Lincoln goes west (RAR)

[Kaiser Caesar]

In the election of 1848, Abe Lincoln was a Whig, and as such was a major supporter of Zachary Taylor and his run for the white house. Thanks to the spoils system of the time, Lincoln recived a job offer from the Taylor administration that would have gotten him appointed Govenor of the Oreagon Territory. Turning down the offer Lincoln walked away from Politics for several years until the Kansas-Nebraska act brought him to his rapid rise to the White House. But what would have happened had Lincoln decided to take the Presidents offer and continued the Lincoln family tradition of heading ever-westward?

[Samuel]

Another Republican wins the presidental election in 1860 which triggers the civil war. I can't make any other predictions because the effects depend on how radical the individual is and if they are assassinated before the end of the war.

[Guardsman Bass]

Another Republican wins the presidental election in 1860 which triggers the civil war. I can't make any other predictions because the effects depend on how radical the individual is and if they are assassinated before the end of the war.

How critical was Lincoln in the formation of the Republican Party, after the Whig Party collapsed in the 1850s? The party really got its act going in Illinois after Lincoln came back into politics following the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Lincoln played a critical role in that (he apparently turned down the possibility of being the Republican Party's Senator from Illinois in 1854).

My guess is that a version of the Republican Party would form, with either William Seward or John Fremont (who was the party's candidate in 1856) running for it in 1860. Either one would almost certainly trigger the Civil War, since both were arguably more anti-slavery than Lincoln was (Fremont, in particular, was the first choice of the Radical Republicans).

I don't know enough about the North-South split in the Democratic Party to tell if it would still occur under those circumstances.

[Bilbo]

If a Republican Party forms then there will be a Civil War. By the 1860's the South had become so obstinent that basically any time the south did not get 100% of what it wanted there were dozens of southern politicians screaming for blood over the insult to "southern honor". Basically the only way to avoid war would be to give the south what it wanted, when it wanted it, on every single topic both major and minor.

[Kaiser Caesar]

Here are some thoughts of my own: When the Democrats take the White House in 1853, he is going to lose the job. I don't think Oregon will be quite the place for an ambitious accomplished lawyer in 1853. However, if he does stay, which is not an impossibility, he might be able to use his former influence as Governor to get himself elected Senator when Oregon becomes a state in 1858. From there, it depends on whether or not he wants to run for President in 1860 or not.

[irishmick79]

Salmon P Chase or William Seward becomes the republican nominee in 1860.

The Republican party would form with or without Lincoln playing a role. A lot of the anti-slavery cast offs from the democrats, whigs, and free soil parties were coalescing around the republican banner, and there were plenty of prominent politicians of the era who were leading the movement. The big difference I see is that without Lincoln in the picture, the 1860 Republican convention probably does not get held in Chicago. It's possible that Chase could have maneuvered the party into selecting a site in Ohio or Pennsylvania, which would strengthen his hand when the party cast its ballot. Either way, the ability of Lincoln's followers to ship in supporters with relative ease compared to the other candidates was absolutely crucial to his success at the convention.

The other leading contenders, Chase, Seward, Edward Bates, had all alienated various factions within the Republican party by 1860 and Lincoln was the fresh face on the scene who took full advantage of that opening. Without Lincoln in the picture, one of the other candidates would take the party's helm with a considerable portion of it discontented with his nomination. The real interesting scenario is this. What if the republican party fractures as badly as the democrats did over the nominee, and no candidate in 1860 gets the required electoral vote majority? It's very possible if you take Lincoln out of the picture.

[CmdrWilkens]

Seward would be elected President in 1860 and the Civil War woudl kick off just as it did. What would happen at that poitn is anybody's guess but the election of Seward is almost certain. The Republicans were clearly ascendant and Seward had moderated his position enough to allow for a challenge from Chase at the radical flank which means he might not have won as clearly as Lincoln did but he would have won nonetheless. As it was in Chicago he nearly received the nomination. Had the vote been held on the first day when all of his momentum was present he could have carried the nomination by acclamation. Instead all through the night the border state delegations let their electability worries eat at them until they settled on Lincoln as a compromise candidate from their delegations. Thus on the first ballot of the second day Seward fell noticeably short but almost all of the border states lined up behind Lincoln, which then began pulling delegates from other states concerned about electability.

Without Lincoln the convention is somewhere other than Chicago and there is no one around whom opposition to Seward can coalesce. With the anti-Seward factions split between Chase, Bates, and a host of smaller names the Seward brand would almost certainly prevail.

[irishmick79]

Seward would be elected President in 1860 and the Civil War woudl kick off just as it did. What would happen at that poitn is anybody's guess but the election of Seward is almost certain. The Republicans were clearly ascendant and Seward had moderated his position enough to allow for a challenge from Chase at the radical flank which means he might not have won as clearly as Lincoln did but he would have won nonetheless. As it was in Chicago he nearly received the nomination. Had the vote been held on the first day when all of his momentum was present he could have carried the nomination by acclamation. Instead all through the night the border state delegations let their electability worries eat at them until they settled on Lincoln as a compromise candidate from their delegations. Thus on the first ballot of the second day Seward fell noticeably short but almost all of the border states lined up behind Lincoln, which then began pulling delegates from other states concerned about electability.

Without Lincoln the convention is somewhere other than Chicago and there is no one around whom opposition to Seward can coalesce. With the anti-Seward factions split between Chase, Bates, and a host of smaller names the Seward brand would almost certainly prevail.

It's very possible that the nomination of somebody like Seward could flip some of the midwest states like Illinois or Ohio to Douglas. Lincoln carried those states by relatively thin margins, and if a lot of the midwestern states started to view the republicans as corrupt radicals, Douglas could have made inroads, perhaps.

[irishmick79]

Also, if the convention winds up getting held in Ohio or Pennsylvania then you're looking at a stronger hand for Chase or Simon Cameron. The radicals in the party certainly could have rallied around Chase if they wanted to thwart a Seward nomination.

[Kaiser Caesar]

In a scenario where Douglas takes Illinois and Ohio, the Seward would get 146 Electoral Votes, Beckinridge 72, John Bell 39, and Douglas 46.

So Seward would still win the election, but it would be by a closer margin.

[Bilbo]

One item to remember is that the Republicans were going to win the 1856 election. Fremont was going strong. At the last minute several supporters backed out and supported the Democrat candidate when several prominant southerners said the election of a Republican would guaruntee sucession. The threat worked and Buchanan won the election.

When 1860 rolled around the South attempted to same extortion and tried to hold the country hostage with the same threat. This time the Republicans and their supporters did not back down.

[CmdrWilkens]

Also, if the convention winds up getting held in Ohio or Pennsylvania then you're looking at a stronger hand for Chase or Simon Cameron. The radicals in the party certainly could have rallied around Chase if they wanted to thwart a Seward nomination.

Chase, all things aside, wasn't winning the nomination. He couldn't secure the entire Ohio delegation as it was and nothing seems likely to change that as he had made too many enemies at home. Cameron was semi-actively disliked by several elements of the PA delegation and likewise has no chance. It was only the threat of having no Pennsylvannia man in the Cabinet that led to anti-Cameron factions lining up behind him as SecWar. Likely Bates would have served as a rallying point for midwestern moderates which would have left Seward in much the same position as he was at the end of the first ballot only without an organized opposition (such as Davis ran for Lincoln) working to secure votes for his opponents. Under those circumstances I can't imagine Thurlow Weed failing to rally enough support behind Seward.

[irishmick79]

Also, if the convention winds up getting held in Ohio or Pennsylvania then you're looking at a stronger hand for Chase or Simon Cameron. The radicals in the party certainly could have rallied around Chase if they wanted to thwart a Seward nomination.

Chase, all things aside, wasn't winning the nomination. He couldn't secure the entire Ohio delegation as it was and nothing seems likely to change that as he had made too many enemies at home. Cameron was semi-actively disliked by several elements of the PA delegation and likewise has no chance. It was only the threat of having no Pennsylvannia man in the Cabinet that led to anti-Cameron factions lining up behind him as SecWar. Likely Bates would have served as a rallying point for midwestern moderates which would have left Seward in much the same position as he was at the end of the first ballot only without an organized opposition (such as Davis ran for Lincoln) working to secure votes for his opponents. Under those circumstances I can't imagine Thurlow Weed failing to rally enough support behind Seward.

Well, Weeds's alliance with Seward certainly sullied Seward's reputation. And with Horace Greeley waiting in the wings to spit fire at Seward, I think it's possible that the other candidates could have unified to defeat Seward if they had wanted to. Granted, they would have had to find an agreeable candidate of their own to propose as an alternative. I agree that Chase wouldn't have won the nomination, but he could certainly have led the fight to defeat Seward.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well, Weeds's alliance with Seward certainly sullied Seward's reputation. And with Horace Greeley waiting in the wings to spit fire at Seward, I think it's possible that the other candidates could have unified to defeat Seward if they had wanted to. Granted, they would have had to find an agreeable candidate of their own to propose as an alternative. I agree that Chase wouldn't have won the nomination, but he could certainly have led the fight to defeat Seward.

Weed had been with Seward almost from the start and it was certainly no more of a negative connotation than Cameron's ties to the organizations of Pennsylvannia. Anyway you do have the one point which is that Greely was looking to build an opposition organization to Seward BUT he was running in to the same problems which Lincoln's nomination solved over and above all others. Greely was promoting Bates who wasn't liked by the radicals as a johnny-come-lately, Cameron couldn't muster support from the whole PA delegation, Chase had alienated large portions of the Ohio delegation and no other name was being circulated with authority. Yes there was a movement afoot to promote someone as an anti-Sward but it would have run up against the rather famous aphorism of Lincoln's in regards to McClellan. He was told to replace Mac with "someone, anyone" to which he replied that,in essence, anyone may do for you but I must have someone. The Republicans may not be united behind Seward but there simply is no opposition which can cement itself sufficiently to keep him from the nod.

[Knife]

I would be more interested in post war politics. Lincoln's plan was very lenient and the congress reconstruction plans were fairly harsh (though not unwarranted). Not allowing former Confederate Generals, officers or politicians back into nation or state politics would have been one hell of a sight to see if a post war president that was not Lincoln, was running the show.

[Samuel]

I would be more interested in post war politics. Lincoln's plan was very lenient and the congress reconstruction plans were fairly harsh (though not unwarranted). Not allowing former Confederate Generals, officers or politicians back into nation or state politics would have been one hell of a sight to see if a post war president that was not Lincoln, was running the show.

Unless they are assassinated. There were a bunch of attempts and only one has to succed. Who would the VP be?

[Knife]

I would be more interested in post war politics. Lincoln's plan was very lenient and the congress reconstruction plans were fairly harsh (though not unwarranted). Not allowing former Confederate Generals, officers or politicians back into nation or state politics would have been one hell of a sight to see if a post war president that was not Lincoln, was running the show.

Unless they are assassinated. There were a bunch of attempts and only one has to succed. Who would the VP be?

Well, one of the scenarios would be congress getting it's way from a weaker President and/or congress gets it's way from an agreeable President. Two scenarios out of many, anyways, that don't need an assassination.

[CmdrWilkens]

I would be more interested in post war politics. Lincoln's plan was very lenient and the congress reconstruction plans were fairly harsh (though not unwarranted). Not allowing former Confederate Generals, officers or politicians back into nation or state politics would have been one hell of a sight to see if a post war president that was not Lincoln, was running the show.

Unless they are assassinated. There were a bunch of attempts and only one has to succed. Who would the VP be?

If we take as a given that a Republican will be made President then a whole host of things don't neccessarily follow in terms of how the war is conducted and the feelings of those involved. Its entirely possible that without Lincoln to woo them the War Democrats would stick to party lines and keep the Peace Democrats from hijacking the convention, with McClellan as the nominee but without a platform calling the war a failure he could easily have been the 17th president and thus the postwar period would be extremely lenient to Southerners to the point that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments might never have passed.

The flip scenario would be for someone like Chandler or a radical republican to grab the helms and steer straight into reorganization of the south which might have both prolonged the war but possibly have alleviated some of the problems of reconstruction. Likely as not low level guerilla tactics by groups such as the nascent KKK likely would have been more extreme and led to more denunciation as well as willpower from the north in terms of supressing dissent. It'd be hard to figure whether or not a radical reconstruction with a radical President might have completely reorganized affairs in such as way as to prevent many of the issues faced into modern times or it may have led to a second rebellion. Tough call on that one.

[Samuel]

I was under the impression that the whole effort came apart when the economy crashed and political will dissappeared and was finally killed under a deal between the Democrats and Republicans. Is there any way a radical president could insure permanent changes in that time period before the situation falls apart or would things smooth out over time?

[RedImperator]

I was under the impression that the whole effort came apart when the economy crashed and political will dissappeared and was finally killed under a deal between the Democrats and Republicans. Is there any way a radical president could insure permanent changes in that time period before the situation falls apart or would things smooth out over time?

Andrew Johnson undercut the freedmen at every turn. Without him, there's likely a much larger black political class and a more stable economic foundation for free blacks. Remember, a big reason why northern whites gave up on Reconstruction was because the freedmen were apparently making no progress, lending credence to existing racist assumptions that free or slave, blacks were only capable of menial work and only under strict white supervision.

[CmdrWilkens]

I was under the impression that the whole effort came apart when the economy crashed and political will dissappeared and was finally killed under a deal between the Democrats and Republicans. Is there any way a radical president could insure permanent changes in that time period before the situation falls apart or would things smooth out over time?

Honestly there comes a point at which our counter-factual scenario simply has too many variables to say anything but vague generalities. I think this qualifies. Both sides are just as practicable and there is little to recommend one in particular. Certainly had a radical republican been President a whole host of things could have gone differently (though I don't think it likely since Seward was already moving to center and he was the most likely nominee). That said having a Republican president in control of the party apparatus and getting Congress to work with him on reconstruction (and Seward for all of his several follies was absolutely a gifted enough individual for this to apply to him) gives the process a much better chance to succeed. RedImp already hit the most critical point which is without a semi-reformed slave state Democrat like Johnson at the helm it is highly likely that the freed black populace would have been able to establish a decent middle class economic base from which to continue to promote the ideas behind reconstruction.