Deleted member 139407

The 1848 election wikibox:
So, did some quick maths with the popular vote and found the total added up to 96.7% which leaves an extra 3.3% for others. A few minor questions from an avid admirer of historical third parties and frequent researcher of modern third parties: 1) what's the status of the Liberty Party post-California given Van Buren's support for the Liberty Party in 1848 and the abolitionist/free soil Whigs gaining ground? 2) did the American Party nominate an independent presidential candidate for 1852 or did they cross-nominate Fillmore?
 
So, did some quick maths with the popular vote and found the total added up to 96.7% which leaves an extra 3.3% for others. A few minor questions from an avid admirer of historical third parties and frequent researcher of modern third parties: 1) what's the status of the Liberty Party post-California given Van Buren's support for the Liberty Party in 1848 and the abolitionist/free soil Whigs gaining ground? 2) did the American Party nominate an independent presidential candidate for 1852 or did they cross-nominate Fillmore?
1) The Liberty Party is about as strong as the Free Soil Party was OTL, with 3-5 congressional seats. However, as the Whigs are increasingly dominated by the northern abolitionist wing, the Liberty Party might not have much staying power.
2) The American Party cross-nominated Fillmore in '52, and they'll have an interesting role to play in 1856 too.
 
11. The Compromise of 1854
11. The Compromise of 1854

“The Buchanan administration had, critically, failed to organize the western territories. When Millard Fillmore assumed the Presidency, he was faced with the breakdown of order, particularly in Oregon. There, relations between American settlers and the Cayuse people had broken down after the Whitman Massacre. Marcus and Narcissa Whitman were missionaries in modern day Tacoma who were accused of poisoning some 200 Cayuse [1] while in Marcus’s medical care. In retaliation, the Cayuse massacred the Whitmans and eleven other settlers at the Whitman mission in November of 1847. The Cayuse then took 54 missionaries as hostages and fled. The provisional legislature of Oregon, which managed the territory in the absence of a formal territorial government, responded to the Whitman massacre with a call for “immediate and prompt action.” George Abernethy, the provisional governor of Oregon, arranged for the raising of volunteer militias to fight the Cayuse.

Several years of warfare ensued, as neither Clay nor Buchanan could arrange for the organization of the territory. Cayuse warriors would steal cattle and burn homesteads, and in retaliation the Oregonian militiamen would attack Cayuse villages and kill anyone they suspected of being raiders. Despite the involvement of the U.S. army, the Cayuse War raged on until 1852, when the Cayuse surrendered five men to be tried for the Whitman massacre.

The Cayuse War ruined the economy of western Tacoma and nearly caused the total collapse of the provisional government under the strain of the war and growing infighting. President Fillmore was warned that, unless action was taken quickly, things would continue to get worse. When Congress convened in December 1853, Fillmore made it a priority to organize Oregon into a territory with a formal government that could guide the region’s recovery. However, it was a near certainty that the Oregon territory would want to prohibit slavery, which would then translate into its admittance as a free state. This fact made many southern politicians loathe to allow the formation of a formal Oregon territory without some sort of concession from the free-soilers.

Senator Jefferson Davis proposed that a free Oregon territory be balanced with the incorporation of Kansas as a slave territory. William Seward led the northern Whigs in adamantly refusing to countenance the formation of new slave territories, while Stephen Douglas proposed that the status of slavery in both Oregon and Kansas be settled by popular sovereignty. An impasse loomed, as the free-soilers refused to budge and southerners continued to insist.

Into this deadlock strode, for the final time, Henry Clay. Though his health was beginning to fail [2], he was determined to broker one last compromise. The south wanted concessions, he reasoned, and the north would obstruct any effort to extend slavery. Clay proposed, together with John Crittenden and Sam Houston, that the south receive not territory, but legislation. With the reluctant approval of President Fillmore, Clay, Crittenden, and Houston introduced the Fugitive Slave Act into the Senate. The Fugitive Slave Act guaranteed slaveowners the right to send slavecatchers north to recapture escaped slaves living in free states. Further, it mandated that northern authorities assist in the recapturing and forbade civilians from harboring escaped slaves.

Seward and Sumner denounced the Clay Compromise, but enough moderate Whigs and northern Democrats were swayed that the Fugitive Slave Act was narrowly approved by Congress. Many northern congressmen who voted for the FSA were summarily defeated in the 1854 elections, so great was the northern backlash. Throughout the second half of Fillmore’s presidency, there were several high-profile instances of slavecatchers and federal agents seizing escaped slaves in northern cities and northern civilians getting into violent confrontations with police, slavecatchers, and federal agents in efforts to protect free blacks from re-enslavement. Seward and Sumner became two of Fillmore’s most frequent critics, with Sumner claiming that Fillmore had been seduced by “the Harlot, slavery.”

The Compromise of 1854 secured for the north an additional free territory, but the Fugitive Slave Act galvanized abolitionist sentiment in the north. Fillmore’s enforcement of the act, including sending federal agents to aid in re-enslaving free blacks, made abolitionists determined to wrest control of the Whigs from Fillmore and the moderates. “The Whigs must stand on the side of free labor,” Seward declared while campaigning in 1854, “or we shall never stand again.” The ultimate showdown between the cotton and free-soil Whigs was soon at hand…”

- From THE EVOLUTION OF THE WHIGS by James Welter, published 1997

Presidential Cabinet of Millard Fillmore:
Vice President:
James C. Jones
Secretary of State:
Edward Everett
Secretary of the Treasury:
Abbott Lawrence
Secretary of War:
William A. Graham
Attorney General:
Edward Bates
Postmaster General:
Nathan Hall
Secretary of the Interior:
Alexander H. H. Stuart
Secretary of the Navy: James Pearce

“Whenever he is remembered, Millard Fillmore is known for either his unusual name or for his tumultuous presidency. And he did have an unusual name and a tumultuous presidency. But though he is reviled for signing the Fugitive Slave Act, Fillmore did have some important accomplishments. Here are some of them:

He signed the Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent and Insane, which set aside 10 million acres of Federal land to be used for insane asylums and 2 million acres to be sold off, the proceeds distributed to the states for constructing their own asylums [3]. Every government-run mental hospital can trace its roots to this bill, and the mentally ill, deaf, mute, and blind of America all have President Fillmore to thank for it. The condition of the disabled of the United States would be much worse off without the Indigent and Insane Bill [[4].

He signed several internal improvement bills, subsidizing the Illinois Central Railroad on a Chicago to Mobile route and the construction of the first Soo Locks in Michigan’s upper peninsula [5]. He also tried, but failed, to fund a transcontinental railroad, as sectional tensions sank any chance of the bill’s passage. It would take Douglas and Seward to realize that vision, but Fillmore must be given credit for attempting the project.

While Fillmore’s signing and enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act undoubtedly deserves criticism, the FSA had one important upside: it prevented the south from gaining another slave state in Kansas. Without the Fugitive Slave Act, Kansas would likely have been incorporated as a slave territory and admitted as a state, which would have strengthened the south’s power. Legislation is temporary, but the free-slave balance in the antebellum United States would have left a lasting mark [6].

James Buchanan gave thinly veiled support to pro-slavery filibusterers, including allowing Narciso Lopez to hire a small army and sail to Cuba. Millard Fillmore strongly disapproved of these foreign pro-slavery adventures and worked to stop them. He removed William Walker as the governor of Colorado Territory for funding an 1855 filibuster expedition to Cuba, and prevented John Quitman, the leader of the filibuster, from sailing out of New Orleans [7]. Fillmore was more popular in the south than in the north, so for him to shut down a filibuster, which were widely supported by southerners, was a courageous act [8]. In times of crisis, it is easy for someone to abandon his principles and seek survival at all costs. But Millard Fillmore refused to sanction the filibusters, even though it cost him the support of his southern supporters.

Was Fillmore a great president? Certainly not – he was no Henry Clay. But we should not draw a caricature of the man. We should not emphasize his faults at the expense of his successes. He did his best to maintain the union and prevent the south from gaining the upper hand in the sectional struggle.”

-From IN DEFENSE OF FILLMORE by Herman Gamble, published 1998

“Henry Clay returned home to his Ashland plantation after the passage of the Compromise of 1854, utterly exhausted. Already of an advanced age and in frail health, the tense negotiations sapped his strength. Back at Ashland, his illnesses grew worse, and his health entered its final decline. Climbing stairs left him fatigued, and in March of 1855 he fell ill with a cold. He experienced chills, among other symptoms.

Throughout April, Clay continued to worsen, and he resigned from the Senate to focus on settling his remaining affairs. Dozens of colleagues, past and present, made the journey from Washington to visit him, along with his children. In July, after a final visit with John Crittenden, Clay was given last rites by his doctor and died several weeks later in the company of his servants and sons Henry Jr. He was 78 years old.

As the Senate chamber was packed with eulogizers, the nation went into mourning over the death of a true statesman. He was buried in a Lexington cemetery, his headstone proclaiming, “I know no North—no South—no East—no West.” Rarely out of government since 1797, Henry Clay left his mark on the United States in a way that few others before or since have done. Whether people agreed with Clay or not, William Seward declared, “they are nevertheless unanimous in acknowledging that he was at once the greatest, the most faithful, and the most reliable of statesmen. The footprint of Clay upon this nation is wide and deep.””

-From THE CLAY ERA: TRANSFORMING A NATION by Edmund Sellers, published 2017

[1] Apparently, it was measles that killed the Cayuse.
[2] TTL, Clay doesn’t get tuberculosis, so he lives for two more years.
[3] A similar bill passed both houses of Congress OTL but was vetoed by President Pierce.
[4] This author is attributing a lot to this legislation, but it is a biased piece.
[5] Fillmore did these things OTL, but I doubt that Buchanan would have signed internal improvement bills.
[6] An overstatement, but again, biased source.
[7] OTL, John Quitman declined an invitation by Narciso Lopez to join his filibuster. TTL, while he still doesn’t go on Lopez’s expedition, once Quitman leaves office he tries to launch his own Cuban filibuster.
[8] Not an incorrect statement, as TTL this costs Fillmore some support with southern Whigs. This in-universe author is exaggerating it, however.
 
Last edited:
Good job making Fillmore an interesting president. The Compromise of 1854 is a good idea story wise as it's plausible and I can see Fillmore and Congress doing it. Clay's death unlike IOTL will surely be remembered for a long time as ITTL he was no doubt one of the most influential presidents in American history.
 
Good job making Fillmore an interesting president. The Compromise of 1854 is a good idea story wise as it's plausible and I can see Fillmore and Congress doing it. Clay's death unlike IOTL will surely be remembered for a long time as ITTL he was no doubt one of the most influential presidents in American history.
Thanks! Fillmore's role OTL in the Compromise of 1850 is often overlooked, IMO. He was instrumental OTL in passing the fugitive slave act, for instance.
And Clay will certainly be better remembered, probably on the level of Andrew Jackson. Expect Kentucky to milk his legacy to its fullest extent, and for Ashland to be preserved from the outset instead of being demolished and then rebuilt.
 
Henry Clay:
Screenshot 2022-02-09 at 09-42-49 Creating User Messr Fancy Pants sandbox - Wikipedia.png

Wow, that's a lot of time in office.
 
Why did Clay live until 1855 in this timeline instead of 1852 like in our timeline? Why couldn't he die on Independence Day as he would be the third President to do so after John Adams and Thomas Jefferson I believe.
OTL, Clay died of tuberculosis, which TTL he doesn't get. As sectional tensions take longer to intensify, Clay is less stressed without stuff on the magnitude of the Compromise of 1850, so that also helps prolong his life a few years. But him dying on the 4th would have been an interesting touch.
 
OTL, Clay died of tuberculosis, which TTL he doesn't get. As sectional tensions take longer to intensify, Clay is less stressed without stuff on the magnitude of the Compromise of 1850, so that also helps prolong his life a few years. But him dying on the 4th would have been an interesting touch.
Looking at his death according to the wikibox it looks like he was trying to.
 
12. Let the People Rule!
12. Let the People Rule!

“Once Millard Fillmore affixed his signature to the Fugitive Slave Act and directed Attorney General Bates to enforce it, the knives came out. William Seward vowed that “the President will not find the next convention an easy coronation.” While Seward was reluctant to stand as a candidate at the convention, he worked to recruit a suitable challenger. In the eyes of the free-soilers, the reason they had failed to stop Fillmore’s nomination in 1852 was because they were fractured – there had been four free-soil candidates who divided the free-soil delegates between them and allowed Fillmore to position himself as a unifying candidate.

The death of Henry Clay the year prior removed another obstacle to the effort to deny Fillmore re-nomination. Without Clay to urge unity and sectional balance, the less influential Fillmore and Crittenden would be unable to sway delegates away from the free-soil faction. Seward could be sure that New York would vote how he directed it to, so he focused on building support with other free-soil leaders like Charles Sumner and William Dayton. The three decided that the free-soil challenger to the President should come from the Midwest, where some delegates were unsure about supporting an abolitionist for the nomination. To further assuage worried northerners, it was agreed that this candidate should have a history of moderate rhetoric on slavery. Ultimately, Seward, Sumner, and Dayton agreed on Justice John McLean of Ohio. McLean had a history of anti-slavery rulings, but being a Supreme Court Justice, had no history of fiery or radical rhetoric on the subject. McLean agreed to be a candidate, and all four men began laying the groundwork for denying Fillmore re-nomination.

Fillmore was not idle while Seward and Sumner plotted – he was aware of his precarious position and was determined not to cede control of the Whigs to the free-soilers, a group he regarded as dangerous radicals and agitators. He was also aware that, in removing William Walker from his territorial governorship and barring John Quitman from filibustering in Cuba, he had angered his southern allies. Fillmore reasoned that it would be easier to mend fences with the southern bloc, who he viewed as still reasonable and committed to compromise. “Seward and the free-soil men,” he wrote, “view abolition as a moral struggle, above the constitution or any other foundational laws of the Union [1].”

Thus, Fillmore met with Alexander Stephens to repair his relations with the southern Whigs. Stephens was relatively moderate and a staunch opponent of secession, which was then a mere fringe opinion. He had attempted to incorporate Kansas as a slave territory but had been frustrated both by the free-soilers and Stephen Douglas, the champion of popular sovereignty. With Douglas a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Stephens decided to stick with the Whigs. He made just two demands of Fillmore: Stephens wanted a say in the selection of Fillmore’s running mate, and a cabinet post. Fillmore agreed, eager to use Stephen’s southern clout to shore up his wavering support. With Stephens’ endorsement of the President, other disgruntled southern Whigs fell in line. The stage was set.

…On the first ballot, McLean emerged with a slim plurality of delegates, ahead of Fillmore and several minor candidates, such as former Speaker Edward Stanly and Tennessee Senator John Bell. His support came exclusively from the north, while Fillmore had broad southern support and fractured support in the north-east. Both McLean and Fillmore gained support on the second ballot as Bell and Stanly faltered, and Fillmore initiated negotiations with them to try and unite with both. However, Alexander Stephens felt that Bell was too moderate, and Stanly alone lacked the delegates to put Fillmore over the top.

On the third ballot, Fillmore lost four delegates, while McLean surged to just shy of a majority. Fillmore’s northern supporters, mainly in Pennsylvania and New York, were growing impatient with him. On the fourth ballot, his northern support collapsed, and McLean won 179 delegates, more than enough to be the nominee. While southern Whigs looked on in shock and dismay, the jubilant cheers from the free-soil delegates made the message clear: the Whigs were under new leadership. For Vice President, the delegates did not bother to extend Fillmore’s camp an olive branch, instead giving the nomination to another free-soiler, Senator William Dayton of New Jersey.

Presidential vote
1
2
3
4
Vice-Presidential vote
1
J. McLean126138145179W. Dayton200
M. Fillmore119125121117
J. Bell2917189
E. Stanly1710125
Other5600


President Fillmore was disappointed but was fully prepared to concede his defeat. However, Alexander Stephens arrived at his rooms with a message from the American Party. The Americans had endorsed Fillmore in 1852 and was equally dismayed at McLean’s nomination. Thus, the party offered to nominate Fillmore as its candidate in order to preserve sectional balance. Fillmore was initially reluctant, but upon receiving word that he would have John Crittenden’s support [2], as well as John Bell and other moderates, he accepted. As the Whig convention began debating the platform, Alexander Stephens led a mass walkout of southern delegates, who joined the American Party convention. While the now-overwhelmingly free-soil Whigs passed a platform calling for the containment of slavery, President Fillmore was unanimously nominated by another convention. Renaming itself the National Union party, the Americans subsumed many Cotton Whigs, as well as most southern Whigs.

…Seward believed the Whigs’ chances of victory were slim, but he hoped that McLean would give a strong showing and demonstrate the power and influence of the free-soil movement. He also reveled in forcing his old rival Fillmore to run on a third-party ticket after humiliating him at the convention.”

- From THE EVOLUTION OF THE WHIGS by James Welter, published 1997

“Cass’s narrow defeat in 1852 was largely blamed on the upheavals of the Buchanan presidency rather than on Cass’s support for popular sovereignty. With the incumbent administration being the divided Whigs, the Democrats held an advantage in 1856.

The early frontrunners were Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and former Secretary of War Franklin Pierce. Douglas was a fiery orator and a staunch supporter of Jacksonian ideals, popular sovereignty, and westward expansion. Davis had challenged Cass in 1852 and ran as the south’s candidate, criticizing both of his major opponents as not accommodating enough of southern interests. Pierce hoped to position himself between Douglas and Davis and cap his career off with four years in the White House.

…Douglas assumed a strong lead on the first ballot, bolstered by strong western, midwestern, and northern support. Davis emerged as his strongest challenger on the back of a united south, while Pierce’s middle-ground approach failed to earn him much support [3]. Douglas attempted to make a deal with Davis ahead of the second ballot, but Davis refused, as he hoped to force the nomination of a more acceptable compromise candidate. The second ballot saw Douglas come close to taking the nomination while Pierce’s campaign collapsed, his northern supporters going over to Douglas and his southern backer switching to Davis. Douglas’s victory on the third ballot was practically a foregone conclusion, so Davis offered to make a deal – he would become either Attorney General or Secretary of War and would get to select Douglas’s running mate. Douglas agreed to make him Secretary of War, and the two settled on Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama. While a handful of delegates voted for Franklin Pierce or David Wilmot, the Fitzpatrick was easily nominated on the first ballot.

Presidential vote123Vice-Presidential vote1
S. Douglas138144267B. Fitzpatrick233
J. Davis951020F. Pierce38
F. Pierce533916D. Wilmot25
Other101113Other0
The Democrats adopted a platform that called for popular sovereignty in the territories to settle the slavery issue “democratically [4].” Other planks proposed a homestead act to facilitate the settlement of the west and the allocation of federal funds for the construction of a transcontinental railroad, a pet project of Douglas’s.”

-From IN THE SHADOW OF JACKSON by Michelle Watts, published 2012

“With the walkout of the southern delegations, the Whigs were no longer hamstrung by the need to keep the party carefully united. Thus, the full weight of Thurlow Weeds’ and Horace Greeley’s newspapers and mailing lists were brought to bear on the north. Still, the Whigs tread carefully around the slavery issue, wary of alienating moderate northern voters. McLean’s surrogates, Seward chief among them, refrained from calling for slavery’s abolition. Instead, they focused on containment. The south had too much power, the Whigs said. By containing slavery and dividing the west into free territories, the “slave power” would be broken and the south would no longer be able to exercise undue influence over the federal government. The Whigs condemned popular sovereignty as a useless half measure and claimed that the “slave power” was eroding America’s republican values. They also trumpeted the endorsements of Salmon Chase and David Wilmot, two prominent free-soil Democrats. True to their opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories, the slogan “free speech, free soil, free men, and victory!” adorned Whig campaign literature and banners.

The Democrats proudly supported popular sovereignty, with Douglas defending it in an open letter as the most democratic method to settle the issue. “Let the people vote,” he declared. Anything else was federal overreach. The Whigs were attacked as divisive. According to the Democrats, the election of John McLean would so inflame sectional tensions that the south would secede. Whisper campaigns were started, warning that McLean would raise a violent militia that would foment slave revolts, “total equality,” and race-mixing. Democrats also reached out to disaffected Whigs, warning that Fillmore had little chance of winning, so Douglas was the best candidate to prevent McLean from winning. Douglas, in a rare personal campaign appearance, promised to uphold popular sovereignty “whether the citizens of that territory choose free soil or slavery” in a play for northerners put off by total abolition, but still uncomfortable with the ‘slave power.’ These tactics were undercut somewhat by the Whigs’ pledge to ignore slavery “where it presently [existed]” and focus on keeping it out of the territories.

Stephen DouglasJohn McLeanMillard Fillmore
Electoral Vote16711017
Popular Vote1,786,0721,512,819929,271
Percentage42.235.721.9


…The Whigs did better than expected. McLean won New Hampshire and Maine, neither of which had ever voted for a Whig before. He also won Wisconsin and Michigan, which had historically leaned towards the Democrats. These two victories were made more impressive by Douglas’s western background and support. Douglas underperformed past Democratic tickets in the south, though he narrowly carried the Whig strongholds of Kentucky and Tennessee [5]. In states where McLean did not appear on the ballot, such as Louisiana and Maryland, Fillmore narrowly won.

In the Congressional races, the Whigs solidified their dominance over the north, with the few northern Democrats remaining being free-soilers [6]. The only doughfaces left in the north generally represented Catholic areas of New York City and conservative, southern-influenced districts along the Ohio river. Democratic gains in the south outweighed their few losses [7], granting them a tenuous majority.

While the Whigs had lost, McLean had demonstrated the strength of the free-soil movement. While it was Stephen Douglas and not John McLean who took the oath of office on March 4th, it was a hollow victory. While the bare Democratic majority was fraying, the Whigs were more united than ever…”

-UNEASY SILENCE: AMERICA IN THE ANTEBELLUM by John Erwin, published 2021

[1] While Fillmore opposed slavery, he felt it was beyond the federal government’s authority.
[2] Here, the Whigs’ realignment begins. Whereas OTL the abolitionists split off first and the south abandoned the husk of the Whigs, TTL the abolitionists emerge victorious, and the southern Whigs leave to try and form a moderate alternative.
[3] Much like Fillmore in the Whig Party.
[4] Well, as democratic as voting on whether owning people should be legal can get.
[5] Unlike OTL, where the Republicans only appeared on the ballot in northern states, TTL the Whigs retain ballot access in the upper south, while Fillmore is listed as the Whig candidate in the deep south.
[6] The Whigs hold a strong majority of northern seats, and combined with free-soil Democrats like David Wilmot, comprise around 2/3 of northern representatives.
[7] After several cycles of free-soil victories, there aren’t many doughfaces left. Meanwhile, the Democrats pick off southern Whigs/National Unionists.
 
Top