# Most Significant Presidential Election in US History? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2007, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605 "2007-07-20T23:48:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2007, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/1 "2007-07-20T23:48:01Z")
By significant, I mean an election in which the policies and beliefs of the winner vs. the policies and beliefs of the loser would have drastically altered the history of this nation had the loser instead won the election. My nomination is the election of 1864. Lincoln ran for re-election on his well-known platform of restoring the union and freeing the slaves. McClellan, his opponent, ran on a Copperhead (Peace Democrat) platform that called for the end of the war and the acceptance of Southern independence. Southern independence by definition would have meant the continuation of slavery. Had McClellan prevailed, (and until Sept. 1864, Lincoln and most other observers felt that he would) the United States quite simply would have ceased to exist after only 88 years. I cannot think of another election in which so much was riding on the outcome? Thoughts? Other nominations? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/2 "2007-07-21T00:00:49Z")
I’d go four years earlier and nominate the election of 1860. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/3 "2007-07-21T00:18:29Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] I’d go four years earlier and nominate the election of 1860. [/QUOTE] That’s my pick, too. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/4 "2007-07-21T01:28:27Z")
What about the 2000 elections? If Gore was in office on 9/11 (and I think it still would have happened), I seriously doubt we’d be in the quagmire that is Iraq today, and our world prestige would not be in the toilet. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/5 "2007-07-21T01:48:46Z")
Doesn’t compare with 1860 or 1864, but **one** of the most significant elections was 1896. History would have gone very differently if Bryan had defeated McKinley. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/6 "2007-07-21T01:55:11Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] History would have gone very differently if Bryan had defeated McKinley. [/QUOTE] Why? what was so significant about that one? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/7 "2007-07-21T01:59:45Z")
[QUOTE=sturmhauke] What about the 2000 elections? If Gore was in office on 9/11 (and I think it still would have happened), I seriously doubt we’d be in the quagmire that is Iraq today, and our world prestige would not be in the toilet. [/QUOTE] But the election of Lincoln was one of the significant points that led many in the South seriously to consider secession. If one of the other candidates had won in 1860, the U.S. might have still been able to stumble along, trying to keep the lid on the slavery issue. Lincoln’s election helped bring the issue to a head. A Gore victory wouldn’t have had such a different effect domestically than the Bush victory. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/8 "2007-07-21T02:03:23Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] Why? what was so significant about that one? [/QUOTE] In the [1896 election,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_election) the Republicans represented the interests of industry, commerce, finance, the Northeast, creditors, “sound money”. The Democrats (as represented by Bryan, and more or less in coalition with the Populists) represented agrarian populism, debtors, “free silver.” Historians generally consider 1896 one of those decisive elections the outcome of which sets the tone for politics and policy for several election cycles to come. Another such would be [1932,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_election) which put an end to the pro-business Republican ascendancy that had obtained (even during Wilson’s Democratic administration) since 1896. ---
**Author:** ![threeorange](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@threeorange](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threeorange)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/9 "2007-07-21T02:08:32Z")
I think a case could be made for 1932. If by some miracle (or some assistance from Diebold 😉 ), Hoover had defeated Roosevelt, the US would be a very different place, in terms of both our domestic economics and our foreign policy. Apparently, I wasn’t the first with this idea. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/10 "2007-07-21T02:22:35Z")
The Revolution of 1800 which saw Thomas Jefferson elected was pretty darn important and helped lead to the destruction of the Federalist. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/11 "2007-07-21T02:32:11Z")
I third 1932. That’s the year I always think of when someone says “may you live in interesting times.” Someone will surely say 1980, when the backlash began against that nasty old New Deal. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/12 "2007-07-21T02:49:03Z")
[QUOTE=Beware of Doug] I third 1932. That’s the year I always think of when someone says “may you live in interesting times.” [/QUOTE] They could have been even **more** interesting. FDR effectively marginalized the Socialists and Communists by co-opting the most moderate and broadly acceptable planks of their platforms (Social Security, minimum wage, protection of organized labor, etc.) and ignoring the truly radical elements. If Hoover had won, there might have been a revolution, or something pretty near. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/13 "2007-07-21T03:05:01Z")
I’d say it was the election of 1796, in the sense of Washington _not_ running. He not only could have run for a third term (which he almost certainly would have won) he could have declared himself king or emperor and seized power indefinitely. No other victorious General in history, having attained supreme office after an armed revolution, had ever voluntarily relinquished it. For this alone he not only deserves the moniker ‘Father of our country’, but the father of the modern liberal democracy. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/14 "2007-07-21T05:02:26Z")
I considered making a joke here that it will be 2008, but then I thought it would be more expedient to agree with **Captain Amazing** and choose 1860. Lincoln’s election was something of a surprise, and considering the secessions and war that were a direct consequence, I doubt that (even in the current political climate) we’ll see anything that matches the importance of presidential politics in 1860. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@bob\_co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_co)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/15 "2007-07-21T05:26:03Z")
[![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g) Communism has arrived. It used to be a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/16 "2007-07-21T07:46:50Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] But the election of Lincoln was one of the significant points that led many in the South seriously to consider secession. If one of the other candidates had won in 1860, the U.S. might have still been able to stumble along, trying to keep the lid on the slavery issue. Lincoln’s election helped bring the issue to a head. A Gore victory wouldn’t have had such a different effect domestically than the Bush victory. [/QUOTE] Actually, I agree that the 1860 election was more significant. I just thought we could make a top 10 list or something. And I also agree that everyday life at home would be more or less the same if Gore were in office. However, I still believe we would not have had this little misadventure in the Middle East, and that is something that will affect our world standing for many decades. The [following](http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html) is an excerpt from a speech Gore gave back in 2002, on why he was against our going to war: > [@Al Gore](#): > > To begin with - to put first things first - I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. > > …Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that America’s most urgent requirement of the moment - right now - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving its host government from power, even as Al Qaeda members slip back across the border to set up in Afghanistan again; rather, he is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And the president is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat. > > …In the case of Iraq, it would be difficult to go it alone, but it’s theoretically possible to achieve our goals in Iraq unilaterally. Nevertheless, by contrast, the war against terrorism manifestly requires a multilateral approach. It is impossible to succeed against terrorism unless we have secured the continuing, sustained cooperation of many nations. And here’s one of my central points; our ability to secure that kind of multilateral cooperation in the war against terrorism can be severely damaged in the way we go about undertaking unilateral action against Iraq. > > …Back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War… But look at the differences between the resolution that was voted on in 1991 and the one this administration is proposing that the Congress vote on in 2002. The circumstances are really completely different. To review a few of them briefly: in 1991, Iraq had crossed an international border, invaded a neighboring sovereign nation and annexed its territory. Now by contrast in 2002, there has been no such invasion. We are proposing to cross an international border and, however justified it may be, we have to recognize that the difference in the circumstances now compared to what existed in 1991 has profound implications for the way the rest of the world views what we are doing. And that in turn will have implications for our ability to succeed in our war against terrorism. > > …In 1991, the first President Bush patiently and skillfully put together a broad international coalition… For whatever reason, every Arab nation, except Jordan… supported our military efforts, was a part of the international coalition, and some of them supplied troops. Our allies in Asia and Europe supported the coalition without exception. This year by contrast, many of our allies in Europe and Asia are thus far openly opposed to what President Bush is doing. > > …The coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own. > > …Back in 1991, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 in order to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. That in itself is not inherently wrong, but I believe that puts a burden on the shoulders of President Bush to dispel the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration. I have not raised those doubts, but many have. And because they have been raised, this has become a problem for our country’s effort to build a national consensus and an international coalition. > > …If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. > > …The absence of any enlightened nation building after World War I led directly to the conditions which made Germany vulnerable to fascism and the rise of Adolph Hitler and made all of Europe vulnerable to his evil designs. There’s more, but the point is that Gore predicted a lot of the mess we find ourselves in now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/17 "2007-07-21T15:48:14Z")
1. If we’d had a clear electoral winner, or if the shameful deal hadn’t been struck in the House to make Hayes President instead of Tilden, then Reconstruction would have continued and Jim Crow would have been kept in check. We wouldn’t still have been fighting the Civil War a century later. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/18 "2007-07-21T16:30:42Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] If we’d had a clear electoral winner, or if the shameful deal hadn’t been struck in the House to make Hayes President instead of Tilden, then Reconstruction would have continued and Jim Crow would have been kept in check. [/QUOTE] I wish that it were so, but the erosion of Northern support for Reconstruction was too deep-seated to have turned on a single election. By 1876 Republicans had been violently ousted from power in every Southern state except South Carolina and Louisiana, and it would have been too late even for an energetic and determined Hayes administration to do much about it. I’ll add my vote for 1864 over 1860, for this reason: If Lincoln hadn’t won in 1860, the Republicans would have had another chance in another four years. (Who remembers or cares that they lost in 1856?) But by 1864, we were at war, and there was only one chance to win. If a McClellan presidency had led to a negotiated peace, and either recognition of the Confederacy or reunion with slavery, there would have been no second chance. History would be irreversibly changed, almost certainly for the worse. Among elections not mentioned, the election of 1800 was a biggie. Given another four years to prosecute seditionists and stack the judiciary, the Federalists might have made this country into something uncomfortably close to a one-party state. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/19 "2007-07-21T16:31:20Z")
FTR, historians have identified a (controversial) number of “party systems” in American history, each beginning and ending with a decisive election: [First Party System:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System) 1792-1816. Federalists (Hamilton, Adams) vs. Democratic-Republicans (Madison, Jefferson). [Era of Good Feelings:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Good_Feelings) 1816-1824. Democrat-Republicans ascendant, Federalists marginalized. [Second Party System:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Party_System) 1837-1852. Democrats (Andrew Jackson) vs. Whigs (Henry Clay). [Third Party System:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System) 1854-1896. Republicans (mainly Northeastern and Midwestern power base) vs. Democrats (in control of the “Solid South” from 1874). [Fourth Party System:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Party_System) 1896-1932. Republicans (McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt; in the ascendant) vs. Democrats (Woodrow Wilson). [Fifth Party System:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System) Began in 1933, but whether it came to an end in the 1960s, or the 1990s, or is still with us, is controversial. I incline to the theory that the failure of Goldwater in 1964, followed by the growth of Goldwater’s wing of the party into “movement conservatism,” which ultimately triumphed in 1980 with the election of Reagan, represents the emergence of the [Sixth Party System:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System#Sixth_Party_System.3F) Which we’re living in now. Includes the [“Republican Revolution”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution) of 1994. An excellent history of post-Goldwater “movement conservatism” can be found in [_Right Nation: Conservative Power in America,_](http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-John-Micklethwait/dp/0141015365/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0323301-0796122?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185035246&sr=8-1) by John Micklethwaite and Adrian Wooldridge; and another in [_The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America,_](http://www.amazon.com/World-Turned-Right-Side-Conservative/dp/0395822947/ref=sr_1_1/102-0323301-0796122?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185035353&sr=1-1) by Godfrey Hodgson. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2007, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605/20 "2007-07-21T16:45:25Z")
The Sixth Party System, BTW, has been characterized by a wholesale exchange of the Dems’ and Pubs’ geographical-regional bases, following the success of Nixon’s [“Southern Strategy,”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) which broke the “Solid South” and transformed the GOP into a predominantly Southern party (which would have bemused both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis to no end). This realignment has resulted in making both parties more ideologically homogeneous than they were before – conservative “Southern Democrats” and liberal “Rockefeller Republicans” have alike been marginalized; however, in the process, both parties somehow have shifted their political center-of-gravity to the right. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-significant-presidential-election-in-us-history/412605.md?page=2)