Election of 1860, Secession & Fort Sumter · Grade 7 Social Studies

Chapter: Sectional Crisis & Civil War

Election of 1860, Secession & Fort Sumter

Learning goals

Before this unit

Locate the period and region using the supplied background and timeline. Define unfamiliar terms and distinguish a document’s assertion from an established outcome.

Use three flexible 40–45-minute sessions: background and Parts 1–2 with checks; Parts 3–4 and the worked evidence case; then remaining practice, a timeline or labeled model, revision, and the exit check. Complete one short part at a time. Embedded checks count toward the practice set, rather than duplicate homework. Workshop, review, quiz, exams, and flexible support have separate time.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were seven open-air arguments across Illinois, lasting three hours each, over a Senate seat Lincoln lost. Newspapers printed them in full, and they made an Illinois lawyer into a national figure while damaging Douglas in the South.

In October 1859 John Brown seized the federal armoury at Harpers Ferry with twenty-one men, intending to arm a slave revolt. He failed in thirty-six hours and was hanged in December, but the reaction told each section something frightening about the other.

The election of 1860 split the Democratic Party in two and produced four candidates. Lincoln took 180 electoral votes on 39.8 per cent of the popular vote. South Carolina voted to leave on 20 December, before he had taken office or signed anything.

Build your understanding

Use three flexible 40-45-minute sessions: the debates and Harpers Ferry; the four-way election and the arithmetic of it; secession, Sumter and the declarations, then the practice set, revision and the exit check. Workshop, review, quiz and exams have separate time.

Part 1 · Seven debates in Illinois

Lincoln opened the 1858 campaign by saying that a house divided against itself cannot stand and that the country would become all one thing or all the other. Douglas answered that the country had lived half slave and half free for seventy years, since the Constitution was written in 1787, and could continue indefinitely if each place decided for itself.

At Freeport, Lincoln asked the question that cost Douglas the presidency. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 had just held that Congress could not bar slavery from a territory; could the settlers of a territory therefore exclude it, as popular sovereignty promised? Douglas said yes in effect, because slavery needed local police regulations to survive and a legislature could simply decline to pass them.

That answer, the Freeport Doctrine, was honest and fatal. It satisfied Illinois and enraged the South, which heard a man explaining how to nullify a Supreme Court ruling they had just won. Two years later it helped split his party.

Note what Lincoln was and was not saying. He opposed the extension of slavery and called it a moral wrong, and he also said at Charleston that he was not in favour of social and political equality between the races, a statement his admirers have been uncomfortable with ever since. He was running in Illinois in 1858, and reading him as a finished abolitionist flattens a man who moved a great deal in the next seven years.

Lincoln lost. Senators were chosen by state legislatures then, not by voters, and the Democrats held enough seats. But the debates were reprinted across the country and he published them as a book in 1860, which is how a one-term congressman became a plausible nominee.

Pause and explain

Why did the Freeport Doctrine hurt Douglas in the South?

Check your reasoning after answering

Because it explained how to defeat a decision the South had just won. Dred Scott held that Congress could not ban slavery in a territory, and Douglas told voters a territorial legislature could achieve the same result simply by refusing to pass the laws slavery needed to operate. Southern Democrats heard their victory being made worthless.

Part 2 · Harpers Ferry

Brown had come out of Kansas with a plan: seize the federal arsenal in Virginia, distribute the weapons, and build a force in the mountains that enslaved people could join. He raised money from New England backers, recruited twenty-one men including five Black men and three of his sons, and attacked on 16 October 1859.

It went wrong at once. Nobody rose to join him, the raiders were surrounded in an engine house, and a detachment of marines commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee took the building in three minutes. Ten raiders died, including two of Brown's sons. Brown was tried for treason against Virginia, convicted, and hanged on 2 December.

His conduct at the trial changed everything. Wounded and calm, he told the court that if it was thought necessary that he should forfeit his life for the furtherance of justice and mingle his blood with the blood of millions in this slave country, let it be done. Emerson compared him to a saint; church bells rang in parts of New England on the day he died; and Thoreau defended him in print.

Southern readers saw northern crowds mourning a man who had tried to arm their slaves and drew the obvious conclusion, whether or not it was fair. Most northerners condemned the raid, and the Republican Party disavowed it immediately, but the funeral bells were what got reported in Richmond. Militia companies formed across the South through 1860, which meant that when war came the Confederacy already had the beginnings of an army.

Pause and explain

Why did a failed raid by twenty-two men matter so much?

Check your reasoning after answering

Because of the reactions it produced on both sides. Brown's dignity at his trial made him a martyr to a visible northern minority, and the bells and eulogies convinced southerners that the North would applaud a slave insurrection. Southern states answered by arming and drilling militia through 1860, so the raid's real effect was military preparation and mutual conviction of bad faith.

Part 3 · Four candidates, one winner

The Democratic convention met in Charleston in April 1860 and broke apart over whether the party platform should guarantee slavery in the territories. Northern Democrats nominated Douglas; southern Democrats walked out and nominated John C. Breckinridge. A fourth group of former Whigs formed the Constitutional Union Party behind John Bell on the platform that the Constitution should simply be obeyed and the subject dropped.

The Republicans met in Chicago and passed over better-known men for Lincoln, partly because he had made fewer enemies and partly because he could carry the lower North. His name did not appear on the ballot in ten southern states.

The result: Lincoln 1.87 million votes, about 39.8 per cent, and 180 electoral votes. Douglas came second in popular votes with about 29.5 per cent and won exactly one state, Missouri. Breckinridge took the Deep South, Bell took three border states.

The arithmetic is worth doing carefully, because the common claim that the split elected Lincoln is only half right. Even if every vote for Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell had gone to one candidate, Lincoln's margins in the populous northern states were large enough to give him an electoral majority anyway. The split mattered less to the outcome than to the legitimacy of it: a president chosen by under 40 per cent, with nothing in the South, was easy to describe as a sectional ruler imposed on an unwilling region.

Pause and explain

Did the Democratic split cause Lincoln's victory?

Check your reasoning after answering

Not by itself. Combining all three opponents' votes behind one candidate would still have left Lincoln with an electoral majority, because his margins in the large northern states were wide. What the split did was make his win look sectional and illegitimate, since he took under 40 per cent of the popular vote and was not even on the ballot in ten states.

Part 4 · Secession, and what the documents say

South Carolina's convention voted to leave on 20 December 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed by 1 February 1861, and delegates formed the Confederate States of America at Montgomery that month, electing Jefferson Davis president. All of this happened before Lincoln was inaugurated on 4 March.

Several of those states published declarations of the causes of secession, and the historian's job here is easy because they were not shy. Mississippi's begins by saying its position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. Texas listed the free states' refusal to return fugitives. South Carolina's complaint was almost entirely about northern states nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act.

This matters because a different explanation became popular afterwards. From the 1870s a version took hold in which the war had been about states' rights and tariffs rather than slavery, and it is still repeated. The test is straightforward: read what the seceding states said at the time, when they were trying to persuade each other rather than defend themselves to posterity, and compare it with what their defenders said thirty years later.

Fort Sumter sat in Charleston harbour, held by a small federal garrison running out of food. Lincoln notified South Carolina that he was sending provisions and no weapons, which left the Confederacy choosing between allowing a federal fort to be resupplied or firing first. Batteries opened on 12 April 1861 and the fort surrendered after thirty-four hours with nobody killed in the bombardment. Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers, and Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina, which had refused to secede over the election, left rather than furnish troops against other southern states.

Pause and explain

How should a student answer the claim that the war was about states' rights rather than slavery?

Check your reasoning after answering

By going to the secession declarations themselves. Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia and Texas published statements of cause in 1860 and 1861 that name slavery directly, and South Carolina's chief complaint was that northern states were exercising a state right to obstruct the federal fugitive law. The states'-rights explanation appears mainly in accounts written decades later, not in the documents of the moment.

Apply the whole unit · Test a counterfactual

In 1860 Lincoln won about 1.87 million votes, Douglas 1.38 million, Breckinridge 0.85 million and Bell 0.59 million. Lincoln took 180 of 303 electoral votes. A common claim is that the Democratic split handed him the presidency.

Your task

Test the claim with the figures and then state what you can and cannot conclude.

What your response should show

  • Computes the combined opposition total and notes it exceeds Lincoln's
  • Explains why a national popular total does not decide an electoral college result
  • Identifies state-by-state reassignment as the proper test
  • Separates the question of who won from the question of legitimacy
Response guidance — after your attempt
  1. Add the three opponents' popular votes and compare the total with Lincoln's.

  2. Explain why that comparison does not settle the question.

  3. State what you would need to know to test the claim properly.

  4. Say what the result implies about the legitimacy problem Lincoln faced.

The three opponents together polled about 2.82 million against Lincoln's 1.87 million, so a single opponent appears to win comfortably on popular votes. That comparison does not settle it, because presidents are elected by states: Lincoln's opponents' votes were concentrated in the South, which he had already conceded, while he carried the large northern states by wide margins. To test it properly you would have to reassign every vote state by state and recount the electoral college, which historians have done and which still leaves Lincoln with a majority. The honest conclusion is that the split did not change who won but did shape how the win was received, since a president with under 40 per cent of the vote and no southern ballot line could be portrayed as the choice of one section imposed on the rest.

Read the records yourself

Parent / teacher teaching notes

Ask for one because-statement, a dated connection, and a source limitation. Give specific feedback and time to revise. Allow notes, a glossary, oral explanations, or a labeled timeline. Evaluate context, evidence, and reasoning rather than the learner’s politics, religion, cultural identity, or agreement with the model wording. Do not require family disclosure or role-play of slavery or persecution.

The key idea

Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 with under 40 per cent of the popular vote and no ballot at all in ten southern states, because his opponents split three ways. Seven states left before he was sworn in, and the documents they wrote explaining why name slavery directly.

Worked examples

Example 1 · Worked evidence case

Correct the event types and connect them with the longer slavery crisis.
  1. Distinguish electoral, governmental, and military acts.
  2. Order the decisions.
  3. Explain the defended institution and subsequent escalation.
Answer: The election chose a president, secession asserted separation, and the attack was a military act. Slavery’s protection and expansion were central to the crisis connecting these decisions, while choices and responses shaped escalation. The election alone was not a battle, and the chronology does not establish every individual’s motive.

Example 2 · Compare a second claim after your attempt

Does identifying Confederate defense of slavery require claiming every Confederate resident owned enslaved people?
  1. Identify the relevant period, institution, or evidence category.
  2. No. Institutional aims and individual ownership are different categories. Compare official declarations and policies with specific household or participant evidence.
  3. State the narrower conclusion the supplied information can support.
Answer: No. Institutional aims and individual ownership are different categories. Compare official declarations and policies with specific household or participant evidence.

Avoid these mistakes

Check your understanding

Does Lincoln’s victory establish identical motives among all his voters?

Discuss the answer

No. It establishes an electoral result. Individual motives and the views of excluded residents need additional evidence.

Why does a state’s declaration not speak for every resident?

Discuss the answer

The authority’s decision and participants’ rules differ from everyone’s views. Enslaved people and other dissenting or excluded residents were not equally represented.

Words to know

context
The time, place, institutions, and conditions surrounding an event.
primary source
Evidence created in the period or activity being investigated; its form does not automatically guarantee accuracy.
interpretation
An explanation of evidence that can be compared with context and other records.
secession
An assertion of withdrawal from a political union; its claimed authority and purposes require context.
trigger
An immediate event contributing to the onset of an outcome within broader conditions and causes.

Extend the historical inquiry

If you use a linked record, identify creator, date, audience, purpose, form, and a specific claim it supports. Keep original wording separate from course paraphrase. Seek a different independently produced record that would test an inference.

In the real world

Trace a dated claim to its evidence and distinguish stated aims, institutions, and actual access. Describe people and communities without universal stereotypes.

Exit check

Why should a war’s aims be studied over time?

Check your explanation after answering

Governments and people can change objectives and policies as conditions develop. Later emancipation policy is not evidence that every initial aim was identical.

Explain your reasoning without notes. If a key idea is missing, revisit the lesson and try again.

Browse all courses