No James Buchanan

So an earlier Civil War then?

No, because I don't think Fremont will win in any event--at least not unless his supporters work out a fusion agreement in key northern states with Fillmore's (the problem being that Fillmore was opposed to such agreements because he feared they would cost him support in the South). But I could see the race going into the House--which in case of a deadlock could lead to whoever the Democrats nominated for vice president being elected by the (heavily Democratic) Senate and becoming acting president.

How close did the race come to going into the House in OTL? Just change a few votes in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1856.txt
 
No, because I don't think Fremont will win in any event--at least not unless his supporters work out a fusion agreement in key northern states with Fillmore's (the problem being that Fillmore was opposed to such agreements because he feared they would cost him support in the South).


Mightn't it also cost him support in the North?

OTL the combined Fremont/Fillmore vote in PA was almost equal to Buchanan's, but if they fuse, won't that frighten off Fillmore's more conservative supporters into the Buchanan camp, so that he still carries the state comfortably?
 
Mightn't it also cost him support in the North?

OTL the combined Fremont/Fillmore vote in PA was almost equal to Buchanan's, but if they fuse, won't that frighten off Fillmore's more conservative supporters into the Buchanan camp, so that he still carries the state comfortably?

Interestingly, the Pennsylvania Republicans, Americans, and Whigs *did* manage to agree to a fusion ticket ("Union Party") for *state* offices in the October election. It very narrowly lost, but each of its candidates, regardless of his party , did about equally well--and each did about as well as Fremont and Fillmore combined were to do in November. (The Republican lost a *little* bit worse than the Whig and the American, but not very much.)

From Alexander K. McClure's *Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania*:

***
The following is the official vote of the State:
Canal Commissioner.​
Scott, Democrat 212,886
Cochran, Whig 210,111
Scott's majority 2,775
Auditor General.​
Pry, Democrat 212,468
Phelps, Know Nothing 209,261
Fry's majority 3.307
Surveyor General.​
Rowe, Democrat 212,623
LaPorte, Republican 208,888
Rowe's majority 3.735


https://books.google.com/books?id=dqtlavUQNcsC&pg=PA252

***

There was actually an agreement made for a similar fusion on the presidential level--but the American state chairman, John P. Sanderson, repudiated it. There ishttps://books.google.com/books?id=dqtlavUQNcsC&pg=PA252for a good discussion of this by Tyler Anbinder in *Nativism and Slavery.*
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, the Pennsylvania Republicans, Americans, and Whigs *did* manage to agree to a fusion ticket ("Union Party") for *state* offices in the October election. It very narrowly lost, but each of its candidates, regardless of his party , did about equally well--and each did about as well as Fremont and Fillmore combined were to do in November. (The Republican lost a *little* bit worse than the Whig and the American, but not very much.)

Interesting.

Supposing they had reached a deal, do we know how it would have worked? Would the electors vote for whichever of Fremont or Fillmore got the larger popular vote, or would the slate be divided, say 17 Fremont electors and 10 Fillmore ones. I wonder, because while I can see the Fillmore men's interest in sending the election to the HoR - Fillmore's only hope, if a remote one - I can't see what they'd get from any arrangement likely to actually elect Fremont. I'd have thought a Fremont win would scupper their party even more thoroughly than a Buchanan one.
 
Interesting.

Supposing they had reached a deal, do we know how it would have worked? Would the electors vote for whichever of Fremont or Fillmore got the larger popular vote, or would the slate be divided, say 17 Fremont electors and 10 Fillmore ones. I wonder, because while I can see the Fillmore men's interest in sending the election to the HoR - Fillmore's only hope, if a remote one - I can't see what they'd get from any arrangement likely to actually elect Fremont. I'd have thought a Fremont win would scupper their party even more thoroughly than a Buchanan one.

The arrangement was as follows: There would be separate Fillmore and Fremont slates--but for 26 of the state's 27 electors the candidates for elector would be the same. The 27th elector would be either Fillmore or Fremont!--in other words, the 27th electoral vote was to be thrown away--it was just a test of who was more popular in PA. If the remaining 26 electoral votes would be sufficient to elect Fremont (or, less likely, Fillmore), then the 26 electors were to vote en masse for Fremont (or, less likely, Fillmore). If not, the electors were to divide their votes in proportion to the relative popularity in PA of Fremont and Filmore, as indicated by the vote for the 27th elector.

McClure says that if the Union ticket had been triumphant in Pennsylvania in October, the Americans would not have reneged on the agreement. He thinks it could have led to a Fremont victory nationwide, because the news that the fusion ticket had won in PA in October (1) could encourage a similar move for a fusion ticket in other doubtful northern states, and (2) might be enough to enable Fremont to carry Illinois even if there was no fusion there! This last seems a bit far-fetched to me--Fremont lost Illinois by almost four points. Still, a successful fusion ticket in Pennsylvania in November would at least send the race into the House.

Another October election was that for governor of Indiana. Ashbel P. Willard, the Democrat, won with 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent for Oliver Morton of the fusion "People's party." Note that Morton's vote was only slightly less than the combined 49.6 percent for Fremont and Fillmore in November--even though Morton had attended the Republican national convention in Pittsburgh and was by now clearly a Republican.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1856.txt

You can imagine the sighs of relief from Buchanan supporters when the October results from Pennsylvania and Indiana became known. The Union was saved--for now! My own guess is that even fusion on the presidential level could not *quite* keep Buchanan from carrying Pennsylvania. It was one thing for a Fillmore supporter to back a Republican for Surveyor General of Pennsylvania or even Governor of Indiana. (Or for that matter Governor of Illinois, where Republican William Bissell won the governorship; he did face American as well as Democratic opposition, but the Americans did significantly less well for governor than for president.) One could do that without any risk to the Union. But at least a few of the Fillmore supporters who voted for Republicans for such state offices might have balked at a vote that potentially might help Fremont to win the presidency. (In part of course this was due to fear for the Union, but also in part to the rumors that Fremont was a Catholic. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/uPBeyf8ypOo/AbhEy6-T7s0J)

Now if the Democrats had nominated someone other than Buchanan and the Republicans had nominated Justice McLean rather than Fremont, the chance of a successful anti-Democratic fusion in Pennsylvania would be higher. It's no wonder that as radical a Pennsylvania Republican as Thaddeus Stevens backed McLean at the Pittsburgh convention...
 
Last edited:
Top