---
title: US Presidential Election of 1860: The Election That Caused a Civil War
author: Harrison W. Mark
source: https://www.worldhistory.org/US_Presidential_Election_of_1860/
format: machine-readable-alternate
license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)
updated: 2026-09-04
---

# US Presidential Election of 1860: The Election That Caused a Civil War

_Authored by [Harrison W. Mark](https://www.worldhistory.org/user/harrisonwmark/)_

The election of 1860 was one of the most pivotal moments in the political history of the United States and was one of the direct [causes of the American Civil War](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2880/causes-of-the-american-civil-war/). It came at a point of crisis, as the question of slavery had reached its boiling point – with the nation fiercely divided between the 'free states' of the North and the slavocracies of the South, the election essentially became a referendum on the intertwined issues of slavery and state sovereignty.

It was the second national election to feature the new Republican Party, founded in 1854 on antislavery and pro-Union principles. The rival Democratic Party, broadly representing the principles of "states' rights," found itself fractured, divided on how best to deal with the institution of slavery. Northern Democrats were less rigid in their defense of the 'peculiar institution' and championed the idea of 'popular sovereignty,' which meant that each new state would get to choose for itself whether it wanted slavery or not. Southern Democrats, on the other hand, wanted a stronger proslavery platform and were willing to push secession if they did not get what they wanted. A fourth political party, the Constitutional Union Party, ran on the premise of deferring the slavery issue to the Constitution and keeping things as they were.

In this four-way race, the respective party tickets appeared as follows:

**Republican Party**

- Candidate: [Abraham](https://www.worldhistory.org/Abraham,_the_Patriarch/) Lincoln
- Running Mate: [Hannibal](https://www.worldhistory.org/hannibal/) Hamlin
- Platform: Antislavery, pro-Union

**Northern Democrats**

- Candidate: Stephen A. Douglas
- Running Mate: Herschel V. Johnson
- Platform: Popular sovereignty

**Southern Democrats**

- Candidate: John C. Breckinridge
- Running Mate: Joseph Lane
- Platform: Strongly proslavery

**Constitutional Union**

- Candidate: John Bell
- Running Mate: Edward Everett
- Platform: Preserve the status quo

Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate, won with 40% of the popular vote and 180 electoral votes. His election directly triggered the Secession Crisis that led to the formation of the Confederate States and, ultimately, to the Civil [War](https://www.worldhistory.org/disambiguation/War/).

### Background

In January 1860, as the United States prepared for yet another election year, an uneasy feeling hung over the towns and farms of the countryside, and pervaded the halls of Congress. It was the sense that a crisis was coming, a point of no return. It was the sense that, as one Illinois lawyer had recently put it, "a house divided against itself can not stand," that a nation could not survive being half one thing and half another. It was a sense that this coming election would trigger the looming crisis, an apocalypse that would plunge the nation into chaos and [plague](https://www.worldhistory.org/disambiguation/plague/) it with years of war and pestilence and [death](https://www.worldhistory.org/disambiguation/Death/). That crisis, of course, was the question about the future of slavery.

Since even before the days of the Founding Fathers, the institution of slavery had been a dark and evil stain on a nation that otherwise prided itself on being a beacon of freedom and liberty. Now, however, that stain threatened to spread across the map, blotting the entire West in its inky darkness. In 1860, almost 4 million people – 13% of the entire US population – were enslaved. Although slavery had already ended in much of the North, which relied on 'free' wage labor to stimulate its industrializing [economy](https://www.worldhistory.org/disambiguation/economy/), the slavocracies of the South desperately struggled to keep the institution alive. The agrarian-based society of the Southern states had been planted in the blood-watered soil of slave labor, and many Southerners believed that their 'way of life' would wither and die without slaves. Additionally, the slave-holding aristocracy benefited from a social hierarchy that depended on enslaved people being at the bottom; to lose slavery would be to lose their power.

And so, when the US acquired 525,000 square miles of new territory after the [Mexican-American War](https://www.worldhistory.org/Mexican-American_War/), the slavocracies of the South demanded that their 'peculiar institution' be allowed to expand into these newly conquered lands. They feared that slavery was naturally dying and that the 'free-soil' North would use the power of the federal government to abolish it once and for all; the only way to prevent that was to carve out new 'slave states' from the West, to maintain an equal balance of power in Congress between 'proslavery' and 'antislavery' factions. The expansion of slavery was opposed by Northerners and members of the Whig Party, many of whom hated slavery not for reasons of morality (although many did see slavery as an evil institution) but because they believed the Southern slaveholders were already too powerful and did not wish to see them become more so. Whigs and other free-soilers also believed that slavery was an [archaic](https://www.worldhistory.org/disambiguation/Archaic/) institution standing in the way of [industrialization](https://www.worldhistory.org/disambiguation/Industrialization/) and progress, and that free wage labor was much more practical.

[ ![Map of the United States Under the Compromise of 1850](https://www.worldhistory.org/img/r/p/750x750/20534.png?v=1788391038-1749017107) Map of the United States Under the Compromise of 1850 Simeon Netchev (CC BY-NC-ND) ](https://www.worldhistory.org/image/20534/map-of-the-united-states-under-the-compromise-of-1/ "Map of the United States Under the Compromise of 1850")These opposing ideas about the future of the West quickly led to conflict. Tensions were briefly diffused by the [Compromise of 1850](https://www.worldhistory.org/Compromise_of_1850/). Introduced by senators [Henry Clay](https://www.worldhistory.org/Henry_Clay/) and Stephen A. Douglas, the compromise admitted California into the Union as a 'free state' but strengthened slave laws such as the [Fugitive Slave Act of 1850](https://www.worldhistory.org/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850/). The compromise also introduced the notion of 'popular sovereignty,' meaning the White settlers of the West should be able to decide for themselves whether they wanted slavery or not. The idea of 'popular sovereignty' was championed by Senator Douglas. Known as the 'Little [Giant](https://www.worldhistory.org/Giants/)' for his short stature yet dynamic personality, Douglas hoped that by letting the people decide the fate of slavery, national tensions around the issue would fizzle out and the Union would be saved.

This idea, however, would prove as fanciful as a dream. In 1854, as the Kansas Territory was about to decide whether it would enter the Union as a free or slave state, hundreds of outsiders filtered into the territory to tip the scales one way or another. The next few years were filled with election fraud, gang violence, and even sporadic guerrilla [warfare](https://www.worldhistory.org/warfare/), as proslavery and antislavery settlers fought a proto-civil war with one another. This outburst of violence, known to history as [Bleeding Kansas](https://www.worldhistory.org/Bleeding_Kansas/), was followed in October 1859, when a radical abolitionist named [John Brown](https://www.worldhistory.org/John_Brown/) seized the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Though he was ultimately captured and hanged, [John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry](https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2772/john-browns-raid-on-harpers-ferry/) seemed to portend even worse rounds of violence just over the horizon. All this hung heavy on the minds of American voters as they nervously contemplated going to the polls in the chilly autumn of 1860.

### Republican Convention & the 'Rail Candidate'

On 16 May 1860, the Republican National Convention opened in Chicago, Illinois. Though Chicago was, at the time, a rapidly growing [city](https://www.worldhistory.org/city/) – it was the ninth largest in the country – it was still finding its footing and did not yet have a meeting place large enough to accommodate the convention. To rectify this error, city officials erected a temporary, wood-frame building called 'the Wigwam,' which was large enough to hold over 10,000 people. The Republican Party that gathered in the Wigwam on that warm May day was a new political party, born only six years earlier from the ashes of the old Whig Party. It had been founded on antislavery, pro-Unionist principles and garnered much of its support from the free-soil North. Indeed, when the Republicans adopted their party platform for the upcoming campaign, 10 of the 17 planks dealt with antislavery or pro-Union measures.

[ ![William H. Seward](https://www.worldhistory.org/img/r/p/500x600/22109.jpg?v=1788471822-1788502439) William H. Seward Mathew Brady (Public Domain) ](https://www.worldhistory.org/image/22109/william-h-seward/ "William H. Seward")It made sense, then, that the frontrunner for the party's presidential nomination was a man who had loudly opposed the institution of slavery for his entire career. William H. Seward was a former senator and state governor from New York, and had been a leader of the Republican Party almost since its inception. As governor, he had implemented policies protecting free Blacks and fugitive slaves, and had routinely sided with abolitionists. He had also denounced the South for defending slavery, which he condemned as an immoral and outdated institution that was "incompatible with all…the elements of security, welfare, and greatness of nations" (quoted in McPherson, 39). To many of the most fervent abolitionists in the party, Seward seemed the obvious choice for the nomination.

Seward's outspokenness, though his most obvious strength, was also a weakness. If the Republicans hoped to take the presidency, they would need to win all the free-soil states and, ideally, some of the border slave states too; to accomplish this, they would need someone less fiery, someone more palatable to moderates. As the delegates began to look for other options, a name kept coming up, one that had been relatively unknown prior to the convention. At the time, Abraham Lincoln was a small-town prairie lawyer who had been absent from national politics since he left the US House of Representatives in 1849. Yet, his star was undoubtedly on the rise. Less than two years earlier, he had sparred with Stephen A. Douglas – the likely Democratic candidate – in a series of well-publicized debates. He had also given a speech at Cooper Union in New York City the previous February, in which he had defended the Republican Party from accusations of 'fanaticism' and argued that the Founding Fathers had always meant to restrict slavery.

A charming, well-spoken man, Lincoln seemed like a good option to delegates who opposed slavery but did not want to alienate moderates. Though Lincoln himself was not at the convention – it was still considered unseemly for potential candidates to campaign for themselves – he had sent some of his friends to win over delegates on his behalf. On the night of 17-18 May, Lincoln's allies worked diligently to win over all of the anti-Seward delegates they could. Showing off a log rail that Lincoln had allegedly split as a young man, they presented him as the 'Rail Candidate,' a man of the people. Despite Lincoln's orders to not cut any deals – "*make no contracts that will bind me*" – his friends seem to have offered delegate Simon Cameron a cabinet position in exchange for the support of the Pennsylvania delegation (quoted in Meacham, 185).

[ ![Abraham Lincoln](https://www.worldhistory.org/img/r/p/500x600/16743.jpg?v=1669680559-1670571939) Abraham Lincoln Anthony Berger (Copyright) ](https://www.worldhistory.org/image/16743/abraham-lincoln/ "Abraham Lincoln")On 18 May, the voting began. Seward won the first ballot but did not have enough support to clinch the nomination; Lincoln followed behind in a close second place. The second ballot was a tie between the two, but, on the third ballot, Lincoln overwhelmingly won. Senator Hannibal Hamlin of Maine was chosen as his running mate. It was not until noon that Lincoln, waiting anxiously in his hometown of Springfield, Illinois, received word by telegraph that he had been nominated. His first thought was to let his wife know. "There's a little woman down at our house \[who\] would like to hear this," Lincoln said to the telegraph operator. "I'll go down and tell her" (*ibid*).

### Democratic Split

On 23 April 1860, only a few weeks before the Republicans chose their railsplitting candidate in Chicago, the Democratic Party gathered in Charleston, South Carolina. Even before the delegates had gathered, a thick tension hung in the air. Seeing as the incumbent Democratic president, James Buchanan, had declined to run for a second term, it was likely that Douglas – that Illinois senator who had championed popular sovereignty – would be chosen as the party's nominee. Though Douglas had broad support from the northern wing of the party, Southern Democrats, who believed the 'Little Giant' was too soft on slavery, were determined to block his nomination, at all costs. "This Demagogue of Illinois," one Alabama paper wrote in the days leading up to the convention, "deserves to perish upon the gibbet of Democratic condemnation, and his loathsome carcass to be cast at the gate of the Federal City" (quoted in McPherson, 213).

[ ![Stephen A. Douglas](https://www.worldhistory.org/img/r/p/500x600/20556.png?v=1749139951-1749198961) Stephen A. Douglas Julian Vannerson (Public Domain) ](https://www.worldhistory.org/image/20556/stephen-a-douglas/ "Stephen A. Douglas")Indeed, prior to the official Democratic convention, many delegates from Deep South states had held a caucus of their own, agreeing to push for a hardline, proslavery platform as a way to preclude Douglas from the nomination. Historian James M. McPherson describes the tense feelings that hovered as the convention opened:

> In the fevered atmosphere of 1860, Charleston was the worst possible place for the convention. Douglas delegates felt like aliens in a hostile land. Fire-eating orators held forth outdoors each evening. Inside the convention hall, northerners had a three-fifths majority because delegates were apportioned in the same way as electoral votes rather than by party strength. Douglas's supporters were as determined to block a slave-code plank as southerners were to adopt one. 
> (214)

As soon as the convention began, the radical proslavery faction – known as Fire Eaters – proposed a party platform that would uphold the recent *Dred Scott* Supreme Court decision, which cemented the status of enslaved people as property, and would support the general expansion of slavery. Northern Democrats balked at this idea – the Dred Scott decision was deeply unpopular in the North, and would likely lose them the election. Instead, the Northerners opted for a compromise platform, championing 'popular sovereignty' and the right of the people to decide the fate of slavery for themselves. Outvoted, the Fire Eaters stood their ground – 50 delegates, most of them representing the Deep South, walked out of the convention. William L. Yancey, one of the foremost Fire Eaters, left with the parting words: "ours is the property invaded; ours are the institutions which are at stake; ours is the peace that is to be destroyed…perhaps even now the pen of the historian is nibbed to write the story of a new revolution" (quoted in Meacham, 189).

The abrupt departure of Yancey and the other Fire Eaters meant that the Democratic convention had to adjourn. It met again in Baltimore, Maryland, on 18 June; this time, 110 Southern delegates boycotted and refused to attend. Without the interference of the rabid proslavery Southerners, the convention selected Stephen A. Douglas as its nominee, running him on their compromise platform of popular sovereignty. Meanwhile, the Southern Democrats held their own convention on 11 June, and nominated John C. Breckinridge, the sitting vice president, on the proslavery platform that they had articulated back in Charleston. Much like the country, the Democratic Party was split between North and South, over the issue of slavery. It was a chilling portent of things to come.

[ ![John C. Breckinridge](https://www.worldhistory.org/img/r/p/500x600/22111.jpg?v=1788474215-1788502367) John C. Breckinridge Currier & Ives Lithography Company (Public Domain) ](https://www.worldhistory.org/image/22111/john-c-breckinridge/ "John C. Breckinridge")### Results

As summer turned to autumn, American voters prepared to cast their ballots. In most states, there were four parties to choose from – a fourth party, the Constitutional Union Party, was running John Bell of Tennessee on a platform of preserving things the way they were, of deferring the issue of slavery to the Constitution; their slogan was "The Union as it is, the Constitution as it is." Of the other major candidates, neither Lincoln nor Breckinridge campaigned for themselves, following the old political tradition of hanging back and letting other men speak on their behalf. But Lincoln's personal silence was no reflection on the Republican Party's energy; Republican leaders gave an estimated 50,000 stump speeches across the country, courting the German-American and Northern vote. Douglas, meanwhile, broke with tradition and campaigned for himself, traveling from state to state to promote 'popular sovereignty' as the only way to save the Union. Already ill, this exertion of energy probably contributed to his premature death the following year.

As time wore on, the election became more and more about slavery. Charles Sumner, a prominent Republican senator, had denounced slavery as "barbarous in origin; barbarous in its [law](https://www.worldhistory.org/disambiguation/law/); barbarous in all its pretensions…barbarous wherever it shows itself" (quoted in Meacham, 190). Rhetoric like this convinced many proslavery voters that the Republican Party would abolish slavery should it prove victorious; ten Southern states responded by removing Lincoln's name from the ballot entirely. Indeed, as McPherson notes, the election of 1860 reflected the sectionality of its time, as it "resolved itself in two separate contests: Lincoln vs. Douglas in the North; Breckinridge vs. Bell in the South" (McPherson, 223). The stakes were very high; although Breckinridge himself did not support secession, many of his supporters believed that, if he lost, the only recourse left to them was to leave the Union.

[ ![Map of the United States at the Outbreak of Civil War, 1861](https://www.worldhistory.org/img/r/p/750x750/20390.png?v=1788434602-1784959165-gf8hogu3) Map of the United States at the Outbreak of Civil War, 1861 Simeon Netchev (CC BY-NC-ND) ](https://www.worldhistory.org/image/20390/map-of-the-united-states-at-the-outbreak-of-civil/ "Map of the United States at the Outbreak of Civil War, 1861")On Tuesday, 6 November 1860, Election Day dawned "cool…clear and…fine" (quoted in Meacham, 195). Lincoln spent the day in his offices in Springfield, Illinois, and, at around 3:30 p.m., went out to vote. All through the night, results trickled in by telegraph until it was clear that he had won. Of all the eligible voters in the country, 81.2% had cast a ballot – the largest voter turnout in US history up to that point. 40% had cast their votes for Lincoln; the Republican candidate had won 180 electoral votes as well, and had carried 18 states, all of them Northern. Breckinridge came in second with 72 electoral votes, but only 14.4% of the popular vote – he carried all of the states of the Deep South. Bell came in next with 39 electoral votes, carrying the states of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. And Douglas came in last with only 12 electoral votes, carrying the single state of Missouri.

When Lincoln learned of his victory, his thoughts once again turned to his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, who was still sleeping. He strode to her bedside and woke her with the excited words, "Mary, Mary! We are elected!" (quoted in Meacham, 195). Indeed, it was an election that would shake the United States to its core. Though Lincoln had practically been a political unknown only a few months earlier, his victory heralded a change and meant vastly different things to different people. Abolitionist [Frederick Douglass](https://www.worldhistory.org/Frederick_Douglass/) wrote that Lincoln's victory "must and will be hailed as an anti-slavery [triumph](https://www.worldhistory.org/Roman_Triumph/)," while Southerners denounced the new president-elect as "a relentless, dogged, free soil border ruffian…a vulgar mobocrat and a Southern hater" (quoted in McPherson, 228).

For many Southerners, Lincoln's election was the final straw, proof that they were losing power and influence in the federal government – if they did not act soon, they would lose the institution of slavery forever. And so, a little over a month after the election, on 20 December 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union. It was followed by six others in the course of that winter, and four more the following spring. After years of bitter dispute, the Union had finally been dissolved. The crisis, the apocalypse that many had long dreaded, was here. The [American Civil War](https://www.worldhistory.org/American_Civil_War/) was about to begin.

#### Editorial Review

This human-authored definition has been reviewed by our editorial team before publication to ensure accuracy, reliability and adherence to academic standards in accordance with our [editorial policy](https://www.worldhistory.org/static/editorial-policy/).

## Bibliography

- [Foner, Eric. *Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men.* Oxford University Press, 1995.](https://www.worldhistory.org/books/0195094972/)
- [Goodwin, Doris Kearns. *Team of Rivals.* Simon & Schuster, 2006.](https://www.worldhistory.org/books/0743270754/)
- [McPherson, James M. *Battle Cry of Freedom.* Oxford University Press, 2003.](https://www.worldhistory.org/books/019516895X/)
- [Meacham, Jon. *And There Was Light: Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle.* Random House, 2022.](https://www.worldhistory.org/books/0553393960/)
- [The Election of 1860 | American Battlefield Trust](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/election-1860 "The Election of 1860 | American Battlefield Trust"), accessed 19 Aug 2026.
- [United States presidential election of 1860](https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1860 "United States presidential election of 1860"), accessed 19 Aug 2026.

## About the Author

Harrison Mark is a historical researcher and writer for World History Encyclopedia. He holds degrees in history and political science from SUNY Oswego.
- [Facebook Profile](https://www.facebook.com/harrison.mark.5/)
- [Linkedin Profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/harrison-mark-b56213197/)

## Timeline

- **6 Nov 1860 CE**: The four-way US Presidential Election of 1860; [Abraham](https://www.worldhistory.org/Abraham,_the_Patriarch/) Lincoln is elected as the 16th President of the United States.

## Questions & Answers

### Who won the US presidential election of 1860?
The US presidential election of 1860 was won by Abraham Lincoln. 

### What parties participated in the election of 1860?
The US presidential election of 1860 was a race between four political parties: the Republican Party, the Northern Democrats, the Southern Democrats, and the Constitutional Unionists. 

### Why was the election of 1860 important?
The US presidential election of 1860 was important because it directly led South Carolina to secede from the Union, triggering the American Civil War. 


## External Links

- [Presidential Election of 1860: A Resource Guide: Introduction](https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-election-1860)
- [Digital Collections - Presidential Election of 1860](https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-election-1860/digital-collections)
- [From the Unit "1860 Presidential Election"](https://www.lva.virginia.gov/collections/educator-resources/online-classroom/union-or-secession/units/1860-presidential-election)
- [The Lincoln-Douglas Debates and the Campaign of 1860](https://exhibitions.lib.udel.edu/lincoln-douglas-debates/)

## Cite This Work

### APA
Mark, H. W. (2026, September 04). US Presidential Election of 1860: The Election That Caused a Civil War. *World History Encyclopedia*. [https://www.worldhistory.org/US\_Presidential\_Election\_of\_1860/](https://www.worldhistory.org/US_Presidential_Election_of_1860/)
### Chicago
Mark, Harrison W.. "US Presidential Election of 1860: The Election That Caused a Civil War." *World History Encyclopedia*, September 04, 2026. [https://www.worldhistory.org/US\_Presidential\_Election\_of\_1860/](https://www.worldhistory.org/US_Presidential_Election_of_1860/).
### MLA
Mark, Harrison W.. "US Presidential Election of 1860: The Election That Caused a Civil War." *World History Encyclopedia*, 04 Sep 2026, [https://www.worldhistory.org/US\_Presidential\_Election\_of\_1860/](https://www.worldhistory.org/US_Presidential_Election_of_1860/).

## License & Copyright

Submitted by [Harrison W. Mark](https://www.worldhistory.org/user/harrisonwmark/ "User Page: Harrison W. Mark"), published on 04 September 2026. The copyright holder has published this content under the following license: [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0deed.en). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon a work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. When republishing on the web a hyperlink back to the original content source URL must be included. Please note that content linked from this page may have different licensing terms.