Download Historically Speaking - Association of the United States Army

Historically Speaking
Abraham Lincoln’s Election at 150
November 2010 ■ ARMY
77
Library of Congress
N
dates. The newly emerging Republiovember 6 marks the 150th anBy BG John S. Brown
can Party, led by Abraham Lincoln,
niversary of the election of AbraU.S. Army retired
stood staunchly against any extension
ham Lincoln to be the 16th President
of slavery into the territories. Only
This month’s “Historically Speaking”
of the United States of America. Secthe tiny and newly formed Constituis the first of about a dozen “Historitional rivalries that had been brewing
tional Union Party led by John Bell
cally Speaking” articles in the next six
for generations quickly boiled over,
consciously sought further comproyears recognizing the 150th anniveraccelerating the drift towards civil
mise and the middle ground. When
sary of the Civil War.
war. Although not himself a military
the popular vote came in, Lincoln had
man, President Lincoln would soon
40 percent, Douglas 29 percent, Breckinridge 18 percent
preside over the bloodiest war in American history.
American constitutional processes depend upon the give and Bell 13 percent. This translated into 180 electoral votes
and take of political compromise to effectively govern. Po- for Lincoln, 72 for Breckinridge, 39 for Bell and 12 for Douglitical leaders have long given ground on some issues to las. The vote was almost entirely sectional, with Lincoln
gain ground on others—“horse trading across the aisle,” as taking the Northern states, Breckinridge the Southern, Bell
the expression goes. By 1860, political debate had collapsed a few states in between, and Douglas Missouri and half of
into the singular issue of slavery, however, attended by the New Jersey. Southern leaders were shocked by the statis“states’ rights” issue of whether or not a state could em- tics of their defeat and fearful of its consequences for their
brace slavery if it so chose. Polarization was so advanced way of life.
Northerners and Southerners miscalculated each other
at the time that neither faction was inclined to give the
slightest ground to the other, and mutual trust had evapo- in the aftermath of the election. Relatively few Northerners
rated. Southern leaders were particularly keen on seeing thought the South would actually secede. Talk of secession
slavery extend into nascent American territories before had bubbled off and on for generations, and some mixture
these were organized as states. They believed the Constitu- of threat and compromise had always headed it off. Intion gave—and the recent Dred Scott Supreme Court deci- deed, Lincoln made it clear he was not threatening slavery
sion affirmed—this right to “property.”
They also feared that the Western territories, not much suited to plantation
agriculture as it was practiced in the
South, would opt against slavery if
merely allowed to go their own way.
The delicate political balance between
the number of “slave” states and the
number of “free” states was in peril.
The election of 1860, which attracted
the highest voter turnout to that time
and the second highest ever, presented stark choices. The Democratic
Party split in two. Northern Democrats led by Stephen A. Douglas argued
for “popular sovereignty,” the right of
the population of a territory to choose
whether to be “slave” or “free” while
becoming a state. Southern Democrats
led by John C. Breckinridge insisted
that slavery be allowed into territories
This 1860 cartoon parodies the presidential election: Republican Abraand new states unconditionally. The
ham Lincoln (far left) and Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas tear
Democrats’ traditional opponents, the
at the West, Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge (center) grabs
Whig Party, had already imploded
the South and Constitutional Union Party candidate John Bell (far
over slavery and presented no candiright), seeking compromise, tries to glue the country together.
in states where it already existed, and
a proposed constitutional amendment
soon circulated, guaranteeing slavery’s survival in those states. Southern
leaders were too suspicious of abolitionists to give this initiative much
credence, however. In their view, excluding slavery from the territories
was but the first step in exterminating
it altogether. Northern leaders knew
that most Southern whites did not
own slaves and that only a privileged
few truly profited from the system.
Many hoped that Unionist sentiments
among Southern yeoman farmers and
city workers would tilt the scales
against secession. Substantial fragments of Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama did, in fact, vote against secession, and the sentiment for secession
in the first seven states to secede was
far from unanimous. When Virginia
later seceded from the Union, West Virginia famously seceded from Virginia. In the South, however, the argument
for secession was reframed from a defense of slavery to
states’ rights, local patriotism and protecting a way of life.
More than a few feared slave insurrections that would
sweep away white society, slave owners and non-owners
alike. In this anxiety, memories of John Brown’s raid on
Harper’s Ferry loomed large.
If Northerners overestimated Southerners’ inclination to
compromise, Southerners underestimated the North’s willingness to fight, if necessary, to preserve the Union. Many
Southerners believed that, if presented with unified and determined resistance, the North would back down rather
than resort to arms. War would be mutually destructive to
the victor and vanquished alike, and there seemed no guarantee that the North had the stomach to persevere to victory. Surely peace-loving citizens and rational business interests would pull back from the brink. On December 20,
1860, South Carolina took its chances and seceded from the
Union. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana
and Texas soon followed. Their mood was celebratory, with
BG John S. Brown, USA Ret., was chief of military history at
the U.S. Army Center of Military History from December
1998 to October 2005. He commanded the 2nd Battalion, 66th
Armor, in Iraq and Kuwait during the Gulf War and returned
to Kuwait as commander of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, in 1995. He has a doctorate in history from Indiana
University. His book, Kevlar Legions: Army Transformation 1989–2005, is forthcoming.
78
ARMY ■ November 2010
Library of Congress
Participants and a crowd of onlookers mob
the U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., during
Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861.
bands, fireworks and rallies stretching far into the night.
In February, delegates from the seceding states met at
Montgomery, Ala., and established the Confederate States
of America. They expected to “go in peace” as they left the
Union, but made it clear they were willing to “appeal to
arms” if opposed. Lincoln avoided public statements prior
to his inauguration on March 4, 1861, but at his inauguration declared: “The power confided to me will be used to
hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government.” He was referring to forts, armories
and custom posts the Confederacy would have to control if
its declared independence was to be credible. Fort Sumter,
for example, dominated the maritime approaches to
Charleston, S.C. Were it to remain in Union hands, access to
the South’s greatest port would be conditional. President
Lincoln was confident in the righteousness of his cause, but
determined not to strike the first blow. If war was to come,
he would muster the passion and commitment of an aggrieved people who had been attacked. The next move
would be that of the Confederacy.
✭
Recommended Reading:
Levine, Bruce, Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of the
Civil War (New York: Hill & Wang, 1992)
McPherson, James M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil
War Era (New York: Ballantine, 1988)
Potter, David M., The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861
(New York: Harper, 1976)