ACW scenario: Democratic party does not splinter in 1860, Douglas wins disputed election... and dies

Following Kansas, the the loss of faith of the deep south in the ability to advance or protect their perceived interests through the "National Party", and particularly the selection of the "traitor" Douglas in the national convention, the deep southern representatives bolted and ran Breckenridge for president.

With the democratic vote splintered Lincoln, who won only 40% of the popular vote had the election handed to him.

For the sake of this scenario let's assume that Douglas, or some other northern democratic leader, manages to straddle the fence over Kansas without burning himself over with either the deep south or his constituency in his home state. Let us further assume that Breckenridge, or some other southern leader (Hunter for instance) with a adamant pro-slavery record (And secessionist record OTL) is his vice president. Let us assume that the election is hotly disputed, with the result hinging on vote counts in Illinois and Indiana where the "Wide Awakes" and "Douglas Minutemen" violently clash and certain polling stations are burned, and that a demand for a recount/revote causes the whole process to be determined in the (Democrat packed) supreme court. Finally, let us assume that after winning a hotly disputed election (Doable if the West Coast, Illinois and Indiana flip) Douglas contacts typhoid fever, as OTL, and the presidency goes to his southern fire breathing vice president.

(Never mind that the first seems impossible and the fourth butterflied away. This is a thought exercise, not a TL)

What next?

How will the Republican party leadership and individual Northern States react? If matters escalate to, for example, New England, New York and Pennsylvania passing nullification laws on the fugitive slave act or in some other way disregarding the federal government might a Southern President be tempted to try to push them out of the Union? Can he?
 

samcster94

Banned
Following Kansas, the the loss of faith of the deep south in the ability to advance or protect their perceived interests through the "National Party", and particularly the selection of the "traitor" Douglas in the national convention, the deep southern representatives bolted and ran Breckenridge for president.

With the democratic vote splintered Lincoln, who won only 40% of the popular vote had the election handed to him.

For the sake of this scenario let's assume that Douglas, or some other northern democratic leader, manages to straddle the fence over Kansas without burning himself over with either the deep south or his constituency in his home state. Let us further assume that Breckenridge, or some other southern leader (Hunter for instance) with a adamant pro-slavery record (And secessionist record OTL) is his vice president. Let us assume that the election is hotly disputed, with the result hinging on vote counts in Illinois and Indiana where the "Wide Awakes" and "Douglas Minutemen" violently clash and certain polling stations are burned, and that a demand for a recount/revote causes the whole process to be determined in the (Democrat packed) supreme court. Finally, let us assume that after winning a hotly disputed election (Doable if the West Coast, Illinois and Indiana flip) Douglas contacts typhoid fever, as OTL, and the presidency goes to his southern fire breathing vice president.

(Never mind that the first seems impossible and the fourth butterflied away. This is a thought exercise, not a TL)

What next?

How will the Republican party leadership and individual Northern States react? If matters escalate to, for example, New England, New York and Pennsylvania passing nullification laws on the fugitive slave act or in some other way disregarding the federal government might a Southern President be tempted to try to push them out of the Union? Can he?
All the OTL issues with Trump but made 20 times worse. Northern secession is unlikely though.
 
Actually, a much easier way to get a Breckinridge presidency in 1861 is simply for the race to go into the House, where Breckinridge has a good chance of winning. As I wrote here some months ago:

"... Let's say the Republicans lose CA (4 electoral votes), OR (3), IL (11), IN (13), and the four electoral votes Lincoln won in NJ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860 The race would then go into the House. (It's conceivable that if Seward were nominated, the Republicans would lose all those states. Admittedly, it would be hard for Douglas to carry IN--given Jesse Bright's hatred of him--even against Seward. But suppose Bright decides that after all Breckinridge can't carry Indiana and it's better to have Douglas carry the state than Seward. Moreover, Seward had a lot of enemies in his own state of New York, where an anti-Republican fusion ticket got over 46 percent of the vote against Lincoln. And losing New York would by itself be enough to throw the race in the House. In any event, it is not inconceivable that the race will go into the House. )

"Breckinridge IMO would have a good chance in the House. Remember that the voting is on a one-delegation, one-vote basis--which gave the South disproportionate weight. The breakdown of the delegations was as follows: Fifteen were controlled by Republicans. Thirteen were controlled by Breckinridge Democrats (eleven slave states plus California and Oregon). One state--Illinois--was controlled by Douglas Democrats. Bell supporters controlled one state (Tennessee). Three states (Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina) were equally divided between Breckinridge Democrats and Bell supporters. (Bell's supporters used a variety of party names--American, Oppositionists, Constitutional Unionists, etc. A few may even still have called themselves Whigs...) Breckinridge can win if he gets one "American" each in KY, MD and NC and three in TN. I think it quite possible that he can do so. The Americans/Oppositionists were after all Southerners, and if it was clear that Bell could not win, they would likely prefer Breckinridge to a "black Republican." (Henry Winter Davis would be an obvious exception.) True, the Americans/Oppositionists might just keep the House deadlocked by continuing to vote for Bell. But that would be rather pointless, because it would just mean the vice-president chosen by the Senate would become president--and that would certainly be Breckinridge's running mate Lane, the Oregon "doughface."

"Moreover, some slave-state moderates (whether Bell or Douglas supporters) might be willing to vote for Breckinridge because he wasn't as extreme as some other members of the pro-slavery wing of the Democratic party. For example, unlike President Buchanan, he supported Douglas against Lincoln in the 1858 Illinois Senate race; despite his disagreements with Douglas over Lecompton and the Freeport Doctrine, he thought Douglas the clearly preferable candidate. Again, in 1860 he professed his devotion to the Union (though of course he meant a Union where slavery's "rights" as defined by southerners, were protected) as a true fire-eater would not. Breckinridge had the support of the Rhetts and the Yanceys, but was not really one of them.

"So, no, I wouldn't rule out a Breckinridge victory."
 
Last edited:
All the OTL issues with Trump but made 20 times worse. Northern secession is unlikely though.

I quite agree that outright secession is unlikely. However, to use your Trump example, I believe that certain cities declared following Trump's election that they would become "Refuge cities" for illegal immigrants. If Northeastern States did something similar in regards to the fugitive slave act (I don't think that Ohio, Indiana and Illinois had a sufficiently strong abolitionist sentiment to do such a thing) then what happens?
 
Public affairs are stormy and everything is gridlocked but nothing drastic happens unless either Breckenridge or the Supreme Court pushes on the North. Which one of them probably will.

There was a case working its way through the federal court system about the "right of sojourn." The argument was that the Full Faith and Credit clause requires states to give some level of protection to the property people acquire in other states, that slaves were "property," and therefore that masters and slaves who were "passing through" a state, as opposed to residing there, needed to have their slave status protected and upheld by local law. My judgment is that absent strong pressure from Breckenridge and other Democratic luminaries, the Taney court would have ruled that there was a right of sojourn.

The problem was that a right of sojourn could protect quite long stays, up to several years. It could have allowed itinerant slave work gangs, for example, and would have been horribly offensive to almost the entire North.

The right to sojourn ruling can and will be nullified. Lincoln and other Republican party leaders had already come up with a legal basis for it, which was the argument that court rulings only applied to the parties to the case but didn't apply generally.

So this POD leads to widespread Northern nullification of legislation (the fugitive slave act) and a judicial decision (the right of sojourn). The South will be flaming mad in response and scream about how its rights are being denied, and will probably engage in retaliatory nullification of its own, or worse. But regardless of the Southern response, this is probably a USA where the precedent has been set for states to ignore laws and cases that they feel strongly enough about.
 

samcster94

Banned
I quite agree that outright secession is unlikely. However, to use your Trump example, I believe that certain cities declared following Trump's election that they would become "Refuge cities" for illegal immigrants. If Northeastern States did something similar in regards to the fugitive slave act (I don't think that Ohio, Indiana and Illinois had a sufficiently strong abolitionist sentiment to do such a thing) then what happens?
I think that'd be interesting, a proto-sanctuary city to hold free black people who have fled the South. Given Northern racism, it'd definitely be a challenge to keep it running. The idea of slaves in mines and factories(like "pig laws" of the early Jim Crow era OTL but worse) seems like a grim future.
 
Public affairs are stormy and everything is gridlocked but nothing drastic happens unless either Breckenridge or the Supreme Court pushes on the North. Which one of them probably will.

So this POD leads to widespread Northern nullification of legislation (the fugitive slave act) and a judicial decision (the right of sojourn). The South will be flaming mad in response and scream about how its rights are being denied, and will probably engage in retaliatory nullification of its own, or worse. But regardless of the Southern response, this is probably a USA where the precedent has been set for states to ignore laws and cases that they feel strongly enough about.

The question is:
a. How can southern states respond?
b. How can and will a democratic administration headed by a southerner respond - given that he does not have the support of many representatives of his own party on purely sectional issues?

One answer comes to mind- one of the causes for the civil war which southern apologists often quote is that the industrialized Northeast sought to impose high protective tarriffs to shut out the importation of (primarily British) manufactured goods. What if the response of southern states to percieved Northern violation of federal law is to seize the federal customs houses in, say, Charleston? Or to impose internal tariffs on Northern goods across state lines (Though really, the only place that would make economic sense is Virginia Vs Pennsylvania, or Kentucky vs Ohio and fire-eating sentiment is not that strong there).

That type of action would provoke some sympathy outside the South, particularly in Illinois and Indiana, and might actually be emulated in California and Oregon which were suffering from the tariffs even more than the South.


Is there any other way southern states or the Breckenridge administration can (and will want) to push back?
 
Last edited:
@yboxman I'm with you, when I thought of retaliatory Southern nullification, tariffs was the first thing to cross my mind.

OK, let's run with it a bit. Assuming"tariff autonomy" is a frigging big deal. Tariff's are the biggest source of federal income and if a State government (or mobs acting in it's name and receiving approval after the fact) assume control of setting and collecting tariffs on merchandise entering the State then there is no grantee that the tariffs will go on being handed over to the federal government. It is secession in all but name- but names, of course do matter.

Let's assume that Breckenridge (or Hunter, or whomever) does not declare a Whiskey Rebellion and march the federal forces on the wayward State. Why would he? Buchanan did nothing following much worse. What you essentially have is a slow motion secession creating facts on the ground without actually declaring secession - States assuming control over the primary source of funds for the federal

What will Northern(eastern) States do? One thing I can see them doing is emulating the Southern coastal states and likewise assuming control of the customs houses. After all, why should their tariffs go to the federal government when the southerners still have influence over the distribution of the federal budget?

So now you have a grounds for conflict that is more favorable for the Southern States (In the sense of winning sympathy in the West Coast and Mid-Western States as well as Vs Britain)- but need this turn into a slow motion Civil War? I can;t see Breckenridge being happy with this situation- as long as he's in the White House he obviously wants to have a chance to govern a united nation. But at the same time I can;t see him ordering federal forces (who will be increasingly starved of funding), let alone the National Guard of the Northern States, against the South- or vice versa. So long as the Southern States are still represented in congress and the Senate I can't see him being impeached, even if there are defections from the Northern Democrats.

So you have four years of deadlock in which States assume growing power. Perhaps they even take over Forts, postal services and other Federal properties during this time - after all, the Federal government is starved of funds to upkeep their facilities. Perhaps at some point during those four years some states secede outright. Again, I don't see Breckenridge forcefully keeping them in the Union. Come what may, Presidential elections in 1864 presumably see the Republican candidate winning, perhaps even if the Democratic party does not splinter (and I can't see how it doesn't).

At that point you get formal secession in the South- but also, perhaps in California and even Oregon. The issue now is Tariffs rather than exclusively/mainly slavery (Sort of like The Gaucho wars in Argentina, just over an entire continent). To be sure, the North Eastern States are relatively stronger after these four years (though given the collapse of Tariff protections and possible tariffs on their products in the south probably not as much as they would otherwise be). But the border states, and particularly Virginia, probably jump ship immediately as well. And it is by no means certain the the Midwestern states will be interested in remaining part of a Union in which they are overwhelmingly dominated by the industrialized East. Furthermore, the situation of a splintered union has already become semi-normalized. Federal properties may already have been seized and there is no clear Casus Belli which will enable the Republican president to lead his nation to war to keep States in the Union.

If there is no immediate military challenge to the secessionist states, then you may not have a confederacy (or confederacies) formed in self preservation against the rump union. Or if there are then they will be much looser arrangements than even the ramshackle confederacy of OTL. For that matter, reassertion of federal power in the rump union may also not be in the cards.

Thoughts?
 

samcster94

Banned
OK, let's run with it a bit. Assuming"tariff autonomy" is a frigging big deal. Tariff's are the biggest source of federal income and if a State government (or mobs acting in it's name and receiving approval after the fact) assume control of setting and collecting tariffs on merchandise entering the State then there is no grantee that the tariffs will go on being handed over to the federal government. It is secession in all but name- but names, of course do matter.

Let's assume that Breckenridge (or Hunter, or whomever) does not declare a Whiskey Rebellion and march the federal forces on the wayward State. Why would he? Buchanan did nothing following much worse. What you essentially have is a slow motion secession creating facts on the ground without actually declaring secession - States assuming control over the primary source of funds for the federal

What will Northern(eastern) States do? One thing I can see them doing is emulating the Southern coastal states and likewise assuming control of the customs houses. After all, why should their tariffs go to the federal government when the southerners still have influence over the distribution of the federal budget?

So now you have a grounds for conflict that is more favorable for the Southern States (In the sense of winning sympathy in the West Coast and Mid-Western States as well as Vs Britain)- but need this turn into a slow motion Civil War? I can;t see Breckenridge being happy with this situation- as long as he's in the White House he obviously wants to have a chance to govern a united nation. But at the same time I can;t see him ordering federal forces (who will be increasingly starved of funding), let alone the National Guard of the Northern States, against the South- or vice versa. So long as the Southern States are still represented in congress and the Senate I can't see him being impeached, even if there are defections from the Northern Democrats.

So you have four years of deadlock in which States assume growing power. Perhaps they even take over Forts, postal services and other Federal properties during this time - after all, the Federal government is starved of funds to upkeep their facilities. Perhaps at some point during those four years some states secede outright. Again, I don't see Breckenridge forcefully keeping them in the Union. Come what may, Presidential elections in 1864 presumably see the Republican candidate winning, perhaps even if the Democratic party does not splinter (and I can't see how it doesn't).

At that point you get formal secession in the South- but also, perhaps in California and even Oregon. The issue now is Tariffs rather than exclusively/mainly slavery (Sort of like The Gaucho wars in Argentina, just over an entire continent). To be sure, the North Eastern States are relatively stronger after these four years (though given the collapse of Tariff protections and possible tariffs on their products in the south probably not as much as they would otherwise be). But the border states, and particularly Virginia, probably jump ship immediately as well. And it is by no means certain the the Midwestern states will be interested in remaining part of a Union in which they are overwhelmingly dominated by the industrialized East. Furthermore, the situation of a splintered union has already become semi-normalized. Federal properties may already have been seized and there is no clear Casus Belli which will enable the Republican president to lead his nation to war to keep States in the Union.

If there is no immediate military challenge to the secessionist states, then you may not have a confederacy (or confederacies) formed in self preservation against the rump union. Or if there are then they will be much looser arrangements than even the ramshackle confederacy of OTL. For that matter, reassertion of federal power in the rump union may also not be in the cards.

Thoughts?
Well, there is no Reconstruction of any kind then regardless of race relations as the country would be far more fragmented.
 
Well, there is no Reconstruction of any kind then regardless of race relations as the country would be far more fragmented.

Under the above (admittedly extreme) scenario you would have no reconstruction since you would have no unified country- just a number of independent states and "confederacies" (Presumably territories would be grabbed by the nearest and strongest states rather than evolving into new states. So a Mega-Oregon from the continental divide to the Pacific for example). I Imagine Slavery would eventually be nullified on an individual state basis, possibly being replaced or supplemented by coolie labor as occured in Cuba. But this would be a long process, probably coming to an end much later than OTL Brazil and CUba (for that matter slavery in Brazil and Cuba would probably be extended by a decade). Race relations would presumably be shittier than OTL even after slavery is abolished, bu probably without a KKK equivalent. Brazil and the 'City of God" movie again comes to mindץ

More generally, if there is no formal breakup (indeed, especially if there is no formal breakup) then the absence of an ACW means less federal power, less national based identity and authority , and more state based identity and authority. Wars, especially civil wars, have a unifying effect- at least if they are won.
 
Last edited:
It was a very legalistic time, so I think tariff nullification would probably entail handing over whatever amount of tariff the state thought was fair to the Treasury and simply either not assessing the rest or else assessing it but putting it into an escrow. I think the former is more likely.

Absolutely agreed that Breckenridge does not respond to tariff nullification with force. He may, however, face calls from middle states to use force on both the recalcitrant North ANd the recalcitrant areas in the Deep South, and may even instigate these calls himself. To my mind, a lot depends on what Northern states are nullifying. If its the Fugitive Slave Act alone, I believe the middle and western states would be up to shoving it down New Englander throats if need be. If its also the Right to Sojourn, which I think is pretty likely, then the question is how that right has been perceived in the middle and western states. If its been perceived as an excuse by Southerners to shove slavery down northern throats with itinerant slave work gangs and such--which it probably is, there were a fair number of intemperate, injudicious, fire-eating radicals on the Southern side--then I think the whole Northern tier of states joins in nullifying the Right to Sojourn. These are very different outcomes. I think successful secession is more likely with the latter outcome. On the other hand, if the middle and western states function as a moderate block that is angry at both the Deep South and New England abolitionists, I think there's a strong push for a convention of the states to resolve the situation, backed by threats of force. Still a decent chance for a successful succession that way, either because the convention doesn't get called or because it doesn't succeed.

In the scenario where the north is nullifying as a solid bloc, I think you end up with Deep South secession only. Probably some kind of sop is given to the upper South states to keep them onboard, but its all very messy. In the scenario where its only New England and the Deep South, there is a possibility of New England also seceding, although there I think its more likely that the Deep South is let go and New England accepts some kind of compromise, probably a Fugitive Slave Act of some kind.
 
Top