Election of 1856
- Thread starter flamelord
- Start date
I dispute the core assumption, that Fremont was close to winning. Fremont was more liberal than Lincoln and directly stated his opposition to slavery, rather than Lincoln's finely calculated stance in 1860. However, electoral WIs are always fun, so let's do the numbers:
First, there's no way Fremont can carry states in the South. The only states he can possibly flip are, Pennsylvania (27 EV), New Jersey (7 EV), Indiana (13 EV), California (4 EV) and Illinois (11 EV) -- a total potential swing of 62; Fremont needs 35 more votes than he won OTL. If could sweep all of these, he wins (you needed 149 votes for a majority), but with Buchanan running there's no way he loses Pennsylvania. He was a native - son candidate to begin with.
The major variable is to tinker with Millard Fillmore's Whig-American Party, since it made the contest a three way race. (See here for popular votes by state). Note that I'm assuming that if Fillmore evaporates, Maryland votes for Buchanan, since Fremont got fewer than 1,000 votes in slave states OTL.
In Indiana, even if Fremont got all of Fillmore's votes, Buchanan wins 50.7% vs. 49.6%. Considering that the Governor of Indiana (both the incumbent and the candidate who won) was a Democrat, I'd imagine there might be an even bigger margin for Buchanan in such a close race. Amazing how you can find votes down in the southern coutnies.
In California, Fremont even as a native - son only got 18% of the vote, so he can't win there either.
Assuming a best case scenario (simply adding Fremont and Filmore together), Fremont might win in New Jersey, but that's a very tenuous assumption.
Illinois probably has the best chance of swining for Fremont, since Filmore got 15.7% with Buchanan at 44.1% and Fremont at 40.1%. Without too much alteration, you could probably detach enough Buchanan voters to get Fremont a plurality.
The tally is this:
States Fremont can't win: California, Pennsylvania, Indiana = 44 EV.
States Fremont might win (but didn't): Illinois, New Jersey = 18 EV.
Hence, if Buchanan performs similarly, Fremont and the Republicans can't win. Indeed, positing the non-existence of the American Party probably isn't valid since it requires the Republicans to instantly (in 2 years) build a very wide coalition. The Republicans might have sought to include a broad platform -- support internal improvement, a high tarrif and the like -- and if so, they can probably seriously limit the appeal of the American Party and perhaps run a joint ticket. However, I think this is unlikely since the Americans were the much stronger party in 1856, controlling the Speakership in the House of Representatives.
For Fremont to have a prayer, Buchanan and the Democrats need to have horrible luck. I'm thinking Buchanan needs to die in mid-September, forcing the Democrats to call an emergency convention to chose a new nominee. If they actually can call such a meeting (rather than simply fragmenting), then it's likely to be a show-down between Pierce and Douglass. OTL competition between these two allowed Buchanan to emerge as the compromise candidate. Breckinridge isn't well-suited to be a compromise candidate. Pierce or Douglas prevailing might prompt factions of the Party to bolt, but that probably favors Fillmore and the American Party. The only two compromise candidates I can think of are those sought by the Constitutional Union Party in 1860: John Bell and Sam Houston. Though you might have others: Jefferson Davis might be fair game, ironically. My Lone Star Blinders have me thinking that Houston might have a decent shot at uniting the Democrats, but I think he'll have few supporters; probably you need someone with a bigger base. Douglas would probably have to fall on his sword.
From here there are a lot of options. If the Democrats are only weakened in the South, or if substantial numbers bolt to the Americans, then there's a real possiblity that no candidate has a majority in the Electoral College, leading to a House vote to decide the Presidency. Douglas probably has the edge here, but it's hard to tell and it's similarly hard to tell who he'll favor. The hard thing is if 1860 really does happen early and the split in the Democrats weakens them in the North and favors the Republicans. This likely depends / requires the Republicans to be more than just a free soil party, but as per the above, it may be possible to acheive a majority -- barely.
As to the second question: how does Fremont respond to the Civil War? He probably will want to make it into a crusade to liberate slaves from traitors, judging on his actions as a general. He may also have a greater understanding of military command and find more able generals more quickly; or he doesn't need to because Winston Scott has enough energy to serve as General in Chief. Bringing slavery into the war very early complicates things in the North: first, it forces the hands of Kentucky and Missouri. These states may outright secede -- a big blow to the Union war effort. Second, while you may get a tide of abolitionist recruits, you're likely to cause a lot of dissent in the North if Fremont starts talking about "Negro equality." Third, there's not really a clear way for Fremont to take action that doesn't galvinize the South or trample on Federal legal structures (or the Constitution).
Also, Pierce probably reacts very differently to a Southern secession than Buchanan did. I can't see him sitting on his hands, but his loyalties will be very conflicted, being President and a Southerner at the same time.
The differing international scene may be particularly telling: if the war errupts in 1856 in a similar time frame, then the Indian Mutiny will be in full swing. This may distract Palmerston but it also may make it more difficult for the textile industry to find replacement cotton. You also have more chaos in British politics, with Derby's minstry in 1858.
___________________________
One more thing I forgot to mention. The American Party had signifcant support in New York, as well; its support there was sufficient to help edge the state to Fremont (though not without some genuine support Up-state). If the Americans do fair poorly, it may be hard for Fremont to count on holding his gains here.
First, there's no way Fremont can carry states in the South. The only states he can possibly flip are, Pennsylvania (27 EV), New Jersey (7 EV), Indiana (13 EV), California (4 EV) and Illinois (11 EV) -- a total potential swing of 62; Fremont needs 35 more votes than he won OTL. If could sweep all of these, he wins (you needed 149 votes for a majority), but with Buchanan running there's no way he loses Pennsylvania. He was a native - son candidate to begin with.
The major variable is to tinker with Millard Fillmore's Whig-American Party, since it made the contest a three way race. (See here for popular votes by state). Note that I'm assuming that if Fillmore evaporates, Maryland votes for Buchanan, since Fremont got fewer than 1,000 votes in slave states OTL.
In Indiana, even if Fremont got all of Fillmore's votes, Buchanan wins 50.7% vs. 49.6%. Considering that the Governor of Indiana (both the incumbent and the candidate who won) was a Democrat, I'd imagine there might be an even bigger margin for Buchanan in such a close race. Amazing how you can find votes down in the southern coutnies.
In California, Fremont even as a native - son only got 18% of the vote, so he can't win there either.
Assuming a best case scenario (simply adding Fremont and Filmore together), Fremont might win in New Jersey, but that's a very tenuous assumption.
Illinois probably has the best chance of swining for Fremont, since Filmore got 15.7% with Buchanan at 44.1% and Fremont at 40.1%. Without too much alteration, you could probably detach enough Buchanan voters to get Fremont a plurality.
The tally is this:
States Fremont can't win: California, Pennsylvania, Indiana = 44 EV.
States Fremont might win (but didn't): Illinois, New Jersey = 18 EV.
Hence, if Buchanan performs similarly, Fremont and the Republicans can't win. Indeed, positing the non-existence of the American Party probably isn't valid since it requires the Republicans to instantly (in 2 years) build a very wide coalition. The Republicans might have sought to include a broad platform -- support internal improvement, a high tarrif and the like -- and if so, they can probably seriously limit the appeal of the American Party and perhaps run a joint ticket. However, I think this is unlikely since the Americans were the much stronger party in 1856, controlling the Speakership in the House of Representatives.
For Fremont to have a prayer, Buchanan and the Democrats need to have horrible luck. I'm thinking Buchanan needs to die in mid-September, forcing the Democrats to call an emergency convention to chose a new nominee. If they actually can call such a meeting (rather than simply fragmenting), then it's likely to be a show-down between Pierce and Douglass. OTL competition between these two allowed Buchanan to emerge as the compromise candidate. Breckinridge isn't well-suited to be a compromise candidate. Pierce or Douglas prevailing might prompt factions of the Party to bolt, but that probably favors Fillmore and the American Party. The only two compromise candidates I can think of are those sought by the Constitutional Union Party in 1860: John Bell and Sam Houston. Though you might have others: Jefferson Davis might be fair game, ironically. My Lone Star Blinders have me thinking that Houston might have a decent shot at uniting the Democrats, but I think he'll have few supporters; probably you need someone with a bigger base. Douglas would probably have to fall on his sword.
From here there are a lot of options. If the Democrats are only weakened in the South, or if substantial numbers bolt to the Americans, then there's a real possiblity that no candidate has a majority in the Electoral College, leading to a House vote to decide the Presidency. Douglas probably has the edge here, but it's hard to tell and it's similarly hard to tell who he'll favor. The hard thing is if 1860 really does happen early and the split in the Democrats weakens them in the North and favors the Republicans. This likely depends / requires the Republicans to be more than just a free soil party, but as per the above, it may be possible to acheive a majority -- barely.
As to the second question: how does Fremont respond to the Civil War? He probably will want to make it into a crusade to liberate slaves from traitors, judging on his actions as a general. He may also have a greater understanding of military command and find more able generals more quickly; or he doesn't need to because Winston Scott has enough energy to serve as General in Chief. Bringing slavery into the war very early complicates things in the North: first, it forces the hands of Kentucky and Missouri. These states may outright secede -- a big blow to the Union war effort. Second, while you may get a tide of abolitionist recruits, you're likely to cause a lot of dissent in the North if Fremont starts talking about "Negro equality." Third, there's not really a clear way for Fremont to take action that doesn't galvinize the South or trample on Federal legal structures (or the Constitution).
Also, Pierce probably reacts very differently to a Southern secession than Buchanan did. I can't see him sitting on his hands, but his loyalties will be very conflicted, being President and a Southerner at the same time.
The differing international scene may be particularly telling: if the war errupts in 1856 in a similar time frame, then the Indian Mutiny will be in full swing. This may distract Palmerston but it also may make it more difficult for the textile industry to find replacement cotton. You also have more chaos in British politics, with Derby's minstry in 1858.
___________________________
One more thing I forgot to mention. The American Party had signifcant support in New York, as well; its support there was sufficient to help edge the state to Fremont (though not without some genuine support Up-state). If the Americans do fair poorly, it may be hard for Fremont to count on holding his gains here.
Last edited:
First of all, the last name of the candidate is spelled Fremont.
Secondly, it matters how he gets elected because it is in the how of the election that you will find your POD. Now why is the POD important? Its important because you need to change something quite major to allow Mr. Fremont to win the Presidency, something major enough that it will effect who is in his cabinet, how the Congress elected in '56 will look, and how the secession of the South proceeds.
Depending on what changes, those three things I mentioned will change, and how they change will effect how, for instance, the border states might react to a Fremont Administration.
No, actually it's about Fremont, not "Freemont."
However Franklin Pierce will still be president for the following four months after the election. A lot could happen in that time; if you don't believe me, just look at the period between Lincoln's election and inauguration.
Yes, actually. Candidates don't just get elected out of the blue. There need to be established reasons as to why candidate A defeats candidate B based on issues of the day as well as voting patterns.
bard32
Banned
That depends. If John C. Fremont was a stronger president, than James Buchanan, then maybe, the South wouldn't have seceded from the Union and
the Civil War probably would have been forestalled by at least eight to ten
years.
Honestly, I think it's more likely you'll see Fillmore win that Fremont. Looking at the state-by-state returns, it seems like Fremont did as well as the Republicans could do without being more than the Free Soil Party on steriods. Fremont was much more abolitionist than Lincoln; Lincoln's influence insured that the Republicans included a wider economic platform that pulled in more of the Midwest / Old Northwest.
If Fremont looks likely to win, then Fillmore looks even better. Fremont's potential victory would provoke fear in the South, while Fillmore ran on all sorts of union / national rhetoric. If Fillmore wins and the American Party builds, the Republicans might very well be still-born or relegated to third party status.
If Fremont looks likely to win, then Fillmore looks even better. Fremont's potential victory would provoke fear in the South, while Fillmore ran on all sorts of union / national rhetoric. If Fillmore wins and the American Party builds, the Republicans might very well be still-born or relegated to third party status.
The South secedes before the election, Fremont wins a majority of the northern and border states, and the civil war kicks off four years early at a time when the British and French are busy in Russia and India, and not nearly as ready to support the Confederacy.
No subsidized imports for the Confederacy and it's going to be a different war. Not a one month war, or even a one year war, but a very different war.
No subsidized imports for the Confederacy and it's going to be a different war. Not a one month war, or even a one year war, but a very different war.
If Fremont got elected and the South seceded, then he would have probably tried to reunite the Union. However, the North was more willing to let the South go in 1856 than in 1860, so Fremont would have had a harder time getting support for the war effort than Lincoln. Then we run into the problem of the border states. When he was a general, Fremont tried to put Missouri under martial law and planned an invasion of Kentucky. Lincoln recalled him to Washington before things got out of hand, but if Fremont was president, he might very well have declared all slave states in the Union under martial law. Fremont was also a lousy tactician when it came to war in the Eastern theater. In any event, a Fremont presidency points to a much more favorable outcome for the South.
Lincoln never got involved in the nitty gritty of the tactics, he simply wanted someone who would fight, going through one general after another until he finally found Grant. I think that probably is something like this is what would happen in this ATL with Fremont.
Lincoln imposed martial law in Maryland when it looked like they would follow the South out of the Union. Fremont may impose it on more states, but then he would also be getting the much stronger backing of the people who would become the Radical Republicans.
Fremont would also probably make the war about slavery much, much sooner. This will definitely alienate Democrats, but it also will provoke the South. Fremont is the nightmare that Southern Fire-eaters imagined Lincoln to be, a militantly anti-slavery leader who would court the radical wing of his party.
In one word: Harsh.
This is, of course, assuming Fremont wouldn't get shot after the war like Lincoln did. If thats the case, then what happens in Reconstruction depends on who Fremonts Vice President is. Assuming the war lasted past the 1860 election, his running would probably have been a Southerner to show a degree of American unity, which would have probably lead to conflicts similar to what the Johnson administration faced.
This is, of course, assuming Fremont wouldn't get shot after the war like Lincoln did. If thats the case, then what happens in Reconstruction depends on who Fremonts Vice President is. Assuming the war lasted past the 1860 election, his running would probably have been a Southerner to show a degree of American unity, which would have probably lead to conflicts similar to what the Johnson administration faced.
Agreed.
Still easier would be enough states being taken by Fremont (Illinois) and Fillmore (Louisiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee) to throw the election into the House of Representatives.
The Democrats controlled only a third of the House, the American Party and the Whigs about a quarter each, and the Republicans the remainder. Since the last three, while disagreeing on many points, were in opposition to the Democrats, so I'd expect them to eventually unite behind Fremont or Fillmore, more likely Fillmore.
And that probably would lead to the American Party growing at the expense of the Republicans.
Except the states where Fillmore could have won went to Buchanan, with hardly any votes for Fremont. It seems to me an American Party successful enough to win the 1856 election outright would come at the expense of the Democrats, not the Republicans.