If the Republicans lose the 1860 election, who's their 1864 candidate?

Say, for whatever reason, Abraham Lincoln (or whoever) doesn't win the 1860 presidential election -- most likely he falls just short of an electoral vote majority and the outgoing Congress then appoints someone else. As a result, southern secession is averted. Who would the Republicans nominate in 1864? How could this vary depending on who the winner is in 1860?

For what it's worth, without secessions the Republicans would have a plurality in the incoming House but not a majority -- the balance of power would be held by the "Unionist Party" (who seem to have been mostly non-Republican ex-Whigs with some unionist Democratic defectors). And the Senate would be majority Democratic.
 
Say, for whatever reason, Abraham Lincoln (or whoever) doesn't win the 1860 presidential election -- most likely he falls just short of an electoral vote majority and the outgoing Congress then appoints someone else. As a result, southern secession is averted. Who would the Republicans nominate in 1864? How could this vary depending on who the winner is in 1860?

For what it's worth, without secessions the Republicans would have a plurality in the incoming House but not a majority -- the balance of power would be held by the "Unionist Party" (who seem to have been mostly non-Republican ex-Whigs with some unionist Democratic defectors). And the Senate would be majority Democratic.


The Unionists were basically anti-secessionists from the Border Slave States. Many were Know-Nothings who had previously been Whigs. Had there been no secession or civil war, they would pretty certainly have voted with the Democrats to organise the House.

As to the Republicans, it depends how they interpret their defeat. If they decide they were seen as too dangerously radical, their obvious choice would be Edward Bates, but that's only a guess.
 
Secession winter

Before Lincoln took office, seven states had declared their secession from the Union. They established a Southern government, the Confederate States of America on February 4, 1861.[88] They took control of federal forts and other properties within their boundaries with little resistance from outgoing President James Buchanan, whose term ended on March 4, 1861. Buchanan said that the Dred Scott decision was proof that the South had no reason for secession, and that the Union "was intended to be perpetual", but that "the power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union" was not among the "enumerated powers granted to Congress".[89] One quarter of the U.S. Army—the entire garrison in Texas—was surrendered in February 1861 to state forces by its commanding general, David E. Twiggs, who then joined the Confederacy.
As Southerners resigned their seats in the Senate and the House, Republicans were able to pass bills for projects that had been blocked by Southern Senators before the war, including the Morrill Tariff, land grant colleges (the Morill Act), a Homestead Act, a transcontinental railroad (the Pacific Railway Acts), the National Banking Act and the authorization of United States Notes by the Legal Tender Act of 1862. The Revenue Act of 1861 introduced the income tax to help finance the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Secession_and_war_begins


looks like a lot of laws would not get passed if the south does not leave.
 
looks like a lot of laws would not get passed if the south does not leave.

It would also make a difference to the Supreme Court.

In 1861 President Buchanan appointed Jeremiah S Black to replace Justice Peter V Daniel. The Senate rejected Black by one vote (26-25) after the departure of a dozen Southern Senators. So no secession means that Black is confirmed.

Also, whoever becomes POTUS instead of Lincoln (Breckinridge?) gets to appoint a successor to John McLean in 1861 and to CJ Taney in 1864, while Justice Campbell carries on at least four years longer.
 
Top