the electoral college and the civil war
By Benjamin Zhang
Summary
The year 1860 was a tumultuous one in American history. The decades preceding this election year had seen many events involving the practice of slavery. These events served to heighten the tension between what would become the two antagonists in the upcoming war – the North and the South. However, it was only after the election of 1860 that the first Southern state made the choice to secede from the United States. Thus, it could be argued that the election served as a catalyst for the split – and, ultimately, the war itself. Yet, the election was quite interesting in itself. For example, it involved a dramatic split in one of the two major parties – in this case, the Democratic Party split in two by region. In addition, a third party candidate – in this case, John Bell – made a strong showing in the race. Ultimately, though, it was likely the victory of Abraham Lincoln that motivated the South to secede. Although this cannot be proved, it is interesting to analyze the election in these respects. The question soon begs itself: Did the Electoral College cause the Civil War?
Lincoln’s victory can be attributed primarily to the fact that the Northern states were simply more populated than the Southern ones. Thus, one could conclude that the Electoral College contributed not only to the election of Lincoln, but to what happened four weeks later. South Carolina decided to secede from the Union. The next spring, six southern states followed it. War had begun, and the nation would never be the same again.
It has been proposed that had the United States been using another voting method, Lincoln would have lost the election. For example, suppose the U.S. had been using the Borda count, in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. Since Lincoln had not been present on most Southern ballots, he would have received almost no points at all from rankings in that region. Hence, under the Borda count, Breckinridge, despite receiving merely a small portion of the popular vote, could very well have won the election. There is no telling for sure, but it can be concluded with a fair amount of certainty that Lincoln was lucky the Electoral College was in place in 1860.
The Electoral College and the Civil War
The year 1860 was a tumultuous one in American history. The decades preceding this election year had seen many events involving the practice of slavery. These events served to heighten the tension between what would become the two antagonists in the upcoming war – the North and the South. However, it was only after the election of 1860 that the first Southern state made the choice to secede from the United States. Thus, it could be argued that the election served as a catalyst for the split – and, ultimately, the war itself. Yet, the election was quite interesting in itself. For example, it involved a dramatic split in one of the two major parties – in this case, the Democratic Party split in two by region. In addition, a third party candidate – in this case, John Bell – made a strong showing in the race. Ultimately, though, it was likely the victory of Abraham Lincoln that motivated the South to secede. Although this cannot be proved, it is interesting to analyze the election in these respects. The question soon begs itself: Did the Electoral College cause the Civil War?
Many events ultimately led up to the Civil War, events that occurred far before the Battle of Fort Sumter. The first major event was the Missouri Compromise, which occurred in 1820. The expansion of slavery into the newly-acquired Louisiana territory became a point of contention in the Union. The compromise that was ultimately reached merely maintained the balance of free and slave states. It drew the ire of Thomas Jefferson, who considered it only a temporary reprieve, a delaying of the facing of the crucial issue of slavery by the country.
Eleven years later, another source of controversy rocked the nation. Nat Turner, a slave in southern Virginia, led a short-lived rebellion that led to the deaths of over sixty white people. There had been slave uprisings in the United States before 1831, but none on the level of Nat Turner’s – his was the bloodiest that had ever occurred. Eventually, the Virginia militia was deployed, and the rebellion was duly crushed. Nevertheless, the state’s lawmakers immediately sought to prevent another such rebellion from occurring – it quickly passed laws that rolled back nearly all of the rights of slaves and free black people in Virginia. Nevertheless, the actions of Nat Turner definitely served to get the nation on edge, and for the first time, it reminded everyone that the slavery conflict was not to be ignored – after all, it had proved it could lead to bloodshed.
The Democratic Party was troubled from the start. Meeting in April 1860 to select its candidate for president, conflict immediately arose, between two familiar sides – the North and the South. Northern Democrats put forward Stephen A. Douglas as their proposed candidate. Douglas, coincidentally, had battled Abraham Lincoln two years earlier for an Illinois U.S. Senate seat, losing after a series of famous debates. The Northerners felt that Douglas had the best chance to defeat whatever candidate the Republicans put forward, due to the fact that he was a slavery supporter. However, Southern Democrats had a problem with the fact that he also supported popular sovereignty – the belief that new territories should decide for themselves whether or not to have slavery. Eventually, they lost patience and left the conference, eventually nominating John C. Breckinridge, the vice president the U.S. under James Buchanan. The Northern Democrats, with no more opposition present, nominated Douglas. Thus, before the election even began, the Republicans had a clear advantage, due to the clear disorder in the opposing party.
Realizing that the Democrats were on their Heels, the Republicans realized that they had little chance to carry the South, due to the nomination of Breckinridge. However, the Electoral College came into play in a major way – all a candidate needed to win a majority in the Electoral College and the election was the Northern states. Eventually, the party decided to put forward Abraham Lincoln, believing that he could appeal to voters in the crucial Northern swing states. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Union Party nominated John Bell, a slaveholder. Believing in the status quo, the party took no stand at all on the slavery issue that divided in the North and South.
Interestingly enough, Lincoln was also a supporter of popular sovereignty, much like Douglas. He had made his views clear on the matter clear in his 1858 Senate debates with Douglas. However, the Republicans decided to maintain its antislavery stance in their party platform, advocating for its ultimate extinction. Thus, Lincoln became associated with the antislavery platform, despite not being totally against the idea of slavery. Southerners came to view him as an abolitionist, and even today, many people see him as such. The fact is, however, that he simply became a victim of association, and his true views have been hidden over time.
The four parties that took part in the election did very little campaigning for such a wide-open race. Lincoln stayed at his home in Springfield and received people who came to pay respect, as per tradition. Bell, keeping in line with his party message, said nothing at all regarding any issues. Breckinridge also preferred to keep mute, giving only one speech. Only Douglas decided to travel all over the nation, but, unfortunately, found that people were already beginning to suspect that Lincoln would win. In fact, the possibility of secession had begun to arise. Eventually, Douglas realized that he would not win, and instead began to campaign for the preservation of the Union.
The results of the election were not surprising to most of the country, but remarkable in themselves. Lincoln would go on to win every Northern state but one. Not even on the ballot in the South, he would lose to Breckinridge in most of the Southern states. Bell pulled out some successes as well – his status quo position was quite popular in the border states of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, which he won handily. In the end, Lincoln received just 40% of the popular vote, mostly due to the fact that few people could even cast a ballot for him in half of the country. However, he still managed, through the Electoral College, to squeak out a majority of the electoral votes, due to the Northern states’ vast superiority in terms of population. Douglas finished second in the popular vote, at about 30%. Nevertheless, he managed to win just one state, and came in dead last of the four nominees with 12 electoral votes. Bell, picking up some more neutral states, managed 39 electoral votes, and Breckinridge carried most of the South with 72 electoral votes.
In the end, Lincoln’s victory can be attributed primarily to the fact that the Northern states were simply more populated than the Southern ones. Thus, one could conclude that the Electoral College contributed not only to the election of Lincoln, but to what happened four weeks later. South Carolina decided to secede from the Union. The next spring, six southern states followed it. War had begun, and the nation would never be the same again.
It has been proposed that had the United States been using another voting method, Lincoln would have lost the election. For example, suppose the U.S. had been using the Borda count, in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. Since Lincoln had not been present on most Southern ballots, he would have received almost no points at all from rankings in that region. Hence, under the Borda count, Breckinridge, despite receiving merely a small portion of the popular vote, could very well have won the election. There is no telling for sure, but it can be concluded with a fair amount of certainty that Lincoln was lucky the Electoral College was in place in 1860.
Works Cited
Holt, Michael F. The rise and fall of the American Whig party: Jacksonian politics and the onset of the Civil War. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Tabarrok, Alexander, and Lee Spector. "Would the Borda count have avoided the Civil War?." Journal of Theoretical Politics 11.2 (1999): 261-288.
Crenshaw, Ollinger. The slave states in the presidential election of 1860. P. Smith, 1969.