Alternate War Democrat Lincoln Veeps in 1864?

[frustrated progressive]

Which War Democrats, besides Johnson, would be good Vice-Presidential nominees for Lincoln's National Union ticket in 1864?

An obvious choice is former New York senator Daniel Dickinson, who actually received votes for the vice presidential nomination at the convention. This man had the remarkable distinction of also being on the shortlist for the Southern Democratic veep slot in 1860.

Are there any other plausible options?

 

[Old1812]

One choice would be William S. Rosecrans. He was offered the position IOTL, and accepted, but his letter went through the War Department, and Edwin Stanton. Rosecrans believed that Stanton had a grudge against him (I can't remember if he was correct, and if so what the cause was), and it would explain why the letter never reached the convention.

 

[frustrated progressive]

One choice would be William S. Rosecrans. He was offered the position IOTL, and accepted, but his letter went through the War Department, and Edwin Stanton. Rosecrans believed that Stanton had a grudge against him (I can't remember if he was correct, and if so what the cause was), and it would explain why the letter never reached the convention.

Thanks.

 

[David T]

Former Governor William M. Stone of Iowa in an 1891 interview said that Lincoln had told him in 1864 that it might be best to have some prominent Union Democrat on the ticket. "He then named as vice-presidential possibilities Joseph Holt of Kentucky, and John A. Dix, Daniel S. Dickinson, and Lyman Tremaine of New York in addition to [Ben] Butler and Johnson. The President also mentioned 'some others of lesser note that I am not now able to recall.'" H. Draper Hunt, *Hannibal Hamlin of Maine: Lincoln's First Vice-President* (Syracuse University Press 1969).

I've seen a lot of speculation about Butler but I am very skeptical he would be chosen because (1) his war record was, to say the least, controversial, (2) while he did have a certain demagogic popularity with the working classes of New England, the election was hardly likely to hinge on New England, and (3) according to Stone, Lincoln said that in addition to rewarding Union Democrats, another of his purposes was to conciliate Southerners--a goal which would certainly not be well served by naming "Beast" Butler...

Holt sounds like a safe choice if Lincoln wanted a southern Union Democrat and Johnson was for some reason unavailable.

 

[frustrated progressive]

The unfortunate thing is that Holt was either republican or had no partisan affiliation for the entirely of his career, as far as I can tell.
But thanks for the other suggestions.
@David T
Additionally, given that he was the man who arrested the Maryland legislature and surpassed the New York draft riots, would Dix just stir up further rancor (and almost certainly lose Maryland)?

 

[David T]

The unfortunate thing is that Holt was either republican or had no partisan affiliation for the entirely of his career, as far as I can tell.

Holt was Buchanan's Postmaster General, a very political (patronage-distributing) position. There is no way he could have gotten that position if he had not been a Democrat. He was even seriously mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 1860!

"By 1860, though, the fifty-three-year-old Holt had gone far. A wealthy and highly accomplished attorney living and working in the nation’s capital, he was considered a serious contender to oppose Lincoln for the nation’s highest office by many of the leading lights in the Democratic Party, of which he and his family had long been loyal supporters.

"By that time, Holt had already served in James Buchanan’s administration for three years, first as commissioner of patents and then in the president’s cabinet as postmaster general. For reasons that had to do with both his fundamental nature and his sense of where his duty lay, Holt dismissed his supporters’ encouragements to seek the presidency himself. Then, in the wake of Lincoln’s election, as Buchanan’s cabinet began to crumble, Holt accepted an emergency appointment as secretary of war. In this post, he strove courageously from December 31, 1860, to March 6, 1861, to hold the collapsing nation and the federal government together..." https://books.google.com/books?id=OyAUCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2

Holt had actually been a prominent Democrat for decades--and remember that this was when Kentucky, thanks to Henry Clay, was largely a National Republican and then Whig state. As early as 1832 he was a passionate campaigner for Andrew Jackson and against Clay, whom he called a "cold, calculating political hypocrite." https://books.google.com/books?id=OyAUCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA32

 

[Mikestone8]

Which War Democrats, besides Johnson, would be good Vice-Presidential nominees for Lincoln's National Union ticket in 1864?

An obvious choice is former New York senator Daniel Dickinson, who actually received votes for the vice presidential nomination at the convention. This man had the remarkable distinction of also being on the shortlist for the Southern Democratic veep slot in 1860.

One choice would be William S. Rosecrans. He was offered the position IOTL, and accepted, but his letter went through the War Department, and Edwin Stanton. Rosecrans believed that Stanton had a grudge against him (I can't remember if he was correct, and if so what the cause was), and it would explain why the letter never reached the convention.

According to wiki, Rosecrans was a devout Catholic who carried a rosary in his pocket. Would the Republican Party really have stomached that?

Dickinson is interesting for the fact that he died in April 1866, which would have triggered a Presidential election in November of that year. So Grant serves from 1867-75 instead of 1869-77. Subsequent elections would not have been in years divisible by four, but in what is now the midterm year, which might butterfly away the assassinations of Garfield, McKinley or whoever took their places TTL.

 

[samcster94]

According to wiki, Rosecrans was a devout Catholic who carried a rosary in his pocket. Would the Republican Party really have stomached that?

Dickinson is interesting for the fact that he died in April 1866, which would have triggered a Presidential election in November of that year. So Grant serves from 1867-75 instead of 1869-77. Subsequent elections would not have been in years divisible by four, but in what is now the midterm year, which might butterfly away the assassinations of Garfield, McKinley or whoever took their places TTL.

I think Rosecrans would be tolerable if the Confederacy appeared to be in better shape and he was desperate but his Catholicism might be an issue.

 

[frustrated progressive]

According to wiki, Rosecrans was a devout Catholic who carried a rosary in his pocket. Would the Republican Party really have stomached that?

Dickinson is interesting for the fact that he died in April 1866, which would have triggered a Presidential election in November of that year. So Grant serves from 1867-75 instead of 1869-77. Subsequent elections would not have been in years divisible by four, but in what is now the midterm year, which might butterfly away the assassinations of Garfield, McKinley or whoever took their places TTL.

Then again, the Vice President was considered so insignificant (in terms of presidential prospects, at least), that it might be overlook-able
And would nativists really vote democrat?

 

[Mikestone8]

Then again, the Vice President was considered so insignificant (in terms of presidential prospects, at least), that it might be overlook-able
And would nativists really vote democrat?

Probably not, but some of them might abstain. And if the race got close that might be bad enough.

 

[frustrated progressive]

Probably not, but some of them might abstain. And if the race got close that might be bad enough.

"And the race got close" illustrates the real issue with political forecasting of the 1864 election. The contest was decided almost entirely upon external factors. Besides the proverbial "get caught in public with a dead girl or live boy", Lincoln or McClellan could have done very little directly to affect the outcome. Everything depended on the fortunes of the iron dice.

 

[phx1138]

Dickinson is interesting for the fact that he died in April 1866, which would have triggered a Presidential election in November of that year...Subsequent elections would not have been in years divisible by four, but in what is now the midterm year

I'm not up on what the Constitution says on succession, but I'd say not. AIUI, it means the Speaker becomes PotUS. It certainly doesn't affect subsequent elections; the U.S. sets election years by statute, not fall of administration: it's not a Westminster system.

 

[David T]

There is no way the Republicans are going to put a Catholic on their ticket. Nativists were an important part of the Republican coalition--getting northern nativists to switch from Fillmore in 1856 to the Republicans in 1858 was a major reason for the Republican successes from 1858 on in key states like Pennsylvania--and the Catholic vote was heavily Democratic anyway.

(Not that Republicans generally bashed Catholics. They tried to appeal to nativists without appearing bigoted--e.g., by support of the tariff, which many nativists liked because of it anti-foreign implications. But it is one thing not to bash the Church--it is something quite different to actually run a Catholic on your national ticket, which could fatally alienate nativists.)

 

[Mikestone8]

I'm not up on what the Constitution says on succession, but I'd say not. AIUI, it means the Speaker becomes PotUS. It certainly doesn't affect subsequent elections; the U.S. sets election years by statute, not fall of administration: it's not a Westminster system.

It doesn't say anything about succession beyond the VP, merely empowering Congress to provide for that eventuality.

In 1866, under the Succession Act of 1792, the next in line was the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, with the Speaker being next after him. The same Act mandated a new electoral college to meet on the first Wednesday in December, unless that day was less than two months away, in which case it would meet a year later. The new President and Vice-President would take office on March 4 following the election. Since the Constitution does not provide for a Presidential term other than four years, the new POTUS and VP would serve a full term, not merely the unexpired portion of the old one.

See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unit...e/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_8

 

[phx1138]

It doesn't say anything about succession beyond the VP, merely empowering Congress to provide for that eventuality.

In 1866, under the Succession Act of 1792, the next in line was the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, with the Speaker being next after him. The same Act mandated a new electoral college to meet on the first Wednesday in December, unless that day was less than two months away, in which case it would meet a year later. The new President and Vice-President would take office on March 4 following the election. Since the Constitution does not provide for a Presidential term other than four years, the new POTUS and VP would serve a full term, not merely the unexpired portion of the old one.

See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unit...e/Volume_1/2nd_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_8

I did not know any of that. Thx.