WI: No Buchanan nomination in 55

I'm piecing together bits of a timeline mostly about the Oregon Terriorty and a significantly altered Oregon Treaty, but one of the butterflies this is seeming to create is a real possibility the James Buchanan might not be in any position to run in 1856. Assuming his nomination off the table I suppose its still not very likely to be Pierce, and at that point I start to flail...

What are your thoughts on the outcome and high level impact of Buchanan not being a factor in the election of 56? Are we seriously looking and at Fremont? And if we are what happens?
 
I'm piecing together bits of a timeline mostly about the Oregon Terriorty and a significantly altered Oregon Treaty, but one of the butterflies this is seeming to create is a real possibility the James Buchanan might not be in any position to run in 1856. Assuming his nomination off the table I suppose its still not very likely to be Pierce, and at that point I start to flail...

What are your thoughts on the outcome and high level impact of Buchanan not being a factor in the election of 56? Are we seriously looking and at Fremont? And if we are what happens?


I don't think a Fremont win is likely, as the Dems won't choose anyone likely to lose to him - that was why they picked Buchanan.

So it won't be Pierce or (probably) Douglas. That means a dark horse. Seymour maybe?

What I'd really love is to have Ben Butler or Edwin Stanton get elected. Both were Democrats at the time. But I'm not sure either could get it.
 
In OTL Seymour "wrote a letter definitively ruling himself out from consideration." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Seymour If he also does so in a non-Buchanan TL--and really means it (after all, he said he wouldn't be a candidate in 1868, too)--Democrats are faced with the choice of Pierce (probably the weakest candidate due to his unpopularity in the North), Douglas (not as weak as Pierce but still controversial) or some dark horse. (Cass is too old.)

One possibility I have been thinking of: Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Linn Boyd. https://books.google.com/books?id=8eFSK4o--M0C&pg=PA108 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linn_Boyd (In OTL, he was the choice of the Kentucky delegation for vice-president but was rejected by the convention which turned to his fellow Kentuckian Breckinridge.) Sure, Republicans and Know Nothings could scoff "Who is Linn Boyd?" But the Whigs had said the same thing about another former Speaker of the House, James K. Polk.

Boyd incidentally died in 1859 in OTL so (assuming he is elected) who his running mate would be could be important.
 
Is someone like Sam Houston a viable candidate?

His opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act had alienated most of his fellow Southerners, so you'd have the curious situation of a Southern candidate imposed on the South by Northern votes. That would be interesting but perhaps a little unlikely.
 
Last edited:
What about William L. Marcy?

He has been a U.S. Senator and the 11th Governor of New York, as well as sitting in the U.S. cabinet in two positions Secretary of War and Secretary of State, under James K. Polk and Franklin Pierce.
 
What about William L. Marcy?

He has been a U.S. Senator and the 11th Governor of New York, as well as sitting in the U.S. cabinet in two positions Secretary of War and Secretary of State, under James K. Polk and Franklin Pierce.

It would have been a very short Presidency, as he died (apparently of a heart attack) on July 4, 1857.

So all would hang on his VP - who, since Marcy was from the North, would presumably be a Southerner.
Well, just so long as it wasn't Jefferson Davis
 
It would have been a very short Presidency, as he died (apparently of a heart attack) on July 4, 1857.

So all would hang on his VP - who, since Marcy was from the North, would presumably be a Southerner.
Well, just so long as it wasn't Jefferson Davis

It would be a conveniently awesome timeline if this is how the civil war started.

His opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act had alienated most of his fellow Southerners, so you'd have the curious situation of a Southern candidate imposed on the South by Northern votes. That would be interesting but perhaps a little unlikely.

Although i do see your point, Its 10 years since the POD, which is 1846. The OP said a significantly altered Oregon treaty, why not have Houston as the candidate. Hell, Kansas Nebraska may not even happen the same way yet.
 
It would have been a very short Presidency, as he died (apparently of a heart attack) on July 4, 1857.

So all would hang on his VP - who, since Marcy was from the North, would presumably be a Southerner.
Well, just so long as it wasn't Jefferson Davis

It would be a conveniently awesome timeline if this is how the civil war started.


Would this not avoid the US civil war.

On March 4, 1857, William L. Marcy is swarn in as 15th President of the United States of America, however of July 4, 1857, only four months into his presidency, he died of a heart attack, earning him the second shortest time in office, beaten only by 9th President, William Henry Harrison's one month in office.

This leads to his Vice President, John C. Breckinridge, at 36 to become the youngest person to be sworn in as President, when he took office on July 5, 1857.

In 1860, John C. Breckinridge stood for re-election, winning the popular vote and percentage of votes, but lost the States carried and electoral votes.
With southern states declearing this illegal, they split the union in two, with Virginian soldiers, keeping President Breckinridge, in Washington DC and not allowing President-Elect Abraham Lincoln from entering the city.

Lincoln returned to Springfield, Illinois, where he sent up the office of President within the Illinois State Capitol.
 
It would have been a very short Presidency, as he died (apparently of a heart attack) on July 4, 1857.

So all would hang on his VP - who, since Marcy was from the North, would presumably be a Southerner.
Well, just so long as it wasn't Jefferson Davis



Things could get interesting if it's Andrew Johnson.

Assuming the Republicans still win in 1860, I could imagine him trying to "do an Andy Jackson" and call out troops the moment SC secedes. What effects might this have on the course of the ACW?
 
Top