How was a dictatorship avoided?

[wausaubob]

The United States won an imperialistic war in 1846.
Then the country argued about splitting up the fruits of conquest for 14 years.
Then there was secession and a 4 year Civil War. The casualties were not quite up to the levels of Asian civil wars, but ours was respectfully damaging by European standards.
Then an advocate of the defeated rebels assassinated the President who governed on the winning side.
Four million slaves were freed without compensation.
The man who ascended to the Presidency was nearly impeached, but the politicians backed away from that step, despite the fact that appeared to be following the constitutional procedure.
Why didn't the United States produce its own version of Caesar or Napoleon, or Lenin?

 

[MaryDee]

There but for the grace of God. . .

Actually, there was almost universal respect for the Constitution and for what at the time was a unique form of government. Even the Confederacy respected the US Constitution considering how closely the CSA constitution was modeled on it.

The fact that the Union was able to hold a presidential election in the middle of the war said a great deal! We don't know if the Confederacy could have done the same, because it didn't last until the end of the 6-year presidential term.

 

[Hunter]

The United States won an imperialistic war in 1846.
Then the country argued about splitting up the fruits of conquest for 14 years.
Then there was secession and a 4 year Civil War. The casualties were not quite up to the levels of Asian civil wars, but ours was respectfully damaging by European standards.
Then an advocate of the defeated rebels assassinated the President who governed on the winning side.
Four million slaves were freed without compensation.
The man who ascended to the Presidency was nearly impeached, but the politicians backed away from that step, despite the fact that appeared to be following the constitutional procedure.
Why didn't the United States produce its own version of Caesar or Napoleon, or Lenin?

Many then expressed concern that a Napoleon-like military leader might take control if things really got out of hand after Lincoln's assassination. There was also talk of a new civil war breaking out, this time with northern racial conservatives and former Confederates on the same side. It was a very scary time. The election of General Grant in 1868 seems to have ended such talk.

 

[Deleted User CS]

In my lowly opinion, Limits placed on the Executive Branch of Government by the U.S. Constitution. David.

 

[wausaubob]

Many then expressed concern that a Napoleon-like military leader might take control if things really got out of hand after Lincoln's assassination. There was also talk of a new civil war breaking out, this time with northern racial conservatives and former Confederates on the same side. It was a very scary time. The election of General Grant in 1868 seems to have ended such talk.

I think you express part of the answer. After 22 years of conflict and instability, the financial interests, the Pennsylvania industrialists and the Midwest towns and cities wanted stability and were willing to pay for it.

 

[DaveBrt]

There but for the grace of God. . .

Actually, there was almost universal respect for the Constitution and for what at the time was a unique form of government. Even the Confederacy respected the US Constitution considering how closely the CSA constitution was modeled on it.

The fact that the Union was able to hold a presidential election in the middle of the war said a great deal! We don't know if the Confederacy could have done the same, because it didn't last until the end of the 6-year presidential term.

The Confederacy DID hold a presidential election during the war -- Davis was a provisional president until after the election (November 6, 1861).

 

[Hunter]

The Confederacy DID hold a presidential election during the war -- Davis was a provisional president until after the election (November 6, 1861).

True and, because the war had just started seven months earlier and there had been no monumental Confederate defeats in 1861, Davis was unopposed. He was very fortunate that he had a six year term and did not have to ever stand for election after the Confederate defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg.

 

[Ole Miss]

I firmly believe Abraham Lincoln prevented any future dictators through his policies and adroit handling of the political and military aspects during his administration.

I am familiar with McClellan's modest opinion of himself and capabilities evidenced in this little snippet from a letter to his wife:
"I seem to have become the power in the land" and "I could become dictator or anything else that might please me – but nothing of that kind would please me – therefore I won't be Dictator. Admirable self denial!"

Then of course his famous letter to Joe Hooker which I believe to be one of the greatest ever written by a Commander in Chief to a subordinate during a war demonstrating his confidence both in his leadership and plans for the war.
I have heard, in such way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes, can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The government will support you to the utmost of it's ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done and will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the Army, of criticising their Commander, and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you as far as I can, to put it down. Neither you, nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army, while such a spirit prevails in it.
And now, beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but with energy, and sleepless vigilance, go forward, and give us victories.
Yours very truly
A. Lincoln
Regards
David

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Why didn't the United States produce its own version of Caesar or Napoleon, or Lenin?

It should be noted that Napoleon and Lenin came to rule their countries for very different reasons.

"Only those generals who gain successes, can set up dictators."
-Lincoln to Hooker, 1863

Washington set an example many sought to emulate. Many generals who had the popularity to seize power had no desire to do so - Washington, Grant, Marshall, Eisenhower. Even Andrew Jackson seemed determined to work with civil authority even as he pushed presidential boundaries. Douglas MacArthur perhaps came closest - he certainly had the ego.

 

[wausaubob]

The West Point cadets of the pre-war era were taught heavy doses of George Washington's leadership.

 

[WJC]

The United States won an imperialistic war in 1846.
Then the country argued about splitting up the fruits of conquest for 14 years.
Then there was secession and a 4 year Civil War. The casualties were not quite up to the levels of Asian civil wars, but ours was respectfully damaging by European standards.
Then an advocate of the defeated rebels assassinated the President who governed on the winning side.
Four million slaves were freed without compensation.
The man who ascended to the Presidency was nearly impeached, but the politicians backed away from that step, despite the fact that appeared to be following the constitutional procedure.
Why didn't the United States produce its own version of Caesar or Napoleon, or Lenin?

Thank the Founders.

 

[MaryDee]

Thanks to @DavidBrt and to @Hunter for setting me straight on the Confederate presidential election! That's what I get for posting from memory instead of looking up all the facts! It would have been quite interesting if that election, like the Union's, had occurred in 1864 instead of 1861, but that gets us into "what if" land, which I try to avoid!

 

[Burning Billy]

My vote would be for "culture."

The U.S. had a history of democratic rule (if somewhat limited at times) that stretched back even before the country's founding into the colonial period. Those traditions were inherited from Britain where the king had been stripped of absolute power in 1688.

France and Russia in contrast had long histories of rule by absolute monarchs. It was easier for the people to accept another tyrant because in Russia's case they had never experienced otherwise, and France's experiment with democracy had been both brief and chaotic.

Apologies for veering off topic but I wonder what world history might look like today if the Revolutions of 1848 had succeeded. Would the Nazis have risen to power if Germany instead had almost a century of democratic rule? On the other hand perhaps without the Revolutions of 1840 failing there wouldn't have been a German diaspora and 200,000 German immigrants to serve in the Union Army. Would Missouri have gone Confederate without the state's German populace? Most were refugees who had supported the Revolutions of 1848, or their children, and saw the Confederacy as a threat to democracy in the United States.