Andrew Johnson for president--in 1856

Let' s say that in 1856 James Buchanan for some reason is unavailable at the Democratic national convention. (Either he dies or some scandalous correspondence is unearthed concerning his relationship with the late William R. King...) The two major candidates would then be Pierce and Douglas (there were a few votes for Cass, but he was too old) and both have their disadvantages. There was little support for Pierce outside the South after the violence in Kansas. As for Douglas, while northern Democrats knew that they would have to defend the Kansas-Nebraska Act, they may still have had reservations about nominating someone so closely associated with it. And southern Democrats were suspicious about his association with "squatter sovereignty." Other names were mentioned, like former (and future) governor Horatio Seymour of New York, but Seymour took himself out of contention in OTL, and let's assume he will do so in this ATL as well.

Now what did the Democrats do in that era when they were deadlocked? They looked for a dark horse candidate, as in 1844 and 1852. And maybe, as in 1844, they go for a Tennesseean--Governor Andrew Johnson. After all, he had twice (1853 and 1855) defeated Whig candidates for governor in a state that had voted for Whig presidential candidates since 1836 (and which Fillmore would seriously contest in 1856). Even though Polk had actually disliked Johnson, the analogy with 1844 would be obvious. Johnson's one problem with southerners would be his advocacy of a homestead bill--which many of them opposed because they felt it would favor non-slaveholding farmers. But that same position might help him in the North. And on other issues, Johnson's record was sufficiently pro-slavery as of 1856.

It may seem that Johnson was a bit too obscure as of 1856. Yet look at 1852: there were Douglas, Buchanan, Cass, and Marcy--strong candidates, one would think. Yet the Democrats rejected all of them in favor of the little-known Franklin Pierce. The same thing with Van Buren and Cass in 1844 (though Polk was hardly as obscure as the Whigs claimed). The two-thirds rule in that era could easily lead to drawn-out battles that were resolved by the choice of a "dark horse."

Of course, by definition a "dark horse" is unpredictable and there were many alternatives to Johnson. But Johnson does seem to have entertained at least a vague hope for the nomination in 1856, and for that reason tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent Tennessee from sending pro-Pierce delegates to the national convention. "But the governor and his supporters did not give up. Local and county conventions continued to name him as a favorite son, and the Nashville *Union and American*, in an obvious bid for his nomination, published a favorable biographical sketch. His friends thought his chances were pretty good." https://books.google.com/books?id=blkUcM2B3dgC&pg=PA103
 
Last edited:
There's no guarantee that his handling of the slavery issues would be that much better than Buchanan's, but his attitude to secession would be a lot tougher. He might well prevent Floyd (if the latter is still Sec of War) from sending weapons back to Southern arsenals.

OTOH he obviously won't veto the Homestead Bill as Buchanan did. So he might have a chance, albeit a slim one, of re-election in 1860.Failing that, he would certainly go south to do whatever he could to head off secession. I don't think anyone or anyth in the 1850s. ing would stop SC, but GA and LA might be persuadable, and possibly even AL. So the secession movement might peter out.

One ting is certain though. Whatever he does, his own historical reputation will be utterly different from OTL. Nine years was an eternity.
 
Pierce's wife hated the idea of leaving, and Pierce could hve decided to turn it down in '52 - so even Buchanan being chosen might allow him to then be turned down for re-nomination.

My guess is that Johnson is renominated, but things will have gone too far by the time the 1860 election comes. The Democrats might not splinter as much; Johnson might wind up nominated by a combination of Northern Democrats and Union (is that the name of the party that nominated John Bell?) people, but that Homesteading bill will cause problems with Southerners that Buchanan didn't have, and while it's a few years earlier than OTL, this is the same South that nearly lynched Andrew Johnson OTL for trying to support the Union. The Fire-Eaters were growing more and more powerful. They would just have slightly different reasons for rejecting the Northern Democrats and forming their own party.

However, their nominee almost surely wouldn't be Breckinridge, who was only 40 in 1860. I don't think he had the national prestige without being VP under Buchanan; most likely Johnson has a Northern VP to balance the ticket. In a Buchanan in 52 unvierse, maybe Pierce. "Don't worry, as VP you won't have to actually *do* anything and you can stay home in New Hampshire most of the time if you want." otherwise, either way, Cass might be a good pick there; old, yes, but Breckinridge was also really young, showing they may have been running out of acceptable choices eitehr way. So, why not give Cass a position where he doesn't have to do much. (I doubt Stephen Douglas would accept the 2nd slot, but maybe.)

So, you might see someone like Jeffferson Davis nominated by the Southern Democrats.

Another thought is on the Civil War itself. With Johnson having been President, are there effects in Tennessee? Does it remain in the Union? It was one fo the last 4 to secede OTL. Johnson might work with Tennessee Whigs to try and keep it in. Whether this would work I don't know, but my guess is that at worst, Tennessee is like OTL's Missouri, a state with two different declared governments and its own brutal Civil War.

Also, what of Lincoln's 2nd term? it might not matter if a shorter Civil War by at least 6-8 months (which the Tennessee situation likely causes) lets Booth calm down and not decide to shoot Lincoln. OTOH, Booth was making threats agaisnt LIncoln in 1863 in Missouri, so you could even see Lincoln shot in 1864 and Hmalin President and then re-elected in '64.
 
One other thing. Assuming AJ loses to Lincoln in 1860, will he be as passive as Buchanan was during the Secession Winter? Can one imagine him calling out the militia as soon as SC secedes, to suppress "combinations in the state of South Carolina too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings"? And what happens if he does?
 
One point. Did Andrew Johnson take a position re the Lecompton Constitution?

He voted for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution. In February 1858, he made a speech in which he objected at length to being characterized as opposed to the Lecompton Constitution. "I shall vote to let Lecompton in... because I believe it is right, and the most effectual means to settle and put down the agitation that is now pervading the whole country." The Papers of Andrew Johnson: 1858-1860, page 66.

I could not find any statement by him addressing the opposition of nearly all Kansas settlers to the Lecompton Constitution, though.

It was noted in another work that at about this same time, Johnson voted to admit Minnesota as free state, unlike some other Southerners who I guess tried to delay it.

Johnson was also ambiguous about "popular sovereignty"; he hoped for nomination for VP as Douglas' running mate in 1860, but campaigned for Breckinridge.
 
Another thought is on the Civil War itself. With Johnson having been President, are there effects in Tennessee? Does it remain in the Union? It was one fo the last 4 to secede OTL. Johnson might work with Tennessee Whigs to try and keep it in. Whether this would work I don't know, but my guess is that at worst, Tennessee is like OTL's Missouri, a state with two different declared governments and its own brutal Civil War.

Possibly. Or find a way to get East Tennessee secession to work and turn it into a second West Virginia. I don't think Johnson would be able to sway the vote for secession of the whole state, but depending on how his presidency goes, maybe he could.
 
Possibly. Or find a way to get East Tennessee secession to work and turn it into a second West Virginia. I don't think Johnson would be able to sway the vote for secession of the whole state, but depending on how his presidency goes, maybe he could.

He would need to be prepared to stand no nonsense from Governor Magoffin and send troops through Kentucky. It would be a big gamble but I wouldn't put it past him.
 
Top