What do you think?
Rate this book
Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War
In early 1860, pundits across America confidently predicted the election of Illinois senator Stephen A. Douglas in the coming presidential race. Douglas, after all, led the only party that bridged North and South. But the Democrats would split over the issue ofslavery, leading Southerners in the party to run their own presidential slate. This opened the door for the upstart Republicans, exclusively Northern, to steal the Oval Office. Dark horse Abraham Lincoln, not the first choice even of his own party, won the presidency with a record-low 39.8 percent of the popular vote.
Acclaimed scholar Douglas R. Egerton chronicles the contest with a historian's keen insight and a veteran political reporter's eye for detail. Vividly, Egerton re-creates the cascade of unforeseen events that confounded political bosses, set North and South on the road to disunion, and put not Stephen Douglas, but his greatest rival, in the White House.
We see Lincoln and his team outmaneuvering more prominent Republicans, like New York's grandiose William Seward, while Democratic conventions collapse in confusion. And we see the gifted, flawed Douglas marking his finest hour in defeat, as he strives, and fails, to save the Union. Year of Meteors delivers a teeming cast of characters, minor and major, and a breakneck narrative of this most momentous year in American history.
Acclaimed scholar Douglas R. Egerton chronicles the contest with a historian's keen insight and a veteran political reporter's eye for detail. Vividly, Egerton re-creates the cascade of unforeseen events that confounded political bosses, set North and South on the road to disunion, and put not Stephen Douglas, but his greatest rival, in the White House.
We see Lincoln and his team outmaneuvering more prominent Republicans, like New York's grandiose William Seward, while Democratic conventions collapse in confusion. And we see the gifted, flawed Douglas marking his finest hour in defeat, as he strives, and fails, to save the Union. Year of Meteors delivers a teeming cast of characters, minor and major, and a breakneck narrative of this most momentous year in American history.
399 pages, Paperback
First published August 24, 2010
64 people are currently reading
694 people want to read
About the author
Douglas R. Egerton
26 books11 followersA specialist in the history of late 18th and early 19th-century America, Douglas Egerton is Professor of History at Le Moyne College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
July 21, 2025
"William T. Sherman, then watching events as superintendent of the Louisiana Military Academy, in Pineville. 'You don't know what you are doing,' Sherman lectured one secessionist. 'This country will he drenched in blood.'" pg 241
This was a very informative look into the 1860 election and the events leading up to the Civil War. The election of 1860 had four candidates representing different views. The election of 1860 had the four candidates: Abraham Lincoln (Republican), John Breckinridge (Southern Democratic), Stephen Douglas (Democratic), and John Bell (Constitutional Union). Each chapter explained the candidate and their party, the political stance, and the almost cause-and-effect of the topics of proslavery, abolitionist, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Compromise of 1850, secessionist, and the growing tensions of a pro-Confederate government stance among the Southern politicians.
Egerton went on to explain the campaign trail that year and the election of Abraham Lincoln. These increased the tension and led to South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession on 20 December 1860 and subsequent resignation of her senators to US Congress. The author explained in great detail the Declaration of Immediate Causes (the drafted document for justification of secession), following suit of the other Southern States, the decision of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens as the assumed leadership of the Confederate States of America, the cabinet of the Confederacy, and lots of other details.
Furthermore, Egerton compounded the failures of Buchanan because of his constant appeasement and failing to halt secession of the South. He emphasized how Southern secession was driven by politicians and did not reflect the views of the common yeoman farmer.
This was a very informative look into the 1860 election and the events leading up to the Civil War. The election of 1860 had four candidates representing different views. The election of 1860 had the four candidates: Abraham Lincoln (Republican), John Breckinridge (Southern Democratic), Stephen Douglas (Democratic), and John Bell (Constitutional Union). Each chapter explained the candidate and their party, the political stance, and the almost cause-and-effect of the topics of proslavery, abolitionist, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Compromise of 1850, secessionist, and the growing tensions of a pro-Confederate government stance among the Southern politicians.
Egerton went on to explain the campaign trail that year and the election of Abraham Lincoln. These increased the tension and led to South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession on 20 December 1860 and subsequent resignation of her senators to US Congress. The author explained in great detail the Declaration of Immediate Causes (the drafted document for justification of secession), following suit of the other Southern States, the decision of Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens as the assumed leadership of the Confederate States of America, the cabinet of the Confederacy, and lots of other details.
Furthermore, Egerton compounded the failures of Buchanan because of his constant appeasement and failing to halt secession of the South. He emphasized how Southern secession was driven by politicians and did not reflect the views of the common yeoman farmer.
If the cotton South did not have to secede as a bloc, class unity within the states of the lower South nonetheless was critical. Since a majority of southern whites did not own a single slave, planters desperately wished to keep the yeoman on their side, even if they cared to hear their political voices regarding secession. pg 221This book was well-written, well-researched, and explained a lot of the missing gaps I have discovered while reading other accounts leading up to the Civil War. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in politics of the 1850s, the 1860 elections, and Southern Secession. Thanks!
May 2, 2015
A pretty good book on the 1860 election and the run-up to the war. Edgerton gives good treatment on all the happenings surrounding this period, such as Stephen Douglas’s trip South, the Peace Convention, and the formation of the rebel government, and brings all of these events to life.
Edgerton’s treatment of the time period is colorful and insightful, and very well-researched and coherent. The prose is solid and makes the book very easy to read. He provides a great portrait of Stephen Douglas, who was, of course, indifferent or mildly supportive of slavery but a devoted unionist, doing everything he could to bend the northern Democrats to a pro-Union position. We also get a good portrait of the ambitious William Seward, who nevertheless put aside his ambition to run as secretary of state.
We get a good portrait of the secessionist “fire-eaters” like William Yancey, who contributed mightily to disunion and the unionists whose patriotism was rather more conditional than Douglas’s: Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, and all the other southerners who explicitly defended their right to own slaves and were willing to risk it all on their disunionist gambit. It was these fire-eaters that ultimately rejected compromise; anti-slavery northerners like Lincoln and Seward tried relentlessly to bring about some sort of compromise, only to be frustrated by these radicals.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is the machination of these fire-eaters, who disrupted their own Democratic Party nomination process: they actually wanted Lincoln to win so that the South would be forced into a situation where they had no choice but to secede. They deliberately sabotaged the convention in pursuit of this goal.
The book seems to blame the coming of war entirely on the these southern secessionists: probably an accurate statement since they were, in fact, stubbornly bull-headed secessionists.
In all, a great book, despite some minor errors: Edgerton writes that Dean Richmond headed the Illinois delegation at the Democratic convention, when he was, in fact, the DNC chairman. He claims that Carl Schurz was not at Cooper Union when Lincoln gave his speech there, when in fact, he was. Francis Blair was not nicknamed Frank, nor did Lincoln welcome his wife’s advice on political appointments. But, these issues are rather unimportant and do not disrupt an otherwise enjoyable book.
Edgerton’s treatment of the time period is colorful and insightful, and very well-researched and coherent. The prose is solid and makes the book very easy to read. He provides a great portrait of Stephen Douglas, who was, of course, indifferent or mildly supportive of slavery but a devoted unionist, doing everything he could to bend the northern Democrats to a pro-Union position. We also get a good portrait of the ambitious William Seward, who nevertheless put aside his ambition to run as secretary of state.
We get a good portrait of the secessionist “fire-eaters” like William Yancey, who contributed mightily to disunion and the unionists whose patriotism was rather more conditional than Douglas’s: Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, and all the other southerners who explicitly defended their right to own slaves and were willing to risk it all on their disunionist gambit. It was these fire-eaters that ultimately rejected compromise; anti-slavery northerners like Lincoln and Seward tried relentlessly to bring about some sort of compromise, only to be frustrated by these radicals.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is the machination of these fire-eaters, who disrupted their own Democratic Party nomination process: they actually wanted Lincoln to win so that the South would be forced into a situation where they had no choice but to secede. They deliberately sabotaged the convention in pursuit of this goal.
The book seems to blame the coming of war entirely on the these southern secessionists: probably an accurate statement since they were, in fact, stubbornly bull-headed secessionists.
In all, a great book, despite some minor errors: Edgerton writes that Dean Richmond headed the Illinois delegation at the Democratic convention, when he was, in fact, the DNC chairman. He claims that Carl Schurz was not at Cooper Union when Lincoln gave his speech there, when in fact, he was. Francis Blair was not nicknamed Frank, nor did Lincoln welcome his wife’s advice on political appointments. But, these issues are rather unimportant and do not disrupt an otherwise enjoyable book.
December 28, 2012
The Election of 1860 is one of the moments of our history that Americans need to understand before saying silly things like "the election between Obama and Romney reached new heights in nastiness and incivility." Every time I see a "secession petition" on Facebook, or read about somebody saying that the election/re-election of Barack Obama is the worst thing that has ever happened to the country, I sigh and think "somebody needs to read a history book." And, very likely, this is the history book that they need to read.
In 1860, secession was not a social media meme. It was a deadly real threat that had been openly discussed in the Southern States since the 1820s, when measures such as the Missouri Compromise had postponed the ultimate reckoning over the issue of slavery for a generation. With the collapse of the compropmise-friendly Whig Party in 1852, and the rise of the explicitly anti-slavery Republican Party in 1856, there did not appear to be any way to prevent the block secession of at least the Lower South. Southern radicals ("fire-eaters") understood that and worked intentionally to split the Democratic Party into two factions in 1860, thus ensuring a Republican victory and a Southern secession.
The Year of Meteors, which takes its title from a poem by Walt Whitman, opens with Stephen Douglas's futile attempts to save the union after his fourth-place electoral finish in the five-way contest that was the election of 1860. It then goes back in time to describe the conventions that produced the largest number of major-party candidates ever to run in an American election. Egerton describes the five parties, and their candidates, very well, and very succinctly:
LIBERTY (Garrit Smith): The abolitionist party, led by Smith, a wealthy philanthropist who had partially financed John Brown's raid. The Liberty Party did not have a reasonable chance of winning, but could play the spoiler by taking votes away from Lincoln in New York and New England, thus throwing those states' electoral votes to Douglas.
REPUBLICAN (Abraham Lincoln): The Party of Lincoln opposed slavery on moral grounds and opposed the expansion of slavery into any state or territory where it did not already exist (the "free-soil" position). They did not believe that the federal government had the Constitutional authority to end slavery in the 15 states that already permitted slavery. Unwilling to compromise on the extension of slavery, but willing to compromise on "personal liberty laws" in Northern states that prevented the recapture of escaped slaves.
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC (Stephen Douglas): After the North-South split in the Democratic Party, Douglas was left with little chance of winning. In the end, he captured electoral votes only in Missouri and in part of New Jersey. Douglas, who had spent years in the Senate crafting compromises between slavery and anti-slavery positions, ran on the principle of "popular sovereignty," which allowed the residents of each new territory to chose for themselves whether they would allow slavery.
SOUTHERN DEMOCRATIC (John C. Breckenridge): The Southern Democratic Party, whose candidate was the sitting vice president, insisted on a "no-compromise" position on the expansion of slavery. They insisted that all territories of the United States be open to settlement by slaveholders, that the Constitution explicitly recognize the legality of slavery, that the Atlantic slave trade be reopened, and that all Northern "personal liberty" laws be nullified. Southern fire-eaters understood that these terms would never be accepted by the North and that the only course of action when the election ended would be secession. Breckenridge received all of the votes of the lower South.
CONSTITUTIONAL UNION (John Bell): Constitutional Unionists were, in the most part, the remnants of the old Whig party with its strong belief in compromise. Constitutional Unionists insisted that slavery was only an abstract disagreement and that no position on slavery justified the dissolution of the Union. They conspicuously avoided even talking about slavery during their campaign. Bell captured the electoral votes of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia.
It is impossible to read this (or any other serious history of the time) and have any intellectual respect for the modern revisionist claim that the South's secession and the CIvil War were about anything other than slavery. None of the principles (other than the Constitutional Unionists) believed this. Slavery was the defining issue of this election, and where one stood on it determined who one voted for.
But Egerton also does a good job of showing that there were a lot of people in the South who did not support the open secessionist candidate. And there were a lot of people in the North who did not support the abolition or free-soil candidates. The country was not as polarized as its leaders were or as our memories make it out to be, which is why the ultimate abolition of slavery required the delicate, multi-front political maneuvering portrayed so brilliantly in Spielberg's "Lincoln" and in Doris Kearns Godwin's Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, to which Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War is a worthy companion.
In 1860, secession was not a social media meme. It was a deadly real threat that had been openly discussed in the Southern States since the 1820s, when measures such as the Missouri Compromise had postponed the ultimate reckoning over the issue of slavery for a generation. With the collapse of the compropmise-friendly Whig Party in 1852, and the rise of the explicitly anti-slavery Republican Party in 1856, there did not appear to be any way to prevent the block secession of at least the Lower South. Southern radicals ("fire-eaters") understood that and worked intentionally to split the Democratic Party into two factions in 1860, thus ensuring a Republican victory and a Southern secession.
The Year of Meteors, which takes its title from a poem by Walt Whitman, opens with Stephen Douglas's futile attempts to save the union after his fourth-place electoral finish in the five-way contest that was the election of 1860. It then goes back in time to describe the conventions that produced the largest number of major-party candidates ever to run in an American election. Egerton describes the five parties, and their candidates, very well, and very succinctly:
LIBERTY (Garrit Smith): The abolitionist party, led by Smith, a wealthy philanthropist who had partially financed John Brown's raid. The Liberty Party did not have a reasonable chance of winning, but could play the spoiler by taking votes away from Lincoln in New York and New England, thus throwing those states' electoral votes to Douglas.
REPUBLICAN (Abraham Lincoln): The Party of Lincoln opposed slavery on moral grounds and opposed the expansion of slavery into any state or territory where it did not already exist (the "free-soil" position). They did not believe that the federal government had the Constitutional authority to end slavery in the 15 states that already permitted slavery. Unwilling to compromise on the extension of slavery, but willing to compromise on "personal liberty laws" in Northern states that prevented the recapture of escaped slaves.
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC (Stephen Douglas): After the North-South split in the Democratic Party, Douglas was left with little chance of winning. In the end, he captured electoral votes only in Missouri and in part of New Jersey. Douglas, who had spent years in the Senate crafting compromises between slavery and anti-slavery positions, ran on the principle of "popular sovereignty," which allowed the residents of each new territory to chose for themselves whether they would allow slavery.
SOUTHERN DEMOCRATIC (John C. Breckenridge): The Southern Democratic Party, whose candidate was the sitting vice president, insisted on a "no-compromise" position on the expansion of slavery. They insisted that all territories of the United States be open to settlement by slaveholders, that the Constitution explicitly recognize the legality of slavery, that the Atlantic slave trade be reopened, and that all Northern "personal liberty" laws be nullified. Southern fire-eaters understood that these terms would never be accepted by the North and that the only course of action when the election ended would be secession. Breckenridge received all of the votes of the lower South.
CONSTITUTIONAL UNION (John Bell): Constitutional Unionists were, in the most part, the remnants of the old Whig party with its strong belief in compromise. Constitutional Unionists insisted that slavery was only an abstract disagreement and that no position on slavery justified the dissolution of the Union. They conspicuously avoided even talking about slavery during their campaign. Bell captured the electoral votes of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia.
It is impossible to read this (or any other serious history of the time) and have any intellectual respect for the modern revisionist claim that the South's secession and the CIvil War were about anything other than slavery. None of the principles (other than the Constitutional Unionists) believed this. Slavery was the defining issue of this election, and where one stood on it determined who one voted for.
But Egerton also does a good job of showing that there were a lot of people in the South who did not support the open secessionist candidate. And there were a lot of people in the North who did not support the abolition or free-soil candidates. The country was not as polarized as its leaders were or as our memories make it out to be, which is why the ultimate abolition of slavery required the delicate, multi-front political maneuvering portrayed so brilliantly in Spielberg's "Lincoln" and in Doris Kearns Godwin's Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, to which Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War is a worthy companion.
July 28, 2017
Douglas Egerton is a professor of History and he does an impeccable job describing the presidential campaign that elected Lincoln in 1860.
In 1857, Dr. Emerson moved to Missouri with his slave Dred Scott, where he hired him out on lease. Missouri was a free state and by hiring Scott out there Emerson effectively brought the institution of slavery into a state that had outlawed slavery.
Scott sued for his freedom and while many people assisted him, he ultimately lost. The question was whether an African slave had the same rights as white citizens and if so what did that portend?
This created a domino effect in both the North and the South. What about the states that had come or were coming into the United States? Would they be free or slave holding?
Northern people of any political persuasion, while not necessarily agreeing to granting slaves equal status as white people, nevertheless, did not want future states or western states becoming slave states.
Conversely, southern politicians were concerned that they be allowed to expand their slave trade west.
In Egerton's brilliant account, we learn of both Northern and Southern players that caused a furious presidential race that has probably not been equaled, although our most recent election certainly gave it a run for its money.
The trash talking between delegates had an acuity and eloquence that I marvel at. It was a different time period where politicians had sophisticated vocabularies and powers of expression that surpass any modern novelist.
Their passion surpasses today's as well. Our politicians can get ugly, but these guys were bringing knives and guns into the Senate and House.
We learn of the end of the Whig party and the birth of the Republican party, the Southern Democrats and who were the real orchestrators of the Southern states' secession.
Egerton gives us a step by step account of each area of the 1860 election, thorough and interesting descriptions of the different people running and if he gets bogged down in numbers and polls, that's a minor quibble for a good and wild ride through one of the most turbulent times in America.
If you like history and specifically Civil War history this is an invaluable source.
In 1857, Dr. Emerson moved to Missouri with his slave Dred Scott, where he hired him out on lease. Missouri was a free state and by hiring Scott out there Emerson effectively brought the institution of slavery into a state that had outlawed slavery.
Scott sued for his freedom and while many people assisted him, he ultimately lost. The question was whether an African slave had the same rights as white citizens and if so what did that portend?
This created a domino effect in both the North and the South. What about the states that had come or were coming into the United States? Would they be free or slave holding?
Northern people of any political persuasion, while not necessarily agreeing to granting slaves equal status as white people, nevertheless, did not want future states or western states becoming slave states.
Conversely, southern politicians were concerned that they be allowed to expand their slave trade west.
In Egerton's brilliant account, we learn of both Northern and Southern players that caused a furious presidential race that has probably not been equaled, although our most recent election certainly gave it a run for its money.
The trash talking between delegates had an acuity and eloquence that I marvel at. It was a different time period where politicians had sophisticated vocabularies and powers of expression that surpass any modern novelist.
Their passion surpasses today's as well. Our politicians can get ugly, but these guys were bringing knives and guns into the Senate and House.
We learn of the end of the Whig party and the birth of the Republican party, the Southern Democrats and who were the real orchestrators of the Southern states' secession.
Egerton gives us a step by step account of each area of the 1860 election, thorough and interesting descriptions of the different people running and if he gets bogged down in numbers and polls, that's a minor quibble for a good and wild ride through one of the most turbulent times in America.
If you like history and specifically Civil War history this is an invaluable source.
June 21, 2016
This book is a blow-by-blow history of the 1860 election. What I learned from this book, more than anything else, is that Southern "fire eaters" (pro-slavery extremists) wanted to secede from the Union long before Lincoln's election, and that at least some of them actually wanted Lincoln to prevail so that they could get the rest of the South to agree. At the Democratic convention, Southerners made platform demands unacceptable to the North, and then walked out of the convention to choose their own nominee- thus ensuring that neither the Northern Democratic nominee (Stephen Douglas) or the Southern nominee (John Breckinridge) could beat the Republicans. Radicals didn't necessarily believe that Lincoln would abolish slavery; however, they believed that if victorious Republicans limited slavery to the states where it was already legal (rather than allowing slavery to spread to the West, or better yet, invading Cuba to create another slave state), there would be a surplus of slaves, driving down slave prices.
Most of this book was focused on the actions of Lincoln, Douglas and their political rivals. I do wish the book had explained President Buchanan's (pro-slavery) actions in a little more detail- why, for example, did Buchanan favor admitting Kansas as a slave state when most northern Democrats disagreed? I also wish the author had explained the historical background of the Republican Party in more detail; he discusses its birth, but doesn't explain why the Whig Party disappeared between 1852 and 1856 rather than surviving to fight the Republicans in the latter election.
Most of this book was focused on the actions of Lincoln, Douglas and their political rivals. I do wish the book had explained President Buchanan's (pro-slavery) actions in a little more detail- why, for example, did Buchanan favor admitting Kansas as a slave state when most northern Democrats disagreed? I also wish the author had explained the historical background of the Republican Party in more detail; he discusses its birth, but doesn't explain why the Whig Party disappeared between 1852 and 1856 rather than surviving to fight the Republicans in the latter election.
November 10, 2023
This book was essentially about two men; Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. If you don't already know, Douglas was the Democratic candidate in 1860's presidential race. Actually, he was one of four candidates in the race, but the author devotes a sizeable chunk of the book to these details. I found the book to be well structured. Not too common in modern books; but definitely a good attribute. Overall, a good place to start if you want a feel for the political situation on the eve of the Civil War.
January 31, 2011
How complicated it all was. The Southern extremists actually wanted Douglas to lose because he promoted compromise. They felt that Lincoln's election would scare the slave-holding states enough to secede--which is what they wanted in the first place. They thought that slavery would only be "safe" as an institution if they had their own country in which slavery was legal everywhere. Egerton doesn't believe the trade and tariff argument that takes the point of view that the South seceded in large part because of trade differences (they suffered from tariffs that the North benefited from). He thinks that that argument was put into place in years after the war to separate the South a bit from the slavery argument.
Egerton makes it clear that there was a wide spectrum of opinions on the issues of the day--it was not simply a "pro-slavery" and "abolition" argument. Within the two "groups" there were disagreements, sometimes large. Only the most "extreme", like Garrison, actually wanted emancipation. He thought that any compromise on that point was immoral. Many just wanted to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories. Similarly, it was only the "fire breathers" or Southern extremists who didn't want reconciliation at all.
Egerton makes it clear that there was a wide spectrum of opinions on the issues of the day--it was not simply a "pro-slavery" and "abolition" argument. Within the two "groups" there were disagreements, sometimes large. Only the most "extreme", like Garrison, actually wanted emancipation. He thought that any compromise on that point was immoral. Many just wanted to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories. Similarly, it was only the "fire breathers" or Southern extremists who didn't want reconciliation at all.
January 4, 2011
The United States presidential election of 1860 was possibly the most seminal in our history. Egerton follows the election with great care, giving the bulk of his attention to Democratic party politics. He articulates the positions of Stephen Douglas, John Breckenridge, and John Bell, and describes what happened at the various party conventions held to select these candidates.
This excellent book covers only a small slice of antebellum politics, but is rich in detail. It is especially valuable for its focus on Douglas and his southern rivals rather than on Lincoln. I enjoyed it a great deal, but I wouldn’t recommend it to a reader unfamiliar with the broader context, or with the constitutional, territorial, and sectional issues that were roiling the nation.
Rating: 3.5/5
This excellent book covers only a small slice of antebellum politics, but is rich in detail. It is especially valuable for its focus on Douglas and his southern rivals rather than on Lincoln. I enjoyed it a great deal, but I wouldn’t recommend it to a reader unfamiliar with the broader context, or with the constitutional, territorial, and sectional issues that were roiling the nation.
Rating: 3.5/5
March 8, 2016
It's always refreshing in an election year to look back on past political campaigns and realize that, no, American politics haven't gotten worse. They've always been this screwed up.
Unfortunately that's not going to work this year. When looking back on electoral history, there are really only two good comparisons -- 1968 and 1860. The first, of course, gave us Nixon and his strategy of appealing to Southern racists through dogwhistle politics and appeals to the "Silent Majority" -- indeed, in many ways 2016 is shaping up to be the last hurrah of that Silent Majority before demographics render them irrelevant forevermore. But the second is far more worrisome.
Let's review 1860 -- at the start of the election cycle, everyone assumed the two major parties would nominate solid establishment candidates, Stephen Douglas for the Democrats and William Seward for the Republicans, but a disaffected contingent within the Democratic Party felt that the establishment was taking their support for granted, so they revolted and nominated the radical reaction John Breckinridge. The Democratic establishment freaked out and nominated Stephen Douglas on what they supposed was a centrist platform, though in the wake of Breckinridge's fire-eating rhetoric, a lot of voters lurched towards the Republican Party.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were questioning whether a stodgy establishment figure like Seward, who had a history of compromising his principles for political expediency, had what it took to win a national election. Convention delegates revolted and coalesced around the more radical figure of Abe Lincoln.
And while all this was going on, a bunch of old line Whigs who hadn't joined the Republican party decided to put forth their own candidate on a platform of, "Hey, can we just pretend that this whole slavery thing isn't an issue and everyone gets along?"
Of course we all know that at the end of the day Lincoln won -- but more importantly, he won in such a way that he still would've been the victor even if the Democrats had stayed united and the Constitutional Union party hadn't been around. The demographics and electoral college were against the South, just as they're against Trump's neo-Silent Majority today. The Southrons knew the only way they could retain power in national politics was if they expanded slavery westward into the territories, and when that possibility was foreclosed to them, they revolted. And today Trump supporters know that the only way they can remain relevant is if they shut down immigration, and if they don't get their way ... well, we can probably expect a lot more Dylann Roofs and Robert Dears in the next four to eight years.
Insert Santayana quote here.
Unfortunately that's not going to work this year. When looking back on electoral history, there are really only two good comparisons -- 1968 and 1860. The first, of course, gave us Nixon and his strategy of appealing to Southern racists through dogwhistle politics and appeals to the "Silent Majority" -- indeed, in many ways 2016 is shaping up to be the last hurrah of that Silent Majority before demographics render them irrelevant forevermore. But the second is far more worrisome.
Let's review 1860 -- at the start of the election cycle, everyone assumed the two major parties would nominate solid establishment candidates, Stephen Douglas for the Democrats and William Seward for the Republicans, but a disaffected contingent within the Democratic Party felt that the establishment was taking their support for granted, so they revolted and nominated the radical reaction John Breckinridge. The Democratic establishment freaked out and nominated Stephen Douglas on what they supposed was a centrist platform, though in the wake of Breckinridge's fire-eating rhetoric, a lot of voters lurched towards the Republican Party.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were questioning whether a stodgy establishment figure like Seward, who had a history of compromising his principles for political expediency, had what it took to win a national election. Convention delegates revolted and coalesced around the more radical figure of Abe Lincoln.
And while all this was going on, a bunch of old line Whigs who hadn't joined the Republican party decided to put forth their own candidate on a platform of, "Hey, can we just pretend that this whole slavery thing isn't an issue and everyone gets along?"
Of course we all know that at the end of the day Lincoln won -- but more importantly, he won in such a way that he still would've been the victor even if the Democrats had stayed united and the Constitutional Union party hadn't been around. The demographics and electoral college were against the South, just as they're against Trump's neo-Silent Majority today. The Southrons knew the only way they could retain power in national politics was if they expanded slavery westward into the territories, and when that possibility was foreclosed to them, they revolted. And today Trump supporters know that the only way they can remain relevant is if they shut down immigration, and if they don't get their way ... well, we can probably expect a lot more Dylann Roofs and Robert Dears in the next four to eight years.
Insert Santayana quote here.
March 15, 2020
Egerton has written a history of the 1860 election that is on a par with the best Presidential election books ever, the superb “Making of the President” series of books (1960, 1964, 1968…) by journalist Theodore White. In the process, Egerton irrefutably establishes that slavery was in fact the one and only cause of secession and civil war, putting the lie to the assorted other causes that have arisen in the years since the war, such as states’ rights, northern aggression, the ‘noble’ South, the lost cause. As such this book is both a necessary book to read as much as it is a fascinating and thoroughly engrossing study of the politics and politicians of 1860, a pivotal year in the history of the United States.
Egerton’s principals are Stephen A. Douglas and William Seward, respectively the Democrat and Republican unquestioned front runners for the bulk of the year. Douglas was instrumental in overturning the Compromise of 1850 banning the extension of slavery in new territories, substituting the Kansas Nebraska Act incorporating his concept of state sovereignty that allowed each new state to decide the issue of slavery on its own initiatives, a development that revitalized the entire slavery issue by enabling the expansion of slavery into new territories by the simple expedient of packing an election, as subsequently happened abortively in Kansas. Seward represented the new Republican determination to limit any expansion of slavery into new territory, recognizing its legitimacy in those original states in which it existed, but restricting it to those states only.
The result was confirmation of the worst fears of the planter class that ruled the South, fears that had festered ever since the Nullification Acts under the Jackson administration in 1832. The South began to see the handwriting on the wall foretelling the restriction and eventual elimination of slavery as the South began to see its dominance of national governmental policy diminish. Economically and politically, the South needed slavery to not just continue, but to expand. If new states came into the Union anti-slavery, then slowly and inexorably the South would become a minority influence in the government and the anti-slave forces would equally inexorably gain the numbers to increasingly restrict and ultimately eliminate slavery. Neither Douglas nor Seward promised to prevent this – only absolute legitimacy and expansion would sufficiently protect planter interests.
Thus 1860 saw seven political conventions (four of them by the Democrats) and ultimately five candidates for President. The first Democrat Convention fell apart when it became apparent Douglas would gain the nomination and to prevent it, the deep South states abandoned the convention. A second convention was scheduled – but in the meantime, the Southern Democrats scheduled their own. A breakaway group became Constitutional Unionists who, steadfastly refused to mention the slavery issue, running on what amounted to benign neglect of the subject. Douglas was nominated by the northern Democrats, Crittenden by the southern Democrats, Bell by the Constitutional Unionists, Gerrit Smith by the Abolitionists and, surprisingly, Lincoln by the Republicans. As he stated in his inaugural address, southern Democrats believed that “… slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.”
Egerton covers so much – the strong southern contingent that began planning for secession soon after the Jackson years and was instrumental in the political upheavals leading to secession and war. He r4elates the several conventions as though he were a participant, the election campaigns, the evolution of the secession movement, the formation of the Confederacy, the inner decisions in the formations of government both by Lincoln and by Davis, the attempts by Seward and Douglas to control events and placate the South in Lincoln’s absence (they were both Senators in authority from the election in November until the inauguration in March 1861 and tried to preempt Lincoln’s prerogatives). Just a fascinating and revelatory reading experience.
Egerton fleshes out his narrative with humor, and with frequent and perceptive details and anecdotal support. He notes the differences between the Southern planter class in power and the majority Southern yeoman class who owned no slaves but supported slavery, Douglas dancing with Mary Lincoln at the Inaugural Ball, the formation of Lincoln’s cabinet and of Davis’ cabinet, Lincoln’s surreptitious arrival in Washing DC and his reception, including the anonymous ugly notes left for him at the desk of the Willard Hotel where he stayed, and so much more.
Of particular note is the contrasting reality of the elections – Lincoln ascended to power on the popular authority of 1,865,908 votes (Douglas received 1,389,201) as opposed to Davis who argued that the original intent of the Union had “been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained” and therefore the South was justified in its “peaceful appeal to the ballot box” but with the exception of Texas not one of the Southern states put the momentous decision of “disunion” to a referendum. Secession was the work of 854 convention delegates, 157 of whom voted against it, and most of whom had been chosen by state legislatures. Davis himself was elected President by approximately 80 delegates. The harsh truth, obfuscated by Davis and others, was that his was a planters’ rebellion intended to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, nothing else. The region’s yeoman majority who did not own slaves but nonetheless supported the institution of slavery learned too late that the conflict was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”
The book is as delightful, informative and revelatory to read as it is important to read. If nothing else, it lays bare the simple truth about the Civil War – fought solely over the institution of slavery, and made inevitable by conscious actions of the southern elites. And it does so with clarity, insightful analysis, occasional humor (the Wigwam, a wooden structure built to host the Republican Convention in Chicago was huge, with room for 10,000 attendees, and on Egerton’s words, the “world’s largest fire hazard”). This book should be mandatory reading. I recommend it strongly!!
Egerton’s principals are Stephen A. Douglas and William Seward, respectively the Democrat and Republican unquestioned front runners for the bulk of the year. Douglas was instrumental in overturning the Compromise of 1850 banning the extension of slavery in new territories, substituting the Kansas Nebraska Act incorporating his concept of state sovereignty that allowed each new state to decide the issue of slavery on its own initiatives, a development that revitalized the entire slavery issue by enabling the expansion of slavery into new territories by the simple expedient of packing an election, as subsequently happened abortively in Kansas. Seward represented the new Republican determination to limit any expansion of slavery into new territory, recognizing its legitimacy in those original states in which it existed, but restricting it to those states only.
The result was confirmation of the worst fears of the planter class that ruled the South, fears that had festered ever since the Nullification Acts under the Jackson administration in 1832. The South began to see the handwriting on the wall foretelling the restriction and eventual elimination of slavery as the South began to see its dominance of national governmental policy diminish. Economically and politically, the South needed slavery to not just continue, but to expand. If new states came into the Union anti-slavery, then slowly and inexorably the South would become a minority influence in the government and the anti-slave forces would equally inexorably gain the numbers to increasingly restrict and ultimately eliminate slavery. Neither Douglas nor Seward promised to prevent this – only absolute legitimacy and expansion would sufficiently protect planter interests.
Thus 1860 saw seven political conventions (four of them by the Democrats) and ultimately five candidates for President. The first Democrat Convention fell apart when it became apparent Douglas would gain the nomination and to prevent it, the deep South states abandoned the convention. A second convention was scheduled – but in the meantime, the Southern Democrats scheduled their own. A breakaway group became Constitutional Unionists who, steadfastly refused to mention the slavery issue, running on what amounted to benign neglect of the subject. Douglas was nominated by the northern Democrats, Crittenden by the southern Democrats, Bell by the Constitutional Unionists, Gerrit Smith by the Abolitionists and, surprisingly, Lincoln by the Republicans. As he stated in his inaugural address, southern Democrats believed that “… slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.”
Egerton covers so much – the strong southern contingent that began planning for secession soon after the Jackson years and was instrumental in the political upheavals leading to secession and war. He r4elates the several conventions as though he were a participant, the election campaigns, the evolution of the secession movement, the formation of the Confederacy, the inner decisions in the formations of government both by Lincoln and by Davis, the attempts by Seward and Douglas to control events and placate the South in Lincoln’s absence (they were both Senators in authority from the election in November until the inauguration in March 1861 and tried to preempt Lincoln’s prerogatives). Just a fascinating and revelatory reading experience.
Egerton fleshes out his narrative with humor, and with frequent and perceptive details and anecdotal support. He notes the differences between the Southern planter class in power and the majority Southern yeoman class who owned no slaves but supported slavery, Douglas dancing with Mary Lincoln at the Inaugural Ball, the formation of Lincoln’s cabinet and of Davis’ cabinet, Lincoln’s surreptitious arrival in Washing DC and his reception, including the anonymous ugly notes left for him at the desk of the Willard Hotel where he stayed, and so much more.
Of particular note is the contrasting reality of the elections – Lincoln ascended to power on the popular authority of 1,865,908 votes (Douglas received 1,389,201) as opposed to Davis who argued that the original intent of the Union had “been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained” and therefore the South was justified in its “peaceful appeal to the ballot box” but with the exception of Texas not one of the Southern states put the momentous decision of “disunion” to a referendum. Secession was the work of 854 convention delegates, 157 of whom voted against it, and most of whom had been chosen by state legislatures. Davis himself was elected President by approximately 80 delegates. The harsh truth, obfuscated by Davis and others, was that his was a planters’ rebellion intended to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, nothing else. The region’s yeoman majority who did not own slaves but nonetheless supported the institution of slavery learned too late that the conflict was a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”
The book is as delightful, informative and revelatory to read as it is important to read. If nothing else, it lays bare the simple truth about the Civil War – fought solely over the institution of slavery, and made inevitable by conscious actions of the southern elites. And it does so with clarity, insightful analysis, occasional humor (the Wigwam, a wooden structure built to host the Republican Convention in Chicago was huge, with room for 10,000 attendees, and on Egerton’s words, the “world’s largest fire hazard”). This book should be mandatory reading. I recommend it strongly!!
December 27, 2020
In the first week of November the New York Public Library emailed their newsletter that had a list of history books about past elections in the U.S.A.
While I don't read history books, they usually don't hold my attention, I wanted to learn more about American history in these... uncertain times.
So I put a bunch of the books the NYPL suggested on hold for their grab-n-go service. Year of Meteors was the first to become available.
It's 340 pages and it did take me a month to read. There is a lot of details. I ended up taking notes to keep track.
It really gets into the division with in the Democratic Party. So much so that they split their conventions. Stephen Douglas was the Northern Democratic nominee and VP Breckinridge was the Southern Democratic nominee. Obviously Lincoln was the Republican nominee but I did realized that there were more candidates running in the 1860 election.
Like I said there were so many details. The book talks about the issues of the day: slavery being a big one but also expanding slavery into the Western Territories. The Southern fire-eaters wanted to reopen the Atlantic slave trade, which is just morally insane. The fire-eaters are just a morally bankrupt bunch. They purposely wanted a Republican to win to invoke the South to secede.
The book gets into the details of how conventions were conducted, how nominees were chosen (I didn't know that delegates first voted on a platform and then voted on Presidential and VP candidates), and how differently campaigns were run.
It gets really into the details of each candidates electoral counts and popular votes. I had to make a list to keep it straight. Also, people voted very differently back then. You had to obtain a ticket with the party's nominees on it and then drop it in the candidate's box. So no voter privacy, everyone could see who you voted for.
Once Lincoln is declared the winner we learn how he chose his cabinet members.
But the subtitle of the book is theElection that Brought on the Civil War, and so it gets into the states that seceded and what they did to pick their own president, vp, and cabinet members. But then gets into the conventions they had to try and negotiate peace to keep the Union together. Which proved to be a waste of time because those fire-eaters are just trouble makers.
So although this was a bit tough to get through and it could be dry at times, I really learned so much about the division in America at that time (more than I ever learned in school.) I also realized that the more things change the more they stay the same.
Maybe some day I'll read a book about the Civil War and the Reconstruction period. They really just gloss over that in school.
4 out of 5 Electoral Votes.
While I don't read history books, they usually don't hold my attention, I wanted to learn more about American history in these... uncertain times.
So I put a bunch of the books the NYPL suggested on hold for their grab-n-go service. Year of Meteors was the first to become available.
It's 340 pages and it did take me a month to read. There is a lot of details. I ended up taking notes to keep track.
It really gets into the division with in the Democratic Party. So much so that they split their conventions. Stephen Douglas was the Northern Democratic nominee and VP Breckinridge was the Southern Democratic nominee. Obviously Lincoln was the Republican nominee but I did realized that there were more candidates running in the 1860 election.
Like I said there were so many details. The book talks about the issues of the day: slavery being a big one but also expanding slavery into the Western Territories. The Southern fire-eaters wanted to reopen the Atlantic slave trade, which is just morally insane. The fire-eaters are just a morally bankrupt bunch. They purposely wanted a Republican to win to invoke the South to secede.
The book gets into the details of how conventions were conducted, how nominees were chosen (I didn't know that delegates first voted on a platform and then voted on Presidential and VP candidates), and how differently campaigns were run.
It gets really into the details of each candidates electoral counts and popular votes. I had to make a list to keep it straight. Also, people voted very differently back then. You had to obtain a ticket with the party's nominees on it and then drop it in the candidate's box. So no voter privacy, everyone could see who you voted for.
Once Lincoln is declared the winner we learn how he chose his cabinet members.
But the subtitle of the book is theElection that Brought on the Civil War, and so it gets into the states that seceded and what they did to pick their own president, vp, and cabinet members. But then gets into the conventions they had to try and negotiate peace to keep the Union together. Which proved to be a waste of time because those fire-eaters are just trouble makers.
So although this was a bit tough to get through and it could be dry at times, I really learned so much about the division in America at that time (more than I ever learned in school.) I also realized that the more things change the more they stay the same.
Maybe some day I'll read a book about the Civil War and the Reconstruction period. They really just gloss over that in school.
4 out of 5 Electoral Votes.
May 14, 2017
It ought to surprise no one that I am fond of reading books about the complex relationship between Lincoln and Douglas and also about the tense atmosphere in the period before the beginning of the Civil War [1]. I was admittedly a bit surprised that the title itself played so little a role in the book itself, considering there was really no discussion of meteors in a literal sense in 1860 in this particular book. What there was instead was a thoughtful discussion of the conflicting demands of statesmanship and moderation in a period where there was little room to maneuver on the side of the political class who wanted peace and reconciliation and a general populace that had grown increasingly partisan. It is hard not to read this and think of our own troubled times and the question of legitimacy in government. The author, who makes his own sympathies abundantly plain, clearly looks at this period with a sense of anxiety with concern to our own history, although the work does not draw that conclusion out explicitly very often, to the relief of this reader at least.
In terms of its contents, this book certainly fits within the genre of political history and within the large body of works about Abraham Lincoln and about the Civil War in general. The author tries to add a bit of uniqueness by doing some research on the campaign of Garrit Smith that year, which is little noted or recognized, as well as highlighting the busy travels of the indefatigable Murat Halstead, who traveled to seven of the eight major political conventions that year, which cannot have been a very enviable experience. Besides these flourishes the book is largely a chronological look at the political context of 1860 and the bad omens that year had for the fate of the United States at large. The author notes, with a surprising degree of fairness, the level of stubbornness in both the northern and southern sections of the country, and how that inflexibility of thought left no room for compromise. For the most part, this is a book that can be broadly enjoyed by readers who have an interest in those times and who are prepared to draw their own conclusions about the contemporary relevance of the late 1850s for our own time.
Where the book took on a problematic nature for me, at least, was not in the book's harsh treatment of fire-eaters, but rather in the way that the author showed his hand and perspective in the epilogue and appendix to the book. He shows his hand in two ways that particularly offended me. For one, the author commented on the correlation between the Republican vote in 2008 with the lingering effects of the Civil War as a way of delegitimizing the Republican party as a whole. Second, the author stated in a brief closing bit of praise to failed 1972 Democratic standard-bearer McGovern that he was vindicated by what happened later. I happen to disagree. However bad Nixon was, and I think he is viewed harsher than he deserves to be, McGovern was a terrible option for the leader of our country. No amount of criminality on the part of Nixon's presidency makes McGovern a good option for president. As the election of 1860 makes plain, one does not only vote against people, but one has to vote for them either, and a worthwhile president has a good vision for a country, a vision that includes fidelity to the principles of our nation as well as a concern for the well-being of all and a combination of idealism and pragmatism. The contemporary politicians that the author seems to admire the most are those that simply have the wrong principles, and that makes this book a good deal less enjoyable to read as a result.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
April 12, 2014
I am of the generation that was taught that the Civil War was not about slavery – it was about “states’ rights.” Really. Now 150 years after the Civil War, let’s put that notion to rest at once and forever.
But, as the Year of Meteors points out, the Civil War was not about abolition in the South either. None of the major candidates (Democratic, Republican or Constitutional Union) of the 1860 election advocated the abolition of slavery in states where it existed. The southern states seceded because Lincoln wanted to stop slavery’s expansion into the territories. The Civil War was essentially fought over the expansion of slavery into the West.
It’s highly unlikely that Lincoln by himself could have prevented it from ever happening, but he certainly would have delayed it. But that was enough for the southern slave holders to secede from the Union. Of course, Lincoln hadn’t even taken office when the most of the states seceded – just the thought of him possibly delaying slavery’s expansion in the West was enough for them.
As the book shows, the southern states were used to getting their way. They were not accustomed to losing any argument or giving any ground, so the election loss was a novel experience. Also, they were looking for an excuse to secede and they manipulated the election of 1860 to create the pretense.
The book shows how William Yancey from Alabama plotted the destruction of the Democratic Party (at the time the conservative pro-slavery party) by creating a party platform that was so pro-slavery, so pro-south that he knew the northern free-soil states could never support it.
Right up to the Lincoln’s inauguration, however, the lame-duck Congress was preparing a compromise that offered the slave holding states a Constitutional amendment saying that slavery could never be abolished and that allowed slavery in the southwestern territories. Yes, I said that was a compromise. Apparently, the free soil states got the pleasure of having the slave holding states stay in the Union. The Republicans managed to kill the compromise before Lincoln took office.
This is a very interesting book. It is a dry subject, but if you are interested in the political history and the Civil War, this is an excellent read. People may complain of the gridlock and rigid ideological differences today, but this is heaven compared to the 1850s. I found it compelling reading.
Side Notes:
1. Possibly one the best/funniest quotes I’ve ever read: On hearing of South Carolina’s vote to secede, state native James Petigru said the state was “too small to be a nation and too large for an insane asylum.” (p. 230) State motto?
2. Was the Civil War fought over slavery? Did Union troops see themselves as fighting for the abolition of slavery? Technically no. But everyone understood the stakes of the 1860 election, and the free-soil states – and the voters for Lincoln – knew the key issue was stopping the expansion of slavery in the territories. They were not naïve. They fought for the Union, and they knew that slavery was tearing it apart.
3. The question is sometimes asked: Were secessionist traitors? The argument has been made that the secessionists did not want to overthrow the U.S. government so they weren't technically traitors. Here, though, is an interesting perspective of Alabama’s William Yancey: “Who shall dare oppose the [secession] of Alabama, when she assumed her independence out of the Union, will become traitors – rebels against its authority and will be dealt with as such.” (237)
But, as the Year of Meteors points out, the Civil War was not about abolition in the South either. None of the major candidates (Democratic, Republican or Constitutional Union) of the 1860 election advocated the abolition of slavery in states where it existed. The southern states seceded because Lincoln wanted to stop slavery’s expansion into the territories. The Civil War was essentially fought over the expansion of slavery into the West.
It’s highly unlikely that Lincoln by himself could have prevented it from ever happening, but he certainly would have delayed it. But that was enough for the southern slave holders to secede from the Union. Of course, Lincoln hadn’t even taken office when the most of the states seceded – just the thought of him possibly delaying slavery’s expansion in the West was enough for them.
As the book shows, the southern states were used to getting their way. They were not accustomed to losing any argument or giving any ground, so the election loss was a novel experience. Also, they were looking for an excuse to secede and they manipulated the election of 1860 to create the pretense.
The book shows how William Yancey from Alabama plotted the destruction of the Democratic Party (at the time the conservative pro-slavery party) by creating a party platform that was so pro-slavery, so pro-south that he knew the northern free-soil states could never support it.
Right up to the Lincoln’s inauguration, however, the lame-duck Congress was preparing a compromise that offered the slave holding states a Constitutional amendment saying that slavery could never be abolished and that allowed slavery in the southwestern territories. Yes, I said that was a compromise. Apparently, the free soil states got the pleasure of having the slave holding states stay in the Union. The Republicans managed to kill the compromise before Lincoln took office.
This is a very interesting book. It is a dry subject, but if you are interested in the political history and the Civil War, this is an excellent read. People may complain of the gridlock and rigid ideological differences today, but this is heaven compared to the 1850s. I found it compelling reading.
Side Notes:
1. Possibly one the best/funniest quotes I’ve ever read: On hearing of South Carolina’s vote to secede, state native James Petigru said the state was “too small to be a nation and too large for an insane asylum.” (p. 230) State motto?
2. Was the Civil War fought over slavery? Did Union troops see themselves as fighting for the abolition of slavery? Technically no. But everyone understood the stakes of the 1860 election, and the free-soil states – and the voters for Lincoln – knew the key issue was stopping the expansion of slavery in the territories. They were not naïve. They fought for the Union, and they knew that slavery was tearing it apart.
3. The question is sometimes asked: Were secessionist traitors? The argument has been made that the secessionists did not want to overthrow the U.S. government so they weren't technically traitors. Here, though, is an interesting perspective of Alabama’s William Yancey: “Who shall dare oppose the [secession] of Alabama, when she assumed her independence out of the Union, will become traitors – rebels against its authority and will be dealt with as such.” (237)
May 28, 2022
2 stars because it reads like a long list of sequential facts. I tend to like these types of books more when I already know the big picture and have well established context in my mind. I can then strengthen my big picture with additional supporting facts. But since this focused on a very specific sequence of events I didn't have much knowledge on, it read more like a set of random facts. Perhaps if I read biographies of Buchanan and Pierce first, the book would have been more valuable.
I will say that it made me interested to learn more about Stephen Douglas and the different factions of Democrats in the period.
I will say that it made me interested to learn more about Stephen Douglas and the different factions of Democrats in the period.
January 4, 2011
What an interesting read. It amazes me how history can repeat itself. I have to say parts were pretty dry, but I love history, and it was very interesting. If only history books could tell these stories in school!
Currently reading
November 4, 2010Tremendous detail on the myriad political parties (and their agendas) in the 1860 presidential nominating process.
October 29, 2018
1. How well written is it?
Year of Meteors is a very well written book. It is now one of my "Must Reads".
2. How interesting is the subject?
The Civil War was one of the most studied periods in American history is the Civil War. There are literally thousands of books on the Civil War and on the causes of the Civil War. Most books look at the superficial level---Slavery vs States Rights. A number of books go beyond the superficial level to discuss the broader history. IMHO, one of the best in that genre is Elizabeth Varon's Disunion.
Egerton takes a completely different view, which creates a fascinating theory.
3. Does the book offer novel insight into the subject or is it just regurgitating already known facts?
Egerton's basic hypothesis is that the forces leading to secession were well defined before the Republican convention in 1860. That Southerners were dead set on seeing the South secede, so it was only a matter of manipulating events to lead to that result.
Egerton looks at the cause of the Civil War not as an issue of Slavery/State RIght, but as the process by which the elected officials engaged in activities that wittingly/unwittingly made such an action a preordained event. In this approach, the specifics about slavery/states rights become ancillary.
The issues, in Egerton's opinion, had become so pronounced that both sides were ready for a fight. There was nothing that Lincoln (or anybody) could have done to prevent secession. This book is about how a few hundred elected leaders controlled the destiny of the country and actively manipulated what happened to ensure that secession occurred.
Year of Meteors is a very well written book. It is now one of my "Must Reads".
2. How interesting is the subject?
The Civil War was one of the most studied periods in American history is the Civil War. There are literally thousands of books on the Civil War and on the causes of the Civil War. Most books look at the superficial level---Slavery vs States Rights. A number of books go beyond the superficial level to discuss the broader history. IMHO, one of the best in that genre is Elizabeth Varon's Disunion.
Egerton takes a completely different view, which creates a fascinating theory.
3. Does the book offer novel insight into the subject or is it just regurgitating already known facts?
Egerton's basic hypothesis is that the forces leading to secession were well defined before the Republican convention in 1860. That Southerners were dead set on seeing the South secede, so it was only a matter of manipulating events to lead to that result.
Egerton looks at the cause of the Civil War not as an issue of Slavery/State RIght, but as the process by which the elected officials engaged in activities that wittingly/unwittingly made such an action a preordained event. In this approach, the specifics about slavery/states rights become ancillary.
The issues, in Egerton's opinion, had become so pronounced that both sides were ready for a fight. There was nothing that Lincoln (or anybody) could have done to prevent secession. This book is about how a few hundred elected leaders controlled the destiny of the country and actively manipulated what happened to ensure that secession occurred.
May 24, 2018
First off, 1860 really was a year of meteors and strange astronomical phenomena, and outside of the title, the book never mentions them! Poor organization.
Like a lot of histories, it starts extremely strong and trails off. The information about how Slave Power hijacked and derailed the Democratic primary of 1860, on purpose, was complete news to me. The book also does a wonderful job of putting Douglas and Strathairn, I mean Seward, in their historical places. Some distressing oversights and mistakes (describing one representative as elderly when he was 32 at the time), and a lot of glancing mentions of things that the author clearly didn't appreciate the full significance of (like the events surrounding the inauguration or the significance of the Wide-Awakes), but on the whole, an extremely worthy read.
I've often wondered if the cranial trauma had something to do with Sumner's erratic behavior in this era.
Like a lot of histories, it starts extremely strong and trails off. The information about how Slave Power hijacked and derailed the Democratic primary of 1860, on purpose, was complete news to me. The book also does a wonderful job of putting Douglas and Strathairn, I mean Seward, in their historical places. Some distressing oversights and mistakes (describing one representative as elderly when he was 32 at the time), and a lot of glancing mentions of things that the author clearly didn't appreciate the full significance of (like the events surrounding the inauguration or the significance of the Wide-Awakes), but on the whole, an extremely worthy read.
I've often wondered if the cranial trauma had something to do with Sumner's erratic behavior in this era.
July 29, 2024
A very good history book. Informative and well-researched but also approachable and easy to read, Egerton finds the perfect balance between academic and popular history. Everyone knows the 1860 election was important, but this book illuminates the goings-on that led up to Lincoln's momentous victory. The parties (and there were more than just 2!) were extremely factional, and the dynamics within the parties and at the convention shaped how the general election played out. Egerton lays to rest the myth that slavery was not a cause of secession, showing how it was by far the primary motivator of Southern secessionists. Douglas and Lincoln are the main characters, as the title suggests, but by no means is the book only about them. Other key figures of the era - William Seward and Jefferson Davis especially - are profiled, and one comes away from the book with a great overall idea of the year where secession became inevitable and actually happened.
March 9, 2022
A stern reminder that history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes
What??? A band of anti democratic rich guys promotes a refusal to accept the outcome of a free election, manipulates the electoral college, uses gerrymandering to produce a gridlock government, disrupts the process by selecting candidates who rarely stick to their principles, and adopting an anti-jurisprudence stance to the point of mounting an harmed insurrection all for the purpose of destroying the union to preserving slavery.
That couldn't happen in democratic, law abiding country or could it? Perhaps Egerton is right that it could as that what's seemed to have happened in 1860.
What??? A band of anti democratic rich guys promotes a refusal to accept the outcome of a free election, manipulates the electoral college, uses gerrymandering to produce a gridlock government, disrupts the process by selecting candidates who rarely stick to their principles, and adopting an anti-jurisprudence stance to the point of mounting an harmed insurrection all for the purpose of destroying the union to preserving slavery.
That couldn't happen in democratic, law abiding country or could it? Perhaps Egerton is right that it could as that what's seemed to have happened in 1860.
September 4, 2021
Today, if you think things are screwed up politically, it doesn't hold a candle to 1860. An election year, the ill will between north and south resulted in four presidential candidates and five or six conventions. The eventual victor, Abraham Lincoln, garnered 39% of the popular vote. This book is about 1860. Well researched and for the most part well written, I found it a very readable on the politics of the time. It may be too detailed for some; I've always been intrigued about the lead-up to the Civil War. Highly recommended for any buff of the war between the states.
October 5, 2022
What a goodie! The story of the 1860 election without the entire book (though still much of it) being just about Lincoln, all of the other players come to life - Stephen Douglas notably, but also William Seward, John Bell, and even Sam Houston. From the lamp oil-stained woke brigades (i mean no political slur - this is really what they called them) of the 1860 election to the complicated politics of the South. The title describes the 1860 election better than anything. So surprising, eventful and modern, even. Get on the campaign train.
March 10, 2023
An interesting and thorough account of the last presidential election before the civil war. Egerton makes a great case against the motives of Stephen Douglas and how his actions made a bad situation worse. There is also a compelling case against the southern "fire eaters" who made war inevitable despite the manifold desire of nearly everyone else that it not be inevitable. Well written and well documented, it is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the strange ways we come to kill each other.
April 27, 2023
I was recommended this book by my history professor to use in an essay. It has a good mix of primary and secondary sources, and really dives into the history before, during and after the election of 1860. I learned so much about this time period. If you like American history, this is really good to read as it dives into a very venerable and crucial time in the nations history.
:)
:)
November 26, 2023
This is an in-depth look at the Presidential Election of 1860. this means that if you don't want an almost blow by blow account of every political convention (keep in mind there were three Democratic ones, a Constitutional Union and a Republican), you may not want to pick this one up. It was interesting to read the backstories of the candidates, but those are few and far between.
November 25, 2018
This Ain't It
If you want to read a good book about the politics of the year before Ft. Sumter this Ain't it. My search continues.
If you want to read a good book about the politics of the year before Ft. Sumter this Ain't it. My search continues.
March 17, 2019
Very well written. The correlation in political climates then and now are shake your head interesting...oh my!
March 5, 2014
I missed this book when it was published in 2010, but with the renewed interest in all things Lincoln, I was intrigued by the idea of a book about the backroom politics that resulted in Lincoln's election in 1860. Surprisingly, Lincoln is only a supporting character in Egerton's book; the main focus is on other important figures of the time, whom history has more or less forgotten in the wake of the 16th President's accomplishments.
The most important character in the book is Lincoln's Illinois rival, Stephen Douglas. Coming into the election of 1860, Douglas was the most famous - as well as the most loved and hated - political figure in America. In trying to find a solution to the territorial expansion of slavery, Douglas came up with a plan that made things worse, popular sovereignty, which would allow the residents of the territories choose for themselves whether or not to allow slavery. This led to even more strife.
In 1860, there were four major candidates for president and one "third party" candidate who drew significant support. The Democrats ended up having four different conventions in two different cities. Southern extremists, called "Fire Eaters," had no desire to compromise and hoped that the Democrats would fall apart, ensuring a Republican win that would force Southern states to secede. And that is what happened, as the Democrats nominated two candidates, Douglas, a Northerner who owned slaves in Arkansas (indirectly), and John Breckenridge, a Kentuckian who actually didn't own any slaves.
The Republicans were expected to nominate New York Senator William Seward, but the party believed that he would be considered too radical and would not have carried states like Pennsylvania or Ohio (or even New York), so the party turned to Lincoln, who was a popular, yet lightly-regarded figure at the time.
Unusual for the time, the election of 1860 played out the way, political experts of the day thought it would back in June of that year. The Republicans carried all of the Northern states. Breckinridge won most of the South. Douglas won only in Missouri and a few electoral votes in New Jersey despite finishing second in the popular vote. Compromise candidate John Bell of Tennessee finished third in the electoral vote despite never espousing any platform. Lincoln won with the lowest popular vote percentage ever, just 39.8%.
After Lincoln's election, South Carolina and Georgia started the secession movement. There were last ditch efforts at compromise, but the Republicans would not back them, primarily because they granted an expansion of slavery into the territories. Also, Lincoln did not want to come into office with his hands tied. And so the nation headed off on into the Civil War. The Southern Fire Eaters, whose ideology was based on white supremacy and an antiquated economic system, got their wish of plunging the nation into a bloody conflict. The South thought that the North would cave easily, one in an increasingly great series of miscalculations they would make.
Egerton's book does a tremendous job of portraying the events of 1860 in a way that makes the reader feel like he or she is living in that time. In 1860, no one would have expected that Abraham Lincoln would become one of the most important historical figures of all time. Stephen Douglas seemed bound for that. But Douglas would die early in 1861, a victim of his own alcoholism, while Lincoln's fame persists, and other figures played their parts in a drama that we hope we never see again.
Reviewed by Bob Timmermann, Senior Librarian, Science, Technology & Patents Dept.
The most important character in the book is Lincoln's Illinois rival, Stephen Douglas. Coming into the election of 1860, Douglas was the most famous - as well as the most loved and hated - political figure in America. In trying to find a solution to the territorial expansion of slavery, Douglas came up with a plan that made things worse, popular sovereignty, which would allow the residents of the territories choose for themselves whether or not to allow slavery. This led to even more strife.
In 1860, there were four major candidates for president and one "third party" candidate who drew significant support. The Democrats ended up having four different conventions in two different cities. Southern extremists, called "Fire Eaters," had no desire to compromise and hoped that the Democrats would fall apart, ensuring a Republican win that would force Southern states to secede. And that is what happened, as the Democrats nominated two candidates, Douglas, a Northerner who owned slaves in Arkansas (indirectly), and John Breckenridge, a Kentuckian who actually didn't own any slaves.
The Republicans were expected to nominate New York Senator William Seward, but the party believed that he would be considered too radical and would not have carried states like Pennsylvania or Ohio (or even New York), so the party turned to Lincoln, who was a popular, yet lightly-regarded figure at the time.
Unusual for the time, the election of 1860 played out the way, political experts of the day thought it would back in June of that year. The Republicans carried all of the Northern states. Breckinridge won most of the South. Douglas won only in Missouri and a few electoral votes in New Jersey despite finishing second in the popular vote. Compromise candidate John Bell of Tennessee finished third in the electoral vote despite never espousing any platform. Lincoln won with the lowest popular vote percentage ever, just 39.8%.
After Lincoln's election, South Carolina and Georgia started the secession movement. There were last ditch efforts at compromise, but the Republicans would not back them, primarily because they granted an expansion of slavery into the territories. Also, Lincoln did not want to come into office with his hands tied. And so the nation headed off on into the Civil War. The Southern Fire Eaters, whose ideology was based on white supremacy and an antiquated economic system, got their wish of plunging the nation into a bloody conflict. The South thought that the North would cave easily, one in an increasingly great series of miscalculations they would make.
Egerton's book does a tremendous job of portraying the events of 1860 in a way that makes the reader feel like he or she is living in that time. In 1860, no one would have expected that Abraham Lincoln would become one of the most important historical figures of all time. Stephen Douglas seemed bound for that. But Douglas would die early in 1861, a victim of his own alcoholism, while Lincoln's fame persists, and other figures played their parts in a drama that we hope we never see again.
Reviewed by Bob Timmermann, Senior Librarian, Science, Technology & Patents Dept.
December 29, 2015
I had not come across this book when it was published back in 2010, but with the renewed interest in all things Lincoln, I was intrigued about a book about the backroom politics that resulted in Lincoln's election in 1860. Egerton's book though is not mostly about Lincoln, who is something of a supporting character, but rather on the important figures of the time, whom history has more or less forgotten in the wake of the 16th President's accomplishments.
The most important character in the book is Lincoln's Illinois rival, Stephen Douglas. Coming into the election of 1860, Douglas was the most famous political figure in America. He possibly may have also been the most loved and most hated at the same time. In trying to come up with a solution to the territorial expansion of slavery, Douglas came up with a plan that made things worse, popular sovereignty, which would allow the residents of the territories choose for themselves whether or not to allow slavery. This led to even more strife.
In 1860, there were four major candidates for president and one "third party" candidate who drew significant support. The Democrats ended up having four different conventions in two different cities. Southern extremists, called "Fire Eaters", had no desire to compromise and hoped that the Democrats would fall apart, ensuring a Republican win that would force Southern states to secede. And that is what happened, as the Democrats nominated two candidates, Douglas, a Northerner who owned slaves in Arkansas (indirectly), and John Breckenridge, a Kentuckian who actually didn't own any slaves.
The Republicans were expected to nominate New York Senator William Seward, but the party believed that he would be considered too radical and would not have carried states like Pennsylvania or Ohio (or even New York), so the party turned to Lincoln, who was a popular, yet lightly-regarded figure at the time.
Unusual for the time, the election of 1860 played out the way, political experts of the day thought it would back in June of that year. The Republicans carried all of the Northern states. Breckinridge won most of the South. Douglas won only in Missouri and a few electoral votes in New Jersey despite finishing second in the popular vote. Compromise candidate John Bell of Tennessee finished third in the electoral vote despite never espousing any platform. Lincoln won with the lowest popular vote percentage ever, just 39.8%.
After Lincoln's election, South Carolina and Georgia started the secession movement. There were last ditch efforts at compromise, but the Republicans would not back them, primarily because they granted an expansion of slavery into the territories. Also, Lincoln did not want to come into office with his hands tied.
And so the nation headed off on into the Civil War. The Southern Fire Eaters, whose ideology was based on white supremacy and an antiquated economic system, got their wish of plunging the nation into a bloody conflict. The South thought that the North would cave easily, one in an increasingly great series of miscalculations they would make.
Egerton's book does a tremendous job of looking at the events of 1860 almost as if you were living at the time. You wouldn't have thought in 1860 that Abraham Lincoln would become one of the most important historical figures of all time. You would have thought Stephen Douglas was bound for that. But Douglas would die early in 1861, a victim of his own alcoholism. Lincoln's fame persists. Other figures played their parts in a drama that we hope we never see again.
The most important character in the book is Lincoln's Illinois rival, Stephen Douglas. Coming into the election of 1860, Douglas was the most famous political figure in America. He possibly may have also been the most loved and most hated at the same time. In trying to come up with a solution to the territorial expansion of slavery, Douglas came up with a plan that made things worse, popular sovereignty, which would allow the residents of the territories choose for themselves whether or not to allow slavery. This led to even more strife.
In 1860, there were four major candidates for president and one "third party" candidate who drew significant support. The Democrats ended up having four different conventions in two different cities. Southern extremists, called "Fire Eaters", had no desire to compromise and hoped that the Democrats would fall apart, ensuring a Republican win that would force Southern states to secede. And that is what happened, as the Democrats nominated two candidates, Douglas, a Northerner who owned slaves in Arkansas (indirectly), and John Breckenridge, a Kentuckian who actually didn't own any slaves.
The Republicans were expected to nominate New York Senator William Seward, but the party believed that he would be considered too radical and would not have carried states like Pennsylvania or Ohio (or even New York), so the party turned to Lincoln, who was a popular, yet lightly-regarded figure at the time.
Unusual for the time, the election of 1860 played out the way, political experts of the day thought it would back in June of that year. The Republicans carried all of the Northern states. Breckinridge won most of the South. Douglas won only in Missouri and a few electoral votes in New Jersey despite finishing second in the popular vote. Compromise candidate John Bell of Tennessee finished third in the electoral vote despite never espousing any platform. Lincoln won with the lowest popular vote percentage ever, just 39.8%.
After Lincoln's election, South Carolina and Georgia started the secession movement. There were last ditch efforts at compromise, but the Republicans would not back them, primarily because they granted an expansion of slavery into the territories. Also, Lincoln did not want to come into office with his hands tied.
And so the nation headed off on into the Civil War. The Southern Fire Eaters, whose ideology was based on white supremacy and an antiquated economic system, got their wish of plunging the nation into a bloody conflict. The South thought that the North would cave easily, one in an increasingly great series of miscalculations they would make.
Egerton's book does a tremendous job of looking at the events of 1860 almost as if you were living at the time. You wouldn't have thought in 1860 that Abraham Lincoln would become one of the most important historical figures of all time. You would have thought Stephen Douglas was bound for that. But Douglas would die early in 1861, a victim of his own alcoholism. Lincoln's fame persists. Other figures played their parts in a drama that we hope we never see again.
December 5, 2010
Year of Meteors is an excellent narrative history of the election year processes that brought about the American Civil War. William Yancey and Robert Barnwell Rhett wanted an independent South and helped destroy the Democrat's election chances to bring about that result, ultimately allowing Stephen Douglas a worthless nomination. Although William Seward was the expected Republican nominee in 1860, Abraham Lincoln's backers successfully promoted their candidate as the less radical choice. Meanwhile, two splinter parties emerged that represented the Southern separatists and those willing to compromise at almost any price. Egerton makes clear that slavery was the issue that separated southerners and northerners, despite what some historians have argued. What I found most surprising was Douglas's willingess to support Lincoln as the nation moved toward Civil War. I highly recommend this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews