Plausability and consequences Bell 1860

For Bell to get a clean EC majority would be extremely difficult, since the Constitutional Union party is effectively picking up the scraps of the Whig coalition that haven't been absorbed into the Republican party. He can (and did) give Breckenridge a good fight for the South (where Lincoln had little or no appeal, and often wasn't even on the ballot), but in the North, most of the former Whig organization was solidly behind Lincoln.

Some possible scenarios to improve Bell's showing:

  • Douglas dies before the election, and most of his supporter in the North picks Bell as the next-best choice. This would improve Bell's dismal standing in the popular vote, but probably wouldn't swing any states his way (I think Missouri and Louisiana are the only states not won by Bell IOTL where Bell+Douglas > OTL winner)
  • Douglas runs a stronger campaign in the South, splitting the Democratic vote more. Bell could conceivably pick up Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, and North Carolina (43, plus his OTL total of 39)
  • Republicans nominate a Radical candidate rather than Lincoln, alienating their moderate supporters who might instead vote for Bell or Douglas. Hard to estimate how much support Bell would pick up in this scenario, but it probably wouldn't be enough.
Maybe combining the third scenario with one of the other two could get the job done, but it'd be a long shot.


Splitting the electoral vote is easier, but it'd nigh-on-impossible for Bell to win a contingent election in Congress. At the time, contingent elections were held by the lame-duck Congress, not the newly-elected Congress. The House elects the President among the top 3 candidates on a one-state/one-vote basis, and the Senate elects the VP among the top 2 candidates. Republicans controlled just short of a majority of state delegations, and anti-slavery Northern Democrats held the balance in enough states to break the deadlock and elect Lincoln. If Breckenridge (as per OTL) were the runner-up in the electoral college vote, his running mate (Joseph Lane) would almost certainly win the contingent election in the Senate, as Southern Democrats and pro-slavery Democrats in California and Oregon (including Lane himself, an Oregon Senator) held an absolute majority in the Senate.

The long-shot scenario to get a Constitutional Union President elected would be to get Bell the #2 electoral vote position, have his running mate (Edward Everett) win the contingent election in the Senate, and have the House deadlock indefinitely, leading to Everett getting sworn in as Acting President in March.
 

Japhy

Banned
Could the Constitutional Union candidate have got elected without asbs?

Not without drastic changes no. A big enough CU result can though, provide a major boost to Unionism in the South.

CU won of course Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. They can also plausibly win Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Georgia and North Carolina with only a few thousand votes changed. In that kind of situation first there is no "Solid South" on the electoral map which played a major psychological impact on the crisis that followed, but can translate into more rejections at conventions and in state ballots on quitting the Union. Even taking into account only the First Round of Secession, this drastically transforms the situation and can under the right circumstances, wreck the movement at the start.

If that leads to long term change, not likely though. Lincoln would compromise to prevent war, and the situation on the conditions that led to the 1860-61 crisis arn't gone.
 
Could the Constitutional Union candidate have got elected without asbs?

Yes. If Seward was the Republican nominee, a lot of Republican votes could switch to Bell. This won't win Bell any northern states, but it will give him Maryland (8 EV).

Bell splitting votes from Seward could give Douglas several northern states.

Also (this is wild speculation by me) if Douglas looks like he might win in the North, he will run stronger in the South - his potential supporters would have greater expectation of patronage rewards, for instance. This could split votes from Breckinridge and allow Bell to carry several more Southern states.

It is thus possible that Bell could finish second in EV with Douglas third and Breckinridge fourth and excluded. In such a case, Southerners would rally behind the only eligible slave-state man; California and Oregon would follow the South (their Representatives were all pro-Southern).

That elects Bell. The Senate has the choice of Everett or the Republican for VP. Southerners pick Everett as the lesser evil.

How long does this posptpone the ACW
At least four years. Secession is not justifiable when a slave-holding Southerner is President.
 
Splitting the electoral vote is easier, but it'd nigh-on-impossible for Bell to win a contingent election in Congress. Republicans controlled just short of a majority of state delegations, and anti-slavery Northern Democrats held the balance in enough states to break the deadlock and elect Lincoln.

Seriously wrong.

Republicans controlled, absolutely, 15 free states in the North:
ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, MI, WI, IA, MN.

IL was controlled by Douglas Democrats, who held 5 of the 9 seats.

The only other free states were CA and OR. All three of the Representatives from CA and OR were pro-Southern Democrats.

The remaining 15 states were all slave states.

If the election goes into the House, there are a number of ways a majority could be formed. 17 states are needed out of 33.

1) All 15 of the slave state delegations, including those controlled or split by ex-Whigs, plus CA and OR, vote for Breckinridge.

2) All 15 of the Republican controlled states, plus ex-Whig controlled TN, plus IL, vote for Bell. Difficult, because many Republicans would balk at supporting a slaveowner, even an ex-Whig; and because Bell and his ex-Whig followers were afraid of being seen dealing with the Black Republicans. (This requires one of the Douglas men in IL to vote for Bell - not impossible if Douglas is fourth in EV and excluded. One of the Douglas men could easily choose Bell over Breckinridge - especially Breckinridge.)

3) All 15 of the slave state delegations, including those controlled or split by ex-Whigs, plus CA and OR, vote for Bell, because Breckinridge finishes fourth in EV.

4) All 15 of the Republican controlled states, plus IL and either DE or OR vote for the Republican. (This requires Republicans to get one of the Douglas men in IL to flip - again, not impossible if Douglas is fourth in EV and excluded. It also requires Republicans to get one of the sole Representatives from OR or DE to flip, probably by some insanely lavish patronage offer. For the right price - and it's the Presidency, the price could be huge - could one of them be bought? Quite possibly.)

Note that two of these four scenarios elect Bell. Bell is after all the compromise candidate, and election by the House suggests compromise.
 
Seriously wrong.

Republicans controlled, absolutely, 15 free states in the North:
ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, MI, WI, IA, MN.

IL was controlled by Douglas Democrats, who held 5 of the 9 seats.

The only other free states were CA and OR. All three of the Representatives from CA and OR were pro-Southern Democrats.

A majority is 17 states. As you say, Republicans had an absolute majority in 15, which is what I meant by "just short of a majority".

Republicans had 4 seats in Illinois and Democrats have 5, and of the Democrats, two IOTL (Logan and McClernand) left politics during the Civil War to serve in the Union Army, and Logan re-entered politics as a Republican after the Civil War. I don't know much about the other three Democrats, but even just Logan defecting would give Illinois to the Republicans. If Douglas doesn't qualify for the contingent election, I expect at least one Illinois Dem to defect and throw the state to Lincoln rather than supporting Bell or Breckenridge. That's 16.

Oregon's sole representative was Lansing Stout, a Democrat who had been refused renomination for his seat due to a rivalry with Oregon's pro-slavery Democratic Senator Joseph Lane (Breckenridge's running mate). IOTL, Stout was elected to Oregon's state senate as a Republican. I don't have any direct information on Stout's views on slavery, but I assume 1) his switch to the Republican party indicates that he was probably not particularly pro-slavery and was likely sympathetic to Republican positions on other issues, and 2) If Breckenridge came in second in the electoral collage, Stout's rivalry with Lane would incline him to cast the deciding vote for Lincoln or Seward rather than sustain a deadlock that would lead to Lane being sworn in as Acting President. That's 17.
 
So we could end up with Lincoln as President and Lane as Vice-President. Could be interesting to put it mildly. Or would Lane refuse to serve, or if he did take office, would his pro-Confederate views lead to his impeachment?

Incidentally, all this brings significant butterflies for the early stages of the war. Presumably SC doesn't secede until Lincoln is definitely elected, so that when secession begins, Buchanan's term has only days to run. So Lincoln takes charge at a point when only one, or at most a couple of states will have seceded. Could he prod the South Carolinians into attacking Ft Sumter at a time when the Confederacy is not yet organised - and with what results? Could get interesting.
 
Last edited:
I assume this scenario requires Douglas to come 4th. Bell being more tolerable to Southerners than Lincoln or more acceptable to Republcians than Breckinridge.

As I understand it the House had to choose between the top 3.

If Douglas is not on the ballor I am guessing his people vote Bell?
 
So we could end up with Lincoln as President and Lane as Vice-President. Could be interesting to put it mildly. Or would Lane refuse to serve, or if he did take office, would his pro-Confederate views lead to his impeachment?

Incidentally, all this brings significant butterflies for the early stages of the war. Presumably SC doesn't secede until Lincoln is definitely elected, so that when secession begins, Buchanan's term has only days to run. So Lincoln takes charge at a point when only one, or at most a couple of states will have seceded. Could he prod the South Carolinians into attacking Ft Sumter at a time when the Confederacy is not yet organised - and with what results? Could get interesting.


I think you're more likely to see Seward-Lane than Lincoln-Lane. As even if the other candidates opposed to the Republicans joined behind one candidate, Lincoln still wins a majority in the electoral college, with just shy of 40% of the vote. You would need someone more radical to cause the split, which leads to Seward being the nominee. Seward and Bell work out some sort of deal to avoid Acting President Lane, like making Bell Secretary of State, and resolve the dispute in the House.

Or we have a Fear, Loathing and Gumbo scenario just before a Civil War.
 
Fear, Loathing and Gumbo scenario just before a Civil War.

fry-take-my-money.jpg
 
Oregon's sole representative was Lansing Stout, a Democrat who had been refused renomination for his seat due to a rivalry with Oregon's pro-slavery Democratic Senator Joseph Lane (Breckenridge's running mate).
In spite of which, he remained a Lane ally.
IOTL, Stout was elected to Oregon's state senate as a Republican.
After the war, in 1868. Political alignments shifted drastically in this period. Benjamin Butler was a "Breckinridge Democrat", and tried to get the 1860 Democrat nomination for Jefferson Davis. During the war he became a Radical Republican.

Frank Blair was a vehement Republican in 1860. In 1868, he was the Democrat nominee for Vice President.

...if Breckenridge came in second in the electoral collage, Stout's rivalry with Lane would incline him to cast the deciding vote for Lincoln or Seward rather than sustain a deadlock that would lead to Lane being sworn in as Acting President. That's 17.
But in 1860, Republicans were pretty certain that wouldn't happen - they often asserted that if Lincoln did not win, the House would deadlock, and Lane would become President. According to John T. Elliff in the Lincoln Forum Bulletin, "Some campaign banners read 'Lincoln or Lane.' ". The Madison (Wisconsin) State Journal had 'Lincoln or Lane' as its editorial for Election Day.
 
Could you point me at your sources? It sounds like you've seen more detailed information than I have, and I'd be interested in learning more.
 
Could you point me at your sources? It sounds like you've seen more detailed information than I have, and I'd be interested in learning more.

Just Google on [ "Lincoln or Lane" 1860 ]

I first heard of this issue not that long ago via David Tenner, who still enlightens soc.history.what-if with his amazing erudition.
 
After doing a bit of poking around, I turned up a political science journal article analyzing the 1860 election in terms of how winnable it was for each of the candidates (emphasis on Breckenridge, but they cover all four candidates). I'm still reading it, but so far I've found two major takeaways relevant to the original question on this thread:

  • Based on using the W-NOMINATE method to assess the political preferences of members of Congress against the candidates' stated positions and track records on slavery issues, they conclude that a deadlocked electoral college with the historical candidate ordering (Lincoln, Breckenridge, and Bell as top three, with Douglas the odd man out) would have resulted in a deadlocked contingent election that would eventually resolve in favor of Bell: Lincoln would come up two states short of a majority with everyone voting their true preferences, and would pick up Illinois in subsequent ballots (4 Republicans + 1 moderate Democrat (Logan?) who would probably prefer Bell to Lincoln, but would prefer Lincoln over any of the other alternatives once Douglas was eliminated), but none of the other states (they classify Stout's preferences as Bell, Breckenridge/Lane, Lincoln; and they classify every other state not going for Lincoln as either solidly Breckenridge or deadlocked between Breckenridge and Bell) would swing Lincoln's way. Thus, Lincoln's supporters would be forced to accept Bell as a compromise candidate in order to prevent Lane from being sworn in if the deadlock continued until inauguration day.
  • In classifying Bell's positions on slavery based on his prior track record, they make him look like he's practically a free-soiler: apart from accepting the principal of popular sovereignty as part of the compromise of 1850, he appears to have taken the anti-slavery side of practically every federal controversy on slavery: he opposed the gag rule, opposed the Dred Scott decision, opposed popular sovereignty as applied in the Kansas-Nebraska act, and opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in the Bleeding Kansas controversy. If they've assessed Bell correctly, a Bell victory seems to me like it would be fairly likely to lead to a CU/Republican governing coalition (effectively a resurrection of the Whig party) with policies not much different from the platform Lincoln campaigned on.
 
Top