Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
In 1856, 149 Electoral College votes were required to be elected President. In 1860, 152 were required, due to the admission of two new states (Oregon and Minnesota).
In 1856, the Democrat Buchanan won the Presidency with 174 Electoral College votes. Republican Fremont had 114; Know-Nothing Fillmore grabbed 8 in Maryland.
In 1860, the Republican Lincoln won the Presidency with 180 Electoral College votes. Southern Democratic candidate Breckinridge had 72; Constitutional Union candidate Bell had 39; Northern Democratic candidate Douglas had 12. Combined, the Republican opposition (AKA the Democrats) had 123 votes.
So what happened?
The Republicans needed to pick up 38 votes they didn't have in 1856 to win. Where did they come from?
The Democrats simply had to keep what they had in 1856 to win. They could even afford to lose 21 Electoral College votes and still win the Presidency. Where did they lose out?
The Republicans picked up both of the new states, Minnesota (4) and Oregon (3). That seven votes gets them to 121. MN was a Republican landslide (63.4%), but OR was up for grabs, with Lincoln polling 36.1% and winning by only 254 votes.
The Know-Nothing party dissolved, and it is generally thought they folded into the Republicans. Where did Fillmore's 8 votes go? Not to the Republicans. Maryland went for the Southern Democratic Breckinridge.
Assuming the election had been run as a two-party affair with the Douglas-Breckinridge-Bell vote combined as a "Democratic" unit, that should have left the Democrats with a runaway Presidential victory: Democrats 182 to Republicans 121. Where did the Democrats blow it?
These states voted Democratic in 1856 and Republican in 1860:
California 4 votes
Illinois 11 votes
Indiana 13 votes
Pennsylvania 27 votes
In addition, New Jersey voted Democratic in 1856 (7 votes) and split their Electoral College vote in 1860 (4 Lincoln, 3 Douglas).
What all this means is that the Democrats essentially lost the election in these five states. In particular, they lost it in Pennsylvania and any one other state that changed. Take PA and hold CA or all of NJ and the Democrats win the 1860 Presidential election.
PA, of course, was home to Buchanan, and the "favorite son" element helped take that state in 1856. The Democratic Party strategy had long been to hold the South and take key northern states. In 1860, the party was deliberately split by extremists in the South as part of their effort to create the conditions for secession by electing a "Black Republican". They succeeded, fracturing the Democratic opposition and greatly aiding the Republican effort.
In addition, the Republicans understood the numbers very well after 1856. They campaigned strongly to switch a few key states over. In particular, they attempted to take PA away from the Democrats. They succeeded.
Losing PA was the big blow, and Lincoln won it solidly (56.3%). He actually only polled 48.1% in NJ, and 32.3% in divided CA. Lincoln's margins in IL (50.7%) and IN (51.1%) were very thin. Throw in the OR vote and it is obvious from this that Lincoln could have been beaten by a united Democratic effort in these six states.
More than any other state, PA wanted tariff protection for their iron and steel industry. NY and the New England states were pretty indifferent to the protection aspects of the proposed Morrill tariff. A small part of NJ (the industrial section from Newark to Patterson, mainly) also favored the protective Morrill Tariff.
In the 1860 election campaign, the Republicans pushed hard on the tariff in PA and NJ, while making it a minor issue elsewhere. Southerners tried to make it a big issue -- but Lincoln either wasn't on the ballot in their states or polled next to nothing (MD, VA, KY, MO).
What all this comes down to is this: Democratic Presidential defeat in 1860 comes down to two things: the deliberate fracturing of their party and poor political leadership. Reverse those and the Democrats almost certainly win in OR and CA. They might have won in either IL or IN, or both. They could easily have won all 7 of NJs votes instead of 3 (essentially, Lincoln lost in the areas where there was a fusion ticket against him and won where the Douglas Democrats refused to join against him). That is a potential swing of 34 votes, with only 29 needed to swing the election to the Democrats.
It seems unlikely they could have won PA given their intransigence on the tariff issue. Here they were simply out-politicked by the Republicans, losing where they had won a few years earlier.
A Democratic Presidential victory probably would have helped in Congress as well. Since the Republicans were in the minority in each house of Congress anyway after the 1860 election, all this presents us with a very different situation. Had the Democrats united instead of fracturing, they might easily have controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 1861-62.
The problem then is that there'd be no "need to secede". No "Black Republican" President, no Republican majority in Congress, no immediate reason for all the fear and hysteria the Fire-Eaters were trying to fan into a nation of their own.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
In addition to all that was speculated upon in post #1 of this thread, an 1860 Democratic Presidential victory would have affected the Supreme Court.
The new President could have nominated replacements for these men in 1861-64:
-----
Justice Peter Vivian Daniel of Virginia who had died May 30, 1860.
Justice John McLean of Ohio who died April 4, 1861.
Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney of Maryland, who died in October of 1864.
-----
John Archibald Campbell of Alabama, who resigned to serve the Confederacy April 30, 1861, would probably have remained in office.
A tenth Supreme Court Justice was added in 1863 to represent the West Coast. This was Stephen Johnson Field, a pro-Union Democrat from California. Assuming this position was still created, as seems likely, a Democratic President would have nominated the man for this position. (The Court went back to nine in 1865 when John Catron of TN died.)
All this comes down to an opportunity to affect four Supreme Court positions, including the Chief Justice. Had the Democrats won the Presidency in 1860, it seems likely they could have been assured of a Supreme Court much to their liking for many years.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Excellent post, Tim. But if the Democrats win, is it not just postponing the inevitable?
I don't see why. The Republicans were about at the limits of what they could do without expanding into other states, and the Democrats had the opportunity to fight them wherever they chose. It is really only the Civil War that makes Republican supremity look so inevitable.
What the Democrats would need to do is to fix the financial mess left by the Buchanan administration and work on building a coalition between Southerners and Northerners/Westerners who had similar interests. Other than slavery, there are many areas for common ground between the largely agricultural West and the South. The Southerners completely flubbed their opportunities on that in the 1850s, practically driving states like IN and IL into Republican hands.
But any such effort will always find itself driven towards the rock of slavery. Southern insistence on extending it and interfering with the "states' rights" of Free States to enforce slavery will inevitably cause a confrontation with the people they need to unite with to get their goals accomplished.
If this is the "inevitable" being postponed, I'd agree. A Democratic victory in 1860 gains time for a more reasonable and peaceful solution than Civil War. I just doubt that the Fire-Eaters and others in the South would make any use of it unless they first suffered a calamity. That calamity might be economic or a natural disaster. It might be a slave uprising. It might be the immigration to Southern territory of people with different social beliefs. It might be the passage of time and the adoption of emancipation laws. There was no reason it had to be a Civil War except for Southern actions in 1860-61, IMHO.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Thanks for another great post with some good hard numbers. You have pretty much laid the outcome of the election at the feet of the fire-eaters and poor Democrat politicing. Are there any other issues that you give importance that might be responsible for change in voter attitude since 1856 in those swing states, such as economic recession from 1857 and the growing federal debt?
And...there is one silly thing that I can't get away from that muddys the water for me. I can't imagine any issue larger in 1860 than a potential exodus of the entire group of slave states. The threat of secession in the event of a Black Republican win was widely known to voters, and had to have been taken seriously by some appreciable percentage of them. Therefore, to at least those voters, a vote cast for Lincoln was a vote cast for disunion, economic disruption, and possibly war. I think in today's politics, such an elephant on Party A's back would ensure a landslide victory for Party B. Surely, presidential hopefuls have seen their futures dashed for far lighter liabilities than causing every state between Maryland and the gulf to leave the Union.
Any opinion on whether any voting was affected by this type of thing?
We have to keep it in context of American History up to 1860.
The Democratice Party, was deliberately split by southern fire-eaters and nominal allies. The Democratic votes in the general election was kept divided by the secessionist cabal within the party itself. All done for the specific purpose of electing a Republican President, the election of whom had been agreed upon by the political leaders (secessionists all) of Gulf Squadron as the excuse for 'immediate' secession.
The only way for secession to be avoided, was for the Unionist Majority to submit to southern vetting of who could and could not be a candidate for the Presidency.
One of the main reasons for northern outrage, was the blatant attempt by secessionists to blackmail the northern voters into voting only for those candidates they (secessionists) approved.
I blame awesome posts like these for the continuing growth and value of civilwartalk.com.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Thanks for another great post with some good hard numbers. You have pretty much laid the outcome of the election at the feet of the fire-eaters and poor Democrat politicing. Are there any other issues that you give importance that might be responsible for change in voter attitude since 1856 in those swing states, such as economic recession from 1857 and the growing federal debt?
The Buchanan administration had presided over that Panic and the ensuing Federal debt (which quadrupled under their watch, essentially). They spent money they didn't have, and whoever won in 1860 was going to have to deal with the mess they left behind.
The citizens of the South had largely avoided the ill effects of the Panic of 1857. They even seem to have poked fun at the misery it created in the North and West. Not exactly the sort of thing to smooth over problems. This fed right into the "King Cotton" myth, making the South think (or at least some of the more foolish) that they were above economic problems.
But essentially, the only discernable difference in election results comes about in six states: CA, IL, IN, PA went Republican instead of Democratic; MD went Democratic instead of Know-Nothing; NJ split 4-3 Republican instead of 7 for the Democrats. All the rest stayed with what they had done before.
CA and the new OR might have easily gone Democratic with a fusion of Democratic forces. IL and IN were drifting towards the Republicans, but would have been "too close to call" against a united Democratic effort.
PA was the state in many ways worst effected by the economic situation, and the most in favor of the Morrill Tariff. Parts of NJ felt the same way. PA is really the rock the Democrats lost on, but economic forces definitely played a strong role there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
And...there is one silly thing that I can't get away from that muddys the water for me. I can't imagine any issue larger in 1860 than a potential exodus of the entire group of slave states. The threat of secession in the event of a Black Republican win was widely known to voters, and had to have been taken seriously by some appreciable percentage of them. Therefore, to at least those voters, a vote cast for Lincoln was a vote cast for disunion, economic disruption, and possibly war. I think in today's politics, such an elephant on Party A's back would ensure a landslide victory for Party B. Surely, presidential hopefuls have seen their futures dashed for far lighter liabilities than causing every state between Maryland and the gulf to leave the Union.
Any opinion on whether any voting was affected by this type of thing?
By 1860, I think Southern extremists had played that card too often. Voters in many cases had grown used to the threats, and tired of them. Many probably began to take them lightly, or to say the equivalent of "The Hell with them! I'll vote my own mind."
Forty years and more of constant uproar, of threats and worries, had numbed the electorate, IMHO, to that danger.
tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
One of the main reasons for northern outrage, was the blatant attempt by secessionists to blackmail the northern voters into voting only for those candidates they (secessionists) approved.
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on this a bit? Thanks
What would a Democratic win in 1860 have done with regard to extension of slavery into the territories? Would popular sovereignty continued as the rule? Would not this lead to inevitable clashes in the territories?
The fire-eaters were not going to settle for anything less than full extension of slavery into the territories and full enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. How would this have played out with a Democratic administration in 1860?
What kind of compromise could have been reached? I almost see a Democratic victory in 1860 leading to a NORTHERN secessionist movement.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Democratic Victory in 1860 
Linear Mode
