Alien Space Bats allow you to realistically alter the outcome of a single US presidential election and everything that happens afterwards

What if Alien Space Bats allow you to realistically alter the outcome of a single US presidential election and everything that happens afterwards, with our universe/TL remaining unchanged but a parallel TL being created in a parallel universe where everything unfolds starting from the relevant point of departure. You can either stay in our universe/TL in 2022 or move to the alternate parallel universe/TL in 2022, but either way, you get to see what has occurred in this parallel TL/universe after you created it by altering the outcome of a particular US presidential election. (I'm basing my scenario here on the multiverse theory, where TLs can branch into different outcomes if you change something.)

Anyway, which US presidential election outcome would you alter? Personally, I would probably choose 1916 since I would think that Charles Evans Hughes would be more capable of establishing a lasting post-World War I peace settlement than Woodrow Wilson was. At the very least, he'd be more likely to succeed in getting US Senate ratification of the League of Nations with reservations as well as of the Security Treaty with Britain and France, thus allowing the US to establish a post-WWI peacetime defensive alliance with Britain and France, a proto-NATO if you will. If the US will be more involved in European affairs in the 1920s and 1930s, then maybe there would be no World War II or at the very least World War II would have a better outcome, such as France not falling in 1940 and thus half of Europe avoiding Communist rule afterwards while the Holocaust either doesn't occur or is much less severe even if it does occur (since the Nazis won't control anywhere near as many Jews if France doesn't fall in 1940).

Anyway, what do you think?

Did I post this thread in the wrong section of this forum?

WolfBear said:

Did I post this thread in the wrong section of this forum?

Click to expand...

No pretty sure Alien Space Bats scenarios like yours go here.

It's just sometimes no one responds... I know how it feels! So many Versus debates I've carefully crafted, tossed by the wayside. 😭

1844, with James K Polk choosing someone other than Nicholas Trist as the peace envoy and thus the U.S. annexes all of Mexico. Or 1936, with Huey Long.

History Learner said:

1844, with James K Polk choosing someone other than Nicholas Trist as the peace envoy and thus the U.S. annexes all of Mexico. Or 1936, with Huey Long.

Click to expand...

This wouldn't actually be altering the outcome of the 1844 election, though. That said, if there were two times less Mexicans due to birth control, etc becoming more widespread and available earlier, then having the US swallow all of Mexico would undoubtedly be easier.

And Huey Long actually needs to survive to 1936 first. But what was his foreign policy agenda? Domestically, he was like a 1930s Southern version of Bernie Sanders, right? (He was one of the few Southern politicians not to actively engage in race baiting back then, if I recall correctly, aiming instead to build a multiracial working-class coalition.)

WolfBear said:

This wouldn't actually be altering the outcome of the 1844 election, though. That said, if there were two times less Mexicans due to birth control, etc becoming more widespread and available earlier, then having the US swallow all of Mexico would undoubtedly be easier.

And Huey Long actually needs to survive to 1936 first. But what was his foreign policy agenda? Domestically, he was like a 1930s Southern version of Bernie Sanders, right? (He was one of the few Southern politicians not to actively engage in race baiting back then, if I recall correctly, aiming instead to build a multiracial working-class coalition.)

Click to expand...

Long was deeply isolationist from what I've read so that would make a big difference. However as you say he would need to stay alive and become a party candidate in 1936.

In terms of 1844 when would Mexico actually see a significant drop in birth rates? Modern birth control only became available a century later and even then the more socially conservative population groups tended to be affected later and to a lower rate so you could even see an higher number of Mexicans/Latinos.

Plus having absorbed Mexico in ~1848 how are you going to stop Mexicans moving to the rest of the US? You could see them taking control over Texas and California by demographic means and a lot of tension. It might be that the 'white' US seeks to encourage more migration from Europe and also limit even more that from Asia. There is the potential for either at least one major war over the issue or a vastly different US culturally, linguistically etc. Not to mention if Mexico is annexed does it set a precedent for other areas the US takes over militarily - which IF it followed OTL paths would include a lot of the rest of central America as well as the Philippines. Since this was the period the Know Nothings were at their height I can see a potential bomb-fire here if all of Mexico was annexed.

This of course is ignoring what happened with slavery in the new states. Would they keep their ban on slavery as in the existing Mexican constitution? If so then the old south is going to be massively outnumbered a lot earlier than it faced OTL. If some areas are opened up to slavery, which the south which was the region mainly pushing for the war with Mexico would definitely want then its not going to go down well across Mexico.

stevep said:

Long was deeply isolationist from what I've read so that would make a big difference. However as you say he would need to stay alive and become a party candidate in 1936.

In terms of 1844 when would Mexico actually see a significant drop in birth rates? Modern birth control only became available a century later and even then the more socially conservative population groups tended to be affected later and to a lower rate so you could even see an higher number of Mexicans/Latinos.

Plus having absorbed Mexico in ~1848 how are you going to stop Mexicans moving to the rest of the US? You could see them taking control over Texas and California by demographic means and a lot of tension. It might be that the 'white' US seeks to encourage more migration from Europe and also limit even more that from Asia. There is the potential for either at least one major war over the issue or a vastly different US culturally, linguistically etc. Not to mention if Mexico is annexed does it set a precedent for other areas the US takes over militarily - which IF it followed OTL paths would include a lot of the rest of central America as well as the Philippines. Since this was the period the Know Nothings were at their height I can see a potential bomb-fire here if all of Mexico was annexed.

This of course is ignoring what happened with slavery in the new states. Would they keep their ban on slavery as in the existing Mexican constitution? If so then the old south is going to be massively outnumbered a lot earlier than it faced OTL. If some areas are opened up to slavery, which the south which was the region mainly pushing for the war with Mexico would definitely want then its not going to go down well across Mexico.

Click to expand...

If all of Mexico will be annexed as eventual free states, then maybe Southerners are going to seek expansion elsewhere to compensate for this? Cuba? The Danish West Indies? Other Caribbean islands? Maybe even parts of South America?

And if the US would have already absorbed a lot of Mexicans, why not a lot of Filipinos as well? But of course this would raise the question as to why exactly the US is categorically excluding other Asian immigrants. What exactly makes Mexicans better than Asians, after all?

And Yes, there would absolutely be a huge push to get even more white immigrants to settle in the US in this scenario. I'm trying to figure out how this would work in practice considering that the US already got a lot of immigrants into its farms and factories in the pre-WWI decades as it was in real life, though.

WolfBear said:

This wouldn't actually be altering the outcome of the 1844 election, though. That said, if there were two times less Mexicans due to birth control, etc becoming more widespread and available earlier, then having the US swallow all of Mexico would undoubtedly be easier.

Click to expand...

I was relying on the "everything that happens afterward" part.

And Huey Long actually needs to survive to 1936 first. But what was his foreign policy agenda? Domestically, he was like a 1930s Southern version of Bernie Sanders, right? (He was one of the few Southern politicians not to actively engage in race baiting back then, if I recall correctly, aiming instead to build a multiracial working-class coalition.)

Click to expand...

Presumably that would be the ASB intervention, in Long survives the assassination attempt and then is able to run and win the 1936 election.

History Learner said:

I was relying on the "everything that happens afterward" part.



Presumably that would be the ASB intervention, in Long survives the assassination attempt and then is able to run and win the 1936 election.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I was talking about you altering the election outcome itself, not merely what happens afterwards without actually altering a specific election outcome beforehand.

Makes sense.

BTW, let's do this for other countries as well: For Germany, I'd have Wilhelm Marx win the German Presidency in 1925 so that German democracy could get a huge shot in the arm. What about you?

WolfBear said:

FWIW, I was talking about you altering the election outcome itself, not merely what happens afterwards without actually altering a specific election outcome beforehand.

Makes sense.

BTW, let's do this for other countries as well: For Germany, I'd have Wilhelm Marx win the German Presidency in 1925 so that German democracy could get a huge shot in the arm. What about you?

Click to expand...

Have Polk do better at winning (Tennessee, New Jersey and Ohio are won) and have higher coattails in the Congressional races. That will prevent the Whig control over the House later on, and help to undermine the Calhoun faction in the South.

History Learner said:

Have Polk do better at winning (Tennessee, New Jersey and Ohio are won) and have higher coattails in the Congressional races. That will prevent the Whig control over the House later on, and help to undermine the Calhoun faction in the South.

Click to expand...

Thus making All-Of-Mexico more plausible?

My pick is the most recent one. Less divergence.

If that one's off limits, Tom Wolfe Jr. wins in 2012 because that implies Obama has been primaried which means either the Democratic party has changed course or is in the process of fragmenting.

The election of 1880 with Winfield Scott Hancock winning.

He was a highly respected Union General and a Democrat. He lost the popular vote by about 2,000 votes while carrying the entire South.

Him winning would have changed things. How? I don't know.

There are many interesting possibilities.

Jefferson winning in 1796? You'd get an earlier Democratic-Republican 'revolution', and as a consequence, I can see Federalism being discredited and withering away much earlier. Jefferson at this time was still more opposed to slavery (he cared increasingly less about that as time passed), so he may well do things to help the institution die out, especially by outright barring it from the territories and from all future states (something he championed, at one point).

Jackson winning in 1824? It doesn't get thrown to the House, and Adams doesn't weasel his way into power. Jackson gets a lot of things done earlier. The National Republicans are crucially weakened before they even coalesce, without Adams in office to prepare the way.

Martin Van Buren winning in 1840? He was right about the Independent Treasury, damn it! I think he could do well with a second term, and this also prevents John Tyler from getting into office.

Tilden winning in 1876? We've had a discussion thread on this, and I think it would make for a pretty interesting timeline.

I think my absolute favourite, however, is the least likely -- to the point that it doesn't even fit into the premise of "realistically" altering an election's outcome. It's Goldwater beating that utter bastard Johnson in 1964.

bintananth said:

The election of 1880 with Winfield Scott Hancock winning.

He was a highly respected Union General and a Democrat. He lost the popular vote by about 2,000 votes while carrying the entire South.

Him winning would have changed things. How? I don't know.

Click to expand...

Well, at least this would have prevented Garfield from getting assassinated. Could have resulted in Hancock getting assassinated instead if Charles Guiteau would have believed that Hancock stole/rigged the election, though!

WolfBear said:

Well, at least this would have prevented Garfield from getting assassinated. Could have resulted in Hancock getting assassinated instead if Charles Guiteau would have believed that Hancock stole/rigged the election, though!

Click to expand...

Maybe. Charles Guiteau threw his support behind Garfield partly because he wanted a patronage job. He didn't get one and took it out on Garfield.

If Hancock wins he might still kill Garfield out of frustration because he might not have the connections needed to meet with Hancock.

He's the wild card here and I don't know how it would play out.

bintananth said:

Maybe. Charles Guiteau threw his support behind Garfield partly because he wanted a patronage job. He didn't get one and took it out on Garfield.

If Hancock wins he might still kill Garfield out of frustration because he might not have the connections needed to meet with Hancock.

He's the wild card here and I don't know how it would play out.

Click to expand...

I was assuming that he might kill Hancock for revenge since he'd fear that the 1880 election was rigged since there'd be no way that Garfield could lose after Guiteau would have given such a great speech on Garfield's behalf--or so Guiteau would think!

WolfBear said:

I was assuming that he might kill Hancock for revenge since he'd fear that the 1880 election was rigged since there'd be no way that Garfield could lose after Guiteau would have given such a great speech on Garfield's behalf--or so Guiteau would think!

Click to expand...

Oh, he'd go after both. The question, in my mind: who does he get to first?

bintananth said:

Oh, he'd go after both. The question, in my mind: who does he get to first?

Click to expand...

He'd have no grudge against Garfield if Garfield will lose the election since then Garfield won't be able to give him a patronage job even if he actually wanted to do this. So, obviously he'd go after Hancock if he were to go after anyone at all in this TL.

WolfBear said:

He'd have no grudge against Garfield if Garfield will lose the election since then Garfield won't be able to give him a patronage job even if he actually wanted to do this. So, obviously he'd go after Hancock if he were to go after anyone at all in this TL.

Click to expand...

I thought of a way the election of 1880 could have made Jan 6th look pleasant ...

The results are different enough in favor of Hancock that the winner depends on Congress deciding if the EC votes from Georgia are valid. The electors from Georgia did not cast their votes when they were supposed to. They cast their votes about a week later.