Alternate Taylor VPs

What would be the result if Zacahry Taylor picked a different Vice-President? Maybe Webster
or Abbott Lawrence. What do you think?
 
A 1999 post of mine from soc.history.what-if:


Fourteen (!) names were placed in nomination for the vice-presidency at
the Whig national convention, but only four northerners were serious
contenders--even the most extreme proslavery Southern Whigs realized that
with a Louisiana slaveholder heading the ticket, the VP had to be a
Northerner. The four were (1) Abbott Lawrence of Massachusetts, (2) Thomas
Ewing of Ohio, and the New York rivals (3) Seward and (4) Fillmore.

(1) Lawrence was the favorite of the Southerners, for his friends had been
cooperating with them for months to achieve Taylor's nomination. Wealthy
New York merchants also favored Lawrence, as did many New Englanders out of
regional pride. Rumor suggested that Lawrence would supply $100,000 to the
party's war chest if he were on the ticket, and this prospect lured
additional support. However, Lawrence's prospects were hurt by a speech by
Charles Allen, a Massachusetts "Conscience Whig" who bitterly denounced
Taylor as a "man who will continue the rule of slavery for another four
years" and said that the Bay State "rejected the nominee of the
convention, and...Massachusetts would spurn the bribe that was to be
offered her [of a candidate for vice-president]." Also, Fletcher Webster
informed the convention of his father Daniel's decided hostility to
Lawrence. (There was a grudge at work here--Lawrence had made his
preference for Clay in 1844 clear at a time when Webster still thought he
could get the nomination.) Lawrence was Ambassador to the Court of St.
James in 1850, and being out of the country, I don't think he had to commit
himself openly on the Compromise (compare James Buchanan during the Kansas-
Nebraska bill controversy), but I would imagine he favored it, or at least
didn't denounce it. Had he openly opposed it, it is inconceivable Fillmore
would have kept him on until the end of his term.

(2) Former Treasury Secretary Thomas Ewing of Ohio: Ewing had privately
been a major Taylor backer in Ohio. Immediately prior to the convention he
pressed John Sherman (whose brother William Tecumseh Sherman had been
raised in the Ewing home) to support Taylor rather than Winfield Scott on
the theory that it was more important to have a Northerner as Vice-
President than President! (The reasoning: the Vice-President could break
a Senate tie on the Wilmot Proviso--which the President, in accordance with
Whig principles against executive interference with legislation, would then
sign.) Perhaps Ewing on the ticket could save Ohio for a slaveholding
general, against feared Whig defections to the Free Soilers. Before the
voting began, however, Lewis Campbell, a poltical rival of Ewing's, citing
authorization from Ewing and the rest of the Ohio delelgation, withdrew
Ewing's name from consideration. Actually, neither Ewing nor the other Ohio
delegates had given any such authorization. Twenty years later, Ewing was
still fuming that Campbell had sabotaged his chance to become President...
In 1850, btw, Ewing was initially a backer of Taylor's plan and an opponent
of Clay's "omnibus". On the other hand, he was conveniently absent from
the Senate (or at least recorded no vote) when the New Mexico and fugitive
slave bills were voted on. Given the unpopularity of the latter measure in
particular in Ohio, abstention has to be considered a pro-Compromise move.

(3) Seward--apart from his not entirely justified reputation for
antislavery radicalism (but one must remember that Fillmore too was
considered antislavery and that Seward had not yet made his "higher law" or
"irrepressible conflict" speeches) his biggest problems were that (a) the
numerous nativists at the convention detested him, and (b) once Seward's
associate Thurlow Weed came out for Taylor, Weed gave up on Seward's vice-
presidential candidacy, believing that the Taylor-Lawrence deal was too
fixed. Weed thought that he had an arrangement with Colonel Joseph Taylor
(Zachary's brother) for a Zachary Taylor-Abbott Lawrence ticket with Seward
to be appointed Secretary of State. Which brings us to the rival of Seward
and Weed,

(4) Millard Fillmore. New York conservative Whigs were worried that if
Seward became Secretary of State (making him a likely presidential
candidate in 1852, and in any event an important voice in the distribution
of patronage in New York) their faction would be crushed. Once Taylor was
nominated, they went all-out to defeat Lawrence and get Fillmore nominated
instead, on the theory that with a New Yorker as Vice-President, Taylor
could never name another New Yorker Secretary of State. They warned
Southerners that Fillmore had to be nominated to placate Northern anti-
Taylor Whigs, and even threatened to oppose Taylor with a Clay-Fillmore
ticket in New York if Lawrence were to be chosen. This led to a decisive
shift in Southern votes between the first and the second ballot. (Fillmore
barely led Lawrence, 115 to 109 on the first ballot, with numerous votes
for favorite sons; on the second ballot, Fillmore easily won, with 173
votes to 83 for Lawrence.)

My main source for this post is Michael F. Holt's invaluable *The Rise and
Fall of the American Whig Party* (Oxford University Press 1999
 
A 1999 post of mine from soc.history.what-if:

My main source for this post is Michael F. Holt's invaluable *The Rise and
Fall of the American Whig Party* (Oxford University Press 1999

You've got a lot those old things saved huh David?

In an old thread asking about Seward succeeding Taylor, I got the consensus was that Seward would be fighting an upward battle in 1852 if he ran. But I think if he was Taylor's VP he would have at least gotten his party to unite behind him in 1852 and not lead to the slaughter that Scott lead them into.
 
You've got a lot those old things saved huh David?

In an old thread asking about Seward succeeding Taylor, I got the consensus was that Seward would be fighting an upward battle in 1852 if he ran. But I think if he was Taylor's VP he would have at least gotten his party to unite behind him in 1852 and not lead to the slaughter that Scott lead them into.

Regardless, I sense enormous butterfies.
 
Top