Historian susan schulten, our country has experienced several fraught president ial transitions but the 1860 transition between James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln is described by various historians as contentious, tumultuous, dangerous, and even the worst in history. What made it so . Susan on the face of it is what you have to recognize is this was the most consequential election transition in American History. The central issue, of course, is that several Southern States did not recognize the election of Abraham Lincoln as a legitimate. It considered him a sectional president for the fact that by and large his support came from nonslave states and no sooner had he been elected that South Carolina makes good on its promise to proceed toward seceding from the union on the grounds that the election did not represent its interest. Host lets set the stage for the transition. James buchanan had announced that he would be a one term president , but we did a regular president ial Leadership Survey and James Buchanan always falls at the bottom of the list as the worst leader in american president ial history. How would you characterize his leadership skills and how we conducted his administration and how he left the country as it moved toward the election . Susan it does seem to be the way historians assess him in large part because the next thing we know is the civil war. So it feels a little bit like a categorical characterization of him. But you are right that his administration came under a lot of criticism. He was fairly openly sympathetic to the proslavery interest of the south, he championed the dred scott decision, which Many Americans felt like a complete abdication of leadership and a betrayal of the interest that drove the Republican Party around the abolition of slavery in the west, and i think he earns that number one spot in terms of how he conducts the transition, and that is a way in which he openly rejects secession, he believes in the union but he consistently says over and over and publicly that he has no power to prevent the Southern States from leaving. So he sets up this real problem that secession is wrong but i will not do anything about it. Host in your analysis it is more ineptitude on his part or an interpretation of his powers as president and sympathy towards the south and wanting to undo what the voters at actually chosen in 1860. Susan i think that is fair. He does not believe the election is legitimate. He is frustrated by the Republican Party and openly blames the party for the crisis. The first Public Statement he makes after the election is his address to congress after november and the entire country is riveted. In the address, he is very caustic. He blames northern republicans, abolitionists, for the fact that Southern States are seceding and that feels like an abdication of responsibility. It feels like he is making the crisis worse rather than turning it down. Host how are we to interpret the fact that his party actually nominated two candidates in 1860 . Susan that seals the deal. When democrats meet in charlston, in the sweltering heat of the summer the of 1860, the convention falls apart on the issue of slavery. Northern democrats and southern democrats cannot see eye to eye. They are sympathetic to slavery in terms of wings of the party that southern democrats are not satisfied that Stephen Douglas , the northern nominee, is enough proslavery so they walked out of that convention. Anyone paying attention to Party Politics in the summer of 1860 can see the election of Abraham Lincoln and republicans had gotten a tremendous boost of likelihood. Host what about the republicans that year . This is only the second time they had advanced a candidate for election. How united where they . Susan that is a terrific question, because i think it is crucial for our viewers to understand as you just reminded them this is only the second time the Republican Party had mounted a president ial ticket. We are talking about a party that is five years old going from losing its first effort to winning in the second. Many people know that lincoln was not the favorite candidate. At the Republican Convention in chicago he is known as the dark horse and has a strategy that i quite like. He is everyones second favorite. And he crucially doesnt alienate anyone. The leaders or presumed leaders are unacceptable to either wing. You have border states, more conservative republicans who find someone like seward who is fairly openly aggressively antislavery unacceptable, but lincoln is the one that can bring all of them together. You hinted at something. After that election the forefront in lincolns mind is not just having his cabinet and dealing with the crisis but unifying this new party. Host was the election really only fought on that single issue, the preservation of the union and the future of slavery . Susan yeah, i think it really does come down to that. There are other issues in american politics in the 19th century but that is the key. The key element of it is not just slavery but slavery in the territories, a referendum on that issue. Host lets look at the results on election day. There were four candidates and at that time only white males had the opportunity to vote in the united states. He won the election with a clear majority in the electoral college, 180 electoral votes, and carried 18 states. What are the things to know behind those numbers . Susan the things my students find most remarkable is that he 40 of the popular vote. Won that is a statistic that deep southern democrats tout as an absolute definitive judgment on the illegitimacy of the election. Host did southern voters take part, or do they sit it out because they saw it as a sectional election . Susan that is an interesting question. Most Southern States do participate in the typical way and in the deepest southern , states, the states considered most depended on slavery, southern democrats, the most ardent proslavery part wins, so wins, so you can see some contours that have everything to do with slavery but also the pattern of secession that will occur after the election. Host the fact that he only received 40 of the popular vote is interesting to your students. How about this . The fact if you tally all three candidates together they did not equal lincolns numbers . Why is that also important for him setting the stage to have a mandate . Susan that is a wonderful observation because we deal a lot with the data in the 1860 election and they say the problem was there was a four way election, the democrats split. That is just part of the problem. This is a fragmented election, but even as you said, the constitutional union, northern and southern democrats banded together, lincoln still would have prevailed. The key there is to understand that the electoral strength is moving in a certain direction that has to do with population trends. Host as we are wondering what will happen with the Senate Majority in the outcome of the 2020 election how did congress , fare for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 . Susan he does well. The republicans do well. It is very sectional. It gives him a strong what i would call mandate. The other thing to consider about congress is that after South Carolina secedes, after the troubles that push Southern States to leave, you have an election where republicans do well and the rest of secession is compounded by the fact that deep southern prosecession slavery representatives are leaving for the capital what that makes possible is a republican agenda that might not otherwise have been possible. Lincoln does not face the kind of scrutiny and opposition and delay in his cabinet that he might if there was a full democratic strength Opposition Party and toward the end of buchanans administration, it makes it possible to bring in kansas as a free state and a whole host of new territories, including colorado. So the country is simultaneously shrinking and also growing. It is remarkable. Host would you spend a minute talking about the journalism of the time and how they supported the candidates and their causes . It was an age of highly partisan media and the time people only read what their interests were, which again has some parallels to what we are seeing today in the country. Susan that is a wonderful observation. When you say partisan media that you mean it quite literally. Most newspapers were party organs, so you have the secession winter and interregnum for lincolns inauguration, you see all kinds of tension. What is lincoln saying this week . Saying something on x . What is buchanan saying . All of it is filtered through your political identity. I cannot stress that enough. In some ways, it is so resonant with what we are seeing today that from november to march people saw events through the lens of their own party. Host we are in an era where inaugurations happen in march. Did the new inauguration start start their new session in march or did they begin their session in january . Susan they do not come back into session until july. It creates an enormous problem. This is before the 20th amendment. We still have president s inaugurated in march and i want to impress that upon your listeners. Think about what an interminable period what that winter was from the first tuesday in November December until the first week in march. A seemingly endless period when the country is on a knife edge. When lincoln is inaugurated, congress is not in session and will not be back until july. That creates all kinds of problems because of lincoln as face some of the first crises around fort sumter. He raises a militia without the permission of congress. That becomes an area in which he is scrutinized because congress is not in session. Host you told us James Buchanan made his speech to the nation shortly after the election. What happened with him . Did he stay in washington for the rest of the time of the transition and was he vocal during much of that time . Susan he does stay in washington, and scholars have pointed out that all he really wanted to do is go back to pennsylvania. He is very old, one of the oldest president s at that time. He is there for the crisis, and he is sending mixed messages, on the one side he is saying secession is absolutely illegal and on the other so that not not doing anything and there are consequences for that. Not least of which is in that long interregnum before lincoln is inaugurated and someone who takes a stronger federal stance, Southern States are taking control of forts and garrisons, federal property. That means that the confederacy, when it does that means that amalgamate and go to war, is stronger than it might have otherwise been. So buchanans action, or inaction, has consequences. Host why would a sitting president not use federal troops to defend federal garrisons . Susan the real question is whether he is violating state rights and whether he has the power to do that. And he does send the star in the west in early january off the coast of South Carolina to reinforce that, but they are fired on by South Carolina and they retreat. That action in early january is responsible for that second wave. You have South Carolina at first christmas declaring itself out of the union, and right after that little conflagration, where the union pulled back from using force, you had in rapid secession joining South Carolina succession, deep Southern States joining South Carolina to form the confederacy. Mississippi, florida, georgia, alabama, texas, and louisiana. Host we talked about what James Buchanan did. Abraham lincoln stayed in his home city of springfield, illinois. How visible was he during this period . Susan he is visible locally, for sure. He takes visitors. A lot of wellwishers as well, but the interesting thing is this is where lincoln is scrutinized. In other words, i would say that for a long time civil war scholars really look at this period and thought why did lincoln not do more . Why did he not reach out more, placate the south . He has come to be described as deploying a masterly inactivity. In other words, he is careful about what he says, he does speak, but he does not speak about slavery and what he repeatedly says is, my record stands for itself. What he means is that on many issues he is open to hearing suggestions. He wants to halt the momentum of secession but there is one issue on which he is inflexible and that is the founding principle of the party that elected him. Congress has not just the right but the obligation to forbid slavery from spreading into the territories. Host all eyes were on his cabinet selections during that period of time and he did a lot of interviewing of people in springfield. What was he trying to do with the cabinet he was assembling and how was it viewed by partisans on both sides of the issue . Susan i think he is trying to create balance. The Republican Party is a Fragile Coalition as you implied earlier. It has ardent antislavery elements, the former whigs, a little more tentative about augmenting a quasiabolitionist position and those folks do not get along together always. The convention in chicago showed off some of those divisions. Lincoln is carefully reaching out to certain types of people, including a more conservative republican from missouri as well as William Seward from new york who represents the ardent antislavery ring. Wing. It is complicated. It is also a cabinet that has gone down in history by scholars as choosing one of the more unfortunate individuals, simon cameron, who was known for being an open grifter when it comes to corruption and fraud. But he was summoned to placate s someone to placate the interests of people of pennsylvania. Host lincoln while he was in springfield, did he use any allies to help advance his issues or reach out to the Buchanan Administration . Susan great question. It is not just in washington but around the country. His fellow senator is a close colleague, someone who had bested him in the race for Senate Several years earlier who is now his key emissary. To your point, he uses individuals like trumble to kind of telegraph messages into washington. In washington, from the moment of the election until i would say mid february, there is a frantic effort to stave off secession, to end the crisis and reach some kind of compromise. The other thing i think it is fascinating, and my students absolutely love this, is that in this time, december and january, lincoln is also writing to his former colleagues from congress, john gilmore, Alexander Stephens. Who becomes the Vice President of the confederacy. These are men he trusts. And in the case of Alexander Stephens this is a man who openly criticizes this union. Stephen says to his fellow southerners, this is not the way to get what we want. We are safer in the union then than out of the union. In my mind lincoln is reaching out strategically. It does not work out. North carolina and georgia joined the confederacy, but he is putting out feelers to push things in a certain direction. Host another interesting contrast between the incumbent and the incoming president. James buchanan was perhaps the most experienced politician of the era. He held almost every post you can think of before ascending to the presidency. Abraham lincoln, one failed Senate Campaign and one term in congress. So what do you make in terms of the difference and political skills between the two without the requisite experience behind it . Susan i was reflecting on that this morning. I thought to myself, Abraham Lincoln would have a tough time today in the experience realm. He would not fare very well as a one term congressman who goes back to practicing law in springfield. That is a tough one. Because lincolns estimation grows in hindsight. One thing we fail to appreciate was how much criticism lincoln received during the war throughout the war from different camps. Obviously hated in many parts of the south but deeply resented by democrats in the north for provoking a war that was unnecessary, if you will, for ignoring overtures to peace. We consider lincoln a masterful politician. He remains the one that not just historians but leadership types, communication scholars, everyone takes from lincoln what they will, but much of that is because we know the outcome of the story. Host in setting the stage for his administration lincoln decided to embark on a 13 date y train trip from springfield to washington. Tell our listeners about that story. It brought out crowds at nearly every stop and he interacted with the public along the way. How important was that in setting the tone for his presidency . Susan that is a good question because it is a kind of symbolic move. You raise a good point. It is a long train ride from illinois through what we would call the upper midwest toward the atlantic and down into washington. Not a lot of consequential speeches happen along the way. Those speeches are scrutinized and because of the telegraph, can be printed or reported upon , people are paying close attention to where he is, but it is more symbolic to where he is doubling down on the meaning of the union, on the fact that this country is more than an amalgamation of states. It has a higher purpose. And that is an element of lincolns thinking that this country has a purpose.