Timeline Update #1
Post #1
By the time of the 1856 presidential election, the United States seemed to be at a tipping point. The eighty year old republic was more divided than any time in its history. The divider was, of course, slavery. The keeping of African slaves in chattel bondage had not only created separate economic spheres, but also social, moral and cultural ones. In many ways the 'free' North and the 'slave' South were two separate nations precariously united under one flag.
A map of the United States in 1856, showing the division of Free, Slave and Territory.
That tenuous union was under more strain then ever, as events in the decades up leading to 1856 had shown. While the seeds of the division had been there since the founding of the nation, many of the problems had been papered over with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had forbidden slavery in any state north of 36' 80 parallel. For several decades this Compromise held but as more and more western land was added and then settled to the United States, tensions rose about the status of slavery in these western areas. Things had come to a head in 1850, when it was clear the 1820 Compromise had broken down.
A pair of Senators, Whig Henry Clay and Democrat Stephen A. Douglas managed, through great turmoil and accommodation, to create another 'grand bargain' that was to forestall the tension. The terms created a free state out of California, a slave state out of Texas, greatly strengthened the Fugitive Slave Law and allowed territories in the West (some north of the once sacred 36'80 line) to vote on slavery. This call for “popular sovereignty” was a particular rallying cry for Douglas who saw such plebiscites as the way to solve the slavery issue. By taking the issue out of Federal hands and moving it into the state houses, he moved to move the problem away from center stage.
While the Compromise of 1850 was popular at the time (and probably avoided actual violence), it reflected the legislative power of the slave holding south. The terms seemed very favorable to the South, and the concept of popular sovereignty seemed to vastly expand the possibilities of slave holding states. On top of that the onerous Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated that 'free' states had to catch and return slaves to rightful masters, was a constant reminder of Southern slavery.
This Compromise, which had been intended to settle the slavery question, barely lasted four years. In 1854 , as part of the attempt to pave the way for a Transcontinental Railway, Senator Stephen Douglas and President Franklin Pierce (both Democrats), created the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which created the two territories out of the greater mass of unsettled western lands. The critical provision that tore the nation apart was that both territories would settle the slave question by popular votes, despite their position well to the north of the old 36' 80 line. That one article created months of raucous debate both in Congress and without. Douglas, as grimly determined as ever in his belief in popular sovereignty as the panacea for slavery ills, managed to push the Act to a vote and passed it.
The age of compromise was dead. In the North the Kansas-Nebraska Act was held as proof of the so-called 'Slave Power', a conspiracy of rich slave owners who were perverting the entire American government to suit the needs of slavery. Their evidence had been mounting in recent years. The old slights such as the 3/5 clause (counting 100 slaves as 60 people for seats in the House and thus for electoral votes) had now been joined by the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act in pro-slavery actions. The North became increasingly anti-slavery while the South, in panicked reaction became ever more entrenched in their defense of the “peculiar institution”.
From 1854 to 1856 the nation became a political battleground over slavery. In the North these new feelings created the Republican Party, a political party dedicated curtailed the 'Slave Power'. Kansas itself became a literal battleground as both sides sent supporters to influence the territory. Fighting erupted between the two groups as the territory was torn by internecine violence. The nation watched in growing horror as both pro and anti-slavery forces fought in 'Bleeding Kansas'.
It was against this rising tide of emotions that the 1856 election was to be held. There were three parties to contend the presidential election. The largest was the only national party left, the Democratic Party, with roots tracing back to the days of Andrew Jackson. Somewhat divided on slavery, they were increasingly becoming a party of the South, relying on the rallying cry of popular sovereignty to counter claims of being a puppet of southern slave masters. Second largest was the fledgling Republican Party. Formed exclusively to combat growing slave power, it channeled northern resentment and abolitionist feeling into a potent political force. Based in the free north, it did not even pretend to compete in the South and instead looking to the West for new allies. Last and smallest was the American Party, the vehicle for the old nativist Know-Nothing movement. The Know-Nothings dated back to the 1840's and had started as anti-Catholic secret society that blossomed into a anti-immigration political movement. After initial gains it had faded over time to mismanagement and deep splits over slavery. By 1856 they were a pale shadow of their former selves and not taken very seriously by the other two parties.
The men chosen to represent each party in the general election were selected not only on past achievements and holders of each party's orthodoxy but also on their appeal to a deeply divided nation. The party with the easiest choice was the Republican Party. Despite being untested and dominated by powerful factions, the party was at least united over slavery. Their convention, held in Philadelphia, chose a candidate on the very first ballot, with little of the standard backroom maneuvering. Their pick was John C. Fremont, a popular and glamorous figure of the time. Fremont, nicknamed the 'Pathfinder', was a celebrity that had led many exploratory missions in the West and had fought in the Mexican-American War. A staunch Free Soiler, his candidacy marked a hard turn toward abolitionist feeling in the north. His slogan, "Free Soil, Free Men, and Frémont" left little room for compromise.
The Democratic Party had much more difficult time. At their convention in Ohio, the party found itself deeply divided and more then a little bruised over the last administration. The debacle of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas had done much to discredit Pierce, the current President. Still, Pierce had a large block of supporters at the Convention and was determined to at least give it a try. Second in order was Stephen Douglas, but the esteemed Senator was also tarred with the same brush, having played a major role in the administration and his colors were firmly nailed to the popular sovereignty mast. Many looked for a outsider to lead the party to new victories but they were hard to find. The most obvious was Pennsylvanian James Buchanan, who had been the ambassador to Great Britain and had missed the great slavery struggles. Sadly, the ambassador had been lost at sea when his ship sank upon his return to America. [1]The only other man of any standing was Lewis Cass of Michigan, a former Senator and former candidate from a decade ago. With Cass a has-been and Pierce obviously toxic the Party, after 22 ballots chose Douglas, the 'Little Giant'.
Last and least was the American Party, whose convention was a sad, short affair also held in Philadelphia. Completely divided over slavery, the party had no idea how to handle the growing tensions and new political realities of the nation. It a dramatic display of trying to avoid the issue, the American Party chose former President Millard Fillmore as their candidate. It should be noted Fillmore was neither a member of the party or had ever attended a Know-Nothing gathering in his life. The former President had not even been informed he was in the running. Still, Fillmore accepted and he gave the party at least a veneer of respectability.
For the election itself, all three men retired to their homes and did not campaign directly. It was considered the province of the parties themselves to actually electioneer. As would be expected in such a divided nation, these parties ran very regional campaigns that differed wildly from place to place. Indeed, for all of it being a national election, many parties ignored entire regions of the nation. The Republicans consciously avoided campaigning in the South (were Fremont was not even on the ballot), while in parts of abolitionist New England the Democratic party was essentially moribund. The American Party was used as a stalking horse by both sides, hoping to split the rival votes in regions where themselves were not popular.
Despite this divided nature, some general and national themes are the election became plain. The Republicans campaigned on opposing the political power of slavery and its geographical expansion in the west. They made it plain they saw the political system of slavery (perhaps even more than slavery itself) as a grave threat to the Republic and its democratic principles. Republicans decried Bloody Kansas and advocated for adding Kansas immediately as a free state. They spoke darkly of imperial expansions into the Caribbean to sate land-hungry slave owners and the outragoues natures of the hated Fugitive Slave Act.
For their part the Democrats argued around their one big idea, popular sovereignty, which they hoped would still solve the slavery crisis. What could be more democratic, they argued, then letting local people decided which practices should be followed in their states? The United States had been founded on state power, not giving all power to the distant federal government. They openly blamed abolitionist rabble-rousers for the violence in Kansas and framed the Republicans as agitators. Their second main plank, and an effective one was a warning that Republican victory would surely rip the nation apart. Putting radical men in Fremont in charge would surely cause the Southern states to secede, destroying the nation and probably causing a ruinous war. Douglas, himself a staunch Unionist, said “Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right and extinguish the principle of self-government for which our forefathers waged a seven years' bloody war, and upon which our system of free government is founded.” It was a powerful argument that swayed many and helped cast Fremont and the Republicans as radical and unstable wreckers.
The American Party, totally unable to truly wrestle with the main political questions of the day, instead turned to mud-slinging personal attacks. A number of American Party chapters in the North spread a rumor that John Fremont was a Roman Catholic. While the claim was a spurious lie, the Republicans were loath to strenuously attack it in fear of insulting their Catholic supporters. Instead the lie simmered for the entire election, creating a cloud of uncertainty and doubt around the 'Pathfinder'. In the South, since the Republican party was non-existent, Fillmore was the only viable competitor to the Democratic Party. Douglas, whose popularity waxed and waned in the South, had his share of southern detractors who did not always view him as sound on the slavery question.
Despite all the struggle and campaigning however, the results were much as people expected. Fremont did well in the north, winning in the anti-slavery strongholds of New England, Michigan and the Upper West while the Democrats swept the South except for a few states where Douglas’s moderation on slavery allowed Fillmore to grab a few areas. The real area of interest were the middle states, such as Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Illinois. These states, with the exception of Ohio, went decisively for Douglas, whose moderate leanings managed to let him win the key border states. The final tally was as follows:
Stephen Douglas (Democratic Party): 156
John Fremont (Republican Party): 114
Millard Fillmore (American Party): 21
Stephen A. Douglas was now President of the United States, and had inherited a obviously divided nation. How he would deal with the rising tensions involving slavery would define not only himself and his Presidency but the nation as a whole. It was obvious that a misstep here could literally rip the nation into two, and every decision he made would be taken in the most unfavorable light by one side or the other.
[1] The POD, obviously. In OTL, Buchanan survived the crossing and handily won the nomination (and the election).
By the time of the 1856 presidential election, the United States seemed to be at a tipping point. The eighty year old republic was more divided than any time in its history. The divider was, of course, slavery. The keeping of African slaves in chattel bondage had not only created separate economic spheres, but also social, moral and cultural ones. In many ways the 'free' North and the 'slave' South were two separate nations precariously united under one flag.
A map of the United States in 1856, showing the division of Free, Slave and Territory.
That tenuous union was under more strain then ever, as events in the decades up leading to 1856 had shown. While the seeds of the division had been there since the founding of the nation, many of the problems had been papered over with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had forbidden slavery in any state north of 36' 80 parallel. For several decades this Compromise held but as more and more western land was added and then settled to the United States, tensions rose about the status of slavery in these western areas. Things had come to a head in 1850, when it was clear the 1820 Compromise had broken down.
A pair of Senators, Whig Henry Clay and Democrat Stephen A. Douglas managed, through great turmoil and accommodation, to create another 'grand bargain' that was to forestall the tension. The terms created a free state out of California, a slave state out of Texas, greatly strengthened the Fugitive Slave Law and allowed territories in the West (some north of the once sacred 36'80 line) to vote on slavery. This call for “popular sovereignty” was a particular rallying cry for Douglas who saw such plebiscites as the way to solve the slavery issue. By taking the issue out of Federal hands and moving it into the state houses, he moved to move the problem away from center stage.
While the Compromise of 1850 was popular at the time (and probably avoided actual violence), it reflected the legislative power of the slave holding south. The terms seemed very favorable to the South, and the concept of popular sovereignty seemed to vastly expand the possibilities of slave holding states. On top of that the onerous Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated that 'free' states had to catch and return slaves to rightful masters, was a constant reminder of Southern slavery.
This Compromise, which had been intended to settle the slavery question, barely lasted four years. In 1854 , as part of the attempt to pave the way for a Transcontinental Railway, Senator Stephen Douglas and President Franklin Pierce (both Democrats), created the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which created the two territories out of the greater mass of unsettled western lands. The critical provision that tore the nation apart was that both territories would settle the slave question by popular votes, despite their position well to the north of the old 36' 80 line. That one article created months of raucous debate both in Congress and without. Douglas, as grimly determined as ever in his belief in popular sovereignty as the panacea for slavery ills, managed to push the Act to a vote and passed it.
The age of compromise was dead. In the North the Kansas-Nebraska Act was held as proof of the so-called 'Slave Power', a conspiracy of rich slave owners who were perverting the entire American government to suit the needs of slavery. Their evidence had been mounting in recent years. The old slights such as the 3/5 clause (counting 100 slaves as 60 people for seats in the House and thus for electoral votes) had now been joined by the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act in pro-slavery actions. The North became increasingly anti-slavery while the South, in panicked reaction became ever more entrenched in their defense of the “peculiar institution”.
From 1854 to 1856 the nation became a political battleground over slavery. In the North these new feelings created the Republican Party, a political party dedicated curtailed the 'Slave Power'. Kansas itself became a literal battleground as both sides sent supporters to influence the territory. Fighting erupted between the two groups as the territory was torn by internecine violence. The nation watched in growing horror as both pro and anti-slavery forces fought in 'Bleeding Kansas'.
It was against this rising tide of emotions that the 1856 election was to be held. There were three parties to contend the presidential election. The largest was the only national party left, the Democratic Party, with roots tracing back to the days of Andrew Jackson. Somewhat divided on slavery, they were increasingly becoming a party of the South, relying on the rallying cry of popular sovereignty to counter claims of being a puppet of southern slave masters. Second largest was the fledgling Republican Party. Formed exclusively to combat growing slave power, it channeled northern resentment and abolitionist feeling into a potent political force. Based in the free north, it did not even pretend to compete in the South and instead looking to the West for new allies. Last and smallest was the American Party, the vehicle for the old nativist Know-Nothing movement. The Know-Nothings dated back to the 1840's and had started as anti-Catholic secret society that blossomed into a anti-immigration political movement. After initial gains it had faded over time to mismanagement and deep splits over slavery. By 1856 they were a pale shadow of their former selves and not taken very seriously by the other two parties.
The men chosen to represent each party in the general election were selected not only on past achievements and holders of each party's orthodoxy but also on their appeal to a deeply divided nation. The party with the easiest choice was the Republican Party. Despite being untested and dominated by powerful factions, the party was at least united over slavery. Their convention, held in Philadelphia, chose a candidate on the very first ballot, with little of the standard backroom maneuvering. Their pick was John C. Fremont, a popular and glamorous figure of the time. Fremont, nicknamed the 'Pathfinder', was a celebrity that had led many exploratory missions in the West and had fought in the Mexican-American War. A staunch Free Soiler, his candidacy marked a hard turn toward abolitionist feeling in the north. His slogan, "Free Soil, Free Men, and Frémont" left little room for compromise.
The Democratic Party had much more difficult time. At their convention in Ohio, the party found itself deeply divided and more then a little bruised over the last administration. The debacle of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas had done much to discredit Pierce, the current President. Still, Pierce had a large block of supporters at the Convention and was determined to at least give it a try. Second in order was Stephen Douglas, but the esteemed Senator was also tarred with the same brush, having played a major role in the administration and his colors were firmly nailed to the popular sovereignty mast. Many looked for a outsider to lead the party to new victories but they were hard to find. The most obvious was Pennsylvanian James Buchanan, who had been the ambassador to Great Britain and had missed the great slavery struggles. Sadly, the ambassador had been lost at sea when his ship sank upon his return to America. [1]The only other man of any standing was Lewis Cass of Michigan, a former Senator and former candidate from a decade ago. With Cass a has-been and Pierce obviously toxic the Party, after 22 ballots chose Douglas, the 'Little Giant'.
Last and least was the American Party, whose convention was a sad, short affair also held in Philadelphia. Completely divided over slavery, the party had no idea how to handle the growing tensions and new political realities of the nation. It a dramatic display of trying to avoid the issue, the American Party chose former President Millard Fillmore as their candidate. It should be noted Fillmore was neither a member of the party or had ever attended a Know-Nothing gathering in his life. The former President had not even been informed he was in the running. Still, Fillmore accepted and he gave the party at least a veneer of respectability.
For the election itself, all three men retired to their homes and did not campaign directly. It was considered the province of the parties themselves to actually electioneer. As would be expected in such a divided nation, these parties ran very regional campaigns that differed wildly from place to place. Indeed, for all of it being a national election, many parties ignored entire regions of the nation. The Republicans consciously avoided campaigning in the South (were Fremont was not even on the ballot), while in parts of abolitionist New England the Democratic party was essentially moribund. The American Party was used as a stalking horse by both sides, hoping to split the rival votes in regions where themselves were not popular.
Despite this divided nature, some general and national themes are the election became plain. The Republicans campaigned on opposing the political power of slavery and its geographical expansion in the west. They made it plain they saw the political system of slavery (perhaps even more than slavery itself) as a grave threat to the Republic and its democratic principles. Republicans decried Bloody Kansas and advocated for adding Kansas immediately as a free state. They spoke darkly of imperial expansions into the Caribbean to sate land-hungry slave owners and the outragoues natures of the hated Fugitive Slave Act.
For their part the Democrats argued around their one big idea, popular sovereignty, which they hoped would still solve the slavery crisis. What could be more democratic, they argued, then letting local people decided which practices should be followed in their states? The United States had been founded on state power, not giving all power to the distant federal government. They openly blamed abolitionist rabble-rousers for the violence in Kansas and framed the Republicans as agitators. Their second main plank, and an effective one was a warning that Republican victory would surely rip the nation apart. Putting radical men in Fremont in charge would surely cause the Southern states to secede, destroying the nation and probably causing a ruinous war. Douglas, himself a staunch Unionist, said “Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right and extinguish the principle of self-government for which our forefathers waged a seven years' bloody war, and upon which our system of free government is founded.” It was a powerful argument that swayed many and helped cast Fremont and the Republicans as radical and unstable wreckers.
The American Party, totally unable to truly wrestle with the main political questions of the day, instead turned to mud-slinging personal attacks. A number of American Party chapters in the North spread a rumor that John Fremont was a Roman Catholic. While the claim was a spurious lie, the Republicans were loath to strenuously attack it in fear of insulting their Catholic supporters. Instead the lie simmered for the entire election, creating a cloud of uncertainty and doubt around the 'Pathfinder'. In the South, since the Republican party was non-existent, Fillmore was the only viable competitor to the Democratic Party. Douglas, whose popularity waxed and waned in the South, had his share of southern detractors who did not always view him as sound on the slavery question.
Despite all the struggle and campaigning however, the results were much as people expected. Fremont did well in the north, winning in the anti-slavery strongholds of New England, Michigan and the Upper West while the Democrats swept the South except for a few states where Douglas’s moderation on slavery allowed Fillmore to grab a few areas. The real area of interest were the middle states, such as Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Illinois. These states, with the exception of Ohio, went decisively for Douglas, whose moderate leanings managed to let him win the key border states. The final tally was as follows:
Stephen Douglas (Democratic Party): 156
John Fremont (Republican Party): 114
Millard Fillmore (American Party): 21
Stephen A. Douglas was now President of the United States, and had inherited a obviously divided nation. How he would deal with the rising tensions involving slavery would define not only himself and his Presidency but the nation as a whole. It was obvious that a misstep here could literally rip the nation into two, and every decision he made would be taken in the most unfavorable light by one side or the other.
[1] The POD, obviously. In OTL, Buchanan survived the crossing and handily won the nomination (and the election).
