but without western territories into which slavery can expand (western territories would have remained with the union), the younger sons of planters (who generally don't inherit land, only slaves) are left without planations, and their support of the institution of slavery becomes less enthusiastic, undercutting the domestic support of the institution. Meanwhile, northern abolitionism becomes much more aggressive without the southern delegation to check it in the supreme court or in congress. Abolition starts to make the enforcement costs of slavery less bearable, at the same time that duties on southern crops come into place in the north, diminishing demand and strengthening the federal government in the north. Slavery dies a natural death, and the south, in the midst of economic depression, humbly asks to rejoin the union within 20 years, in which it is readmitted, but largely irrelevant, just as it was after the war in real life.

So you see, southern victory doesn't change much.

[Harry]

I went with other for the 1860, but 1912 has to be close as well, given it was Wilson that handed the keys to the Federal Reserve (something he later regretted ... see quote in sig.)
That quote is an internet hoax.

[Lucy]

Do you honestly think Gore could have locked up or prevented from flying in a commercial aircraft some Muslim people because they had taken flying lessons?

Do you think security at airports, changing plane design, retraining staff, etc... could have been improved enough in 8 months to have prevented 9/11? If so, wouldn't Clinton have done that stuff already?

One of those two things would basically be what you would have to have done to have stopped 9/11.

Bush didn't do them and there is no shot that Gore would have either.

Those flying lessons were mostly pre-2001, weren't they?I honestly think there was enough evidence to be gathered that those particular men might have been prevented from flying, yes. Not because they were Muslims, and not because "they took flying lessons", but because there was a pattern of conspiracy. Would it have happened? We'll never know. I put the probability well above "zero", though.

And one very simple change in "airline security" would have prevented 9/11. Prior to 9/11 airplane crew were trained to negotiate with hijackers and prevent deaths right now aboard the plane. Post 9/11 airplane crews are instructed to prevent takeover of the plane by any means necessary. Just that one change (which was actually implemented in about 8 hours, and could have been implemented in a few months if credible intellegence information made it obviously the right choice) would probably have prevented 9/11 with NO OTHER CHANGES TO ANYTHING.

A couple of guys with boxcutters can't take out a plane of people who are resisting them. Confiscating nailclippers has never been more than theater.

[JUICE]

I'm sorry.... are people giving the Bush administration a pass for missing the obvious 9/11 warning signs??

[Harry]

I'm sorry.... are people giving the Bush administration a pass for missing the obvious 9/11 warning signs??
I'm sorry....are you new here?

[JUICE]

Relatively, but you'll have to excuse me for other reasons. I'm a bit of a systems thinker. :shake2:

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Ya, I'd say W Bush was without a shred of doubt the worst President in United States history. Thus, the close election was pivotal.
His opponent was equally as bad if not worse. Therefore not pivotal.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

I honestly think there was enough evidence to be gathered that those particular men might have been prevented from flying, yes. Not because they were Muslims, and not because "they took flying lessons", but because there was a pattern of conspiracy. Would it have happened? We'll never know. I put the probability well above "zero", though.


I don't. If Gore were president nothing different would have happened.

[Twitches]

This is an impossible exercise, given that history was shaped significantly by nearly every decision our past presidents made. Not only do we have those major decisions made, such as those leading us to war, but there are also those minor decisions, the ones we probably don't even know about, that have kept us from potential wars and nuclear catastrophe. Given that any one election changing could, potentially, affect the outcome of every subsequent election, I'm going to go with the first presidential election.

[Malik Shabazz]

I'm surprised nobody else picked 1876. That election ended Reconstruction and started a century of Jim Crow.

Then again, considering the people who post in Political, I'm not surprised at all. :roll2:

[whisper]

I'm surprised nobody else picked 1876. That election ended Reconstruction and started a century of Jim Crow.


I don't think it's as important as the 1796 election. Had Washington not stepped down for a contested election - American history could be vastly different. Why I put this election as the highest. 1800 is probably the next one, with the peaceful transition of power. We may take these as common place after 200+ years, but really - both are amazing.

[Pseudolus]

I'm surprised nobody else picked 1876. That election ended Reconstruction and started a century of Jim Crow.

Then again, considering the people who post in Political, I'm not surprised at all. :roll2:

True, we are mostly white supremacist racists. Thank you for coming back to remind us. We've missed that about you.

[Malik Shabazz]

I'm surprised nobody else picked 1876. That election ended Reconstruction and started a century of Jim Crow.

Then again, considering the people who post in Political, I'm not surprised at all. :roll2:
True, we are mostly white supremacist racists. Thank you for coming back to remind us. We've missed that about you.
No, the people here are mostly tone-deaf when it comes to issues concerning race.

[HatCapitol]

I don't think it's as important as the 1796 election. Had Washington not stepped down for a contested election - American history could be vastly different. Why I put this election as the highest. 1800 is probably the next one, with the peaceful transition of power. We may take these as common place after 200+ years, but really - both are amazing.

I think the whole "peaceful transition" thing is overblown.

There was really no chance of a war. Even if Adams had tried to stage a coup and stay in office, there's no way he could have gotten enough support that a war would have been started. If he'd tried, they would have just dragged his ass out of the white house without much ado.

So Adams didn't have the support personally, but that's ignoring the fact that the whole country would have been averse to anybody trying to maintain power unlawfully. The country was watching with great distaste as Bonaparte built a government based on himself and not on law. Any attempt to do something similar in America would have met with great resistance. Furthermore, the single biggest person behind the Federalist Party, Hamilton, would have opposed it, because he was a big believer in the Constitution and in maintaining a strong government. Weakening the government's legitimacy through a coup would not have been his style, besides the fact that he was no lover of Adams.

So there was never any possibility for anything but a peaceful transition.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

No, the people here are mostly tone-deaf when it comes to issues concerning race.

Well, compared to someone with hypersensitivity, who sees everything that happens as related to one issue, race, then sure, the rest of the world is tone deaf.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Would Huey Long ever have become president if not assassinated? Could he have been elected in 1936 or 1940? How might that have changed history.

What about Robert Kennedy? If he was not assassinated how might that have changed the political landscape.

[yankeetripper]

I'm surprised nobody else picked 1876. That election ended Reconstruction and started a century of Jim Crow.

Then again, considering the people who post in Political, I'm not surprised at all. :roll2:

Unfortunately that was likely coming with or with out the presidental compromise though that may have sped things up a bit.

Whisper makes some great points about 1796 & 1800 but I went the biggest one in my life time.

[SamTheEagle]

Would Huey Long ever have become president if not assassinated? Could he have been elected in 1936 or 1940? How might that have changed history.

What about Robert Kennedy? If he was not assassinated how might that have changed the political landscape.

If RFK hadn't gotten shot, Teddy would have continued being the "dumb one" rather than "the only one left".

[SamTheEagle]

That quote is an internet hoax.

Quotation of President Wilson
Aaron Russo reads a quote widely attributed to Woodrow Wilson:
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
This is a well-known conflation of several quotes, only two of which can actually be attributed to Woodrow Wilson. The source of the first two sentences is unknown, and nowhere on record can be found to be said by Wilson. The third sentence (although slightly altered in this version) is found in the eighth chapter of Wilson's book, The New Freedom,[25] and originally reads:
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.
The final sentence (beginning with "We are no longer..."), although again slightly altered from its original version, can also be found in The New Freedom (ninth chapter), and in its original context, reads:
We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

True, we are mostly white supremacist racists. Thank you for coming back to remind us. We've missed that about you.

:iatp:

[Arthur Kade]

The Civil War is the big war that we all remember now because it's emphasized in our elementary and high school history classes. How did the US citizens of 1910 think of it?
Right, because there were no textbooks back in 1910. And it's not like Little Johnny's grandpa would have been flapping about his service in the war and cursing those damnyankees.

You say the most absurd things with absolutely no basis in reality. Where do you get your information? What is your basis for making claims like this? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

How much did we think about the Korean War when considering whether to invade Iraq?
The Korean War didn't result in the death of 2% of the country's population and untold human suffering and property damage within American territory.

:duh:

:troll:

[HatCapitol]

Right, because there were no textbooks back in 1910. And it's not like Little Johnny's grandpa would have been flapping about his service in the war and cursing those damnyankees.

You say the most absurd things with absolutely no basis in reality. Where do you get your information? What is your basis for making claims like this? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?


The Korean War didn't result in the death of 2% of the country's population and untold human suffering and property damage within American territory.

:duh:

:troll:

Fair enough. How much did the memory of WWII affect our decision to invade Iraq? Granted, 2% of the country didn't die there either, but it was a much larger war that was much more prominent in our consciousness. Yet it still wasn't that significant. Heck, forget Iraq, did the memory of WWII stop us from going into Korea, only 5 years later, or Vietnam 20 years later?

The truth is that the memory of a war is mostly dissipated within the course of 50 years, and it is all the more dissipated if alot has happened since then and the economy has recovered. There was massive economic development in the north after the war, so the economy wasn't really feeling the effects 50 years later. The south was still largely devastated, so they thought about the war more than the north, but they also weren't as significant in influence.

Also don't forget that there had been a massive influx of immigrants who knew very little about the war. And don't overestimate the influence that a grandfather's stories can have on a grandson's thinking. My grandfathers both served in WWII and they told me some stories, but those stories are by no means at the forefront of my mind. They're not how I've formed my opinions on war, or what makes me anti-war. I know more about war from what I've read and by following the news than I do from my grandfathers' stories. And not everybody has a grandfather who served, and not all grandfathers who served tell stories about their service.

In short, people tend to live in the present, and memories are short. The truly historically minded are a minority in any population. The only way that a war would be in the popular consciousness 50 years after it happened is if its effects were still being felt in everyday life.

[Lucy]

You have it backwards. The memory of WWII is one of the reasons we went into Vietnam. There was a feeling that we'd waited too long, and it would have been better if Hitler had been stopped before he amassed so much power. Thus, the domino theory.

But other than getting it backwards, it's a good analogy.

[HatCapitol]

You have it backwards. The memory of WWII is one of the reasons we went into Vietnam. There was a feeling that we'd waited too long, and it would have been better if Hitler had been stopped before he amassed so much power. Thus, the domino theory.

The argument advanced by you and others was that recent memory of war creates an aversion that is likely to deter a future war. I'm pointing out that in the case of Vietnam, which was much more proximate to WWII than the Civil War was to WWI, any such deterrent was obviously not effective. Any pretenses/excuses/reasons that are specific to Vietnam are beside the point.

But other than getting it backwards, it's a good analogy.

I'm not sure if you're mocking me here or not. Please clarify.

[nonlnear]

1860 hands down.

I get that some people might not vote for 1860 as being the most pivotal (the OP apparently included), but how it didn't even warrant a mention in the poll is mind-boggling.

[Lucy]

The argument advanced by you and others was that recent memory of war creates an aversion that is likely to deter a future war. I'm pointing out that in the case of Vietnam, which was much more proximate to WWII than the Civil War was to WWI, any such deterrent was obviously not effective. Any pretenses/excuses/reasons that are specific to Vietnam are beside the point.No, that's too simplistic. The argument advanced by several is that people were deeply affected by the Civil war, and it affected the nation's political reaction to future wars for decades. That's true of WWII, as well. WWII was much more of a "success" for the US than the Civil War was, so the effect was different.

I'm not sure if you're mocking me here or not. Please clarify.Partly, because it seems odd that you missed such an obvious difference. But partly I wanted to point out that WWII is also a good example of the lasting influence on politics that a pivotal war can make.

[HatCapitol]

No, that's too simplistic. The argument advanced by several is that people were deeply affected by the Civil war, and it affected the nation's political reaction to future wars for decades. That's true of WWII, as well. WWII was much more of a "success" for the US than the Civil War was, so the effect was different.

Oh, so the argument is that only "unsuccessful" wars (as determined by public perception) deter future wars? Fine then. How much did Vietnam deter us from our involvement in the middle east, 20 years and 30 years later? Vietnam was and is largely viewed as a national debacle, and it was forefront in public consciousness. By your argument, the memory of Vietnam should have prevented Desert Storm.

[IMP]

only voted how i did b/c sadly, i dont know history very well. or much at all. and i dont know anything about the elections from before my time. and i dont think that if bush stayed in power a 2nd term, much of anything would have been different. that was the 92-96 term.

[Brad Gile]

Ya, I'd say W Bush was without a shred of doubt the worst President in United States history. Thus, the close election was pivotal.

Not even close, son.
Worst:
1. Obama so far
2. FDR

[Lucy]

Oh, so the argument is that only "unsuccessful" wars (as determined by public perception) deter future wars? Fine then. How much did Vietnam deter us from our involvement in the middle east, 20 years and 30 years later? Vietnam was and is largely viewed as a national debacle, and it was forefront in public consciousness. By your argument, the memory of Vietnam should have prevented Desert Storm.No, that's still too simplistic. The argument isn't that any particular class of wars "deters us from future wars". (Unless you take as your "class of wars" the Civil War. The argument is that major wars have long-lasting impacts on American politics. The impact of the Civil war was mostly of the "war is hell" sort, despite the fact that is was "successful" from the perspective of the north, where most political power dwelt for quite a while thereafter. The impact of WWII was mostly of the "it's a mistake to wait too long" sort. Vietnam is a more complicated, because there was never a clear consensus of the result. Some felt we should never have gotten involved, and others felt we failed due to lack of resolution.

There was a national debate re Iraq and Afghanistan that involved references to both WWII and Vietnam, since lots of people remembered both at the time.

[Standtall]

No, the people here are mostly tone-deaf when it comes to issues concerning race.

It sucks when people don't think everything is about race.

[MathinTucson]

1860

[MathinTucson]

Not even close, son.
Worst:
1. Obama so far
2. FDR

I'll correct your error:
1. LBJ
2. FDR

There is no way that Obama can be considered worse than W Bush. Two endless wars, with one of them 100% not justified, puts Bush way ahead of Obama.
How can Obama be worse than Bush, other than Obama being a D and Bush an R? Out of control spending? Obama is picking up where Bush left off.

[Twitches]

I'll correct your error:
1. LBJ
2. FDR

There is no way that Obama can be considered worse than W Bush. Two endless wars, with one of them 100% not justified, puts Bush way ahead of Obama.
How can Obama be worse than Bush, other than Obama being a D and Bush an R? Out of control spending? Obama is picking up where Bush left off.

Current approval ratings disagree with your assessment.

[yankeetripper]

Not even close, son.
Worst:
1. Obama so far
2. FDR

No Jucie was correct the first time old foggy.

[llcooljabe]

How can Bush be worse than Obama, other than Bush being an R and Obama a D? Out of control spending? Obama is taking that to whole new, never-before-seen level.

IFYP