1860 Election Thrown Into the House of Representatives

According to the Constitution, if no candidate for President wins a majority (i.e. 50% +1 or higher) of the Electoral Votes cast, then the election is sent to the House of Representatives, which chooses from among the candidates with the five highest Electoral Vote totals.

Abraham Lincoln won several States in 1860 by very small margins. One of these was New York, where he won with only 53.7% of the popular vote against a fusion ticket headed by Stephen Douglas, the Democratic challenger. As it happens, Lincoln's margin of victory in the election was 35 Electoral Votes...exactly the number of Electoral Votes which New York had in 1860. If New York had swung the other way, the Electoral Votes would have been 134 for Lincoln and 169 combined for the other candidates, and Lincoln would not have had the Electoral Majority (152) needed to win. The election would have been cast into the House. (Note, if you don't like the New York scenario, the same result can be achieved several other ways using States which went for Lincoln in OTL by even smaller margins).

So lets say this happens. What is the likely result? Who emerges as President of the United States?
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
John C. Breckinridge would probably have won, given his ability to marshal the Southern states. If push came to shove, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee would have thrown in with Breckinridge once they realized Bell wasn't going to win.
 
John C. Breckinridge would probably have won, given his ability to marshal the Southern states. If push came to shove, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee would have thrown in with Breckinridge once they realized Bell wasn't going to win.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.

Once the Republicans see they can't gain a direct majority over the Breckinridge bloc, they would back Bell himself as a compromise candidate and the lesser of two evils. A few extra southern states might even swing their support to Bell as well.

So on March 4 1861, John Bell assumes the Presidency. This will hold off Civil War for at least another 4 years.
 
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.

Once the Republicans see they can't gain a direct majority over the Breckinridge bloc, they would back Bell himself as a compromise candidate and the lesser of two evils. A few extra southern states might even swing their support to Bell as well.

So on March 4 1861, John Bell assumes the Presidency. This will hold off Civil War for at least another 4 years.

Second

Space, Space
 
Each state gets one vote so if the GOP has a bare majority of congressional representatives in a bare majority of the states then Lincoln wins.

If not then Lincoln probably throws his support behind Douglas, the 2nd vote getter and someone he respected.

Breckenridge, being opposed by Lincoln and despised by Douglas, in addition to coming in last in terms of the popular vote, has no chance.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.

Once the Republicans see they can't gain a direct majority over the Breckinridge bloc, they would back Bell himself as a compromise candidate and the lesser of two evils. A few extra southern states might even swing their support to Bell as well.

So on March 4 1861, John Bell assumes the Presidency. This will hold off Civil War for at least another 4 years.

I certainly agree that some of the Republicans would have backed Bell as a compromise candidate, but would have some of the more extremely anti-slavery Northern states (esp. New England)?

I mean, Lincoln himself was in many ways a compromise amongst the Republicans. Would the Party hardliners have gone for someone even more compromising?
 
Each state gets one vote so if the GOP has a bare majority of congressional representatives in a bare majority of the states then Lincoln wins.

If not then Lincoln probably throws his support behind Douglas, the 2nd vote getter and someone he respected.

Breckenridge, being opposed by Lincoln and despised by Douglas, in addition to coming in last in terms of the popular vote, has no chance.

I just realised that if Douglas took New York he would overtake Bell in electoral votes. Therefore, Bell wouldn't even be on the cards.

As a result, you are probably right Grimm. The Republicans would back Douglas as the lesser of two evils if needs be.

I certainly agree that some of the Republicans would have backed Bell as a compromise candidate, but would have some of the more extremely anti-slavery Northern states (esp. New England)?

I mean, Lincoln himself was in many ways a compromise amongst the Republicans. Would the Party hardliners have gone for someone even more compromising?

Compared to Breckinridge (hardline slavery), the comparituvely moderate Bell would be far more appealing to all concerned.

However, since it now seems Douglas is the avaliable compromise, how do you think the Republicans would have considered him?
 
Last edited:
John C. Breckinridge would probably have won, given his ability to marshal the Southern states. If push came to shove, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee would have thrown in with Breckinridge once they realized Bell wasn't going to win.

Well, voting in the House would be done by States, with each State having one vote, and a majority of votes (50% +1) required to win. There were 15 Slave States and 18 Free States in the Union at that time. So at least 17 States would have to vote for a candidate for him to win the election in this case. If every Slave State went for Breckinridge, one of the other candidates could still win if he managed to unify 17 of 18 remaining States, and in the general election, Lincoln carried 18 States.

However, the interesting thing is that the votes in the House were not bound to be cast in accordance with the results of the general election, and the Democrats controlled the House votes of three of the 18 States which voted for Lincoln (Illinois, California, and Oregon) in the general election. So the question is, will they fall into line with the majority of their party, and vote for Breckinridge, or will they follow the popular vote in their States and go for Lincoln?

Now, if not all of States with Democratically controlled House delegations go for Breckinridge, but none of them go for Lincoln (say California, Oregon and Illinois go for Douglas), then neither Lincoln nor Breckinridge will win, and then the horsetrading begins. It would be interesting to see how that played out.
 
Last edited:
I just realised that if Douglas took New York he would overtake Bell in electoral votes. Therefore, Bell wouldn't even be on the cards.

Actually, he would. The top electoral vote getters in the general election would have been Lincoln, Breckinridge, Douglas, and Bell, respectively. The top five vote getters are, according to the Constitution, to be considered.
 
Since the southern Democrats broke the party rather than allow Douglas a clear nomination leading to the presidency and Douglas showed no interest in a compromise when it finally sank in that the split might elect Lincoln I would have to rule out the otherwise respectable Bell as a compromise candidate.

Douglas received as much of the popular vote as Breckenridge and Bell combined so Douglas would be the obvious rallying candidate, especially since Breckenridge's support was virtually nil outside the south and he lost key southern states like Virginia and Kentucky.

Further, after the convention fiasco no Democrat outside the south is going to pick Breckenridge over Douglas if he wants to remain in office.

So on the first House ballot I would predict no clear winner IF the Democratic majority can hold together in the three states with a Democratic majority but which Lincoln carried.* At this point people working for Douglas ask if the other Democrats will throw their support behind Douglas or if they should just cut a deal with Lincoln...


*Hypothetical example: I'm not certain what happens if a state has 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans but the Democrats split two or three ways. Does a plurality carry the state? Does the state get kicked out until the next ballot?


robert, actually Bell is finished, the House only considers the top three, which is why Henry Clay played kingmaker at Andrew Jackson's expense in a prior election.
 

Thande

Donor
So the question is, will they fall into line with the majority of their party, and vote for Breckinridge, or will they follow the popular vote in their States and go for Lincoln?

Say they go for Lincoln. It's still an interesting change because in the eyes of the American people and the world he'll have much less legitimacy (how many Americans in the street know that a disputed presidential election gets thrown to the House?) and thus if the Confederate states still secede they'll most probably get more sympathy and support.
 
Say they go for Lincoln. It's still an interesting change because in the eyes of the American people and the world he'll have much less legitimacy and thus if the Confederate states still secede they'll most probably get more sympathy and support.

That's an interesting point, and very true. Lincoln, in that case, might well have difficulty finding support for war.

(how many Americans in the street know that a disputed presidential election gets thrown to the House?)

In this case? You can pretty much count on it being ALL of them. It would be highly sensational front page news everywhere in the country.
 
Last edited:
Say they go for Lincoln. It's still an interesting change because in the eyes of the American people and the world he'll have much less legitimacy (how many Americans in the street know that a disputed presidential election gets thrown to the House?) and thus if the Confederate states still secede they'll most probably get more sympathy and support.

In that case, rather than seceeding, might the Soutern States call the result in to question and espouse that Breckinridge was the legitimate U.S President? Could there be an actual 'civil war' rather than a mere secession attempt?
 
Last edited:
robert, actually Bell is finished, the House only considers the top three, which is why Henry Clay played kingmaker at Andrew Jackson's expense in a prior election.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, reads as follows (the pertinent portion is bolded)...

"Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice."

So, actually, Bell would still have been in the running, as he was the fourth highest vote getter, and the House will consider the top five.

EDIT: Never mind...I see you are right. This was changed by amendment. Only the top 3 would be considered.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
In this case? You can pretty much count on it being ALL of them. It would be highly sensational front page news everywhere in the country.

Yes but I mean before the media jump on it. People might well be unfamiliar with the minutae of the constitution and thus act like the rug's been pulled out from under their vote when this provision gets produced.

(I know how nonplussed people were in 2000 when that disputed election led to some people saying provisions like this would be put into play - even the Americans I know had never heard of them).
 
Yes but I mean before the media jump on it. People might well be unfamiliar with the minutae of the constitution and thus act like the rug's been pulled out from under their vote when this provision gets produced.

(I know how nonplussed people were in 2000 when that disputed election led to some people saying provisions like this would be put into play - even the Americans I know had never heard of them).

Definitely that would be a factor. There was a great deal of feeling of that sort in 1828 when the House handed the election to John Q. Adams instead of Andrew Jackson.
 
I stated writing a timeline a while back which started with the election of 1860 going to the House. My PoD was different -- in mine, Lincoln won on election day as in OTL, but died of a heart attack before the electors voted. Republican electors split between Seward and Hamlin, throwing the election to the House.

As per the 12th amendment, the House votes by states among the top 3 electoral vote getters. The Senate votes by seat among the top 2 VP vote getters to pick the Vice President. A majority is required (18/34 states in the House, 35/68 Senators in the Senate). Note that under then-current law, the new President is elected by the old lame-duck Congress, not the newly elected Congress which doesn't convene until December 1861.

In my scenario, the Presidental contenders are Seward, Breckenridge, and Bell. On the first ballot, I give all Republicans to Seward; all Independents, Know-Nothings, Southern Oppositionists (ex-Whigs), and antislavery northern Democrats to Bell; and all southern Democrats and all proslavery northern Democrats to Breckenridge.

Seward wins 16 states: Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconson.

Breckenridge wins 9 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California (yes, both lame duck California congressmen were pro-slavery), Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia.

Bell wins 5 states: Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, Oregon, and Tennessee.

Four states are deadlocked between Bell and Breckenridge: Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas.

Meanwhile, the Senate votes between the top two running mates: Hannibal Hamlin (Lincoln's running mate -- a Maine Republican) and Joseph Lane (Breckenridge's running mate -- a proslavery Oregon Democrat). Assuming a party-line vote, Lane wins easily (38-26 with two Know-Nothings who could break either way). Both Know-Nothings and five antislavery Northern Democrats would need to vote for Hamlin despite the threat of Southern secession in order for Lane not to win. There are only 7 Democratic Senators from free states in the 36th Congress, and at least three of them (Joseph Lane himself, William Gwin of California who IOTL was imprisoned as a Confederate sympathizer, and Jesse Bright of Indiana who IOTL was expelled from the Senate as a Confederate sympathizer) I can't see voting for a Republican under any circumstances. Lane has a minimum of 35 votes, which is a majority.

Lane is now the Vice President Elect, who presumably becomes President if the House stays deadlocked (the Consitution is ambiguous until the 20th amendment is ratified in 1933).

In the House, Seward is two states short of a majority. With Lane as VP-Elect, I can see two states flipping to Seward. Oregon has one Representative, Lansing Stout, who has already lost his bid for reelection because Lane pulled strings to prevent the Oregon Democratic Party from renominating him due to Stout's opposition to slavery; Stout would likely vote for Seward to keep Lane out. Likewise, at least two of Illinois's six Democratic representatives would probably switch their votes to Seward to break the deadlock.

-------------

In your scenario, two things are different. First, Lincoln is still alive, so he's the Republican Presidential candidate. Second, Douglas got more electoral votes than Bell, so he's the third candidate in the House.

Lincoln would do the same as Seward on the first ballot. Douglas would probably be weaker on the first ballot than Bell, as the Constitutional Union Party is the result of a merger between the Know-Nothings and the Southern Oppositionists so Bell can count on their vote while Douglas would have to convince them he's better than Breckenridge even though Breckenridge finished ahead of Douglas in most (all?) of the South. Most of the deadlocked Bell/Breckenridge states would go to Breckenridge, and some of the Bell states might deadlock or even go to Breckenridge rather than going to Douglas.

The Senate vote is identical. Same candidates, same Senators, same outcome.

The second ballot in the House is where things get interesting. Stout is just as likely to vote for Lincoln to keep Lane out, but the flipping of Illinois is much less likely. As an Illinois Democrat himself, Douglas has a ton of leverage over Illinois Democratic Congressmen, leverage which Bell wouldn't have had. If Douglas wants to, he can probably deny Lincoln a majority for several votes in hopes of emerging as the compromise candidate.

I don't think he would actually emerge as the compromise candidate, though. Lincoln would only need to pick off one state from him in order to get a majority, while Douglas would need to pick up at least 13 states to get a majority. And with the firmly pro-slavery Lane as the VP-elect, it'd be very difficult for Douglas to pick off Breckenridge states, so most of his gains would need to be at Lincoln's expense. The most likely scenario is Lincoln winning on the bazillionth ballot.
 
Not to mention the possibility of a deal, especially if either Lincoln or Douglas concludes that they won't win and endorse the other.

In that event the new president either carried or was endorsed by the candidate of 70% of the popular vote, including half the Democrats who voted, and an overwhelming 87.5% of the popular vote once Bell's have been discounted or, from another perspective, 75% of the Democratic votes still being counted.
 
Lane is now the Vice President Elect, who presumably becomes President if the House stays deadlocked (the Consitution is ambiguous until the 20th amendment is ratified in 1933).

The House of Representatives needs to have a quorum of members from 2/3rd of the states. What if the southern Representives tried a walkout to prevent a quorum, like had previously happened at the Democratic Convention? If they could get the Representatives from 12 states to not show up, then there would be no quorum and Lane probably becomes President.
 
Top