WI: Polk Lives to See the American Civil War?

Japhy

Banned
James K. Polk is generally in vogue with historians these days, especially as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson's stars are on the wane. As such Polk with his victories, however one rates their morality, in achieving all of his main political goals is presented in many ways as one of the great triumphs of the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian Democratic system.

Polk incidentally also had the shortest Post-Presidency of any man to have ever held the office, it was only 103 days until his presumably Cholera-educed death at the age of 53.

Now the question is this, what impact does Polk have on the course of events if he lives theoretically, as long as his mother did (She outlived him) which would put his allo-natural death sometime around 1870-72. This of course is interesting in that butterflies aside, he'd live to see his state revolt against the Federal Government.

Chris DeRose in his recent book The Presidents' War: Six American Presidents and the Civil War that Divided Them covers how each of the five previous office holders still alive when Lincoln took office had opposed his nomination and election as a harbinger of war.

Of the five, one (John Tyler) took part in the mostly-border state mostly-remnant Whig attempts to prevent a full break with compromises to violence and then went on to be elected to the Confederate Congress, dying before he could take the oath. Tyler of course is the only one of the five who was from a state that seceded. Though Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan offered no real useful advantage to the country, representing Anti-Republican Whiggism, Copperheadism, and Base Incompetence respectively. Martin Van Buren did a moderately respectable job, after having opposed Lincoln closing the ranks, allied more or less with the Conservative Republicans who had once been fellow Free Soilers.

Now, that all said, is Tyler the most likely comparison figure of that "esteemed" club to compare Polk to? Would Polk have gone into the Confederate Congress, or tried for other political office? Or is something along the lines of John Bell's pathetic stand for Unionism and full acceptance of the Confederate Government without serving in the regime a possibility? Or theoretically was the man enough of a real, true blooded Jacksonian to stand by Old Hickory's toast: "Our Federal Union: It must be Preserved"?

Or to cover another option, though I don't view it as so likely based on how little influence ex-Presidents generally have, does Polk remove the Civil War as we know it by living?
 
If the country gets to its OTL 1860 state, Polk might be able to swing narrowly seceding Tennessee into sticking with the Union in a manner similar to Kentucky.

On the subject of how he could change the passage of history, I can't think of much he could do, unless he can be convinced to run for president again. He's young enough to be a viable candidate all the way until 1864, and having another term as President, or even just being a loser in the general election or convention, could have a profound impact on the country.
 

Japhy

Banned
If the country gets to its OTL 1860 state, Polk might be able to swing narrowly seceding Tennessee into sticking with the Union in a manner similar to Kentucky.

Is there any way to say that he'd even want to though? Tyler certainly didn't stand against the flow for long for example, in Virginia.

On the subject of how he could change the passage of history, I can't think of much he could do, unless he can be convinced to run for president again. He's young enough to be a viable candidate all the way until 1864, and having another term as President, or even just being a loser in the general election or convention, could have a profound impact on the country.

The idea occurred to me, but after 1850 is it even possible for a Southerner to top the Democratic ticket? Obviously he's got a rather impressive boost of stature than most of his regional contemporaries but there's a reason the Democrats nominated Doughfaces and appeasers from 1848 to 1860.

Or is Polk a possible recruit for one of the attempts for a Nativist or Southern Regional ticket?
 
The idea occurred to me, but after 1850 is it even possible for a Southerner to top the Democratic ticket? Obviously he's got a rather impressive boost of stature than most of his regional contemporaries but there's a reason the Democrats nominated Doughfaces and appeasers from 1848 to 1860.
Probably not, but if any Southerner could get the nomination it would be a successful former President like Polk. 1852 was a long drawn out mess for the Democrats, and in 1856 they were desperate for someone who was not part of the 1850s congressional battles, so Polk might have a small chance.

Or is Polk a possible recruit for one of the attempts for a Nativist or Southern Regional ticket?
Maybe if the Democrats nominate someone very offensive to him? Maybe he could be the leader of an alternate Constitutional Union party instead of his fellow Tennessean Bell?

One sort of silly idea I had was if Polk dramatically stayed with the Union and denounced the Confederacy, him being chosen as Lincoln's "loyal southern war Democrat" VP in 1864. Lincoln could choose him for the symbolism, the presidents of two parties united. Meanwhile, Polk, expecting to have the Vice Presidency as a do-nothing retirement job, gets a shocking return to office when Lincoln is killed. I don't think this scenario is very plausible, but it isn't impossible and would give Polk a unique two presidencies.
 
The idea occurred to me, but after 1850 is it even possible for a Southerner to top the Democratic ticket? Obviously he's got a rather impressive boost of stature than most of his regional contemporaries but there's a reason the Democrats nominated Doughfaces and appeasers from 1848 to 1860.

Or is Polk a possible recruit for one of the attempts for a Nativist or Southern Regional ticket?

The only Southern Democrat I can think of who would be acceptable nationally would be Sam Houston. And he was hated by the Democrats for his stand on the 1850 Compromise, and I think he became a Know-Nothing. I've seen references to it, but I don't remember seeing anything concrete like a primary source.

Maybe they do something tricky with Electors? Like Polk's ticket in one state, Bell's ticket in another, and they share their electors? I know that NY and NJ did some weird anti-Republican slating during 1860.

Constitutional Union with Bell?

They were both from Tennessee, so they'd be unable to both get their home state's Electoral Votes. Interestingly, Polk succeeded Bell as Speaker, and Bell succeeded Houston as Tennessee's 7th district Congressman.

One sort of silly idea I had was if Polk dramatically stayed with the Union and denounced the Confederacy, him being chosen as Lincoln's "loyal southern war Democrat" VP in 1864. Lincoln could choose him for the symbolism, the presidents of two parties united. Meanwhile, Polk, expecting to have the Vice Presidency as a do-nothing retirement job, gets a shocking return to office when Lincoln is killed. I don't think this scenario is very plausible, but it isn't impossible and would give Polk a unique two presidencies.

If anything I'd see Polk being appointed something like Secretary of War or some vaguely important position as a thanks for
 
I think what he does post-presidency will depend on his health. Polk wasn't really in good health for most of his life, it's probably a miracle he made it through his term alive.

One sort of silly idea I had was if Polk dramatically stayed with the Union and denounced the Confederacy, him being chosen as Lincoln's "loyal southern war Democrat" VP in 1864. Lincoln could choose him for the symbolism, the presidents of two parties united. Meanwhile, Polk, expecting to have the Vice Presidency as a do-nothing retirement job, gets a shocking return to office when Lincoln is killed. I don't think this scenario is very plausible, but it isn't impossible and would give Polk a unique two presidencies.
That's a neat idea. It would be interesting to see how he handles reconstruction differently from Johnson.
 
I don't expect Polk to have too much influence on the sectional crisis after he leaves office. As to how he would stand on secession in 1860-1, there is an interesting discussion of this in William Dusinberre, *Slavemaster President: The Double Career of James Polk (Oxford UP 2003), p. 149-151. https://books.google.com/books?id=KP9cSgJ9Sv0C&pg=PA149 As he notes, if you look at Polk's closest associates who survived to the ACW, you can make a case for either his Unionism or his Secessionism. After Lincoln's call for soldiers in April 1861, middle Tennessee's Democrats became overwhelmingly secessionist; Unionism in the area by then was mostly confined to Whigs/Constitutional Unionists. (Note that this was not the case in eastern Tennessee, where Democrats like Andrew Johnson as well as old Whigs remained Unionist.) There were two major exceptions--US Supreme Court Justice John Catron and Polk's younger brother William Polk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hawkins_Polk That both of them were close associates of James K. Polk offers *some* clue as to what *his* attitude would have been had he still been living in 1861. But not a conclusive answer--after all, other close Polk associates, like his Postmaster General Cave Johnson, became secessionists after Lincoln's call for troops. Dusinberre thinks that in the end Polk would probably have followed Cave Johnson's path. After all, even John Bell went along with the secessionist current once it seemed irresistible everywhere in Tennessee except the east. (And William Polk was rather unusual for a Tennessee Democrat in endorsing Douglas rather than Breckinridge in 1860--even Andrew Johnson supported Breckinridge.)
 
Or to cover another option, though I don't view it as so likely based on how little influence ex-Presidents generally have, does Polk remove the Civil War as we know it by living?

Well, I agree it's a long shot, but just maybe.

Polk lives through 1850 and sees the country fumble its way to the brink of civil war. He decides that he made a mistake in stepping down.

In 1852 the Democratic convention is deadlocked as OTL, and after several inconclusive ballots turns to the ex-President, with Franklin Pierce as VP.

Polk wins comfortably in November, but it's a somewhat different victory from Pierce's. He carries KY and TN, which Pierce lost, but does less well in the North. In addition to MA and VT, Scott wins CT, OH. IA and maybe even NY or PA. In short, this 1852 is a sort of "half way house" between OTLs 1852 and 1856, but somewhat closer to the latter.

One side-effect of this is that several more Northern Whigs are returned to the HoR. OTL, the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed by only 13 votes, with Northern Whigs voting solidly against it, so TTL it is very likely defeated. This means the Republican Party either isn't formed or at least gets off to a much slower start. I'd still expect significant Democratic losses in 1854 (esp if Polk makes a controversial bid to take Cuba) but not on the landslide scale of OTL.

One risk. Given Polk's health he could die in office, which means we get Pierce anyway. But if it's after 1854 it may be too late for him to do much real harm [1]. He (or any other Democrat) probably faces a Know-Nothing in 1856, but the latter is unlikely to get in. I don't know if this, or indeed any WI, could prevent the ACW forever, but I could see it being put back a decade or even longer.




[1] Timing is everything in these matters. Had Lincoln's assassination (or a natural death) taken place a year later, it would probably have been too late for Andrew Johnson to do anything much except carry on with whatever Reconstruction programme Lincoln had seen fit to adopt. He might be quite well remembered as the man who finished Lincoln's work.
 
Last edited:
Top