Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

In Chapter 5, Kearns Goodwin delves into the political and social landscape in the 1850s. It was a time of unprecedented citizen participation, in which politics was a “consuming issue” and nearly three-quarters of the population voted in presidential elections (140). The growth of newspapers and the expansion of railroads both unified the nation in their collective fascination with public issues and divided it on those very issues. Kearns Goodwin contends, “The chronicle of the 1850s is, at bottom, a narrative of the increasing strain placed upon these cords [that tied the Union], their gradual fraying, and their final rupture” (142).

Slavery was at the top of the list of divisive issues. The Missouri Compromise, which had served as “temporary solution” to the divided opinions on slavery, was strained to the breaking point by the expansion of territory as a result of the Mexican-American War. Although the North and South argued over other issues, those issues could be resolved through “political accommodation” in a way that slavery could not (142). As a result:

The spiritual cords of union—the great religious denominations—[...] fractured along sectional lines. The national political parties, the political cords of union, would be next, splintered in the struggle between those who wished to extend slavery and those who resisted its expansion. (142)

Henry Clay, who had authored the Missouri Compromise, took the lead in attempting a new compromise as the newly acquired territories formed into states. Clay’s proposal, which garnered the support of his fellows John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster, heavily favored the slave-owning South. Seward, in his first address to the Senate, opposed the compromise, arguing for a “higher law” doctrine in which slavery was incompatible not only with the Constitution but with “the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe” (146). Chase, who had a national reputation for his antislavery stance, had the unfortunate luck to follow Seward’s well-received speech, and thus Seward was thrust ahead of Chase as the Senate’s leading voice against slavery. Bates supported the compromise and condemned Seward’s call to answer to a “higher law.”

Seward’s and the antislavery movement’s moment in the sun were short-lived. When Taylor passed away from pneumonia, the conservative Millard Fillmore ascended to the presidency, and Clay’s Compromise of 1850 was passed into law.

The political question of slavery heated up again when Kansas and Nebraska sought territorial status. Douglas proposed allowing the new territories to determine for themselves the status of slavery within their borders. Both Kansas and Nebraska, however, were north of the Missouri Compromise line; allowing them to self-determine on the issue of slavery meant voiding the Missouri Compromise.

With the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, antislavery Northerners were “stirred into action,” while pro-slavery Southerners were “equally aroused” (161). Chase took the lead in opposing the legislation. He co-authored an open appeal, published in an abolitionist newspaper and reprinted as a pamphlet, that called on citizens to “protest by any means available” (162). The Kansas-Nebraska Act passed in the Senate, but it was met by mass protests in the North, as well as resolutions against it in seven states.

Lincoln, having returned to his law practice, “rode the legal circuit,” where he practiced his oratorical skills during mealtime speeches and debates with other lawyers. Moreover:

these travels provided the chance to walk the streets in dozens of small towns, eat at local taverns in remote corners of the state, and gain a first-hand knowledge of the desires, fears, and hopes of thousands of ordinary people in Illinois—the people who would become his loyal base of support in the years ahead (153).

Lincoln was on the circuit when the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed. The legislation “roused him as he had never been before. It permanently recast his views on slavery” (164). While he previously had believed that slavery would eventually die out on its own, he now knew that it would require government intervention. On October 4, 1854, at the Illinois state fair, Lincoln delivered his first major speech against slavery. 

The fight against the Kansas-Nebraska Act revived Lincoln’s political aspirations. In 1955, he was elected to the Illinois State Assembly and was widely credited with ushering into power a “loose coalition” of antislavery Whigs and independent Democrats (170). He then declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate and became the favorite among those opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The antislavery coalition, however, failed to hold together when it came time to select a senator. Five antislavery Democrats, led by Norman Judd, refused to vote for Lincoln because he was a Whig. Rather than lose the seat to a pro-slavery Douglas Democrat, Lincoln withdrew from the contest and threw his support behind antislavery Democrat Lyman Trumbull, who then won the seat. Although Lincoln lost the Senate race, he gained allies who would play important roles in his future presidential bid.

Lincoln’s Senate race was a microcosm of political shifts on the national level as the major parties fractured and reformed, and new coalitions emerged, in response to the slavery issue. The Whigs eventually broke apart, while the Democrats became dominated by pro-slavery Southerners.  

A new party, the Know Nothings, emerged in response to increased immigration in the 1840s and 1850s; they sought to prevent new immigrants from becoming citizens. Although the party also split on the issue of slavery and soon collapsed, “the nativist feelings that had fueled its birth would continue to influence the political climate” (181).

Antislavery advocates—“conscience Whigs, independent Democrats, and antislavery Know Nothings”—formed another new party, which in 1854 was named the Republican Party (181). Lincoln and Seward both initially were reluctant to join the new party, but Chase “was ready to commit himself wholeheartedly to the task of forging a new party under the Republican banner” (181); upon winning his race for governor of Ohio, he became the first Republican governor of a major state. Seward, who was elected to a second term in the Senate by an antislavery coalition in the New York legislature, joined the Republican Party after his re-election. In 1855, under the leadership of Seward ally Thurlow Weed, the remnants of the Whigs in New York officially joined with the Republicans.

The issue of slavery divided not just divide political parties, but also the nation, sometimes leading to violent conflicts, including one on the floor of U.S. Senate. After Senator Charles Sumner delivered an “incendiary” speech against slavery, in which he lobbed personal attacks against Stephen Douglas and Andrew Butler, Congressman Preston Brooks used his cane to “savagely bludgeon” Sumner (184). Sumner became a hero for the antislavery North, while Brooks “was equally lionized” by the pro-slavery South (185).

Amid the turmoil over the Brooks-Sumner affair, Lincoln held a state convention for the various antislavery factions in Illinois with the intent to organize them into the Republican Party. The convention was a great success: “Every faction seemed willing to concede something to create a party that all could stand behind” (185). Lincoln delivered a forceful speech that made him the leader of the Illinois Republican Party and stirred talk of a presidential run.

In 1956, the Republican Party held its first national convention in Philadelphia. Although Seward and Chase both sought the nomination, the party nominated the “celebrated explorer” John Charles Frémont as its first candidate for president. Frémont lost the election to Democrat James Buchanan.

Lincoln did not attend the convention, but he still came in second in the voting for the vice president nomination. Bates, meanwhile, remained loyal to the Whigs and presided over their 1956 convention, at which they nominated Millard Filmore for president under the banner of the American Party.

At the same time that the parties were picking their nominees for president, the Supreme Court was considering the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which Scott, a slave, was suing for his freedom on the grounds that his master had taken him to live in the free state of Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory. The court ultimately decided that black people “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution” (189). Scott, therefore, did not have standing to sue in a federal court, and the case was dismissed. In reading out the decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney went further to argue that black people had no rights under the Constitution and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because slaves were private property protected by the Constitution.

Both Lincoln and Seward condemned the decision. In the Senate, Seward accused Buchanan of conspiring with the Supreme Court. The charge led Buchanan to ban Seward from the White House. Seward later delivered another fiery antislavery speech that many in the South interpreted as an intent to abolish slavery throughout the nation, despite Seward’s assertions that ending slavery in slave-owning states was “beyond the reach of national power” (192). While his speeches against slavery were seen as radical, Seward still saw himself as a moderate politician.

Lincoln decided to run for the U.S. Senate again, this time as the Illinois Republican Party candidate against Democrat Stephen Douglas. Lincoln was officially nominated by the Republican Party for the U.S. Senate seat in 1858. In his acceptance speech, Lincoln famously declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (198). He argued that the nation could not continue as “half slave and half free,” stating that “it will become all one thing, or all the other” (198). Moreover, like Seward, Lincoln accused the Democrats of conspiring to subvert the Constitution by aligning the supposedly independent branches of government. Lincoln specifically named Stephen Douglas, Franklin Pierce, Roger Taney, and James Buchanan as co-conspirators.

As Kearns Goodwin notes, “So the stage was set for a titanic battle, arguable the most famous Senate fight in American history, a clash that would make Lincoln a national figure and propel him to the presidency” (200). Lincoln and Douglas took part in seven debates, attended by tens of thousands of people, following a format that today is known as a Lincoln-Douglas debate. The debates largely centered on the men’s differing interpretations of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln focused on the Declaration’s proclamation that “all men are created equal,” whereas Douglas emphasized the right to self-government.

Lincoln, however, tempered his stance on equality to argue that although he believed that black people were entitled to “all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,” they were “not my equal in many respects,” and he opposed allowing black people to vote, serve as jurors, hold office, or marry white people (204). Seward and Chase were more progressive on the race issue; both argued for removing the Black Laws in their states, and Seward supported black suffrage. Yet they also stopped short of declaring that black people were equal to white people.

Lincoln ultimately lost the race: “Though the Republicans had won the popular vote, the Democrats had retained control of the state legislature,” which would appoint Douglas to the U.S. Senate (209). Lincoln’s disappointment, however, was offset somewhat by his victory in the popular vote.