The Story of a Party

[Utgard96]

Here is my attempt for a TL using Korporal Nooij's style. It is going to be about Frémont winning the US presidential election of 1856, leading to a very different Civil War, US, and world.

Collapse of the Whig Party:

After the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 the Whig Party was fractured. The Northern Whigs were generally in strong opposition to the Act, while the Southern Whigs were in favor of it. Due to the system the United States Congress ran under, a party must vote unanimously on a particular issue, and this angers many of the Northern Whigs, a small group of whom founded the Republican Party in the same year. Many Whigs opposed to the Act and slavery in general joined the Republican Party, and it quickly outgrew the Whig Party itself.


Presidential Election of 1856:


In November of 1856, the presidential term was over, and the people went to the ballots to elect a new president. The Democratic Party, the party of incumbent Franklin Pierce, had used the slogan "Anyone but Pierce" while nominating candidates at the Democratic National Convention, and nominated James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. The Republican Party had nominated John Frémont of California, and for the American Party ran Millard Fillmore of New York, a former president of the Whig Party.

A poster of Frémont and the Republican candidate for Vice President, William Dayton.

The election was a success for the Republicans, who won 42% of the popular vote and 156 out of 296 electoral votes. On March 4 1857, John Frémont was sworn in as President of the United States, and a new era in American politics was started.

An election map showing the states won by Frémont, Buchanan and Fillmore.

 

[Utgard96]

Bump for the thread...
Please comment on my TL! I want to know if it is any good or not.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Bump for the thread...
Please comment on my TL! I want to know if it is any good or not.

It's a good TL I don't know much about the subject but Ill be following it, so when is the next updated

 

[Lord Insane]

I notice that not only did the Republicans do better, but the American Party does better, as well (at least in terms of states won; it strikes me that they might have done worse in terms of the share of the popular vote). Hm, do you have any particular reason why Buchanan's campaign is that much more unsuccessful in mind?

 

[michaelrbn]

One comment: primary elections did not exist in the 1850s.

 

[Utgard96]

It's a good TL I don't know much about the subject but Ill be following it, so when is the next updated

Glad you like it
As soon as possible, hopefully tomorrow.

I notice that not only did the Republicans do better, but the American Party does better, as well (at least in terms of states won; it strikes me that they might have done worse in terms of the share of the popular vote). Hm, do you have any particular reason why Buchanan's campaign is that much more unsuccessful in mind?

My guess is there was more Northern resentment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and so more Northerners voted for the Republicans, who promised more free states north of the Missouri Compromise Line.

One comment: primary elections did not exist in the 1850s.

Oops, then I will edit that out.

 

[Utgard96]

The story of Dred Scott:

Dred Scott was a slave who was born in Virginia around 1800, and was taken to Missouri by his master in 1830. He was purchased in 1832 by Army Major John Emerson, who was stationed outside of St. Louis. Emerson was reassigned several times, first to Fort Armstrong, Illinois, and later to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory, both areas free from the ”peculiar institution”. Despite this, Scott followed Emerson as his slave at both assignments, and was allowed to marry a woman by the name of Harriet. In 1837, the Army ordered Emerson back to St. Louis, but Dred and Harriet Scott were left behind at Fort Snelling.

After arriving at St. Louis, Emerson was almost immediately reassigned to Fort Jessup, Louisiana. There he met Eliza Sanford, and as soon as they were married called for the Scotts, who were still at Fort Snelling. On a steamboat on the Mississippi River, Harriet gave birth to Eliza Scott, who were legally deemed free on the grounds that the boat was on its way between Iowa, a free territory, and Illinois, a free state.

In a few months, Emerson was assigned back to Fort Snelling, and during the Seminole Wars Eliza Emerson moved to St. Louis and brought the Scotts with her. John Emerson died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, and in his will transferred his estate – including the Scotts – to his widow, Eliza.

Scott figured the death of his master would mean his own freedom. He attempted to sue Eliza Emerson for his freedom, but his lawsuit was dismissed in late 1847. In 1848 the jury agreed to try his case, but a major fire and a cholera epidemic delayed the actual trial to November 1850. The judge found Scott and his family legally free, but in 1852 the Missouri Supreme Court overruled the judgement. Chief Justice William Scott declared:

”Times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were made. Since then not only individuals but States have been possessed with a dark and fell spirit in relation to slavery, whose gratification is sought in the pursuit of measures, whose inevitable consequences must be the overthrow and destruction of our government. Under such circumstances it does not behoove the State of Missouri to show the least countenance to any measure which might gratify this spirit. She is willing to assume her full responsibility for the existence of slavery within her limits, nor does she seek to share or divide it with others.”

A year later, Scott sued again. Eliza Emerson had moved to Massachusetts, so legal advocacy was transferred to her brother, John F. A. Sandford. Sandford lived in New York, so the case was made in federal court. Since the Missouri Supreme Court decided Scott was a slave, the court judged in favor of Sandford.

Chief Justice Taney.

In November 1856, President-elect Frémont asked Chief Justice Roger Taney to retry Scott's case in the Supreme Court and to do so before his inauguration. Frémont hoped the decision would either result in Scott's freedom or put an end to the nationwide debate on slavery, hopefully with the victory of the people who were against the ”peculiar institution”. The decision was made, and with it came a shocking overrulement of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: the majority Southern court decided that Negroes were not citizens, and thus had no right to be protected by either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. President Frémont and most other Northerners were shocked by this decision, and so Chief Justice Taney lost his reputation over night.

 

[Lord Insane]

My guess is there was more Northern resentment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and so more Northerners voted for the Republicans, who promised more free states north of the Missouri Compromise Line.

Could another possible reason have been that the American Party managed to be seen as slightly more pro-slavery, potentially making the Republican Party gain votes at its expense, and the AP gain votes at the Democrats' expense?

 

[Mikestone8]

President Frémont and most other Northerners were shocked by this decision, and his first order of office was a full pardon to a Mr. Dred Scott of Saint Louis, Missouri.

Pardon for what exactly? Scott was not charged with a crime.

DSvS was a civil suit, and Scott was the plaintiff. He claimed that he was being wrongfully held as a slave, and the Courts ruled that he was being rightfully held as one. The President would have no role in the procedings.

 

[Utgard96]

Pardon for what exactly? Scott was not charged with a crime.

DSvS was a civil suit, and Scott was the plaintiff. He claimed that he was being wrongfully held as a slave, and the Courts ruled that he was being rightfully held as one. The President would have no role in the procedings.

I figured the President granting Scott's freedom and thus overruling the sentence would count as a pardon. (Also I figured it would make a dramatic ending) How should I put it then?

 

[NKVD]

A pardon for a slave? That will certainly anger a lot of Southerners.

 

[Utgard96]

A pardon for a slave? That will certainly anger a lot of Southerners.

A slave getting a legal case to the Supreme Court is enough to astonish me

But seriously, the Republicans are a bit more radically abolitionist ITTL, and so they don't really care about that, and furthermore I will probably edit the last part out.

 

[Gosing]

It was a civil case. The President has no power to interfere.

 

[benjamin]

One possible way to get Buchanan to lose is to have him make the mistake of actively campaigning. If Buchanan had "taken to the stump" it is likely he would have painted himself into a corner over the issues of annexing Cuba, Kansas-Nebraska Act and tariffs. If the Democrats had come out a bit more actively against protective tariffs there is a good chance they would have lost Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Stressing popular sovereignty would have alienated voters in Illinois and California and reminding the voters of his role in creating the Ostend Manifesto would not have helped him in any of the Free States.

With Buchanan on the campaign trail Lincoln and other Republican stalwarts would certainly been forced to respond. While there would not have been any head-to-head debates, Lincoln certainly would have responded to any speech made by Buchanan. Lincoln was very good at debating and speaking which could have been the final push Illinois needs to go Republican. (This could have the follow on effect of ensuring Lincoln becomes Senator of Illinois; in OTL he won the general election but Douglas was selected by the Democratic controlled Illinois state government.)

Another thing that could come to light to haunt Buchanan were his back-door attempts to influence the outcome of Dred Scott. This would tar both Buchanan and Taney. Taney may become the first Supreme Court Justice to be impeached. As for the Dred Scott decision, Fremont has no say. While some of the radical abolitionists would have clamored for him to intervene, I don't think he would have given that he needed the political support of the still very racist western Republicans.

If you want the American Party to do batter you can have the Republicans come out against the restrictions on immigrants that the American Party wanted. This would get them votes in New York and Boston while working to differentiate them from the American Party. In OTL the American Party had a lot of support from the poor whites of the South. So if the Republican and American Parties diverged even further it may be possible for the American Party to do better at the expense of the Democrats. This would mean the American Party costs the Democrats the victory instead of OTL's causing the Republicans to lose.

Otherwise good TL.

Benjamin

 

[Utgard96]

One possible way to get Buchanan to lose is to have him make the mistake of actively campaigning. If Buchanan had "taken to the stump" it is likely he would have painted himself into a corner over the issues of annexing Cuba, Kansas-Nebraska Act and tariffs. If the Democrats had come out a bit more actively against protective tariffs there is a good chance they would have lost Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Stressing popular sovereignty would have alienated voters in Illinois and California and reminding the voters of his role in creating the Ostend Manifesto would not have helped him in any of the Free States.

With Buchanan on the campaign trail Lincoln and other Republican stalwarts would certainly been forced to respond. While there would not have been any head-to-head debates, Lincoln certainly would have responded to any speech made by Buchanan. Lincoln was very good at debating and speaking which could have been the final push Illinois needs to go Republican. (This could have the follow on effect of ensuring Lincoln becomes Senator of Illinois; in OTL he won the general election but Douglas was selected by the Democratic controlled Illinois state government.)

Another thing that could come to light to haunt Buchanan were his back-door attempts to influence the outcome of Dred Scott. This would tar both Buchanan and Taney. Taney may become the first Supreme Court Justice to be impeached. As for the Dred Scott decision, Fremont has no say. While some of the radical abolitionists would have clamored for him to intervene, I don't think he would have given that he needed the political support of the still very racist western Republicans.

If you want the American Party to do batter you can have the Republicans come out against the restrictions on immigrants that the American Party wanted. This would get them votes in New York and Boston while working to differentiate them from the American Party. In OTL the American Party had a lot of support from the poor whites of the South. So if the Republican and American Parties diverged even further it may be possible for the American Party to do better at the expense of the Democrats. This would mean the American Party costs the Democrats the victory instead of OTL's causing the Republicans to lose.

Otherwise good TL.

Benjamin

Great idea, thank you. LordInsane deserves thanks as well.

 

[Utgard96]

The Admission of Minnesota:
In early 1858, the Territory of Minnesota had reached the criteria to become a state, and President Frémont immmediately agreed to give statehood to the territory (one more free state was always welcome). A Senate commitee was formed, with the purpose of deciding how and when to admit the new state. Their findings were that the western border should go along the Red River of the North, and then along the meridian at 96 degrees 30 seconds west. The idea of separating the territory was due to the Southerners wanting to keep the state from having too much influence, and due to the Northerners wanting to admit another free state later. For the time being, however, the territory west of the border fell unorganized. The State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union on May 11, and the power balance between slave states and free states changed forever.

The Territory of Minnesota, showing the partition line.

 

[Mikestone8]

I figured the President granting Scott's freedom and thus overruling the sentence would count as a pardon. (Also I figured it would make a dramatic ending) How should I put it then?

He would have no power to grant Scott's freedom.

The Constitution (Art II, Sec 2) empowers the POTUS to grant "Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment".

If Scott had been sentenced to enslavement by a Federal Court for some Federal offence, the President could pardon him. But he was not. He was a slave under the laws of the State of Missouri, presumably because he happened to have been born one. No sentence was passed, merely a civil ruling, hence nothing to pardon. The POTUS would have no standing in the matter.

 

[Utgard96]

Civil Unrest in Texas:

In early 1858, the Mexican minority in Texas was beginning to pose a serious threat to the state government there. They vandalized state property and destroyed crops on farms owned by known American nationalists. Soon their leader Juan Cortina sent a complaint to the state government, demanding the return of Texas to the United Mexican States or at least secede form the Union, or else they would continue committing crimes against the state and American nationalists in the area. Newly elected governor Sam Houston attempted to bargain with the Mexicans, but he met with little success. After a fortnight of indecisive debating, Houston decided to use force to put an end to the Mexican rebellion before it entered the next phase.

Sam Houston, 6th Governor of Texas.

On July 21 1858, Houston declared martial law until the rebellion had been put down. Three days later the 3rd brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division arrived in Texas, and immediately started patrolling the streets of the towns where the rebellion was active. The rebellion was put down almost entirely by September, and so on September 9 Houston repelled martial law and ordered the troops back to their former positions.

 

[Utgard96]

Bump for the thread.

 

[Van555]

yeah!!! ill bump this too keep it up

by the way it's good

also mike stone is right about dred scott case