Hey! Once I was really tired & reading about the Dred Scott case, & wondered what would happen if Roger B. Taney ran for President. Numerous edits & a missing paper later, I hereby present:
Martyrs and Popes
1853-7: Franklin Pierce/William R. King (Democratic)
def.
DECEASED/William A. Graham (Whig) [1]
"I wish I could indulge higher hope for the future of our country, but the aspect of any vision is fearfully dark and I cannot make it otherwise."
Franklin Pierce was never going to unite the nation. He only won the nomination because all the other candidates were able to push against the party’s power blocs. He only won the general election because Daniel Webster died a week before Election Day. He was brought into office through forces beyond his control, & those forces would grow to haunt his term as President.
The signature piece of legislation would be the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which blew a hole in the Missouri Compromise & made slavery into a state-by-state decision. Pierce had hoped to focus on building a transcontinental railroad, but the situation in Kansas became an issue too violent to control- a civil war writ small, where settlers from across the nation waged bloody battles with the balance of power on the line. Pierce struggled to keep the peace in Kansas until the tail end of his presidency. Weighing his options, Pierce decided it was best he depart the Presidency & spend more time with his family. [2]
1857: Thomas J. Rusk/Jacob A. Westervelt (Democratic)
def.
Charles Sumner/Edward Bates (‘Northern’ Whig) [3], Millard Fillmore/John W. Crockett (‘American’ Whig) [4]
“This Union deserves a leader who can commit all of his attention to affairs of state… I am not that leader.”
With the obvious choice taken off the table, the Democratic Convention of 1856 was open to serious competition. The Northern Democrats oscillated between Stephen Douglas & Lewis Cass, with an indecisive New York delegation clinging to Daniel S. Dickinson. James Buchanan & William R. King both tried to coax each other into running, while both refusing the nomination for themselves. [5] In the end, Rusk’s entering himself in late & the party’s complicated relationship with Sam Houston gave the Texan senator the nomination. With the national Whig party breaking into state conventions, victory seemed assured.
The race soon stiffened, though. The Democrats were found trailing Sumner even in New Hampshire. The Americans unloaded rumours about the Democratic ticket that put the loyalty of the ticket in question. Then Rusk’s wife died. Despondent, he considered withdrawing at once, but the party told him they would surely lose without him. He stayed, & sure enough the outpouring of sympathy obliterated the mudslinging Americans & the PTSD-ridden Sumner to open a blue sea from Massena to Miami.
But after taking office, his past as a fighter for the rights of the Texan state would come back to bite him. His agenda would soon be disrupted by ‘obstinate’ Northern Senators and Southerners demanding federal protection. The nation was becoming more polarized by the day, and the President was growing a tumour in his neck. Despondent & hopeless, Rusk would shoot himself before completing a year in office.
1857-61: Jacob A. Westervelt (Democratic)
“No matter how many laws I sign, I will always regret not acting more in office... So act I shall.”
When choosing a running-mate, it is seen as wise to find a good foil. If you’re nominating, say, a Southwestern frontiersy Senator, it would be best to find a Northeastern urbanite with executive experience. However, if your nominee is an outsider, make sure that your running mate be an outsider as well. This was the logic behind choosing the reformist New York Mayor & acclaimed shipbuilder Jacob Aaron Westervelt.
Before his ascension, Westervelt had given little to the ticket other than some Know-Nothing opposition & some foreign policy advice. Upon his swearing-in, though, he made big plans that most would find not befitting an unelected President. He made a noble stab at reforming the Civil Service. He loosened trade, opened immigration and even tried to purchase Alaska. But, as with most Presidents in this era, he is most remembered for his slavery policy.
According to sources close to him, Westervelt spent months crafting a policy to diffuse the debates around the nature of slavery. It would act as a series of legislative guard rails, to stave off the extremes of either side. The most compelling evidence is in two simple congressional resolutions: The North or South was not going to secede. Slavery was not going to be nationally allowed or abolished. Many believe there were more to come: measures outlining the Fugitive Slave Act, the Slave Trade, even the nature of slavery in the territories.
Whether Westervelt’s plan to “constrict the fire of the slavery question” would have worked we will never know, because his careful machinations were disrupted by a slave revolt. Slaves from the Mississippi river killed their masters, stole a boat & gathered momentum while steaming towards New Orleans. Their plan was simple: the core of the slaver’s economy, turned into an exporter for slave rebellion. The battle in New Orleans was ferocious, with the port being briefly captured by rebels before the front widened to the entire city.
The revolt was suppressed, but would last in an insurrection in Florida that would last a decade. Westervelt took the opportunity to secure slaves with federal troops, while acting as a watch against Southern peppiness. In the end, the situation was worse for everyone: the slave economy was in shambles, the price of slaves was shot, & many slaveowners took out their anger on them. To many, their slaves had become more trouble than they were worth, while others had only grown more furious. Westervelt would not seek a term of his own, instead returning to his work as a shipbuilder.
1861-65: John W. Geary/Nathaniel P. Banks (Republican)
def.
Joseph Lane/Robert M. T. Hunter (‘National’ Democratic) [6], Sam Houston/
Andrew Johnson (American/
‘Western’ Democratic) [7],
Edward Bates/William G. Crosby (Whig) [8]
"I desire to know no party, no section, no North, no South, no East, no West; nothing but my country."
John Geary was the man who brought peace to Kansas, & the first former Democrat to be nominated by th newly-renamed Republican Party. His nomination was seen as the Party finally outgrowing the Whigs, & with the opposition breaking in two, it seemed that Geary was destined to change American history.
Yet Geary saw his role was to make certain that he
didn’t change history, to bring his party kicking & screaming into the mainstream. The only thing stopping half the country from rebelling was the federal troops stopping their slaves from rebelling. Instead, in exchange for the presidency, the South prepared to extract every concession every slaver ever dreamed up.
The first major bill placed into consideration was one formally paying for any slave to “move” out of America. The bill included a remarkably cheeky provision in suggesting that the slaves be deported to “territories of future interest to the United States, such as Cuba.” The idea of the prospective crown jewel of the Golden Circle becoming a haven for freemen was enough to reduce every Southern aristocrat into a seething rage. Yet some wheeling-dealing with the western Democrats & a Herculean effort from the Vice-President led to the Compromise of 1862: the slave bill plus a Homestead act that Geary was going to work on anyways. After this, the slavery debate was again declared ‘solved’.
The rest of Geary’s term would be marked by a shared outpouring of national pride as the future of the Union was restored. Not much in the way of national initiatives came from the Oval Office, or anywhere else, as the Republicans wished to see the issues of the past melt away into a second Era of Good Feelings. Yet this best-laid plan went the way of all best-laid plans- scuppered by Ben Butler.
1865-7: Nathaniel P. Banks/Cassius M. Clay(Republican)
def.
Benjamin Butler/Robert C. Wickliffe (Democratic)
“…and as our forefathers reached the shores of America, their solace was in the fact that they had found free soil.”
Nathaniel Banks was just where he wanted to be: by the side of a popular president who only planned to serve one term. His nomination for President was a given, & his election was certain. There was no way for the Democratic Party to stop him.
Or so he thought. Ben Butler, a northerner & supporter of Jefferson Davis, earned his party’s nomination by appealing to the only base left- slavers. But when Banks unveiled his platform of ‘National Unity,’ Butler scrapped his own party’s plans & tapped into popular resentment. He decried ‘boss politics,’ ‘crony economics,’ & ‘The endless stream of half-measures that serve to halve the nation’s potential’. Though he only won eight states, he is credited with saving the party from oblivion.
Undeterred by one man’s quixotic scramble for the Presidency, Banks set to work restoring national prestige. His first major act was to announce his formal support of a National Railroad, “in whatever form it may take.” He continued the Westervelt-era plan to purchase Alaska, bought off the Danish West Indies, & quietly ignored the French intervention in Mexico after they threatened to create an immigration package no Southerner could pass up. Nonetheless, the Banks administration showed real promise, & it seemed as though they could never live up to it.
Unfortunately for Banks, he wouldn’t have to. During his second State of the Union address, after a line appealing to the Republicans’ anti-slavery roots, a man named Benjamin Flanders stood up. He had been a Unionist before the slave revolt, where he led a crowd of civilians in a charge against the upstart Negroes. After the experience, he left the Union Party & was reëlected as an independent promising to ‘champion the cause of the South!’ And so, he stood up & became the first person to kill the President.
[1] This is the PoD, of course. Webster wins the nomination, & dies on schedule. In hindsight, Pierce was likely to win anyways, but TTL doesn’t know that.
[2] On the upside, the fateful train accident that killed Bennie Pierce never happens. At least this President gets a happy ending.
[3] The North’s newest hero was widely known for his fiery anti-slavery campaigns before he was nominated by the Northern Whigs. Yet when the race came down to the wire, the Senator underperformed, suffering from splitting headaches & often having to leave mid-speech. He resigned from the Senate upon losing and briefly retired, beginning what wits called the ‘Year Without a Sumner’.
[4] The former President, though denied renomination by the Whigs just four years ago, suddenly became a source of nostalgia for many Americans. He was chosen near-unanimously, but was slammed for his vicious tactics. The image of an embittered Fillmore retreating from public life is a mostly accurate one.
[5] Yeah, King survived too.
[6] There was a long line of Democratic candidates for President in 1860. The least objectionable, Joseph Lane of Oregon, would end up taking the torch. Garnering at least tacit support from all factions & allowing only minor defections, Lane’s main weakness was a party and a base that was just too tired to go on.
[7] All parties tried to take advantage of the realignment to create bipartisan tickets. While the Democrats nominated a converted Whig, the rump Americans (mostly just Sam Houston at this point) nominated a Democratic contender. It wouldn’t do them much good in the Electoral College, though.
[8] Whigs, Unionists & wishy-washers of all stripes were ecstatic to learn that the Whigs would hold a National Convention for the first time in almost a decade. In honor of Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise, which was forty years old that year, the Convention would nominate one candidate from Missouri & one from Maine. Then Bates had an eleventh-hour change of heart & endorsed Geary. Crosby shrugged & withdrew, while the Whigs descended into infighting. Bates still received a few thousand votes, all from Kentucky.