Some of the reasons that the Republicans in 1856 could not yet score a victory as they were to do in 1860 are obvious. The party was too new; Fremont was too inept a politician (far inferior to his wife Jessie in political capacity, in fact); Fillmore's candidacy divided the anti-Democratic vote in the North (to a much greater extent than Bell's did in 1860); the Panic of 1857 had not yet revived the tariff as an issue; in James Buchanan, the Democrats had chosen a candidate less controversial than Pierce or Douglas (for one thing, he had the reputation of being a seasoned, conservative statesman, less hot-headed than Pierce or Douglas; for another, he had the good fortune to be out of the United States when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was being debated); etc.
But there is one reason that may be the most important of all, and which William E. Gienapp emphasizes in his *The Origins of the Republican Party 1852-1856* (Oxford UP 1987): the false but extremely widespread rumors that Fremont was a Catholic. (Incidentally, Gienapp's book is absolutely invaluable for the political history of that strange period from 1852 to 1856 which saw the death of one major party [the Whigs] the birth of another [the Republicans] and the birth *and* death of a third [the Americans or Know-Nothings]...[1])
Several facts lent the notion of Fremont's Catholicism apparent plausibility. His father was a French Catholic, he himself was educated in a Catholic school, he and Jessie Benton had been married by a Catholic priest, and their adopted daughter attended a Catholic school. To make matters worse, a number of his acquaintances testified that he was a Catholic. And the nativist press (above all, Erastus Brooks's pro-Fillmore New York *Express*) concocted new "evidence" of Fremont's Catholicism that outstripped the Republicans' abilities to muster effective denials. "Stories circulated that Fremont had always claimed to be a Catholic, that he had refused an Episcopalian Bible, that he attended mass, that he had baptized his children as Catholics, that he had a private chapel in his home, and many more of a similar nature." Gienapp, p. 369. Campaign pamphlets were issued with titles like *Col. Fremont's Religious History*, *J. C. Fremont's Record. Proof of his Romanism*, and *Fremont's Romanism Established.*
(The truth was that Fremont was an Episcopalian; that all his children had been baptized in that church; and that although one of his daughters did attend a Catholic school, so too did Fillmore's daughter. Jessie Fremont privately denied that her husband had ever attended a Catholic service. As for their marriage by a Catholic priest--which according to Schuyler Colfax, did more than anything else to lend plausibility to the charge--it was a civil ceremony, and the only reason the young lovers turned to a Catholic priest was that two Protestant clergymen had refused to officiate, fearing the wrath of Jessie's father Thomas Hart Benton after he had forbidden the marriage...)
Some readers, aware that there are unfounded rumors in any presidential campaign, may wonder if I exaggerate the importance of this one. I would reply that it is only necessary to record what some observers at the time thought: Thurlow Weed said that "the Catholic story is doing much damage"; Gamaliel Bailey reported that at the Republican convention, two of Fremont's most ardent supporters, Nathaniel Banks and Robert B. Hall of Massachusetts "stretched their eyes 'wide as saucers'" when told of Fremont's alleged Catholicism; one of Seward's friends maintained that "the very idea of his Fremont's] being a Catholic will be the death of him for ever, as a Presidential candidate"; while another Republican, who originally supported the decision not to have Fremont comment on the controversy, admitted that he was "a little staggered" at the defections he witnessed on the issue. Fillmore leaders considered the Catholic issue "the battery which proves most effective in thinning his [Fremont's] ranks." As one "American" (Know Nothing) put it concisely, a "great majority" of Protestant voters, "when they are convinced of the fact that Fremont is a Catholic, will hold that question of more importance than the false issue of 'Free Kansas.'"
Fremont's advisers were unsure whether Fremont should reply personally to the charge. Some, like Fremont himself, considered it undignified to do so, and they recognized that no letter, however carefully phrased, would end the attacks. Other Republican leaders, however, like Colfax, Weed, and Simon Cameron, urged that a letter be drafted for Fremont to release. "These Catholic reports must be extinguished," Colfax warned Francis P. Blair, "or we shall lose Pa., N.J., Inda., Conn. & the Lord knows how many more states." Colfax told John Bigelow that of the "hundreds of letters" he received from the Northwest, "scarcely any omits a reference to the fact that the Catholic story injures us materially, both in keeping men in the Fillmore ranks who ought to be with us, & in cooling many of our own friends who fear from Col. F's silence & the cloud of rumors on the subject in K.N. [Know Nothing] papers, that there may be some truth in it." Prompted by Thaddeus Stevens, Truman Smith (who had for years been the closest thing to a Whig national chairman and had now become a Republican) lobbied for an official denial from the candidate himself, arguing that such a statement was absolutely essential for carrying Pennsylvania.
With information supplied by Jessie Fremont, Blair drafted a letter for the colonel to sign; the letter attempted to affirm Fremont's Protestantism without sanctioning any religious test for public office. Despite writing the letter, though, Blair thought it should not be released, since he naively assumed that few who were sincere countenanced the allegation. Finally, a conference of leading Republican managers, after sharp disagreement, decided against Fremont's issuing a letter on the subject.
This may have been, from a tactical viewpoint, the worst mistake the Republicans made during the campaign. No denial would have silenced the nativist press, of course, but the *absence* of a public denial was nevertheless very harmful and seemed to lend credence to the accusations. The fears of Blair and Horace Greeley about offending the Catholic vote were groundless, since as critics noted, Catholic voters were certain to overwhelmingly back Buchanan, denial or no denial. In any event, it does seem that as the New York *Mirror* complained at the end of the campaign, Fremont's supposed Romanism was the most damaging charge brought against him: "Tens of thousands of the more bigoted Protestants," it noted, "persist in the belief, after all denials, that Col. Fremont is a little fishy on the Catholic question."
Fremont's predicament was ironic: his nativist sympathies were sufficiently pronounced that in 1855 he had been approached about seeking a Know Nothing nomination! And Seward noted another irony: "Fremont, who was preferred over me because I was not a bigoted Protestant, is nearly convicted of being a Catholic."
So the question is: Could Fremont have won had there been no "Catholic issue"? (For this we probably need to go back to the wedding, and get some Protestant minister willing to risk the wrath of Jessie Benton's illustrious father. As Colfax noted, it was the wedding more than anything else that made the rumors seem plausible.) Remember that, whereas Al Smith and John F. Kennedy were both hurt and helped (though IMO more hurt than helped) by their Catholicism, Fremont's supposed Catholicism was almost a pure liability; it is doubtful that the rumors led any substantial number of Catholics to vote for him. And the rumors hurt him above all with the northern Know Nothings, precisely the group he most needed to attract. So the big question is how many *electoral* votes they cost Fremont. Fremont's loss in Illinois was narrow enough that anti-Catholicism may have made the difference, but Illinois would not have been enough to deny Buchanan a victory. Even adding Indiana to Fremont's column would still leave Buchanan with an Electoral College majority. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1856.txt
So Fremont needed another state--and surprisingly, he had a real chance of winning Pennsylvania under a "fusion" arrangement that I explain at
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ects-for-anti-buchanan-fusion-in-1856.349796/ In OTL, the "fusion" ticket just barely fell short of winning the October state elections. If not for the issue of Fremont's supposed Catholicism, it might have won--and the fusion arrangement for the presidential ticket in that state might have been carried out. (Part of the fusion agreement was that the fusion electors would vote for Fremont if that would give him an Electoral College majority; and the same for Fillmore if that would give him an Electoral College majority. But of course only the first was feasible.) True, Buchanan did a bit better than Fremont and Fillmore combined in OTL but again that was with the "Catholic issue" harming Fremont.
In short, the evidence IMO supports Michael F. Holt's conclusion in *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party* that "the false rumor that Fremont was Catholic...more than anything else prevented him from winning the election." https://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA967
[1] OK, technically neither the Whig nor the American Party was quite dead after the 1856 election, but it had become clear that the Republicans were now the major party of opposition to the Democrats.
But there is one reason that may be the most important of all, and which William E. Gienapp emphasizes in his *The Origins of the Republican Party 1852-1856* (Oxford UP 1987): the false but extremely widespread rumors that Fremont was a Catholic. (Incidentally, Gienapp's book is absolutely invaluable for the political history of that strange period from 1852 to 1856 which saw the death of one major party [the Whigs] the birth of another [the Republicans] and the birth *and* death of a third [the Americans or Know-Nothings]...[1])
Several facts lent the notion of Fremont's Catholicism apparent plausibility. His father was a French Catholic, he himself was educated in a Catholic school, he and Jessie Benton had been married by a Catholic priest, and their adopted daughter attended a Catholic school. To make matters worse, a number of his acquaintances testified that he was a Catholic. And the nativist press (above all, Erastus Brooks's pro-Fillmore New York *Express*) concocted new "evidence" of Fremont's Catholicism that outstripped the Republicans' abilities to muster effective denials. "Stories circulated that Fremont had always claimed to be a Catholic, that he had refused an Episcopalian Bible, that he attended mass, that he had baptized his children as Catholics, that he had a private chapel in his home, and many more of a similar nature." Gienapp, p. 369. Campaign pamphlets were issued with titles like *Col. Fremont's Religious History*, *J. C. Fremont's Record. Proof of his Romanism*, and *Fremont's Romanism Established.*
(The truth was that Fremont was an Episcopalian; that all his children had been baptized in that church; and that although one of his daughters did attend a Catholic school, so too did Fillmore's daughter. Jessie Fremont privately denied that her husband had ever attended a Catholic service. As for their marriage by a Catholic priest--which according to Schuyler Colfax, did more than anything else to lend plausibility to the charge--it was a civil ceremony, and the only reason the young lovers turned to a Catholic priest was that two Protestant clergymen had refused to officiate, fearing the wrath of Jessie's father Thomas Hart Benton after he had forbidden the marriage...)
Some readers, aware that there are unfounded rumors in any presidential campaign, may wonder if I exaggerate the importance of this one. I would reply that it is only necessary to record what some observers at the time thought: Thurlow Weed said that "the Catholic story is doing much damage"; Gamaliel Bailey reported that at the Republican convention, two of Fremont's most ardent supporters, Nathaniel Banks and Robert B. Hall of Massachusetts "stretched their eyes 'wide as saucers'" when told of Fremont's alleged Catholicism; one of Seward's friends maintained that "the very idea of his Fremont's] being a Catholic will be the death of him for ever, as a Presidential candidate"; while another Republican, who originally supported the decision not to have Fremont comment on the controversy, admitted that he was "a little staggered" at the defections he witnessed on the issue. Fillmore leaders considered the Catholic issue "the battery which proves most effective in thinning his [Fremont's] ranks." As one "American" (Know Nothing) put it concisely, a "great majority" of Protestant voters, "when they are convinced of the fact that Fremont is a Catholic, will hold that question of more importance than the false issue of 'Free Kansas.'"
Fremont's advisers were unsure whether Fremont should reply personally to the charge. Some, like Fremont himself, considered it undignified to do so, and they recognized that no letter, however carefully phrased, would end the attacks. Other Republican leaders, however, like Colfax, Weed, and Simon Cameron, urged that a letter be drafted for Fremont to release. "These Catholic reports must be extinguished," Colfax warned Francis P. Blair, "or we shall lose Pa., N.J., Inda., Conn. & the Lord knows how many more states." Colfax told John Bigelow that of the "hundreds of letters" he received from the Northwest, "scarcely any omits a reference to the fact that the Catholic story injures us materially, both in keeping men in the Fillmore ranks who ought to be with us, & in cooling many of our own friends who fear from Col. F's silence & the cloud of rumors on the subject in K.N. [Know Nothing] papers, that there may be some truth in it." Prompted by Thaddeus Stevens, Truman Smith (who had for years been the closest thing to a Whig national chairman and had now become a Republican) lobbied for an official denial from the candidate himself, arguing that such a statement was absolutely essential for carrying Pennsylvania.
With information supplied by Jessie Fremont, Blair drafted a letter for the colonel to sign; the letter attempted to affirm Fremont's Protestantism without sanctioning any religious test for public office. Despite writing the letter, though, Blair thought it should not be released, since he naively assumed that few who were sincere countenanced the allegation. Finally, a conference of leading Republican managers, after sharp disagreement, decided against Fremont's issuing a letter on the subject.
This may have been, from a tactical viewpoint, the worst mistake the Republicans made during the campaign. No denial would have silenced the nativist press, of course, but the *absence* of a public denial was nevertheless very harmful and seemed to lend credence to the accusations. The fears of Blair and Horace Greeley about offending the Catholic vote were groundless, since as critics noted, Catholic voters were certain to overwhelmingly back Buchanan, denial or no denial. In any event, it does seem that as the New York *Mirror* complained at the end of the campaign, Fremont's supposed Romanism was the most damaging charge brought against him: "Tens of thousands of the more bigoted Protestants," it noted, "persist in the belief, after all denials, that Col. Fremont is a little fishy on the Catholic question."
Fremont's predicament was ironic: his nativist sympathies were sufficiently pronounced that in 1855 he had been approached about seeking a Know Nothing nomination! And Seward noted another irony: "Fremont, who was preferred over me because I was not a bigoted Protestant, is nearly convicted of being a Catholic."
So the question is: Could Fremont have won had there been no "Catholic issue"? (For this we probably need to go back to the wedding, and get some Protestant minister willing to risk the wrath of Jessie Benton's illustrious father. As Colfax noted, it was the wedding more than anything else that made the rumors seem plausible.) Remember that, whereas Al Smith and John F. Kennedy were both hurt and helped (though IMO more hurt than helped) by their Catholicism, Fremont's supposed Catholicism was almost a pure liability; it is doubtful that the rumors led any substantial number of Catholics to vote for him. And the rumors hurt him above all with the northern Know Nothings, precisely the group he most needed to attract. So the big question is how many *electoral* votes they cost Fremont. Fremont's loss in Illinois was narrow enough that anti-Catholicism may have made the difference, but Illinois would not have been enough to deny Buchanan a victory. Even adding Indiana to Fremont's column would still leave Buchanan with an Electoral College majority. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1856.txt
So Fremont needed another state--and surprisingly, he had a real chance of winning Pennsylvania under a "fusion" arrangement that I explain at
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ects-for-anti-buchanan-fusion-in-1856.349796/ In OTL, the "fusion" ticket just barely fell short of winning the October state elections. If not for the issue of Fremont's supposed Catholicism, it might have won--and the fusion arrangement for the presidential ticket in that state might have been carried out. (Part of the fusion agreement was that the fusion electors would vote for Fremont if that would give him an Electoral College majority; and the same for Fillmore if that would give him an Electoral College majority. But of course only the first was feasible.) True, Buchanan did a bit better than Fremont and Fillmore combined in OTL but again that was with the "Catholic issue" harming Fremont.
In short, the evidence IMO supports Michael F. Holt's conclusion in *The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party* that "the false rumor that Fremont was Catholic...more than anything else prevented him from winning the election." https://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA967
[1] OK, technically neither the Whig nor the American Party was quite dead after the 1856 election, but it had become clear that the Republicans were now the major party of opposition to the Democrats.
Last edited: