1856 Was Closer Than We Thought......

Something I posted over on Wikipedia, but I thought it would be of interest to you lot as well, regarding the 1856 US Presidential Election.

While doing research on Third Party victories in congressional elections I was trying to dig up information on what was labeled as the "Union Party" in Pennsylvania, which at the time I thought was merely another incarnation of the Republican Party, not yet having finalized its identity like the People's Party of Indiana or the Anti-Nebraskas Party, and I was half right; it was actually a coalition of what labeled themselves as Anti-Buchanan types, a collection of Republicans, Americans, Whigs and Democrats. What I hadn't expected though was that in regards to the Presidential race, the State Republican and American parties had each named the same (26) individuals to represent their electoral slate, (1) being left over to be unique on each slate. The actual resolution as reported by the New York Times is below -

"Resolved, that we recommend to the Convention thus assembled the formation of the Union electoral ticket upon the following basis -

Twenty-six electors shall consist of the same names; the twenty-seventh elector on the Fillmore ticket shall consist of a different name from the twenty-seventh on the Fremont ticket. For example, Millard Fillmore and twenty six other names selected from the several Congressional districts shall form one ticket; and John C. Fremont and the same twenty-six names above referred shall form the other ticket. The twenty-six electors shall be pledged to cast the electoral votes of the State for Millard Fillmore and John C. Fremont, respectively, precisely in proportion to the popular vote cast for each, as indicated by the twenty-seventh elector on each ticket. For example, if Millard Fillmore (or the twenty-seventh elector who represents him) receives an equal nomber of votes with John C. Fremont, or his representative, then thirteen electoral votes shall be given for Millard Fillmore and thirteen for John C. Fremont.

This will enable every voter to act efficiently against James Buchanan without any sacrifice of principle. The Fillmore men vote for him alone, the Fremont men for him alone, and yet by associated action, they increase the chances of each. We think no one can object to this proposition who is not in heart in favor of Buchanan."

This is the NYT Article in Question.

While interesting, what is actually intriguing is that this arrangement very nearly threw the election into the House of Representatives; if you poll the votes altogether the margin between the Buchanan electors and the (26) Fremont-Fillmore electors is only (1,211), and were you to take those (26) electors out of Buchanan's column he would end up with (148), (1) short of the majority of electors required.

The end result would be rather anti-climatic as the Democrats held a clear majority of the State delegations by the time Congress would meet, but I suppose there could potentially be some measure of panic in the South over the perceived potential of Fremont being voted in by Congress.........somehow (people aren't always rational). Anyway, thought this was a cool little tidbit.
 
The end result would be rather anti-climatic as the Democrats held a clear majority of the State delegations by the time Congress would meet, but .

I'm not sure if they had an absolute majority of State delegations, but they did have an overwhelming lead in the Senate, so Breckenridge will be elected VP for a dead cert. Then even if the Dems fail to elect Buchanan, they need only keep things deadlocked until March 4, when Breck would take over the Presidency.
 
I'm not sure if they had an absolute majority of State delegations, but they did have an overwhelming lead in the Senate, so Breckenridge will be elected VP for a dead cert. Then even if the Dems fail to elect Buchanan, they need only keep things deadlocked until March 4, when Breck would take over the Presidency.
Having an actual Southern VP would probably have big impacts on things leading up to the Civil War. Also, what were Breckenridge's views on the Mormon War?
 
I'm not sure if they had an absolute majority of State delegations, but they did have an overwhelming lead in the Senate, so Breckenridge will be elected VP for a dead cert. Then even if the Dems fail to elect Buchanan, they need only keep things deadlocked until March 4, when Breck would take over the Presidency.
Your right, to a point. By March 4th of '57 they almost had a majority of the delegations, as at the close of the last set of elections they were in control of (11).......
  • Illinois, Arkansas, California, Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia
......and were evenly divided with either the Americans or Republicans in another (3).......
  • Iowa, Tennesse, Texas
.......but then proceeded to make major gains during the 1856 election season, gaining total control of another (5)........
  • Delaware, New Jersey, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania
.......while the Republicans gained complete control in Iowa.

The issue here is that I still see Buchanan winning fairly easily, if not on the first ballot then on the second ballot. The reason is because the Democrats only need one of the American congressmen in either Tennessee or Texas to defect to get either of those delegations to vote in favor of Buchanan, thus electing him, and I believe there would be a fair amount of pressure on those American congressmen in the South to do this if they believed that Fillmore could not be elected. I can't see any Democratic congressmen in turn voting against Buchanan in favor of either Fillmore or Buchanan, even those who would later become Republicans themselves.
 
Your right, to a point. By March 4th of '57 they almost had a majority of the delegations, as at the close of the last set of elections they were in control of (11).......
  • Illinois, Arkansas, California, Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia
......and were evenly divided with either the Americans or Republicans in another (3).......
  • Iowa, Tennesse, Texas
.......but then proceeded to make major gains during the 1856 election season, gaining total control of another (5)........
  • Delaware, New Jersey, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania
.......while the Republicans gained complete control in Iowa.

The issue here is that I still see Buchanan winning fairly easily, if not on the first ballot then on the second ballot. The reason is because the Democrats only need one of the American congressmen in either Tennessee or Texas to defect to get either of those delegations to vote in favor of Buchanan, thus electing him, and I believe there would be a fair amount of pressure on those American congressmen in the South to do this if they believed that Fillmore could not be elected. I can't see any Democratic congressmen in turn voting against Buchanan in favor of either Fillmore or Buchanan, even those who would later become Republicans themselves.


Except that the new Congress doesn't meet until Dec 1857. Indeed quite a few states didn't even elect their Congressmen until the Spring or Summer of that year. And per the 12th Amendment, if they haven't made a choice by March 4, the position devolves on Breckenridge.
 
Except that the new Congress doesn't meet until Dec 1857. Indeed quite a few states didn't even elect their Congressmen until the Spring or Summer of that year. And per the 12th Amendment, if they haven't made a choice by March 4, the position devolves on Breckenridge.
I checked and all those Congressmen would be there in the chamber on March 4th; the actual terms were quite fluid but the absolute latest of those elections in 1856 had those men being seated on the 4th of March, 1857. The delegations would still be as I describe them, though admittedly it might still be considered the old Congress. Also, the 12th Amendment would have made Breckinridge an Acting President, not the actual President if you were implying that; he nominally would have remained Vice President until such a time as the election in the House was resolved.
 
I checked and all those Congressmen would be there in the chamber on March 4th; the actual terms were quite fluid but the absolute latest of those elections in 1856 had those men being seated on the 4th of March, 1857. The delegations would still be as I describe them, though admittedly it might still be considered the old Congress.


I too have checked (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1856) and it seems quite clear that ten states did not elect their Congressmen until various dates between August and November 1857 and a couple more not until May or June . As the terms of their predecessors have expired at noon on March 4, I don't quite see how they could continue the balloting beyond that date.

Also, the 12th Amendment would have made Breckinridge an Acting President, not the actual President if you were implying that; he nominally would have remained Vice President until such a time as the election in the House was resolved.

Whatever title you call him by, only he can summon the new Congress, which he surely won't do until all the Democrats are safely in their seats. So in practice it's not likely to meet before December. Would they try to resume balloting after such a long interval?​
 
I too have checked (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1856) and it seems quite clear that ten states did not elect their Congressmen until various dates between August and November 1857 and a couple more not until May or June . As the terms of their predecessors have expired at noon on March 4, I don't quite see how they could continue the balloting beyond that date.

Except the terms for those particular Congressmen didn't expire on March 4th of '57, but at later dates depending on the State in question; I'm not sure how soon after the elections in question the elected candidates were seated in the case of the Summer and Spring elections, but I know in the case of those held from August and November it was usually for a term starting the following March. It's a mess to keep track of.

The system of all elected Congressmen coming in at once did not exist at this time, they were filtered through over time until near the turn of the century.

Whatever title you call him by, only he can summon the new Congress, which he surely won't do until all the Democrats are safely in their seats. So in practice it's not likely to meet before December. Would they try to resume balloting after such a long interval?
Congress would still be meeting as normal, and I don't see any reason why Breckinridge would attempt anything of the sort when just about every Democrat except maybe those in the Deep South would be angling on Buchanan becoming President; it's seem like a needless coup, and it would cause a sharper and more immediate divide in the Democratic Party.
 
Except the terms for those particular Congressmen didn't expire on March 4th of '57, but at later dates depending on the State in question; I'm not sure how soon after the elections in question the elected candidates were seated in the case of the Summer and Spring elections, but I know in the case of those held from August and November it was usually for a term starting the following March. It's a mess to keep track of.

The system of all elected Congressmen coming in at once did not exist at this time, they were filtered through over time until near the turn of the century.


Thanks. Didn't realise that.


Congress would still be meeting as normal, and I don't see any reason why Breckinridge would attempt anything of the sort when just about every Democrat except maybe those in the Deep South would be angling on Buchanan becoming President; it's seem like a needless coup, and it would cause a sharper and more immediate divide in the Democratic Party.

What did you mean by "meeting as normal"?

In 1867 Congress had to pass a special Act (over Andrew Johnson's veto) to allow the 40th Congress to assemble directly after the expiry of the 39th. If it was possible for the latter to just carry on, why did they need to do so?

Incidentally, the 12A states that if no choice is made by March 4, the VP shall act "as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President". That sounds very much as though he would take over permanently.
 
What did you mean by "meeting as normal"?

In 1867 Congress had to pass a special Act (over Andrew Johnson's veto) to allow the 40th Congress to assemble directly after the expiry of the 39th. If it was possible for the latter to just carry on, why did they need to do so?

Incidentally, the 12A states that if no choice is made by March 4, the VP shall act "as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President". That sounds very much as though he would take over permanently.
I wasn't well versed in when the sessions were myself, so I quickly checked here.

Before the Twentieth Amendment, Congress met from the first Monday in December to April or May in the first session of their term (the "long session"); and from December to March 4 in the second "short session". (The new Congress would then meet for some days, for the inauguration, swearing in new members, and organization.)

They were meeting regularly throughout the Summer and among their intentions was the possibility of impeaching Andrew Johnson and forcing through the Reconstruction Acts, so I can see why Johnson would attempt to keep them from meeting. The Congress then could very well just carry on, but they would need to pass an Act allowing them to do so; I can't imagine any difficulty in such an Act being passed were Buchanan not elected by May.

Admittedly the 12th Amendment is a bit ambiguous, it's part of the reason why the 20th Amendment clarified parts of it, but there are few individuals at the time who held to theory that the Vice President could advance to the Presidency in such a fashion beyond "keeping the seat warm". Also as with John Tyler there would be a serious lack of legitimacy on the part of John Breckinridge among most Americans, the expectation being that Buchanan in time would move into the White House (or for others hopefully Fillmore or Fremont).

That said it could be read like that, but I don't believe it would have been.
 
I wasn't well versed in when the sessions were myself, so I quickly checked here.



They were meeting regularly throughout the Summer and among their intentions was the possibility of impeaching Andrew Johnson and forcing through the Reconstruction Acts, so I can see why Johnson would attempt to keep them from meeting. The Congress then could very well just carry on, but they would need to pass an Act allowing them to do so; I can't imagine any difficulty in such an Act being passed were Buchanan not elected by May.


Far from certain. The Congress elected in 1854 was split every which way, so it would depend if a majority saw advantage in such an Act.

Admittedly the 12th Amendment is a bit ambiguous, it's part of the reason why the 20th Amendment clarified parts of it, but there are few individuals at the time who held to theory that the Vice President could advance to the Presidency in such a fashion beyond "keeping the seat warm". Also as with John Tyler there would be a serious lack of legitimacy on the part of John Breckinridge among most Americans, the expectation being that Buchanan in time would move into the White House (or for others hopefully Fillmore or Fremont).

You have a cite for this?
 
Top