Democratic alternatives to Van Buren, Polk, and Cass in 1844

Suppose James K. Polk dies a few years early--say, by early 1844. There are still enough people opposed to Van Buren to block him at the Democratic National Convention, but on the other hand many do not want Lewis Cass, who is seen as too conservative and pro-soft-money. What are the alternatives, apart from James Buchanan--who if elected in 1844 might have a considerably better reputation than in OTL as I noted at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/4BhecY4CXHs/GiO48iZeCgAJ ?

One idea would be, as in 1852, to try a dark horse from New Hampshire--in 1844 this would be not Pierce but Levi Woodbury. As a Jackson loyalist during the Bank Wars and later a staunch defender of the Independent Treasury, he would be acceptable to the Van Burenite hard money men. And as noted at http://www.famousamericans.net/leviwoodbury/ he "voted in 1844 for the annexation of Texas" which would make him satisfactory to Southerners.

One other idea: in OTL when it was clear that Van Buren was sinking, the Van Burenites tried to get Silas Wright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silas_Wright to run instead, in order to stop Cass. In OTL Wright declined to run, partly because he did not want to profit from his friend Van Buren's defeat, and partly because he thought Polk a good compromise candidate. If there had been no compromise candidate available, might he have changed his mind? No doubt the Texas-above-all faction of the Democrats would not be happy with Wright, but those who used Texas merely as an excuse, and were really more concerned with Van Buren's unpopularity (due to the Whig-inspired image of him as a cold-hearted aristocratic dandy luxuriating in the White House and indifferent to public suffering during the depression) might find Wright more acceptable. In any event, Wright would certainly be the Democrats' strongest candidate in New York, and without New York the Democrats' chances of winning the presidency were fairly bleak.

OTOH I doubt that as a presidential candidate Wright could dodge the Texas issue as he did as a gubernatorial candidate. True, his handling of the issue was adroit for the purpose of putting New York in the Democratic column: Wright merely spoke vaguely about the peaceful and honorable acquisition of Texas and Oregon within a few years (which seems a rather strained interpretation of the Democratic platform's call for the "reoccupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas, at the earliest practicable period"). If he tried to equivocate like that as a presidential candidate, there could be a Tyler third-party pro-Texas candidacy which could doom the Democrats in the South.

All in all, I am by no means certain that Cass could have been stopped if there had been no Polk. After all, on the seventh ballot Cass led Van Buren 123 to 99, and during the adjournment, Richard Johnson withdrew and threw his support to Cass. Van Buren's managers looked desperately for a stop-Cass candidate, and after Wright declined, settled for Polk, who was already being promoted by the Tennessee delegation. I am not sure that Buchanan, Woodbury or anyone else would fulfill that role as well as Polk did. After all, Polk had Jackson's backing, while Buchanan had little support outside Pennsylvania, and Woodbury was from a small state (and one that was safely Democratic in any event) though he would have some support in both New England and the South. And if no strong compromise candidate emerged, and if Cass maintained his momentum, very likely he would either make it to two-thirds, or if he came close to that and seemed to be blocked only by some stubborn hard-core Van Burenites (who would make themselves very unpopular with the rest of the convention), perhaps the convention would reconsider and decide to abandon the two-thirds rule after all, which by that point would guarantee Cass's nomination.
 
Last edited:
What about Thomas Hart Benton?

Benton was unacceptable to the South because of his vehement opposition to the Texas annexation treaty. ("Thomas Hart Benton, believing that most Americans favored annexation, suggested to the Senate the annexation of the old province of Texas, rather than the Republic of Texas, which claimed boundaries extending to the Rio Grande in the southwest and to the mountains of Colorado in the north. He wanted the old Texas--the Texas of LaSalle and Jackson--but he opposed immediate annexation, which would disregard the probable effects upon American-Mexican relations." https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=ethj) And of course he was objectionable to the pro-soft-money Cass wing of the party--after all, Benton's nickname was "Old Bullion."
 
OK- I know @ first this sounds crazy but hear me out. What about John Tyler? Yeah, I know in 1844 IOTL he was a Whig- but he started out as a Democrat. As POTUS he vetoed Clay- & the Whigs'- bills for a 3rd U.S. bank & a higher tariff. Then in April 1844 Tyler submitted to the Senate a treaty calling for the annexation of Texas. All of this sounds like Democratic Party orthodoxy in 1844 IOTL to me! Plus Tyler- like Polk- was from the South. As for Levi Woodbury, who you mentioned above David, he seems
to have been in 1844 completely lacking in stature(one historian writes of LW that he "was hardly big
enough for his job in the Treasury."*)

So maybe ITTL the Democrats would have
turned to Tyler.

*- Glyndon G Van Deusen, THE JACKSONIAN ERA 1828-1848, p. 114 in the 1963, paperback edition.
 
Last edited:
All in all, I am by no means certain that Cass could have been stopped if there had been no Polk. After all, on the seventh ballot Cass led Van Buren 123 to 99, and during the adjournment, Richard Johnson withdrew and threw his support to Cass. Van Buren's managers looked desperately for a stop-Cass candidate, and after Wright declined, settled for Polk, who was already being promoted by the Tennessee delegation. I am not sure that Buchanan, Woodbury or anyone else would fulfill that role as well as Polk did. After all, Polk had Jackson's backing, while Buchanan had little support outside Pennsylvania, and Woodbury was from a small state (and one that was safely Democratic in any event) though he would have some support in both New England and the South. And if no strong compromise candidate emerged, and if Cass maintained his momentum, very likely he would either make it to two-thirds, or if he came close to that and seemed to be blocked only by some stubborn hard-core Van Burenites (who would make themselves very unpopular with the rest of the convention), perhaps the convention would reconsider and decide to abandon the two-thirds rule after all, which by that point would guarantee Cass's nomination.


Could be interesting.

If Cass gets the 1844 nomination, does Van Buren bolt as he was to do four years later? And even if he doesn't, are enough of his supporters likely to switch/abstain to move NY (and maybe PA as well) into the Clay column?
 
Could be interesting.

If Cass gets the 1844 nomination, does Van Buren bolt as he was to do four years later? And even if he doesn't, are enough of his supporters likely to switch/abstain to move NY (and maybe PA as well) into the Clay column?

It would be harder for Van Buren to bolt in 1844 than in 1848. In 1848 the Wilmot Proviso seemed a clear moral issue, however suspect Van Buren's real motives for running. In 1844, Texas would not really fulfill the same role, Van Buren (like Clay) not really opposing the annexation of Texas in principle, only the way Tyler was going about it. Still, some Van Burenites in New York who were willing to vote for Polk might draw the line with Cass. I don't know whether there would be enough to swing the state to Clay--that might depend on whether Silas Wright still runs for governor.

OTOH, though I wrote in the OP that the Democrats' prospects without New York were "fairly bleak" it's just possible that Cass can lose New York and still win nationally: as a Northwesterner he might carry Ohio, as he did in OTL in 1848 (though admittedly that was partly due to Van Buren taking votes away from Taylor).
 
Last edited:
Tyler did run for president in 1844 until Polk won the nomination and stated his support for Texas annexation when he withdrew.
 
Tyler did run for president in 1844 until Polk won the nomination and stated his support for Texas annexation when he withdrew.

So if Polk is butterflied away Tyler being the
Democratic nominee becomes even MORE
plausible.
 

mad orc

Banned
Polk was a grade 1 villian .
Thus ,anything that removes him and prevents greedy people of my own nation from stealing Mexican land and which absolves me from sins is good enough .
 
Presuming a linear course on Texas/Mexico, it's entirely possible for Cass to end up firmly settling on All Mexico as oppose to his leaning but waffling stance of OTL.
 
Top