A more radical canidate than Lincoln?

Don't know very much about this period of US history beyond the basics, but were there any political figures during the late 1850s, 1860s, and even 1870s who had a decent shot at winning the Presidency and would have been far more radical on abolishing slavery and dismantling the South's racial caste system than Abraham Lincoln? Assume Lincoln doesn't run for President and a Civil War ignites whenever this hypothetical candidate gets elected.

Just wondering if there is a way for the positions of Radical Republicans to gain power before a Civil War rather than being mostly restrained afterwards.
 
Don't know very much about this period of US history beyond the basics, but were there any political figures during the late 1850s, 1860s, and even 1870s who had a decent shot at winning the Presidency and would have been far more radical on abolishing slavery and dismantling the South's racial caste system than Abraham Lincoln? Assume Lincoln doesn't run for President and a Civil War ignites whenever this hypothetical candidate gets elected.

Just wondering if there is a way for the positions of Radical Republicans to gain power before a Civil War rather than being mostly restrained afterwards.

Not a chance. Even Seward was considered to have too radical an image, which is a major reason why Lincoln was nominated instead of him.

If they pick someone even more radical than Seward (supposedly) is, they probably lose several northern states, the election goes into the HoR, and most likely Breckinridge is elected there.
 
Folks seem undecided as to whether Frémont ever had a realistic chance of winning the presidency, but he likely would've been more radical than Lincoln in that office.
 
Folks seem undecided as to whether Frémont ever had a realistic chance of winning the presidency, but he likely would've been more radical than Lincoln in that office.

In 1856 Fremont's record was much less "radical" than Lincoln's was in 1860. He had said nothing about "ultimate extinction" of slavery.

In any event, if the Republicans really seemed likely to win in 1856, they would probably not have nominated Fremont. Seward could have had the nomination if he wanted it, but decided against seeking it, because he didn't think the party could win the presidency in 1856. Better to wait until 1860.

As the late William Gienapp wrote in The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856, "Had Seward allowed his name to be used, he would unquestionably have been the first Republican standard bearer." https://books.google.com/books?id=szHnCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA339
 
In 1856 Fremont's record was much less "radical" than Lincoln's was in 1860. He had said nothing about "ultimate extinction" of slavery.

That said, he was certainly willing to push further than many other Republicans towards emancipation in the early days of the Civil War, freeing slaves in areas under his control, and he did threaten to challenge Lincoln with his Radical Democracy Party in the 1864 election before ultimately backing down.
 
That said, he was certainly willing to push further than many other Republicans towards emancipation in the early days of the Civil War, freeing slaves in areas under his control,

Ben Butler also became radical - and he had been a Breckinridge Dem before the war. Somebody's war record proves next to nothing about what he would have done as a peacetime president.
 
That said, he was certainly willing to push further than many other Republicans towards emancipation in the early days of the Civil War, freeing slaves in areas under his control, and he did threaten to challenge Lincoln with his Radical Democracy Party in the 1864 election before ultimately backing down.

True, but it's hazardous to judge how someone would have acted if elected in 1856 by their conduct in the ACW and afterwards. Some people with radical reputations in 1856 (like "higher law" Seward) later turned out to be fairly conservative, just as some people who weren't even Republicans then became Radicals later (Ben Butler, Edwin Stanton, Henry Winter Davis).
 
Don't know very much about this period of US history beyond the basics, but were there any political figures during the late 1850s, 1860s, and even 1870s who had a decent shot at winning the Presidency and would have been far more radical on abolishing slavery and dismantling the South's racial caste system than Abraham Lincoln? Assume Lincoln doesn't run for President and a Civil War ignites whenever this hypothetical candidate gets elected.

Just wondering if there is a way for the positions of Radical Republicans to gain power before a Civil War rather than being mostly restrained afterwards.
Stevens ?
 
Last edited:
Senator Stephen ?

If you mean Thaddeus Stevens, he was a member of the House, not the Senate, and was never seriously considered for the presidency.

The most radical candidate who made a serious effort in 1860 was Salmon Chase, but his efforts were probably doomed from the start. Carl Schurz frankly told Chase in early 1860: If the convention is favorably disposed toward radicalism it will choose Seward; and if it isn't, it certainly won't choose you! https://books.google.com/books?id=LWpNDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA211 (To be sure, Seward's reputation for radicalism was not entirely deserved, as later years would show.)
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It's funny to consider that Abraham Lincoln and John C. Breckinridge were probably closer to one another on the slavery question than either of them was to the strongest pro or anti-slavery wings of their respective parties.
 
(To be sure, Seward's reputation for radicalism was not entirely deserved, as later years would show.)

Come to that, was Chase's?

Istr that in 1868 he was a contender for the Democratic nomination, which seems hardly compatible with being a radical reconstructionist.
 
Last edited:
In 1856 Fremont's record was much less "radical" than Lincoln's was in 1860. He had said nothing about "ultimate extinction" of slavery.

It is interesting. If you read casual histories, Fremont always comes across as a radical whod ban slavery instantly and cause a civil war. But when you actually read his own views, he is very vague and indistinct on the issue.
 
Come to that, was Chase's?

Istr that in 1868 he was a contender for the Democratic nomination, which seems hardly compatible with being a radical reconstructionist.

Well, Chase may have been too ambitious for his own good (or at least his own reputation). "If S.P. Chase weren't in quite so big a hurry to be President, he would stand a much better chance."--Horace Greeley, 1858 https://books.google.com/books?id=LWpNDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA212

In 1868, Chase might have sought the Republican nomination, but it was clear that the Republicans wanted Grant. OTOH, it seemed that he at least had a chance for the Democratic nomination: His conduct of Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in the Senate had endeared Chase to many Democrats, and he was also beginning to become disillusioned with military Reconstruction. Chase summarized his own position on Reconstruction in 1868: "Congress was right in not limiting, by its reconstruction acts, the right of suffrage to whites; but wrong in the exclusion from suffrage of certain classes of citizens and all unable to take its prescribed retrospective oath, and wrong also in the establishment of despotic military governments for the States and in authorizing military commissions for the trial of civilians in time of peace. There should have been as little military government as possible; no military commissions; no classes excluded from suffrage; and no oath except one of faithful obedience and support to the Constitution and laws, and of sincere attachment to the constitutional Government of the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_P._Chase In short, "universal suffrage and universal amnesty"--but the problem with that is without the military, how do you enforce universal suffrage in the South? Anyway, this position was not really acceptable to either party in 1868. The most obvious problem in getting the Democratic nomination was stated by Chase himself: "it has seemed to me well nigh impossible to get over the difficulty induced by the almost universal commitment of the party to hostility to the colored people." (Quoted in John Niven, *Salmon P. Chase: A Biography* [New York and Oxford: Oxford UP 1995], p. 428.
 
Top