How would you have voted in the 1848 presidential election?

[TDAS04]

?

[Goldwater]

Van Buren.

[Kingpoleon]

Van Buren>Smith>Zachary Taylor.

Zachary Taylor has the best personality, IMO.

[President Johnson]

Old rough and ready.

[ElectionsGuy]

Van Buren.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Van Buren (abolitionist)

[beaver2.0]

Taylor.

[Mr. Smith]

1. Taylor
2. Smith
3. VB
4. Cass

[OSR stands with Israel]

Van Buren.

[Intell]

Van Buren.

[White Trash]

1. Taylor
2. Van Buren
3. Smith
4. Cass

[Sir Mohamed]

Taylor as tactical vote. Actually Van Buren, but he didn't have a chance and old Zac was still better than Cass (and later Fillmore).

[Sir Tiki]

Van Buren (abolitionist)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Taylor, though Van Buren would be tempting.

[Illiniwek]

Van Buren (abolitionist)

[GMantis]

Van Buren (abolitionist)

Van Buren wasn't an abolitionist, he was only an opponent of the expansion of slavery. If you want an actual abolitionist, you would want Gerrit Smith (who also supported universal suffrage, which makes it surprising that he hasn't gotten more votes in this poll).

But looking at serious candidates, Taylor is preferable. While being a slaveowner himself, he had little patience for the fanatical slaveocrats. Also the Whig party had a far more sensible platform.

[SWE]

Gerrit Smith (actual abolitionist)

[sparkey]

Gerrit Smith (actual abolitionist)

I like what Smith had to say, but can you imagine how an 1849 civil war with Gerrit Smith leading the Union would have gone?

Van Buren for me.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Van Buren (abolitionist)

Van Buren wasn't an abolitionist, he was only an opponent of the expansion of slavery. If you want an actual abolitionist, you would want Gerrit Smith (who also supported universal suffrage, which makes it surprising that he hasn't gotten more votes in this poll).

Right, and if I were voting based on policy alone, Smith would definitely have my vote. I'm taking several other factors into consideration, though, namely:

1. Smith was not on the ballot in Indiana, so I wouldn't have been able to vote for him if I'd been alive in 1848.
2. Realistically, neither Smith nor Van Buren was going to win. My vote for the Free Soil ticket is a vote for establishing a viable anti-slavery party. The Liberty Party wasn't going anywhere - they had no base outside of the 1-2% who supported Birney's two campaigns in 1840 and 1844. The Free Soilers had more potential - their ranks were filled with veteran politicians who knew how to win elections, and were therefore able to win crossover support from disaffected Whigs and Democrats in the North. They might not be out-and-out abolitionists, but they were helping to create an environment in which opposition to slavery was mainstream, and they ultimately contributed much more to the eventual rise of the Republican Party (and by extension the abolition of slavery) than Smith and the Liberty Party.
3. In the unlikely event that either actually won the election, I'm much more confident in Van Buren's ability to win a civil war than in Smith's.

[Leinad]

In reality the Free Soil ticket was not on the ballot in Georgia, but if I was in Georgia in 1848, in reality, who knows what my views would be? I'd imagine, with how my political opinions have developed nowadays, I'd still lean towards Van Buren, but it's a tricky hypothetical that is probably just me over-analyzing this question.

[Gog]

Van Buren (abolitionist)