The best leaders that your country has never had?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,423
SoCal
Modern Italy is a very odd country about this.

First of all its history is divided in two parts: the Kingdom and the Republic.

Regarding the Kingdom, my opinion is that the medal of best leader is contended between Camilllo Benso Cavour and Giovanni Giolitti. Cavour literally built modern Italy [he was Prime Minister when in 1861 the Kingdom was born and he kept on saying that Rome had to become the Capital: Rome would have been conquered 9 years later in 1870 and Rome became Capital in 1871, but Cavour was already died]. Giolitti was the most talented Prime Minister of the Kingdom [according to the large majority of historians] and his figure has even given the name to a period ... "the Giolitti era".

About the Republic ... it's a mess: everybody would indicate this or that leader according to the political orientation ...
I was talking about the best leaders that your country has never had, though. So, basically, I was talking about people who actually had a realistic chance to become your country's leader and who you think would have done an extremely good job had he or she actually became your country's leader but who never actually managed to become your country's leader in real life.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,572
Las Vegas, NV USA
Are you suggesting that Kentucky would have seceded under Seward?
Yes, along with Missouri. He would have held Maryland by force if necessary There were few slaves in Delaware so the threat of force probably wouldn't have been necessary. He was a long standing abolitionist after all. From what I know about his personality, he would not have tolerated slavery wherever he could repeal it.

BTW the Alaska part was a joke. There were only natives and some Russians there during the Civil War. More likely he would have created some other states. New Mexico and Arizona were claimed by the CSA. Making them US states on the CSA's flank would have been smart IMO. Lincoln made Nevada a state with only about 3500 people including Native Americans who lived in one of the few towns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,423
SoCal
Yes, along with Missouri. He would have held Maryland by force if necessary There were few slaves in Delaware so the threat of force probably wouldn't have been necessary. He was a long standing abolitionist after all. From what I know about his personality, he would not have tolerated slavery wherever he could repeal it.
I wonder if he would have embraced the argument that slavery was already unconstitutional under our antebellum Constitution:


TBH, though, I strongly doubt it since I am extremely skeptical that SCOTUS would have actually embraced this argument--and a President Seward won't be able to do anything in regards to this short of a new US constitutional amendment without SCOTUS's approval.

BTW the Alaska part was a joke. There were only natives and some Russians there during the Civil War. More likely he would have created some other states. New Mexico and Arizona were claimed by the CSA. Making them US states on the CSA's flank would have been smart IMO. Lincoln made Nevada a state with only about 3500 people including Native Americans who lived in one of the few towns.
Why did it take so long for New Mexico and Arizona to become US states in real life in comparison to Nevada and Colorado?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,572
Las Vegas, NV USA
I wonder if he would have embraced the argument that slavery was already unconstitutional under our antebellum Constitution:
With an abolitionist president I'm assuming all the slave states would have seceded except possibly Delaware. Seward would have argued as Lincoln did that slaves could be freed under the laws of war. The seceded states were not protected under the US Constitution.

Why did it take so long for New Mexico and Arizona to become US states in real life in comparison to Nevada and Colorado?
I don't know. In New Mexico's case possibly because the native population was Spanish speaking. Perhaps the same for Arizona which was not separated from New Mexico at the time of the Civil War.