Notes on the 1860 election, Dred Scott, and Lincoln–Douglas Debates
1.3 Why did the Republicans win the 1860 presidential election?
Context from 1856–60:
The new Republican Party, formed in 1854 on an anti-slavery expansion platform, performed strongly in the 1856 presidential election, solidifying its presence as a major political force. However, Democrat James Buchanan ultimately secured the presidency in 1856, predominantly by carrying Southern states with crucial, though limited, Northern support.
Buchanan, a 64-year-old Pennsylvanian, brought significant experience to the office, having served in Congress, as a minister to Great Britain, and as Secretary of State.
In his inaugural address in March 1857, Buchanan optimistically declared that the contentious territorial issue of slavery had been resolved by the principle of popular sovereignty, expressing hope that slavery agitation would cease. His optimism was short-lived, as the era’s deeply rooted sectional tensions, particularly over slavery, rapidly intensified.
Emergence of the so‑called slave power and the Dred Scott case (1857):
Just two days after Buchanan’s inauguration, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling, which profoundly reshaped debates about freedom, citizenship, property rights, states’ rights, and racial equality in the United States.
Dred Scott: Born enslaved in Virginia around 1799, Scott was later taken by his owner, an army surgeon, to Illinois (a free state) and the Wisconsin Territory (where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise). He subsequently returned to Missouri, a slave state, and upon his owner’s death, was left to a widow. Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that his residence in free territories had legally emancipated him, and that as a freed man, he could not be re-enslaved.
Supreme Court composition and context in 1857:
Seven of the nine justices on the Supreme Court had been appointed by Democratic presidents, and five were from Southern slave states, indicating a strong pro-slavery leaning within the Court.
Chief Justice Roger Taney, a native of Maryland (a slave state), penned the majority opinions, effectively expressing the Southern judicial perspective.
Taney’s key question: “Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the constitution of the United States?”
Court’s answer: The Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States; consequently, Dred Scott had no legal standing to sue in federal court. Furthermore, the decision asserted that slaveowners held a constitutional right to take their enslaved property into any territory, protected by the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. It declared that Congress had no authority to restrict property rights (including enslaved people) under the Constitution.
Outcome: The ruling effectively invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of latitude, and severely undermined the principle of popular sovereignty introduced in the 1850s, which allowed territorial voters to decide on slavery. The decision explicitly stated there were no constitutional limits on transporting enslaved property anywhere within the USA.
Political impact: The South largely celebrated the decision as a definitive victory for their rights and institutions. Conversely, many in the North viewed the ruling as a grave injustice and a conspiratorial plot involving President Buchanan and Chief Justice Taney, further fueling anxieties about the growing influence of “slave power” in national politics.
The Dred Scott ruling, announced only two days into Buchanan’s presidency, instantly reinforced Northern suspicions about the powerful influence of the slaveholding South and dramatically deepened the sectional divides within the nation.
Activity 1.14 (research task):
Students are asked to fill a table on US presidents 1841–61 (dates/terms, president, party, background, state, etc.) to identify patterns of leadership during this period.
Dred Scott and politicians (political responses to the ruling)
Buchanan’s stance and the Kansas issue:
President Buchanan unequivocally supported the Dred Scott ruling and aggressively sought to apply its principles to the ongoing conflicts in Kansas, an area already rife with violence known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
By 1857, Kansas was caught in a bitter struggle between two rival territorial governments—one pro-slavery and one anti-slavery—each vying for control and attempting to impose their own state constitutions (e.g., the Topeka Constitution by Free-Staters, and the Lecompton Constitution by pro-slavery advocates).
Buchanan strongly backed the pro‑slavery Lecompton Constitution, despite widespread evidence of electoral fraud and its significant rejection by the majority of Kansans in a legitimate vote, further alienating anti-slavery factions.
James Douglas’s position:
Stephen A. Douglas, a prominent Northern Democrat and architect of popular sovereignty, fiercely opposed the Supreme Court ruling because it directly overturned his foundational solution for determining slavery in the territories—the right of territorial voters to decide, rather than constitutional supremacy dictated by the federal judiciary.
Douglas privately clashed with Buchanan over the Lecompton Constitution and publicly challenged the Court’s decision, particularly its implications for popular sovereignty.
The deep division between Douglas and Buchanan became a persistent fracture within the Democratic Party, leading to major consequences for the party’s unity and the stability of the country.
Abraham Lincoln’s position:
Abraham Lincoln, a rising Republican leader from Illinois, vehemently opposed the notion, as articulated in Dred Scott, that the Constitution allowed slavery to expand unchecked via federal authority.
As a lawyer by training, Lincoln outwardly accepted the legal supremacy of the Supreme Court but powerfully challenged its foundational assumptions, its historical interpretation of the Constitution, and its moral/political legitimacy. This principled stance formed the core of his opposition to Douglas and marked the strategic beginning of his influential Illinois Senate campaign.
The Lincoln–Douglas Debates, 1858
Context: The Dred Scott decision significantly deepened Northern anxieties about the unchallenged expansion of slavery and reinforced concerns about the federal government’s pro-slavery stance in new territories, setting a tense backdrop for the debates.
The debate framework:
Lincoln argued passionately against the idea that the Constitution inherently compelled slaveholders to carry their enslaved property wherever they wished within the U.S. While he acknowledged the Court’s authority, he fundamentally challenged its historical premises by asserting that the Declaration of Independence declared all men equal, including African Americans, even if social and political equality were not immediately realized.
Douglas, on the other hand, staunchly defended his doctrine of popular sovereignty, contending that territorial voters possessed the ultimate right to decide on the legality of slavery under local law, thereby attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court’s assertion of federal authority.
Debates (Aug–Oct 1858): Seven highly anticipated open‑air debates were held across various cities in Illinois, drawing massive crowds of up to approximately 15,000 people at the most popular venues, indicative of substantial public interest and high stakes.
Douglas frequently accused Lincoln of harboring abolitionist sympathies and advocating for full racial equality, a highly charged accusation in the mid-19th century. In turn, Lincoln accused Douglas of implicit association with a “slave power” conspiracy by the Democratic Party to nationalize slavery and spread it throughout the Union.
Key constitutional points: Douglas maintained that the Declaration of Independence’s statement that “all men are created equal” applied exclusively to white men. Lincoln countered that it applied to all men, regardless of color, implying a moral right to freedom, even if political rights were not immediately granted. Lincoln consistently maintained that slavery was a moral wrong, whereas Douglas primarily viewed it as a matter of political expediency and local self-determination.
Aftermath of the debates:
The Republican Party emerged from the debates more united than ever in its opposition to the Dred Scott decision and the expansion of slavery. In stark contrast, the Democrats remained profoundly divided, especially over the issue of slavery in the territories, placing Douglas in an increasingly difficult political position during the 1858 debates and beyond.
Douglas’s Freeport Doctrine: During the second debate in Freeport, Lincoln pressed Douglas on how popular sovereignty could still function after Dred Scott. Douglas responded with his “Freeport Doctrine,” arguing that despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the practical implementation of slavery in a territory ultimately depended on local enforcement by local authorities. He contended that if local voters did not pass laws to protect slavery, it would effectively be excluded, thereby limiting federal power to impose slavery in territories.
Douglas subsequently began to collaborate with Republicans to oppose a Congressional bill that aimed to establish Kansas under the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution.
The Democratic Party fractured irrevocably along regional lines: some Northern Democrats, disgruntled by their party’s pro-slavery leanings, joined the Republicans, while others remained steadfastly aligned with the Southern faction, further weakening the party nationally.
Political trajectory in Illinois:
Despite performing strongly and winning the popular vote in the Illinois assembly elections, Lincoln ultimately lost the Senate seat to Douglas due to the state’s electoral district system, which favored Douglas’s party.
Nevertheless, the highly publicized debates propelled Lincoln from a regional politician to a nationally prominent figure, significantly enhancing his public profile and strategically positioning him for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination.
Harpers Ferry, abolitionism, and the 1850s political climate
Harpers Ferry raid (1859):
Radical abolitionist John Brown, with a small, interracial force of 21 men, launched a daring raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. His audacious plan was to seize weapons, arm enslaved people in the region, and spark a widespread slave revolt that would sweep through the South.
The raid failed to ignite a broader rebellion as anticipated; local militia and federal troops, notably led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, quickly surrounded and retook the town within two days, capturing Brown and his surviving men.
Casualties: Ten of Brown’s men and seven civilians, including free African Americans and white residents, died during the engagement. Brown himself was severely wounded during his capture and was subsequently tried, convicted of treason against Virginia, and executed on December 2, 1859.
Brown’s famous quote before his execution—"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood"—reflected his profound belief that only violent upheaval could end slavery. This sentiment resonated deeply, with many Northerners viewing him as a martyr for the abolitionist cause rather than merely a revolutionary leader.
Reactions in the North and South:
Brown’s actions intensely polarized public opinion: many in the North, while not endorsing his violence, admired his moral courage and self-sacrifice in confronting slavery. Republicans, including Lincoln, carefully distanced themselves from Brown’s violent methods while reaffirming their opposition to slavery.
William H. Seward, a leading Republican Senator from New York and former Whig, advanced arguments for emancipation and greater immigrant and Catholic rights. His powerful rhetoric, particularly his “irrepressible conflict” speech, echoed radical abolitionist sentiment and frequently drew the severe ire of Southern opponents.
Seward’s “irrepressible conflict” speech (delivered in 1848, but notably reiterated in 1858) framed the national struggle as an irreconcilable conflict that would inevitably force the U.S. to become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation. This powerful rhetoric significantly heightened Southern fears of abolitionist influence and a potential direct assault on their institution of slavery.
The Secret Six: A clandestine group of prominent New England abolitionists and intellectuals (including Gerrit Smith and Samuel Gridley Howe) provided financial and logistical support to Brown’s cause. This group highlighted the growing willingness among even some moderate anti-slavery advocates to consider more forceful or violent options in the increasingly desperate struggle against slavery.
Northern vs. Southern conspiracy theories:
The North widely believed in a “slave power” conspiracy—a systematic effort by Southern slaveholders to extend slavery’s reach and control federal policy to their advantage. Conversely, the South frequently claimed a “Black Republican threat,” propagating fears of an oppressive federal government dismantling slavery and promoting racial equality, pushing for stronger white‑supremacist and pro‑slavery measures.
Fire-eaters (Southern radicals and secessionists) escalated their rhetoric, arguing vehemently that the only viable way to safeguard the institution of slavery was to secede from the United States and form an independent Southern confederacy.
In direct response to Northern opposition, Southern leaders aggressively pressed for the reopening of the international slave trade (which had been federally prohibited since 1808) and for the establishment of a federal slave code to explicitly protect slaveholders’ rights and their enslaved property in all non‑slave states and federal territories.
The comprehensive strategy of reopening the international slave trade and codifying slaves’ legal status through federal law was part of a larger, desperate effort to ensure the long-term preservation and expansion of slavery into new territories.
The 1860 presidential election: prelude to the contest and party dynamics
The 1860 election commenced amidst significant and surprising shifts within the Democratic Party, coupled with a highly energetic and unified Republican push.
Democratic Party divisions (early 1860):
The 1860 Democratic National Convention, initially convened in Charleston, South Carolina, and later reconvened in Baltimore, Maryland, dramatically fractured along intractable sectional lines—primarily over the issue of federal protection for slavery in the territories.
Northern Democrats, largely committed to a vision of white free labor, rallied behind Stephen Douglas, who continued to advocate for popular sovereignty as the means to determine slavery’s status in the territories.
Southern Democrats, insistent on federal protection for their “property rights,” backed John Breckinridge, a Kentucky senator, who publicly committed to a federal slave code that would legally protect slavery in all territories and publicly supported extending slavery into new territories.
Other candidates: A third significant candidate was John Bell of Tennessee, representing the Constitutional Union Party. This party, composed primarily of former Whigs and Know-Nothings, adopted a centrist approach, striving to avert the national crisis by avoiding slavery as a central political issue. Their platform favored upholding the Constitution and the Union, while sidestepping a definitive stance on the expansion of slavery into new territories.
The result: The Democratic Party’s profound split led to a divided electoral base, with Breckinridge representing the deep South, Douglas representing the majority of the North, and Bell serving as a centrist alternative appealing to border states and moderates. This internal fragmentation severely weakened the Democrats as they faced a formidable, unified Republican challenge.
The Republican Party and its 1860 platform:
The 1860 Republican Convention in Chicago was the party’s second national gathering, reflecting its rapid ascent as a national political force.
Abraham Lincoln emerged as the Republican nominee after a protracted balloting process. William H. Seward had initially been the front-runner, but his perceived radical stance on slavery, his “Higher Law” speech, and significant factional opposition within the party contributed to Lincoln’s eventual nomination on later ballots, as he was seen as a more moderate and electable figure.
Vice‑presidential nominee: Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, a former Northern Democrat who had turned Republican, with a background in farming, law, and journalism, was chosen. His regional appeal and Democratic past were strategically thought to attract disaffected Democrats and broaden the Republican coalition.
The Republican platform remained remarkably cohesive and broad: it supported an economy of opportunity based on merit; importantly, it made no immediate call to abolish slavery where it already existed, asserting that the Constitution would protect slaveholders’ rights in those states. However, it strongly advocated for free soil expansion in the West, prohibiting slavery in new territories. The platform also included planks supporting a protective tariff for industry, a Homestead Act providing free land to settlers, and federal funding for a transcontinental railroad and other internal improvements, appealing to a wide range of Northern economic interests.
The 1860 campaign landscape and peculiar features:
In a truly exceptional campaign, Stephen Douglas actively barnstormed across the nation, directly appealing to voters, a then-unprecedented move for a presidential candidate. In contrast, Lincoln largely adhered to tradition, staying in Illinois to coordinate the Republican campaign from Springfield.
Fusion tickets were strategically implemented in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, aiming to prevent Lincoln’s victory by combining anti-Republican votes behind a single slate of electors. However, these efforts, while significant, ultimately did not alter the overall outcome of the election.
The Wide‑Awake movement, a distinctively American, semi‑militarized youth organization, energetically emerged in support of Lincoln. Rough estimates suggest around 100,000 participants engaged in various uniformed marches and torchlight parades, creating a highly visible and enthusiastic campaign force.
The New York Herald described the Wide‑Awakes as a new, energetic, and highly disciplined political force with a quasi‑military appearance, reflecting their organized marches and uniforms. The movement rapidly spread from its origins in Connecticut to other Northern cities, symbolizing Republican vigor.
Lincoln’s cautious and moderate handling of the Wide‑Awakes helped him project himself as a more stable and moderate choice to a broader spectrum of voters, contrasting with the more radical image sometimes associated with Seward.
The South viewed the Wide‑Awakes with profound hostility and suspicion, fearing that Lincoln’s election would inevitably threaten slavery. The Nashville Union and American explicitly claimed that the movement presaged a Northern attempt to “whip” the South into submission to Lincoln’s anti-slavery policies.
Voter turnout and geographic dynamics: Despite the intense political climate, turnout was exceptionally high (over 81 ext{ ext{%}}). Crucially, Lincoln won nationally with only about 40 ext{ ext{%}} of the popular vote, a plurality rather than a majority. His victory was entirely dependent on strong support in the Northern states; a testament to the deep sectional divide, he was not even on the ballot in many slave states.
Electoral outcome and the four‑way race:
The election result was a clear split in the popular vote across the nation, with Lincoln leading significantly in the North but completely failing to win any slave state where he was on the ballot, illustrating the stark regional divide.
Electoral College breakdown (Table 1.4):
Lincoln won with a large margin in the North, securing a decisive Electoral College victory.
Breckinridge carried most Southern and some border states, indicative of deep Southern loyalties.
Bell garnered support in a few mid‑border states, reflecting his centrist appeal.
Douglas, despite his national campaigning and significant popular vote, carried only Missouri and a portion of New Jersey’s electoral votes.
Lincoln’s victory was achieved despite not having broad nationwide popular support; it relied heavily on robust Northern electoral support in key industrial and populous states, allowing him to collect enough electoral votes for the presidency.
Table 1.4: Electoral and popular vote results for the 1860 U.S. presidential election
Electoral college results:
Lincoln (Republican): ; ext{share} = 59.4 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Breckinridge (Southern Democrat): ; ext{share} = 23.8 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Bell (Constitutional Union): ; ext{share} = 12.8 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Douglas (Northern Democrat): ; ext{share} = 4.0 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Total: ; ext{share} = 100 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Popular vote (approximate numbers given in the source):
Lincoln: votes; 39.8 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Breckinridge: votes; 18.1 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Bell: votes; 12.6 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Douglas: votes; 29.5 ext{ ext{%}}; States won:
Summary takeaway:
Lincoln achieved victory primarily because the Democratic vote was fatally split between Stephen Douglas (representing Northern Democrats advocating popular sovereignty) and John Breckinridge (representing Southern Democrats demanding federal slave protection). Adding to this fragmentation, John Bell’s Constitutional Union Party garnered a significant number of votes but was unable to secure the presidency.
Lincoln’s triumph fundamentally reflected the dominant electoral power of the Northern states and their collective opposition to slavery’s expansion, rather than broad nationwide popular support. His victory starkly highlighted the profound and irreconcilable sectional divides over slavery’s future in the United States.
Post‑election implications and reflections
Aftermath and the Fort Sumter note:
The outcome of the 1860 election dramatically intensified already severe tensions between free and slave states, directly setting the stage for the secession of Southern states and the ensuing American Civil War.
The text references Fort Sumter and its impacts as a further critical topic for exploration elsewhere within the course materials, indicating its pivotal role in the immediate post-election crisis.
Activity prompts and further study prompts (from the transcript)
1.14: Research task to fill a patterns table for US presidents 1841–61 (dates/terms, party, background, state) and note patterns in leadership.
1.15/1.17/1.18: Investigate the 1856 Republican platform’s aims and evaluate to what extent they were met by 1861; consider what other historical evidence would help answer this question and why.
1.16: Examine the 1860 Democratic Convention outcomes and the split between Northern and Southern Democrats, noting how these divisions affected the race and policy directions.
Key figures and terms to remember
Abraham Lincoln – Republican candidate and future president; challenged the Dred Scott framework; his “A house divided” speech (1858) is a key reference point for his anti-expansionist stance.
Stephen A. Douglas – Northern Democrat; advocated popular sovereignty; publicly opposed the Dred Scott ruling’s implications for territorial self-determination but accepted its legal consequences; authored the Freeport Doctrine (1858), which significantly impacted his standing in the South.
John Breckinridge – Southern Democrat; strongly supported a federal slave code to protect slavery in all territories; carried most Southern states in 1860, representing the extreme Southern position.
John Bell – Constitutional Union candidate; center‑leaning; sought to preserve the Union by intentionally avoiding the divisive issue of slavery, appealing to moderate elements.
Roger B. Taney – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; authored the highly controversial Dred Scott decision, denying African American citizenship and reinforcing property rights over human rights; from Maryland; appointed by a southern Democrat.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) – Supreme Court decision that denied U.S. citizenship to African Americans, declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, and overturned restrictions on slavery in territories, dramatically escalating sectional tensions.
Harpers Ferry raid (1859) – John Brown’s attempted slave revolt in Virginia; resulted in Brown’s capture and execution, further heightening abolitionist sentiment in the North and deepening Southern fears of Northern aggression.
Wide‑Awake movement – A youth-driven, semi‑militarized campaign group that energized Northern voters for Lincoln in 1860 through highly visible parades and rallies, symbolizing Republican strength and organization.
Democratic conventions (1860) – Deeply split between Douglas (Northern Democrats who supported popular sovereignty) and Breckinridge (Southern Democrats who demanded federal slave code protection); this division, alongside Bell’s Constitutional Union party seeking to avoid the slavery issue, directly led to Lincoln’s victory.
Connections to previous topics and real‑world relevance
The Dred Scott decision critically linked to larger historical debates about citizenship, civic rights, and the extent of federal authority. Its profound impact extended far beyond legal rulings, catalyzing political mobilization, shaping the formation of the modern two‑party system, and solidifying the ideological lines that led to conflict in the United States.
The Lincoln–Douglas debates vividly showcased how contrasting constitutional interpretations, differing legislative strategies (popular sovereignty vs. federal authority), and powerful public rhetoric can collectively shape national political trajectories and public opinion on fundamental issues.
The Harpers Ferry episode starkly highlighted how extremist actions, even when unsuccessful, can profoundly polarize political discourse, significantly influence party strategies, and dramatically affect the perception of abolitionism across both the North and the South, pushing the nation closer to armed conflict.
The 1860 election stands as a powerful illustration of how severe party fragmentation and deep regional divisions can fundamentally determine the outcome of a national election, even when a winning candidate does not secure the nationwide popular vote, underscoring the complexities of electoral politics.
Ethical, philosophical, and practical implications
Ethical questions surrounding slavery, citizenship, and fundamental human rights are brought to the forefront by the Dred Scott decision and the Harpers Ferry raid, prompting intense debates about moral responsibility, the contested legitimacy of judicial power, and the ultimate endpoints of political change and social justice.
The perennial idea of popular sovereignty versus federal authority raises enduring questions about the delicate balance between local autonomy and the overarching necessity of national constitutional oversight and unity.
The strategic use of mass political movements, such as the Wide‑Awakes, prompts critical inquiry into the profound role of youth engagement, political organization, and powerful symbolism in democratic elections, including both the potential benefits and inherent risks of such widespread mobilization.