Category: Week 4: 1860 (Page 1 of 3)

“She’s a radical, she’s a communist.” These were the words used by former conservative U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough to describe Kamala Harris. It’s no far cry from other conservatives’ descriptions of the Vice President from this election season. U.S. Senator Steve Daines claimed that “…she is unelectable because her positions are radical.”

It is unsurprising to see Trump’s campaign and his supporters paint Harris as “radical”, as, with partisan tensions high, it is exactly these fears about her “radical” stances on border control, fracking, funding the police, and gun control that cause hesitation in undecided and conservative voters. Therefore, it is even more unsurprising to see, in response, Harris attempting to moderate her image and tactically reject these far-left labels when needed. 

It’s a strategy that we have seen throughout U.S. history. Consider the Election of 1860, in which Illinois Republicans employed Owen Lovejoy to campaign for Abraham Lincoln. Lovejoy, a known abolitionist and controversial figure, seemed like an unlikely choice to commission to persuade Republican votes. However, he would become one of their most valuable weapons. 

Owen Lovejoy

Lovejoy, was anything but quiet about his position on abolishing slavery, maintaining him an infamous reputation in Southern Illinois. The Republican party knew that if they ignored Lovejoy, he could become ammo for the Democratic party, in which they could point to his radical position as an attempt to hide or disguise their “actual” position on the institution of slavery. Those opposing Lincoln’s calls for the end to the expansion of slavery feared that with the realization of Black people’s natural rights would come the realization of political rights and, thus, a chipping of white supremacy. 

Recognizing this fear of Republicans being “too radical” towards slavery, Illinois Republicans thought: who better to explain our moderate attitudes towards slavery than known extremist, Lovejoy? In an attempt to appear less radical, Illinois Republicans employed one of their most radical members to rallying the state’s conservatives for Lincoln. 

This use of rhetorical radicalism is familiar to us as we look at today’s election. Labeled as “far-left”, it is up to the Harris campaign to shift Trump’s narrative of her. We see this in how Harris speaks about gun control. 

During the Presidential debate between the VP and Trump, Harris took the time to shut down rumors that she and her running mate, Tim Waltz, want to “take everyone’s guns away”, as Trump alleged. She reaffirmed her stance later on Oprah, even joking that if “someone breaks into [her] house… they’re getting shot.” 

By painting herself as a gun-owner, who has no intention of taking people’s guns away, it could actually validate her stance on supporting stricter gun laws for some American voters. By clarifying that she does not intend to abolish the Second Amendment, and that she is not some “radical liberal”, some Republicans may be more likely to listen to her argument for better gun control. 

It is this same strategy that the Illinois Republicans employed. By appearing less radical, Harris can gain support from hesitant voters and also bolster her support because, now, her actual opinions and ideas don’t seem as extreme, and may not be as immediately dismissed. Illinois Republicans attempted to appear less radical towards slavery through rhetoric that reinforced white labor protection, denied Black people fundamental civil liberties, and upheld white supremacy. By appearing less radical, Illinois Republicans too hoped to garner more support from undecided or conservative voters for Lincoln, and the campaign’s call for the end of the expansion of slavery. 

Through these elections we can see that, when party tensions are high, and distrust grows between partisans, it becomes essential to appear more moderate and assuage the fears of those who find the candidates “too liberal”. In an election, a progressive candidate must ask themselves: How do we argue for change while promising to move slow enough? How do we move forward while meeting in the middle? How do we appear progressive, while picking up the missing votes in the middle?

After President Lincoln’s 1860 election victory, the end of slavery lay in wait, a latent threat for the Democratic party. Most of the Republican party saw no need for an immediate end to slavery and instead advocated for a gradual change. Lincoln noted in a debate with Stephen Douglas that the end of slavery would take “a hundred years at the least.” Yet, Democrats continued to insist Republicans wanted to abolish slavery then and now. 

One-off incidents turned to scapegoats in support of Southern secession. The raid at Harpers Ferry, led by abolitionist John Brown, threatened a cycle of repeat uprisings for Southern Democrats. The success of the Wide Awakes, a grassroots political movement based in Democratic strongholds across Northern states, was bad enough; even worse was when Black men began marching with the group in their processions and “confirmed the southern narrative of the coming Republican apocalypse.”

Democratic papers used scare tactics in their reporting of these one-off events. When Black men started showing up to Republican rallies, the Quincy Herald turned to writing blatantly racist, galvanizing headlines—”Another N-word in the Crowd.” They also reported on the event “where a white and black man “join[ed] hands” while holding a U.S. flag.” 

For Southern Democrats, though they likely knew the threat of abolitionism was not immediate, the Republican party’s rise to power was domineering. No longer would they be able to continue their tarnished legacy for ages to come. An immediate, strong response was necessary. What better way to facilitate it than spreading exaggerated stories?

We still see scare tactics like these used by politicians today. Take the first presidential debate for example. Somewhere along the way, Donald Trump starts employing a rather familiar scare tactic to the 1860 idea that Republicans were staunch sympathizers to immigrants or enslaved people—so much so, that it would be at the expense of white Americans. 

In reference to Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, Trump insists that these immigrants are eating neighbors’ cats and dogs. The lurking message behind this obvious xenophobic quote is that Kamala Harris and the Democrat party are supporting these so-called violent, Haitian immigrants. 

Both Trump and the Democrats of the South in 1860 centralized white fears in their arguments by exaggerating and caricaturing their opponents’ policies. 

Sources: 

Jon Grinspan. “‘Young Men for War’: The Wide Awakes and Lincoln’s 1860 Presidential Campaign.” The Journal of American History 96, no. 2 (2009): 357–78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25622297.

Sally Heinzel. “‘To Protect the Rights of the White Race:’ Illinois Republican Racial Politics in the 1860 Campaign and the Twenty-Second General Assembly.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1998-) 108, no. 3–4 (2015): 374–406. https://doi.org/10.5406/jillistathistsoc.108.3-4.0374.

The election of 1860 saw the continuation of slavery as an integral political issue. The election of Abraham Lincoln, who was anti-slavery, but notably not abolitionist, ignited these tensions so much that it was a major contributor to the South’s secession from the Union. Often, the mythos surrounding secession is that it was due to states rights, and that the federal government was infringing on their rights. This poses the question, does imposition by the federal government really equal less freedom?

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln spoke at the Cooper Union and gave a powerful and impactful speech which ultimately argued that the federal government had the constitutional right to control slavery in the states. This would mean that the power of the federal government would supersede the power of the states when it comes to issues regarding slavery. Many of the Southern slave states didn’t like this, so much so that they succeeded from the Union. In South Carolina’s declaration of succession, they claim that “the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the federal government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified the State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.”  

This shows that not only did states, in this instance South Carolina, think that the power of the federal government was overreach, they thought that it was so overreaching that it nullified the constitution. Looking towards the present to other issues regarding states rights, it becomes apparent that freedom for the states for the states to make their own decisions on issues doesn’t necessarily mean the freedom for people in the states. For exact, take the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson, which returned the issue of abortion back to the state by revoking the federal protection that came about from Roe v. Wade. However, despite the decisions being given back to the states, something that should have made it ‘freer’ as the federal government is no longer dictating what abortion bans states are or aren’t allowed to implement, most people who needed abortion as a civil liberty have actually seen less freedom for themselves with the bans. 

The idea of state rights against the overreach of the federal government doesn’t ensure freedom for the people, it ensures freedom for the states to do what they want.

Additional Source:

Lincoln’s speech from the Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/lincoln/the-run-for-president.html) titled “Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address”

The polarization of political parties has seemingly transformed U.S. politics into a binary of subjective lesser evils. You see this manifested in catchphrases such as, “Vote Blue No Matter Who,” which serve to reinforce this fear-based electoral tactic. Polarization-focused voting schemes have been largely criticized in the past years alone, but their history provides an important lens for analyzing how party disunity affects electoral trends and creates repercussions varying from widespread dissent to acts of treason.

Ye Olde Disagreements and Divide

In the election of 1860, Republicans faced a crisis as party fractures occurred around the issue of slavery. The RNC candidate, Abraham Lincoln, campaigned on ending the emigration of enslaved people, which caused him to face immense backlash from the Democratic party. The issue became warped through a large game of newspaper telephone, ultimately framing Republicans as a pro-abolitionist party. This perceived threat against the commercial backbone of the South caused Democrats to fracture into several groups with varying viewpoints surrounding the institution of slavery.

The Democratic party, headed by Stephen A. Douglas, maintained their position against Lincoln but were seen by their constituents as insufficiently committed to the pro-slavery cause. As a result, groups such as the Southern Democratic Party popped up with campaigns driven by the preservation of slavery. Other groups, like the Constitutional Union, had similar opinions to the Southern Democrats but differed based on opinions surrounding secession.

While the Democrats quibbled in a corner over partisan issues, Republicans organized and mobilized to garner voters for the election. Republicans used every campaign method possible; they brought out notable speakers to sway opinion, published endorsements throughout Northern states, targeted and translated speeches to German immigrant voters, and utilized grass-roots organizations—such as the Wide Awakes—to target young voters. In contrast, Democrats pushed the easily disproved Republican abolitionism lie, yet did not make nearly the same effort to organize voters throughout their various party offshoots. Republicans’ unity against the Democrats allowed them to successfully gain enough electoral support from the split faction votes of Southern states. As a result, immense resentment burst from the Democrat-aligned parties, and, feeling unfoundedly threatened by the dissolution of slavery, some states decided to break from the union in opposition. Secession, the first step in protest against Lincoln’s election, underpinned the escalation that soon caused the Civil War.

Building Dissent Through Absurdity

Lincoln’s battle against the Democratic-aligned parties resonates closely with many recent elections, even down to the same campaign issues stemming from white supremacy.  Perhaps the most poignant example of unintentional disunity is the 2016 election, which saw an ideological divide spanning over Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, Democrat Hilary Clinton, and various other third parties (i.e. Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, etc). As Sanders increasingly voiced his criticisms of Clinton’s policies—amplified greatly by the media—she responded by acquiescing to herd over potential Dem voters in Sanders’ base. Her email controversy served as the pallbearer, cementing the divides across partisan lines. On the other hand, Republicans, less divided than Dems, doubled down on supporting Trump and were resolved to campaign a solid and unchanging message to target evangelicals, their core voter base, along with coordinating various behind-the-scenes deals regarding Supreme court nominations,  reminiscent of a “corrupt bargain.” Intentional or not, Democrat disunity combined with Republican scheming and campaigning hurt Clinton’s voter base enough that she lost the electoral vote by a record-breaking 5 faithless electors.

Clinton’s loss is regarded as the catalyst for Trump’s, along with the larger conservative hive’s, ascension to power. However, eight years later, Trump’s popularity is not nearly the same level as it was during his inauguration. Inundated and shrouded in back-to-back scandals, the officials and the public alike have grown tired of Trump’s antics, ironically, with the same party dis-junction he exploited in 2016 coming back to bite him. His relentless attacks aimed at deposing fellow Republicans have jaded party members, and his insistence on spewing outrageous soundbites has greatly diminished his public credibility. It is in this environment that Kamala Harris’ united front of Democratic voters and organizations poses a large threat to the disillusioned and fractured Republicans.

In response to actualized and potential election losses, there are clear, direct parallels regarding Trump supporters who call for secession or preparation for an imaginary civil war, along with more sinister allusions towards a complete revolution. The consequences of another Trump loss have an unsettling unpredictability; his previous loss incited treason, which only strengthened his most radical counterparts. There’s no telling what the next course of action is for a group that has no issue committing blatant seditious acts against the United States.

Sources

Charles Homans, (November 10, 2022): The Right Wing Grassroots Scored Big in 2010. But 2022 Was Far Different.

Frank Newport, (July 17, 2020): What We Learned from the People in the 2016 Election

William A. Galston, (January 20, 2023): The polarization paradox:  Elected officials and voters have shifted in opposite directions 

Hannah Fingerhut, (November 2, 2016): How Republicans see the GOP on the eve of the 2016 election

Adam I. P. Smith, Chapter 3, (2015): America at the Ballot Box: Elections and Political History

While the times were much different, many parallels can be drawn between the elections of 1860 and 2024. One of the starkest such comparisons is the rhetoric among certain politicians regarding racial minority groups. Sally Heizel writes in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society how many people, such as Illinois senator Trumbull, were in opposition to the expansion of slavery but only out of a desire to prevent Black people from getting land that they believed should be given to white men. Specifically, antebellum Illinois Republicans opposed the free movement of Black people within the country. 

Just like in 1860, modern Republicans are opposing the free movement of Black people legally in the United States. The most timely and pertinent example of this is the recent events in Springfield, Ohio, where Haitian immigrants, legally in the U.S., are being falsely accused by the Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of being illegally in the country, stealing the jobs of locals, and eating people’s pets. This rhetoric, intended to sway national opinion in favor of stricter laws regarding immigration, is based on falsities, as was even admitted by Vice Presidential nominee JD Vance. However, it can still serve its purpose, as many took the implicit call to action and issued dozens of bomb threats that shut down schools and government buildings across Springfield, with some threats even being targeted specifically at the Haitian community. Some Haitians in the community have even had to consider moving, the ultimate goal of this strategy of 19th century racism.

Further similarities between the racial rhetoric of 1860 and 2024 can be seen by the use of false racial descriptors. In 1860, the Democrats called their opponents “Black Republicans”, among other, more vulgar terms, meant to negatively portray them as beholden by the supposed interests of Black people. Meanwhile, in 2024, The Republican presidential nominee frequently uses the term ‘Palestinian’ as a slur against his opponents he sees as too favorable towards Palestinian rights.

These ties between the rhetoric of the 1860s and 2020s illustrate the deeply fragile environment we live in today, as this rhetoric in the 1860s was a prelude to one of the deadliest race-centered conflicts in world history, and was at a time before the Constitution even recognized the rights of racial minorities to vote. While this is deeply concerning, hope is not lost, and if people can manage to fight off racial hatred in our country we can avoid the worst.

A woman receives a sticker from an election worker after submitting her ballot. (Photo by Zach S.)

America currently faces an existential question about race that is eerily similar to the question that drove it to civil war: Will race — and with it, racism — define our politics? The answer, in the form of which candidate prevails in November, will likely determine the trajectory of race in politics. But the foreboding lesson of 1860 is that even when the more unifying candidate wins, the country can fracture.

There are meaningful parallels to draw between the upcoming election and the election of 1860, many of which offer bleak warnings about the harms of political division. The election of 1860 was one of the most formative in American history, a flashpoint in the nation’s struggle with slavery, state sovereignty, and national identity. It was also the election that catalyzed secession and civil war. While the fundamental issues of today have shifted in tone, the underlying dynamics of fear-mongering, racial resentment, and existential questions about national identity are still driving the upcoming election, much like they did in 1860.

The Return of Existential Questions on Race

In 1860, the question of slavery — both its expansion and its moral status — dominated national discourse. The South’s economic system was deeply tied to slavery, and as historian Michael Burlingame details, many white Southerners believed their livelihoods were under threat from Northern abolitionist forces. In turn, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery, was considered an existential threat to the South, and his election contributed to the secessionist movement that sparked the Civil War.

In 2024, America is again caught up in existential questions about race, though the focus has shifted. Racial resentment has returned to the forefront of political discourse, fueled by debates over immigration, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and the legacy of systemic racism. Modern Republicans, in a manner that mirrors pro-slavery forces of the 1860s, are increasingly framing these issues as threats to the nation’s identity.

Just as the South believed the abolition of slavery would destroy their way of life, many modern conservatives fear increasing racial diversity will upend the fabric of America. In this way, both elections involved exaggerated fears about race that reveal deeper anxieties about societal transformation.

Divisive Rhetoric and Fear-Mongering

According to most accounts, the campaign cycle leading up to the 2024 election has been particularly ugly. Candidates are name-calling. Lying. Belittling. You name it. Donald Trump proved in 2016 that the costs of negative campaigning may not be as steep as previously thought, and both candidates seem to be taking that finding to heart in their recent campaign approaches. Similar to 1860, fear-mongering by candidates has dramatically shaped the political landscape. In 1860, pro-slavery politicians in the South argued that the election of Lincoln would lead to the abolition of slavery and economic collapse. This fear-mongering — backed more by rhetoric than evidence — created a mentality among many white Southerners that their survival depended on breaking from the Union. As historian Adam Smith argues, it didn’t matter that Lincoln had only promised to halt the spread of slavery, not abolish it outright; the perception of threat was enough to fracture the country.

Similar patterns are emerging in 2024. Republican politicians frequently invoke the dangers of immigration and DEI as existential threats to the American way of life. We’re made to believe our country is being flooded by dangerous immigrants who are taking jobs, committing crimes, and threatening national security. All the while, DEI initiatives are portrayed as radical policies that undermine American values by enforcing “woke” ideologies that divide the nation. If you believe in diversity, you may be labeled as unpatriotic. When anti-immigration candidates win, the election may be deemed rigged.

Yet the evidence simply isn’t there. These modern concerns about race are built on exaggerated claims rather than genuine evidence, just as was the case in 1860. In fact, the evidence says the opposite. Immigration is beneficial to the economy and cultural awareness. DEI does reduce racial inequalities. Despite this, it’s the rhetoric that matters — the rhetoric continues to fan the flames of fear, widening the polarization crack that seems closer to becoming a chasm every day.

Ballot officials open mail-in ballots. (Photo by Zach S.)

Where do we go from here?

The election of 1860 ultimately led to the Civil War — the bloodiest conflict in American history. Deep divisions over slavery proved too great to be settled through political means, and violence grew out of this division. There has been no clearer example of the danger of fear and resentment.

So what makes 2024 any different? You would be hard pressed to find a historian who thinks a comparable civil war is on the horizon, but the potential for societal fracture is real. Political violence is not a thing of the past, as the recent assassination attempts on Trump and attack on Paul Pelosi reveal. The January 6th insurrection at the Capitol is another reminder that the effects of increasing polarization can cause bloodshed. As in 1860, fear-based narratives around race and identity — if left unchecked — could lead to a crisis point where political solutions are no longer viable.

The onus for change likely falls on a number of entities. For one, it is the candidates themselves. They have the attention and therefore set the talking points. But it is also the political parties that prop up the candidates and determine who is given a platform. It’s also the media, and the platform they choose to provide or take away based on the veracity of claims. Ultimately, though, in our enduring democratic country, the power resides in voters. Until a true unity candidate climbs the ranks, it seems likely the country will continue to teeter on the brink of fracture. And if history tells us anything, the hard part is not the fracture. It is the recovery.

Senator Stephen A. Douglas would enter the northern convention in Charleston as the political favorite for the presidential nomination. Douglas, a historic foe to Lincoln, would be the main competitor in the North. Held in the soon-to-be-seceded state of South Carolina, the primary would fail to select a candidate. Still, a second convention would send Douglas to challenge the Republican candidate (alongside a cast of other characters) Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860.

Lincoln would go on to be elected president in 1860 and immediately face the looming crisis of secession. In his inaugural address (which can be accessed here) he simplified the real divide that America faced, “One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute”.  The core issue of slavery dividing the nation took precedence over other divides and led to secession. The South, alienated by Lincoln’s rhetoric that challenged their ideological and economic commitment to slavery, would go on to form the Confederacy and threaten the survival of the Union.

The division between secessionists and anti-secessionists defined the political climate and created coalitions.  The broad coalitions built up from (real or perceived) existential threats are common today in big-tent politics. Douglas, who fiercely campaigned against Lincoln and historically disagreed with him, would go on to campaign against secession and speak positively of Lincoln’s inaugural address. Similarly, Samarth Desai in “Jackson Redivivus” presents the case that the anti-secessionist tent unites the contrasting presidencies of Lincoln and Jackson.  Jackson’s rhetoric and ideas in the “nullification proclamation”  would be woven into Lincoln’s address and response. In their rejection of secession, Lincoln and Jackson’s contrasting presidencies fit squarely inside the anti-secessionist coalition.

In modern politics, candidates often drop from primaries to unify behind a broader coalition, as seen in 2020 when Biden became the consensus candidate. Partisan differences are also set aside in defense of fundamental principles displayed by Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala Harris. The diverse figures in today’s “anti-MAGA” coalition showcase how (a perception of) existential threats to democracy can unite disparate groups. 

In 1860, the threat to the Union brought together unlikely allies like Lincoln and Douglas to unite under the banner of preserving the Union. Just as the Democratic Party today embodies big-tent politics, unitizing various factions to defend democracy, the struggle over the Union in the 1860s showed how fundamental values can bridge ideological divides. Both then and now, political coalitions expand when the stakes rise beyond partisan politics to the survival of the system itself.

Sources:

Desai, S. P., (2022) “”Jackson Redivivus” in Lincoln’s First Inaugural”, The Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association43(1): 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/jala.2751

Lincoln, Abraham. Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 1. General Correspondence. -1916: Abraham Lincoln, March 1861 First Inaugural Address, Final Version. March, 1861. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/mal0773800/>.

The Election of 1860 is often remembered for electing Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency and conditions that led to the Civil War, but there is a lot more you should know. Did you know that there were four candidates from four parties? Do you know that both the Democratic and Republican candidates were from the same state? What about the results of the election, did you know that the second most popular candidate won the electoral college in only one state?

The first thing that everyone should know is that divides between the South and North led to fracturing within political parties, especially within the democratic party.

Thankfully, in 2024, both major parties elected candidates by the end of their convention, even if the process was different than it has been in the past. In 1860, that wasn’t the case. The Republican Party elected Abraham Lincoln at their convention with little argument, but the Democratic Party on the other hand failed to elect a candidate at their first convention.

Eventually, the Democratic Party elected Stephen Douglas, but the party remained split on the topic of slavery, and two new parties formed. The new pro-slavery Southern Democratic Party elected John C. Breckinridge (the Vice President at the time) and the Constitutional Union Party (who avoided the topic of slavery), elected John Bell. In the end, the election became a race between Lincoln and Douglas in the North with the complication of Breckinridge taking away a few votes in the South.

The fact that there were four candidates is already weird, but somehow two of them were from the same state. Interestingly, Lincoln and Douglas were both from Illinois and served in state legislature together. Can you imagine a world where Donald Trump and Kamala Harris served in the same state legislature or even as representatives from the same state?

Today, it seems hard to imagine two presidential candidates being from the same state, but technically, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both claimed residency in New York in 2016. Before the 2016 election, two major party candidates hadn’t claimed residency in the same state since 1944.

Maybe it isn’t all that interesting that Douglas and Lincoln were from the same state, but what is interesting is the outcome of the election. As seen in the 1860 electoral college map, Lincoln won both the popular vote and Electoral College, carrying 18 northern states, and 1.8 million votes. Douglas on the other hand carried only one state, yet still accounted for a total of 1.3 million votes. To complicate the results further, Breckinridge and Bell both carried more states than Douglas but received considerably fewer votes.

All in all, the upcoming election may be unprecedented, but at least it isn’t as complicated as the election of 1860.

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