The U.S. Presidential Election of 1860

The presidential campaign of 1860 was one of the most divisive in American history. The outcome of the election directly led to the secession of seven states and ultimately, the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate, only received a mere thirty-nine percent of the popular votes. Yet, the votes Lincoln received were enough to propel him to the presidency because of the split in the Democratic Party.

Slavery was a significant issue of the Election of 1860. The election revolved around federal policy regarding the status of slavery under the state and federal constitutions. The Northern states abolished slavery by the nineteenth century. Both Britain and American banned the slave trade. As Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire, a few northerners began to criticize the Southern slaveholders. By 1860, many northerners became annoyed at the South's insistence for slavery to be legal in the Western territories.¹ Many people in the North and West viewed slavery as an entity that needed to be defeated. The only way slavery could be defeated was to abolish it.²

The increased support the South received using black Republicanism for the pro-slavery movement showed that the Slave Power was gaining power. The threat of slavery expanding was a cause of the anti-slavery movement in the North.³ The slave power is "that control in and over the government of the United States which is exercised by a comparatively small number of persons, distinguished from the other twenty millions of free citizens, and bound together in a common interest, by being owners of slaves."⁴ The Slave Power was an aristocracy that believed slavery was not morally wrong but rather a right of the slaveholder.⁵ Senator Collamer described southern society as:

The Southern States are an aggregate, in fact, of communities, not of individuals. Every plantation is a little community, with the master as its head, who concentrates in himself the united interest of capital and labor, of which he is the common representative. These small communities aggregated to make the State.⁶

Northerners believed there was a conspiracy amongst the Southern slaveholders to impose slavery upon the nation, destroy civil liberty, extend slavery into the territories, revive the slave trade, and control the policies of the Federal government.⁷ Different from the Northerners, many Southerners viewed slaves as property of the slaveholder and believed slavery is legal and Constitutional. The slave system did not distribute power equally for slaveholders often controlled state legislatures, education, media, and economic policies.⁸

The Southern leaders felt that the South was not the aggressive one. Instead, they accused the North of violating the Southern rights. ⁹ They also charged the North with revolting, miscegenation, and social disorder. The accusations of the Northern conspiracy aligned Southerners point of views.¹⁰ The North viewed the South as a Slave Power that imposed laws endangering the rights of free blacks. They accused the South of attempting to change the nation into one filled with slavery and destroying the Union.¹¹ Abolitionists also asserted that slavery was threatening the very existence of personal and civil liberty and the republican government itself.¹²

The contradicting views of the North and South on slavery only widened the sectional rift between them and left neutrality nearly impossible. The South was pro-slavery while the North and West were anti-slavery. The widening gap between anti-slavery and pro-slavery made it very difficult for anyone to remain neutral. In the North, abolitionists viewed neutrality or tolerance of slavery as hostile to the preservation of the free, democratic nation.¹³ In the eyes of the Northerners, the South was no more a collection of pro-slavery states. Southerners actions were un-American for economic opportunities were not available to the majority of people. The North also criticized the South's strict social ladder.¹⁴ A conflict was almost unavoidable and even the political parties struggled to take sides. There was much debate within political parties concerning which side to take, pro-slavery or anti-slavery.

Each political party pursuing the presidency in 1860 had a unique policy towards slavery. By 1858, Northerners established a majority in the Republican Party. Their policies advocated for no further expansion of slavery.¹⁵ Some radical Republicans favored the separation of the federal government from slavery. They wanted slavery outlawed in the territories and the District of Columbia. The radicals also wished for the federal government to forbid the entry of any more slave states into the Union. They wanted a stricter prevention of the overseas slave trade and the abolition of interstate slave trade.¹⁶ Southern slaveholders could never tolerate the radical Republicans' policies.

The Northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas, were indifferent to the question of slavery. Yet they did warn of the dangerous consequences for Northerners to identify the North as a prospect of freedom and improvement for slaves. They also said that the way Republicans presented the North would encourage slaves to flee northwards, which would result in fewer jobs for whites.¹⁷ Douglas also claimed that the Constitution did not carry slavery into the Territories and that the people of a territory had absolute power over slavery.¹⁸ Because of the Northern Democrats' policies and views towards slavery, many Northern states supported either the Republicans or the Northern Democrats.

The Southern Democrats, with Breckinridge as their candidate for president, believed slavery to be moral and deserved protection in the Territories from the Federal government.¹⁹ Vice President John Breckinridge gave his view on slavery through a response to the Douglas question.

We hold therefore, that neither Congress nor the Territorial Government can legally interfere with Slavery; that its recognition by the Federal Constitution secures its existence until the people of the Territory, in forming their State Constitution, shall decide finally upon it; that its protection is a question for the Judiciary, and the authority of the Judiciary shall be protected and maintained, wherever the necessity shall occur, by the whole power of the Federal Government-legislative and executive, as well as judicial. And since Slavery is so recognized by the Constitution, there is needed no express legislation by Congress for its protection, but all further agitation upon the subject is calculated only to engender sectional feeling, and weaken the cohesive power which holds us together as a confederate Republic.²⁰

Breckinridge states that the Federal and territorial government have no right to control slavery. The people in a territory control the existence of slavery. He also claims that there is no need for protection of slavery because the Constitution already recognizes it. He also asserts that any attempt at containing slavery would be an attempt at dissolution of the Union.²¹ Based on their pro-slavery policies, the Southern Democrats received the support of many Southern states.

The split in the Democratic Party was monumental in affecting the outcome of the Election of 1860. Had the Democratic Party remained united, the chances of capturing the presidency were high. They knew they needed only 152 of the 303 possible electoral votes. The Southern states, totaling 120 votes, would almost definitely cast their vote to the Democratic candidate. Oregon and California, both with Democratic supporters, yielded seven more electoral votes. The Democrats might even carry the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, or Illinois. Yet they could only win the electoral votes of these states if their platform did not include a slave code policy. A slave code plank would result in the loss of almost every Northern state's votes and leave them with no chance at the presidency.²²

The Democrats could only win the election of 1860 united and aligned on viewpoints. Unfortunately, there was much tension in the party as people from Illinois and Michigan called Jefferson Davis a fire-eating fanatic. Meanwhile, people from Alabama referred to Douglas as a "traitor only less vicious than Seward." Illinois' leaders such as John A. Logan, John A. McClernand, and William A. Richardson often communicated with Douglas supporters. As Caleb Cushing worked alongside with Davis and other prominent Southern leaders, he began to lose his desire of preserving the Union at all costs. Instead, Cushing believed that if the Federal government did not fulfill the Southern states demands on slavery, they were obligated to form a separate republic.²³

The Southern delegates had many diverse opinions on issues of slavery, making it difficult for the Democrats to choose a single candidate. Possible nominees included Senator R.M.T. Hunter, Vice President John Breckinridge, and Secretary James Guthrie. Yet many believed Jefferson Davis to be the best candidate in the presidential campaign of 1860. Although the Northern delegates favored Stephen Douglas, Southerners opposed leadership under him. As time passed, observers realized that the nomination of Douglas was going to lead to disruption and chaos within the Democratic Party. ²⁴ As the Democratic convention continued into mid-April, seven Southern states: Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas agreed to withdraw together unless the party adopted a policy for Congressional protection of slavery in the territories.²⁵

The Douglas supporters tried to appeal to both North and Southern delegates with platform with a moderate stand on the issue of slavery. By doing so, they hoped to acquire two-thirds of the votes for their candidate. Each state had the same number of votes as they did in the Electoral College, totaling to 303 votes. To gain two-thirds of the votes, Douglas needed 202 votes.²⁶ Knowing that Douglas would most likely not attain the two-thirds vote, his supporters believed that others should give up their votes to any man who attained a clear majority. Although he would not acquire two-thirds of the vote, Douglas would have the votes of most of the fifty-eight delegates from the Old Northwest. Iowa and Minnesota could yield seven or eight more votes. Observers believed he could obtain five of Missouri's nine delegates, ten of Pennsylvania's votes, and four of New Jersey's votes. Maryland might possibly give Douglas two or three more votes. The votes of New England states, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island would supply fourteen more votes. He could also pick up some votes from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and possibly some Southern states.²⁷ He could rely on the North's votes because their delegates were bound to vote based on state convention decisions. Yet the southern delegates had no commitment and could vote freely, giving Douglas some unexpected votes.²⁸

Many southern states supported different candidates in opposition to Douglas. Virginia and North Carolina wanted to put Robert Hunter into power but other states such as Kentucky supported Guthrie. Tennessee supported Andrew Jackson while South Carolina supported James Lawrence Orr. The only unity the Southern delegates had was opposition to Douglas, yet they divided for a leader.²⁹ The opposition to Douglas could defeat him by adopting a platform that he would never support. Seventeen of the thirty-three members on the platform writing committee supported the anti-Douglas leaders. They planned to use bribes, threats, and eloquence to get the desired platform passed. If the platform was defeated, the Southern states could withdraw from the party.³⁰

Many of Douglas's supporters were not afraid of the withdrawal of Southern delegations. If some delegations left, it would be easier for Douglas to obtain the required two-thirds votes. Many Unionists hoped that two Democratic candidates would force the election to Congress where the Senate, dominated by Southern Democrats. There, the Democratic candidate other than Douglas would gain the votes by the trusted Southerners in Senate at the time. However, their temporary advantage would put a candidate not chosen by the majority of the people and therefore, put the nation at danger. In a way, the division of the Democratic Party embodied the two forthcoming American republics.³¹

The convention began on Monday, April 23 in Charleston, South Carolina on Meeting Street. The first action of the convention was to create two committees: one for organization and another for credentials. Afterwards, a debate arose concerning how the uninstructed delegates were to vote. The convention decided that they would cast individual votes unless delegates were bound to specific instructions given by their state.³² The convention also determined for the adoption of a platform to take place before casting votes for a candidate. Douglas pledged to not accept a nomination if the platform included a slave-code policy. Meanwhile, many of the lower South states pledged to withdraw if the platform did not satisfy their desires. At the Democratic convention, the platform seemed to have more importance than the candidates did. A platform with a slave-code plank would give the Southern and Buchanan Administration men reason to exclude Douglas from being a possible candidate. "From that moment all hope of unity disappeared."³³

On April 25^th, the convention excluded the Danite contestants from Illinois and the Fernando Wood group of New York. Denying both delegations from entering the convention were fair judgments based on evidence. Even so, the Southerners were not pleased with the decisions. They felt that there was injustice because Dean Richmond's delegation was going to cast all of their votes for Douglas even thought there were thirty anti-Douglas men compared to the forty Douglas supporters. The South even pressed to split New York's votes, yet that movement failed. New York may cast their votes for any candidate but they would strongly oppose a slave-code platform.³⁴

There were two reports proposed, a majority and a minority report. Fifteen slave states, Oregon, and California signed the majority report.³⁵ The majority report stated:

That neither Congress nor Territorial legislatures have power to exclude Slavery from the Territories, or to destroy or impair the rights of property in slaves; that the Federal Government should protect the rights of persons and property on the high seas, and wherever its jurisdictions extends; denouncing as revolutionary the enactments of State legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law.³⁶

The minority report was much different and stated that since the differences of opinions existed as to the rights and duties of territorial legislatures and Congress with respect to slavery in the Territories, the party would abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of Constitutional law.³⁷ H.B. Payne spoke in favor of the minority report, claiming that the national government should not interfere with slavery in the Territories, but should allow people to decide their own laws. Payne asserted that the Southern leaders followed the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress while the North only through about popular sovereignty and asked only for what the Constitution allowed them.³⁸

W. L. Yancey was a fervent supporter of Southern rights and a great orator. He favored disunion because the constitutional rights of the South became hard to attain within the Union. He perceived Douglas to be very similar to the Republicans. He believed that both would abolish the sectional compact and do away with the Constitution. His proposed resolution for the preservation of the Union was for the rest of the nation to support the extreme Southern pro-slavery views. His opposition often charged him with leading the conspiracy to shatter the unity of the Democratic Party.³⁹

Yancey appealed to Southerners because the people would be bankrupt if the party adopted the Northern popular sovereignty platform.⁴⁰ In a pamphlet, Yancey stated:

Ours is the property invaded; ours are the instructions which are at stake; ours is the peace that is to be destroyed; ours is the honor at stake-the honor of children, the honor of families, the lives, perhaps, of all-all of which rests upon what your course may ultimately make a great heaving volcano of passion and crime, if you are enabled to consummate your designs. Bear with us, then if we stand sternly upon what is yet that dormant volcano, and say we yield no position here until we are convinced we are wrong.⁴¹

Yancey's speeches seemed to boost the moral and sparked many observers to support him. He wanted Southern delegates to stand true to their constitutional obligations.⁴²

On the eve of the Democratic Party division, the supporters of Douglas were not worried.⁴³ They planned to let three or four states leave the convention. Meanwhile, Southern Democrats were not worried because they believed a split might send the election to Congress, where there was a Southern Democratic majority.⁴⁴ Alabama and Mississippi were determined to leave the party if the party did not fulfill their demands.⁴⁵ Many other Southern states advised their delegates to withdraw along with Alabama.⁴⁶ George Sanders sent a telegram to the President asking him to intervene. He denounced Slidell and Bright for trying to break up the convention and declared most of the Northern delegates had agreed to accept the changes in the old Cincinnati platform. The changes left all questions regarding the rights of property in States and Territories to the Supreme Court. Yet Buchanan did not want to do anything that would result in Douglas's nomination so he declined to intervene.⁴⁷ On the day to vote for the platform, the convention passed the minority version with 165 to 138 votes. Douglas supporters agreed to take different votes on other parts of the platform. A large majority passed the first resolution of reaffirming the Cincinnati platform of 1856.⁴⁸

1 Bruce Collins, Origins of America's Civil War (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1981), 6.

2 Russel B. Nye, Fettered Freedom (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1949), 225.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 226.

5 Nye, Fettered Freedom, 226.

6 Jacob Collamer, "Slavery and Freedom," New York Times, 26 October 1860, 2.

7 Nye, Fettered Freedom, 223.

8 Ibid., 226.

9 Kenneth M. Stampp, Causes of the Civil War (New York: Simon and Schuster Inc., 1991), 19.

10 Nye, Fettered Freedom, 230.

11 Stampp, Causes of the Civil War, 19

12 Nye, Fettered Freedom, 230.

13 Ibid.

14 Collins, Origins of America's Civil War, 45

15 Ibid., 59.

16 Ibid., 128.

17 Collins, Origins of America's Civil War, 132.

18 "The Political Campaign," New York Times, 28 September 1860, 1.

19 Ibid.

20 "Views of the Vice-President of the Douglas Question," New York Times, 4 October 1859, 4.

21 "Views of the Vice-President of the Douglas Question," New York Times, 4 October 1859, 4.

22 Allan Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln: Prologue to Civil War 1859-1861, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), 204.

23 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 205.

24 Ibid., 206.

25 Roy F. Nichols, Disruption of American Democracy (New York: Free Press, 1968), 295.

26 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 207.

27 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 208

28 Ibid., 209.

29 Ibid., 210.

30 Ibid., 211.

31 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 211.

32 Ibid., 212.

33 Ibid., 213.

34 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 213.

35 Ibid., 214.

36 "Charleston Convention," New York Times, 28 April 1860, 1.

37 Nevin, Emergence of Lincoln, 214.

38 Ibid., 215.

39 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 216.

40 Ibid., 217.

41 William Lowndes Yancey, Speech of the Hon. William L. Yancey, of Alabama: delivered in the National Democratic Convention, Charleston, April 28^th, 1860., (Charleston: Walker, Evan, and Co., 1860), 1.

42 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 217.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid., 218.

45 Nevins, Emergence of Lincoln, 219.

46 Ibid., 218.

47 Sanders to Buchanan, telegram, April 27, 1860.

48 Ibid.