Henry Murphy instead of Franklin Pierce

In 1852, Virginia delegates considered two men as dark horse nominees who would be satisfactory. One was Franklin Pierce. the other was Henry C. Murphy, former mayor of Brooklyn.

Suppose they'd pushed for Murphy? Does he go through? Probably even faster since he might be more likely to win the New York delegates over. What is his Presidency like? (He's sure to beat teh Whigs, I would think.) I It seems like there's not much difference, but I suppose there could be some.
 
The $64,000 question is whether he supports the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

I can't find anything specific on that point, as he wasn't in Congress at the time, but he made an interesting speech in 1848, online at
https://archive.org/stream/speechofhonhcmur00murp#page/6/mode/2up
in which he takes the position that the Wilmot Proviso is unnecessary, as slavery is already prohibited in the Mexican Cession under existing Mexican law, and he goes on to caution the South against seeking Congressional intervention to extend slavery, as this will bring them into collision with the states of the North. That sounds hopeful at any rate.

From 1857 to 1861 he was Minister to the Netherlands, so was spared the choice of whether to be a Douglas or a Breckinridge Democrat. However, he was firmly Unionist during the Civil War.
 
The $64,000 question is whether he supports the Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

I can't find anything specific on that point, as he wasn't in Congress at the time, but he made an interesting speech in 1848, online at
https://archive.org/stream/speechofhonhcmur00murp#page/6/mode/2up
in which he takes the position that the Wilmot Proviso is unnecessary, as slavery is already prohibited in the Mexican Cession under existing Mexican law, and he goes on to caution the South against seeking Congressional intervention to extend slavery, as this will bring them into collision with the states of the North. That sounds hopeful at any rate.

From 1857 to 1861 he was Minister to the Netherlands, so was spared the choice of whether to be a Douglas or a Breckinridge Democrat. However, he was firmly Unionist during the Civil War.

Firmly Unionist but pretty conservative on slavery: "Having been a strict constructionist, he voted against ratifying the amendments to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery, holding that, as the Federal Government is one of delegated powers exclusively, and as the subject of slavery was not embraced in the Constitution, and was to be disposed of only by the States where it existed, the power of amendment was necessarily limited to the subjects embraced in the Constitution and did not legitimately apply to that of abolishing slavery." https://books.google.com/books?id=rbziAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA15

All in all, he doesn't give me the impression of being the kind of Democrat who would resist the pressure of southerners--and some northerners like Douglas--to support the Kansas-Nebraska bill. In fact, the only halfway plausible Democratic presidential candidate of 1852 who does give me that impression is Sam Houston (though it is just possible that William Marcy would also resist; he went along with it on OTL but that was reluctantly and partly out of loyalty to Pierce).

One has to remember that virtually *all* northern Democrats in 1848 had to say that they were against the expansion of slavery [1], and saying that the Wilmot Proviso was unnecessary because Mexican law or popular sovereignty or climate would keep slavery out of the Southwest was a common attempt to appease northern voters while siding with the South on the immediate issue (the Proviso).

There is in any event a strong case against nominating any New York Democrat in 1852. The New York Democracy was so bitterly divided between the so-called "softs" (like Marcy and his protégé Horatio Seymour) and "hards" (including Murphy) that it is doubtful that any New York candidate could unite the Democrats of the state--whereas the two factions might agree to support an outsider.

[1] For "in truth we all are," as Marcy put it in 1849. https://books.google.com/books?id=Wl38uYb85DgC&pg=PA308
 
against nominating any New York Democrat in 1852. The New York Democracy was so bitterly divided between the so-called "softs" (like Marcy and his protégé Horatio Seymour) and "hards" (including Murphy) that it is doubtful that any New York candidate could unite the Democrats of the state--whereas the two factions might agree to support an outsider.


Of course, that might have been a blessing in disguise. If Murphy won the election nationally but lost NY, several additional Whig Congressmen might have been returned from that state. Could there have been enough to defeat the Bill?

Another, perhaps crazy thought passes through my mind. With a name like Murphy, is there any chance that a stronger Nativist vote might have been mobilised against him - under the mistaken impression that he was a Catholic? Iirc most Northern Nativists were also anti-Nebraska.

Or am I just clutching at straws?
 
Last edited:
All in all, he doesn't give me the impression of being the kind of Democrat who would resist the pressure of southerners--and some northerners like Douglas--to support the Kansas-Nebraska bill. In fact, the only halfway plausible Democratic presidential candidate of 1852 who does give me that impression is Sam Houston (though it is just possible that William Marcy would also resist; he went along with it on OTL but that was reluctantly and partly out of loyalty to Pierce).

Oh, boy, so maybe more gridlock! Perhaps we get Pierce, anyway, then?

Another, perhaps crazy thought passes through my mind. With a name like Murphy, is there any chance that a stronger Nativist vote might have been mobilised against him - under the mistaken impression that he was a Catholic? Iirc most Northern Nativists were also ant-Nebraska.

Or am I just clutching at straws?

Given the way rumors spread back then, maybe not.:eek:
 
Top