The grievances that led to the War of Independence were directly inflicted on the Northern colonies. The Southern colonies had no serious cause of complaint; but, moved by sympathy for their Northern brethren and devotion to the principles of civil liberty and community independence, they made common cause with their neighbors and did their full share in the war that ensued.
At the close of the war each of the thirteen colonies was acknowledged by Great Britain to be a free and independent State. The Confederation of these States embraced an area so extensive, with climate and products so various, that rivalries and conflicts of interest soon began to be manifested. It required all the power of wisdom and patriotism, animated by the affection engendered by common sufferings and dangers, to keep these rivalries under restraint, and to effect those compromises which it was fondly hoped would insure harmony and union. Inspired by this spirit of patriotism, and confident of the continuance of good-will between the States, Virginia ceded to the confederated States all that vast Northwestern Territory out of which five States and part of a sixth have since been organized. These States increased the preponderance of the Northern section over that of the section which made the gift, and thereby destroyed the equilibrium existing at the close of the War of Independence.
By the operation of the Missouri Compromise, and the appropriation of all land obtained from Mexico, it may be stated, with approximate accuracy, the North monopolized more than three-fourths of all the territory acquired by the United States since the Declaration of Independence.
Nor was this all. By a perversion of the constitutional provision for imposing taxes on imports, the agricultural South was heavily burdened for the benefit of the manufacturing North; while the power of the majority was used to appropriate to the Northern States an unequal share of the public disbursements. These combined causes — more land, more money, more work for special industries — all served to attract immigration to the North, and, with increasing population, the greed grew by what it fed on.
This was clearly shown at the first Republican Convention, held at Chicago, May 16, 1860, to nominate a candidate for the Presidency. It was a purely sectional body. Not a single delegate represented any constituency south of the famous political line of 36° 30’. Contrary to all precedent, both candidates were selected from the North. Mr. Lincoln, the candidate for the Presidency, had publicly announced that the Union “could not permanently remain half slave and half free.” A fictitious issue was presented. The most fanatical foes of the Constitution were satisfied that their ideas would be the rule and guide of the party.
Meanwhile the Democratic Convention, which had met at Charleston on April 23d, had found it impossible to agree on a platform, and hence no nomination was possible. The Convention was adjourned, to reassemble at Baltimore, where, again, the two wings of the party disagreed and held separate Conventions — the conservative (or State-rights) wing nominating John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, then Vice-President of the United States, for President; and Senator Joseph Lane, of Oregon, for Vice-President: and the advocates of the doctrine of “popular sovereignty” nominating Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, for President; and Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, for Vice-President. Still another Convention, held at Baltimore on May 19th, nominated John Bell, of Tennessee, for President, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. This third Convention was composed of delegates from all the States, representing those who still adhered to the Whig party and the “American” organization. It repudiated all sectional and geographical issues, and pledged itself to “maintain, protect, and defend those great principles of public liberty and national safety against all enemies.” It declared it to be the part of patriotism and of duty to recognize no political principle other than the Constitution of the country, the Union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws. It totally ignored the territorial question.
Thus, four distinct parties presented rival tickets and platforms to the people of the United States:
Briefly, the Constitutional-Union, or Bell-Everett, party advocated, in general terms, adherence to the Constitution, the Union, and the enforcement of the laws.
The Democratic-Conservative, or Breckenridge-Lane party asserted the right of a people of a Territory, on emerging from a territorial condition to that of a State, then to determine what should be the nature of their domestic institutions.
The party of popular sovereignty, or Douglas-Johnson party affirmed the right of the people of a Territory, in their territorial condition, to determine their organic institutions, independently of the consent of Congress, and denied the power or duty of Congress to protect the persons or property of minorities in such territories against the action of majorities.
The Republican, or Lincoln-Hamlin party insisted that “slavery can exist only by virtue of municipal law;” that there was no law for it in the Territories, and that “Congress was bound to prohibit it or exclude it from any and every Federal Territory.” In other words, it asserted the right and duty of Congress to exclude the citizens of half the States of the Union from territory belonging in common to all, unless on condition off the abandonment or sacrifice of property distinctly and specifically recognized as such by the compact of Union.
The conservative power of the country was thus divided into three parts, while the aggressive was held in solid column. The result was foreseen by all careful observers, and attempts were made to unite the friends of the Constitution by the withdrawal of two of the candidates, but Mr. Douglas declared that the scheme was impracticable, and declined to cooperate.
The result was the election — by a minority — of a President whose avowed principles were considered fatal to the harmony of the Union. Of the 303 electoral votes, Mr. Lincoln received 180; but of the popular suffrages — 4,676,853 votes, which the electors represented — he received only 1,866,352, or a little over one-third. This discrepancy was owing to the system of casting the State votes as a unit, without regard to the popular majorities. Thus, in New York, the total popular vote was 675,156, of which 362,646 were cast for the Lincoln electors and 312,510 against them. New York was entitled to 35 electoral votes. On the basis of the popular vote, 19 of these would have been cast for Mr. Lincoln and 16 against him. But, under the State unit system, the entire 35 votes were cast for the Republican candidates, thus giving them not only the full strength of the majority, but of the great minority opposed to them also. So of other Northern States, in which the small majorities on one side operated with the weight of entire unanimity; while the virtual unanimity in the Southern States counted nothing more than a mere majority might have done.
The announcement of these results caused the smouldering fire in a majority of the Southern States to burst into flame; but it was still controlled by that love of the Union which the South had illustrated on every battle-field from Boston to Mexico. Few, if any, doubted the right of a State to withdraw its grant delegated to the Federal Government, or, in other words, to secede from the Union; but this was generally regarded as the remedy of the last resort, to be applied only when ruin or dishonor was the alternative. It was still hoped against hope that some adjustment might be made, some means be found to avert the calamities of a practical application of the theory of an “irrepressible conflict.”