WI: Sam Houston nominated by Democrats in 1852

In 1852, Sam Houston was one of several minor presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination. Houston was not well-liked by Southerners due to lack of support for expanding slavery, made plain when he supported the Oregon Bill. Getting him, nominated wouldn't be easy, but could it be done, and how? If nominated, Houston seems likely to win, regardless of who the Whigs pick, so would Houston be a good president?

For the record, I'm considering combining this with a scenario where Webster is Taylor's running mate. Webster dies in 1852 after Taylor's death in 1850, to be replaced by William R. King. King dies early in 1853, replaced by David Rice Atchison for the last couple months. Fun times all around.
 
Last edited:
This may delay the ACW but not sure. The Republican Party will still be formed out of the ashes of the Whigs, and the abolition movement will continue to grow and be seen as the bogeyman by the south.There were 2 Supreme Court justices appointed 1852-1869, one from Maine and one Alabama so you could get two instead of one from outside the south but I doubt it. Given Houston's hostility to the expansion of slavery, I don't see the tensions between the north and south decreasing. After all, in the decade before, especially 1856-60, Buchanan had been very sympathetic to the south and yet the tensions grew worse.
 
For the record, I'm considering combining this with a scenario where Webster is Taylor's running mate. Webster dies in 1852 after Taylor's death in 1850, to be replaced by William R. King. King dies early in 1853, replaced by David Rice Atchison for the last couple months. Fun times all around.

To quote a post of mine from a couple of months ago:

***

I don't think there was much chance of Webster getting the vice-presidential nomination in 1848. As I have written elsewhere, "Fourteen (!) names were placed in nomination for the vice-presidency at the Whig national convention, but only four northerners were serious contenders--even the most extreme proslavery Southern Whigs realized that with a Louisiana slaveholder heading the ticket, the VP had to be a Northerner. The four were (1) Abbott Lawrence of Massachusetts, (2) Thomas Ewing of Ohio, and the New York rivals (3) Seward and (4) Fillmore." https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1848-a-different-vice-president.394057/#post-12804412

Webster had the disadvantage of not being particularly liked by Taylor or Clay supporters. Lawrence was the favorite Northerner of the Southern Taylor supporters, Fillmore was championed by northern Clay men.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-daniel-webster-in-1850.444746/#post-17089977

**

I might have added that Webster had bitter enemies within his own state's Whig Party--the so-called Cotton Whigs who favored a Taylor-Lawrence ticket. (Remember that in 1848 Webster was not yet the Webster of the Fourth of March speech--he was a critic of the Mexican War and supporter of the Wilmot Proviso. He even claimed credit for the Proviso! https://books.google.com/books?id=abJ4Ctql6M0C&pg=PA639 In fact, that was really the point of Whittier's *Ichabod*: it portrayed Webster as an *apostate* from the anti-slavery cause. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45486/ichabod)
 
Last edited:
A Houston nomination is unlikely, but stranger things have happened in deadlocked conventions. Some southern extremists had thought him a "traitor" in 1850 for supporting the Compromise--but maybe they could be mollified in 1852 by his support of US expansion into Mexico (though Houston did not advocate it as a pro-slavery measure). There is also the problem that he had a reputation for erratic behavior--his wearing Cherokee dress, his resignation as governor of Tennessee after a disastrous brief marriage, etc.

Anyway, the idea of his nomination has always interested me, because Houston is the only plausible Democratic presidential nominee of 1852 who if elected [1] would *definitely* reject the Kansas-Nebraska bill. (He would not have to veto it; it could never pass the House without administration support.) For this the South might deny him renomination--so he might run in 1856 as the Know Nothing candidate (he was one of the minority of Know-Nothing supporters with a Democratic rather than a Whig background).

[1] And he would be--the Whigs were terribly divided on slavery, and their old economic issues had faded with the prosperity following the discovery of gold in California.
 
I have been working on Sam Houston Presidency timeline for a little while now. Might start posting it soon. Houston was very outspoken against the growing sectionalism in the South. He quoted the "house divided" verse during the debate of the Compromise of 1850 years before Lincoln did. Now looking at it he seemed very much opposed to legislation like the Kansas-Nebraska Act more so on the fact it would violate the Missouri Compromise. So if he was able to orchestrate the war against Mexico he wanted the likelihood of the US not annexing land is unlikely. Now Houston could very much accept this new territory as any new territory from Mexico would mean that they'd fall below the line of the Missouri Compromise. What's also interesting is how Houston seemed very adamant about after such conflict the US should turn Mexico into a protectorate. Now aside the butterfly's that could induce, while he could very much claim otherwise people in the North will see the war as an expansion of slavery. Despite his attempts to unite the country the south will still want the Kansas-Nebraska Act to happen, heck if he managed to get Cuba the south would be to greedy to be happy with that. His opposition to the act would of course mean that it won't likely be passed and therefore he won't be renominated by Democratic party in 56, but he could still run on the Know-Nothing ticket and possibly win them more states than they did in OTL.

Another fun tid bit on Houston's planned war against Mexico he supposedly wanted Robert E. Lee to lead the US forces.
 
@David T It seems like the 1852 Convention was divided between those candidates who were supportive of the Compromise (chiefly Lewis Cass) and those like Buchanan who were courting southern opinion which was hostile to it; maybe this is how Houston gets the nomination, by rising as a "Pro 1850" alternative to Cass or Douglas? I might be able to see Douglas deciding that his bid is going nowhere earlier on, then deciding to make a deal with one of the only other pro-compromise dark horses for the VP or Sec of State position.

Actually, FWICT, Houston and Cass were the only other candidates explicitly supporting said policy, meaning that if the compromisers were to unite behind a dark horse, it may well be him. And "traitor" or not, Houston is still technically a southerner and a slave holder, so it's not crazy to think he could work as an olive branch to south by the 1850-ers, instead of the "compromise" of just nominating another doughface (Pierce, in the case of OTL). Thoughts?

CONSOLIDATE: Actually got around to looking at the 1852 balloting in more detail -- seems Houston came in sixth on the first ballot with eight votes, but only managed to get himself to 12 later on, always behind Joseph Lane of Oregon who always got the same 13 votes on every ballot; considering that Stephen Douglas wasn't much higher initially, at 20 votes on the first ballot, I don't think it would be too difficult for the Texan to work himself up to fourth or even third place on momentum alone. The question is what happens when he finds himself in third place behind Cass and Buchanan...
 
Top