Thomas H. Seymour, Democratic peace candidate in 1864?

From February 20, 1863, a New York Times article with the sneering title "The New Hartford Convention" (implying that Connecticut's Democrats, who had just held their convention in Hartford, with "peace" men dominating, were disunionists as the Hartford Convention Federalists had supposedly been):

***
"THE NEW HARTFORD CONVENTION.; Thomas H. Seymour Nominated for Governor. PEACE AND SECESH RESOLUTIONS. State Sovereignty and Independence Proclaimed. Federal Despotism and the Conscription Bill Denounced. Bill of Indictment Against the Administration. RESOLUTIONS.
Published: February 20, 1863

...Resolved, 1. That the United States are a Confederacy of States, coequal in sovereignty and political power; independent in their separate organizations, and reserving to each, all rights not granted by the Constitution to the central Government.

2. That while, as citizens of Connecticut, we assert our devotion to the Constitution and the Union, and will hereafter, as we have heretofore, support with zeal and energy the authorities of the United States in the full constitutional exercise of their powers, we deliberately avow that the liberties of the people are menaced by Congressional and Federal usurpations, and can only be preserved by the energetic action of State authority; and we are determined to maintain and defend the honor of our State, and the rights of the people.

3. That while we denounce the heresy of secession as undefended and unwarranted by the Constitution, we as confidently assert, that whatever may have been the opinion of our countrymen, the time has now arrived when all true lovers of the Constitution are ready to abandon the "monstrous fallacy" that the Union can be restored by the armed hand; and are anxious to inaugurate such action, honorable alike to the contending factions, as will stop the ravages of war, avert universal bankruptcy and unite all the States upon terms of equality, as members of one Confederacy.

4. That the Democracy of Connecticut, sympathizing with their conservative brethren in the Middle and Western States, pledge themselves to unite with them in the adoption of all honorable measures, having in view the cessation of hostilities between the North and South; the reconstruction of the Union on such terms as shall thoroughly define the rights of the States; the reproduction of those fraternal feelings which form the true foundation of the federation, and the erection upon a more enduring basis of the temple of the Constitution..."

http://www.nytimes.com/1863/02/20/n...for-governor-peace-secesh.html?pagewanted=all

***
For background on Thomas H. Seymour, who had had a distinguished Mexican War record, had been elected Governor of Connecticut in 1850, and had served as Pierce's Minister to Russia, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_H._Seymour

Question: Suppose Seymour had defeated Governor Buckingham in the April 1863 election? It was a pretty close race in OTL--41,032 (51.64%) to 38,395 (48.32%). http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=262153 As it was, despite his loss, he was the Peace Democrats' leading candidate against McClellan at the 1864 Democratic national convention, getting 38 votes, even though his close friend and head of the Connecticut delegation William W. Eaton informed the convention that Seymour did not want the nomination and that unless other states would vote for him, the Connecticut delegates would not.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yN9vSaJj8CYC&pg=PA52

Can anyone see Governor Thomas H. Seymour (not to be confused with another man who was sometimes mentioned for the nomination, his cousin and former New York Governor, Horatio Seymour) winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 1864? Probably his chances of winning the nomination depend on the war going even worse than it seemed to be going at the time McClellan was nominated, and his chances of actually winning the presidency depend on the war situation not improving...
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If the war went badly for the Union in 1863 and the first half of 1864 (i.e. Lee winning at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga remaining in Confederate hands), then I could see Thomas Seymour winning the nomination. But Horatio Seymour might have jumped into the ring in such an event, and he would stand a better chance of winning the nomination that Thomas Seymour.
 
If the war went badly for the Union in 1863 and the first half of 1864 (i.e. Lee winning at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga remaining in Confederate hands), then I could see Thomas Seymour winning the nomination. But Horatio Seymour might have jumped into the ring in such an event, and he would stand a better chance of winning the nomination that Thomas Seymour.

But if the war went that badly, the Democrats might want a really hard-core peace man as their nominee, which Thomas Seymour was and Horatio Seymour was not.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
But if the war went that badly, the Democrats might want a really hard-core peace man as their nominee, which Thomas Seymour was and Horatio Seymour was not.

Horatio was neither a War Democrat nor a Peace Democrat. It was easy for him to stay on the fence, since his position as Governor of New York (the most important post held by a Democrat in 1862-64) made him the guy both sides wanted on their side. Horatio could have transformed into a peace candidate had he so wished.
 
But if the war went that badly, the Democrats might want a really hard-core peace man as their nominee, which Thomas Seymour was and Horatio Seymour was not.

I'd think the war going badly would actually strengthen the War Democrats at the Peace Democrats' expense. OTL, a lot of War Democrats supported Lincoln's re-election. In this TL, they'd have very little reason to, so they'd all be still within the Democratic fold. Having the war go worse seems like it would be even more likely to allow McClellan to be the nominee. But maybe I'm thinking about it wrong.

At any rate, I don't see why a part that is a coalition of groups with differing views on the war would prefer a hard-core Copperhead to a moderate like Horatio Seymour.
 
Top