WI: Justice John McLean nominated in 1860?

[Indigo]

The 1860 Republican Convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln in OTL was rather chaotic and accordingly has a lot of possibilities for alternate outcomes. IOTL Lincoln was nominated because of his electability but also from a lot of backroom dealing that successfully persuaded Indiana and Pennsylvania to unite in favor of him to stop Seward. One of the other candidates present (arguably the only other candidate) that could have won the support of the two states is Supreme Court Justice John McLean. A Democrat who became a Whig and then a Republican, Justice McLean was both a U.S. Representative and U.S. Postmaster General, before becoming a Supreme Court Justice and giving a fiery dissent against Dred Scott. He had considerable support in the Indiana and Pennsylvania delegations IOTL (and was seen as a potential compromise candidate if Lincoln and Seward stumbled) - so let's say for whatever reason Lincoln's campaign doesn't do quite so in the backroom negotiations, and McLean picks up the Indiana and Pennsylvania delegations in the deadlock and ultimately pushes past both Lincoln and Seward to get the nomination. Two questions -

Firstly, who would McLean's VP candidate be? IOTL Hannibal Hamlin was chosen as Lincoln's VP because he was a former Democrat and Seward's reluctant pick. ITTL McLean is operating under an entirely different set of factors - he's going to try and conciliate both Lincoln and Seward probably. In addition McLean is (technically) a former Democrat and more importantly is 75. Rather than the somewhat lackluster nominees in OTL, Presidential ability is going to be a much higher criterion with a high likelihood of succeeding McLean (and I wouldn't be surprised if that rules out Hamlin). Also a lot of former Whigs are going to be at least a little uneasy putting a former Democrat so close to the Presidency. So who would be in the pool of potential running mates?

Secondly, how well is McLean going to do in the general election? My gut says significantly worse - he's a lot older with more political baggage, and less of a skilled politician than Lincoln. In addition he has close ties to Know-Nothings which is really going to hurt him with German communities. Does he lose Oregon/California/Illinois/Indiana/New York etc. and with those the election?

 

[Mikestone8]

Maclean was from Ohio, so it would probably be an easterner. In Pennsylvania (a swing state) David Wilmot, Andrew Curtin and (less happily) Simon Cameron would be possibles, and in NY there are Seward, Preston King, Edwin D Morgan and Hamilton Fish. Lafayette Foster of Connecticut might be another one with a chance, but where the VPship is concerned it's really anybody's guess.

 

[David T]

McLean's best chance for the Republican nomination was in 1856. For one thing, at the age of 75, he was probably too old in 1860. For another, in 1856 he was the only ex-Whig running (Seward decided the Republicans couldn't win the presidency that year, so he saved himself for 1860) whereas in 1860 there were a host of them. Moreover, the candidacy of Chase in 1860 meant that McLean was not even the leading candidate from Ohio. In any event, in 1860, McLean peaked on the first ballot, but even then he got only 12 votes--behind Seward, Lincoln, Cameron, Chase, Bates, and even Dayton... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Republican_National_Convention

 

[Indigo]

McLean's best chance for the Republican nomination was in 1856. For one thing, at the age of 75, he was probably too old in 1860. For another, in 1856 he was the only ex-Whig running (Seward decided the Republicans couldn't win the presidency that year, so he saved himself for 1860) whereas in 1860 there were a host of them. Moreover, the candidacy of Chase in 1860 meant that McLean was not even the leading candidate from Ohio. In any event, in 1860, McLean peaked on the first ballot, but even then he got only 12 votes--behind Seward, Lincoln, Cameron, Chase, Bates, and even Dayton... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Republican_National_Convention

Yes McLean wasn't nominated OTL for several good reasons (one of which being Lincoln convincing Indiana and Pennsylvania to vote for him as more electable), but as a relevant source shows, McLean was very much the type of dark horse that could succeed. Let's say Henry Smith Lane sticks much more firmly to his advocacy for McLean (while Lincoln bungles it somehow) and McLean gets the vote of Indiana on the first ballot - so he is at 38 votes while Lincoln is at 76. Seward could take it all but McLean has a good chance at eventually getting the votes of the Pennsylvania delegation and then the nomination. And then who would he pick for his VP (one suspects Lincoln would veto the Trumbull selection) and how well would he do in the general election?

 

[Indigo]

I guess on that topic, do any of the other candidates like Seward, Bates, or Fessenden have a chance at being nominated, and if nominated how likely are they to win the general election?

 

[Indigo]

Is the consensus simply that any Republican candidate can win a majority in the electoral college in 1860, or are any sectional enough to drive off New York or the west respectively?

 

[michael hartman]

McLean's best chance for the Republican nomination was in 1856. For one thing, at the age of 75, he was probably too old in 1860. For another, in 1856 he was the only ex-Whig running (Seward decided the Republicans couldn't win the presidency that year, so he saved himself for 1860) whereas in 1860 there were a host of them. Moreover, the candidacy of Chase in 1860 meant that McLean was not even the leading candidate from Ohio. In any event, in 1860, McLean peaked on the first ballot, but even then he got only 12 votes--behind Seward, Lincoln, Cameron, Chase, Bates, and even Dayton... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Republican_National_Convention

 

[michael hartman]

You're right on about McLean's greater chances in 1856. In fact, McLean had a greater chance in the Republican Convention of that year than in any other of the numerous times that he tried for the nominations of various parties, although it seems that had he made more of an effort to win the Anti-Masonic nomination in 1832, he might've very well won the nomination during their convention in late 1831, which, it should be noted, was the first ever modern party convention! On the first ballot during the Republican Convention of 1856, he had a little less than 200 delegate votes (196, I think), while John C Fremont, the eventual winner of the nomination, had over 300. (I recall that Fremont won the nomination on the third ballot.) If McLean had been nominated in 1856, he might've been more palatable to former Whigs, since McLean had tried for the Whig nomination in 1848 and 1852. Also, in addition the states that Fremont carried (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine), McLean, since he had almost solid support in the Midwest (then called the Old Northwest), he quite likely would've also carried Indiana and Illinois, and in spite of it being James Buchanan's home state, he probably would've carried Pennsylvania as well. Carrying all of these states (with Pennsylvania, then as now as of the Election of 2016, being the pivotal state), he would've gotten an electoral majority, albeit a little bit narrower of one than Lincoln would get in 1860, although McLean might've managed to get as much as 44 percent of the popular vote, with James Buchanan getting maybe about 41 percent and Millard Fillmore getting a paltry 5 percent, much of that from the 5 Upper South States (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee), with small totals in New York and Pennsylvania. If McLean had won the election, he probably would've waited longer than Charles Evans Hughes would in 1916 to resign from the Supreme Court (my guess is that he would've waited until at least November of 1856, following his election; he could've waited until as late as March 4, 1857). If I were to one day do a biography of this most fascinating figure, I would probably call it: John McLean: Political Chameleon and Anti-Slavery Moderate on the Supreme Court 1829-1861, with an introduction discussing his stellar achievements as Postmaster General from 1823-29 (as well as the amusingly fascinating fact that his predecessor in that Cabinet was named Return Meigs). In 1860, his chances, by comparison, were quite meager, getting only 12 delegate votes (at least 9 of them, no doubt, from his home state of Ohio, with at least 2 of the others probably from Indiana). Also, surprisingly not mentioned is the fact that, had McLean been nominated and elected in 1860, he would've died in office only one month after taking office!