AHC and WI: 1852 DNC picks Sam Houston

[John Fredrick Parker]

Is it plausible, with no PoDs prior to the start of the convention on June 1, for the Democrats in 1852 to nominate Sam Houston for President? If so, what are the effects; if it's safe to say he's elected, how does his presidency differ from that of OTL's disastrous Pierce (and Buchanan ?) administration(s)? And how does this altered 1850's change American history?

(With apologies to @housemaster )

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Given that Pierce-King in otl was a North-South P/VP, Who is the running mate here?

Pierce himself? Buchanan possibly. Marcy?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Who is the running mate here?

A northerner, certainly; I'd guess Stephen Douglas may be a candidate, but I don't think any other candidates for the top spot (Cass or Buchanan) would settle for second spot.

 

[UCB79]

A very interesting idea Mr. Parker! And I think he would have been a better President
than Pierce in that he would NOT have agreed to, as did Pierce IOTL, the Kansas-
Nebraska Act(Senator Houston was the only
Southern Senator to vote against it). But I
just can't see it happening. He was not among the major candidates for the Demo-
critic nomination, & being a southerner who
seemed pro-slavery(if I'm wrong somebody
please correct me but @ least prior to 1852
Houston never condemned it, right?)he
would not have been regarded as a com-
promise candidate. Pierce, by contrast, was
a northerner with no record @ all on slavery
& thus, someone both sections could accept.

 

[UCB79]

Not exactly difficult, TBF...

Isn't that the truth! I guess it's examples like
this that would later lead Lord Bryce to declare that in America, great men don't
get elected President. I could go on(& on)
in this vein but I think it'd be best if I stop...

 

[David T]

A Houston nomination is unlikely, but stranger things have happened in deadlocked conventions. Some southern extremists had thought him a "traitor" in 1850 for supporting the Compromise--but maybe they could be mollified in 1852 by his support of US expansion into Mexico (though Houston did not advocate it as a pro-slavery measure). There is also the problem that he had a reputation for erratic behavior--his wearing Cherokee dress, his resignation as governor of Tennessee after a disastrous brief marriage, etc.

Anyway, the idea of his nomination has always interested me, because Houston is the only plausible Democratic presidential nominee of 1852 who if elected [1] would *definitely* reject the Kansas-Nebraska bill. (He would not have to veto it; it could never pass the House without administration support.) For this the South might deny him renomination--so he might run in 1856 as the Know Nothing candidate (he was one of the minority of Know-Nothing supporters with a Democratic rather than a Whig background).

[1] And he would be--the Whigs were terribly divided on slavery, and their old economic issues had faded with the prosperity following the discovery of gold in California.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@David T It seems like the 1852 Convention was divided between those candidates who were supportive of the Compromise (chiefly Lewis Cass) and those like Buchanan who were courting southern opinion which was hostile to it; maybe this is how Houston gets the nomination, by rising as a "Pro 1850" alternative to Cass or Douglas? I might be able to see Douglas deciding that his bid is going nowhere earlier on, then deciding to make a deal with one of the only other pro-compromise dark horses for the VP or Sec of State position.

Actually, FWICT, Houston and Cass were the only other candidates explicitly supporting said policy, meaning that if the compromisers were to unite behind a dark horse, it may well be him. And "traitor" or not, Houston is still technically a southerner and a slave holder, so it's not crazy to think he could work as an olive branch to south by the 1850-ers, instead of the "compromise" of just nominating another doughface (Pierce, in the case of OTL). Thoughts?

CONSOLIDATE: Actually got around to looking at the 1852 balloting in more detail -- seems Houston came in sixth on the first ballot with eight votes, but only managed to get himself to 12 later on, always behind Joseph Lane of Oregon who always got the same 13 votes on every ballot; considering that Stephen Douglas wasn't much higher initially, at 20 votes on the first ballot, I don't think it would be too difficult for the Texan to work himself up to fourth or even third place on momentum alone. The question is what happens when he finds himself in third place behind Cass and Buchanan...