Douglas, Breckinridge and Lincoln and succession?

[TommyC1776]

If Stephen Douglas or J. Breckinridge got elected their probably would've been succession too,,  right?

[Dr. Cynic]

Douglas' election would've delayed it, but it would ultimately happen in his Presidency if he lived.

Why would they with Breckinridge?... He represented their interests.

[Gabu]

If Breckenridge had been able to be elected, the United States would have had to be so different that the question is meaningless because no Southern secession would probably even have been considered.

[minionofmidas]

Maybe he was thinking of Bell.

No, I doubt immediate secession would have happened in the case of a Douglas election, at least not by any state but South Carolina. And no, no secession if Bell won.

[Verily]

If Breckenridge had been able to be elected, the United States would have had to be so different that the question is meaningless because no Southern secession would probably even have been considered.

Southern secession would probably have happened eventually. Had Breckinridge won somehow (which should have been impossible), the Northern Democrats would have been slowly subsumed into the Republicans, and, as the North held an easy majority of electoral votes, an anti-slavery Republican candidate would have been elected eventually.

[Gabu]

If Breckenridge had been able to be elected, the United States would have had to be so different that the question is meaningless because no Southern secession would probably even have been considered.

Southern secession would probably have happened eventually. Had Breckinridge won somehow (which should have been impossible), the Northern Democrats would have been slowly subsumed into the Republicans, and, as the North held an easy majority of electoral votes, an anti-slavery Republican candidate would have been elected eventually.

Yes, Breckinridge winning in our timeline was impossible, which is what I meant - for Breckinridge to have a chance to win, the United States would have had to be very different from how it actually was.

[Bacon King]

If Breckinridge were to somehow win, the North might have seceeded.

[TommyC1776]

If Breckinridge were to somehow win, the North might have seceeded.

that's where I was going with my question.

[??????????]

If Breckenridge had been able to be elected, the United States would have had to be so different that the question is meaningless because no Southern secession would probably even have been considered.

Southern secession would probably have happened eventually. Had Breckinridge won somehow (which should have been impossible), the Northern Democrats would have been slowly subsumed into the Republicans, and, as the North held an easy majority of electoral votes, an anti-slavery Republican candidate would have been elected eventually.

Yes, but by the point that was likely to have happened slavery would have been well on its way out of vogue. Right before the war Virginia was working on legislation reducing the slave sales and limiting slavery. As newer farm equipment was being created in the 1870s slavery would have fallen out of favor in favor of cheaper labor. Slavery was already marginally profitable to begin with, even before cotton exhausted the land in the deep south.

[True Democrat]

For Breckinridge to win, he would have to pick up all of Bell's states, Missouri, California, Oregon (all somewhat possible so far), Pennsylvania (unlikely, but with the right vote splitting it's possible), and Connecticut (the only other state he did even remotely well in).  I think it's all somewhat possible, with the expception of Connecticut.

[Verily]

If Breckinridge were to somehow win, the North might have seceeded.

Of course not; that's absurd. The North had endured Pierce and Buchanan; I don't see why Breckinridge would have made them secede.

[??????????]

If Breckinridge were to somehow win, the North might have seceeded.

Of course not; that's absurd. The North had endured Pierce and Buchanan; I don't see why Breckinridge would have made them secede.

The almost seceded in the 1830s.

[Verily]

If Breckenridge had been able to be elected, the United States would have had to be so different that the question is meaningless because no Southern secession would probably even have been considered.

Southern secession would probably have happened eventually. Had Breckinridge won somehow (which should have been impossible), the Northern Democrats would have been slowly subsumed into the Republicans, and, as the North held an easy majority of electoral votes, an anti-slavery Republican candidate would have been elected eventually.

Yes, but by the point that was likely to have happened slavery would have been well on its way out of vogue. Right before the war Virginia was working on legislation reducing the slave sales and limiting slavery. As newer farm equipment was being created in the 1870s slavery would have fallen out of favor in favor of cheaper labor. Slavery was already marginally profitable to begin with, even before cotton exhausted the land in the deep south.

But it wouldn't have happened fast enough to stop a Civil War sparking in 1864 or 1868.

If Breckinridge were to somehow win, the North might have seceeded.

Of course not; that's absurd. The North had endured Pierce and Buchanan; I don't see why Breckinridge would have made them secede.

The almost seceded in the 1830s.

"Almost" is a gross exaggeration, and that was for entirely different reasons.

[Bacon King]

If Breckinridge were to somehow win, the North might have seceeded.

Of course not; that's absurd. The North had endured Pierce and Buchanan; I don't see why Breckinridge would have made them secede.

Pierce and Buchanan were both from the north.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Maybe he was thinking of Bell.

No, I doubt immediate secession would have happened in the case of a Douglas election, at least not by any state but South Carolina. And no, no secession if Bell won.

Glad to see someone realize that John Bell was also a candidate.

The 1860 election was probably the most polarizing in American history.

The Republicans ignored the south in terms of seeking votes there much as Breckenridge ignored the north for vote purposes.

If everyone had been a little less extreme and elected Bell, I suggest that slavery would have ended without massive bloodshed.

[Dr. Cynic]

Actually, Bell would've been a poor President... He was an elder statesman with really no political skill, and according to "Also Rans and Running Mates", he had a poor personality for the office. His party also had no policy towards anything, except to say "Preserve the union."

Also according to "History of Presidential Elections" by Eugene Roseboom, Bell's election would not have appeased the north or the south. He was not fit for the office... If you were voting for a moderate candidate, the one you should've supported in terms of fitness would've been Stephen Douglas. Of course Douglas died of cancer in June of the next year, so if he had been elected, no one knows how Herschel Johnson would've taken over the helm...

Now, StatesRights can say all he wants about it, I really don't care, because he's not gonna change my opinion. Lincoln was the right man at the right time.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, Bell would've been a poor President... He was an elder statesman with really no political skill, and according to "Also Rans and Running Mates", he had a poor personality for the office. His party also had no policy towards anything, except to say "Preserve the union."

Also according to "History of Presidential Elections" by Eugene Roseboom, Bell's election would not have appeased the north or the south. He was not fit for the office... If you were voting for a moderate candidate, the one you should've supported in terms of fitness would've been Stephen Douglas. Of course Douglas died of cancer in June of the next year, so if he had been elected, no one knows how Herschel Johnson would've taken over the helm...

Now, StatesRights can say all he wants about it, I really don't care, because he's not gonna change my opinion. Lincoln was the right man at the right time.

Hmm.  "No political skill."

Then how is it that he served in the United States House of Representatives from 1842-1846 (including Speaker in the 23rd Congress), Secretary of War (1841), member of the Tennessee House of Representatives (1847) and United States Senator (1848-1858)?

As to the policy of the party, here's the platform:

Constitutional Union Party Platform of 1860

Whereas, Experience has demonstrated that Platforms adopted by the partisan Conventions of the country have had the effect to mislead and deceive the people, and at the same time to widen the political divisions of the country, by the creation and encouragement of geographical and sectional parties; therefore

Resolved, that it is both the part of patriotism and of duty to recognize no political principle other than THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNTRY, THE UNION OF THE STATES, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS, and that, as representatives of the Constitutional Union men of the country, in National Convention assembled, we hereby pledge ourselves to maintain, protect, and defend, separately and unitedly, these great principles of public liberty and national safety, against all enemies, at home and abroad; believing that thereby peace may once more be restored to the country; the rights of the People and of the States re-established, and the Government again placed in that condition of justice, fraternity and equality, which, under the example and Constitution of our fathers, has solemnly bound every citizen of the United States to maintain a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

[??????????]

Now, StatesRights can say all he wants about it, I really don't care, because he's not gonna change my opinion. Lincoln was the right man at the right time.

Ok, just as long as you don't hypocritically condemn Bushs' policies as "fascist" or "oppressive" or some other tripe.

[CARLHAYDEN]

One of the main reasons for wildly varying assessments of Lincoln is that his words were far different from his deeds.

Lincoln was one of the great orators who was wise enough to both keep his speeches short (for the age), and use a rhetoric similiar to Thomas Paine, both in style and substance.

On the other hand, his actions were closer to those of Adolf Hitler.  He firmly believed im night makes right.  He didn't object to slavery, just wanted to destroy the south.  He loathed the first amendment protection of freedom of speech and had native born Americans civilian political opponents tried in kangaroo military courts where the civil courts were open and deported!

He instituted the draft.  He ignored orders of the federal courts in habeas corpus.  He raised taxes.  He increased the federal bureaucracy.  He gave vast grants of land to the wealthy.  He stole land.  He had a British passenger ship seized in international waters and had passengers kidnapped.

One could go through a list of unconstitutional and immoral actions, and Lincoln was guilty of most of them.