Addressing Maine's William Fessenden in the US Senate in 1855, Stephen A. Douglas argued that the anti-Nebraska victories in the North the previous year had been due to Know Nothing support. He denounced the Order furiously, and said "a Know Nothing cannot be a Know Nothing without swearing to tell a lie," a remark which Fessenden took personally. "Subsequently, Douglas thought better of his statement. He informed Fessenden that he had stricken the offending remark from the official report of the discussion, and it did not appear in the Congressional Globe." Robert W. Johannsen, *Stephen A. Douglas*, p. 470. https://books.google.com/books?id=pCzhaQTh5SEC&pg=PA470
Question: Suppose Douglas refuses to retract the remark--and a few days later is caned by a furious Know Nothing (preferably a strongly anti-slavery one) and hurt at least as badly as Charles Sumner would be in OTL the next year. Does Douglas become such a martyr for the pro-Nebraska Democracy that (assuming his health permits it) he gets nominated for president in 1856 and goes on to win? Sure, many Democrats would still prefer a "safer" man like Buchanan (who had conveniently been out of the country when the Nebraska bill was being debated) but might not the popular support for Douglas among rank-and-file Democrats make him irresistible?
Question: Suppose Douglas refuses to retract the remark--and a few days later is caned by a furious Know Nothing (preferably a strongly anti-slavery one) and hurt at least as badly as Charles Sumner would be in OTL the next year. Does Douglas become such a martyr for the pro-Nebraska Democracy that (assuming his health permits it) he gets nominated for president in 1856 and goes on to win? Sure, many Democrats would still prefer a "safer" man like Buchanan (who had conveniently been out of the country when the Nebraska bill was being debated) but might not the popular support for Douglas among rank-and-file Democrats make him irresistible?