Two Terms for James Buchanan, 1857-1865?

Two terms for James Buchanan? Yes, he said he would not be a candidate for re-election, but there is an article by Richard R. Stenberg, "An Unnoted Factor in the Buchanan-Douglas Feud," Illinois State Historical Society Journal, XXV (1933), 271-284 which argues that the "unnoted factor" was Buchanan's private hope for renomination in 1860. https://archive.org/details/illinoisstatehis25illi/page/270 "His constant disclaimers of such desire have convinced historians so well that they have either completely ignored the contemporary charge that he was secretly intriguing for renomination or have only mentioned it to reject it summarily, even indignantly, and with it, of course, the possibility that such personal ambition partly motivated his policies." Yet, as Stenberg notes, no sonner had Buchanan issued one of his indignant denials of seeking re-election than he wrote his friend James Campbell of Philadelphia, August 11, 1859:

"I have just returned from Richmond and Washington & found prospects in both places quite as favorable as I could have anticipated. . . Everything depends on the March 4th Convention [in Harrisburg which would choose Pennsylvania's delegates to the 1860 Democratic national convention]. Should its proceedings be of the proper character, my chances for the nomination are excellent." It soon became apparent that the Harrisburg convention would not favor Buchanan's re-nomination, and so "Curbed in Pennsylvania, Buchanan’s hopes declined, and he made a virtue of enforced adherence to his avowed one-term program, viewing the nomination as 'sour grapes.' Yet even to the last he probably hoped that the men at Charleston would turn to him as a compromise candidate. Southern leaders might again befriend him, for he had favored them. Robert Toombs wrote in January, 1860: 'There are very decided indications of the North in favor of Breckinridge. Pennsylvania is certainly for him. . . I think Mr. Buchanan would like to prevent the nomination of another in order to make himself necessary. This is impossible.'"

If there had been less blatant corruption in his administration, the pro-southern wing of the party could conceivably have nominated him instead of Breckinridge, and if the election went into the House (which could have happened, especially if the Republicans had nominated a weaker candidate than Lincoln [1]) there is at least a chance he could win there with the help of some slave-state Bell supporters (they went under various party labels--"Americans," "Oppositionists," "Constitutional Unionists" etc.--maybe a few even still called themselves Whigs...) who would view him as a lesser evil than a "Black Republican" like Seward. I explain how Breckinridge could win in the House at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ns-the-election-of-1860.431939/#post-16151177 and pretty much the same analysis would apply to Buchanan, though he might be a bit harder than Breckinridge for Bell supporters to swallow.

[1] Even then it would be unlikely--Seward could quite plausibly lose CA, OR, IL and the electoral votes Lincoln got in NJ, but he also has to lose either NY or IN for the race to go into the House, as I noted at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-breckinridge-in-1860.439858/#post-16732749
 
So suppose Buchanan does indeed win in this way. The ACW is delayed by at least four years, but what are the other consequences? Is it even conceivable that there will be a serious movement for northern secession? I doubt it, but two losses in a row to the "slave power" may make antislavery northerners desperate, and led them to talk more seriously about secession, especialy if there is (a) US military action in Mexico or the Caribbean which northerners will intrpret as being in the interest of slavery; and/or (b) further pro-slavery decisions by the Supreme Court in the wake of Dred Scott. E.g., a decision that southerners have the right to "transit or sojourn" with their human "property" in non-slave states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmon_v._New_York What would be especially alarming is that "sojourn" could mean virtually indefinite presence of slaveholders and their slaves in northern states, just as long as the slaveholders do not declare an intention to become permanent residents. (Remember that John Emerson with his slave Dred Scott had "sojourned" in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for years...) This would make Lincoln's warnings about the "nationalization of slavery" look plausible.
 
Last edited:
Another fascinating revelation from Dave T.

This connects to a question I have been thinking about for a while.

WI Lincoln defeated Douglas in 1858? (I.e. the Republicans win enough seats in the legislature to elect Lincoln to the US Senate. In fact the legislative election was conducted as a surrogate for a direct Senate election.)

There were various reasons why it was unlikely for Lincoln to win, even though the actual result was not that far off. But if (somehow) Lincoln wins, then...

ISTM that Douglas is done for. He'd have no chance for the presidential nomination in 1860, nor much of a chance of winning the other Illinois Senate seat, held by Lyman Trumbull.

Who then would the Democrats nominate? Toombs' comment is interesting, because AFAI knew, Breckinridge was not seeking the 1860 nomination.

ISTM that Buchanan's renomination becomes probable. WIth a second term for Breckinridge, too?
 
Another fascinating revelation from Dave T.

This connects to a question I have been thinking about for a while.

WI Lincoln defeated Douglas in 1858? (I.e. the Republicans win enough seats in the legislature to elect Lincoln to the US Senate. In fact the legislative election was conducted as a surrogate for a direct Senate election.)

There were various reasons why it was unlikely for Lincoln to win, even though the actual result was not that far off. But if (somehow) Lincoln wins, then...

ISTM that Douglas is done for. He'd have no chance for the presidential nomination in 1860, nor much of a chance of winning the other Illinois Senate seat, held by Lyman Trumbull.

Who then would the Democrats nominate? Toombs' comment is interesting, because AFAI knew, Breckinridge was not seeking the 1860 nomination.

ISTM that Buchanan's renomination becomes probable. WIth a second term for Breckinridge, too?

If you want to remove Douglas as a factor for 1860, the simplest way is to have him die. His health was in fact precarious (years of high living had taken their toll, even though he reformed somewhat under the influence of his second wife Adele Cutts); he had almost died of bronchitis in 1855.
https://books.google.com/books?id=pCzhaQTh5SEC&pg=PA484

If he narrowly loses the Senate race in 1858, he is still likely to run for president in 1860; in fact, he may be more determined than ever, he and his supporters being likely to blame Buchanan for the defeat, (There was a in fact collaboration between the pro-Buchanan "Danites" and the Republicans. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...les-leib-lincolns-mole?rgn=main;view=fulltext But even if there hadn't been any explicit collaboration, that the Danites were "objectively" helping Lincoln would be obvious.)
 
Top