Plausibilty Check: Can Seward win in 1860 if he gets the Republican Nomination?

What is your opinion?


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
I've been reading Seward: Lincoln's Indispensable Man by Walter Stahr, I'm as of now more than 200 pages in, and in one part of the chapter "Lincoln nominated Third Ballot" (page 192) It talks of why Seward couldn't have won for many reasons, those including his anti-slavery record, his pro immigrant record, and that he would unite the Democratic Party against him.

What I'm asking is, can Seward win the 1860 election even with all these chains on him?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Seward had more enemies than Lincoln (which is why Lincoln got the nomination), but I still think the Democrats would have split and that a Seward ticket would have prevailed.

When you crunch the 1860 numbers, you find that even if all the Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell votes had been for a single candidate, the Republican ticket still would have won.

How is the book, by the way? I've been meaning to pick it up.
 
Seward had more enemies than Lincoln (which is why Lincoln got the nomination), but I still think the Democrats would have split and that a Seward ticket would have prevailed.

When you crunch the 1860 numbers, you find that even if all the Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell votes had been for a single candidate, the Republican ticket still would have won.

How is the book, by the way? I've been meaning to pick it up.

As far as I'm in (pg. 233) it's great. I never knew about a lot of things regarding Seward. I knew he was Governor/Senator/SecOfState, but I never knew the nitty-gritty. His relationship with his wife, the man who spend years trying to get Seward the Presidency: Thurlow Reed, and ridiculously awesome names and nicknames (Wide Awakes and Loco Frocos I believe it was?). On that alone I say get it. I got mine on Amazon (Took forever to get here though...) for 19 bucks.

A good informative look on the man who directed America onto the path of power, during its most rocky years.
 
As far as I'm in (pg. 233) it's great. I never knew about a lot of things regarding Seward. I knew he was Governor/Senator/SecOfState, but I never knew the nitty-gritty. His relationship with his wife, the man who spend years trying to get Seward the Presidency: Thurlow Reed,
Thurlow Weed.
and ridiculously awesome names and nicknames (Wide Awakes and Loco Frocos I believe it was?).

Loco Focos
 
Seward had more enemies than Lincoln (which is why Lincoln got the nomination), but I still think the Democrats would have split and that a Seward ticket would have prevailed.

Cincinnati editor Murat Halstead was at the Charleston convention. After the Deep South bolted, he heard lots of "rampant Democrats" and Southerners speaking of Seward's election as a certainty. Many even said they thought Seward would be a good President - though with (IMHO) the tacit assumption that the South would secede if Seward was elected.

When you crunch the 1860 numbers, you find that even if all the Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell votes had been for a single candidate, the Republican ticket still would have won.

Well, yeah, obviously, but no one has ever suggested that if Seward was nominated there would be a single opposing candidate. The ex-Whigs would still nominate John Bell in hopes of avoiding secession, the regular Democrats would still nominate Douglas, the southern Democrats would still nominate Breckinridge.

The question is whether Seward would get all the votes Lincoln got; and if not, what states he might lose and to whom. Many Republican leaders thought Seward could not win Indiana or Pennsylvania, and Illinois was doubtful too. (Lincoln won there fairly narrowly, even though he neutralized Douglas' native-son appeal.)

Oregon and California were really split; the fear among Republicans is that Seward's radicalism would shift many ex-Whig votes to Bell. That could easily throw California to Douglas and Oregon to Breckinridge.

All these changes could drop the Republican electoral vote count by 60 or more, to far less than a majority. However, it would still be unlikely that anyone else could get a majority, throwing the election into the House with all sorts of bizarreness.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
I've been reading Seward: Lincoln's Indispensable Man by Walter Stahr, I'm as of now more than 200 pages in, and in one part of the chapter "Lincoln nominated Third Ballot" (page 192) It talks of why Seward couldn't have won for many reasons, those including his anti-slavery record, his pro immigrant record, and that he would unite the Democratic Party against him.

What I'm asking is, can Seward win the 1860 election even with all these chains on him?

Lincoln did just that, and won quite handily. It's gonna be a bit more challenging for Seward, without Lincoln's charisma, but I'm fairly certain he'll defeat Breckinridge.
 

Japhy

Banned
The short of it is, that the three most prominent Republicans in 1860 (Seward, Lincoln and Chase) all have the ability to win the election, the cocktail is there. The Democrats are already split by the convention, so they're in a four way race and there is next to no ground to promote any sort of National fusion ticket between the three Anti-Republican parties.

That said, Seward and Chase are more nationally known, they do have longer records then Lincoln. Seward has his record of ties with the radicals and his break with them, which does put him in the worst of both worlds support wise on that, still he's no John C. Fremont and the GOP wont get tarred as another Free Soiler radical body. He can lose states in the north to Douglas and THAT can throw things to Congress, or make it possible for the Democrats to compromise before the Electoral College votes just to put a stop to it. Odds are against them doing that though. Sew

So because of that I'd say Seward is a probable victor in the election, he has a better chance then Chase or any B-list Republican did but he's not going to do as well as Lincoln did and he can blow it based on his past.
 
So the consensus is Seward would take the Presidency by a smaller margin, and the Democrats would still be split. The only issue right now is could the 4 way split take it to the House for election: would the House vote in Seward?
 
So the consensus is Seward would take the Presidency by a smaller margin, and the Democrats would still be split. The only issue right now is could the 4 way split take it to the House for election: would the House vote in Seward?

The House seems to have had a Republican pluralty/majority at the time, so I'd say he'd most likely get the office. However, the circumstances could lead to earlier secessions for Virginia and the like, and may cause some of the border states to seccede.
 
The House seems to have had a Republican pluralty/majority at the time, so I'd say he'd most likely get the office. However, the circumstances could lead to earlier secessions for Virginia and the like, and may cause some of the border states to seccede.

If there was no majority, it would go to the House; but the House votes by Congressional delegation (1 vote each), not by who has the majority. And since this is before the 20th Amendment, it is the outgoing House who decides, not the incoming House. At this time there were 33 states; of the state delegations, the Republicans controlled only 16; the remaining 17 were held by Democrats or non-Democrat Southerners (Know-Nothings or otherwise former Whigs).
 
Last edited:
I never could quite memorize how the House choses Presidents, thanks for pointing that out.

If Seward isn't appointed, I could see it becoming a shitstorm in the north. Depending on how the Democrats handle the situation, could we see a Northern secession, and if so, which states would participate?
 
If there was no majority, it would go to the House; but the House votes by Congressional delegation (1 vote each), not by who has the majority. And since this is before the 20th Amendment, it is the outgoing House who decides, not the incoming House. At this time there were 33 states; of the state delegations, the Republicans controlled only 16;

Republicans controlled 15 delegations: ME, MH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, IN. IL, WI, IA, MN.

IL was controlled by Douglas Democrats.

CA and OR were controlled by Breckinridge Democrats.

All 15 slave states were controlled by Breckinridge Democrats and former Whigs.
 

Hnau

Banned
I don't think enough time has passed for this reply to be considered a necro, do any of you?

Rich Rostrom said:
The question is whether Seward would get all the votes Lincoln got; and if not, what states he might lose and to whom. Many Republican leaders thought Seward could not win Indiana or Pennsylvania, and Illinois was doubtful too. (Lincoln won there fairly narrowly, even though he neutralized Douglas' native-son appeal.)

Oregon and California were really split; the fear among Republicans is that Seward's radicalism would shift many ex-Whig votes to Bell. That could easily throw California to Douglas and Oregon to Breckinridge.

All these changes could drop the Republican electoral vote count by 60 or more, to far less than a majority. However, it would still be unlikely that anyone else could get a majority, throwing the election into the House with all sorts of bizarreness.

Lincoln had a 9-point lead in Indiana over Douglas, the other two didn't come close there. In Pennsylvania Lincoln had a 19-point lead over the Democrat's fusion ticket that I still don't understand perfectly, but I doubt that Seward would have been so unpopular compared to Lincoln as to lose these Republican leads in these states.

In Illinois Lincoln only had a 3-point lead over Douglas... here the state could have definitely been lost if people reacted less positively to Seward. In California Lincoln had less than a 1-point lead over Douglas (with Breckinridge coming in for a close third) and in Oregon Lincoln had less than a 2-point lead over Breckinridge (with Douglas coming in for a close third). Looking at these numbers, Seward would have most likely lost California and Illinois to Douglas and Oregon to Breckinridge (strangely enough), but would have still received 162 electoral college votes, enough of a majority that he would have still become President without forcing the election into the House. Still, winning with even less of the electoral college vote and popular vote will no doubt enrage southerners even more as has been mentioned and may encourage the development of secession at a faster pace.
 
I have the book but haven't started it yet. I'm working on We Have the War Upon Us by William j. Cooper and might switch to The Confederate Approach on Harrisburg by Cooper h. Wingert.

I have read a lot about this era and believe strongly that Seward would certainly have won. There is almost no way Seward would have failed to win any of the states taken by Fremont in 1856 (Fremont was a anti-slavery as Seward). Plus, Seward would have taken Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Indiana as well as possibly splitting NJ. Even without the 18 electoral votes from CA, OR and IL Seward still wins.

As for the "chains" prevent his win; they are illusionary.

Regarding immigration...They American Party in the North was successfully undercut by the Republicans because most voters cared far more about the spread of slavery and economic policy than they did about keeping out immigrants. In fact Seward's friendliness towards immigrants would have helped him NY, PA and maybe even Chicago.

Regarding slavery...Seward supported the Republican party platform, as did Lincoln, and did not want to eliminate slavery where it already existed. It would not have mattered to Republican voters, just as Lincoln's moderate views didn't matter to Southerners when he was elected.

Regarding the Democrats...The Democrats had already lost in the North. Just look at their showing in 1856. Seward would have done nothing to save them. In fact by bringing slavery even more to the political forefront it may have caused even further fractions as those Democrats who had opposed popular sovereignty realized that long term placating of the slave power was impossible.

Just some thoughts,
Benjamin
 
Top