OCR Specification focus:
‘election of 1860, secession and the failure of compromise’
The presidential election of 1860 was a pivotal moment in American history, shaping the crisis of Union, triggering Southern secession, and exposing the collapse of political compromise.
Background to the Election
By 1860, sectional divisions between North and South were severe, primarily over the expansion of slavery into new territories. Previous compromises such as the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Compromise of 1850 had attempted to balance free and slave interests. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and the violent conflict in "Bleeding Kansas" highlighted the breakdown of moderation. The decision in the Dred Scott case (1857), which denied Congress the power to restrict slavery in the territories, further polarised opinion.
Collapse of the Democratic Party
The Democratic Party, traditionally a national coalition, fractured along sectional lines in 1860:
Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas, champion of popular sovereignty (the idea that settlers in a territory should decide the slavery issue themselves).
Southern Democrats rejected this stance and nominated John C. Breckinridge, supporting the protection of slavery in all territories.
This split destroyed the Democratic Party’s ability to function as a unifying force in national politics.
Rise of the Republican Party
The Republican Party, formed in the 1850s, opposed the extension of slavery into the territories but accepted its existence in states where it was already established. Their platform appealed strongly to the North and West:
Support for free labour ideology, emphasising opportunities for small farmers and workers.
Advocacy for protective tariffs to encourage industry.
Promotion of internal improvements such as railways.
Opposition to the further spread of slavery, while avoiding any immediate abolitionist agenda.
Abraham Lincoln, a moderate figure from Illinois, was nominated as the Republican candidate. His reputation as a skilled debater and opponent of slavery’s expansion, without being a radical abolitionist, made him acceptable to a broad coalition of Northern voters.
Other Candidates
Alongside Lincoln, Douglas, and Breckinridge, a fourth candidate emerged:
John Bell, representing the Constitutional Union Party, which sought to preserve the Union by avoiding divisive debates over slavery. This party drew support mainly from former Whigs and moderates in the border states.
The presence of four candidates ensured a fragmented contest, further reflecting sectional divisions.
Election Results
Lincoln won with approximately 40% of the popular vote but secured a decisive majority in the Electoral College. He carried all the Northern free states except New Jersey.
Douglas gained little electoral success despite a substantial popular vote, reflecting the limits of his cross-sectional appeal.
Breckinridge dominated the Deep South.
Bell carried several border states, showing lingering support for compromise.
Lincoln’s election was achieved without carrying a single Southern state.
Colour-coded state-by-state map of the 1860 presidential election showing states carried by Lincoln, Breckinridge, Bell, and Douglas. It highlights the sectional divide, with Lincoln’s Northern sweep ensuring victory without Southern support. Source
This outcome convinced many Southerners that they had lost influence within the Union.
Secession of the South
Lincoln’s victory triggered an immediate and dramatic response in the South:
South Carolina seceded in December 1860, citing the threat to slavery and states’ rights.
Within weeks, six other Deep South states followed: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
These states soon formed the Confederate States of America with Jefferson Davis as president.
Secession: The act of formally withdrawing from a political union. In this case, Southern states leaving the United States to form the Confederacy.
Southern leaders justified secession by arguing that the Union was a voluntary compact among states, which they could legally leave if their rights were endangered.
The Failure of Compromise
In the aftermath of Lincoln’s election and the wave of secession, attempts at compromise failed:
The Crittenden Compromise (1860) proposed extending the Missouri Compromise line (36°30′) westward, allowing slavery in all territories south of it. Republicans rejected it as it contradicted their platform of stopping slavery’s expansion.
Diagram showing the 36°30′ Missouri Compromise line across the United States. Source
Efforts at reconciliation in Congress and through peace conventions achieved little, as positions were entrenched.
Lincoln himself, while promising not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, was firm in rejecting the spread of slavery into new territories.
Compromise: A negotiated agreement in which opposing sides make concessions to avoid conflict. In the antebellum United States, compromises aimed to balance free and slave interests.
The failure of compromise in 1860–61 demonstrated that the traditional political mechanisms for balancing sectional tensions no longer functioned.
Significance
The election of 1860 was not merely another political contest. It represented the triumph of a sectional party in a deeply divided nation:
The Republican victory symbolised the dominance of Northern free-state interests.
The Democratic split ensured that Southern voices could not effectively challenge Lincoln.
The subsequent secession of Southern states made the outbreak of civil war increasingly inevitable.
The political system that had managed sectional tensions for decades collapsed, and the United States entered its greatest internal crisis.
FAQ
The Democratic Party had long acted as a national coalition that included both Northern and Southern interests. Its division into Northern and Southern wings in 1860 meant there was no longer a single party able to bridge sectional divides. This guaranteed that the Republican candidate, Lincoln, could win the presidency without Southern support, reinforcing Southern fears of permanent political marginalisation.
Lincoln gained prominence during the Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858, where he argued against the expansion of slavery with clarity and moderation. He was seen as less radical than many abolitionists but firm in principle. This reputation reassured moderate Northerners while still appealing to anti-slavery voters, making him a unifying figure within the Republican Party.
The Constitutional Union Party sought to avoid sectional conflict by emphasising loyalty to the Union and the Constitution rather than slavery debates. Its candidate, John Bell, attracted support from border states such as Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Although it did not win nationally, its appeal showed the desire of some Americans for compromise and moderation even as sectionalism deepened.
Many Southerners argued that the Union was a voluntary compact between states, meaning any state could withdraw if its rights were threatened. They believed the election of Lincoln proved the federal government no longer represented Southern interests. Secession was thus presented as a legal and necessary defence of sovereignty and liberty.
The Crittenden Compromise offered to extend the Missouri Compromise line westward, allowing slavery south of 36°30′. Republicans, however, rejected it since their platform opposed slavery’s expansion under any circumstances.
Failure was due to:
Entrenched party positions after Lincoln’s election.
Southern insistence on protection of slavery everywhere.
Republican fear that acceptance would undermine their new mandate.
This failure confirmed to the South that no peaceful settlement was possible.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Name one candidate other than Abraham Lincoln who stood in the 1860 presidential election.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for correctly identifying any one of the following:
Stephen Douglas (Northern Democrat)
John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrat)
John Bell (Constitutional Union Party)
Maximum of 2 marks not applicable, as only one correct answer required.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain why the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 led to the secession of Southern states.
Mark Scheme:
Up to 2 marks for identifying factors:
Lincoln’s opposition to the expansion of slavery.
Lincoln’s victory without winning any Southern states.
Perception that the South had lost political influence.
Fear for the future of slavery and states’ rights.
Up to 2 marks for explanation of how these factors caused secession:
Southern leaders believed the Republican Party threatened their way of life.
Lincoln’s platform was interpreted as hostile to Southern interests.
Up to 2 marks for context or development:
Immediate secession of South Carolina followed by six other Deep South states.
The formation of the Confederate States of America under Jefferson Davis.
Maximum 6 marks available.
Answers should demonstrate both knowledge and explanation, not just description.
