Basically what that says. Seward was doing very well for the first two ballots, but Lincoln crushed him in the final one. Would there be any way to possibly take votes awy from Lincoln just enough to put Seward in the lead?
AHC: Seward wins the 1860 Republican National Convention
- Thread starter Inquisition
- Start date
Actually just today I read in a book, that Lincolns team managed to delay the vote for a day and that this gave them the time to strenghten Lincolns position.
Without that delay Seward propably wins.
Seward would propably in the general election lose Illinois and California to Douglas, and Oregon to Brekenridge. But it would still be enough for a small lead.
Without that delay Seward propably wins.
Seward would propably in the general election lose Illinois and California to Douglas, and Oregon to Brekenridge. But it would still be enough for a small lead.
Then he proceeds to rattle swords with the Spanish in an attempt to reuinify the nation, while pulling the men out of Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens.
He seriously considered this, and was supported by the grand majority of the cabinet and the military; Lincoln agreed with the one man who said otherwise (can't remember exactly who said person was), though he did rattle swords with the Spanish for a time before Sumter, without the aggression Seward desired. Said policy fell apart following the attack on Sumter.
For the second part, look above to what I just wrote regarding what his opening policies would be on the seceding states.
For the first part, Lincoln. He ticks all the boxes for a VP while also having a significant base of support at the Convention.
plus, he could win Illinois for the Republicans (that is if Seward loses it according to Freivolk)
i really do not see how that is going to make things any better, but, that would probably the most awesome alliance ever.
Spain could probably somehow bring France into the mix....and even England.
The idea was to present the Spanish as a threat to the South, not as a potential ally. 
In all honesty, I don't even see the Spanish or the Confederacy working together given the issue of Cuba; nothing beyond the support the British or French gave, and even then only grudgingly.
In all honesty, I don't even see the Spanish or the Confederacy working together given the issue of Cuba; nothing beyond the support the British or French gave, and even then only grudgingly.
Without Sumter, how would the Civil War start? Andwould Seward face stronger opposition in the Borderstates?
You're probably right about the Sumter withdrawal.
But you're basically saying that he will advocate the same policies as President ITTL that he did as SecState OTL. I have my doubts. The fact that he's in a different position and has actual responsibility make a difference, as does the fact that he is no longer having to persuade Lincoln, himself, and others that he is the one who should really be in charge. Part of the reason Lincoln tried to supply Sumter was that he had his ear to the ground of popular opinion and knew that Northern voters were getting sick of pusillanimous surrender of forts to the South. Presidents have to worry about that sort of thing much more than SecState's do. Steward *may* pursue the same policies as OTL, but we shouldn't assume it.
Seward has a worse reputation than Lincoln because of his 'higher law' speech. That might be enough to get Seward to directly address the South and try to offer reassurances during the campaign or during the long post-election pre-inauguration period. My guess is that Seward, already being part of the ruling establishment, and possessed of no small degree of self-confidence, will certainly be more active in the run-up to the inauguration. This probably means something like a Crittenden amendment or something.
Its possible that Seward's worse reputation means that you get another state or two that leaves before Sumter or the equivalent.
Assume that Seward is more active about offering assurances and such. One possibility is South Carolina still going out but the other southern states calling secession conventions that just sit around as a threat while compromise maneuvers occur back in Washington, D.C. You might get some kind of Crittenden amendment plus an agreement to invade Cuba, which I can see Seward justifying on the grounds that its already slave so he's not agreeing to the extension of slavery if he takes it. He'd probably also have to make some kind of commitment about not appointing abolitionists to federal posts in the South. And what he'd do about the Supreme Court's determination to make pro-slavery rulings I don't know. Altogether it would be a mess.
Last edited:
On Wednesday, the convention opened.
On Thursday, the platform was presented.
On Friday, nominations were voted on.
PoD: After the platform committe was done on Thursday, a Seward delegate moved that the convention proceed immediately to nominations. The chairman responded that the tally sheets for voting had not been delivered from the printers yet. They were expected in a few minutes; would the delegates care to wait? The delegates voted to adjourn instead.
Everyone still thought that Seward was a lock. Horace Greeley was there, poking around. At about 10 PM, he sent a telegram to his paper, the New York Tribune, saying that Seward looked certain to win.
But during that Thursday night and Friday morning, Lincoln's managers were working very hard to set things up for him. They worked on uncommitted delegates from many states, pointing out that Lincoln had the most votes other than Seward. Most importantly, they cut a deal with Simon Cameron, who controlled the big Pennsylvania delegation. They could not guarantee him the Cabinet post he wanted, but they came close enough for him to throw Pennsylvania to Lincoln on the second ballot. The agreement was sealed only about an hour before the Friday session began.
If the tally sheets had been ready on Thursday, Seward would have won.
Last edited:
The only problem with him not following his OTL policy was, as I said, that it was supported by just about everyone in the military and the cabinet; it was considered the soundest move to make. I can't see Seward deciding against a course that all his advisers are telling him to take, even if it might be the popular thing to do.
He may indeed make quite a few reassurances during the campaign, possibly even agree to the Crittenden Compromise, but it will be for naught; the Deep South already has an intensive fear of what a Republican Presidency will bring, and will act on that fear, while the Northern States would never agree to the Crittenden Compromise, which, in any case, would require the support of the seceded states.
He may indeed make quite a few reassurances during the campaign, possibly even agree to the Crittenden Compromise, but it will be for naught; the Deep South already has an intensive fear of what a Republican Presidency will bring, and will act on that fear, while the Northern States would never agree to the Crittenden Compromise, which, in any case, would require the support of the seceded states.