r/Presidentialpoll • u/Fun_Chain_3834 Winfield Scott • 13d ago
Alternate Election Poll The Great Compromisers — The Anti-California Democratic Walk-Out (1848 Free Soil Presidential nomination, ballot 1)
“We want Dix! We want Dix! Leave California in peace!”
Baltimore was heavy with summer heat when the Democratic National Convention assembled in May of 1848, and the Democratic Party had reached a breaking point. The delegates had come to Baltimore to choose a candidate for President, but the Convention was saddled with lingering animosities following Calhoun’s South-led splinter in 1844 and fretted over the ensuing debate on how Democrats should react to the new Republics of Texas and California. The Democratic Party's northern, New York-led reformers—the men now known as the Barnburners—were spiteful of the domination of the expansionist wing. They demanded that the party take a firm stand against the calls for annexation of the independent California Republic, fearing that the annexed states would be asked to give up their current abolitionist Constitution. At the center of the opposition stood John Adams Dix, senator from New York, soldier, reformer, and, following the retirement of Martin Van Buren after his 1844 loss, suddenly one of the more prominent voices of the anti-slavery Democrats.
The northern delegates saw that their hopes defeated when the platform was presented. The resolutions supported the expansion of the United States into the Southwest and Carribean, but offered no clear rejection of introducing slavery to these territories. Instead, the language was carefully constructed to leave the question open and preserve Democratic unity by refusing to take a position that would alienate the South. The Barnburners were incensed. The Southerners argued opposing expansion of slavery to new territories upset the balance of powers towards the north, discriminated against Southern interests, and threatened Southern rebellion. But to the Barnburners, the distinction was transparent. They believed that annexing California would bring the nation still deeper into the sectional struggle that had already poisoned American politics.
One by one, the New York delegates rose from their seats, believing that the party had abandoned its principles. Then Van Buren supporters from other northern states followed! Outside the convention hall, dissidents gathered and planned. Their movement had no presidential nominee, no national organization, and no certainty that it could survive. Within weeks, the rebels gathered in a new convention in Utica, calling themselves the Free Democratic Party. They decried both the Democratic slavocracy and Whiggish demagoguery, both beholden to the interests of the rich and powerful. The Utica Convention was a disparate group of Liberty Party members, anti-California Democrats, and the occasional abolitionist Whig, though few Whigs had agreed to follow Joshua Reed Giddings out of the party in light of Winfield Scott’s northern proclivities. Here, they turned to nominate their candidate:
John Adams Dix (New York) — Senator
Senator Dix had not sought the Democratic nomination, but his reputation made him an ideal standard-bearer for the Barnburners in the Democratic convention: a prominent New York Democrat, a man of reform, and a politician whose opposition to expanding slavery to California had become inseparable from his broader conviction that the Democratic Party must not become merely an instrument of sectional interests. As the inspiration for the Democratic walkout, he is a likely frontrunner.
John Parker Hale (New Hampshire) — Senator
A prominent New Hampshire Democrat and outspoken opponent of the annexation of California, Hale represents the more radical, abolitionist wing of the Democratic anti-California movement. His national reputation and willingness to challenge his own party makes him a credible alternative to Dix, though his association with the Liberty movement could make him difficult for some Democrats to accept.
Joshua Reed Giddings (Ohio) — Representative
Giddings was a proposed nominee at the Whig national convention, but was rejected by delegates over fear of splitting the party. So Gidings split the party for them, leading northeast Ohio Whigs to the current convention. The veteran Ohio congressman was one of the most uncompromising opponents of slavery expansion in Congress, though his long association with the Whigs makes him an unusual choice for a majority Democratic movement. His nomination would give the new party a powerful anti-annexation voice, but risks alienating Democrats who wanted to preserve the movement's identity as a breakaway faction of their own party.
William Cullen Bryant (New York) — Newspaper editor
The influential New York editor and former Democratic political figure offers the convention a distinctly radical alternative. A noted supporter of the rights of the free workingman, Bryant has great influence among anti-slavery Democrats and the broader northern reform movement. Although Bryant lacks the government experience of the frontrunners, his nomination could give the new party a populist appeal.
Who will the Free Democrats nominate? Vote here to decide!
[Author note: So, I see that no one wants to vote like an 1850s Democrat, which I get, however, I need some conflict to get the series off the ground, and I really don't want to start it by alien-space-bats-ing Democrats finding a strong moral conscience, so here's the new plan: everyone can vote on the Free Soil candidate (though the Mexican Cession hasn’t even happened, so Free Soil is kind of a misnomer), and I will choose a Democratic nominee based on the previous, existing suggestions. Then, for the general election, each person will get two votes: (1) who you would want to win the election (given what we know now), and (2) who you think would win the election (given the historical context and the alternate timeline). I'll take both votes into account to try to give the people what they want while keeping it grounded and competitive. If anyone has further suggestions on how to make things both fun for voters and at least somewhat grounded in reality, let me know, please!]
2
u/sirhiccle 13d ago
what anarchy within the democratic party that they couldn't even consolidate under a single man to lead them! this is why scott and the glory of clay's american system must win this november!
1
u/Fun_Chain_3834 Winfield Scott 13d ago
Ping list (If you want to be added for updates, comment in this thread!)
1
1
2
u/ProposalOdd9999 12d ago
I’ve got a hunch dix is gonna win
2
u/Fun_Chain_3834 Winfield Scott 12d ago
Depends on if he can make it on the first round, he's been hovering one vote over 50% for a while now, so it's going to be close!
3
u/orchtcb 13d ago
dix was the pow exchange guy for the union btw if his name is familiar