The 1860 U.S. Presidential Election - Part 2: The Campaign & Result

The 1860 Presidential Election set the stage for the Civil War and had significant repercussions for the United States. Throughout the 1850s, the nation grappled with contentious issues surrounding states' rights and the institution of slavery in the territories, which ultimately shaped the political landscape of the election. This period saw the Democratic Party splinter into Northern and Southern factions, reflecting deep divisions within the country. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln emerged victorious against Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, and Constitutional Union candidate John Bell. The electoral divide between Northern and Southern Democrats highlighted a profound sectional conflict, enabling Lincoln and the Republican Party to ascend to power without any backing from Southern states. In the wake of Lincoln's election, and before his inauguration in March 1861, seven Southern states chose to secede from the Union, a decision that precipitated the onset of the Civil War. Just weeks after Lincoln's victory, South Carolina formally declared secession.

Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at the campaign and the election itself.

Part 1 on the candidates is here.

Campaign poster for John Bell and his running mate, Edward Everett.

Stephen Douglas and Herschel Johnson campaign poster.

The Campaign

Following his nomination, Lincoln adopted a campaign strategy typical of the era, opting for a stay-at-home approach that involved no public speeches. Instead, he dedicated his efforts to managing the campaign from behind the scenes. He expressed that his primary goal was to prevent any divisions within the Republican Party, advising party members to refrain from discussing contentious issues that could lead to disagreements. With a united front among Republicans and existing fractures within the Democratic Party, particularly concerning Bell's candidacy, the main concern for Republicans was the potential for disunity that could jeopardize their electoral prospects.

In contrast to Lincoln's restrained approach, Douglas was highly active, campaigning vigorously in both Northern and Southern states. He passionately defended the Union and vehemently opposed secession, making a significant impact during his campaign. Breckinridge engaged in minimal campaigning, delivering only a single speech.

Much of the electioneering consisted of parades and rallies that heightened public interest, resulting in an impressive turnout on election day, with approximately eighty percent of eligible voters participating.

The electoral preferences in many of the individual states were highly illustrative of political opinion of the moment. Voters in border states like Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri tried to find a candidate who supported Union and also slavery. Texas was especially intriguing in that Sam Houston favored this approach but would lose to the popular secessionist entreaties of Louis Wigfall. The states with the largest slave holdings were those that voted solidly for Breckinridge.

Constitutional Party leaders did not expect to win the election outright, but instead sought to win states in the Upper South and the Lower North. They were particularly focused on Maryland, the lone state won by Fillmore in 1856, as well as Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Slavery & Secession

The plantation owners in the southern states, who held significant power, were deeply concerned that Abraham Lincoln's election as president in 1860 would signal the demise of their established way of life. Outnumbered by northern advocates who championed the idea that the western territories should be reserved for free individuals, these southern elites feared that the expansion of slavery would be curtailed. They worried that if the practice of slavery was confined to the South and the sale of enslaved individuals to new markets was restricted, the value of their so-called "property" would decline, leading to a detrimental impact on their economic well-being.

The implications of such restrictions extended beyond economic concerns; they also posed serious political threats. The potential for white southerners to be placed on equal footing with the Black Americans they had enslaved was a source of anxiety, as it jeopardized not only their economic advantages but also their personal safety. The southern oligarchs, whose wealth and social standing were intricately linked to the institution of slavery, felt their control over power slipping away. This fear was compounded by the constant dread of slave uprisings and the looming threat of financial disaster if they could not extend the institution of slavery into new territories.

In light of these factors, the prospect of Lincoln's presidency was viewed as a direct threat to their way of life. The southern elites believed that his administration would dismantle the foundations of their society, leading to a loss of both economic stability and social dominance. The combination of these fears—economic decline, loss of power, and the potential for social upheaval—created a volatile atmosphere in the South, where the stakes of the election were perceived as nothing less than existential.

The establishment of slavery as a social construct became integral to the southern way of life and its economic success, leading individuals who did not own slaves to perceive it as a cause worth defending, even at the cost of their lives. In order to protect this system, the elite class of southern slaveholders reinterpreted the principles of American democracy. They argued that the vision of the Founding Fathers, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, contained a significant flaw by proclaiming that all men are created equal. In stark contrast, these southern enslavers openly acknowledged a hierarchy among people, asserting their right to dominate.

By embedding white supremacy into the cultural fabric of society and framing slavery as a social norm, the poorer classes in the South found themselves fighting for their own sense of identity, community, and way of life. This struggle became a deeply personal battle, as they believed they were defending not only their homes and neighborhoods but also their very existence. Ironically, neither side fully comprehended the motivations and stakes involved for the other, leading to a profound misunderstanding of the conflict.

Abraham Lincoln's remarks in Chicago on July 11, 1858, which were later referenced by Stephen Douglas during their fifth debate in Galesburg, encapsulated the central issue at hand. “I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop?” he asked. Lincoln questioned the implications of making exceptions to the Declaration of Independence's assertion of equality. The Northern states recognized that the fight was not solely about the rights of Black individuals; it was a broader struggle to uphold the foundational principles of equality and justice that defined the nation.

Sectional and State Predilections

Although there were four principal candidates, the electoral battles were largely sectional, with Lincoln and Douglas prevailing in the North while Breckinridge and Bell competed for support in the South. Many voters in favor of secession cast their ballots for Breckinridge, hoping to create a scenario where no candidate would secure a majority of electoral votes, thereby forcing the election to be decided in the House of Representatives. This strategic voting reflected the deep divisions within the country at the time, underscoring the contentious nature of the election.

The electoral trends observed in various states vividly reflected the prevailing political sentiments of the time. In border states such as Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, voters sought a candidate who would endorse both the Union and the institution of slavery. Texas presented a particularly fascinating case, as Sam Houston advocated for this dual support but ultimately lost to the strong secessionist appeals of Louis Wigfall. Meanwhile, the states with the highest numbers of enslaved individuals consistently cast their votes in favor of Breckinridge.

California

After the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846 and the Gold Rush, people came to SF literally from all over the world. The population of SF went from about  1000 to about 25,000 in about 5 years. As would be expected, both transplanted southerners favoring slavery (“Chivs” for chivalry), slave owners who brought their slaves with them, free blacks, immigrants, and transplanted northerners all were thrown together in a hurry. Although admitted as a free state, several hundred slaves were present and about 4000 free blacks.

There was no direct overland route to San Francisco, the primary city, from the East. Getting to SF required either a six-month cross-country trip, usually by wagon pulled by ox, or a dangerous voyage by ship around Cape Horn. The Isthmus of Panama was another option that was developed, but plenty of travelers became ill or died from Yellow Fever.

Although Leland Stanford did not share a personal relationship with President Lincoln, his role as Governor of California and his engagement with the Central Pacific Railroad significantly bolstered the Union's war efforts and influenced the nation's success during the Civil War. As the railroad project was being initiated, Stanford traveled eastward to garner support for both the railroad and his Republican candidacy for governor. In 1860, he sought backing from influential figures, discovering that Lincoln was a strong advocate for western expansion. Stanford leveraged his control over the California Republican Party to rally support for Lincoln, who, in turn, required the state's electoral votes to endorse a viable transcontinental railroad route. Thus, Stanford's backing for the Union was reciprocated with federal assistance for the Central Pacific project.

Another key figure during this period was Thomas Starr King, an Episcopal pastor in San Francisco, renowned for his eloquence and oratory skills, comparable to prominent speakers like Beecher and Emerson. Originally hailing from New Hampshire, King moved west in 1860, where he was deeply inspired by the natural beauty of Yosemite, which he viewed as a divine creation. He collaborated with fellow abolitionist Frederick Law Olmsted to advocate for the establishment of Yosemite as a protected reserve and a state park in California, reflecting his commitment to both environmental preservation and social justice.

King became an influential voice for abolition within his church, warning his congregation of the impending conflict over slavery and emphasizing the importance of preserving the Union. He captivated audiences with readings of poetry by notable authors such as Harte, Longfellow, and Lowell, while also gaining recognition for his fervent support of Abraham Lincoln's candidacy. On February 22, 1861, during a sermon on Washington's Birthday, he passionately urged his congregation of over a thousand to unite in saving the Union. He adorned his pulpit with an American flag and concluded each sermon with a heartfelt plea for blessings upon the president and all those dedicated to the cause of a united nation.

Lincoln won California in the 1860 election by just 0.6%. California had a strong anti-slavery sentiment, particularly among its settlers from free states. Many Californians were aligned with the Republican Party’s platform, which opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories and states. California’s political landscape was influenced by the growing Republican Party, which was gaining popularity in the North and West. California had only become a state in 1850, and its economy was largely driven by mining and agriculture, industries that did not rely on slavery. Many Californians saw the expansion of slavery as a threat to their economic interests and the political balance between free and slave states.

Virginia

Virginia isn’t usually considered a “border state” because it would become the capitol of the CSA and because slavery was widely practiced ante bellum. It is typically classified as being of the “Upper South” along with North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, in large part because while it did eventually secede, it was late. The western part of the state was so Unionist that it seceded from Virginia to become a separate state.

But in many ways, Virginia was not exactly a southern state either. Its markets were in the north, its western population favored Union. It was fundamentally the plantation owners who favored secession. It is fascinating that the future capital of the Confederacy just a few months before secession voted to support someone who opposed it.

The election of Abraham Lincoln as president was held on November 6, 1860. He received just 1% of the 167,000 votes in Virginia. The state was carried by Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, who ran on a platform of compromise; he won by just 156 votes over John Breckinridge. Virginia voted for John Bell over Breckinridge because Bell offered a more moderate, Unionist approach that appealed to a broad coalition of voters who wanted to avoid the extremes of both secession and a Republican presidency. These voters were concerned about the future of the Union and believed that Bell’s platform provided the best chance to preserve it, even if it meant compromising on slavery. The map shows that Bell and Douglas were strongest in western Virginia and the northern counties while Breckinridge won in the agricultural regions.

While slavery was common in Virginia, its economy was much less dependent on it than most southern states. Cotton was not grown here, nor rice. There had been a devastating drought, and many slaves had been sold to other states and territories because there wasn’t work for them. In fact, slave sales were one of the highest revenue producers in the late 1850s here.

While the elite favored secession here, many did not in 1860. This was exactly the kind of state the Constitutional Union Party was created to carry. Virginia’s decision to vote for John Bell over John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election can be understood through a combination of political, social, and regional factors. In Virginia, there was a significant portion of the electorate that favored a more moderate approach to the sectional crisis. Many Virginians, particularly the state’s political elite, feared the deepening divisions between the North and South. John Bell, representing the Constitutional Union Party, ran on a platform of preserving the Union and avoiding secession. This position resonated with Virginians who sought to avoid conflict while still upholding the interests of Southern slaveholders.

While Breckinridge, the candidate of the Southern Democrats, strongly advocated for the protection of slavery and was seen as a champion of Southern rights, many Virginians were wary of the extreme positions that could lead to secession. A significant portion of the population wanted to find a way to keep the Union intact, and Bell’s platform of compromise and Unionism appealed to these voters.

Virginia had long been a key player in national politics and had a strong tradition of statesmanship. Figures like John Tyler, a former president and a Virginian, supported Bell and helped promote the Constitutional Union Party. For many Virginians, the idea of preserving the Union was more important than advancing the interests of slavery through secession. This made Bell a more palatable candidate than Breckinridge, who was more closely associated with the secessionist cause.

Many Virginians feared the consequences of a Lincoln victory, which they saw as a threat to slavery. However, they also saw the election as a pivotal moment and believed that supporting Bell, who sought to avoid direct confrontation over slavery, offered the best chance to preserve peace and prevent the collapse of the Union.

Only 9 days later, on November 15, Virginia Governor John Letcher called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider the creation of a secession convention. The legislature convened on January 7 and approved the convention on January 14. On January 19 the General Assembly called for a national Peace Conference, led by Virginia native and former President John Tyler, to be held in Washington, DC on February 4, the same date that elections were scheduled for delegates to the secession convention.

Maryland

But interestingly, Maryland, a border state north of Virginia, made a different choice. The reasons are really interesting to consider.

Maryland gained admission to the Union as a slave state in 1788. Because Maryland borders Virginia, the slave trade and the plantation-based system of slave labor spread to Maryland and developed there, so that by 1860 there were 87,189 African American slaves in Maryland. Slavery continued in Maryland until November 1, 1864, when the state adopted its state constitution, which outlawed slavery. Delaware was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1787.

Maryland voted for John C. Breckinridge, the Southern Democratic candidate. Breckinridge received 45.9% of Maryland’s popular vote, securing the state’s 8 electoral votes. Maryland supported Breckinridge in large part because of its geographic and economic ties to the South. Although Maryland was a border state, its economy and society had strong ties to the Southern states, particularly through agriculture and slavery. Breckinridge’s pro-slavery stance resonated with many Maryland voters.

There were also complex political divisions in Maryland. Its electorate was deeply divided between Unionists and Southern sympathizers. Breckinridge’s support reflected the influence of pro-Southern sentiment, particularly in rural areas. In that state, where the southern democrats officially split during the convention in Baltimore, there was a fragmented opposition. The state’s vote was split among the four candidates: This division allowed Breckinridge to win with a plurality rather than a majority. The map shows that Breckinridge won because of the population of Baltimore. Baltimore was Democratic in orientation but the rural areas of the west of the state were Unionist.

Maryland’s divided loyalties would continue to play a significant role during the Civil War, as the state remained in the Union despite considerable Southern sympathies.

The Presidential Election

The election took place on November 6, 1860, resulting in Abraham Lincoln securing just under 40 percent of the popular vote. Despite this, he achieved a decisive victory in the Electoral College with 180 votes, primarily by winning the Northern states, except New Jersey, which he shared with Stephen Douglas. Douglas received nearly 30 percent of the vote but only managed to capture Missouri's 12 electoral votes. John C. Breckinridge, with 18 percent of the national vote, claimed 72 electoral votes by dominating the Southern states, along with Delaware and Maryland. Meanwhile, John Bell garnered 12.6 percent of the vote, earning 39 electoral votes from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The voting patterns in the South highlight the significant regional divide during this period. Lincoln did not receive any votes in the states that would later form the Confederacy, except for Virginia, where he obtained a mere 1 percent of the total vote, while Douglas received just under 10 percent. This lack of support can be attributed to Lincoln's absence from the ballot in those Southern states, reflecting the deep-seated opposition to his platform. The state was carried by Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, who ran on a platform of compromise; he won by just 156 votes over John Breckinridge.

The demographic disparity between the North and South played a crucial role in the election outcome, as the North had a larger population, thus controlling the Electoral College. While Lincoln dominated the Northern states, he failed to win any Southern states. Douglas managed to secure 12 electoral votes from the North, but this was insufficient to pose a significant threat to Lincoln's candidacy. The Southern vote was divided between Breckinridge and Bell, preventing either from amassing enough support to challenge Lincoln effectively.

The election of 1860 solidified the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties as the dominant political forces in the United States, while also underscoring the entrenched views on slavery and states' rights that divided the nation.

1860 Election Results

Abraham Lincoln

Republican

180 Electoral Votes

John C. Breckinridge

Democratic

72 Electoral Votes

John Bell

Constitutional Union

39 Electoral Votes

Stephen A. Douglas

Democratic

12 Electoral Votes

Implications

In a nation deeply divided, Lincoln garnered approximately 40% of the popular vote, which was sufficient for a narrow victory in a highly contested election. This statistic indicates that a significant 60% of voters opted for candidates other than Lincoln: he was truly a minority president. A pressing concern emerged: would the Southern states accept the election outcome? Just weeks after the election, South Carolina made the decisive move to secede from the Union.

Shortly thereafter, on November 15, Virginia's Governor John Letcher convened a special session of the General Assembly to deliberate on the establishment of a secession convention. The legislature met on January 7 and subsequently approved the convention on January 14. By January 19, the General Assembly had called for a national Peace Conference, to be led by former President John Tyler, scheduled for February 4 in Washington, DC, coinciding with the elections for delegates to the secession convention. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated in March, seven Southern states had already seceded, and within a month of his presidency, the nation was plunged into civil war.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The 1860 U.S. Presidential Election - Part I: Candidates

The 1860 Presidential Election set the stage for the Civil War and had significant repercussions for the United States. Throughout the 1850s, the nation grappled with contentious issues surrounding states' rights and the institution of slavery in the territories, which ultimately shaped the political landscape of the election. This period saw the Democratic Party splinter into Northern and Southern factions, reflecting deep divisions within the country. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln emerged victorious against Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, and Constitutional Union candidate John Bell. The electoral divide between Northern and Southern Democrats highlighted a profound sectional conflict, enabling Lincoln and the Republican Party to ascend to power without any backing from Southern states. In the wake of Lincoln's election, and before his inauguration in March 1861, seven Southern states chose to secede from the Union, a decision that precipitated the onset of the Civil War. Just weeks after Lincoln's victory, South Carolina formally declared secession.

Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at the background to the election and the conventions that selected candidates.

Republican Party candidate Abraham Lincoln.

Democratic Party candidate Stephen A. Douglas.

President Buchanan and the Election of 1856

The factors that shaped the 1860 Election became evident shortly after the 1856 Election. The Democratic nomination of James Buchanan over Stephen Douglas was largely orchestrated by James Slidell from Louisiana, who would play a significant role during Buchanan's presidency. Following Buchanan's victory over Douglas for the nomination, Douglas pledged his support to Buchanan in order to defeat John Fremont, the inaugural nominee of the Republican Party. Douglas anticipated having a say in patronage matters post-election, particularly regarding cabinet positions for two of his associates from the West. However, Slidell obstructed these appointments, having been granted authority over such decisions alongside Senator Bright of Indiana. The relationship between Douglas and Buchanan soured over the contentious Lecompton Constitution, leading to a fierce rivalry. By the time Douglas sought re-election as Senator in Illinois in 1858, Slidell had already purged many of Douglas's allies from federal positions.

The Dred Scott Decision

Another pivotal element influencing the 1860 Election was the Dred Scott decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857. This ruling invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, effectively legalizing slavery across all U.S. territories. The Court's determination that the Constitution safeguarded the institution of slavery and that formerly enslaved individuals could never attain American citizenship heightened the existing sectional tensions. As a result, the election of 1860 was poised to further illuminate the stark divisions between those advocating for the abolition of slavery and those intent on preserving it.

Stephen Douglas and Popular Sovereignty

While the term "popular sovereignty" is closely associated with Stephen Douglas in contemporary discussions, it was neither his invention nor his original concept. The term gained a negative connotation due to its association with the contentious issue of slavery. The idea was first proposed by Michigan Senator Lewis Cass, who also had presidential ambitions tied to this principle. By the year 1848, Cass had established himself as a prominent figure in American politics, leading to his selection as the Democratic Party's candidate for the presidency. The party believed that his stance on slavery would resonate with a diverse electorate.

Cass's advocacy for popular sovereignty meant that the residents of a territory would have the authority to determine the legality of slavery within their borders. While this approach garnered some support, it also raised concerns among many Americans who viewed it as ambiguous and potentially disruptive to the delicate balance between slave and free states. This apprehension contributed to Cass's defeat in the presidential election, where he lost to Zachary Taylor, a Mexican War hero known for his reluctance to express clear opinions on contentious issues, including slavery. After his electoral defeat, Cass returned to Michigan, where he continued to serve as a U.S. Senator until 1857, when he was appointed Secretary of State under President James Buchanan.

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, championed by Stephen A. Douglas, introduced the concept of popular sovereignty to the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. This legislation empowered the settlers of these territories to determine for themselves whether to permit slavery within their borders, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise, which had previously established a geographical boundary for the expansion of slavery based on latitude.

Douglas's initiative aimed to organize the Nebraska territory and bring it under civil governance. However, southern senators raised concerns since the area was situated north of the 36°30’ latitude line, which would classify it as a free state according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820. To secure support from the Southern faction, Douglas suggested the creation of two distinct territories—Kansas and Nebraska—while also repealing the Missouri Compromise. This arrangement allowed the settlers to decide the status of slavery in their territories, with the expectation that Kansas would lean towards being free and Nebraska would be more accommodating to slavery, thus preserving the political equilibrium.

Douglas himself was not a slaveholder, though his wife was. His political position was that it mattered not to him whether a state or territory was free or slave as long as that had been popularly decided. He maintained that the status of a state or territory—whether free or slave—should be determined by the vote of its citizens rather than by federal intervention. This belief led him to advocate for a compromise on the contentious issue of slavery, viewing it as a pragmatic approach to address the political turmoil surrounding the topic. His key contribution was the promotion of popular sovereignty, which allowed the residents of territories to vote on the legality of slavery within their borders.

Douglas argued that the decision regarding slavery should rest with the people living in the territories, rather than being dictated by the federal government. By framing the issue in terms of democratic choice, he aimed to navigate the divisive question of slavery without taking a definitive stance for or against it. While this approach seemed like a reasonable compromise at the time, it ultimately proved detrimental to Douglas's political aspirations, as it alienated various factions and diminished his support.

The legislation had unforeseen consequences, particularly the repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had previously prohibited slavery in Kansas. This change galvanized anti-slavery advocates in the North, leading to the formation of the "anti-Nebraska" movement, which eventually evolved into the Republican Party, dedicated to halting the spread of slavery. Additionally, the influx of both pro- and anti-slavery settlers into Kansas to influence the vote resulted in violent confrontations, culminating in a brutal conflict known as "Bleeding Kansas."

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates

n 1858, Senator Douglas sought re-election in Illinois, facing off against Abraham Lincoln, a circuit lawyer and former congressman. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln focused on the concept of popular sovereignty, which ultimately placed Douglas in a precarious situation. His stance on slavery began to alienate Southern Democrats who perceived him as insufficiently supportive of the institution.

Lincoln's perspective on slavery was rooted in moral opposition, yet he recognized that immediate abolition was not a feasible solution. He aimed to navigate a middle ground regarding the contentious issue of slavery. Upon receiving the Republican Party's nomination for the Senate in 1858, Lincoln asserted that the nation needed to reach a definitive conclusion on the matter, expressing skepticism about the practicality of popular sovereignty with his famous assertion that "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

This viewpoint became central to Lincoln's campaign, as his debates with Douglas significantly elevated his profile in national politics. The discussions not only highlighted the deep divisions within the country regarding slavery but also positioned Lincoln as a formidable figure in the political landscape, setting the stage for his future leadership.

At their debate in Freeport, Lincoln challenged Douglas on the legality of a state or territory determining the status of slavery, given the Dred Scott decision had already addressed this issue. In his response, Douglas articulated the "Freeport Doctrine," asserting that while he cared about the outcome of votes on slavery, he believed it was the prerogative of white citizens to make that determination. His position was that the state government could determine the implementation of Dred Scott by legislating or not enacting local authority and passing additional laws. This was the very definition of nullification, which had been the basis of the Tariffs Crisis 25 years before. Douglas seemed to hold the view that slavery was on the decline and had reached its limits, as it was primarily profitable in regions suitable for cotton and rice cultivation. He argued that slavery would not expand into areas where the climate and soil were unsuitable for these crops. Furthermore, Douglas maintained that the slavery issue should be approached as a local community matter rather than a constitutional one.

Although Douglas emerged victorious in the election, he ultimately fell prey to the very political dynamics he aimed to eliminate from territorial governance through his promotion of popular sovereignty. His actions were not evaluated based on their original intent but rather through the lens of the ongoing power struggle between the North and South, particularly concerning the expansion of slavery. Despite Douglas's aspirations, the territories remained mere instruments in a broader political conflict, illustrating the complexities and challenges of addressing the slavery issue in that era

The Cooper Union Speech

Stephen Douglas was poised to become the Democratic nominee for president in 1860. He strategically positioned himself to attract support from both northern and southern constituents, presenting his stance as a means to end slavery for the North while simultaneously appealing to the South's desire to preserve it. Abraham Lincoln recognized that the Freeport Doctrine was merely a political maneuver and understood the necessity of demonstrating that Douglas lacked genuine support from either faction. Additionally, Lincoln sought a compelling response to the Dred Scott decision to rally northern sentiment.

On February 27, 1860, Lincoln articulated his views in a pivotal speech at the Cooper Union in New York City. This address elevated him from a regional politician to a formidable contender for the presidency, as he presented a principled argument against the expansion of slavery and the enforcement of fugitive slave laws. His position was grounded in legal reasoning and reflected a politically moderate stance for the era. In his speech, Lincoln highlighted that at least 21 of the 39 signers of the Constitution believed that Congress should have the authority to regulate slavery in the territories:

“I defy any man to show that any one of them(the Founding Fathers)  ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. “

Although not as widely recognized as many of Lincoln's other statements, these particular words showcased his political acumen and played a crucial role in securing his nomination for the Republican Party. Lincoln adeptly shifted the focus of the debate from the legality of slavery, which was constitutionally sanctioned at the time, to the issue of its expansion into new territories. This strategic pivot resonated with the centrist factions within the Republican Party, who were eager for a stance that sought to limit slavery's reach while allowing it to remain where it already existed. Lincoln believed that by restricting slavery's expansion, it would eventually wither away.

In his address, Lincoln raised significant questions about whether the Constitution actually barred the Federal Government from regulating the spread of slavery, or if it enshrined slavery as a permanent institution, effectively treating enslaved individuals as property devoid of rights. He argued that the Founding Fathers had envisioned a role for Congress in overseeing matters of enslavement. By referencing the signers of the Constitution who later voted to impose regulations on slavery, Lincoln illustrated that even prominent figures like George Washington had taken legislative action to control the institution.

As a result of Lincoln's arguments, Douglas found himself politically outmaneuvered. In the Southern states, Douglas had championed the idea of popular sovereignty as advantageous to their interests, but Lincoln's assertions exposed this stance as disingenuous. Meanwhile, in the Northern states, Douglas had attempted to align himself with anti-slavery sentiments, despite being the architect of legislation that supported slavery. This contradiction undermined Douglas's credibility and highlighted the effectiveness of Lincoln's strategic approach.

1860 Democratic Convention

The Democratic Party convened its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, during April and May of 1860. At this juncture, the party was in disarray; despite being the only truly national political entity, it failed to present itself as a unified front. The deep divisions over the issue of slavery were evident, with Southern Democrats advocating for its expansion while their Northern counterparts vehemently opposed this stance. The rift within the party had been brewing long before the Charleston meeting, primarily fueled by the rivalry between supporters of Stephen A. Douglas and those aligned with President James Buchanan, particularly figures like John Slidell. Southern senators, including Jefferson Davis (Mississippi) , Yancey (Alabama), and Rhett (South Carolina), rallied against Douglas's Freeport Doctrine and his notion of Popular Sovereignty, deeming them insufficiently supportive of Southern interests. This internal discord ultimately culminated in a divisive split when Douglas arrived at the convention lacking the necessary backing for his nomination.

During the Democratic National Convention, Slidell collaborated with Alabama's William Lowndes Yancey to obstruct the nomination of Douglas. As the specter of secession loomed, Slidell aligned himself with the more radical elements known as the "fire eaters." His actions were pivotal in the fracturing of the Democratic Party, which had far-reaching implications. The division within the party not only weakened its position but also facilitated the rise of Abraham Lincoln, whose election might have been improbable had the Democrats managed to maintain their unity.

The events surrounding the 1860 Democratic National Convention serve as a critical moment in American political history, illustrating how internal conflicts can lead to significant electoral consequences. The inability of the Democratic Party to reconcile its differences over slavery not only fractured its base but also paved the way for the emergence of a Republican president. This period marked a turning point, highlighting the profound impact of party unity—or the lack thereof—on the trajectory of national politics.

The conflict regarding the official stance on slavery led to the withdrawal of numerous delegates from Southern states prior to the selection of a candidate at the convention. Although Senator Douglas garnered significant support from the delegates, he fell short of the two-thirds majority necessary for nomination, a threshold that his adversaries had deliberately established. Southern Democrats declined to back him due to his refusal to endorse a pro-slavery agenda. In protest, many delegates exited the convention, resulting in an insufficient number of remaining delegates to secure Douglas's nomination, ultimately leaving the convention without a chosen candidate.

Northern Democrats convened for a second convention in Baltimore, Maryland, from June 18 to 23, although many Southern delegates were absent. During this gathering, the Democrats nominated Stephen A. Douglas, who won decisively against John C. Breckinridge, the current vice president from Kentucky. In an effort to reconcile the factions within the party, the convention initially approached Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama for the vice presidential nomination, but he declined. Ultimately, they selected Herschel V. Johnson, a former U.S. senator and governor of Georgia, to join Douglas on the ticket.

Southern Democratic Convention

Discontented Democrats, primarily from the South, staged a second walkout during the Baltimore convention when two replacement delegations were seated. They left the convention and met on their own, where they nominated John C. Breckinridge for president, with Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon as his vice-presidential candidate. Both Stephen A. Douglas and Breckinridge asserted their positions as the legitimate Democratic nominees. In June, Yancey and a faction of staunch supporters convened in Richmond to reaffirm Breckinridge's nomination. President Buchanan endorsed this ticket, as Breckinridge had served as his Vice President and was an advocate for slavery and states' rights.

Breckinridge proposed a federal mandate that would permit slavery in the territories, mirroring the existing laws in the states, provided that the local populace supported it, thereby safeguarding the rights of slaveholders to maintain their property.

Breckinridge, a two-term congressman from Kentucky, was a notable ally of Stephen Douglas during the 1856 election. Opting not to seek a third term, he turned his focus to horse breeding and legal practice. Following Douglas's defeat at the 1856 convention, Breckinridge's name emerged as a potential vice presidential candidate to appease the faction that had lost. However, this created tension with Buchanan, who viewed Breckinridge unfavorably due to his previous support for both Pierce and Douglas, whom Buchanan considered political adversaries. Despite their earlier friendship, the Lecompton controversy ultimately severed ties between Breckinridge and Douglas, allowing Breckinridge to rise in prominence as Buchanan's presidency faltered in 1860.

At this juncture, a significant number of southern Democrats were not in favor of secession. Southern Unionists opposed the idea of breaking away from the Union. Some of these individuals chose to fight for the Union during the Civil War. Notably, several Confederate leaders, including Alexander Stephens, who would later become the vice president of the Confederacy, initially resisted the notion of secession, advocating instead for the benefits of remaining part of the Union. They held out hope that President Lincoln would adopt a conciliatory stance regarding the issue of secession. However, following the events at Fort Sumter, many shifted their allegiance to the Confederate States of America. Although Slidell initially belonged to this group, he ultimately aligned himself with the secessionist cause.

Southern Unionists can be divided into two distinct categories. Conditional Unionists typically supported the unrestricted expansion of slavery or at least favored the principle of Popular Sovereignty, advocating for the Federal government to allow the Southern states to secede peacefully. In contrast, Unconditional Unionists remained steadfastly loyal to democratic principles, regardless of the electoral outcomes. This latter group played a significant role in the Civil War, contributing approximately 200,000 troops from the South to the Union army, demonstrating their commitment to the Union despite the prevailing sentiments in their region.

The onset of the war led to noticeable fractures within the party, which undoubtedly contributed to the challenges faced in 1860. The War Democrats, a faction of Northern Democrats, were in favor of continuing the fight in the Civil War. While the majority of Northern Democrats remained committed to the Union following the secession of the Southern states, the War Democrats expressed their support for the war but were critical of the economic policies implemented by the Republicans and President Abraham Lincoln's early actions, including the suspension of habeas corpus and the detention of dissenting publishers and politicians.

In the lead-up to the 1864 presidential election, the War Democrats allied with Republicans to establish the Union Party, which ultimately renominated Lincoln for the presidency and selected War Democrat Andrew Johnson from Tennessee as his vice-presidential candidate. This group consisted of Democrats who were in favor of the war effort aimed at preserving the Union. Notable figures among the War Democrats included Benjamin Butler, who would later switch parties, and Edwin Stanton, who also changed his political allegiance.

On the other hand, the Peace Democrats, represented by individuals like George Pendleton and Clement Vallandigham, advocated for a peaceful resolution with the Confederacy, even if it meant accepting disunion. Often referred to as "Copperheads," these Democrats opposed the war and sought a negotiated settlement that would involve concessions to the South, allowing it to rejoin the Union. The term "Copperhead" was first introduced by the New York Tribune on July 20, 1861, symbolizing a deceptive and treacherous approach, akin to the snake that strikes unexpectedly.

The Republican Convention

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”

 — Abraham Lincoln

The Republican convention took place in Chicago from May 16 to 18 at the Wigwam. Established in the mid-1850s following the disintegration of the Whig Party, the Republican Party primarily opposed the expansion of slavery into U.S. territories. While a significant number of its members advocated for the complete abolition of slavery, the party adopted a more pragmatic approach, refraining from calling for abolition in states where slavery was already entrenched. This moderate position focused on preventing the spread of slavery, although some delegates were in favor of its total eradication.

As the convention commenced, New York Senator William H. Seward appeared to be the frontrunner for the nomination. However, he faced considerable competition from several notable figures, including Ohio Senator Salmon P. Chase, Pennsylvania Senator Simon Cameron, Edward Bates from Missouri, and Illinois's favorite son Abraham Lincoln, who was a popular candidate among local supporters.

During the first ballot, Seward garnered the most votes but fell short of the necessary majority for nomination by about 59 votes. The second ballot saw a tightening race between Seward and Lincoln, ultimately leading to Lincoln's nomination on the third ballot. Additionally, Senator Hannibal Hamlin from Maine was selected as Lincoln's running mate, solidifying the ticket for the upcoming election.

Of all the Republican candidates who were running for President in 1860, Lincoln stood out as the most unrefined and least experienced, possessing a notably sparse resume. His political career included a single term in Congress, during which he faced defeat in two Senate elections in Illinois, a state characterized by its western prairie. Lacking both administrative and military experience, Lincoln's appearance was also unconventional; he was often noted for his ill-fitting attire and somewhat disheveled look. However, history reveals that he may have been one of the most articulate figures of his time, and with the benefit of hindsight, we can recognize that his skill as a persuasive orator was a significant asset. Observers of his speeches remarked on his awkwardness and the high pitch of his voice, yet his compelling narrative resonated with the public: he was the embodiment of the self-made man, having emerged from humble beginnings in a log cabin through sheer determination and intellect, rather than through the privileges of wealth or elite education.

The prosaic truth is that he might have been nominated simply because he was the least offensive candidate. He was a shrewd politician, first and foremost. His political positions were in the center of the party, and that was his precise political intent. Seward, who had been the Governor and Senator from New York, and Chase the Governor and Senator from Ohio, were abolitionists; and Bates, an elder statesman from Missouri, was conservative on the slavery issue, being from a border state that wasn’t inclined to overturn slavery.  In that sense, Lincoln was a safe choice for the general election.  Importantly, unlike the others, he had made no enemies along the way.  Each had people that didn't want him as the President and Lincoln’s strategy was superb.  He said to the supporters of each one of those men, “If you can’t get your first love, come to me as your second love.” He also played his cards skillfully: he didn't attack any of the others, while they were all busy attacking one another.

Lincoln demonstrated considerable political acumen, bolstered by a network of allies who actively supported him during the convention. Six months prior, his associate Norman B. Judd had journeyed to New York to advocate for Chicago as the venue for the gathering, engaging with influential figures like Thurlow Weed. The decision to select Chicago was influenced by the perception that Illinois posed no significant challenge to Seward's candidacy. Judd effectively communicated this perspective, suggesting that Illinois, lacking a clear frontrunner, could serve as a suitable compromise location. Once the convention was confirmed for Chicago, Judd facilitated discounted train tickets for attendees traveling to the city.

In addition to promoting Chicago, Judd skillfully orchestrated the seating arrangements for the convention. He strategically placed New York and other states firmly aligned with Seward to the right of the podium, while Illinois and delegations that were either opposed to or indifferent about Seward were positioned to the left. This arrangement created a central section occupied by reporters, which effectively obstructed New Yorkers from engaging with undecided delegates during the sessions. As a result, Lincoln's supporters enjoyed greater access to those delegates who were uncertain, while Seward's team faced significant challenges in swaying them.

LINK: https://thirdcoastreview.com/2023/05/26/review-against-all-odds-the-lincoln-miracle-inside-the-republican-convention-that-changed-history-by-edward-achorn/

Thanks to a resourceful convention team working behind the scenes, Lincoln successfully garnered support and fostered the impression of a popular movement. Justice David Davis, who served as the presiding judge of the Illinois 8th Circuit, played a pivotal role in this effort. Having been a close friend of Lincoln and a fellow practitioner in the same legal circuit, Davis took on the role of campaign manager. He incentivized delegates with promising job opportunities in exchange for their votes, ultimately orchestrating Lincoln's triumph over rivals Seward and Chase. Without Davis's strategic influence, Lincoln's ascent to prominence might have remained a mere footnote in history.

Ward Hill Lamon, a lawyer within the same 8th Illinois Circuit, held opposing views on abolition and leaned towards Southern sympathies. Despite their ideological differences, he and Lincoln forged a strong friendship. Lamon's notable presence made him a recognizable figure, and he played a crucial role in rallying support for Lincoln at the convention. To ensure a favorable audience during the critical balloting, Lamon resorted to printing counterfeit tickets, allowing Lincoln's supporters to fill the convention hall. Meanwhile, Seward's camp, overly confident in their chances, celebrated the night before and found themselves inebriated and distracted, leading to a missed opportunity.

As the convention unfolded, the dynamics shifted dramatically. While Seward's supporters were preoccupied with their parade outside the hall, Lincoln's backers, armed with duplicate tickets, gained entry and filled the venue. This strategic maneuvering resulted in enthusiastic cheers for Lincoln every time his name was mentioned, creating an atmosphere that suggested he was the preferred candidate among the delegates. In stark contrast, Seward's supporters, who had been unable to enter the hall, could not muster the same level of enthusiasm, undermining their candidate's position as the frontrunner. The scene painted a clear picture of Lincoln as the people's choice, swaying the delegates in his favor.

The Constitutional Union Party

The Constitutional Union Party emerged in 1859 as an effort to bridge the growing sectional divide in the United States, drawing together former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party. This coalition nominated John Bell, a former senator from Tennessee, for president, and Edward Everett, the former president of Harvard University, for vice president. Their platform was particularly attractive to voters in the border states, as it sought to sidestep the contentious issue of slavery and instead emphasize loyalty to the U.S. Constitution.

Comprising mainly discontented Democrats, Unionists, and former Whigs. It was also comprised of former Know-Nothings, especially Millard Fillmore’s 1857 American Party. The Constitutional Union Party convened for its inaugural meeting on May 9, 1860, called together by Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, a former prominent Whig. At Crittenden's request, fifty former and current members of Congress met in Washington, D.C. in December 1859, where they agreed to form a new party dedicated to preserving the union and avoiding debates over slavery. This is the same Crittenden who would advance a compromise solution to secession in early 1861.During this gathering, they officially selected John Bell as their presidential candidate and Edward Everett as his running mate. The party's formation was a response to the political turmoil of the time, aiming to present a united front amidst the fractious political landscape.

The party positioned itself as a champion of law and constitutional order, deliberately refraining from taking a definitive stance on slavery or states' rights. Instead, they pledged to uphold the Constitution and maintain the Union, seeking to avoid the polarizing debates surrounding slavery that threatened national unity. Nevertheless, Bell proposed a compromise regarding slavery, advocating for the extension of the Missouri Compromise line across the nation, which would legalize slavery in new southern states while prohibiting it in northern territories, in hopes of attracting voters disillusioned by the Democratic Party's internal conflicts.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.