Mike Wells - Email interview transcript
President of the Cleveland Civil War Roundtable (2012-present), Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Programs at the Maxine Goodman College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University
-Why was the Election of 1860 a turning point in American history?
Yes, the election of 1860 was a turning point in our history. It had to be one, because it was the immediate large spark that ignited the war. The event that caused this war would be a turning point in history. If it was not the election, it might have been John Brown's raid, it might have been another slave revolt such as Nat Turner's, it might have been a book such as as Uncle Tom's Cabin. But it wasn't any of these, because though they riled the South, they did not push it to the extreme as did Lincoln's election. Maybe it was because A. Lincoln was a man, a person that the North could vote for and the South could hate. One person is easier to take off on than an inanimate thing.
-What caused the increase in sectionalism leading up to the election?
For many scholars the increase in sectionalism seems due to the continued existence of slavery despite several compromise attempts to politically solve the problem of slavery in a democratic republic. As the compromises collapsed, more and more people on both sides recognized that slavery's existence in the U.S. was a problem that would not go away. As more people (mostly in the North) came to accept what Lincoln so ably articulated, that slavery was a moral issue not a political issue, and as other people (mostly in the South) were more and more threatened by this view, the tension between the sections grew and grew.
-What's the key reason why the Democratic Party split in 1860?
The Democratic Party split like other institutions in the country (religious denominations, families, friends) because of slavery. There were always hairsplitting details, but I think the overall reason was slavery.
-If the Democrats had united behind one candidate, would Lincoln have won the election?
The question of a united Democratic Party is an impossibility given the Democratic politicians in 1860 (not very impressive even when sober), but yes, if this party had united, it might have beaten Lincoln running against the expansion of slavery. Such a united Democratic Party would have meant that this old and experienced institution with its history of successful presidential candidates would have faced a new party with no national electoral success. Please note that this answer is highly speculative. In other words, who knows?
-How much of an underdog was Lincoln going into the Republican convention in Chicago?
I don't think Lincoln was an underdog going into the convention. He had been in Congress, he had many national connections from his successful legal practice, he had his positive record from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates and the later Cooper-Union Address in NYC, and he had an experienced and cunning political team with a national network. Above all he had himself, not much to look at and a hayseed accent but powerful ideas, a forceful delivery style, and an adroit psychologist.
-How was Lincoln able to defeat so many solid candidates in the Republican field?
-Would any Republican candidates other than Lincoln have been able to win the general election?
Lincoln was new as a national candidate. His Republican rivals all had track records and thus enemies.
-Would secession have occurred with one of the Republican candidates besides Lincoln as President-elect? Would any of them have done a better job of calming down the South than Lincoln did by not saying anything?
If Lincoln could not calm the post-1860 election waters, neither could any other Republican politicians. Many of them were still around during and after the war. They had their day-to-day victories, as do we all, but none ever rose to the national stage with the majestic presence Lincoln carried with him.
-Was it realistic for Lincoln to talk about trying to keep the Union together during the campaign?
I think Lincoln's greatest mistake was not talking more to keep the Union together. And yes, I think he engaged in wishful thinking in assuming that the south would not ultimately leave the Union. Now this is only my opinion, and maybe more talking from Lincoln would not have helped the situation. I know his long period of silence between the election and the inauguration seemed to him mandated by the fact that he was not yet president, but his perceived dithering after he assumed office was because he offered no more talking points for the South to chew on. Also, see my point number 8 above; what Republican offered him any good advice?
Note: Mike Wells was also interviewed in person. Audio clips are scattered throughout website.