So, looking into the Election of 1852, it was the perfect time for somebody to come out of left field and take over from outside of the two main party nominees. I can't find any record on Vanderbilt's party affiliation, and I could see him as running as a politically Jacksonian third party candidate.
The Democratic National Convention was utter madness, with 49 rounds of ballot voting going on before they finally decided on Franklin Pierce as a compromise candidate and as a "Northern man with Southern values."
The Whig National Convention was similarly ridiculous, with 53 rounds of ballot voting before the sitting president lost to Winfield Scott, after Daniel Webster's delegates pledged to him.
The Free Soil Party, who received 10% of the vote in 1848 with former President Martin Van Buren on the ballot, but lost a lot of steam due to the Compromise of 1850 (which is what also politically screwed President Fillmore's re-nomination and, proved decisive for the DNC as well). It seemed as though what the party stood for had been accomplished and the alliance between Barnburner Democrats and Conscience Whigs returned to their respective parties. They received nearly 5% of the vote in this election.
The Union Party was another important third party and was mainly a Southern offshoot of the Whigs. They nominated Webster, who did not turn down the nomination, but did nothing to support it, and received 0.2% of the vote.
So here's where Cornelius Vanderbilt can come in. Vanderbilt was a private citizen with zero political experience outside of how it connects to his businesses. However, he was one of the richest men in the world and was a pretty well known public figure. Had he come together with Sam Houston, I could see this ticket making quite a splash.
Sam Houston was greatly opposed to the increasing sectionalism in the US, and I think he could easily be talked into a unitary third party ticket with the New Yorker, Cornelius Vanderbilt. I could see some hang ups regarding Vanderbilt's lack of political experience, but that appears to be the only obstacle.
Ok, so here we go.
To start with, let's say that Vanderbilt does not spend his time having a business dispute and takes a vocal role in the president election of this year. Both conventions were conveniently held in Baltimore, which would allow for him to show up at both.
As a Northern businessman with an outspoken bent in favor of political compromise, at the Democratic Convention, the supporters of Stephen Douglas and William Marcy are electrified by his rhetoric in favor of the Compromise of 1850, his call for the expansion of railroads, and his hopes for national unity.
Due to rhetoric seen as divisive, the Virginia delegation does not offer Franklin Pierce as a compromise and doubles down on Buchanan. Even though Douglas is still in it, it's really Buchanan vs. Cass vs. Marcy.
Cass eventually offered Buchanan support in exchange for Buchanan picking William King as his Vice President with plans to make Lewis Cass his Secretary of State.
At the Whig Convention, Vanderbilt was a staunch supporter of sitting President Fillmore, but had a sense of how the tide was shifting. He praised the Compromise of 1850 in front of a convention that was lukewarm on it at best. As he saw the convention turn against Fillmore, he became disgusted and tacitly supported a Draft Vanderbilt movement, where he received only about a dozen votes in the 23rd round of voting (first with his name on it). He drew handfuls of supporters from Fillmore and Webster, and none from Winfield Scott. Scott wins on the 33rd ballot, with Fillmore receiving 94, Webster receiving 30, and Vanderbilt receiving 9. Vanderbilt receiving any support actually drew a lot of people to Scott, fearing somebody who was "unelectable" due to no public service experience winning the party nomination.
Winfield Scott chose William Graham, a Senator from North Carolina, to try to draw Southerners, but it had little effect.
Disgusted with what he saw happen to Fillmore at the Whig Convention and what he saw as the South making a sharp turn into regionalism at the Democratic Convention, Fillmore turned to the third parties. He first visited the Free Soil Party Convention in Pittsburg. There his fiery rhetoric in support of the Compromise of 1850 and general political moderation went over fantastically. Leaders of the Free Soil Party asked Vanderbilt to support their nominee, John P. Hale, but he decided to hold off on that.
Vanderbilt then went to the Union Party Convention in Boston. The party had already decided to nominate Daniel Webster at an earlier meeting, but upon meeting with Vanderbilt, he was offered the nomination. Vanderbilt accepted the Union Party nomination, feeling that the mood was right in the United States for an alternative to regionalism and uncompromise.
Cornelius Vanderbilt knew that to get the unity he desired across the country, he would have to approach a Southern politician. He also hoped to choose somebody with considerable political experience to offset his total lack of it. Sam Houston, an avid supporter of the Compromise of 1850, as well as having been a representative and governor in Tennessee, as well as the President of Texas and a senator after it was incorporated into the United States, was the perfect choice. Houston respectfully declined at first, offering to endorse Vanderbilt's candidacy as a consultation. Vanderbilt persisted and eventually convinced him that it was for the good of the country.
Many had thought the Vanderbilt and Houston campaign to be surprising, but no sort of threat. Party leaders had not considered how alienated Whigs in the South and Democrats in the North had felt. Their campaign was notable for its on the ground support. Although his name was never spoken, Andrew Jackson loomed large over the campaign. Having once been a political mentor of Houston and a personal idol of Vanderbilt, Jacksonian politics was naturally drawn to the campaign.
Fairly early into the campaign, Vanderbilt and Houston's Union ticket gained quick momentum. To offer support, John P. Hale withdrew his candidacy and endorsed them. Between the support of the Free Soil Party, former Fillmore, Webster, Marcy, and Douglas supporters, and those who just liked Vanderbilt and Houston, the ticket was growing strong.
When the results came in, everybody was shocked.
Popular Vote:
Buchanan/King - 31% 1,026,000
Scott/Graham - 30% 1,016145
Vanderbilt/Houston - 39% 1,322,055
Total: 3,364,200 (attracted more voters than IRL 1852)
Electoral Vote:
Buchanan/King - 69
Scott/Graham - 76
Vanderbilt/Houston - 151
Total: 296
Vanderbilt and Houston successfully take the presidency in a very close race, with less than 40% of the vote. The Union Party successfully took the presidency without having a single seat in the House or Senate.
Now this is where it gets interesting. With political moderates fervently against any sort of regionalism in the White House from 1852-1856, the debate over slavery would get very interesting. Houston supported slavery and owned slaves. Vanderbilt was no abolitionist, so it was clear to everybody that they weren't going to work to end slavery.
I could see their administration doing a lot to try to soften the tensions between the North and South. I think that this could be done by focusing on the economy and infrastructure.
I think Vanderbilt would be all about railroad expansion, now the controversy would come as to whether he enriches himself through it or not. A lot of modern Trump Era questions about governance related to business favoritism would be raised so much earlier. Not sure if there is anything in law at this time that could get Vanderbilt in trouble for enriching himself if he chooses to.
Vanderbilt would support the actions of William Walker in Nicaragua, considering he did as a private citizen in real life.
I could see the Vanderbilt Administration going as far as annexing Nicaragua as a protectorate. William Walker's goal was to make the country open to settlement by slave owners.
If they can reduce the tension over slavery significantly, it could result in slavery becoming less of a confrontational issue. Maybe by the 1870s, gradual abolition is implemented. With it having been phased out, there's no constitutional amendments regarding it or equal rights in general. If a '60s style Civil Rights Movement begins waaay down the line, it'd be even more of an uphill battle. Honestly though, who knows what's going on in the US and the rest of the world at that point.