Possible Fremont victory in Election of 1856?

Had incumbent President Franklin Pierce secured the Democratic nomination for the presidency, could Fremont have possibly won the election against this unpopular incumbent president? If not, what do you think Pierce would have done differently than Buchanan with a second term? Thanks.
 
Pierce and Buchanan were pretty similar in terms of policy. Pierce did probably have more appeal in New England, but mostly in his home state of New Hampshire. He was rather unpopular because of the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, both of which he supported... but Buchanan also supported those. It also depends on whether Fillmore would have run in this case. If he hadn't, Maryland would have certainly voted for Pierce over Fremont.

Honestly, I think Pierce would have a significant advantage whether or not Fillmore had ran.
 
Pierce and Buchanan were pretty similar in terms of policy. Pierce did probably have more appeal in New England, but mostly in his home state of New Hampshire. He was rather unpopular because of the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, both of which he supported... but Buchanan also supported those. It also depends on whether Fillmore would have run in this case. If he hadn't, Maryland would have certainly voted for Pierce over Fremont.

Honestly, I think Pierce would have a significant advantage whether or not Fillmore had ran.
So you think Pierce would've won a second term and had a similar second term to Buchanan's term?
 
The nomination of Buchanan was definitely a blow to Fremont's chances. Buchanan's reputation was that of a seasoned statesman, less impulsive than Pierce or Douglas; moreover he had the good fortune to have been out of the United States when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was being debated. For this reason he was acceptable to a good many northern moderate voters (whether their background was Democratic or Whig) who might have had problems with the more controversial Pierce or Douglas.

Even against Buchanan, it is not inconceivable that Fremont would have won if (1) Fremont had handled the widespread rumors of his Catholicism better https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-real-reason-fremont-lost-in-1856.444186/ and (2) a "fusion" agreement reached in Pennsylvania had been carried out. https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ects-for-anti-buchanan-fusion-in-1856.349796/

If the "fusionists" had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania even with Buchanan leading the Democrats, imagine the situation if the Democrats nominated Pierce, who was not only a non-Pennsylvanian but unpopular in the state as he was in the North in general. Fremont would also probably have defeated Pierce in Illinois; Pierce had neither Buchanan's reassuring conservative reputation (reassuring especially to Old Line Whigs but also to some Democrats who had their doubts about the Kansas-Nebraska Act but were reluctant to vote for a "sectional" candidate like Fremont) nor Douglas' home state advantage.

So I think it very doubtful that Pierce could win--but for this very reason I doubt he could be renominated. After the violence in Kansas, he had little support outside the South; and with the two-thirds rule, it was very hard to get the Democratic presidential nomination unless you had support in both the North and South.

(We are so used to seeing Buchanan as a failure as president that we tend to forget that in 1856 he was probably the Democrats' strongest possible candidate--indeed maybe even the only one who could win.)
 
Last edited:
The POD probably needs to be Buchanan dying or declining the nomination. Without the uncontrovesial choice for nominee, there's Pierce, Douglas, and Cass. Pierce is unpopular in the North, Douglas is unpopular in the South, and Cass has the stigma of the 1848 election. I think the two sections would probably agree to Cass before either of the two. If the Know Nothings drop abolitionism, they could probably do better in the South (especially if Douglas gets the nomination).
 
The 21st ballot of 1852 might be even better - Buchanan finally started to rise, but while he got another delegate or two the next ballot, Douglas started to get a lot, too. If he doesn't, Buchanan might keep rising, and get the nomination.

Which might just mean he's running for a 2nd term in 1856 with a similar history to OTL. Pierce might never be considered.

Well, except maybe he'd be a lot healthier with his son having lived (no need for that train trip that turned into a crash) he could be a better candidate than Johnson for LIncoln's VP in 1864.
 
So you think Pierce would've won a second term and had a similar second term to Buchanan's term?
Yes, although I'm not sure what would happen after the election of 1860. I see little reason why Lincoln wouldn't still run for President, as long as there weren't any huge divergences in Pierce's 2nd term. Actually, I wonder whether Pierce would run for a 3rd term in an effort to "save the Union". I sincerely doubt it, but it's possible. The interesting thing, though, is that Pierce would likely be agreeable to the Southerners, so if he somehow won the nomination... it would probably be of a united party.
 
How about a dark horse candidate? For example, I was looking at the 34th Congress, and found a couple interesting choices:

Senator Richard H. Brodhead of Pennsylvania - While a northerner, his wife was one of Jefferson Davis' nieces (he even named one of his sons Jefferson Davis Brodhead). Like Franklin Pierce, it seems he would a northerner with a soft spot for Southern interests.

Senator Isaac Toucey of Connecticut - this one's a pretty obvious choice considering OTL, he was a governor of Connecticut, Attorney General, and a senator. He was a member of Pierce's faction, and a New Englander. Buchanan appointed him because of their history in Polk's cabinet, and to appease the said factions.
 
Top