James Buchanan goes for two

James Buchanan runs and wins the election of 1856 without promising not to run for a second term. He then runs in 1860 as (likely) the sole democrat challenging republican nominee (likely) Abraham Lincoln.

Does he win? If so, what does this mean for the early 1860s and the slavery issue?

(I'm aware that the reason he wanted out after one is because he foresaw the civil war, but in this alt. hist. he doesn't because of a change in thought process or being convinced otherwise)
 
James Buchanan runs and wins the election of 1856 without promising not to run for a second term. He then runs in 1860 as (likely) the sole democrat challenging republican nominee (likely) Abraham Lincoln.

Does he win? If so, what does this mean for the early 1860s and the slavery issue?

(I'm aware that the reason he wanted out after one is because he foresaw the civil war, but in this alt. hist. he doesn't because of a change in thought process or being convinced otherwise)

Why on earth do you think that he would be the sole Democrat? The Douglasites won't accept Breckinridge but they will accept Buchanan whom they hated far more?! (At least Breckinridge, despite his disagreements with Douglas on the Freeport Doctrine and the Lecompton Constitution, supported him for re-election against Lincoln in 1858. By contrast, Buchanan was determined to purge the Democratic party of Douglasites, even if it meant electing "Black Republicans.")

The 1858 elections had shown what a pariah Buchanan was in the North--even in his own state of Pennsylvania. Douglas did win in Illinois, but even with the legislative apportionment favoring the Democrats, he only won because he had repudiated Buchanan's position on slavery in the territories. (Which was basically that not only could neither Congress nor territorial legislatures prohibit slavery in the territories, but had a positive duty to protect slavery there.)

And even the pro-Southern wing of the Democrats could see that Buchanan could not be re-elected--not only because of the unpopularity of his position on slavery in the North, not only because the Panic of 1857 had revived economic issues like the tariff in the North (especially in Pennsylvania), but because of the corruption in his administration, which would be a drag on his ticket in all sections. Indeed, the Republicans made corruption one of their major issues--they didn't call Lincoln *Honest* Old Abe for nothing...

In the unlikely event that the pro-southern wing of the Democrats nominates Buchanan, there will be a four-way race as in OTL--Buchanan, Douglas, Lincoln, and Bell. Buchanan has no more chance of winning such a race than Breckinridge did--indeed, even less.
 
(I'm aware that the reason he wanted out after one is because he foresaw the civil war, but in this alt. hist. he doesn't because of a change in thought process or being convinced otherwise)

I do not think he foresaw anything beyond his own nose.. Most of his term was one mistake after another.
 

To highlight Buchanan's unpopularity in his homestate, in 1858 the Keystone state elected 20 Republicans, 2 Anti-Lecompton Democrats, and only 3 regular Democrats. 80% of the delegation is Republican, and 88% against the Administrations goal in this one instance.

Assuming Buchanan wins renomination, I could see either a Northern Democratic split from him, maybe Douglas for maximum fun, or even an attempt to coopt the less offensive Bell/Everett ticket (I'm not sure many Northern Democrats could stomach endorsing or voting for Lincoln, or really any Black Republican, even when that is their only plausible opposition to Buchanan).
 
To highlight Buchanan's unpopularity in his homestate, in 1858 the Keystone state elected 20 Republicans, 2 Anti-Lecompton Democrats, and only 3 regular Democrats. 80% of the delegation is Republican, and 88% against the Administrations goal in this one instance.

Assuming Buchanan wins renomination, I could see either a Northern Democratic split from him, maybe Douglas for maximum fun, or even an attempt to coopt the less offensive Bell/Everett ticket (I'm not sure many Northern Democrats could stomach endorsing or voting for Lincoln, or really any Black Republican, even when that is their only plausible opposition to Buchanan).


Would Breckenridge still be a viable VP candidate? Or would southerners look for someone else?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
If Buchanan runs a second (Something he was against) and somehow manages to convince the Democrats to let him, then we could see a greater Democratic schism between a Mainstream, North and South. At this point, Buchanan's chances of winning would be about the same as the sun turning into a giant ball of Ice Cream, and I doubt he would even be able to hold Arkansas like the Democrats IoTL. Lincoln still wins and the South still secedes, however the aftermath of the 1860 election on the Democrats would be most interesting. If a three way schism occurs, I would assume that the Mainstream Democrats would collapse, the Northern Democrats taking their place. I imagine to escape the stigma of the Democrats collapse, they might change their name to, say, the Constitutional Party or something along those lines.
 
. At this point, Buchanan's chances of winning would be about the same as the sun turning into a giant ball of Ice Cream,

What flavor? :D

To avoid a deep schism, Democrat bosses might expose or threaten to expose Buchanan as a homosexual. Outright exposure would harm both him and the Dems. Buchanan would be ostracised and the Republicans could attack the Democrats as the party of sodomy.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
What flavor? :D

To avoid a deep schism, Democrat bosses might expose or threaten to expose Buchanan as a homosexual. Outright exposure would harm both him and the Dems. Buchanan would be ostracised and the Republicans could attack the Democrats as the party of sodomy.

Raspberry, clearly.

It's understandable that the Democrats would try and blackmail Buchanan with the information, however it's unlikely they'd actually release it for the reasons you state. But if it did somehow get out, then the hypothetical Northern Democrats might try to claim they're more 'morally good' than the mainstream. And, in the post-war, it's likely they'd change name to avoid the stigma of the 'Sodomite Party'. I still suggest the Constitutional Party (Though the Constitutional Union might have an issue with this).
 
Last edited:
Top