What if Lincoln had LOST the 1860 election?

[3rd_PA_Artillery]

This war may not have been fought if Lincoln lost, or at least it may have occurred at a later time.

[OpnDownfall]

This 'what if' question will require some really 'Deep' study. If Lincoln had lost, the winner would almost most certainly have been Stephen A. Douglas. BUT, Stephens died June 3, '1861' and who was Stephens Vice-President??? I will give you a hint; Herschel Vespasian Johnson???
I dunno, but judging from previous and later vice-presidents, I am not confident of a Union Victory as I normally am. eventual or otherwise.

[ole]

Being unable to resist: Had Lincoln not won the 1860 election, the fire-eaters would have had to find another reason for seceding. They were going out, one way or another.

ole

[J_Man0507]

Douglas' ideal of popular sovereignty, which was what America was getting too (we see it all throughout the Age of Jackson) was not going to solve the sectional debate over slavery in the territories. You had two basic types of people who were moving out west: recent immigrants trying to find a better life for themselves out of the factories, and men who had used up their land east of the Mississippi (and some South of Mason-Dixon) and needed new lands, and they could get it cheap out west. You would have the anti-slavery emigrants and the pro-slavery ones, plus those, like the Border Ruffians of Missouri, who wanted slavery to expand and increase. What you would have is Bloody Kansas all over again, if one lets Popular Sovereignty reign supreme.

So, if Douglas wins the election (which I find improbable, but lets go with it) I think he will say let the territories decide for themselves. However, the Southern states are still going to see a threat from the (minority) abolitionists in the North, and the men and women who will not abide by the Fugitive Slave laws and they will find some reason to secede. I don't think they had any confidence in Douglas to protect slavery like they wanted. Hence the reason you see the split in the Democratic party, with Douglas running as a (Northern) Democrat and Breckenridge running as a (Southern) Democrat. There would have been secession and war, though it might have taken a bit longer to happen.

Plus, you have to factor in that Douglas dies in 1861, which would put him in about the same boat as William Henry Harrison, dying early in his first term. His VP was a real nobody and the Southern states could have run away with it all. Lincoln winning was honestly the only way things could have turned out, but if by some chance of fate he hadn't been elected, things would have turned out a heckuva lot differently.

[OpnDownfall]

The ruling slave oligarchy (and Fire-Eaters) hated Douglas, worse than Lincoln (if that were possible).
They viewed the 'little Gigant' as a former friend who was a turn coat traitor to the south.

[gary]

If Lincoln had not won the election, in the best case scenario, there would have been no war and slavery would have died a slow death. As for we on the board, we may be fascinated with WW II instead and would argue who was better, Ike or Mac? For the record, I like Ike (and Mac was an egotistical #@*!).

[cw1865]

I would suggest that the only possible causation for this what if would be if the Democrats hadn't split. If the Democrats hadn't split, ostensibly they would've won the election, so yes, that puts Douglas in. Secession becomes obviously less likely because it implies that Southern members of the Democratic party are inherently more moderate.

[ole]

Still can't resist. It has been strongly suggested that denying slavery in the territories was higly objectionable to slave owners and those looking for additional slave states from among the territories to enhance their voting power in the Senate.

It has yet to be explained to my satisfaction what slave-owners expected to to do in Kansas or New Mexico with their slaves? Thinking here that these people knew planting very well and were not likely to bring slaves into a new territory so they could grow sugar beets. Slaves made economic sense only if they could profitably be used year 'round. For cotton, when it was not being planted, weeded and harvested, required winter work in clearing new land. Rice was not going to leave the lowlands, sugar was barely viable where it was, tobacco can't survive the plains and cotton requires at least 200 days of growing weather. Bottom line, I just don't see a slave-owning entreprenuer opening a factory or a mine or a cattle-ranch and bringing his slaves with him to do it.

It follows that one cannot make a slave state from a territory in which slaves are all but useless. And that to make it a slave state, the majority must want to make it a slave state. In Kansas, for a prime example, it was not so much a matter of keeping slavery out than it was a matter of packing the vote to have it admitted as a slave state. Even if it had been so admitted, what are the chances that the settlers, in the very first election, would send a slave-state voter to the senate or house?

Now, back to the original resurrected thread: I agree with whoever said secession was inevitable. Not the war, but secession certainly was, in my mind. So it wouldn't much matter who was elected president; the fire-eaters had decided that they wanted their own empire and they were going to get it. If Wade Hampton had been running and won the presidency, there would have been an eventual separation.

Just thinking out loud.

ole

[OpnDownfall]

If, Lincoln had lost, it could only have been to Douglas, who was second only to Lincoln And had support from all sections. The slave oligarchy leadership and Fire Eaters had made Lincoln's election the excuse for 'immediate secession. If, against all expectation, (including his own) Douglas had won, it would almost certainly, have created some hesitation among the southern leadership, if not the Fire Eaters. Although, it would not have deterred them from leading an exodus out of the Union, it still would require some time to cobble a new excuse to do what they were already determined to do, if they wanted to sell themselves as the aggrieved party.
Although, the southern leadership was nearly unanimous in the detestation of Douglas and his 'squatter's sovereignty' theory, Douglas had considerable support from the lower echelons of the Democratic Party southerners and the avg. southern voters and it would probably be deemed adviseable to cobble together some fig leaf to justify secession. That would take time, during which Douglas would have some time to negotiate with less fervent leaders especially those who believed their slaves would be better protected under the old Constittion than a new one.
The results of such an effort by Douglas would, of course, have been aborted by his early death. and I seriously doubt that V.P. Johnson would have had the wherewithal to stay the couriers of disloyalty and disunion from the swift completion of their self-appointed rounds, in the end.

[Cpt. Steinhauer]

NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN south carolina said they would brake if Lincoln was elected. if he lost the war wouldn't be in history