1860..Which Candidate to Nominate?

[5fish]

1860..Which Candidate to Nominate?
At the 1860 Republican convention there where four other men beside Lincoln seeking the Republican nomination of President. The party knew it had a good chance to sweep the north during the election for President.

My question is: Which of the other four candidates who would you have nominated to represent the Republican party in the 1860 presidential election if Lincoln had not been available?

The nominees:

Edward Bates U.S. Rep. from MO.

Simon Cameron U.S. Sen. from PA.

Salmon Chase Gov. Of OH.

William Seward U.S. Sen. NY.

Each man nominated going into the convention had alienated different factions within the republican party. Lincoln won the nomination for he was from the west and came across as a moderate on issues of the day.

So please check out the four men and see which one you would have nominated to represent the Republican party in the 1860 Presidential election. Which one could have avoid our civil war or persecute our civil war as well as Lincoln did?

A note: Three of the four men ended up being in Lincoln's cabinet during the Civil War helping our nation to victory over the rebels.

My 600th post!!

[5fish]

I going with Chase for he is cut from the same mode as Thaddus and Sumner. He would not have avoided the war but would have persecuted it to the fullest. He may not have been a Radical Republican but his heart was with them..

He promoted the "Slave Power Conspiracy" and he coined "Free soil. Free labor, Free men".

Viva President Chase....

[trice]

Originally Posted by 5fish

A note: Three of the four men ended up being in Lincoln's cabinet during the Civil War helping our nation to victory over the rebels.

And the fourth one was the man Lincoln himself expected to support for the nomination as 1860 began.

Tim

[Baggage Handler #2]

Stupid but simple rule of thumb: When betting between a governor or a senator to run for president, always put money on the governor.

[ole]

Amen, Handler. Just, Amen!

ole

[timewalker]

What I have read of Chase impresses me. However, a caveat. I believe he was a pretty hardened abolitionist and may have played the emancipation card too soon, losing needed support in the North.

[ole]

timewalker:

Lincoln ultimately got the nod because he was not a radical abolitionist. The Republican Party was not quite ready for that kind of candidate.

ole

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by ole

timewalker:

Lincoln ultimately got the nod because he was not a radical abolitionist. The Republican Party was not quite ready for that kind of candidate.

ole

Which is just why I voted for Bates. Cameron was a crook, can't vote for him. Seward and Chase were sure to provoke war. That's the irony in that Bates was probably closest to Lincoln on the matter of slavery.

Would Bates have won? Had he won, would he have delayed the inevitable conflict?

From Bates diary (March 16, 1861): "I am convinced that a flagrant Civil war in the Southern States would become a social war, and ... the horrors of which need not be dwelt upon. To avoid thes evils I would make great sacrifices, and fort Sumter is one; but if war be forced upon us by causeless and pertinacious rebellion, I am for the resisting it with all the might of the nation."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fr7...l=en#PPA178,M1

Hmm.


???

--

[5fish]

Bates may have won for he does meet some of the characteristics that Lincoln met. Bates was from the west and the Republicans needed the west to win the election and was a moderate on slavery.

He did have ties to the Know-Thing party which would be consider scary today.

He would have been the first President west of the Mississippi if he had won the nomination in 1860.

If you think about it no Lincoln then Bates would have been the one to have won the nomination on the third ballot as Lincoln did. He matches up well with Lincoln on issues and what the republicans were looking for.

[OpnDownfall]

The one to nominate is the one that has the best chance of winning the election. IMO that would be Seward. (and was by experience and talent was the most qualified to be President of all the others)
My only problem is that Seward ented the war with some serious misunderstanding of the south and its leadership. It is likely that Seward could easily have lost the Union before war even began.
As President, though I would favor a hard war man. That would be Chase