DBWI: Abraham Lincoln Runs for President 1860

Abraham Lincoln was generally considered a top candidate for President in 1860, until he decided not to run and instead gave a surprise endorsement to Salmon Chase over William Seward, pushing the nomination to Chase. Lincoln’s keynote speech at the Republican Convention in Chicago brought the delegates to their feet and ensured he would receive the position of Secretary of State in Chase’s administration. Lincoln campaigned vigorously for Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner’s selection as Vice President, uniting the disparate wings of the party and ensuring the GOP would win the election of 1860. What if Lincoln had decided to run? It seems as though he had a legitimate chance, but might have been perceived as too moderate by the Republican delegates. If he had run, would he have won, and who would’ve been his VP? How different would a Lincoln presidency be than the Chase/Sumner administration?
 
This is a good question. It would be a shame though; Lincoln was a great Secretary of State and is largely credited with keeping Britain and France out of the war. If he was President, I'm not sure anyone could have played that Secretary of State position as well as he did.

I suppose we could look at Lincoln's own term as President from 69 through 74, prior to his death by illness and the beginnings of the Charles Adams presidency, to get some clues as to how he would have acted as President during the War
 
This is a good question. It would be a shame though; Lincoln was a great Secretary of State and is largely credited with keeping Britain and France out of the war. If he was President, I'm not sure anyone could have played that Secretary of State position as well as he did.

I suppose we could look at Lincoln's own term as President from 69 through 74, prior to his death by illness and the beginnings of the Charles Adams presidency, to get some clues as to how he would have acted as President during the War

Secretary of War Seward, though, also played a major role in those negotiations, and it is likely that Lincoln would have appointed Seward to his Cabinet, probably as Secretary of State, and a Lincoln administration with Seward as his Secretary of State would’ve been less likely to launch the attacks on British and French ships, as he advised against in Cabinet meetings.

Interesting point though, Lincoln’s work with Adams (the ambassador to Britain at the time) in Britain was fundamental to his presidency and his pick of Vice President Adams. He saw the importance of industrial and military development firsthand, which led him to create the beginnings of the modern infrastructure state as well as the the expansion of the navy. Lincoln without that experience might make for a very different presidency. How do you think he might’ve run the war differently than Chase, paving the way for possibly a very different Reconstruction?
 
Secretary of War Seward, though, also played a major role in those negotiations, and it is likely that Lincoln would have appointed Seward to his Cabinet, probably as Secretary of State, and a Lincoln administration with Seward as his Secretary of State would’ve been less likely to launch the attacks on British and French ships, as he advised against in Cabinet meetings.

Interesting point though, Lincoln’s work with Adams (the ambassador to Britain at the time) in Britain was fundamental to his presidency and his pick of Vice President Adams. He saw the importance of industrial and military development firsthand, which led him to create the beginnings of the modern infrastructure state as well as the the expansion of the navy. Lincoln without that experience might make for a very different presidency. How do you think he might’ve run the war differently than Chase, paving the way for possibly a very different Reconstruction?

Addressing you're first comment: I really wonder if then-Congressman Adams would have even been appointed to the position aa Ambassador to Britain if Seward was Secretary of State. The two did not get along and Seward even campaign against Adams' nomination as VP in 68. Of course, in OTL Lincoln overrode Seward's machinations, and i suppose he would have been just as able to do so in 1860, if he were President.

As to your second point, that's a good thought. Lincoln definitely promoted more of a policy of reconciliation during his time as President - which Adams continued - and we saw the withdrawing of troops from the South and the end of the process of states being readmitted to the Union.

Lincoln never spoke out against Chase's reconstruction policies, he was in the administrstion and hoped to get the nod as Chase's successor (and his roll in undermining Chase's unprecedented efforts to get nominated for a third term were always hushed), but criticised many of the more heavy handed policies in his private writings. I wonder what his Reconstruction policies would look like?
 
Last edited:
Addressing you're first comment: I really wonder if then-Congressman Adams would have even been appointed to the position aa Ambassador to Britain if Seward was Secretary of State. The two did not get along and Seward even campaign against Adams' nomination as VP in 68. Of course, in OTL Lincoln overrode Seward's machinations, and i suppose he would have been just as able to do so in 1860, if he were President.

As to your second point, that's a good thought. Lincoln definitely promoted more of a policy of reconciliation during his time as President - which Adams continued - and we saw the withdrawing of troops from the South and the end of the process of states being readmitted to the Union.

Lincoln never spoke out against Chase's reconstruction policies, he was in the administrstion and hoped to get the nod as Chase's successor (and his roll in undermining Chase's unprecedented efforts to get nominated for a third term were always hushed), but criticised many of the more heavy handed policies in his private writings. I wonder what his Reconstruction policies would look like?

Probably weak as hell. Lincoln was a moderate, which is why he vetoed the "Indian Rights And Compensation Act." He didnt want to give a dime to apologize for Union acts toward natives. Course it got overruled but still. Honestly I couldn't see him doing the stuff Chase did-ripping apart the plantations of higher ranking Confederates to give to the freedmen being the big one.
 
Probably weak as hell. Lincoln was a moderate, which is why he vetoed the "Indian Rights And Compensation Act." He didnt want to give a dime to apologize for Union acts toward natives. Course it got overruled but still. Honestly I couldn't see him doing the stuff Chase did-ripping apart the plantations of higher ranking Confederates to give to the freedmen being the big one.

I would agree that Lincoln would’ve been more moderate than Chase, but would that have really been a bad thing? Chase’s Reconstruction alienated Southern whites for generations, leading to the creation of a “Lost Cause” mythos that’s prevalent to this day.
 
I would agree that Lincoln would’ve been more moderate than Chase, but would that have really been a bad thing? Chase’s Reconstruction alienated Southern whites for generations, leading to the creation of a “Lost Cause” mythos that’s prevalent to this day.
I feel it would be, yes- giving the freedmen their financial and emotional independence was crucial to preventing the south to just falling back into fundamentally the same government. There's a reason texas and Virginia are swing states much dude.

And honestly the lost cause mentality was probably inevitable. It was expressed by the footmen of the csa during the war. It just got pushed into education after a few decades. In no small part because of woodrow wilson, a princeton U historian, who spent a lot of his time writing both textbooks and novels glorifying the south. I actually heard he considered going into politics, which I find laughable.
 
Guys, lets not besmirch the memory of Lincoln here. Yes, he was no Chase (which isn't a bad thing. I love Chase and believe him to be a hero, but he was also a bit power hungry, to put it kindly), but he was a dynamic leader in his own right. Nor was he a slouch in the Civil Rights department; don't forget he was one who signed the Ku Klux Klan Act into law and also crushed Nathaniel Bedford Forrest's little gang of goons. He also got the Freedmen Homestead Act passed AND set up landgrant schools for Freedmen.

I do agree that he probably wouldn't have broken up the plants and redistributed the land to poor blacks and whites like Chase did, but even there im not sure. He certainly opposed it at the time - favoring instead to relocate the Freedmen out West (probably why he worked so hard for the Freedmen Homestead Act after becoming President) - but before his death he seems to have come around and acknowledged the wisdom of Chase's actions there.

Yes, Lincoln ran and governed under the ideal of Reconciliation. But that doesn't mean he was a slouch either!
 
I feel it would be, yes- giving the freedmen their financial and emotional independence was crucial to preventing the south to just falling back into fundamentally the same government. There's a reason texas and Virginia are swing states much dude.

And honestly the lost cause mentality was probably inevitable. It was expressed by the footmen of the csa during the war. It just got pushed into education after a few decades. In no small part because of woodrow wilson, a princeton U historian, who spent a lot of his time writing both textbooks and novels glorifying the south. I actually heard he considered going into politics, which I find laughable.

1. That’s probably fair, but I find Lincoln to be the first “modern” President, so I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for him. I mean in his first term alone, the size of the navy tripled, GDP growth was through the roof, and he singlehandedly brought the state of Lincoln, “America’s Sugarbasket” into the union. His imperialism there really united the country after Chase’s alienation of the South.

2. Wilson’s “Birth of a Nation” is a particularly egregious example, if you’ve ever read it.
 
Lincoln’s re-election also spelled the death knell for the treasonous Democrats everywhere besides the Deep South (there wouldn’t be a Democratic President elected until 1908). He also ensured a Second, longer lasting “Era of Good Feelings” that lasted for his second term, Adams’s 1.5 terms, and the first 6 years of the Arthur Administration until the Panic of 1886 and the associated corruption which the rise of the Liberal Party under Garfield and our modern 3 party system
 
2. Wilson’s “Birth of a Nation” is a particularly egregious example, if you’ve ever read it.

Ugh, had to read it for a Historiography course i took while working on my Master's at Dakota State University in Fargo. The word thing about it, is that Wilson was actually a really good and engaging writer and resesrcher. It's just that his ideology colored literally everything he did.

And as to your second point: yeah, I like Lincoln myself. Well, Abraham, of course. His son Thad's presidency was less than stellar. Though my favorite President by far is, of course Bob LaFollette(but i would say that - I'm from Wisconsin!); His terms from 1896 through 04 are just amazing; even if his feud with Senator Roosevelt was a bit awkward.
 
Ugh, had to read it for a Historiography course i took while working on my Master's at Dakota State University in Fargo. The word thing about it, is that Wilson was actually a really good and engaging writer and resesrcher. It's just that his ideology colored literally everything he did.

And as to your second point: yeah, I like Lincoln myself. Well, Abraham, of course. His son Thad's presidency was less than stellar. Though my favorite President by far is, of course Bob LaFollette(but i would say that - I'm from Wisconsin!); His terms from 1896 through 04 are just amazing; even if his feud with Senator Roosevelt was a bit awkward.
LaFoellete was good, but you cant outdo James W. Bryan, imo. He got us through the great war, and was able to negotiate an alliance with Japan that got us out of their goals in the Pacific and curbed Soviet expansion in the east.

LaFoellete was simply too domestic during a time where we were fine. He wasn't engaged in the european or asian worlds, only in keeping America on course for prosperity. Which is fine, but his lack of adventure limited how much we could prosper, and the Russo-Japanese War could've used some american mediation-I firmly believe the communist revolution started then. Russia wasn't allowed any trade in china for ten years, which seriously limited their economy. Not to mention losing a massive opportunity in manchuria.
 
This is tricky, since in terms of policy Lincoln and Chase were pretty close and the Chase/ Lincoln/ Adams (3) administrations are usually lumped in with each other.

I think what you get is a considerable amount of butterflies. Lincoln was easily the most inexperienced of the contenders for the Republican nomination, and his only real selling points were coming from a western state, and not being Chase or Seward, both of whom had pissed a lot of people off. After his stints as Secretary of State and on the Supreme Court, he had gained considerable experience by 1869, but I wonder if he had become President in 1861 if he would have screwed things up somehow. This could butterfly into a longer Civil War, or the federal government somehow losing the war, or going to war with Britain.

Other than that, one irony of the situation is that Lincoln probably would have appointed Chase as Secretary of State, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then Chase runs for President in 1868 and wins. And Chase also died in 1874. Maybe not much would have changed other than the career swap.
 
Other than that, one irony of the situation is that Lincoln probably would have appointed Chase as Secretary of State, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then Chase runs for President in 1868 and wins. And Chase also died in 1874. Maybe not much would have changed other than the career swap.
That changes everything. Lincoln is regarded as a pretty great president now, but he was incredibly controversial during the time, especially because he promised Britain that the US wouldn't take Alaska when Russia was looking for buyers to keep them at war (though he made up for that by waging the Spanish-American War, winning us jewels like Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines- essential states today, as well as Lincoln.)

Hell, after the Alaska Non-Deal, there were attempts on his life. If he was a moderate during the CW, especially if the battle record went to the CSA for months into the war, he could be seen as weak and perhaps assassinated. No clue for a VP though
 
That changes everything. Lincoln is regarded as a pretty great president now, but he was incredibly controversial during the time, especially because he promised Britain that the US wouldn't take Alaska when Russia was looking for buyers to keep them at war (though he made up for that by waging the Spanish-American War, winning us jewels like Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines- essential states today, as well as Lincoln.)

Hell, after the Alaska Non-Deal, there were attempts on his life. If he was a moderate during the CW, especially if the battle record went to the CSA for months into the war, he could be seen as weak and perhaps assassinated. No clue for a VP though

OOC: I was implying that Cuba was the state of Lincoln, so

IC: Could you imagine the Russian Empire without its Crown Jewel? That would be insane. There’d be no way the empire survives much longer, it was on its last legs before the gold rush and the subsequent oil boom there.

Hannibal Hamlin was an antislavery senator from Maine at the time, he was a likely second pick for VP if Sumner had declined to balance the ticket regionally under Chase; Lincoln might even be more inclined to prefer Hamlin to Sumner. The real question is would Lincoln have been able to hold off Douglas in his home state of Illinois as he had been unable to in 1858, without which it’s difficult to see the election not get thrown to the House, where he stands virtually no chance
 
OOC: I was implying that Cuba was the state of Lincoln, so

IC: Could you imagine the Russian Empire without its Crown Jewel? That would be insane. There’d be no way the empire survives much longer, it was on its last legs before the gold rush and the subsequent oil boom there.

Hannibal Hamlin was an antislavery senator from Maine at the time, he was a likely second pick for VP if Sumner had declined to balance the ticket regionally under Chase; Lincoln might even be more inclined to prefer Hamlin to Sumner. The real question is would Lincoln have been able to hold off Douglas in his home state of Illinois as he had been unable to in 1858, without which it’s difficult to see the election not get thrown to the House, where he stands virtually no chance
Ooc: whack. Idk how about Lincoln is eastern hispaniola/the Dominican republic?

Eh, the state of the Russian Empire before Alaska is greatly exaggerated. The Crimean War, while ultimately a status quo, showed Tsar Alexander exactly what was necessary. The only reason Japan won the Russo Japanese War was because the Russians didn't have the morale or the daring the japanese did. Even during the Soviet Era- those twenty years of expansion and growth were never directed at Japan. The soviets fell apart because they had neither pride in the state they created (only in the dismantling the aristocracy) or anything to show for it, since while they were provided for, they had nothing of their own, or much more than the state gave. So they re-revolutioned and we got the Grand Republic of All The Russias we know today.
But in the aftermath of Crimea Russia's industrial power went through the roof well before the gold rush. Similarly the Russo-Japanese war, while it doomed the aristocracy, gave rise to one of the most professional armies in history.

All that said, I dont think without alaska the soviet era would be a time of prosperous economy or expansion. That hunk of snow practically powered their tanks. No alaska, and I dont think the soviets would last a month before being counter-couped.

Hell, the craziest thing is what we could do with an American alaska.

But as for us politics, I think Lincoln could've beaten Douglas in round two. His proposal of Popular Sovereignty was great for slave owners, not for or to abolishionist Illinois. Plus where lincoln was a moderate in favor of fazing out, Douglass was seen as weak and washed out. Plus after the 1850s, where neither Congress or Presidents had done much about slavery, the north was dying for a Fed. Who would do something, anything, to combat the slave power. And lincoln promised a man who'd be gentle in his demands but harsh in his order.
 
Actually, if lincoln never made the Non-Deal, could we have seen an Entente America? we only joined the CP because we got tired of Britain screwing with our oceanic holdings, which we only had because of the Spa-USA war he waged in compensation for the Non-Deal. Without those states we wouldn't have the stuff to trade with German colonies around the blockade in europe and whatnot.

And without us joining the CP, the war wouldn't have ended in 1916, simply because we were huge for revitalizing the Germans, which gave the entente cause to agree to a ceasefire to be negotiated and mediated in Madrid. Thus the balance of power would be totally lopsided in one side's favor...
 
With Lincoln being a more moderate Republican I wonder whether the Upper South would have seceeded the way they did, which forced President Chase to send the Army into Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky first to prevent the Ordinances of Secession of said states from being implemented, thus cutting off Washington D.C. from the rest of Union territory as a result. Possibly even Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee might not have seceeded in the first place, resulting in a far more limited theatre and thus a faster conclusion of the Civil War. And even if those states, especially Virginia had still seceeded, the military campeign to subdue the insurrection there could have been lauchned several months earlier and with more troops that IOTL were still busy with the military occupation and pacification of Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky until well into 1862.
 
With Lincoln being a more moderate Republican I wonder whether the Upper South would have seceeded the way they did, which forced President Chase to send the Army into Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky first to prevent the Ordinances of Secession of said states from being implemented, thus cutting off Washington D.C. from the rest of Union territory as a result. Possibly even Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee might not have seceeded in the first place, resulting in a far more limited theatre and thus a faster conclusion of the Civil War. And even if those states, especially Virginia had still seceeded, the military campeign to subdue the insurrection there could have been lauchned several months earlier and with more troops that IOTL were still busy with the military occupation and pacification of Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky until well into 1862.

Ironically, the secession attempts in those states might have made for a faster war than if there hadn’t been such efforts. The Union relatively easily pacified Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland, but the tactics and strategy developed in those states proved useful in the 1863 Appalachian campaign that allowed for the 1864 surrender. If Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas don’t secede, the campaign probably only goes into early 1863 at the earliest, but if they secede without Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland, the North might do worse in their early attacks, allowing for a possible advance maybe as far as Pennsylvania.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
the rise of the Liberal Party under Garfield and our modern 3 party system
What the hell is the three party system? The Liberal Party is essentially an offshoot of the Republican Party, no more. Their power base never extended beyond the North East and California.
 
Top