1857–1861: The South Prepares to Secede

The 1850s were violent and tension-filled years in the United States, as arguments about slavery and states' rights exploded all over the country. Despite all the efforts of many lawmakers, the hostility between the North and the South seemed to increase with each passing month. A number of events in the early and mid-1850s contributed to this deterioration in relations between the two sides, from the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin to the bloody battle for control of Kansas. But the blows that finally broke the Union in two took place in the final years of that decade, as the North and the South finally saw that their vastly different views of slavery would never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. "There were serious differences between the sections," wrote Bruce Catton in The Civil War, "[but] all of them except slavery could have been settled through the democratic process. Slavery poisoned the whole situation. It was the issue that could not be compromised, the issue that made men so angry they did not want to compromise."

Dred Scott's bid for freedom

One of the most important legal decisions in American history took place in 1857, when the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether a slave named Dred Scott (c. 1795–1858) should be granted his freedom. The Court's ruling against Scott further increased the hostility and distrust between America's Northern and Southern regions, in part because it suggested that slavery could be legally instituted anywhere in the country.

Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who had been the property of an Army surgeon named John Emerson. In 1846 Emerson died, and ownership of Scott was passed along to the surgeon's widow. Scott subsequently attempted to purchase freedom for himself and his wife, Henrietta, but Emerson's widow refused to set them free. Scott then filed a lawsuit against the widow, claiming that he should be given his freedom because he had spent large periods of time with Emerson in areas of the country where slavery was banned.

Scott's lawsuit traveled through the American court system for the next eleven years. By the time his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, the slave had actually been purchased by a man named John F. A. Sanford. Scott's case thus became known as Dred Scott v. Sandford in the courts (official Supreme Court records misspelled Sanford's last name).

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1777–1864) announced the court's decision on Scott's lawsuit. Led by five justices who were Southerners, a majority of the nine-person court ruled against Scott. They declared that no black man could ever become a U.S. citizen, even if he was a free person. Since only citizens were allowed to sue in federal court, the Court decided that Scott had no legal right to file his lawsuit in the first place.

Taney also said that the federal government did not have the right to outlaw slavery in any U.S. territories. He claimed that laws banning slavery were unconstitutional (went against the principles outlined in the U.S. Constitution) because they deprived slaveholders of property. He also stated that slaveholders could legally transport their slaves anywhere in the country since slaves were considered property.

Antislavery organizations in the North saw the verdict as a horrible one that opened the door to slavery throughout the United States. Public criticism of the Supreme Court reached heights that had never been seen before. Northern newspapers denounced the decision as a "wicked and false judgement" and claimed that "if people obey this decision, they disobey God." Many Northerners also saw the Court's decision as proof of a "great slave conspiracy" designed to spread the institution of slavery into free states as well as the disputed Western territories. After all, the ruling made it theoretically possible for slaveholders to move permanently into a free state without ever releasing their slaves from captivity. Many people worried that the Court's decision meant that each Northern state might be powerless to prevent slavery from being practiced within its borders.

Southerners, on the other hand, were overjoyed by the Supreme Court's decision. For years, outsiders from the North had been demanding major changes in the Southern economy and social system. But with the Dred Scott decision, whites in the South thought that they finally had a way to halt the flood of criticism that had been directed at them ever since the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820. As one newspaper in the South happily noted, "The Southern opinion upon the subject of Southern slavery . . . is now the supreme law of the land."

Ultimately, though, the Dred Scott case ended up hurting the South in a couple of major ways. First, the abolitionist movement attracted thousands of new supporters as people became convinced that the Supreme Court's ruling paved the way for future legalization of slavery across the nation. Second, the Dred Scott decision served to further divide the Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic Party. Even as proslavery Democrats in the South celebrated their triumph in the federal courts, more observant members of the party in both the North and the South began to recognize that the slavery issue was threatening to tear the party in two. And if that happened, the antislavery Republicans might be able to take control of the White House in the next presidential elections.

Finally, the Dred Scott decision put the proslavery South in an awkward position. For years, Southerners had insisted that the slavery question in each territory and state should be decided only by the people who lived in that territory or state. This concept of states' rights, sometimes called "popular sovereignty," was based on the idea that the people of each state or territory should not be bound by federal laws concerning slavery. But when Taney stated that federal law actually protected the rights of slaveholders, the theory of popular sovereignty became a threat to the South. In the wake of Dred Scott v. Sandford, slaveholders worried that abolitionists in antislavery states or territories might use the notion of popular sovereignty to challenge the Supreme Court ruling.

As reaction to the 1857 Dred Scott verdict swept through American cities, towns, and countrysides like a wildfire, Scott himself, whose lawsuit had sparked the whole controversy, quietly faded out of public view. He and his wife were released from slavery soon after the Court's ruling, but his emancipation was short-lived. Scott died in 1858, after enjoying only a few months of freedom.

North-South tensions grow

By 1858, the sectional rivalry in America had become incredibly bitter and hateful. But although both the South and the North were exhausted by their constant battles over slavery, many Southerners felt that the momentum was finally shifting their way. After all, the Supreme Court had supported their stand on slavery with its Dred Scott decision. In addition, an 1857 financial panic that slammed the industrialized North passed over the agricultural South, doing little damage to its cotton-based economy. Murmurs in support of secession (the South leaving the Union) still rippled through Southern legislatures and plantation houses, but most Southerners were willing to wait and see if the North might finally give up on its stubborn pursuit of emancipation for blacks.

In the North, on the other hand, the free states were struggling on several fronts. The so-called "Panic of 1857" caused a severe business depression throughout the North. This in turn led Northern political leaders to call for higher tariffs (governmentimposed payments) on imported goods and a homestead act that would encourage development of the western territories. But these efforts to reenergize Northern businesses were not popular in the South, and they were stopped by Southern lawmakers and President James Buchanan (1791–1868), a Pennsylvania Democrat who was friendly to the South.

Adding to these economic worries, the South's ongoing defense of slavery in America continued to anger Northerners. The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford had thrown the entire region into an uproar, and as the 1858 elections approached, the subject that had frustrated Americans for so many years emerged as a major campaign issue in the Northern states. In fact, the subject of slavery in America became the central issue in one of the most famous political contests in U.S. history: the 1858 Illinois senatorial campaign between incumbent (currently in office) Democrat Stephen A. Douglas (1813–1861) and a tall, largely unknown lawyer named Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865).

Lincoln challenges Douglas

Douglas was a powerful politician who had long dreamed of becoming president of the United States. Sometimes he was called the "Little Giant" in recognition of his small size and his big influence in the Senate. Douglas was a leading supporter of the idea of popular sovereignty, which stated that each western territory had the right to decide about slavery for itself. This position had made him very popular in the South and in his home state of Illinois, which had a large population of white Southerners who had emigrated (moved away) from slave states. But in his 1858 reelection campaign, Senator Douglas ran into an opponent who took full advantage of Northern antislavery sentiment and the dispute over the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision.

Douglas's challenger was Republican Abraham Lincoln, who quickly caught the attention of Illinois citizens with a campaign that called for a strong federal government, preservation of the Union, and policies that would limit slavery to the South and prevent it from spreading into America's western territories. Lincoln believed that the United States could not continue to exist as a country if its Northern and Southern halves maintained their current differences on slavery. "A house divided against itself cannot stand," Lincoln said. "I believe that this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

But while Lincoln was certain that the nation's treatment of slavery had to change, he also recognized that the issue was a very difficult one for the United States to handle. Lincoln strongly believed that slavery was an immoral institution. But he also thought that blacks were inferior to whites, and that the U.S. Constitution provided some legal protection to slaveholders. His conflicted feelings on the subject—as well as his fierce desire to keep America united—convinced him to adopt a moderate position on slavery. He strongly opposed Southern calls for the unchecked expansion of slavery into the American West, for instance. But unlike some other Northern leaders, Lincoln also opposed calls for the immediate abolishment of slavery in the American South. Instead, Lincoln concentrated on stopping slavery from spreading elsewhere in the country. He believed that if slavery was limited to the South, it would eventually die out as a result of changing economic and social trends.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates

As the 1858 Senate contest between Douglas and Lincoln progressed, it quickly drew the attention of people all around Illinois and the nation. This spotlight fell on the two men for several reasons. Both men were energetic campaigners who roamed all across the state to win people to their side. Moreover, most observers agreed that the race was a close one, and that either man might win. But the Douglas-Lincoln contest became most famous because it included a series of heated public debates that caught the imagination of people all across America. Each one of the seven face-to-face debates was held in a different Illinois town, but all of them focused almost entirely on the issue of slavery. "Until then candidates for northern office had usually avoided discussing slavery," wrote Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, author of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. "During the Lincoln-Douglas contest, it was the issue. No one talked much about anything else."

As the campaign progressed, Douglas repeatedly defended his belief in the concept of popular sovereignty, even though many people thought that the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott decision meant that no legal steps could be taken to halt the spread of slavery. In a debate in Freeport, Illinois, the senator explained that American territories that did not want to have slavery could simply refuse to pass any laws that were required for slavery to exist. Lincoln ridiculed this argument, which came to be known as the Freeport Doctrine, and emphasized his own belief that the continued practice of slavery in the United States ignored American ideals of liberty and freedom. He also charged that if men like Douglas continued to lead the country, slavery would spread all across the American West and North.

Douglas, though, continued to claim that individual states' rights should be considered above all other factors. "[Lincoln] says that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished everywhere," Douglas said in one debate. "I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. . . . I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do for all the Negros in Christendom." Douglas also appealed to the racist feelings that dominated many white Illinois communities. He repeatedly accused Lincoln of being a dangerous extremist who thought that blacks were just as good as whites, and many of Douglas's speeches capitalized on common white fears that freed black men might take their jobs and women. Lincoln sometimes responded to these remarks with statements that made it clear that he was not supporting total equality between the races. "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," Lincoln stated in one debate. "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people." Despite these beliefs, however, Lincoln never wavered from his conviction that all black people deserved release from enslavement.

Both Lincoln and Douglas sometimes resorted to name-calling and misleading statements in their campaigns. But the Lincoln-Douglas debates ultimately revealed two men who were both concerned about the preservation of the Union. They just had different beliefs about the course that should be taken to keep the North and the South together. Douglas sincerely believed that the Union could be preserved only if the federal government let each state decide how to handle slavery by itself. Lincoln, on the other hand, was equally convinced that slavery was poisoning the country and that it had to be stopped and eventually wiped out.

In the end, Douglas barely defeated Lincoln to retain his Senate seat. But their contest—and especially their debates, which riveted the nation—would have a lasting impact on their political fortunes. Douglas, for example, had been a long-time ally of the South because of his support for states' rights. But his opposition to the Lecompton Constitution (proslavery leaders' attempt to add Kansas to the Union as a slave state) and his support for the so-called Freeport Doctrine dramatically reduced his popularity in the slaveholding states in the late 1850s. This change would come back to haunt him during the 1860 elections, when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Lincoln's performance during the 1858 campaign, meanwhile, had transformed him into one of the rising stars in the Republican Party. Even though he lost to Douglas, his campaign vaulted him onto the national political scene. As the months passed by, he began to be mentioned as a possible Republican candidate for the upcoming 1860 presidential elections.

John Brown leads the raid at Harpers Ferry

In 1859, relations between the North and the South continued to deteriorate. Resentment of the North reached an all-time high in white communities throughout the South. Weary of Northern criticism of their morals, Southern whites also worried that antislavery feelings in the North were growing so strong that the federal government might soon force the South to abolish slavery against its will. In the North, meanwhile, anger at the South's continued defense of slavery and its occasional threats to secede was widespread. As people all around the country struggled to control their anger and frustration, it did not seem as if relations between America's Northern and Southern sections could get any more strained. But in October 1859, the activities of a radical abolitionist named John Brown (1800–1859) managed to worsen an already hostile and distrustful environment.

John Brown was a deeply religious man who viewed slavery as an evil institution that should be immediately abolished. A white Northerner, he allied himself with the abolitionists during the 1830s and 1840s. Brown's willingness to use violence in the antislavery cause, however, did not become evident until the mid-1850s, when he joined the abolitionist settlers who were trying to establish Kansas as a free state. Four days after proslavery raiders attacked the abolitionist town of Lawrence, Brown and four of his sons slaughtered five proslavery settlers in revenge, even though they had not been involved in the raid.

By the late 1850s, Brown had decided that Southern whites would never willingly abolish slavery. Convinced that the only way to end slavery was through force, he made plans to start a violent slave rebellion all across the South. Aided by a group of Northern abolitionists that came to be known as the Secret Six, Brown decided to attack a federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now part of West Virginia). He believed that he could use the weapons stored in the armory to outfit nearby slaves, and convinced himself that once the uprising started, slaves all across the South would join the rebellion.

The first part of Brown's scheme unfolded according to plan. Leading a band of twenty-two men—black and white—the radical abolitionist successfully captured the Harpers Ferry armory on the night of October 16, 1859. But as the evening wore on, it became clear that Brown's plan was flawed. Slaves in the area were unsure about what was going on, and they elected not to join Brown. In addition, white citizens of Harpers Ferry managed to surround the raiding party's position, and by the next day, Brown and his men were trapped.

Brown refused to surrender. But on October 18, a company of marines commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee (1807–1870) captured the abolitionist and his crew after a brief but bloody battle. Brown and the remnants of his band were led away, leaving behind several dead civilians, including the mayor of Harpers Ferry, and ten dead abolitionists. Brown and seven of his men were subsequently convicted of murder, treason, and inciting a slave insurrection, and they were all executed. But Brown remained defiant during and after his trial. "This Court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God," he proclaimed after being sentenced to hang. "I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done in behalf of His despised poor, is no wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further . . . with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I say let it be done."

Brown's death further divides America

Brown's actions at Harpers Ferry—and his execution a few weeks later—had a major impact on communities all across America. In the North, reaction was mixed. Many people criticized Brown's violent methods, and most Northern lawmakers agreed with Senator William Seward (1801–1872) of New York, who called the abolitionist's execution "necessary and just." But many other Northerners saw Brown as a heroic figure who was willing to die for his beliefs. A number of Northern communities tolled church bells on the day of his hanging as a way of saluting his efforts. Many abolitionists throughout the North praised him for his bravery and his hatred of slavery. Writer Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862), for instance, spoke for many Northerners when he called Brown "a crucified hero" and an "angel of light."

In the South, on the other hand, Brown's raid cause a wild ripple of fear and hysteria throughout white communities. Even though Brown had been unable to rally a single slave to his side, whites still remembered the bloody slave rebellion of 1831 led by Nat Turner (1800–1831). Many of them became convinced that antislavery forces in the North were willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Southern whites in their zeal to end slavery. The reaction to Brown's execution in some parts of the North further increased Southern anger and fear. To many whites in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and other slave states, the Northern threat to their way of life had never seemed more real or immediate.

The 1860 presidential campaign

The 1860 campaign for the presidency of the United States was waged under a dark cloud of anxiety and fear. Some Southern politicians and newspaper editors warned that the region was prepared to secede from the Union if an antislavery politician was elected president. Northern reaction to this threat was mixed. Some people thought that threats of secession were just words designed to scare Northern leaders into abandoning abolitionist positions. Others recognized that the South's threats needed to be taken seriously, but continued to maintain their belief that slavery had to be stopped. It was in this environment that America's major political parties selected their candidates for the 1860 election.

The Republican Party knew that it would not get any votes in the South because of its reputation as a party devoted to a strong central government and antislavery positions. But the Republican leaders believed that their candidate might still win the election if he could make a good showing in the more populous North. (Since more people lived in the North than in the South, the Northern states also had more votes in the electoral college, the institution that determines who the nation's next president will be). With these factors in mind, the Republicans chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate. They believed that Lincoln's moderate reputation and the party's pro-business and antislavery positions would attract a wide range of voters in the North.

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, had a terrible time deciding who its nominee would be. In April 1860, when the party's leaders gathered to reach agreement on its presidential candidate and its major campaign issues, the Democrats stood as the only political party in America with a national base of support. It remained powerful in the North—although the Republicans were gaining in popularity—and it dominated politics in the South because of the proslavery positions of Southern Democrats.

But as the Democratic convention got underway, it became clear that the divide between the party's Northern and Southern wings had become a serious one. As soon as the convention opened, a radical faction of proslavery Southerners insisted that the party support the passage of a "slave code" that would legally protect slavery in all the western territories. When Northern Democrats refused to go along with this demand because of its certain unpopularity in their home states, a large group of radical proslavery Southerners—sometimes known as "Fire-Eaters"—walked out of the convention in protest. Two months later, a second Democratic convention was held, but it, too, ended in failure, as the two sides bickered over the slave code idea.

In the end, the Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic Party could not agree on the slavery issue, and they ended up nominating two different candidates for president. The Northern wing nominated Stephen Douglas, the Illinois senator who had defeated Lincoln in the 1858 Senate elections. Douglas was a strong candidate in the North, but he was no longer popular in the South because of his opposition to the Lecompton Constitution and his support of popular sovereignty, which Southern leaders now opposed. Dissatisfied with Douglas, the Southern wing of the Democratic Party decided to nominate Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875), a proslavery Kentuckian. This decision to nominate a second candidate shattered the party in two and dramatically increased Lincoln's chances of victory.

Finally, a fourth candidate for the office of the presidency emerged in May 1860, when a group of politicians from the former Whig Party formed the Constitutional Union Party. This group said that it was dedicated to upholding the U.S. Constitution. But the party refused to take a clear stand on slavery and other issues, and its presidential candidate, John Bell (1797–1869) of Tennessee, looked unlikely to gather much support in the North or the Deep South.

Lincoln wins the election

In the weeks leading up to the November election, anxiety about the outcome was evident all over the country. All of the competing parties waged nasty campaigns, heaping abuse on other candidates and warning of terrible consequences if their candidate did not win the election. The most serious of these warnings was voiced in America's Southern states. All across the South, people grumbled that if Lincoln was elected, then they would have no choice but to secede.

Lincoln knew how unpopular he was in the South, so he did not even bother campaigning there. Instead, he concentrated on beating Douglas in the North, where most of the nation's voting population—and most of America's electoral votes—were located. He knew that if he was victorious in the North, he would have enough electoral votes to secure the presidency, no matter what happened in the South.

Despite widespread warnings of secession from the South, Lincoln was indeed victorious. He received only 40 percent of the popular vote (the actual number of citizens who cast ballots) in the United States, and his name was not even included on the ballot in ten Southern states. But he carried the entire North, capturing 54 percent of the region's popular vote and all of its electoral votes. Most of the South went with Breckinridge, but he was shut out in the North. Three other Southern states sided with Bell, but he too was unable to collect any support in the Northern states. Douglas, who only two years earlier had defeated Lincoln in their famous Illinois Senate race, ended up with 1.3 million popular votes, second only to Lincoln's total of 1.8 million votes. He was the only candidate who received significant support in all parts of the country. But the "Little Giant" only won two states outright (Missouri and New Jersey), as his continued support of popular sovereignty made him an unsatisfactory choice to radicals on both sides of the slavery issue. A majority of Northern voters had decided that his views were too friendly to slaveholders. At the same time, most Southern voters had reached the conclusion that Douglas would not fight to extend slavery into America's western territories.

South Carolina secedes, other Southern states follow

On November 6, 1860, Lincoln was formally recognized as the winner of the election, and the American South erupted in anger and despair. Many white Southerners believed that Lincoln's election meant that a final Northern push to abolish slavery throughout the United States was just around the corner. Countless furious speeches and editorials reflected the Southern certainty that the "Yankees," as the Northerners were sometimes called, would soon begin the process of reshaping Southern society without regard for the feelings of its white citizenry. The New Orleans Daily Crescent, for example, charged that the Republican Party's primary goal was to establish "absolute tyranny over the slaveholding States," and bring about "subjugation [the conquering] of the South and the complete ruin of her social, political, and industrial institutions."

As soon as Lincoln's victory was announced, calls for secession from the Union could be heard all across the South. South Carolina was the first slaveholding state to act. Its state legislature called a special meeting to consider secession, and on December 20, 1860, state lawmakers unanimously approved (by a vote of 169 to 0) a declaration that South Carolina was no longer a member of the United States. Within the next six weeks, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana followed South Carolina's lead and announced their secession from the Union.

Not all whites living in these states were certain that secession was the best course of action. Some Southern whites wanted to remain in the Union despite the years of strain between America's Northern and Southern regions. Others pointed out that although a Republican had been elected president, Democrats continued to hold majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. But as Louisiana senator Judah P. Benjamin (1811–1884) admitted, Lincoln's election had triggered a tidal wave of secessionist sentiment that seemed to sweep all other arguments out of its path. "It is a revolution . . . of the most intense character," said Benjamin, "and it can no more be checked by human effort, for the time, than a prairie fire by a gardener's watering hose."

Words to Know

Abolitionists people who worked to end slavery

Emancipation the act of freeing people from slavery or oppression

Federal national or central government; also, refers to the North or Union, as opposed to the South or Confederacy

Popular sovereignty the belief that each state has the right to decide how to handle various issues for itself without interference from the national government; this is also known as the "states' rights" philosophy

Secession the formal withdrawal of eleven Southern states from the Union in 1860–61

States' rights the belief that each state has the right to decide how to handle various issues for itself without interference from the national government

Tariffs additional charges or taxes placed on goods imported from other countries

Territory a region that belongs to the United States but has not yet been made into a state or states

People to Know

John Brown (1800–1859) American abolitionist who led raid on Harpers Ferry

James Buchanan (1791–1868) fifteenth president of the United States, 1857–61

Stephen Douglas (1813–1861) American politician; defeated Abraham Lincoln in 1858 Senate election

Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) sixteenth president of the United States, 1861–65

Dred Scott (c. 1795–1858) American slave who became famous for Dred Scott Supreme Court decision

Stephen Douglas, "The Little Giant"

Stephen Arnold Douglas was one of the most notable American statesmen of the nineteenth century. Born in Brandon, Vermont, he became a powerful legislator in Illinois in the early 1840s. Douglas was small in size, but he was armed with a sharp mind, great ambition, and a heartfelt belief that squabbles over slavery could not be allowed to stand in the way of America's westward expansion. First as a Democratic congressman (1843–47), and then as a U.S. senator (1847–61), Douglas insisted that each state should be able to decide whether to allow slavery for itself, without interference from the federal government or other states.

During the 1850s, Douglas became one of America's leading defenders of this concept, known as popular sovereignty (sometimes also called squatter sovereignty). In fact, he incorporated its basic framework into the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, both of which were intended to ease the growing tensions between the North and the South. But despite Douglas's best efforts, neither of these compromise measures lasted for very long.

Douglas is also famous for his 1858 debates with Abraham Lincoln, who challenged him for his Illinois Senate seat. Douglas barely managed to escape with a victory, but their fierce verbal battles over the issue of slavery vaulted Lincoln into national prominence. In 1860, Douglas and two other candidates were defeated by Lincoln in the U.S. presidential election. But when the Civil War began, Douglas issued a strongly worded statement of support for Lincoln and the Union. "There can be no neutrals in this war, only patriots—or traitors," he declared. Douglas then launched a speaking tour in the western states to generate support for Lincoln's efforts to restore the Union. But in June 1861, he died quite suddenly, possibly from cirrhosis of the liver.

The Electoral College

The United States elects its president and vice president through an institution known as the electoral college. The electoral college consists of a small group of representatives from each state legislature, called "electors," who gather in their respective states to cast ballots in elections for the presidency and vice presidency of the United States. These elections take place every four years. Historically, the electoral college meets one month after the public vote for the president and the vice president. When the electoral college meets, each state elector casts his or her ballot for the candidate who received the most popular votes in that state. Electors are not legally required to vote for the candidate who received the most popular votes in the state, but they are honor bound to do so. After the electoral college results are tallied, the person who receives a majority of available electoral votes around the country is declared president, and his or her running mate assumes the position of vice president. The offices of the president and the vice president are the only elective federal positions that are not filled by a direct vote of the American people.

The rules of the electoral college call for each state to be represented by a number of electors that is equal to the total of its U.S. senators and representatives in Congress. All states are represented by two senators, but states with large populations are given greater representation in the U.S. House of Representatives than are states with smaller populations. As a result, they also receive a greater number of electoral votes in presidential elections.

As of 1999, there are a total of 538 members in the electoral college. This means that presidential and vice presidential candidates can only be elected if they win a majority (270 or more) of those 538 votes. In modern elections, heavily populated states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas have had a far greater number of votes in the electoral college than sparsely populated states like Wyoming, North Dakota, and Delaware. The only other territory held by the United States that has any electoral votes is the District of Columbia, which was given three electoral votes by a 1964 law.

The electoral college system has been in place in America ever since it became a country, but many people have criticized it over the years. The primary complaint that has been raised about the system is that it makes it possible for a candidate to become president without winning a majority of popular votes. In fact, on three different occasions in American history—1824, 1876, and 1888—the electoral college has selected a candidate who received fewer popular votes than another candidate. In other words, the candidate that was supported by the most voters did not win the election.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes (1822–1893) received fewer popular votes than Samuel J. Tilden (1814–1886), but won the election by an electoral vote of 185 to 184. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison (1833–1901) defeated incumbent president Grover Cleveland (1837–1908) in electoral votes, 233-168, even though Cleveland had received more popular votes. And in 1824, although Andrew Jackson (1767–1845) received more popular and electoral votes than John Quincy Adams (1767–1848), he had not earned a majority of electoral votes, as two other candidates won a total of 78 votes. In a special vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, Adams eventually gained enough support to defeat Jackson. Despite such results, however, periodic attempts to change or abolish the electoral college have always failed.

"Brother Jonathan's Lament for Sister Caroline"

When South Carolina announced its intention to secede from the United States, American lawyer and poet Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809–1894) reacted with sadness rather than anger. Holmes strongly supported the Union, and he thought that South Carolina's decision was a rash one that would bring pain and suffering to North and South alike. But rather than heap abuse or scorn on the state, he instead composed a poem that reflected his deep regret about South Carolina's decision, as well as the hope of many American citizens that the state—"Caroline," the Union's "stormy-browed sister"—might some day return to the Union in peace:

She has gone,—she has left us in passion and pride,—

Our stormy-browed sister, so long at our side!

She has torn her own star from our firmament's glow,

And turned on her brother the face of a foe!

O Caroline, Caroline, child of the sun,

We can never forget that our hearts have been one,—

Our foreheads both sprinkled in Liberty's name,

From the fountain of blood with the finger of flame!

You were always too ready to fire at a touch;

But we said, "She is hasty,—she does not mean much."

We have scowled, when you uttered some turbulent threat;

But Friendship still whispered, "Forgive and forget!"

Has our love all died out? Have its altars grown cold?

Has the curse come at last which the fathers foretold?

Then Nature must reach us the strength of the chain

That her petulant children would sever in vain.

They may fight till the buzzards are gorged with their spoil,

Till the harvest grows black as it rots in the soil,

Till the wolves and the catamounts troop from their caves,

And the shark tracks the pirate, the lord of the waves.

In vain is the strife! When its fury is past,

Their fortunes must flow in one channel at last,

As the torrents that rush from the mountains of snow

Roll mingled in peace through the valleys below.

Our Union is river, lake, ocean and sky:

Man breaks not the medal, when God cuts the die!

Though darkened with sulphur, though cloven with steel,

The blue arch will brighten, the waters will heal!

O Caroline, Caroline, child of the sun,

There are battles with Fate that can never be won!

The star-flowering banner must never be furled,

For its blossoms of light are the hope of the world!

Go, then, our rash sister! afar and aloof,

Run wild in the sunshine away from our roof;

But when your heart aches and your feet have grown sore,

Remember the pathway that leads to our