DBWI: What if Lincoln won the election of 1860?

The election of 1860 was one of the few elections in American history where the election was thrown to the House due to no candidate receiving the needed electoral votes. What if Lincoln had managed to win a few more States and thus win the Election? The south was threatening secession and who knows what an earlier civil war would've looked like.

(I'm leaving who won and what exactly happened in this alternate world intentionally open because I'm interested in who you guys have winning instead of Lincoln and what impact this has. Looking forward to your responses!)
 
The election of 1860 was one of the few elections in American history where the election was thrown to the House due to no candidate receiving the needed electoral votes. What if Lincoln had managed to win a few more States and thus win the Election? The south was threatening secession and who knows what an earlier civil war would've looked like.

(I'm leaving who won and what exactly happened in this alternate world intentionally open because I'm interested in who you guys have winning instead of Lincoln and what impact this has. Looking forward to your responses!)

Four less years of Southern radicalization might have really have benefitted the South in the long run, TBH.....and Lincoln probably would have been more conciliatory than John C. Fremont was. As it was, so much Southern infrastructure was destroyed, that it took them almost half a century to fully recover, and even after that, hardcore Confederate nationalists were a serious terror threat all the way up until the 1970s in some areas.

(But perhaps even with a Stephen Douglas victory, as in OTL, maybe if Douglas been a little less inept-and had he not died in 1863, just six months after Herschel Johnson resigned-he still might have been able to simmer things down a bit; that wouldn't have prevented the outbreak of war eventually, but even in this scenario, we wouldn't likely have seen such extreme things as the razing of entire counties, especially not after the Siege of St. Genevieve in 1867 or the razings of Cape Girardeau, Mo., or Evansville, Ind. in late 1865 as in OTL. Simply put, so much went wrong between 1861 and '65 in our reality, that no wonder it's been one of the most popular periods of U.S. history for counter-factual authors to work with up to today!)
 
Last edited:
1860.jpg


spacer.gif
(ref) Republican
check_tick.gif
Abraham Lincoln 1,865,908 39.9%
spacer.gif
Southern Democratic John Breckenridge 848,019 18.1%
spacer.gif
Constitutional Union John Bell 590,901 12.6%
spacer.gif
(green) Democratic Stephen Douglas (V.P. Herschel Johnson) 1,380,202 29.5%

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1860

--> This is a wild alternate history site which does show Lincoln winning the 1860 election!
spacer.gif
 
This is very plausible. Without Horatio Seymour as their presidential candidate, the Democrats would probably have lost New York to Lincoln.
 
I had to look up who this "Lincoln" person was. Apparently he was an Illinois lawyer who the Republicans ran in 1860 in a bid to get support from the western states. He did carry his home state of Illinois, but they would have better off with Seward who could have carried New York. Most alternative histories that have the Republicans winning in 1860 do that.

The problem with getting a Republican victory with Lincoln is that you have to change more than the candidate, and this affects the timeline. The easiest way is that Seymour doesn't run, and he was reluctant to, and this puts New York in play and maybe the Democrats nominate someone more controversial, there were alot of divisions in the party. Actually trying to enforce the fugitive slave laws might do it. There was a even a timeline here that had the Supreme Court barge in and make a mess of things.

If you just have no Seymour candidacy, its hard to say, since we don't know much about Lincoln, but given his inexperience (one term Congressman) his administration would probably not have gone smoothly if elected. If you posit a much worse sectional division than there are some serious butterflies.

In the early years of the party, the Republicans made a big deal of limiting slavery to where it always existed, though they were never abolitionists, so you get timelines where the Republicans get in and actually abolish slavery. I am opposed to slavery myself but that is wishful thinking. They were never abolitionists and even walked back the lmiting slavery proposals long before they got a candidate into the White House. Its just really hard to persuade Americans that there is something wrong with slavery.
 
This is very plausible. Without Horatio Seymour as their presidential candidate, the Democrats would probably have lost New York to Lincoln.
(Horatio Seymour running 8 years early and winning. He just might be perfect for the time, but he'd really be jumping in the deep end. Was he even a potential candidate during the 1860 election?)
 
Lincoln winning? That might have actually given the South a shot. Remember that we got Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska during the 61-65 term. Earlier civil war as hinted above might have given the South better odds at fighting off the North.
 
In the early years of the party, the Republicans made a big deal of limiting slavery to where it always existed, though they were never abolitionists...
Um. While the Republican Party was not Abolitionist as a whole, nearly all Abolitionists were Republicans. For instance:

  • Sen Charles Sumner (MA; the victim of Rep. Brooks' brutal assault)
  • Rep. Owen Lovejoy (IL; brother of abolitionist martyr Elijah Lovejoy)
  • Sen. Zachariah Chandler (MI; donor to the Underground Railroad)
  • Cassius Clay (!!!; and he was nearly chosen as Lincoln's running mate OTL)
  • Sen. Benjamin Wade (OH)
  • Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (PA)
  • Gov. Salmon P. Chase (OH)
All of these men were prominent Republicans in 1860.
 

samcster94

Banned
Four less years of Southern radicalization might have really have benefitted the South in the long run, TBH.....and Lincoln probably would have been more conciliatory than John C. Fremont was. As it was, so much Southern infrastructure was destroyed, that it took them almost half a century to fully recover, and even after that, hardcore Confederate nationalists were a serious terror threat all the way up until the 1970s in some areas.

(But perhaps even with a Stephen Douglas victory, as in OTL, maybe if Douglas been a little less inept-and had he not died in 1863, just six months after Herschel Johnson resigned-he still might have been able to simmer things down a bit; that wouldn't have prevented the outbreak of war eventually, but even in this scenario, we wouldn't likely have seen such extreme things as the razing of entire counties, especially not after the Siege of St. Genevieve in 1867 or the razings of Cape Girardeau, Mo., or Evansville, Ind. in late 1865 as in OTL. Simply put, so much went wrong between 1861 and '65 in our reality, that no wonder it's been one of the most popular periods of U.S. history for counter-factual authors to work with up to today!)
One of the most infamous terrorist groups was the "Knights of the Golden Circle"(OOC:picture a KKK that actually occupies rural areas by force) and during the later phases of the war, it killed hundreds of people, both white and black, singledhandedly. .
 
This is very plausible. Without Horatio Seymour as their presidential candidate, the Democrats would probably have lost New York to Lincoln.

OOC: Erm.....hate to tell you this, Dave, but it'd already been established in post #2 that Stephen Douglas ran on the main Democratic ticket as in OTL. (Edit: Though I guess if @Marse Lee decides later on that he really wants to implement Seymour instead, as has been considered, we can work with that. Let's wait on a final decision, though.)

One of the most infamous terrorist groups was the "Knights of the Golden Circle"(OOC:picture a KKK that actually occupies rural areas by force) and during the later phases of the war, it killed hundreds of people, both white and black, singledhandedly. .

OOC: That's true. But I do think something rather worse could have come about ITTL.

I had to look up who this "Lincoln" person was. Apparently he was an Illinois lawyer who the Republicans ran in 1860 in a bid to get support from the western states. He did carry his home state of Illinois, but they would have better off with Seward who could have carried New York. Most alternative histories that have the Republicans winning in 1860 do that.

The problem with getting a Republican victory with Lincoln is that you have to change more than the candidate, and this affects the timeline. The easiest way is that Seymour doesn't run, and he was reluctant to, and this puts New York in play and maybe the Democrats nominate someone more controversial, there were alot of divisions in the party. Actually trying to enforce the fugitive slave laws might do it. There was a even a timeline here that had the Supreme Court barge in and make a mess of things.

If you just have no Seymour candidacy, its hard to say, since we don't know much about Lincoln, but given his inexperience (one term Congressman) his administration would probably not have gone smoothly if elected. If you posit a much worse sectional division than there are some serious butterflies.

In the early years of the party, the Republicans made a big deal of limiting slavery to where it always existed, though they were never abolitionists, so you get timelines where the Republicans get in and actually abolish slavery. I am opposed to slavery myself but that is wishful thinking. They were never abolitionists and even walked back the lmiting slavery proposals long before they got a candidate into the White House. Its just really hard to persuade Americans that there is something wrong with slavery.

Erm.....dude, even IOTL, slavery was completely abolished in 1869 immediately after the end of the Civil War, and a Lincoln victory probably would not have changed this much. I mean, maybe slavery's end might have been more gradual, but no later than 1879/80 tops without really stretching plausibility.

And furthermore, are you not aware of the anti-slavery protests that occurred after 1860? Like the one in Manhattan in 1863 that eventually turned into a riot in which dozens died(I mean, Cornell University has entire sections of it's library dedicated to this period in U.S. history, so.....)?
 
Last edited:
1860.jpg



spacer.gif
(ref) Republican
check_tick.gif
Abraham Lincoln 1,865,908 39.9%
spacer.gif
Southern Democratic John Breckenridge 848,019 18.1%
spacer.gif
Constitutional Union John Bell 590,901 12.6%
spacer.gif
(green) Democratic Stephen Douglas (V.P. Herschel Johnson) 1,380,202 29.5%

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1860

--> This is a wild alternate history site which does show Lincoln winning the 1860 election!
spacer.gif

It's weird to see a map that does not have the Democrats in purple and the Republicans in orange. And I always forget that the Popular Freedom party did not exist at that time.
 
My take is a large portion of the slave states would succeed we're the Republicans to win this election. Right or wrong the slave holders regarded them as the abolitionist party & we're threatening succession in larger numbers. I suspect at least four would vote for succession.
 
. . . There was a even a timeline here that had the Supreme Court barge in and make a mess of things. . .
Yes, I just read a timeline where the Supreme Court barges in, makes a royal mess of things, and loses a lot of credibility. And it had a good mix of characters in high office and everyday regular people. All in all, a heck of a good read! :)

But no, I didn't find it that realistic. The Supreme Court would not enter something that blatantly political. Very unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Top