WI: Cass in '48?

Wolfpaw · Dec 15, 2012

When remembered, Lewis Cass is known as the second Democrat candidate to lose a presidential election. He lost it to a War Hero by 3,195 votes, juuust failing to catch Delaware, Georgia and Louisiana.

So what if Lewis Cass (general, governor, senator, graft-ridden politico, grandpappy of Popular Sovereignty, later Secretary of State and supporter of filibusters) had won the election of 1848?

Wolfpaw · Dec 17, 2012

Thought I might bump this.

Lycaon pictus · Dec 17, 2012

Not good. If he'd gotten Congress to go along with "popular sovereignty," Bleeding Kansas might have started earlier. We might even have gotten a Bleeding California to go along with it.

Wolfpaw · Dec 17, 2012

Lycaon pictus said:
Not good. If he'd gotten Congress to go along with "popular sovereignty," Bleeding Kansas might have started earlier. We might even have gotten a Bleeding California to go along with it.

Now there's a novel idea. I've never read anything that discusses a "Bleeding California," though it is fascinating. Maybe Cass even splits the state in two to keep with the Compromise Line?

I could also see Cass targeting (er, "encouraging filibusters) to Cuba and Latin America so as to distract people from bloodier problems on the Frontier.

Stolengood · Dec 17, 2012

Wolfpaw said:
When remembered, Lewis Cass is known as the first Democrat candidate to lose a presidential election.

He wasn't the first; Martin Van Buren lost in 1840, remember?

Wolfpaw · Dec 17, 2012

Stolengood said:
He wasn't the first; Martin Van Buren lost in 1840, remember?

D'oh! I forgot about that. To the editing board!

Rich Rostrom · Dec 17, 2012

Wolfpaw said:
When remembered, Lewis Cass is known as the second Democrat candidate to lose a presidential election. He lost it to a War Hero by 3,195 votes, juuust failing to catch Delaware, Georgia and Louisiana.

None of those states were genuinely close: Louisiana 9.2%, Georgia 3%, and Delaware 4.3%.

Cass won four states by smaller margins.

If Cass had won LA, GA, and DE by 1 vote each; he would become President with 130,000 votes less than his opponent, a result that would be severely questioned, and not just by Whigs. He would have been 4.6% behind.

That's simply not possible.

For Cass to win the election, he would need a national swing of about 4%, which would flip Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey - 43 EV, for a 157-129 win. It would also flip about 115,000 votes, giving Cass a plurality of about 92,000.

For Cass to carry Louisiana, Taylor's home state, which he lost by over 9%, would require a national landslide.

Wolfpaw · Dec 17, 2012

Delaware: Taylor--6,440 / Cass--5,910. Votes needed to chage: 266
Georgia: Taylor--47,532 / Cass--44,785. Votes needed to chage: 1,374
Louisiana: Taylor--18,487 / Cass--15,379. Votes needed to chage: 1,555
Total votes needed to change: 3,195

Electoral Votes: Delaware--3, Georgia--10, Louisiana--6.
Electoral votes needed to win: 146

OTL's EV: Taylor--163 / Cass--127.
163 - 19 = 144 / 127 + 19 = 146

That is the easiest way to make Cass president and involves the smallest number of voters needed to change their mind, and less than 3,200 people isn't too bad.

It also deserves mention that most believed that the Democrats had the election in the bag, a big reason that Taylor vacillated between parties. That the Whigs nominated Taylor was actually a sign of how desperate they were to win the presidency. It really was an "Eisenhower '52" situation, but if Ike had chosen the Dems and beaten the GOP.

Texian · Dec 18, 2012

Well, if Taylor doesn't win in '48 the Whig party is definitely done by 52.

Wolfpaw · Dec 18, 2012

Texian said:
Well, if Taylor doesn't win in '48 the Whig party is definitely done by 52.

Are we so sure? They stood a good chance of losing in OTL, and they waddled into 1852. The Whigs almost won in 1844 and still have a good chance with Winfield Scott after 12 years of Democratic rule.

Though a lot depends on what a Cass administration might evolve, which folks don't seem keen to talk about

Emperor Julian · Dec 18, 2012

What if the Whigs nominated someone other than Taylor? Perhaps by Taylor deciding not to run at all, or dying before the convention, or something else. Could another candidate, not a war hero, do worse and lose to Cass? Or, have Taylor choose to run as a Democrat. That would prevent Cass from winning, but if Taylor dies like OTL he could become president if he were the VP.

Wolfpaw · Dec 18, 2012

Well, I'm of the opinion that Cass would have won if, say, Clay or Webster or even Scott were to run on the Whig ticket.

But the Taylor-Cass ticket would kinda short-circuit the Cass administration by giving it, what, two and a half years?

Plumber · Dec 18, 2012

If Taylor doesn't run, the Democrats win a landslide. The Whig Party might die out, or it could survive. I see Cass bumbling the Mexican Cession quite badly with popular sovereignty, and filibustering Cuba to distract this. You could get a civil war that starts with Bleeding California escalating into a north-south conflict.

Emperor Julian · Dec 18, 2012

Wolfpaw said:
Well, I'm of the opinion that Cass would have won if, say, Clay or Webster or even Scott were to run on the Whig ticket.

But the Taylor-Cass ticket would kinda short-circuit the Cass administration by giving it, what, two and a half years?

That's two and a half more years than OTL.

DTF955Baseballfan · Dec 18, 2012

Texian said:
Well, if Taylor doesn't win in '48 the Whig party is definitely done by 52.

Although it sounds like Cass would bungle enough that the Democratic Party could also splinter.

1852 as a combination of 1860 and 1824 with a number of regional candidates, all look to the Great Compromiser for an answer, then he dies...

I could see Seward winning in '52 in this scenario, declaring he'd finally put an end tot he slavery problem.

We get Winfield Scott as the commanding Union general then. Interesting and very timelineable. (I'd want to see the Union win but then again I always do - you can still have an outcome like OTl but ina vastly different way.)

Wolfpaw · Dec 18, 2012

Frémont's career would be interesting, especially in a Bleeding California scenario. I think that the Whigs will survive until '52 and, without Taylor winning, they may nominate John McLean or even (perhaps disastrously) Daniel Webster.

Texian · Dec 19, 2012

the Whigs last president, Harrison, was a complete flop for the party since he died very shortly after taking office. So unless Clay beats Polk in 1844, after being defeated again in 1848 the Whigs will be in Free-fall by 1852. Their supporters will also be divided between the Free-Soil, Freedom and the Whig parties so I don't see any of them gaining much traction unless they unite early (Republican). I can also see the Democrats splitting into Northern, Southern and possibly Western factions. Because of Popular Sovereignty, Sectionalism, Voter Fraud and riots will be rampant possibly leading to an early ACW

and now for someone who can explain it much better...
The Stars at Night: A Texas Timeline - This portion has a great example of President Cass in 1848

Wolfpaw · Dec 19, 2012

The Free Soil and Whigs might join earlier, especially if the Cass Administration's pursuit of popular sovereignty leads to a Bleeding California. The Know Nothings aren't strong enough by '52 to spoil things.

The Democrats' fate will be interesting as the South won't be thrilled about popular sovereignty, but they'll like it better than restriction. Since he had a majority of delegates entering the '52 convention, my money is that Cass will be renominated. If he has bumbled enough, then it will be a struggle between Buchanan's Appalachian faction and Douglas's Northerners. The Southern wing will play kingmaker as ever, and so they will deliver the nomination to Buchanan in either '52 or '56. The Dems haven't quiiite fractured yet since the Appalachians are still almost uniformly loyal to the party. That loyalty didn't end until the South bolted and the Dems imploded.

Emperor Julian · Dec 19, 2012

Texian said:
the Whigs last president, Harrison, was a complete flop for the party since he died very shortly after taking office. So unless Clay beats Polk in 1844, after being defeated again in 1848 the Whigs will be in Free-fall by 1852. Their supporters will also be divided between the Free-Soil, Freedom and the Whig parties so I don't see any of them gaining much traction unless they unite early (Republican). I can also see the Democrats splitting into Northern, Southern and possibly Western factions. Because of Popular Sovereignty, Sectionalism, Voter Fraud and riots will be rampant possibly leading to an early ACW

In OTL, the Whigs were pretty much in free fall by 1852, with the party nearly ripping itself apart and barely able to unite around Scott, who then lost the election in a landslide. That was pretty much the end of them. So the worst off they could really do in this scenario would be to fragmentize and run two sectional candidates. If the Democrats stayed united, their candidate would probably win, but if they broke apart too, I don't know who would win.

Wolfpaw · Dec 19, 2012

Emperor Julian said:
In OTL, the Whigs were pretty much in free fall by 1852, with the party nearly ripping itself apart and barely able to unite around Scott, who then lost the election in a landslide. That was pretty much the end of them. So the worst off they could really do in this scenario would be to fragmentize and run two sectional candidates. If the Democrats stayed united, their candidate would probably win, but if they broke apart too, I don't know who would win.

The Dems will stay together if Buchanan gets the nod, but things could get dicier if Douglas nabs it.

'52 is likely Dem v. Whig v. Free Soil, with '56 also being a three-way between Democrats, Republicans, and Know Nothings.