WI the Republicans nominated Seward for President in 1860?

Firstly: Seward would still win. The Democrats splitting their vote shot their chances.
He may be less obstinate than Lincoln with the South. I'd think the 13th Amendment would prevent new slaves from being born, giving the Dixielanders years to turn away. If they still secede, you'll bet there'd be some great Hemispherical War to unite the country in patriotic fervour.
After that is anyone's guess. It could work, earning Seward the title of Greatest President for expertly diffusing such a bloody debate. It could escalate into a World War; earning Seward the title of Greatest President for so expertly improving the US's standing on the foreign & domestic affairs in one fell swoop. Either way, Mr. Reverse-Jefferson would have made for a pretty darn good term.
 
A few points, a minor one and a a major one. I actually agree with alot in the above comments, but I will get the minor, critical one out of the way first.

"The Democrats splitting their vote shot their chances."

This is one of several Great Historical Myths of the American Civil War, and really has to be put to bed whenever it comes up.

One of the more helpful things about Wikipedia are their electoral results pages. Looking at the one for the 1860 Presidential election, we see the following in the national popular vote:

Abraham Lincoln 1,865,908 39.8%
Stephen Douglas 1,380,202 29.5%
John Breckinridge 848,019 18.1%
John Bell 590,901 12.6%
Other 531

Lincoln actually set a record for obtaining the lowest national popular vote percentage while obtaining an Electoral College majority.

So if you add up the Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell percentages, they beat Lincoln's right? Ignore that its political analysis malpractice to just add up the votes of different candidates and parties and assume that all their supporters would automatically go to the polls and support each other if they had no option. And ignore that neither Bell nor his supporters were Democrats. At least the votes of the two Democrats, Douglas and Breckinridge, outnumber Lincoln.

But US presidential elections are decided in the electoral college, and it should be clear by now that you can lose the popular vote and win in the electoral college, even in a two candidate race. And if you scroll down to the "Results by State" section, you can see that Lincoln won an absolute majority of the vote (50% +) in 15 of the 17 states he carried, obtaining 163 electoral votes out of the 303 total from those states. Having only one non-Lincoln candidate would not have changed a thing. In fact, there actually WERE anti-Lincoln "fusion" tickets in several states. They didn't so any good.

Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in nine states (he got only 1,887 votes total from the states that would join the Confederacy), which goes some way to explain his low popular vote percentage.

The Electoral College was actually put in large part to protect the interests of the slave states (because if you elect the President by state, instead of national popular vote, it doesn't matter that a big chunk of your state's population can't vote), and its often defended because it supposedly forces candidates to run national campaigns. So in 1860 you have an anti-slavery candidate winning by running a purely regional campaign, running only in the states that have already abolished slavery. And it works, he gets absolute majorities of the vote in most of those states and it turns out to be enough.

In an alternative history where you have the President elected by nationwide popular vote, with a run-off if no one gets a majority, those seven Deep South states secede before the Lincoln -Douglas runoff happens. THey hated Douglas too. National popular vote plurality probably brings in something like the Civil War earlier.
 
More substantively, it seems that the Republican powerbrokers understandably underestimated how much the appeal of their party had grown since 1856, and they needed both a "easterner" and a moderate as their candidate. Seward was perceived as being both too Eastern and too radical. But I agree that he probably would have won anyway, though it would have been closer, and Seward would have had a lower national popular vote percentage, which affected the optics.

IOTL Lincoln got 180 electoral votes and needed 153. Of the states Lincoln carried, Seward can afford to lose California, Oregon, and Illinois, in all of which Lincoln would have had margins of under 4%. He still would have had 162 electoral votes losing those states, he can also drop the four New Jersey electors Lincoln picked up, though I don't see why he would lose those. However, if Seward loses either Indiana (8.7% Lincoln margin) or Ohio (9.9% Lincoln margin) and the election goes to the House of Representatives. Keep in mind that in this scenario, Lincoln is very likely to be Seward's running mate anyway, which limits his losses in the Old West. Chase as Seward's running mate works better, it removes any chance of the Republicans not carrying Ohio.

Douglas finished fourth in the Electoral College IOTL, and if the election goes to the House of Representatives they can only consider the top three candidates. Douglas has to improve his electoral vote total from 12 to 40, passing Bell, to be considered as a compromise candidate. As it happens, Missouri, which he carried IOTL, plus 3 New Jersey electors, plus Illinois, Indiana, and California gets Douglas to 42 and third place, but we have to assume that Douglas does not take his name off the California ballot and its him that defeats Seward in the state and not Breckinridge. He can also get into the top three by carrying Ohio. I am assuming that having Seward as the Republican nominee destroys any change of the fusion ticket winning New York (there was a small chance with Lincoln as the nominee). This means if the election does go to the House, there are scenarios where any three of the non-Republican candidates could emerge as the compromise choice.

But where things get interesting is if Seward does get elected President. Because Seward is both publicaly anti-slavery than Lincoln, but also much more politically experienced (Lincoln really did give off the vibe port-election that he really didn't know what he was doing) and more willing to compromise with the South. Lincoln was also obsessed with having the USA control the Mississippi and access to the Gulf through New Orleans, which for Seward is not as big a deal.
 
But US presidential elections are decided in the electoral college, and it should be clear by now that you can lose the popular vote and win in the electoral college, even in a two candidate race. And if you scroll down to the "Results by State" section, you can see that Lincoln won an absolute majority of the vote (50% +) in 15 of the 17 states he carried, obtaining 163 electoral votes out of the 303 total from those states. Having only one non-Lincoln candidate would not have changed a thing.

Perhaps not. But there was certainly a perception that the Democrat split doomed Douglas. ISTM that perception would demoralize Douglas supporters (among other ways, by taking away any hope of patronage rewards). This may have damaged Douglas' overall perfomance.

In fact, there actually WERE anti-Lincoln "fusion" tickets in several states. They didn't so any good...
Seward... he can also drop the four New Jersey electors Lincoln picked up, though I don't see why he would lose those.

The Douglas and Bell forces in New Jersey agreed on a fusion ticket: three Douglas electors, four Bell electors. However, there was a splinter faction of New Jersey Democrats who rejected the fusion deal, and ran a ticket of seven Democrats, including the three on the fusion ticket. All the Democrats and Bell men voted for those three Douglas men, who were narrowly elected. A few thousand splinter Democrats voted for the other four Democrats instead of the Bell men, so they ran slightly behind the four corresponding Lincoln electors.

Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in nine states (he got only 1,887 votes total from the states that would join the Confederacy), which goes some way to explain his low popular vote percentage.

The Electoral College was actually put in large part to protect the interests of the slave states (because if you elect the President by state, instead of national popular vote, it doesn't matter that a big chunk of your state's population can't vote).

At the time of the Framing, the states had wildly varying qualifications for voting, and several states allocated their electors by vote of the legislature - so there was no consideration of slave state effect on popular voting involved in the adoption of the Electoral College. The idea of a national popular vote wasn't even a glimmer in anyone's eye yet.
 
Pretty straightforward and he was the runner up at the convention.

More precisely, he was the overwhelming favorite going into the convention. On the evening of May 17, after the platform had been presented, there was a motion to proceed to nominations. But the tally sheets hadn't arrived from the printer. Rather than wait for them, the convention adjourned. During the night of May 17-18, Lincoln's managers made the deal with Simon Cameron that brought Lincoln 56 Pennsylvania votes on the second ballot, which put him into a near tie with Seward and started the bandwagon rolling.

Bruce Catton in The Coming Fury suggested that if the tally sheets had been available the day before, Seward would have been nominated.

Assume that. Who would be Seward's running mate. Probably not Lincoln, as he was an ex-Whig like Seward, and there was a need to balance the ticket with an ex-Democrat (such as Hamlin was OTL). But also a Westerner. Perhaps Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois. (If Seward-Trumbull wins, that will leave Trumbull's Senate seat vacant in 1861, as he was up for re-election. I could see Lincoln being elected to replace him. One assumes Lincoln would swallow his disappointment and stump hard for the Republican ticket; and he had stepped aside for Trumbull in the Senate election of 1854.) Trumbull would offset Douglas' home state advantage in Illinois.

How does it affect the election? Seward wins, I think. As noted elsewhere on the thread, Lincoln won 11 electoral votes by pluralities: 3 in Oregon, 4 in California, and 4 in New Jersey (the last due to a split among Democrats over the Douglas-Bell fusion ticket), but had absolute majorities in 15 states with 169 electoral votes, needing 152 to win. Seward will not do significantly worse in those 15 states. Even losing Illinois (11 EV) wouldn't stop him.

The reaction of the Deep South would be about the same: South Carolina declaring secession in December, with the rest of the "Gulf Squadron" following in January 1861. Assuming no butterfly effects on events...

Seward had some goofy ideas, like trying to provoke a war over Spain's recolonization of the Dominican Republic, in the hope that Southerners would "rally round the flag". But I don't think he'd actually do that.

The big first change is that Seward was prepared to evacuate Fort Sumter, and thus delay the armed confrontation with the secessionists. However, he would not evacuate Fort Pickens, in Florida, which posed the same issue, but under much more favorable conditions for the Union. Fort Pickens, unlike Fort Sumter, cannot be cut off from the sea by batteries in the surrounding harbor; it sits on a bar between Pensacola Bay and the open sea. It would be unassailable by Confederate forces.

So a stalemate could arise. Seward, like Lincoln, would want to avoid a war to restore the Union, and hope for the seceding states to return to the Union voluntarily. He would take no forceful action against the secession-declaring states. The remaining slave states would wait, as it OTL. In the meantime...

At some point, Seward as President would begin to fill the many Federal offices at his disposal: US District Attorneys, US Marshals, postmasters, excisemen and customs officers. His appointments for the free states would be accepted normally. Appointments for the Border States and Upper South would be trickier; but as these states had not declared secession, it would clearly be within his power, and arguably his official duty, to make these appointments. If he was clever, and Seward was clever, he would find respected local men to appoint (but not abolitionists), gradually "normalizing" his position as President.

This will annoy Jeff Davis and his crew no end. But attacking Fort Pickens is impractical. What would they do, eventually?

Ex-Governor Henry Wise in Virginia will still conspire to seize the Harpers Ferry Arsenal and Norfolk Navy Yard with Virginia militia (though without any official authorization from Governor Letcher or the commanders of the militia).

Missouri governor Claiborne Jackson will still conspire with Davis to achieve secession by coup d'état. Davis, frustrated elsewhere, might push this.

If either of these plots "goes hot"...

OTL, Wise's plot was pre-empted by the bombardment of Fort Sumter and Virginia secession in April 1861 (it was ready to go in a few more days).

OTL, Jackson was thwarted by pre-emptive Unionist action in May 1861.

ITTL, as the stalemate continues...

Probably, Wise's plot goes hot first. The questions are:

Does it succeed? I have no idea about that.

What are the reactions? ISTM that Wise was overreaching. His action would embarrass Letcher and the Virginia government, and would be repudiated. It could seriously discredit the secessionists in Virginia, especially if blood is shed. Even if the plot succeeded without bloodshed, I think Letcher would feel compelled to repudiate the action, and order the militia to withdraw.

Seward could respond with an olive branch of sorts. This would still be early and few Federal appointments would have been made yet; none in Virginia. Seward could propose to Letcher that Federal offices in Virginia be filled with reliable Unionists subject to approval by Letcher and the state's leading ex-Whigs. This could tip the political balance in Virginia back toward Unionism.

Two other processes in train:

Seward may eventually deploy US ships to hover off Southern ports and collect customs duties.
Davis will try to force a fight somewhere.

Which happens first? Idunno. The longer before shooting starts, the greater the chance that the Upper South states don't declare secession. It also depends on how egregious Confederate actions are.

Another question is whether Seward, during the waiting period, seeks to build up Federal forces - just in case. He won't "call for militia" from the states for Federal service, as Lincoln did - that would probably provoke more secession declarations. But more regulars would be safe. However, that might have to wait until Congress meets...

I can't see any more to discuss usefully.
 
Last edited:
Anarch King of Dispodes, thanks for the thoughtful response.

One question I have is how much did Davis really want to provoke a war? Was the Ft. Sumter bombardment really confederal policy or was it due to South Carolina and local hotheads? Would Davis be OK with consolidating the seven state Confederacy if Seward left it alone? They did send commissioners to try to negotiate with the US federal government.

Would Seward be OK with letting the seven states go in return for bolstering the Unionist position in the Upper South, negotiating for some sort of compensation, and then trying later to compensate for the lost seven states with Canadian provinces or Spanish colonies? I suspect he might, based on the memorandum, and also, as a New Yorker, control of the length of the Mississippi would be less important to him. New Orleans is really the only place of strategic importance the Deep South has as far as the rest of the country is concerned.

Would Seward be willing to put off the slavery issue for awhile in return for making sure the eight Upper South (including what became known as the "border") states remained in the Union?
 
At the time of the Framing, the states had wildly varying qualifications for voting, and several states allocated their electors by vote of the legislature - so there was no consideration of slave state effect on popular voting involved in the adoption of the Electoral College. The idea of a national popular vote wasn't even a glimmer in anyone's eye yet.

I'm not quite sure of that. Istr that Andrew Jackson suggested such a change. Even if he did, though, it never got anywhere, and would have stood little chance of ratification due to the attitude of the Slave States.

What did stand a chance was a reform of the Electoral College to have each Congressional District choose one Elector by popular vote. In 1820 the HoR came within six votes of passing such an Amendment - see https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/electoral-college-reform-1820.344328/#post-10338008 . Had it been adopted, the 1860 Election would have been much more nip and tuck. It is just possible that Seward (or FTM Lincoln) might have got a wafer thin majority, but more likely that it would have gone into the House.
 
Anarch King of Dispodes, thanks for the thoughtful response.

One question I have is how much did Davis really want to provoke a war? Was the Ft. Sumter bombardment really confederal policy or was it due to South Carolina and local hotheads?

By April 12, the troops manning all the batteries around Charleston Harbor were under the command of P. G. T. Beauregard, appointed by Davis as the first Confederate general. On April 9, Davis ordered Beauregard to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, and if refused, to bombard the fort into submission. This order was confirmed in a meeting of the Confederate cabinet. There was one notable dissent: Secretary of State Robert Toombs said "Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal." But Davis went ahead.

Davis feared (perhaps reasonably) that Unionist sentiment was strengthening in the Upper South and Border States, and that it would soon become impossible to bring them into the Confederacy.

Would Davis be OK with consolidating the seven state Confederacy if Seward left it alone? They did send commissioners to try to negotiate with the US federal government.

No. Davis assumed all the slave states should join the Confederacy. He even conspired with Missouri Governor Claiborne Jackson for a secessionist coup d'état there. (Jackson posted state militia under crypto-secessionist commanders in position to seize the Federal Arsenal in St. Louis. Davis secretly sent artillery (from the Arsenal in Louisiana) to be used in breaching the walls.)

Would Seward be OK with letting the seven states go in return for bolstering the Unionist position in the Upper South, negotiating for some sort of compensation, and then trying later to compensate for the lost seven states with Canadian provinces or Spanish colonies?

Absolutely not.

Would Seward be willing to put off the slavery issue for awhile in return for making sure the eight Upper South (including what became known as the "border") states remained in the Union?
Of course. Lincoln did OTL.
 
I'm not quite sure of that. Istr that Andrew Jackson suggested such a change.
That was 40 years later (unless Jackson proposed it during his early service in the House (1796-1797) and Senate (1797-1798).
What did stand a chance was a reform of the Electoral College to have each Congressional District choose one Elector by popular vote.
With two elected statewide...
In 1820 the HoR came within six votes of passing such an Amendment - see https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/electoral-college-reform-1820.344328/#post-10338008 . Had it been adopted, the 1860 Election would have been much more nip and tuck. It is just possible that Seward (or FTM Lincoln) might have got a wafer thin majority, but more likely that it would have gone into the House.

Well, had it been adopted the entire 40 years of intervening history would have been different.
 
"There was one notable dissent: Secretary of State Robert Toombs said "Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal." But Davis went ahead."

That is also a fascinating what if, Toombs instead of Davis. Around this forum I've seen claims that it would make the situation for the Confederacy worse because Toombs was a drunk, but a) by our standards pretty much every man at that time was a drunk (Lincoln and Davis excepted), b) this didn't seem to stop Grant, and c) Toomb's problem seems to have gotten really bad only after his advice was rejected, dooming the Confederacy.

One thing that repeatedly got the slaveowners in trouble was the insistence of spreading slavery as far as possible, regardless of the opposition they stirred up, and something like that might have been at play in the obsession of getting the Upper South states into the fold. Given how small the federal US Army was at the time, and the silence of the Constitution on secession, after secession occurred their best course would have been to play turtle, offer to make any reasonable deal with the US, and wait for the US to make the first move.
 
With two elected statewide.

That would have been for the individual States to decide. The proposed Amendment left the matter to them. I agree, though, that many if not most might well have done it that way.


Well, had it been adopted the entire 40 years of intervening history would have been different.

Again not necessarily. See David T's message in the thread which I cited. There are several possible butterflies, but none of then is inevitable.

1) In 1824 (if the Amendment is ratified in time) it could have resulted in Clay getting more electoral votes than Crawford, so changing the dynamics of the contingent election in the House. However, as Crawford might have gained some votes in NC, and Clay lost some in Ohio, this is by no means certain.

2) The 1836 election might possibly have gone into the HoR. However, as the majority of State delegations were Democratic, Van Buren would still have been elected.

3) In 1845 Congress legislated that all States should choose their Presidential Electors on the same day. Had most of these been chosen in Congressional districts, they might have applied the same rule to HoR elections - or most states might have done so. In that event, in 1848 a heavily Whig Congress would probably have been elected with Zachary Taylor, giving him a far better chance of carrying out his proposals for the Mexican Cession. In that event, the Compromise of 1850 would have been quite a bit different from OTL, and the politics of the 1850s radically changed. This is perhaps the likeliest change, but by no means inevitable.

The Whigs might also have done better four years later (iirc they lost more seats in 1853 than in 1852) conceivably enough better that the Kansas-Nebraska Bill fails. However, as most of the 1853 contests were in the South, this again is only a maybe.

4) Finally, there is just a chance that Buchanan might fall short of an electoral majority in 1856. Since the HoR might very well be deadlocked, this could lead to Breckinridge (elected VP by the Senate) becoming POTUS instead. Even then, however, unless he handles Kansas a lot better than Buchanan did, this may only change things marginally. Could butterfly away the Mormon War though.
 
That would have been for the individual States to decide. The proposed Amendment left the matter to them. I agree, though, that many if not most might well have done it that way.

How else? Have the legislature assign them?

Again not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. The 1824 election would have been conducted on entirely different methods; so would all subsequent elections. Nominations would probably be different. While a "second party system" would arise in the 1820s, as OTL, it would be on a different basis.

All that is leaving aside the masses of butterflies.
 
How else? Have the legislature assign them?
.


Or just allow the "district" Electors, once chosen, to pick a couple more to serve with them.

States with only one Congressman might split themselves into two districts to choose the other two Electors. Ones with two congressmen could allow their districts to choose two electors each.

Bt I agree that "at large" is as likely as anything.
 
Last edited:
Top