AHC and WI: President John Fremont in 1856

Can you think of a way for John Fremont to be president in 1856? Perhaps it would be easier if you take Buchanan out of the picture, so Fremont can win Pennsylvania? And yes, I know this would lead to an earlier Civil War. How would such a war play out?

Bonus points if your idea involves two Minnesotas.

[edit: Sorry. Wrong section.]
 
The earlier the civil war, the stronger the south is. 1860 North is more industrialized than 1856 North.

The Union will still win, but the war will be longer and bloodier.
 
Would it lead to Civil War right away? Were there "I'll secede" threats made to Fremont, like Lincoln?
 
There were democrats who claimed that if Fremont wins, there would be a civil war right away, but I suppose it's not the same thing as people saying they'll start a civil war. But I was under the impression Fremont was hated more than Lincoln was. In any case, could he have been elected?
 
Would it lead to Civil War right away? Were there "I'll secede" threats made to Fremont, like Lincoln?

No one in 1860 was explicitly threatening secession, AFAICT. Secession was implicit in a lot of Fire-Eater rhetoric, but not overtly stated.

As to 1856: the implicit threat was there then. In a letter to his son-in-law, Chief Justice Taney predicted the election of Fremont or Fillmore (both of whom he regarded as anti-slavery Northerners). He then said the South ought to secede in that case. But the South would be paralyzed by its large Whig element, who were attached to the Union for patronage.

(A remarkably stupid analysis for one of the nation's most important political and judicial figures.)
 
Can you think of a way for John Fremont to be president in 1856?

No. The Republican Party is too new, and lots of its potential voters will go with the "American" (Know-Nothing) ticket. That prevents Fremont from carrying Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey. He has to carry at least one of those and Pennsylvania to get to 149. (And in fact NJ + PA doesn't do it.)

Perhaps it would be easier if you take Buchanan out of the picture, so Fremont can win Pennsylvania?

If the Democrats don't nominate Buchanan, who is it? Douglas?

I could see Fremont winning only if the Democrats and the Know-Nothings get stupid and nominate total dufus candidates. Even then, the most likely outcome is a hung electoral college, followed by election of the Know-Nothing by the House as a compromise.
 
No. The Republican Party is too new, and lots of its potential voters will go with the "American" (Know-Nothing) ticket. That prevents Fremont from carrying Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey. He has to carry at least one of those and Pennsylvania to get to 149. (And in fact NJ + PA doesn't do it.)
Nominate Franklin Pierce again. It can be done, but it also kills a lot of Democratic support in areas where the Republicans stand to most benefit.

These are the results from the 1st ballot at the Democratic Convention that year:

Vq6YqG6.png


Pierce needs to scrounge up around 70 votes to win the nomination outright, but it is easily conceivable that attaining as many as 50 or 45 votes would bring about a stampede effect that would result in Pierce winning the nomination regardless.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I ran a quick calculation using the map, and found that by turning a several delegations, mainly those of Virginia, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, and the remainder of Massachusetts, it would place Pierce around 162, while Buchanan would be pushed down into the double digits; now I doubt the support from those states would be uniform, but votes could also be drawn from Kentucky, New York, and Wisconsin, which might make a more accurate account.

So, we have Franklin Pierce renominated for the Presidency. For the sake of being different, and using as a POD Breckinridge refusing the nomination as he had before the initial ballot, I'll put forth former Governor and Congressmen John Quitman of Mississippi as his running-mate.

The Americans managed to alienate themselves from the North in part when it was clear they were going to adopt an attitude similar to the Democrats when it came to slavery, to the point of shutting down some of the state parties that they considered too radical on the issue. We could maybe add to the fallout from that somewhat.

So we have some of the Democratic vote move to the Republicans, a small amount along with some Americans, but the more noticeable trend is Democratic voters to the Americans, preferring Fillmore to Pierce while also considering Fremont too much of a radical.

He barely ekes out a victory.

genusmap.php


I almost didn't give Pennsylvania to Fremont, even when considering Buchanan's home state advantage and the movement of voters, but in the end I gave it to him. If I had thrown it into the house, they would have given Pierce. Similar story in the Senate for Quitman.
 
Yes, Paul. That has been mentioned four times before you brought it up. I just figured out now how to contact the moderators, so I informed all three of them.
 
Top