Presidents of the Confederate States

1861-1868: Jefferson Davis (Democrat)
1868-1873: John C. Breckinridge (Democrat)
1873-1874: Unknown (Democrat)
1874-1880: Unknown (Democrat)
1880-1886: James Longstreet (Whig)
1886-1892: Fitzhugh Lee (Democrat)
 
1861-1868: Jefferson Davis (Democrat)
1868-1873: John C. Breckinridge (Democrat)
1873-1874: Unknown (Democrat)
1874-1880: Unknown (Democrat)
1880-1886: James Longstreet (Whig)
1886-1892: Fitzhugh Lee (Democrat)

was thinking about Lee for the 1892-98 term, this is my rough idea now about after 1880

1880-1886: James Longstreet (Whig)
1886-1892: Unknown (Democrat)
1892-1898: Fitzhugh Lee? (Democrat)
1898-1904:
1904-1910:
1910-1916: Woodrow Wilson (Whig)
1916-1921: Champ Clark (Whig)
1921-1928: William McAdoo (Whig)

I wanted to try to squeeze John Tyler Morgan in somewhere, but not sure whether 1886-92 or 1898-1904 would be more realistic
 
I'd think he would probably live on, he handled the stress of war and exile pretty well, it might even avoid the strained health that killed him. Though for his VP my bet would be Reagan since he was one of Davis's most capable Cabinet members, and being from the West he avoids the impression that Davis cabinet made of being pro-Eastern states. Though then again he might adopt a Virginian to stop looking pro-West.

After him I guess it would depend on the political situation, the fire eaters would certainly feel marginalized by this point so they'd try to make a come back. Maybe they'd put up Beauregard as a candidate? Or John Pettus, he was a fairly successful politician with some not awful credentials. Though they could also try Edmund Pettus, he had a nasty reputation and fit their sort of profile perfectly.

William C Davis’ history of the Confederacy, Look Away, points out there were four main political camps - Nationalist (favoring a stronger central government), Moderates (generally opposed to the power of the Davis government), Fire Eaters, and Reconstructionists. The Reconstructionists lack political figures to rally behind. Leaders of the other three factions are deeply divided, sometimes over the issues, but just as often over personal animosities.

Since they’re all nominally Democrats, I see a couple likely possibilities for the election of 1867. They hold a party convention where no candidate receives a majority and the Democrats fracture into separate Nationalist, Moderate, and Fire Eater Parties. Less likely, one faction wins out and gets to keep the Democrat name, the other two spilt and form their own parties. Either way it’s a three way contest that will probably need to be decided by the Confederate House of Representatives, if it can. Alternatively, candidates might publicly nominate themselves, short-circuiting the whole party convention process. This would lead to a minimum of three candidates, there could easily be half-a dozen or more, and the House gets to decide between the top three candidates – if it can.

The Confederacy was founded with the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason- like your candidate not getting elected. There’s a good chance the Confederacy will lose some states over the 1867 election. It could even disintegrate. At which point the lucky winner faces the problem that any significant decision that he makes also risks the Confederacy losing states or fragmenting.
 
William C Davis’ history of the Confederacy, Look Away, points out there were four main political camps - Nationalist (favoring a stronger central government), Moderates (generally opposed to the power of the Davis government), Fire Eaters, and Reconstructionists. The Reconstructionists lack political figures to rally behind. Leaders of the other three factions are deeply divided, sometimes over the issues, but just as often over personal animosities.

Since they’re all nominally Democrats, I see a couple likely possibilities for the election of 1867. They hold a party convention where no candidate receives a majority and the Democrats fracture into separate Nationalist, Moderate, and Fire Eater Parties. Less likely, one faction wins out and gets to keep the Democrat name, the other two spilt and form their own parties. Either way it’s a three way contest that will probably need to be decided by the Confederate House of Representatives, if it can. Alternatively, candidates might publicly nominate themselves, short-circuiting the whole party convention process. This would lead to a minimum of three candidates, there could easily be half-a dozen or more, and the House gets to decide between the top three candidates – if it can.

The Confederacy was founded with the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason- like your candidate not getting elected. There’s a good chance the Confederacy will lose some states over the 1867 election. It could even disintegrate. At which point the lucky winner faces the problem that any significant decision that he makes also risks the Confederacy losing states or fragmenting.

I haven't heard of that book, ill amazon it now

didn't the main pro/anti davis camps really form in 1863 though? in this scenario the confederates will win the war in the autumn of 1862

didn't the confederates want to revive the Washingtonian principle of partyless politics? I personally cant see that lasting long though
 
This may also be a good time to put together who is in this Anti-Davis Whig party.

Alexander Stephens makes for biggest contender, as does James Longstreet. What about Joseph E. Johnston?
 
Lee's chances go up in smoke the instant word of his abolitionist sympathies get out. Once that happens, he won't come within throwing distance of power or influence in the CSA.
 
add Beauregard into that mix.

The *Whig party in the CSA is going to resemble Southern Whigs before the war.

This will be the party of decentralization, but also of being pro-light industry, westward expansion, some modernization.

Basically, a Confederate Whig party with not as many Know-Nothings in it.

Add Patrick Cleburne to that as well.
 
The *Whig party in the CSA is going to resemble Southern Whigs before the war.

This will be the party of decentralization, but also of being pro-light industry, westward expansion, some modernization.

Basically, a Confederate Whig party with not as many Know-Nothings in it.

Add Patrick Cleburne to that as well.

Somehow i doubt that all the anti-davis people could possibly be in one party. Too much vanity and pretentiousness.
 
Anti-Davis Whigs, and Anti-Davis Nationalists.

the confederate party system, like the US party system, cant cater for more than two parties

id suggest that once davis leaves politics industrialisation and modernisation are going to be the big issues, so the Whigs would be the party of industrialisation and trade, the party of the urban areas, ports and cities. Then the Democrats, more in favour of states rights, agrarianism, and at least initially fervent supporters of slavery. Does that sound about right?
 
William C Davis’ history of the Confederacy, Look Away, points out there were four main political camps - Nationalist (favoring a stronger central government), Moderates (generally opposed to the power of the Davis government), Fire Eaters, and Reconstructionists. The Reconstructionists lack political figures to rally behind. Leaders of the other three factions are deeply divided, sometimes over the issues, but just as often over personal animosities.

Since they’re all nominally Democrats, I see a couple likely possibilities for the election of 1867. They hold a party convention where no candidate receives a majority and the Democrats fracture into separate Nationalist, Moderate, and Fire Eater Parties. Less likely, one faction wins out and gets to keep the Democrat name, the other two spilt and form their own parties. Either way it’s a three way contest that will probably need to be decided by the Confederate House of Representatives, if it can. Alternatively, candidates might publicly nominate themselves, short-circuiting the whole party convention process. This would lead to a minimum of three candidates, there could easily be half-a dozen or more, and the House gets to decide between the top three candidates – if it can.

The Confederacy was founded with the idea that any state could leave at any time for any reason- like your candidate not getting elected. There’s a good chance the Confederacy will lose some states over the 1867 election. It could even disintegrate. At which point the lucky winner faces the problem that any significant decision that he makes also risks the Confederacy losing states or fragmenting.

I'd think that the Fire Eaters (and probably a good chunk of the Moderates) could hold together and win the Democratic name. A new Whig Party of sorts is a given IMO since those who were affected by the war and might not agree with the 'business as usual' attitude of the Fire Eaters would want to institute some change.

The Whig Party would probably be based around the idea that you could keep the peculiar institution but improve upon it with railroads and internal waterways to improve internal communications and troop movements. Considering the clout military figures would have in the immediate post-war environment.

I've always been skeptical that on a shaky election the Confederacy would break up. I just honestly can't see an election which brought to the fore the impassioned issues which prompted the secession in 1861. Unless a candidate was running on the premise of toning down slavery or rapid industrialization the Fire Eaters wouldn't feel threatened and would turn to good old fashioned muckraking while building a coalition to dethrone the dominant party.

Besides none of the states really has anything to gain by seceding, the only two which might even consider it are Texas and South Carolina, the rest are too interconnected economically to even consider it. That and the neighbor on the doorstep who opposes the peculiar institution really makes for a compelling argument that leaving is a very bad idea.

On another note the Confederate government during the war spent quite a bit of time building up its own power and I doubt that in the post-war world they would stop. Even the Fire Eaters would want a firm state apparatus in place so when they were in power they could have a pretty firm grasp on things. The South would become very authoritarian very quickly, no matter who was in charge. Though things might improve for the while underclass under certain post-war conditions, the fact that there is a massive group of potential rebels inside the South would mean that the Confederate government would have the basis for expanding its power to include state militias and the army.
 
I haven't heard of that book, ill amazon it now

didn't the main pro/anti davis camps really form in 1863 though? in this scenario the confederates will win the war in the autumn of 1862

didn't the confederates want to revive the Washingtonian principle of partyless politics? I personally cant see that lasting long though

These factions were about the nature of the Confederate government, not Davis specifically. The Reconstructionists did not want to be part of the Confederacy at all. The Fire Eaters wanted a Confederacy led by the most ardent supporters of slavery and independence, by which they meant themselves. The Moderates wanted a weaker central government, with an emphasis on states rights. The Nationalists wanted a stronger central government to better gain and maintain independence, and were split into pro and anti-Davis factions.
 
Somehow i doubt that all the anti-davis people could possibly be in one party. Too much vanity and pretentiousness.

The Reconstructionists, Fire Eaters, Moderates, and the anti-Davis Nationalists agreed on nothing except opposition to Davis. No political leader is going to be able to appeal to all of them.

The Reconstructionists lacked political leaders and would probably vote for a Moderate candidate. The other three factions were all divided over personalities within the factions. There's a significant chance that there would be two Nationalist candidates, a pro-Davis and and anti-Davis candidate. The Moderates and Fire Eaters also might nominate multiple candidates, especially the Fire Eaters.
 
I've always been skeptical that on a shaky election the Confederacy would break up. I just honestly can't see an election which brought to the fore the impassioned issues which prompted the secession in 1861. Unless a candidate was running on the premise of toning down slavery or rapid industrialization the Fire Eaters wouldn't feel threatened and would turn to good old fashioned muckraking while building a coalition to dethrone the dominant party.

For decades, Confederate politicians had been using the threat of secession to gain political leverage. Some will continue to do so after independence. The risk of any one of these threats becoming reality is small, but every major election and political decision will carry that risk. The one issue that held the Confederate states together, slavery, is no longer an issue and they are deeply divided on other issues. A lot depends on whether using the Union as a bogeyman keeps hotheads from turning threats into action. A peace-by-exhaustion will leave a far more unified Confederacy than a short war that leaves them seeing the Union as little if any threat.

Besides none of the states really has anything to gain by seceding,

The formation of the Confederacy shows that political decisions could be made based on irrational fears, not reasoned assessment of benefits.

the only two which might even consider it are Texas and South Carolina, the rest are too interconnected economically to even consider it.

Texas and South Carolina are probably the only individual states that might attempt secession from the Confederacy, but the Transmississippi or the Border States might go as as a block.

That and the neighbor on the doorstep who opposes the peculiar institution really makes for a compelling argument that leaving is a very bad idea.

Again, this depends on how big of a bogeyman the Union is. A short war will magnify southern overconfidence. There's also the possibility of voluntary reunion. I've seen estimates that from a quarter to a third of white people in Confederate states were pro-Union. They were strongest in the Border States.

The South would become very authoritarian very quickly, no matter who was in charge. Though things might improve for the while underclass under certain post-war conditions, the fact that there is a massive group of potential rebels inside the South would mean that the Confederate government would have the basis for expanding its power to include state militias and the army.

That is a strong possibility. You might even see a McCarthyite or Jacobin style hunt for southern Unionists.
 
Depending on the POD, whether this is an 1862 victory or 1864 victory.

By 1867, if this is an 1862 victory, the CSA is still decentralized. But due to the War of Secession they now sit on a rapid industrialization that happened during the war, and the need for westward expansion.

You have John C. Breckinridge as Davis' successor candidate for the *Democrats.

You have Stephens, Beauregard and maybe even JE Johnston trying to pander to the *Whig vote.

You have Robert Rhett, and his like pandering to the Fire Eaters.

And John H. Reagan, as a Moderate.

All of them are going to vie for Lee's support. Whoever Lee chooses will be the dominant Confederate party for the next generation.

Well, Breckinridge looks like it to me.
 
Depending on the POD, whether this is an 1862 victory or 1864 victory.

By 1867, if this is an 1862 victory, the CSA is still decentralized. But due to the War of Secession they now sit on a rapid industrialization that happened during the war, and the need for westward expansion.

You have John C. Breckinridge as Davis' successor candidate for the *Democrats.

You have Stephens, Beauregard and maybe even JE Johnston trying to pander to the *Whig vote.

You have Robert Rhett, and his like pandering to the Fire Eaters.

And John H. Reagan, as a Moderate.

All of them are going to vie for Lee's support. Whoever Lee chooses will be the dominant Confederate party for the next generation.

Well, Breckinridge looks like it to me.

thanks

yes its an 1862 victory

would Reagan be a moderate? I always had him down as a probable Whig?

which other figures are likely to be prominent democrats? im thinking about Breckinridge's running mate here
 
thanks

yes its an 1862 victory

would Reagan be a moderate? I always had him down as a probable Whig?

which other figures are likely to be prominent democrats? im thinking about Breckinridge's running mate here

Reagan was a moderate in the sense that he was Anti-Secession but wasn't against certain centralizing things during the war for the CSA's survival.

Breckinridge's running mate? I don't know, I'd have to dig on that.
 
Top