Lincoln, Seward assasssinated= President Douglas

So I thought this up while doing some bitching constructive criticism on AmericanAdam's "Power of the West" TL
(This has nothing to do with AA's "New Albion"; everything is identical to OTL until the POD).

POD: OTL, In 1859 Thurlow Weed, William Seward's poweful political manager, felt it was best if Seward spent eight months in 1859 (May to December) doing a tour of Europe, to prevent him shooting his mouth off, which he was wont to do, and causing a disruption in his path to the presidency. Here, either Weed changes his mind, or Seward refuses to go.
So Seward is in the US for John Brown's raid in October 1959. His condemnation is thought to be less than heart-felt, arousing even more fury against him.

William Seward is the former Governor and two-term Senator of New York, and widely-hated in the South as the most prominent figure in the anti-slavery movement. He is considered to be the almost inevitable candidate for the Republican nomination the next year [edited to remove modern OTL reference]

He attends an anti-slavery meeting held in Cincinnati; present is Ohio Governor Salmon Chase, a man with well-known presidential ambitions himself, and Abraham Lincoln, a political figure from Illinois who has made a name for himself in the Senatorial debates with Stephen Douglas.

Seward has his eyes on Chase; he certainly doesn't see any rival in this undistinguished former Congressman. Still, they have hit it off previously, and when they meet again they end up staying at the same hotel, talking late into the night (though not, unlike their last meeting, sharing the same room and even the same bed).

In the morning, going in to breakfast, Seward and Chase, with Lincoln on the periphery, are confronted by a young Southerner, outraged by the incident at Harper's Ferry (or two assailants, depending on your faith in early revolvers). He shoots the hated Seward point-blank, and tries to kill Chase as well. Always physically couragous, Lincoln intervenes and is also fatally shot.

Chase is wounded, but is in good enough shape to make a blistering speech blaming it on the Southern propensity to violence brought on by slavery, which both sweeps him to the forefront of the Republican Party and outrages the slave states, especially as his more radical opinions, not well known until now, come under scrutiny

Chase was instrumental in Ohio in striking down the Black Laws; he has supported ithe admission of Negroes to public schools, equality before the courts, and even voting rights. He has also made speeches saying he wanted to see slavery totally abolished, unlike the more moderate Lincoln, who only opposed its extension, believing it would die a natural death in the South.

More violent incidents occur, with retaliation by both sides. The Republicans are so outraged at the murder of their beloved standard-bearer, plus that guy from Illinois, that at their convention they select Salmon Chase [OTL he came in a distant third at the Convention, behind the now-absent Lincoln and Seward].

This drives the Southerners into even more of a frenzy. Alarmed by all the violence, and at the prospect of the radical Chase, Bell drops out and throws his support behind Stephen Douglas, receiving the Vice-Presidential nomination of the new Democratic-Union Party, after the walk-out of the southerners from the Democratic Convention.

In the election this gives Douglas Kentucky as well as Missouri. The middle states- Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey- support Douglas against the radical Chase [OTL it was fear of losing these that led the Convention OTL to select the moderate Lincoln over Seward; here a 5% vote swing against Chase is enough.] Chase holds his own state of Ohio, but just barely. It all comes down to New York, [won by Lincoln 53.7 to 47.3 OTL.] Fear of Chase's radical agenda does the trick; the swing gives Douglas New York.

[Edit June 19: my numbers don't add up here; should be]

Results in the Electoral College: Chase (R) 112; Breckenridge (Southern Democrat) 99; Douglas (Democratic Union) 92.

Based on this scenario
http://www.270towin.com/1860_Election/interactive_map


I'm assuming most of Bell's votes go to Douglas, but enough go to Breckenridge to tilt Virginia and Tennessee to him. Add in a general five percent swing against Chase. It doesn't help that ,while Chase is deeply admired by his radical followers, he is widely disliked for his air of absolute moral and intellectual superiority, not to mention his emotional coldness and charges of political backstabbing.[ed. as above]
 
Last edited:
Okay, before I go any further here and fall on my face, it's my understanding that the House that votes on this is the currently sitting House, not the newly-elected one- is this correct? In this case the members elected in 1858-1859.
 
That would give you either President Breckenridge or President Lane (assuming he has the same running-mate as OTL). The Democratic Senate would have to choose between Lane and whoever Chase's running-mate was, and would inevitably choose Lane.

That done, either the Dems abandon Douglas and unite to put Breckenridge in, or else the HoR remains deadlocked until March 4, and Lane becomes POTUS,
 
William Seward is the Hillary Clinton of his day, as everyone expects him to sweep the Republican nomination (though his foot-in-mouth disease is more reminiscent of....)
It doesn't help Chase is the Ted Cruz of 1860; deeply admired by his radical followers, but widely disliked for his air of absolute moral and intellectual superiority, not to mention his emotional coldness and charges of political backstabbing.
Do these comparisons need to be here?

Seward has his eyes on Chase; he certainly doesn't see any rival in this undistinguished former Congressman. Still, they have hit it off previously, and when they meet again they end up staying at the same hotel, talking late into the night (though not, unlike their last meeting, sharing the same room and even the same bed).
Is there any evidence behind them sharing a room or bed? Again this does not seem to be needed in this TL?
 
Do these comparisons need to be here?
You're right, they should not be in a ATL - I'll remove them


Is there any evidence behind them sharing a room or bed? Again this does not seem to be needed in this TL?

Doris Kearn's Goodwin's "Lincoln" (the bookization of the filmization of her Pulitzer Prize winning history "Team of Rivals") speaks of their first meeting at a Whig rally in Boston in September 1848, when Lincoln was on a speaking tour in support of Zachary Taylor.

The next night, Seward and Lincoln shared the same room in a Worcester hotel....As the conversation [on slavery] drew to a close and the two men went to sleep side by side, they must have presented a comical image- the one nearly half a foot longer and a decade younger; Seward's disorderly mass of straw-colored hair on the pillow beside Lincoln's wiry shock of black hair.
p. 127-128

She also says earlier of Lincoln's relation with Joshua Speed, with whom Lincoln shared a bed for four years
"Nor can sharing a bed be considered evidence of erotic involvement. It was a common practice in an era when private quarters were a rare luxury....
The atorneys of the Eighth Circuit where Lincoln traveled regularly shared beds...."
 
You're right, they should not be in a ATL - I'll remove them

Thank you.

Doris Kearn's Goodwin's "Lincoln" (the bookization of the filmization of her Pulitzer Prize winning history "Team of Rivals") speaks of their first meeting at a Whig rally in Boston in September 1848, when Lincoln was on a speaking tour in support of Zachary Taylor.
p. 127-128
She also says earlier of Lincoln's relation with Joshua Speed, with whom Lincoln shared a bed for four years
But what is the purpose of adding this information to your TL. It may have been common practice at that time, however it seems to be of no use in this story, unless you were going to have the three men shot while they were asleep.
 
AAARGHH!!! This gets complicated.

Just for one, eight states don't even have Congressional elections until later in 1861, starting with Connecticut in April and ending with Virginia in October. Plus, Kansas gets admitted as a state on January 29, 1861- that would make for an interesting tussle over whether its vote should count

Mikestone said:
That would give you either President Breckenridge or President Lane (assuming he has the same running-mate as OTL). The Democratic Senate would have to choose between Lane and whoever Chase's running-mate was, and would inevitably choose Lane.

That done, either the Dems abandon Douglas and unite to put Breckenridge in, or else the HoR remains deadlocked until March 4, and Lane becomes POTUS,


Assuming everyone with a (D) behind their name supports Breckenridge. Douglas got far more popular votes that Breckenridge; here we're assuming from the POD

a) A five percent swing against Chase, and of course most of that will be concentrated in the free states in the middle. Again, even Seward was so radical that it was feared he would lose these states- Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey, as well as Pennsylvania.

b) A lot of those (D)s are Douglas supporters. Take California. It will be represented by the Reps elected in 1859, both Democrats. But California is strongly anti-slavery; will these guys be voting for someone running on a platform of bringing slavery right up to the state border? In Pennsylvania, the Republican's position on slavery was so unpopular that their candidates ran under the People's Party banner, with a platform that didn't even mention slavery. And a 5% swing changes their Congressional delegation to a Democratic majority (of one, admittedly- but these are not Breckenridge Democrats.)

c) Or how about Oregon? They not only passed laws banning slavery, they pased laws banning blacks altogether. These people don't want slaves, but they don't want free Negroes either. Given a choice between Chase, who wants equal rights, and Breckenridge, who wants slavery in the territory, how about a compromise?
 
Last edited:
Thank you.


But what is the purpose of adding this information to your TL. It may have been common practice at that time, however it seems to be of no use in this story, unless you were going to have the three men shot while they were asleep.

I'm not writing academic history, so I like to toss in tidbits that may be of general interest. In my New Albion TL, I wrote a couple of paragraph's on the changes in the naming of Stellar's sea cows and the Arctic foxes on Bering's Island. This had no effect on the course of events, but I thought it was amusing and of some minor interest.

Different people have different standards. This is mine. My writing style is long-winded and highly circuitous, often dilly-dallying along the way. My username at a Walking Dead forum is Strolling Dead, because I like to stop and sniff the corpse-lilies. Hey, you want to hear something neat about corpse-lilies? No?
 
Last edited:
From here on for convenience I'm going to refer to Breckenridge supporters as Southern Democrats/SDs, and Douglas supporters as Democtratic Unionists/DUs

Okay, assuming these figures in line with the 1860 Congressional elections, and the 1859 ones for the outstanding states
-plus a roughly 5% swing from Chase to Douglas
-and also assuming that Douglas gets at least 2/3 of Bell's support OTL

I come up with these results in the vote by state in the House.

First (few) rounds-

Breckenridge : 11
The seceding states (which don't secede here, as they're waiting for the outcome):
Alabama
Arakansas
Mississippi
Louisiana
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
Texas
Florida
Plus Tennessee and Virginia

Chase:12 or 13
Massachusetts
Michigan
Maine
Minnesota
New York (in spite of its electoral vote for Douglas)
Wisconsin
Iowa
Maine
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Vermont
New Hampshire

(Kansas, if it is accepted)

Douglas: 11
California
Oregon
Missouri
Indiana
Illinois (his home state)
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
Connecticut
Kentucky
Rhode Island

Roughly. Maryland could go to Breckenridge; Rhode Island to Chase; Oregon or Tennessee to Douglas, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1858_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1860
 
Last edited:
Point is, though, that if Breckenridge is in second-place on electoral votes, that means Douglas' running-mate is eliminated from the Vice-Presidential contest. So at worst the Breckenridge supporters need only keep the HoR deadlocked and their VP candidate will become POTUS in March. So they have no incentive to switch to Douglas. Hence if a Democrat is to be elected in the House, it will have to be Breckenridge rather than Douglas,
 
OTL Ohio: Lincoln 231,709 52.3% Douglas: 187,421 42.3% Breckenridge 11,406 2.6% Bell: 12,194 2.8%
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1860

With a five percent swing against Chase, plus 2% from Bell, you could just about do it. OTOH, Chase would probably get enough of a native son vote to pull it off -though a lot of people in Ohio didn't like him.

Tempting, but too much of a fudge. Though if I'd known about the Senate rule earlier I might have succumbed.
 
Last edited:
And Virginia and Tennessee both went for Bell; but I think Beckenridge would peel off too many of his votes for him to give enough of a boost to Douglas.
 
[Due to me using the in ncorrect assumption that the incoming House has the vote , please DISREGARD THIS ENTIRE POST.]

Okay, here we go

OTL / Swing to Democrats/ ATL


Iowa
R 2 - 3% = R1 D 1 :

Pennsylvania
R19 D 6- 4% = R12 D13 (or R13 D 12)

Ohio
R 13 D8 - 3% = R9 D 12 ( &CU)

Wisconsin
R3 D 0 - 3% = R2 D 1
- 5% = R1 D2
(Don't you just love it when your charts get messed up in posting?)

So a very small swing to Douglas in the West has big results. We can assume most of these Democrats in the free states are not Breckenridge supporters.

So after the first three rounds of voting the results still are
Chase: 13 (Kansas has been accepted)
Breckenridge: 11
Douglas : 11

As tensions rise, the Deep South makes it clear it will not accept the abolitionist Chase; New England totally rejects the 'chains of slavery' to be imposed on them by Breckenridge. The deadline in April starts to loom large in the minds of the Representatives.

On the fourth ballot, near the end of February, there is a break. Iowa, with a split delegation, after three votes for the Republicans, switches to Douglas as a compromise (their Presidential vote for Chase was decided by less than 2%). On the fifth ballot, it is followed by Wisconsin.

Chase 11
Breckenridge 11
Douglas 13

Tennessee and Virginia, while strongly opposed to Republican abolitionism both have a pro-Union anti-secession majority; OTL it took the firing on Ft.Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers to squash the secession to swing it around. Here that doesn't happen because the Southern states won't secede just yet if they think they can win the Presidency.

Finally, in March with the deadline looming an agreement of "twinning" is announced. Virginia and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, jointly announce for Douglas and the Crittenden Compromise, bringing him to 17. He needs one more- and it comes from newly-admitted Kansas: Representative Martin Conway switches his vote.

While in the U.S. House of Representatives, he was known for his opposition to slavery but also served as a member of the Washington, D.C. "peace convention" in an effort to avert civil war.He was not returned to congress for another term, but later defended President Andrew Johnson against political assaults waged by Radical Republicans in Congress
Wiki

Without Kentucky, Tennessee and especially Virginia, and with the Crittenden Compromise, secessionists in the Deep South admit defeat (Loiusiana and Georgia had strong votes for Bell anyway OTL). The same for the Northern states. They hate the Compromise but aren't willing to breakup the Union over it.

President Douglas takes office and the can of slavery is kicked down the road- for now.
 
Last edited:
Top