Oscar Chamberlain over at the history blog Cliopatria wonders if the United States has ever had something close to the perfect presidential campaign:
My question to you is this: has there ever been in the US something close to the perfect presidential election campaign? My definition of “perfect” echoes our original republicanism. I mean that the candidates were strong, the debate meaningful, and the outcome not too bad.
I'd like to take up the challenge. My choice is a period covering from 1858 to 1860, events that presaged and later took place during the presidential campaign of 1860: Abraham Lincoln versus Stephen Douglas.
Abraham Lincoln was from the "western" state of Illinois and was nominated by the new Republican Party (which replaced the Whig party after their collapse over the slavery issue). In 1846, Lincoln was elected to the House of Representatives as a Whig. He is probably best remembered in this capacity as an antiwar activist. He spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood." He also frequently challenged Polk's claims as to the boundary of Texas. He retired shortly from politics to pursue a career as an attorney in Illinois, but was drawn back into politics after Stephen Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which effectively abolished the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Stephen Douglas, also of Illinois, ran on the Democratic ticket. Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 espoused "popular sovereignty" as a means of removing the slavery issue from national politics. Constructed as an alternative to the more extreme solutions of direct federal control or blanket protection of slavery, the doctrine left the decision to the inhabitants of the territories. He was twice considered for the presidency, once in 1852 and again in 1856. In 1857, Douglas broke with President James Buchanan, leading to a fight for control of the Democratic Party. Some eastern Republicans favored the reelection of Douglas in 1858, since he led the opposition to the administration's push for the Lecompton Constition, which would have admitted Kansas as a slave state. Needless to say, Douglas lost the support of the Southern Democrats but increased his favor in the North.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates, which took place for the Illinois Senate race in 1858, were perhaps the finest example of this oral tradition in American history. This was the democratic process at its finest. The quality of these debates is what is important. Instead of an hour of sound-bite exchanging in an empty studio, Lincoln-Douglas debates were huge public affairs, were extremely detailed, and went on for three hours. Patrick Fairburn notes:
[Lincoln and Douglas] engaged in 7 debates spread over a period of 7 weeks, from August 21, 1858 to October 15, 1858 in these Illinois cities: Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton. Attendance estimates ranged from a low of 1,500 in Jonesboro to a high of 20,000 in Galesburg. The average was about 15,000 very vocal folks at each town. The format never varied. The first speaker spoke for one hour; his opponent for the next 1 ½ hrs; and then the starter finishing up with a half hour.
These are the kind of debates we need today. Given how civic-minded South Dakota is, certainly thousands would show up to the debate like this. When Dakota Fest holds debates at least a thousand people arrive. Why? Because they realize how badly television distorts politics. The great social critic Christopher Lasch, whose final book was entitled The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, wrote in his chapter "The Lost Art of Argument":
The Lincoln-Douglas debates exemplified the oral tradition at its best. By current standards, Lincoln and Douglas broke every rule of political discourse. They subjected their audiences (which were as large as fifteen thousand on one occasion) to a painstaking analysis of complex issues. They spoke with considerably more candor, in a pungent, colloquial, sometimes racy style, than politicians think prudent today. They took clear positions from which it was difficult to retreat. They conducted themselves as if political leadership carried with it an obligation to clarify issues instead of merely getting elected.
These great 19th century traditions were much better for democracy than the image-shaping, television smiles, sound-bites, gimmicks, and gesture politics of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Lincoln went on to win the election, carrying 1,865,908 votes (39.9%), Douglas had 1,380,202 (29.5%), John Breckenridge of the Southern Democrats had 848,019 (18.1%) and John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party had 590,901 (12.5%).
The outcome, in the long term, couldn't have been any better. True, the election of Lincoln was all the South could withstand and they left the Union, leading to the Civil War. But secession had been in the works long before his election. In the long term no one can deny that Lincoln was the perfect choice. Compared to other possible Republican nominees, Lincoln was seen as a moderate. His loyalty to the strength of the Union and the reconstruction of the South after the war (compared to some who wished to see the South implode) certainly shaped our political climate for years to come. His unflinching opposition to slavery led to freedom for slaves. In July 1862 Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act, whose goal was to weaken the rebellion and free slaves not under Union control. This did not abolish the legal institution of slavery (which didn't occur until the 13th Amendment was passed) but did show Lincoln had the support of Congress in liberating the slaves.
The presidential campaign between Lincoln and Douglas exemplifies the near perfect campaign. Both candidates were strong in their own regards, engaged in debates on a level the nation hasn't experienced in some time, and the outcome in both the short- and long-term were exceptional.
UPDATE: Welcome Cliopatria readers! Feel free to drop us an email and weigh in. Also be sure to check out the responses by Prof. Schaff and Prof. Blanchard. I'm working on a reponse to them as well.
Recent Comments