The 1860 U.S. Presidential Election – Part 2: The Campaign & Result — History is Now Magazine, Podcasts, Blog and Books

The Campaign

Following his nomination, Lincoln adopted a campaign strategy typical of the era, opting for a stay-at-home approach that involved no public speeches. Instead, he dedicated his efforts to managing the campaign from behind the scenes. He expressed that his primary goal was to prevent any divisions within the Republican Party, advising party members to refrain from discussing contentious issues that could lead to disagreements. With a united front among Republicans and existing fractures within the Democratic Party, particularly concerning Bell’s candidacy, the main concern for Republicans was the potential for disunity that could jeopardize their electoral prospects.

In contrast to Lincoln’s restrained approach, Douglas was highly active, campaigning vigorously in both Northern and Southern states. He passionately defended the Union and vehemently opposed secession, making a significant impact during his campaign. Breckinridge engaged in minimal campaigning, delivering only a single speech.

Much of the electioneering consisted of parades and rallies that heightened public interest, resulting in an impressive turnout on election day, with approximately eighty percent of eligible voters participating.

The electoral preferences in many of the individual states were highly illustrative of political opinion of the moment. Voters in border states like Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri tried to find a candidate who supported Union and also slavery. Texas was especially intriguing in that Sam Houston favored this approach but would lose to the popular secessionist entreaties of Louis Wigfall. The states with the largest slave holdings were those that voted solidly for Breckinridge.

 

Constitutional Party leaders did not expect to win the election outright, but instead sought to win states in the Upper South and the Lower North. They were particularly focused on Maryland, the lone state won by Fillmore in 1856, as well as Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

 

Slavery & Secession

The plantation owners in the southern states, who held significant power, were deeply concerned that Abraham Lincoln’s election as president in 1860 would signal the demise of their established way of life. Outnumbered by northern advocates who championed the idea that the western territories should be reserved for free individuals, these southern elites feared that the expansion of slavery would be curtailed. They worried that if the practice of slavery was confined to the South and the sale of enslaved individuals to new markets was restricted, the value of their so-called “property” would decline, leading to a detrimental impact on their economic well-being.

The implications of such restrictions extended beyond economic concerns; they also posed serious political threats. The potential for white southerners to be placed on equal footing with the Black Americans they had enslaved was a source of anxiety, as it jeopardized not only their economic advantages but also their personal safety. The southern oligarchs, whose wealth and social standing were intricately linked to the institution of slavery, felt their control over power slipping away. This fear was compounded by the constant dread of slave uprisings and the looming threat of financial disaster if they could not extend the institution of slavery into new territories.

In light of these factors, the prospect of Lincoln’s presidency was viewed as a direct threat to their way of life. The southern elites believed that his administration would dismantle the foundations of their society, leading to a loss of both economic stability and social dominance. The combination of these fears—economic decline, loss of power, and the potential for social upheaval—created a volatile atmosphere in the South, where the stakes of the election were perceived as nothing less than existential.

The establishment of slavery as a social construct became integral to the southern way of life and its economic success, leading individuals who did not own slaves to perceive it as a cause worth defending, even at the cost of their lives. In order to protect this system, the elite class of southern slaveholders reinterpreted the principles of American democracy. They argued that the vision of the Founding Fathers, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, contained a significant flaw by proclaiming that all men are created equal. In stark contrast, these southern enslavers openly acknowledged a hierarchy among people, asserting their right to dominate.

By embedding white supremacy into the cultural fabric of society and framing slavery as a social norm, the poorer classes in the South found themselves fighting for their own sense of identity, community, and way of life. This struggle became a deeply personal battle, as they believed they were defending not only their homes and neighborhoods but also their very existence. Ironically, neither side fully comprehended the motivations and stakes involved for the other, leading to a profound misunderstanding of the conflict.

Abraham Lincoln’s remarks in Chicago on July 11, 1858, which were later referenced by Stephen Douglas during their fifth debate in Galesburg, encapsulated the central issue at hand. “I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop?” he asked. Lincoln questioned the implications of making exceptions to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion of equality. The Northern states recognized that the fight was not solely about the rights of Black individuals; it was a broader struggle to uphold the foundational principles of equality and justice that defined the nation.

 

Sectional and State Predilections

Although there were four principal candidates, the electoral battles were largely sectional, with Lincoln and Douglas prevailing in the North while Breckinridge and Bell competed for support in the South. Many voters in favor of secession cast their ballots for Breckinridge, hoping to create a scenario where no candidate would secure a majority of electoral votes, thereby forcing the election to be decided in the House of Representatives. This strategic voting reflected the deep divisions within the country at the time, underscoring the contentious nature of the election.

The electoral trends observed in various states vividly reflected the prevailing political sentiments of the time. In border states such as Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, voters sought a candidate who would endorse both the Union and the institution of slavery. Texas presented a particularly fascinating case, as Sam Houston advocated for this dual support but ultimately lost to the strong secessionist appeals of Louis Wigfall. Meanwhile, the states with the highest numbers of enslaved individuals consistently cast their votes in favor of Breckinridge.

 

California

After the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846 and the Gold Rush, people came to SF literally from all over the world. The population of SF went from about  1000 to about 25,000 in about 5 years. As would be expected, both transplanted southerners favoring slavery (“Chivs” for chivalry), slave owners who brought their slaves with them, free blacks, immigrants, and transplanted northerners all were thrown together in a hurry. Although admitted as a free state, several hundred slaves were present and about 4000 free blacks.

There was no direct overland route to San Francisco, the primary city, from the East. Getting to SF required either a six-month cross-country trip, usually by wagon pulled by ox, or a dangerous voyage by ship around Cape Horn. The Isthmus of Panama was another option that was developed, but plenty of travelers became ill or died from Yellow Fever.

Although Leland Stanford did not share a personal relationship with President Lincoln, his role as Governor of California and his engagement with the Central Pacific Railroad significantly bolstered the Union’s war efforts and influenced the nation’s success during the Civil War. As the railroad project was being initiated, Stanford traveled eastward to garner support for both the railroad and his Republican candidacy for governor. In 1860, he sought backing from influential figures, discovering that Lincoln was a strong advocate for western expansion. Stanford leveraged his control over the California Republican Party to rally support for Lincoln, who, in turn, required the state’s electoral votes to endorse a viable transcontinental railroad route. Thus, Stanford’s backing for the Union was reciprocated with federal assistance for the Central Pacific project.

Another key figure during this period was Thomas Starr King, an Episcopal pastor in San Francisco, renowned for his eloquence and oratory skills, comparable to prominent speakers like Beecher and Emerson. Originally hailing from New Hampshire, King moved west in 1860, where he was deeply inspired by the natural beauty of Yosemite, which he viewed as a divine creation. He collaborated with fellow abolitionist Frederick Law Olmsted to advocate for the establishment of Yosemite as a protected reserve and a state park in California, reflecting his commitment to both environmental preservation and social justice.

King became an influential voice for abolition within his church, warning his congregation of the impending conflict over slavery and emphasizing the importance of preserving the Union. He captivated audiences with readings of poetry by notable authors such as Harte, Longfellow, and Lowell, while also gaining recognition for his fervent support of Abraham Lincoln’s candidacy. On February 22, 1861, during a sermon on Washington’s Birthday, he passionately urged his congregation of over a thousand to unite in saving the Union. He adorned his pulpit with an American flag and concluded each sermon with a heartfelt plea for blessings upon the president and all those dedicated to the cause of a united nation.

Lincoln won California in the 1860 election by just 0.6%. California had a strong anti-slavery sentiment, particularly among its settlers from free states. Many Californians were aligned with the Republican Party’s platform, which opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories and states. California’s political landscape was influenced by the growing Republican Party, which was gaining popularity in the North and West. California had only become a state in 1850, and its economy was largely driven by mining and agriculture, industries that did not rely on slavery. Many Californians saw the expansion of slavery as a threat to their economic interests and the political balance between free and slave states.

 

Virginia

Virginia isn’t usually considered a “border state” because it would become the capitol of the CSA and because slavery was widely practiced ante bellum. It is typically classified as being of the “Upper South” along with North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, in large part because while it did eventually secede, it was late. The western part of the state was so Unionist that it seceded from Virginia to become a separate state.

But in many ways, Virginia was not exactly a southern state either. Its markets were in the north, its western population favored Union. It was fundamentally the plantation owners who favored secession. It is fascinating that the future capital of the Confederacy just a few months before secession voted to support someone who opposed it.

The election of Abraham Lincoln as president was held on November 6, 1860. He received just 1% of the 167,000 votes in Virginia. The state was carried by Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, who ran on a platform of compromise; he won by just 156 votes over John Breckinridge. Virginia voted for John Bell over Breckinridge because Bell offered a more moderate, Unionist approach that appealed to a broad coalition of voters who wanted to avoid the extremes of both secession and a Republican presidency. These voters were concerned about the future of the Union and believed that Bell’s platform provided the best chance to preserve it, even if it meant compromising on slavery. The map shows that Bell and Douglas were strongest in western Virginia and the northern counties while Breckinridge won in the agricultural regions.

While slavery was common in Virginia, its economy was much less dependent on it than most southern states. Cotton was not grown here, nor rice. There had been a devastating drought, and many slaves had been sold to other states and territories because there wasn’t work for them. In fact, slave sales were one of the highest revenue producers in the late 1850s here.

While the elite favored secession here, many did not in 1860. This was exactly the kind of state the Constitutional Union Party was created to carry. Virginia’s decision to vote for John Bell over John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election can be understood through a combination of political, social, and regional factors. In Virginia, there was a significant portion of the electorate that favored a more moderate approach to the sectional crisis. Many Virginians, particularly the state’s political elite, feared the deepening divisions between the North and South. John Bell, representing the Constitutional Union Party, ran on a platform of preserving the Union and avoiding secession. This position resonated with Virginians who sought to avoid conflict while still upholding the interests of Southern slaveholders.

While Breckinridge, the candidate of the Southern Democrats, strongly advocated for the protection of slavery and was seen as a champion of Southern rights, many Virginians were wary of the extreme positions that could lead to secession. A significant portion of the population wanted to find a way to keep the Union intact, and Bell’s platform of compromise and Unionism appealed to these voters.

Virginia had long been a key player in national politics and had a strong tradition of statesmanship. Figures like John Tyler, a former president and a Virginian, supported Bell and helped promote the Constitutional Union Party. For many Virginians, the idea of preserving the Union was more important than advancing the interests of slavery through secession. This made Bell a more palatable candidate than Breckinridge, who was more closely associated with the secessionist cause.

Many Virginians feared the consequences of a Lincoln victory, which they saw as a threat to slavery. However, they also saw the election as a pivotal moment and believed that supporting Bell, who sought to avoid direct confrontation over slavery, offered the best chance to preserve peace and prevent the collapse of the Union.

Only 9 days later, on November 15, Virginia Governor John Letcher called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider the creation of a secession convention. The legislature convened on January 7 and approved the convention on January 14. On January 19 the General Assembly called for a national Peace Conference, led by Virginia native and former President John Tyler, to be held in Washington, DC on February 4, the same date that elections were scheduled for delegates to the secession convention.

 

Maryland

But interestingly, Maryland, a border state north of Virginia, made a different choice. The reasons are really interesting to consider.

Maryland gained admission to the Union as a slave state in 1788. Because Maryland borders Virginia, the slave trade and the plantation-based system of slave labor spread to Maryland and developed there, so that by 1860 there were 87,189 African American slaves in Maryland. Slavery continued in Maryland until November 1, 1864, when the state adopted its state constitution, which outlawed slavery. Delaware was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1787.

Maryland voted for John C. Breckinridge, the Southern Democratic candidate. Breckinridge received 45.9% of Maryland’s popular vote, securing the state’s 8 electoral votes. Maryland supported Breckinridge in large part because of its geographic and economic ties to the South. Although Maryland was a border state, its economy and society had strong ties to the Southern states, particularly through agriculture and slavery. Breckinridge’s pro-slavery stance resonated with many Maryland voters.

There were also complex political divisions in Maryland. Its electorate was deeply divided between Unionists and Southern sympathizers. Breckinridge’s support reflected the influence of pro-Southern sentiment, particularly in rural areas. In that state, where the southern democrats officially split during the convention in Baltimore, there was a fragmented opposition. The state’s vote was split among the four candidates: This division allowed Breckinridge to win with a plurality rather than a majority. The map shows that Breckinridge won because of the population of Baltimore. Baltimore was Democratic in orientation but the rural areas of the west of the state were Unionist.

Maryland’s divided loyalties would continue to play a significant role during the Civil War, as the state remained in the Union despite considerable Southern sympathies.

 

The Presidential Election

The election took place on November 6, 1860, resulting in Abraham Lincoln securing just under 40 percent of the popular vote. Despite this, he achieved a decisive victory in the Electoral College with 180 votes, primarily by winning the Northern states, except New Jersey, which he shared with Stephen Douglas. Douglas received nearly 30 percent of the vote but only managed to capture Missouri’s 12 electoral votes. John C. Breckinridge, with 18 percent of the national vote, claimed 72 electoral votes by dominating the Southern states, along with Delaware and Maryland. Meanwhile, John Bell garnered 12.6 percent of the vote, earning 39 electoral votes from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The voting patterns in the South highlight the significant regional divide during this period. Lincoln did not receive any votes in the states that would later form the Confederacy, except for Virginia, where he obtained a mere 1 percent of the total vote, while Douglas received just under 10 percent. This lack of support can be attributed to Lincoln’s absence from the ballot in those Southern states, reflecting the deep-seated opposition to his platform. The state was carried by Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, who ran on a platform of compromise; he won by just 156 votes over John Breckinridge.

The demographic disparity between the North and South played a crucial role in the election outcome, as the North had a larger population, thus controlling the Electoral College. While Lincoln dominated the Northern states, he failed to win any Southern states. Douglas managed to secure 12 electoral votes from the North, but this was insufficient to pose a significant threat to Lincoln’s candidacy. The Southern vote was divided between Breckinridge and Bell, preventing either from amassing enough support to challenge Lincoln effectively.

The election of 1860 solidified the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties as the dominant political forces in the United States, while also underscoring the entrenched views on slavery and states’ rights that divided the nation.

 

1860 Election Results

Abraham Lincoln

Republican

180 Electoral Votes

John C. Breckinridge

Democratic

72 Electoral Votes

John Bell

Constitutional Union

39 Electoral Votes

Stephen A. Douglas

Democratic

12 Electoral Votes

Implications

In a nation deeply divided, Lincoln garnered approximately 40% of the popular vote, which was sufficient for a narrow victory in a highly contested election. This statistic indicates that a significant 60% of voters opted for candidates other than Lincoln: he was truly a minority president. A pressing concern emerged: would the Southern states accept the election outcome? Just weeks after the election, South Carolina made the decisive move to secede from the Union.

Shortly thereafter, on November 15, Virginia’s Governor John Letcher convened a special session of the General Assembly to deliberate on the establishment of a secession convention. The legislature met on January 7 and subsequently approved the convention on January 14. By January 19, the General Assembly had called for a national Peace Conference, to be led by former President John Tyler, scheduled for February 4 in Washington, DC, coinciding with the elections for delegates to the secession convention. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated in March, seven Southern states had already seceded, and within a month of his presidency, the nation was plunged into civil war.

 

 

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.