AHC: President Quitman?

[Enigmajones]

So I was reading about John A. Quitman, a former US general during the Mexican American War and a fire eating Whig/Democrat. He would die of a mysterious ailment and pass in 1858. My question, since he was apparently very ambitious, is there any way for Quitman to become President of the United States, or even President of the Confederate States? He would have to survive but if that occurs then it should be a distinct possibility.

John A. Quitman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

National Hotel disease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mikestone8]

Had he not got himself arrested for breaking Neustrality laws, he might just conceivalbly have bee a dark horse nominee in 1852. But even then it's a long shot.

 

[Valentinian]

Quitman being President in 1852 would see such a pro-slavery radical in the White House, you would greatly accelerate the creation and growth of the Republican party. If he takes a Taney-esque view on slavery in the territories, I think Fremont wins in 1856 and secession starts then. The difference is you have a President who may officially recognize the independence of the seceded states and/or their union. That would be a wild timeline.

 

[Enigmajones]

Quitman being President in 1852 would see such a pro-slavery radical in the White House, you would greatly accelerate the creation and growth of the Republican party. If he takes a Taney-esque view on slavery in the territories, I think Fremont wins in 1856 and secession starts then. The difference is you have a President who may officially recognize the independence of the seceded states and/or their union. That would be a wild timeline.

If he survived and was selected to be CS President, would there be any noticeable difference in the Civil War from OTL?

 

[Valentinian]

If he survived and was selected to be CS President, would there be any noticeable difference in the Civil War from OTL?

I think he would be more aggressive than Davis, maybe even to the point of approving some of Beauregard's crazier plans. Could he even try to lead them himself, maybe? I think he would have been more wildly pro-slavery than Davis. When given the choice of The Cause or slavery, Davis was willing (too late) to jettison slavery. I can't see Quitman make that choice. Also, I don't think Quitman would try to centralize like Davis did, as he was more of an ideologue. This could shorten the war considerably.

 

[Enigmajones]

I think he would be more aggressive than Davis, maybe even to the point of approving some of Beauregard's crazier plans. Could he even try to lead them himself, maybe? I think he would have been more wildly pro-slavery than Davis. When given the choice of The Cause or slavery, Davis was willing (too late) to jettison slavery. I can't see Quitman make that choice. Also, I don't think Quitman would try to centralize like Davis did, as he was more of an ideologue. This could shorten the war considerably.

Cool especially the idea of Quitman leading troops in battle. Do you recall the exact plans by Beauregard?

 

[Valentinian]

Cool especially the idea of Quitman leading troops in battle. Do you recall the exact plans by Beauregard?

In 1861 he wanted to invade the North after Bull Run and "liberate" Maryland. In 1863, he wanted to reinforce the west from Lee, destroy the Army of the Cumberland, then destroy Grant, then March to the Ohio. He was a gamer before gamers.

 

[Enigmajones]

In 1861 he wanted to invade the North after Bull Run and "liberate" Maryland. In 1863, he wanted to reinforce the west from Lee, destroy the Army of the Cumberland, then destroy Grant, then March to the Ohio. He was a gamer before gamers.

If Quitman allowed the invasion of Maryland in 1861 in this scenario, what would be the outcome?

 

[Mikestone8]

Quitman being President in 1852 would see such a pro-slavery radical in the White House, you would greatly accelerate the creation and growth of the Republican party. If he takes a Taney-esque view on slavery in the territories, I think Fremont wins in 1856 and secession starts then. The difference is you have a President who may officially recognize the independence of the seceded states and/or their union. That would be a wild timeline.

OTOH he will probably do less well in the North than Pierce did OTL, so that the Whigs hang on to more Congressional seats there - and it would only need half a dozen more to defeat the Kansa-Nebraska Bill.

In that situation, would Dred Scott even happen in the form we know? They could simply have dismissed the case on the ground that in border to sue in Federal Court Scott had to be a citizen of Missouri, and the *Missouri* Supreme Court,, the final arbiter on that point, had already ruled that ghe wasn't. And w/O a Bleeding Knsdsas they minght have been content to do so.

Also, if Quitman has got the US into a war with Spain, that might defeat the KNB anyway, since Congress certainly won't give the South both Kansas-Nebraska *and* Cuba, whatever Pres Quitman might like.

 

[Valentinian]

OTOH he will probably do less well in the North than Pierce did OTL, so that the Whigs hang on to more Congressional seats there - and it would only need half a dozen more to defeat the Kansa-Nebraska Bill.

In that situation, would Dred Scott even happen in the form we know? They could simply have dismissed the case on the ground that in border to sue in Federal Court Scott had to be a citizen of Missouri, and the *Missouri* Supreme Court,, the final arbiter on that point, had already ruled that ghe wasn't. And w/O a Bleeding Knsdsas they minght have been content to do so.

Also, if Quitman has got the US into a war with Spain, that might defeat the KNB anyway, since Congress certainly won't give the South both Kansas-Nebraska *and* Cuba, whatever Pres Quitman might like.

I don't think Quitman would support K-N Act. I think he would love to have Dred Scott decided earlier to solve the issue of the territories once and for all. The Whigs died because they would not vehemently oppose slavery. With an even more radical Democrat, I think the Whig death process would be accelerated.

Throw into this a potential war with Spain, and I think the domestic opposition would make the War of 1812 look like a day camp. Polk balanced conquest in Mexico with half of the Oregon Country as a sop to the North. What could he balance Cuba with? Nicaragua and William Walker?

The North would be radicalized much faster than it was OTL. Add to this a war with Spain that I don't think would go as well as Quitman would think, and you have a perfect storm for total catastrophe. You could even see a Nothern public opinion that comes to the view that a union with slave holders is just not worth defending and when secession happens, just letting the South go.

 

[Valentinian]

If Quitman allowed the invasion of Maryland in 1861 in this scenario, what would be the outcome?

I am not sure. Militarily, I don't think the Confederacy was ready to launch an invasion
However, in late 1861, there are still alot of secessionist running around Maryland, and this would be the height of Lincoln's suppression of them. In addition, it was about that time that McClellan's paranoia began about being outnumbered 2-3/1 by the phantom Confederate hordes. I think eventually, the Confederates retreat back South, but it is ugly for both sides.

 

[Mildtryth]

The North would be radicalized much faster than it was OTL. Add to this a war with Spain that I don't think would go as well as Quitman would think, and you have a perfect storm for total catastrophe. You could even see a Nothern public opinion that comes to the view that a union with slave holders is just not worth defending and when secession happens, just letting the South go.

Or it's the north that secedes instead.

 

[Valentinian]

Or it's the north that secedes instead.

That is very true. I think the big question in that case is where would the Old Northwest, New York, and Pennsylvania stand in that fight? You have many doughfaces and Democrats overall in those ares who might be willing to fight to save the Union and take a shot at "fire-eating abolitionists". Would it be enough to suppress New England?

 

[Mikestone8]

I don't think Quitman would support K-N Act. I think he would love to have Dred Scott decided earlier to solve the issue of the territories once and for all. The Whigs died because they would not vehemently oppose slavery. With an even more radical Democrat, I think the Whig death process would be accelerated.
Throw into this a potential war with Spain, and I think the domestic opposition would make the War of 1812 look like a day camp. Polk balanced conquest in Mexico with half of the Oregon Country as a sop to the North. What could he balance Cuba with?

OTOH Cuba would antagonise the North far less than Kansas, as few if any Northerners would contemplate settling there. They wouldn't especially approve, but the hostility would be milder than that over Kansas.

OTOH there would be hostility to bringing a *Catholic* area into the Union. The Whigs could still break up, but the gainers would likely be the Know-Nothings rather than the Republicans.

 

[Valentinian]

OTOH Cuba would antagonise the North far less than Kansas, as few if any Northerners would contemplate settling there. They wouldn't especially approve, but the hostility would be milder than that over Kansas.

OTOH there would be hostility to bringing a *Catholic* area into the Union. The Whigs could still break up, but the gainers would likely be the Know-Nothings rather than the Republicans.

I think it would antagonize the North because this war would be seen as dying for slavery. You would get stiff opposition from the North. I agree it is a great opportunity for the Know Nothings, if they can compliment anti-Catholic with anti-slavery.

 

[Mikestone8]

I think it would antagonize the North because this war would be seen as dying for slavery. You would get stiff opposition from the North. I agree it is a great opportunity for the Know Nothings, if they can compliment anti-Catholic with anti-slavery.

I didn't say there wouldn't be opposition. Indeed there was quite a bit even to the Mexican War for similar reasons. I just doubt if it would be half as intense as that provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which overturned a compromise that had been settled law for a whole generation.