Most of us have probably taught that the civil war resulted from the election of Abraham Lincoln as the Republican Party candidate in 1860. That party was "committed to abolition" and the South felt they "had no choice but to secede" if the GOP won. I recently came across an American Heritage article that paints a different picture. The election of Lincoln was made possible by the decision of the Democratic Party-meeting in Charleston, SC.-to decline to nominate anyone for president in 1860. The most logical choice for the democrats was Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He had support in the South and as the election results have shown, had support in the North. His candidacy would have also picked up support from border states. The author of this source does not say directly, but the implication is that if a democrat won the election of 1860 there would not have been a reason for the South to leave the Union (or there would not have an excuse for doing so). As we know the democrats left their convention without a clear candidate and Douglas ran as the northern Democratic candidate, John Breckinridge ran as the southern Democratic candidate and to add to the confusion, John Bell ran as the Constitutional Union party candidate. This scenario was created by William Yancy of Alabama who was known as the "the Prince of the FireEaters" who were set on creating a climate for secession. They got what they wanted (and I would think they regretted it after 1865). (Could the Civil War been averted, or would it have occurred a few years later?)
(Source: "How we got Lincoln" by Peter Andrews. American Heritage magazine November 1988)
