The Patriot Post® · How Many Candidates Are Too Many Candidates?

For those among us who are holding our collective breath and worrying about the outcome of the next presidential election, there have been more tense times in presidential election history. Just recently, a reader asked me if this was the most divisive period in our nation’s history, admitting that he feared for the future of the Republic. My response, as a historian, was two-fold; we as a nation of people have faced severe storms in our past that threatened to destroy our constitutional foundation, and we have thus far always found a way to come back together, even if it was an uneasy reconciliation for a period of time.

What was I thinking about when I answered that question? The forces that divided our people in the decades prior to the 1860 presidential election and the subsequent conflict split the country into two warring factions was my first thought. There have been other tense times, but the United States Civil War and its final flashpoint, the election of 1860, rise high on the landscape of our history.

So, once the Democratic Party chose to ignore James Buchanan, the incumbent candidate, it began to search wildly for the appropriate candidate to unite the party, which was facing an identity crisis of its own. Who could possibly cement a voting block that contained Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats? No easy answer surfaced.

Who were the most viable candidates? Maybe that’s not the best question. Who could garner support among party members? Better question but still no easy answer, and ultimately, the three candidates that courted the Democratic Party loyal voters would represent very divergent platforms.

The Democratic Party delegates met on April 23, 1860, in Charleston, South Carolina — not exactly a neutral spot for a debate about states’ rights and slavery — and attempted to fashion a campaign platform and choose an electable candidate. The storm began…

Stephen A. Douglas, the “Little Giant” senator from Illinois, emerged as the frontrunner; he had served as a vocal member of the U. S. Senate since 1847 and was known as an outstanding orator. He was seen as a leader who could build a coalition for legislative success as he had done with the Compromise of 1850, but then he had lessened his effectiveness by helping draft and promote the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The nation had been further divided on the issue of slavery by the mad rush to Kansas and the issue of popular sovereignty. Many Democrats blamed him for the rise of the opposition, the Republican Party, and Douglas faced a somewhat hostile audience in Charleston.

When the convention ended without a nominee — Southern Democrats staged an elaborate walkout protest over platform statements — the party was stunned.

A second attempt to bring the factions together was held in Baltimore two months later. While another walkout occurred, enough delegates remained to nominate Douglas and a compromise vice-presidential running mate, Georgia Governor Herschel Johnson.

Had the Democrats united? NO!

The Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky. Breckenridge was the grandson of a U.S. senator who had then served as U.S. attorney general in the Jefferson administration and a father who had been prominent in Kentucky political movements. A graduate of Centre College, an attorney who had studied at Princeton, and a veteran of the Mexican War, Breckenridge had been elected to the U.S. House and Senate, and, in 1856, as the youngest vice president in national history when he shared the Democratic Party’s ticket with James Buchanan. He was acclaimed as the most handsome man in the nation, an outstanding orator who rivaled Douglas, and a “fair man” who had presided over the Senate during perhaps the four most contentious years in history.

Sounds like the perfect candidate, right? NO!

The other wing of the Democratic Party made its own stand. The Constitutional Union Democrats — an interesting mixture of unhappy Democrats looking for a niche where their voices would be heard, Unionists, and some Whigs still searching for a home — nominated Tennessean John Bell for president and selected former Harvard President Edward Everett as his VP running mate. The Constitutional Unionists proclaimed that they stood “on the law” and were devoted to the Constitution, thus their name. Bell attempted to still the question of slavery by promoting the “legal” extension of the Missouri Compromise line to California. After all, he was a slaveholding planter and believed that he was protected by the Constitution and subsequent legislation.

Would the Constitutional Unionists gather all Democrats into their tent with a moderate platform? Probably not.

Next week, we’ll scan the horizon for the Republican Party’s response and then delve into election results.

It’s going to be exciting.