When learning about the Civil War, whether in class or somewhere else, I feel like most of us just skip to the beginning, that being either the attack on Fort Sumter or the Battle of Manassas. However, there is always what comes before the beginning that pushes a country that is recently divided into something more serious. There are some interesting connections between the United States now and in 1860, especially given how much of the U.S. population believes that a second civil war is a possibility. That is why we should look back at this election and the political atmosphere that existed then.
The 1860 presidential election was really the beginning of a new political landscape in the U.S., the start of a new two party system. The Democrats were the established party at the time, controlling the White House with incumbent president James Buchanan and before him Franklin Pierce, their strength located in the South from slave states and immigrants. Following this, the new face on the political stage was the Republican party, fresh from their first election with a presidential candidate in 1856, John C. Fremont. The Republicans had less of an established background compared to the Democrats and needed to rely on former party groups such as Whigs, the party that challenged the Democrats from the 1830s to the 1850s, but ultimately folded due to infighting over slavery. There were also the “Know Nothings” or the American Party whose appeal rested on anti-immigrant policies and on “Free Soil” party members who opposed expansion of slavery in the west. Things would get more interesting at the Democratic convention in Charleston. The party would fracture when trying to nominate Stephen Douglas, and would fail to add a federal slave code for territories plank to their campaign. The Democrats would try to reconvene in Baltimore unsuccessfully, tearing the party in two, the Democrats running Stephen Douglas in the north and southern Democrats supporting the Vice-President, John C. Breckenridge.
The Republicans would also be split between moderates who supported Abraham Lincoln and the more left leaning William H. Seward. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans were able to stay united and nominate Lincoln. But I’m not finished yet! There was a fourth candidate, John Bell, a moderate running on the “Constitutional Union” supporting preservation of the union and swaying Southerners who disagreed with Republicans but didn’t want to leave the Union either.
As with current politics, it seems almost anything could set our world on fire even if we don’t want to increase hostility and distrust. This is where we meet our link from the fragmented election to the spark of the Civil War or at least we can get some perspective on our current situation. The “Wide Awakes” was a Republican political group of young men who would march in cities and states for Lincoln and Republican candidates. I know what you’re thinking, they don’t sound too bad but the problem was they did it in a very militaristic style. This frightened many Southerners which fed their fears of losing a grip on power and this fear would also help to transform the election into a powder keg. We can also see how the “Orange Marches” in Northern Ireland caused and continue to cause division. Fear sometimes seems to push groups into paramilitary activity which in turn, causes more fear, leading to a deadly spiral of fear and hate.
I don’t think most of us realize the importance of this election to the Civil War. It was the accumulation of decades of political fighting and maneuvering that created a perfect storm of emotion. The result was the bloodiest war in American history. What we should remember today, is that we need to be very careful when we provoke the other side during election time, or trying to buy into their fears. Marching and mass mobilization and acting like a paramilitary organization like the Proud Boys and or the OrangeMen in Northern Ireland might do more harm than good. Instead of helping their cause, it hurts them.
Reference list:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25622297
https://millercenter.org/president/lincoln/campaigns-and-elections
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-66102199
This is an interesting argument and a strong rebuke of militarized political action. I do however wonder if the election of 1860 is a less than perfect example? Without getting too far into speculative historiography, if the Civil War had not happened do you think America would have ended slavery? I think that perhaps without the Civil War there is a chance that America would not have ended the horrifically violent institution of slavery. Lincoln’s own belief was that slavery in America would not end for 100 years.
I do agree with your base point about many people lacking an understanding of the rhetoric and militarized marches that led into the election of 1860. I also love the context you give on the state of the Democratic Party leading into the election.