Had Lincoln lost New York in 1860, the result would've been a hung electoral college and a contingent election in the House of Representatives. The three choices open to the House would be Lincoln, who won the most states and a plurality of electoral and popular votes, Vice-President Breckinridge and Stephen A. Douglas. The Republicans had the most seats in the House, but they didn't have an outright majority. In this scenario, who wins the contingent election? Remember that in such an election each state delegation gets one vote. In the electoral college Lincoln would've won 16 states, Breckinridge 11, and Douglas only 3. John Bell's influence on the Upper South would be a deciding factor.
WI: 1860 Election Went to the House
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
First - the House that votes is the House elected in 1858-59.
Second - it doesn't matter whether Republicans have a majority of Representatives; the House votes by state delegations. A majority of the 33 delegations is required to elect.
Republicans control 15 delegations (all free states except IL, CA, OR). Douglas Democrats control 1 delegation (IL, 5-4). Breckinridge Democrats control IIRC 13 (CA, OR, DE, and 10 Upper and Deep South states). KY is controlled by the "Opposition" group (i.e. ex-Whigs, now presumably supporting "Constitutional Union" candidate Bell). TN and IIRC MD are split between Breckinridge Democrats and Oppositionists or Know-Nothings. MO is split three or four ways.
One other point: Before the vote, Douglas stated that he would not accept election by the House. OTL, he was fourth in EV, so not eligible. If Douglas wins NY, that gives him 47 EV to 39 for Bell, so he's in and Bell's out. But he's put himself out.
Most likely, the Oppositionists (who were from slave states anyway) fall into line behind Breckinridge, which would give him 17 states.
One other possibility is interesting: the Vice President is elected by the Senate (voting individually); only the top two EV finishers are eligible, i.e. Lincoln's running mate Hamlin, and Breckinridge's running mate, Sen. Joe Lane of OR. The Senate is overwhelmingly Democrat, so it will be Lane. If the House deadlocks, Lane becomes President. And in fact, during the campaign Republicans harped on this, asserting that the choice was "Lincoln or Lane". (A minor point in this was that OR's sole Representative was a Lane crony. By abstaining, or voting for Douglas, he could deadlock the House and thus put his buddy in the White House.)
One other possibility: one of the Douglas Democrats from IL is so angry at the Breckinridge Democrats that he votes for Lincoln, giving him 16 states; and the Republicans bribe or bully one of the sole Representatives from OR or DE to vote for Lincoln. They're both Breckinridge Democrats, but the Republicans could apply enormous pressure for such a great prize, and after all Lincoln did lead in popular votes.
Second - it doesn't matter whether Republicans have a majority of Representatives; the House votes by state delegations. A majority of the 33 delegations is required to elect.
Republicans control 15 delegations (all free states except IL, CA, OR). Douglas Democrats control 1 delegation (IL, 5-4). Breckinridge Democrats control IIRC 13 (CA, OR, DE, and 10 Upper and Deep South states). KY is controlled by the "Opposition" group (i.e. ex-Whigs, now presumably supporting "Constitutional Union" candidate Bell). TN and IIRC MD are split between Breckinridge Democrats and Oppositionists or Know-Nothings. MO is split three or four ways.
One other point: Before the vote, Douglas stated that he would not accept election by the House. OTL, he was fourth in EV, so not eligible. If Douglas wins NY, that gives him 47 EV to 39 for Bell, so he's in and Bell's out. But he's put himself out.
Most likely, the Oppositionists (who were from slave states anyway) fall into line behind Breckinridge, which would give him 17 states.
One other possibility is interesting: the Vice President is elected by the Senate (voting individually); only the top two EV finishers are eligible, i.e. Lincoln's running mate Hamlin, and Breckinridge's running mate, Sen. Joe Lane of OR. The Senate is overwhelmingly Democrat, so it will be Lane. If the House deadlocks, Lane becomes President. And in fact, during the campaign Republicans harped on this, asserting that the choice was "Lincoln or Lane". (A minor point in this was that OR's sole Representative was a Lane crony. By abstaining, or voting for Douglas, he could deadlock the House and thus put his buddy in the White House.)
One other possibility: one of the Douglas Democrats from IL is so angry at the Breckinridge Democrats that he votes for Lincoln, giving him 16 states; and the Republicans bribe or bully one of the sole Representatives from OR or DE to vote for Lincoln. They're both Breckinridge Democrats, but the Republicans could apply enormous pressure for such a great prize, and after all Lincoln did lead in popular votes.
During a similar discussion a few years back, I came across a political science journal article attempting to answer this very question using W-NOMINATE scores. The short version is that the House (the lame duck House, as Anarch mentioned) would pick the President between the top three electoral vote winners (Lincoln, Breckenridge, and Bell IOTL, but could be Douglas instead of Bell depending on the POD and the TTL election results), and the Senate would pick the Vice President between the top two (Hamlin and Lane). And if the House deadlocks until inauguration day, the VP-elect becomes (acting?) President. Pro-Slavery Democrats had a clean majority in the Senate, so Joseph Lane (Breckenridge's running mate, a strongly pro-slavery Senator from Oregon) would become VP-elect, but the House would deadlock if each representative votes for his first choice. The paper argues that the threat of Lane becoming President would push House Republicans into lining up behind Bell or Douglas in order to block Lane.
An interesting wrinkle that the paper doesn't fully explore is that in the Lincoln-Breckenridge-Bell scenario, Lincoln would only be two states short of winning in the House on the first ballot (assuming the first ballot is expressive and everyone votes for their first choice), and he'd be one vote short in each of the two states he needs. In Illinois, the House delegation consisted of four Republicans (Lincoln), one moderately anti-slavery Democrat (presumed to favor Bell), and four pro-slavery Democrats (presumed to favor Breckenridge), and the paper projects that the moderate Democrat would prefer Lincoln over Lane. And then there's Oregon, where the lone Representative (Lansing Stout) is projected to favor Bell on the first ballot, and to hold firm for Bell in a Lincoln-or-Lane scenario because his voting record on slavery is closer to Lane's than to Lincoln's. The paper's logic makes sense as far as it goes, but Lansing Stout is one man, and as important as the Slavery issue was, it's not the only thing that could influence his vote.
Maybe Stout does hold firm and Lincoln's supporters in the House would give in an back Bell, but I suspect it's at least as likely that Stout would vote for Lincoln. Partly because the stakes are high enough that Republicans would be very motivated to buy his vote (with a high-level appointment in Lincoln's administration, if not an outright bribe), and partly because Stout had just lost re-election because, after being an ally of Lane in the 1858 election, he'd had a falling-out with Lane and Lane had pulled strings to block Stout's renomination.
An interesting wrinkle that the paper doesn't fully explore is that in the Lincoln-Breckenridge-Bell scenario, Lincoln would only be two states short of winning in the House on the first ballot (assuming the first ballot is expressive and everyone votes for their first choice), and he'd be one vote short in each of the two states he needs. In Illinois, the House delegation consisted of four Republicans (Lincoln), one moderately anti-slavery Democrat (presumed to favor Bell), and four pro-slavery Democrats (presumed to favor Breckenridge), and the paper projects that the moderate Democrat would prefer Lincoln over Lane. And then there's Oregon, where the lone Representative (Lansing Stout) is projected to favor Bell on the first ballot, and to hold firm for Bell in a Lincoln-or-Lane scenario because his voting record on slavery is closer to Lane's than to Lincoln's. The paper's logic makes sense as far as it goes, but Lansing Stout is one man, and as important as the Slavery issue was, it's not the only thing that could influence his vote.
Maybe Stout does hold firm and Lincoln's supporters in the House would give in an back Bell, but I suspect it's at least as likely that Stout would vote for Lincoln. Partly because the stakes are high enough that Republicans would be very motivated to buy his vote (with a high-level appointment in Lincoln's administration, if not an outright bribe), and partly because Stout had just lost re-election because, after being an ally of Lane in the 1858 election, he'd had a falling-out with Lane and Lane had pulled strings to block Stout's renomination.
Given how masterful a political manipulator that Lincoln was, it wouldn't be surprising if his team is able to pursuade Stout to vote for him simply out of revenge.
I wonder also of Douglas position in this. Even though he seems to have stated his intent, even if he was to win New York, he would still be a distant third in the race, so I ask whether or not it's possible he be persuaded to back Lincoln against Breckinridge. Between his influence and Stout's feud with Lane, we could get Illinois and Oregon into Lincoln column.
Yes and yes. Douglas and Lincoln were rivals, but both were staunch supporters of the Union. Douglas went so far as to advise Lincoln on the war and took up the new President's offer to embark on a speaking tour that would really Democrats to the Unionist cause. That's what ultimately lead to Douglas' premature death in 1861. So Douglas would do everything in his power to elect Lincoln, but possibly in exchange for an important cabinet post such as SecWar or SecState.
Anaxagoras
Banned
It's important to recall that Breckinridge, while he was backed by the extreme Fire-Eaters in this election, was far from a Fire-Eater himself. He was no secessionist and, had he somehow become President under these bizarre circumstances, would have done his very best to save the Union.
Incidentally, Breckinridge and Lincoln were on very friendly personal terms with one another, Mary Todd being a relative of Breckinridge.
Incidentally, Breckinridge and Lincoln were on very friendly personal terms with one another, Mary Todd being a relative of Breckinridge.
But he would be relying on fire eater for support, meaning that in supporting Breckinridge one would be extension be supporting fire eater control over federal policy. The Republicans would never sit still for this, while Douglas hated the fire eaters who'd rejected him and formed their own party in 1860. Douglas would most likely support Lincoln to keep them out.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Well, Breckinridge did not want to be nominated in the first place, so he wouldn't feel that he owed them anything.
But he would owe them the presidency if they vote for him in the House. Anyway, Douglas hated Buchanan as well (that's VP Breckinridge's boss) and vice versa. So that's another good reason why the Little Giant would support Honest Abe over Breckinridge. That said a Lincoln Presidency where Joseph Lane is President in his first term is pretty interesting. Given Lane's pro-slavery and pro-confederate views he might resign the Vice-Presidency after Fort Sumter.
Also, it's impossible for Douglas to win all the electoral votes of New York, The anti-Lincoln vote in New York (sometimes incorrectly portrayed as a "Douglas" vote, e.g., at http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1860.txt) was for a "fusion" ticket consisting of 18 Douglas, 10 Bell, and 7 Breckinridge electors. https://books.google.com/books?id=7_lEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA85 So even if Lincoln had lost New York and the race went into the House, Douglas would still be in fourth place.
"Sometimes"? Nearly always.
In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a source that shows the New York 1860 vote as anything except "Democrat/Douglas".
Nor one that shows the New Jersey vote correctly either. (Since New Jersey had separate votes for each of its seven electors, sources which show a single "Republican" vote and a single "Democrat" vote are deceptive. They are doubly deceptive because most of the "Democrat" votes were for a fusion ticket of three Democrats and four "Constitutional Unionists". (A few thousand Democrats voted for the three Democrat electors, but refused to vote for the CU electors
The same problem comes up in 1960. Votes for the Dixiecrat/Democrat fusion ticket in Alabama are always reported as "Democrat/Kennedy" votes, even though 6 of the 11 electors on the ticket were "uncommitted", and voted for Senator Harry F. Bird.
Wikipedia does show the existence of fusion slates in NY, NJ, and PA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
The main Democratic slate in PA is usually called a "Breckinridge" slate; but it was actually a Breckinridge-Douglas fusion slate. However some hard-core Douglaistes refused to support it and ran a Douglas slate that got less than four percent of the vote.
As for NJ there is an interesting discussion at http://www.bluejersey.com/2010/03/how-new-jersey-split-its-electoral-votes-in-1860/ Again, there were a few ardent Douglas voters who would not support the Breckinridge or Bell electors on the fusion ticket.