President Stephen Douglas... in 1856

In 1856, the Democratic Party was faced with a tremendous opportunity... but also tremendous problems. On one hand, the Whig Party, its longtime opponent, had more-or-less collapsed; the Republicans and the Know-Nothings each took over pieces of the old Whig organization. On the other hand, Franklin Pierce had become increasingly unpopular. At the 1856 DNC, there were three candidates: Pierce, the incumbent president; Stephen Douglas, champion of popular sovereignty; and James Buchanan, who hadn't been involved in the Kansas-Nebraska Debates, since he was over in Europe at the time. Buchanan won the nomination, and the Presidency, then proved as inept as Pierce.

But what if Douglas wins the nomination? It's reasonable to assume Breckinridge stays his VP, to appease the South; it's also reasonable he wins the presidential election, given that the Republicans were still feeling themselves out and the Know-Nothings were too weak and too divided to beat Douglas.

Douglas, unlike Buchanan, was a rather stronger politician; what's more, he was a solid Unionist. This would come out when the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution for Kansas comes to Congress. In OTL, Buchanan endorsed it, but Douglas rejected it. Douglas, as a Senator, rejecting Lecompton helped split the Democratic Party, leading to the Republicans taking over the House of Representatives in 1858 (and to the four-way race in 1860); as a President, if he betrays the South over Kansas (as southerners will think), it's probable that there'd be a new secession crisis.

Douglas would have attempted to nip it in the bud. Like Calhoun did to Jackson, his VP (John Breckinridge) would oppose Douglas. 1858 was not 1828; active efforts to keep the South in the Union might've accelerated any push towards secession.

So, we may have a civil war on our hands as early as spring 1858. What are the implications of this?
1a) A cotton embargo would be more effective in 1858 than in 1861, since the cotton glut hadn't happened yet. On the other hand, the Civil War isn't starting as one administration transitions to the next, but in the middle of Douglas's term. Assuming his cabinet is similar (if not identical) to Buchanan's, Douglas would have Lewis Cass as Secretary of State, so the US Department of State would have more continuity.
1b) To be fair, the Confederates would have some quality diplomatic representatives of their own, perhaps including James Buchanan. Once they get organized - and they may organize faster in this crisis - they may be able to use the 'cotton weapon' to their advantage.
2) This version of the Civil War starts with a Northern Democrat as President, not a Republican. Admittedly, Douglas's administration would likely be hampered by the losses of some key cabinet members, and definitely be hampered by the southern Democrats in Congress going for the South. If the Civil War lasts through 1860, will the Republicans run a ticket against Douglas, or will some sort of unity ticket be arranged?
3) What happens in the aftermath of the Civil War? The Democratic Party would be less tainted with Copperheadism, and it would be harder to 'wave the bloody shirt' against them, since they (at least in the North) backed the Union.

Any other thoughts?
 
Interesting idea. The most intriguing and consequential short term problem is going to be assembling a cabinet. If things remain pretty much as they are in our timeline, you have a Vice-President, Secretary of War, and Secretary of the Interior who are all Southern sympathizers. If, as you posit, the question of slavery gets out of hand and runs away to the point where it comes to secession by 1868/69 then Douglas could be looking at an en masse resignation of three prominent and important cabinet positions and the defection of a good chunk of congress and military officers to boot.

Although I wonder if every state from the OTL Confederacy would secede in TTL. For many it was as though the election of the Republican Lincoln was the final straw. If it comes down to it in a place like Virginia, would the fact that Douglas, whatever his faults, was at least a Democrat be enough to hold them in the Union? If so, then I foresee a shorter ACW as the "border states" and Virginia would still side with the Union preventing the defection of the cabinet and military officers and allowing President Douglas the opportunity to send troops down to quell the rebellion and threaten its leaders with the end of a rope. If not, then I would expect a long, bloody war much like our own. Either way Douglas is a one term president for either descending the country into civil war or bringing it to the brink of one.

Long term effects in terms of political ramifications are more difficult to map out. Hard to see the Republicans doing very well at all in a situation where the question of slavery has nearly destroyed our nation. The hard line abolitionists won't be very popular, but it's possible that they could do a reverse "waving the bloody shirt" move if Douglas is the nominee in 1860 and blame him for completely mishandling the problem to the point of civil war. Maybe, as per OTL, there is a Union Party led by disaffected Democrats with Buchanan or Bell at their head. Hard to tell who would win in that three way race. Oh, and Lincoln will almost certainly NOT get the Republican nomination as they look to men with more experience who can win the war.

As a side note, if this situation spirals hopelessly out of control and Kentucky winds up on the side of the Confederacy I would expect to see young John Breckinridge become the de facto president based on his mass popularity and being the highest ranking former member of the US government available aside from John Tyler (whom absolutely NO one liked).
 
The other side of Douglas being a Democrat is that it means that even Northern Democrats can't be trusted by the fire-eaters, and they may take it as a greater betrayal.
***
I imagine Lincoln might've ended up either elected to the Senate or leading a volunteer regiment in 1858, and that Buchanan would've gone South.
 
To your points, in order:

1) I can see that being a very likely case as well. I think it would depend entirely on how Douglas responded to the crises presented what sentiment the more moderate southern states would take.

2) I agree with the bit about Lincoln ending up in the Senate during the tumultuous Douglas presidency. I do disagree about Buchanan, though. He might be bitter and angry about losing the nomination and his shot at the presidency in 1856, but he was a meticulous legalist. There's no way he's going to side with secessionists who he believed were acting illegally. Better for him to wait until 1860 and run again than side with the fire eaters.
 
I'm not sure why anyone believes that Buchanan would be a Confederate, given that

1. Pennsylvania will not secede
2. He has no close personal ties to the South, such as a Southern wife
3. He opposed secession (philosophically) in OTL
4. He's a prime 1860 candidate for the peace wing of the Democrats
5. He didn't in real life anyway
 
Bonus points if Lincoln becomes a war hero and leads this Unity Party...

I wonder what becomes of this war? I imagine it would be longer for some reason... That or enormously brief. No way it's the same war in any way, shape, or form.
 
Top