WI: Dems Don't Split in '60?

[Wolfpaw]

All on the tin. What if the Democratic Party had remained united in the election of 1860 instead of splitting into Southern and Northern factions? Does Lincoln still win, or is Dem unity enough to keep the White House for another four years?

 

[Lord Grattan]

All on the tin. What if the Democratic Party had remained united in the election of 1860 instead of splitting into Southern and Northern factions? Does Lincoln still win, or is Dem unity enough to keep the White House for another four years?

How/why do they not split?

 

[Derek Jackson]

As \|I understand it Lincoln got more than half of the popular vote in enough states to carry the presidency, of course he did not appear as an option in most Southern states

 

[Anaxagoras]

How/why do they not split?

Perhaps Douglas makes Breckinridge his VP and makes a commitment to be "reasonable" on the question of slavery in the territories, thus giving ammunition for rational Southern Democrats to use against the firebrands (who probably split the party because they genuinely wanted an excuse to secede).

If we use the (admittedly unconvincing) assumption that all Breckinridge votes IOTL would go to Douglas ITTL, the Democrats would win three states that Lincoln won IOTL: California (4 EVs), Oregon (3 EVs), New Jersey (7 EVs). They would also win the three states that the Constitutional Union ticket won IOTL: Kentucky and Tennessee (12 EVs each) and Virginia (15 EVs).

All this, combined with the 72 electoral votes Breckinridge won IOTL, gives the Democratic ticket 125 electoral votes to Lincoln's 166. So Lincoln would still win the election.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the huge number of butterflies that would be released by a united Democratic ticket. It's possible that the Democrats might have emerged victorious. But it certainly would have been a lot closer.

EDIT: Forgot Missouri, which Douglas won IOTL. A unified Democratic ticket would therefore have gotten 134 EVs, which would still not be enough to beat Lincoln.

 

[Mikestone8]

How does cosying up to the Breckinridge men affect Douglas' vote in the north? Does Lincoln maybe carry NJ?

 

[Daztur]

A democratic presidency at this time would make for a very interesting TL. Would be a godawful mess, but certainly an interesting one.

 

[Well]

Best bet is to avoid the Freeport Doctrine, which ended any hope of Douglas being nominated by a united Democratic Party. Even then, the platform dispute might break the party, but I'd say you're in with a fighting chance. Douglas is still the underdog, but it's not impossible he could beat Lincoln. If Douglas wins, you don't get immediate secession, but you might get it later in Douglas' term when the new president reveals himself to not be a total puppet of the South, as had Buchanan and Pierce been before him.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Would you get a successful secession? I mean the Dems were perfectly divided North and South....so if Dougls refutes in the mid-terms, perhaps there is a reaction to him. Plus you would have the rise of the Republican part to be even stronger in the 1864 elections.

 

[Fiver]

All on the tin. What if the Democratic Party had remained united in the election of 1860 instead of splitting into Southern and Northern factions? Does Lincoln still win, or is Dem unity enough to keep the White House for another four years?

Lincoln would still get enough electoral votes to win. IF the Democrats are that unified, we also don't see an attempt at secession.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Lincoln would still get enough electoral votes to win. IF the Democrats are that unified, we also don't see an attempt at secession.

That depends on how Lincoln, elected under these alternate political realities handles/responds to the issues at the heart of north-south divisions.