1864 Election (The Hearse at Monticello)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The 1864 Republican National Convention was one of the liveliest in the party's history. After withdrawing most of the remaining Union troops from the South in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln had been at odds with the "Radical" faction led by Secretary of State Charles Sumner, which sought to continue Reconstruction in the former rebel states. At the party's nominating convention the following year, they sought to oust the incumbent Lincoln, instead throwing their support behind Indiana Governor Schuyler Colfax. Colfax and Lincoln eventually struck a deal, whereby the former was to be named Secretary of State in exchange for his delegates, and furious Radicals stormed out of the convention in protest.
Also nominated by the moderate Constitutional Union Party, Lincoln's major party opponent in this election is Franklin Pierce, who lost overwhelmingly to John Parker Hale in the Election of 1848. Like Lincoln, Pierce supports a Transcontinental Railroad and would encourage westward expansion, the main difference being that Lincoln is more inclined to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments. The biggest threat to Lincoln's candidacy, however, is not Pierce, but Charles Sumner. After Lincoln was renominated by the Republican National Convention, Sumner resigned as Secretary of State and formed the Radical Democracy Party, which nominated him for president on a Radical Republican ticket with Senator and failed Civil War General John C. Fremont as his running mate. While few expect Sumner to win himself, he could potentially siphon enough votes from Lincoln to hand Pierce the presidency, or even throw the election to the House.
This should be fun.

[Mr. Smith]

Lincoln's a corporatist, so to heck with him.

[Zioneer]

I'd like Reconstruction to return and be enforced, but realistically, Lincoln. Sumner winning would be great though. Pierce is just unacceptable.

By the way, since you mentioned throwing the election to the House, what does the House look like, party-wise?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Sumner

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lincoln, with either VP.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd like Reconstruction to return and be enforced, but realistically, Lincoln. Sumner winning would be great though. Pierce is just unacceptable.

By the way, since you mentioned throwing the election to the House, what does the House look like, party-wise?

A lackluster economy and public fatigue with Reconstruction led to Democratic gains in the 1852 Midterms, though the Republicans retained the majority. While I don't have an exact seat count, with the split of the Radical Reps, I would imagine the composition of the lower chamber is something like 100 Reps, 85 Dems, 30 Unionists, and 20 Radicals. In practice, however, a House election would be conducted in a poll.

Also, what with the progress under the Taylor and Stevens administrations, I wouldn't assume that black civil rights are a lost cause at this point. The Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" in Dred Scott v. Sanford ITTL, so the potential for segregation like what we saw in OTL history is minimal so long as Pierce looses. While there's bound to be some backsliding, my bet would be that blacks will retain the right to vote as well as basic civil liberties in most Southern states.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd like Reconstruction to return and be enforced, but realistically, Lincoln. Sumner winning would be great though. Pierce is just unacceptable.

By the way, since you mentioned throwing the election to the House, what does the House look like, party-wise?

A lackluster economy and public fatigue with Reconstruction led to Democratic gains in the 1852 Midterms, though the Republicans retained the majority. While I don't have an exact seat count, with the split of the Radical Reps, I would imagine the composition of the lower chamber is something like 100 Reps, 85 Dems, 30 Unionists, and 20 Radicals. In practice, however, a House election would be conducted in a poll.

Also, what with the progress under the Taylor and Stevens administrations, I wouldn't assume that black civil rights are a lost cause at this point. The Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" in Dred Scott v. Sanford ITTL, so the potential for segregation like what we saw in OTL history is minimal so long as Pierce looses. While there's bound to be some backsliding, my bet would be that blacks will retain the right to vote as well as basic civil liberties in most Southern states.

Not to nitpick, but Dread Scott wasn't about "seperate but equal" so much as whether African-Americans could even be considered U.S. citizens.  Plessy vs. Ferguson was the one that upheld "seperate but equal."  OTOH, the Supreme Court does sometimes go off and write about an issue it wants to address even though it wasn't really being litigated in the case (IIRC that happened in Citizens United, but I could be misremembering).  That said it's your timeline, so your rules

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd like Reconstruction to return and be enforced, but realistically, Lincoln. Sumner winning would be great though. Pierce is just unacceptable.

By the way, since you mentioned throwing the election to the House, what does the House look like, party-wise?

A lackluster economy and public fatigue with Reconstruction led to Democratic gains in the 1852 Midterms, though the Republicans retained the majority. While I don't have an exact seat count, with the split of the Radical Reps, I would imagine the composition of the lower chamber is something like 100 Reps, 85 Dems, 30 Unionists, and 20 Radicals. In practice, however, a House election would be conducted in a poll.

Also, what with the progress under the Taylor and Stevens administrations, I wouldn't assume that black civil rights are a lost cause at this point. The Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" in Dred Scott v. Sanford ITTL, so the potential for segregation like what we saw in OTL history is minimal so long as Pierce looses. While there's bound to be some backsliding, my bet would be that blacks will retain the right to vote as well as basic civil liberties in most Southern states.

Not to nitpick, but Dread Scott wasn't about "seperate but equal" so much as whether African-Americans could even be considered U.S. citizens.  Plessy vs. Ferguson was the one that upheld "seperate but equal."  OTOH, the Supreme Court does sometimes go off and write about an issue it wants to address even though it wasn't really being litigated in the case (IIRC that happened in Citizens United, but I could be misremembering).  That said it's your timeline, so your rules

Sorry, I should have explained that better. You're obviously correct that the OTL Dred Scott decision wasn't about "separate but equal"; however, since slavery was abolished ITTL around 1850, the OTL case never happened. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled on an entirely different case in the late 1850s striking down the separate but equal doctrine (an analogue to Plessy v. Ferguson, but with the opposite outcome). This alternate case was called Scott v. Sanford, which was my attempt at being witty by appropriating names from original history and completely changing the events that go with them. 

[Zioneer]

So either of the Lincoln options counts as a vote for Lincoln for President, right? Considering combined he's barely doing better than Sumner is interesting. I guess you could say that Sumner could force Lincoln to be more Radical in his governing by throwing the election to the House?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

So either of the Lincoln options counts as a vote for Lincoln for President, right?

Correct, though the vice presidential vote might get thrown to the Senate if Lincoln wins, depending on the margin.

Considering combined he's barely doing better than Sumner is interesting. I guess you could say that Sumner could force Lincoln to be more Radical in his governing by throwing the election to the House?

That's only the beginning. Regardless of whether Sumner wins, his candidacy is going to trigger a lot of butterflies down the road.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

1864 Presidential Election

President Abraham Lincoln (Republican/Constitutional Union-Illinois)/ Various: 182 Electoral Votes; 48.4% popular votes
Fmr. Secretary of State Charles Sumner (Radical Democracy-Massachusetts)/ Senator John C. Fremont (Radical Democracy-California): 72 Electoral Votes; 35.5% popular votes
Fmr. Congressman Franklin Pierce (Democratic-New Hampshire)/ Congressman Thomas A. Hendricks (Democratic-Indiana): 60 Electoral Votes; 16.1% popular votes

With the entrance of Charles Sumner on a Radical Republican ticket, President Lincoln would be forced to rely on the support of moderate Unionists in the border states to win reelection. This, combined with the continued support of prominent Republicans such as William Seward, Salmon Chase, and (damningly for the Sumner campaign) Radical Republican Schuyler Colfax, won Lincoln sufficient support in the West and upper South to offset losses in New England and the West. Sumner, meanwhile, would perform better than any had predicted, winning over a third of the popular vote and carrying several Western states that had been expected to vote for Lincoln. While Lincoln was ultimately reelected, neither his Unionist nor his Republican running mate carried enough states to win outright, and the election was thrown to the Senate. There, Unionists and moderate Republicans joined forces to elect Thomas, though Fremont won enough support from the Radical faction to incline Lincoln to a much more strident course on civil rights.