Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I believe that one of the most remarkable (and fortuitous) events in American history was Abraham Lincoln’s nomination as the presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 1860. Early in the year, he was very much a dark horse and a Midwest regional candidate. But then he increased his national reputation by giving a powerful anti-slavery speech at Cooper Union in New York City. Afterwards, he went on a speaking tour in New England—first stop Providence! And he returned to Rhode Island later on during his New England tour, to Woonsocket. Rhode Island Republicans appeared to be pleased with him.

Yet at the Republican Party convention at Chicago in 1860, in the first round of voting, Rhode Island’s eight delegates did not cast a single vote for Lincoln! The winner in the first round for Rhode Island delegates was the obscure Judge John McLean of Ohio. Who?  What happened?  Not surprisingly, the answer lies in Rhode Island’s own internal politics. Would Rhode Island redeem itself in later rounds of voting at the nominating convention?

Classic photo taken of Abraham Lincoln by famed photographer Matthew Brady in New York City on February 27, 1860. Lincoln wears a newly-purchased suit that was not specially tailored for him. He bought it for his Cooper Union speech later that day (National Archives)

The story starts with Abraham Lincoln in 1859, contemplating running for President of the United States. At the time, nationally, he was known, but was not considered an important politician. He held federal office only once, for a single term in Congress from 1847 to 1849.

Lincoln was best known for the Lincoln-Douglass debates. Lincoln squared off in a series of debates with his Illinois rival in the election to the U.S. Senate in 1856. His opponent was one of the most famous politicians of the day, Stephen A. Douglas, the “Little Giant.” Lincoln, representing the nascent Republican Party, took an anti-slavery stand, while Douglas promoted his idea of each state voting by majority vote on whether it wanted slavery (known as the doctrine of popular sovereignty). But Douglas’s position had resulted in “Bleeding Kansas,” with southern supporters in the Kansas territory violently attacking anti-slavery supporters and rigging elections. Lincoln performed well against the Little Giant, but lost the election, which in those days was determined by the state legislature. The debates were widely read and Lincoln gained some national notoriety in Republican circles.

Lincoln was a remarkable debater and stump speaker—even the great Douglass admitted Lincoln was the best in Illinois. Lincoln had given more than 175 speeches in the prior five years. But how his style would play out in the more populous East was speculative. Lincoln gave talks performing in the Midwest tradition. He would roam the stage and for emphasis would suddenly squat or stamp his foot. Humor, much of it crude, was part of his repertoire. This would not do in elite eastern circles.

Lincoln received an invitation to speak in New York City by a group of young Republicans from prominent families. The date for the talk was set at February 27, 1860. The young Republicans offered to reimburse Lincoln for his train fare and hotel costs and pay him a generous fee. Lincoln accepted—he knew this was a major opportunity for him to become better known by eastern Republican voters. The planned location for his speech was moved from Brooklyn to a larger venue, Cooper Union in Manhattan.

When Lincoln, who had just turned fifty-one years old, arrived in New York City on February 25, one of the first things he did was go to a fine men’s clothier store and purchase a new black suit. His midwestern clothes awkwardly hung on him, even for his hometown of Springfield, Illinois. The new suit was an improvement, but it was not tailored and therefore did not fit his long, lanky, and thin frame perfectly. For example, the style of the day was to have the suit fit tightly around the neck, but Lincoln’s suit fit loosely at the neck.

Frank Williams of Rhode Island, a nationally respected Lincoln scholar, had this description of Lincoln at Cooper Union in a Rhode Island History journal article:

The audience’s first impression of the man from the West did nothing to contradict the expectation that he would be some weird, rough, and uncultivated fellow. He was a long, ungainly figure, with large feet and clumsy hands, of which (at the outset, at least) he seemed unduly conscious; his long, gaunt head was capped by a shock of black hair that was not thoroughly brushed out; his clothes, while new for this trip, were the work of an unskilled tailor; his voice was at first not pleasant to the ear, the tone harsh and the key too high. He clearly did not fit New York’s conception of a finished stateman . . . .

Lincoln worked hard on his Cooper Union speech, knowing that this could be his big break. It turned out to be a smashing success. Lincoln persuasively presented evidence that the Founding Fathers who signed the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights supported the ideals of the Republican Party that the federal government had the power to control slavery by preventing its expansion into federal territories. Lincoln, as did most Americans at the time, recognized that the U.S. Constitution accepted that southern states had the right to continue the institution of slavery within their states. This was the compromise that had made the creation of the new United States possible. But it came a huge price. Lincoln and other Republicans thought that if slavery could be excluded from the new territories of the North American West, eventually the institution would wither and die. For one, new territories would eventually turn into new states, which would send anti-slavery Congressmen and Senators to Washington, D.C. Southerners feared the same and therefore fiercely opposed interference with slavery in new territories.

Lincoln’s position countered not only Stephen Douglas’s popular sovereignty doctrine, but also undermined the outrageous 1857 majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the infamous Dred Scott decision. Taney had written that Black people could not be considered citizens who deserved to be protected by rights under the U.S. Constitution. Taney also claimed that the federal government had limited powers over the “property” (e.g., enslaved people) of U.S. citizens in federal territories. Lincoln’s speech eviscerated those positions.

Lincoln’s speaking style was also effective, despite his high-pitched voice. This time he did not roam around the stage and instead spoke from behind a podium. Sometimes at speaking events his voice was too soft to be heard by all. Lincoln had a friend visiting from Illinois stand in the back of the room and signal him if he could not be heard. The friend had no need. The friend was also amazed at the transition from Lincoln as western stump speaker to a dignified, statesmanlike lecturer.

The large New York crowd quickly warmed to Lincoln and by the end of the talk, the Illinois lawyer had made a terrific positive impression on the attendees. The crowd responded with laughter and appreciative applause at the right times. At the end of Lincoln’s talk, the room shook with clapping.

The New York speech organizers had Lincoln’s lecture printed, with the intent of selling it. They sought to edit Lincoln’s speech but quickly recognized that they hardly had to change a word. Most all orators of the day used flowery language for their speeches, but Lincoln used plain, simple, and precise language. The reprint circulated throughout the North and was reprinted in many newspapers, giving Lincoln much free publicity.

After arriving in New York City, but before the day of his speech, Lincoln had been approached by John Eddy, a successful attorney from Providence, Rhode Island, and an influential member of the state’s Republican Party. Eddy asked: the day after his Cooper Union speech, on September 28, would Lincoln take the train to Providence to speak to Republican supporters that night? Lincoln agreed. He had intended all along to travel to New England in any event to visit his eldest son Robert, then attending a private boarding school in New Hampshire. Soon Lincoln had lined up a number of other speaking engagements. This would be a way for Lincoln to become better known in New England, the heart of the new Republican Party.

On Tuesday, February 28, Lincoln took the 8 a.m. train from New York City to Providence, a grueling eight-hour trip that necessitated changing cars and railroad lines. John Eddy accompanied Lincoln from New York and hosted his special guest at his Providence home.

The Providence Daily Journal advertised Lincoln’s upcoming talk in its February 27 edition, but did not mention the speech’s location, which had not yet been decided upon. Railroad Hall, the largest indoor venue in the state, an auditorium on the second floor of the Railroad Depot building, was selected. While Lincoln was still a minor figure in Rhode Island, the times were tense, and an overflow crowd of some 1,500 attendees filled Railroad Hall for Lincoln’s 7:30 p.m. talk. Lincoln gave a version of his Cooper Union speech, as he had little time to alter it.

The Providence Daily Journal, owned by prominent Republican and U.S. Senator Henry B. Anthony, praised Lincoln in the next day’s edition:

The most prominent impression Mr. Lincoln makes in his speaking is that of thorough honesty and of sincere earnest belief in all that he says. He abounds in good humor and pleasant satire, and often gives a witty thrust that cuts like a Damascus blade. But he does not aim chiefly at fun. He strives rather to show by plain, simple, cogent reasoning that his positions are impregnable, but he carries his audience with him, as he deserves to.

By contrast, Amasa Eaton, then a junior at Brown University, attended the speech with some classmates and later recalled, “I must confess that I was unfavorably impressed by his manner. It was grotesque and uncouth. He made faces at the audience and set them laughing.” But Eaton was in the minority on this night. (According to Civil War historian Frank Gryzb, one of the Brown University students in attendance with Eaton would later be killed in action in the Civil War).

James B Angell, then chief editor for the Providence Daily Journal, had a more balanced view that was closer to the mark. In his memoirs, he recalled that Lincoln:

was an entire stranger in Providence; and when he appeared on the stage with his long, lank figure, his loose frock coat, his hair just cut rather close, his homely face, we were rather disappointed. But as he proceeded with his speech our [attitudes changed.] It so happened that I sat by the side of the editor of the Democratic paper, Welcome B. Sayles. At the close of the address, he said to me, “That is the finest constitutional argument for a popular audience that I have ever heard.” And certainly, I agreed with him.

A Republican Party officeholder, George W. Jackson from Providence, was also at Railroad Hall that night and he informed U.S. Senator James F. Simmons in Washington, D.C. of his reaction to Lincoln.  This is the first time this letter, dated March 5, 1860, has appeared in a publication:

Lincoln did us a good service.  His address was plain, able and argumentative.  He made a decided hit and left a good impression. He is a self-made man, original in his ideas, very candid & sincere . . . .  He impressed the audience with what he said.  It came directly from the heart.

After Lincoln’s talk, one of the organizer’s led the crowd in giving three loud hurrahs for Lincoln. Frank Williams, in his article on Lincoln’s visit to Rhode Island, added: “Before leaving Railroad Hall to return to John Eddy’s home for the night, Lincoln was invited by the locally prominent Latimer W. Ballou of Smithfield and Edward Harris of Woonsocket to speak in Woonsocket the following week, and he accepted the invitation.” After visiting his son in New Hampshire, Lincoln gave a total of four speeches in New Hampshire and five in Connecticut. (Interestingly, he made none in Massachusetts, which was firmly in the camp of strongest Republican presidential candidate U.S. Senator William H. Seward of New York).

Lincoln returned to Rhode Island as scheduled on March 8. After arriving in Providence on a train from New London, he took a special Providence and Worcester train to Woonsocket. According to Williams, some 450 people from Providence paid a fare of fifty cents each to accompany him to Woonsocket. Lincoln spoke before another large crowd, more than one thousand people, this time at Harris Hall, the state’s second-largest indoor venue.

Governor William Sprague taken by Matthew Brady, circa 1860. William Sprague won the 1860 election for governor of Rhode Island as a Democrat, after the Republican Party became divided. Sprague turned out to be a solid supporter of the Union cause (National Archives)

Frank Williams concluded about Lincoln’s visit:

Most of those who had heard Lincoln speak in Rhode Island were impressed with his oratorical ability, but they did not consider him a serious presidential candidate. When he left the state after his Woonsocket speech, the Post curtly reported that “nothing in the future is more certain than that William H. Seward can have the nomination of the Chicago convention for the presidency, if he insists on it.”

Meanwhile, Rhode Island had its own election, held on April 4, 1860, for governor of the state. The Republican Party, deeply divided at the state convention, failed to renominate the incumbent, Governor Thomas G. Turner, and instead nominated Seth Padelford, a grocer, to run for governor. Perhaps unjustly, conservative Rhode Island Republicans, some with mills that still did business with the South, viewed Padelford as a radical who might help start an unwanted Civil War with the South. William Sprague, a wealthy textile owner, was the Democratic nominee, and he was also persuaded by conservative Republicans to run on a Conservative fusion ticket. Sprague was viewed as a moderate candidate. With Republicans splitting their vote, Sprague was elected governor. The lessons Rhode Island Republican leaders learned from this debacle would carry over to Chicago.

At his February 28th appearance in Providence, Lincoln had naturally expressed his support for the Republican nominee for governor, Padelford. Those who instead voted for Sprague must have thought that Lincoln was closer to the Padelford’s radical wing than a more conservative stance. They likely recalled Lincoln’s famous “A house divided cannot stand” speech from 1858, which foresaw the possibility of how slavery could split up the United States.

Republican Party conservative E. J. Nightingale, in a letter written to U.S. Senator James F. Simmons on February 15, 1860, two weeks before Lincoln arrived in Providence, made it clear that a large wing of Rhode Island Republican Party was concerned about selecting too radical a candidate as the nominee for president of the Republican Party at the party’s convention to be held in Chicago in May.  Nightingale wrote, “I think if Padelford should be defeated next Spring it will show the Republican Party throughout the country their only hope for the next Presidential election is to nominate conservative men . . . .” Nightingale reasoned that a conservative candidate would be needed for Republicans to win the highly contested states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut. Nightingale concluded that if Republicans delegates at the Republican convention in Chicago “nominate men that are sure of carrying Pennsylvania and New Jersey, we shall be sure of the election and shall be just as sure to lose it if they do not select men that will satisfy the conservatism of those states.  It is better for them to be a little frightened before the Convention at Chicago than after it is too late.”

After Padelford lost the election for governor of Rhode Island, the fallout from the hotly contested gubernatorial race would become evident six weeks later in Chicago.

It was time for the Republicans to meet in Chicago on May 16 to 18, 1860, to select the party’s nominee for President. The clear front runner was U.S. Senator William Seward from New York State. He was the most prominent contender, came from the most populous state in the country, and he had the backing of New York’s powerful political machine. He was a smooth operator and held strong anti-slavery positions. Another well-known, firmly anti-slavery candidate was U.S. Senator Salmon P. Chase from Ohio.

The selection of Seward by the convention was, however, not a foregone conclusion. There was nervousness among a wide swath of delegates. These delegates feared that if the party selected as its nominee a man who was viewed as strongly anti-slavery, the Republicans could lose the national election for President to the Democrats, as they did in 1856. Many delegates also wanted to avoid secession by pro-slavery South states, as southern fire-eaters were threatening. These delegates looked to vote for a moderate. They wanted a candidate who was anti-slavery but was not too radical on the slavery issue.

The focus initially fell on sixty-six-year-old Edward Bates of Missouri, who hailed from a border state and whose moderate views would be less offensive to southerners. But Bates had a serious flaw—in the 1856 election, instead of supporting the new Republican Party’s candidate, he had been a renowned supporter of the Know Nothing Party, an anti-immigration movement that swept large swaths of the North in the late 1850s. Bates’s past alienated German-Americans, who made up a substantial block of the Republican Party (and would join the Union Army in droves in the Civil War).

Another moderate candidate was Judge John McLean from Ohio. He was best known as a justice on the Supreme Court who had written a dissent in the Dred Scott case. But he was not particularly well known or respected. He had run for President several times, never coming close to winning. He had been appointed to the Supreme Court in 1829 by President John Quincy Adams, who once said of McLean, he “thinks nothing but the Presidency by day and dreams of nothing else by night.” He even had a habit of switching parties if he thought it would help him obtain the nomination.

The Republican Party held its convention in Chicago on May 16, 1860. They met at the “The Great Wigwam,” a temporary two-story wooden structure located at Market and Lake Streets. The large building held nearly 10,000 people but, following the era’s standard custom, none of the potential candidates, including Lincoln, were in attendance (Northern Illinois University Digital Library)

McLean had a serious drawback—he had celebrated his seventy-fifth birthday in 1860. He was born before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the election of George Washington as the country’s first president. His age was old for the times and, more importantly, McLean had not been in good health. Many doubted he could finish his term, if elected. In fact, he would die on April 3, 1861, less than a month after inauguration day on March 4, 1861, when the next president would take office. No one took McLean’s chances too seriously. Still, 1860 was his best opportunity, given the drive to find a moderate. Lincoln thought he would have been a strong competitor—but for his age.

Lincoln was also viewed as a moderate. While Lincoln had always opposed slavery and thought it a horrible institution, he accepted that under the U.S. Constitution, unless it was amended, the federal government had no right to end slavery where it existed in the South. Lincoln, instead, focused on limiting the expansion of slavery to new territories. Some may have thought Lincoln swung too far to the radical side, with his “house divided” speech.

Delegates began arriving by train at Chicago in early May. The convention would be held at the Great Wigwam, a large indoor facility with stands that had just recently been constructed for thousands of spectators. (It was a regular building, not a wigwam.) The selection of Chicago was a fortunate choice for the dark horse candidate, Lincoln from Illinois.

Rhode Island’s eight delegates began arriving in Chicago as well. The two heads of the Republican Party from Rhode Island were apparently Rowland G. Hazard from Peace Dale, and Rowland R. Hazard from Newport. This can be gleaned from the offices they held. Each state was entitled to one Vice President and one Secretary. Rowland G. Hazard was selected as a Vice President and Rowland R. Hazard as a secretary. Rowland G. Hazard a few times addressed the convention on procedural matters.

Rowland G. Hazard was a wealthy mill factory owner from Peace Dale. His mills used to make “slave cloth,” textiles sold to southern slaveholders to clothe enslaved people on their plantations. But by the mid-1850s as a member of the General Assembly Hazard had come out against slavery in the South and his slave cloth business thereafter had declined. Rowland R. Hazard of Newport was a conservative politician who had resisted efforts to reform Rhode Island’s voting laws to allow more immigrants to vote.

Rhode Island had four delegates, one from each district. They were Benjamin Eames of Providence, Rowland R. Hazard from Newport, Rowland G. Hazard from Peace Dale, and Simon Henry Greene from the village of Phenix in Kent County.

Rhode Island also had four “at large” delegates. They were U.S. Senator James Simmons from Little Compton, Nathaniel B. Durfee from Tiverton, Benedict Lapham from Centreville, and W. H. S. Bayley from Bristol. Most of the delegates were factory owners and other commercially minded men.

Senator Simmons was also a conservative politician. The North Carolina Whig newspaper in Charlotte, North Carolina, in its December 20, 1859, edition, quoted Senator Simmons speaking in the U.S. Senate about John Brown’s raid in Virginia. Brown, who despised slavery and slaveholders, attempted to spark a slave rebellion, but instead he and his cohorts were killed or arrested. Brown was hanged. Simmons said of Brown, “In his crime there was not one quality to redeem it from utter detestation.” Simmons had also helped to swing voters against Seth Padelford in the Rhode Island governor’s race.

I have not been able to determine who led that delegation or who might have dominated it. It appears the delegation was divided, probably along the same lines as in the hotly contested race for governor in the state. On a key procedural vote, the Rhode Island delegates voted 4 for and 4 against.

After all the politicking, on May 18, it came time for all of the delegates to vote for the Republican Party’s nominee for President. The tension in the convention hall was thick. Could William Seward win on the first ballot?

A total of 465 delegates were permitted to vote to nominate a presidential candidate for the Republican Party. It would require a simple majority to win, meaning that the winning candidate had to capture at least 233 votes. The states were called, one by one, from east to west. Maine started the voting, so Rhode Island went shortly thereafter.

The Chairman of the convention called on the state of Rhode Island. The votes of Rhode Island’s delegates were announced: 5 votes for Judge McLean; 1 vote for Edward Bates; 1 for Salmon Chase; and one for John M. Reed, an obscure Senator from Pennsylvania.

Five votes for Judge McLean and none for Abraham Lincoln? Hadn’t Lincoln just two months earlier made a great impression at his two speeches in Providence and Woonsocket? Among all the Republican delegates, in the first round McLean would receive only seven more votes! Rhode Island was his best state! McLean’s home state of Ohio only cast 4 votes for him. How did this happen in Rhode Island?

Clearly, the Rhode Island delegates had soured on Seward. It appears that the delegates who feared selecting too radical a candidate thought that Judge McLean was a safer choice to run for president than Lincoln. They may have been concerned that Lincoln was too anti-slavery. No doubt the Padelford episode in the gubernatorial race had shaken the state’s delegates.

Photograph of Lincoln after winning the nomination as the Republican Party candidate for President, taken on June 3, 1860, by Alexander Hesler in Lincoln’s hometown of Springfield, Illinois (Library of Congress)

Senator James Simmons was not behind the McLean for President bandwagon. A letter in his files held by the Library of Congress, dated June 1, 1860, from a friend, George W. Jackson of Providence, has Jackson saying that he had heard Simmons had been the sole Rhode Island delegate in the first round to vote for Bates.

It remains a mystery who among the Rhode Island delegates was the driving force to make the state the most pro-McLean delegation. It likely was one of the Hazards, but which one is not clear.

Massachusetts delegates went heavy for Seward, 21 for him, 2 for Lincoln, and none for anyone else. Connecticut, with its twelve delegates, looked more like Rhode Island, with 7 votes for Bates and 2 for Lincoln (none for Seward or McLean). Lincoln gave five speeches in Connecticut, but as with Rhode Island, Connecticut had also had statewide elections indicating that its voters had qualms about too radical a candidate. New Hampshire’s delegates were more prescient, casting 7 votes for Lincoln, and 1 each for Seward and Chase. Vermont cast all 10 its votes for a favorite son. As historian Edward Achorn wrote, “Seward, who was expected to be strong in New England, emerged with only thirty-two votes against the other candidates’ forty-nine.” But then New York cast all seventy of its votes for Seward.

Lincoln, waiting for the results downstate at a telegraph office in Springfield, was not displeased at how the first-round of voting transpired. Lincoln cared most that delegates not vote for Seward—and Rhode Island had at least done that.

Seward failed to win a majority of the votes to secure a first-round victory, shocking his supporters. The top two vote-getters after the first round were Seward, with 173 ½ votes, and Lincoln, with 102 votes. Third place was a virtual three-way tie between Chase, Bates, and Governor Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania. Lincoln had more than double their total votes. Lincoln was right where he wanted to be. Seward and his supporters rightfully became concerned.

A second ballot was in the offing. Delegates huddled, conferred, and tried to cajole each other. Cries of “Call the Roll” could be heard in the rafters of the Wigwam.

In the second round of balloting, Rhode Island delegates cast 3 votes for Lincoln, 3 for Chase, and 2 for McLean. These last two voters stuck with McLean, even though his candidacy was clearly a sinking ship. It appears that three delegates looking to support a moderate switched from McLean to Lincoln, who they now recognized had the best chance of winning the nomination among perceived moderates.

Overall, in the second round, Lincoln made impressive gains. Vermont electrified the delegates by shifting all of its votes to Lincoln. Most importantly, Pennsylvania in the first round had voted for a favorite son, Governor Simon Cameron, but in this round the votes were 48 for Lincoln and a mere 2½ for Seward. After completion of the balloting, the top two candidates were Seward with 184½ votes and Lincoln with 181 votes. The delegates were stunned at the movement towards Lincoln. It was neck-and-neck, but the momentum was with Lincoln.

Still, no candidate yet had a majority of the vote, so a third ballot was called. Massachusetts transferred four votes from Seward to Lincoln.

Rhode Island’s delegates finally shifted decisively to Lincoln. They saw who had the momentum and they must have remembered with some appreciation Lincoln’s two recent appearances in the state. The Rhode Island’s third-round vote was 5 for Lincoln, 1 for Seward, 1 for Chase, and 1 for McLean. Rhode Island delegates had finally “read the room.” According to historian Edward Achorn, Rhode Island’s vote put Lincoln “presumably, in the lead.” When Ohio announced its vote, it was 29 votes for Lincoln, 15 for Chase and just 1 for McLean. Lincoln had beat out two Ohio candidates. Seward gained none, a bitter blow for his candidacy.

Other states stayed with Seward, but it was not enough. At the close of the third ballot, Lincoln stood at 231½ votes, just 1½ votes short of a simple majority. Confusion reigned after the third vote tally had been announced. A few minutes later, an Ohio delegate stood up and appealed to the Chairman. He declared, “I rise Mr. Chairman to announce the change of four votes to Ohio from Mr. Chase to Mr. Lincoln.” That gave Lincoln the majority and the stunning victory. A cannon placed on top of the roof of the Wigwam was fired and within the Wigwam there were “vociferous cheers,” hat waving and foot stomping.

Then states began changing their third-round votes in Lincoln’s favor. New Hampshire declared that that all ten of its votes had moved to Lincoln. Next, Benjamin Eames of Providence announced: “Mr. Chairman, I desire to announce that Rhode Island casts 8 votes for Abraham Lincoln!” Loud cheers swept over the room. Rhode Island had finally come through for the Illinois lawyer. Within minutes, Lincoln’s tally had reached 354 votes, more than one hundred votes above the threshold. A large photograph of the Republican Party’s candidate for president was then brought onto the platform where the Chairman spoke and “the audience greeted the sight with rapturous and long continued cheering.”

Back in Rhode Island, upon hearing the news, some Republicans were shocked. James Angell wrote in his memoirs, “we recalled that awkward figure which we had seen in Railroad Hall, and heard the commendations of him as a rail-splitter, and we wondered whether he was to prove the leader we needed for the trying days we were expecting.”  But in a June 1 letter to Senator Simmons, George W. Jackson wrote from Providence, “Our conservative friends here, are all as for I can learn, for Lincoln, and if the doubtful states [that is, the swing states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey] can be secured all is well.”  Jackson’s letter indicates that the conservative wing of the Republican Party in Rhode Island was more conservative than the moderate Lincoln.

In November in the general election, Rhode Island rallied around Lincoln, who won the state by a vote of 12,244 for him to 7,707 for Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. This was an impressive victory considering that the Democrat Party was strong in Rhode Island and the Republican Party was relatively new.  Nationally, Lincoln won enough electoral votes, including all those from the swing states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut, to win the 1860 election.  Lincoln defeated his old rival, Stephen A. Douglas, the Democratic Party’s nominee, as well as a candidate supported by most of the slave states, John C. Breckinridge

Some readers of history, applying modern standards, criticize Lincoln for not announcing his intention to use the power of his presidency to end slavery immediately in the South. But there are serious problems with this view. First, it is applying our modern standards to the viewpoints of the day in 1860, always a troublesome approach when evaluating history. Second, such a position flew in the face of the U.S. Constitution. Third, and most relevant for this article, Lincoln never would have been nominated by the Republican Party if he had taken such a radical stance. He won the nomination because of his anti-slavery, but still perceived moderate, stances.

Lincoln’s views on race would become more progressive as the Civil War dragged on. He was capable of change. And he was willing to move the country forward on race relations—but ever the careful politician, he typically did not want to get too far ahead of the country.

The most radical abolitionists in the pre-war period were the Garrisonians, followers of William Lloyd Garrison of Boston. They wanted to cleanse the evil by expelling the slave states from the Union. What would have happened if that had occurred?  Southern leaders were already talking about annexing Cuba and parts of Central American and making them slave territories. There likely would have been frequent wars between the North and South over western territories. When would slavery had ended in the South? It would have occurred well after 1865, the end of the Civil War. The end of slavery in the South, in any event, likely would have resulted in an apartheid regime even harsher than the horrible Jim Crow regime that dominated the South in post-war years up to the 1950s. During the World War II years, would the South have become an ally of Nazi Germany, given their common views on white racial superiority? If that had occurred, it would have forced the United States to deal with the South before it could address the existential threat posed by Nazi Germany, never mind the threat of the expanding imperialist and warmongering Japanese empire. This is all speculation, but readers, you get the drift. It would not have been good for the North or the cause of freedom to have allowed the South to go its own way in 1860.

Lincoln made two crucial decisions after his nomination and winning the general election. Despite the howls of southern slaveholders and the threats of succession—and even pressure from fellow-Republicans like New York City newspaper editor Horace Greely and, shockingly, even William Seward himself—Lincoln stuck with his position opposing the expansion of slavery into federal territories. He would not fold under the threats of succession by the southern states, as so many Republicans (and Whigs) had before him. Second, Lincoln would not allow the South to secede. He would fight a war to force it back into the Union. The vision of a United States standing together nobly as a beacon of freedom and liberty would not yield to the demands of southern slaveholders.

The delegates at the Republican Party’s 1860 nominating convention did good.

 

Notes on Sources:

 

Rhode Island readers should be impressed that the best, most authoritative, and most recent book on the nomination of Lincoln by the Republican Party in 1860 is authored by Edward Achorn, formerly the long-time chief editor of the editorial page for the Providence Journal. His book is The Lincoln Miracle, Inside the Republican Convention that Changed History (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2023). The book is excellent and is highly recommended. Achorn is now a Lincoln scholar, having previously published the well-received and beautifully written, Every Drop of Blood: The Momentous Second Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2020).

When I first became interested in this topic in 2020, I was surprised at the paucity of books. But I was pleased to find a very good one, which turned out to be authored by a friend of mine, Gary Ecelbarger. His book is The Great Comeback, How Abraham Lincoln Beat the Odds to Win the 1860 Republican Nomination (New York: Thomas Dunn, 2008).

Another good book, and the shortest of the three, is Michael S. Green, Lincoln and the Election of 1860 (Carbondale, IL: Southern University Press, 2011).

For the voting tallies at the 1860 convention, I relied on the above books for overall counts, but I relied on this source for specific state voting, including Rhode Island’s voting and its delegates: Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions of 1856, 1860 and 1864 (Horace Greely, 1803). Here is a link to that book, which was digitized by the Northern Illinois University Digital Library as part of its Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project: https://digital.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-lincoln%3A37432

For Lincoln’s speech at Cooper Union, I relied mostly on Harold Holzer, Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004).

For Lincoln’s two appearances in Rhode Island, and the hotly contested 1860 gubernatorial race, I relied on, and quoted from, Frank J. Williams, “A Candidate Speaks in Rhode Island: Abraham Lincoln Visits Providence and Woonsocket, 1860,” Rhode Island History, vol. 51, no. 4 (November 1993), 107-119. See also Frank Grzyb, “Abraham Lincoln Visits Rhode Island,” The Online Review of Rhode Island History at smallstatebighistory.com at https://smallstatebighistory.com/abraham-lincoln-visits-rhode-island/. Grzyb ends his well-done article: “Today, a statue of President Abraham Lincoln can be seen in Roger Williams Park, Providence. It is the only effigy of Lincoln in the entire state.”

I quote letters from George W. Jackson to U.S. Senator James F. Simmons in the files of James F. Simmons held in the Manuscript Reading Room at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

The best recent book on Lincoln and his views on slavery is Jon Meacham, And There Was Light, Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle (New York: Random House, 2022). Meacham emphasizes the importance of Lincoln’s two key decisions, to stick to his position opposing the expansion of slavery in the territories and to go war against the rebellious South.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention a book by Ted Widmer, who also has strong Rhode Island ties: Lincoln on the Verge: Thirteen Days to Washington (Simon & Schuster, 2020). As with Achorn’s Every Drop of Blood, Widmer’s book is also beautifully written.