Most people think of Abraham Lincoln as a shoo-in. We see the marble statue in D.C. and assume his path to the White House was some kind of destiny. Honestly? It was a mess. In 1860, the country wasn't just divided; it was literally shattering into pieces. If you've ever wondered who ran against Lincoln for president, the answer isn't just one name. It was a four-way cage match that fundamentally changed how American politics works.
Lincoln wasn't even the favorite for his own party's nomination at first. He was a "rail-splitter" from Illinois with a high-pitched voice and a reputation for being a bit of a storyteller. He was up against three other guys who all thought they were better suited for the job. You had Stephen A. Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, and John Bell. Each represented a different vision of what the United States should be, and none of those visions involved getting along.
The Man He Chased for Years: Stephen A. Douglas
If Lincoln had a nemesis, it was Stephen A. Douglas. Known as the "Little Giant" because he was short but had a booming voice and a massive personality, Douglas was the face of the Northern Democrats. These two had been duking it out in Illinois for years. You probably remember the Lincoln-Douglas debates from history class. Those weren't for the presidency; they were for a Senate seat in 1858. Lincoln actually lost that one.
Douglas's whole platform was "popular sovereignty." It sounds fancy, but it basically meant: let the people in the new Western territories decide for themselves if they want slavery or not. He thought this was the middle ground. It wasn't. It made the South hate him because he wouldn't guarantee slavery's expansion, and it made the North suspicious of him because he wouldn't flat-out condemn it.
By the time 1860 rolled around, the Democratic Party couldn't even agree on him. They held their convention in Charleston, South Carolina, and it was a total disaster. Southern delegates walked out because Douglas wouldn't support a federal slave code. The party split in half. Douglas ended up being the nominee for the Northern wing of the party, but he was already playing a losing hand.
The Southern Firebrand: John C. Breckinridge
When the Democrats split, the Southern wing needed their own guy. They chose John C. Breckinridge. He was the sitting Vice President under James Buchanan. Think about that for a second. The current VP was running against his own party's "official" nominee. Breckinridge was the candidate for the Southern Democrats, and his message was clear: slavery is a right, and the federal government has to protect it everywhere.
📖 Related: Trump New Gun Laws: What Most People Get Wrong
Breckinridge wasn't some fringe radical in the eyes of the South. He was a Kentucky blueblood. He represented the establishment that believed the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. When you look at who ran against Lincoln for president, Breckinridge is the one who dominated the Deep South. He took almost every state below the Mason-Dixon line.
The "Can't We Just Get Along?" Candidate: John Bell
Then there was John Bell. He ran for the Constitutional Union Party. It was a brand-new party made up of former Whigs and "Know-Nothings" who were terrified that the country was about to explode. Their entire platform was basically "The Constitution, the Union, and the Enforcement of the Laws." That’s it. No mention of slavery. No mention of the big issues of the day.
It was a "status quo" ticket. Bell was a wealthy slaveholder from Tennessee, but he opposed the expansion of slavery if it meant destroying the Union. He was the candidate for people who were tired of the arguing. He won the "border states"—Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee—because those were the places that would get wrecked if a war actually started. They were the middle ground, literally and figuratively.
Why Lincoln Actually Won
Lincoln won because the opposition was fractured. It’s a classic math problem. He only pulled in about 40% of the popular vote. In a two-man race, he might have lost. But because the Democrats were busy fighting each other and John Bell was siphoning off the moderate vote, Lincoln swept the North.
He didn't even appear on the ballot in ten Southern states. Not one.
👉 See also: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
The Republican party was still pretty new back then. It was founded in the mid-1850s specifically to stop slavery from spreading. Lincoln was their "moderate" choice. They passed over William H. Seward, who was seen as too radical, for the more electable guy from the West.
The campaign was brutal. People called Lincoln a "gorilla." They called him a "black Republican" (which was a slur back then intended to suggest he wanted total racial equality, something that terrified many white voters). There was no TV, so it was all about pamphlets, rallies, and "Wide Awakes"—groups of young men who marched through streets with torches to support Lincoln.
The Re-Election: 1864 and George McClellan
Fast forward four years. The country is in the middle of the Civil War. It's 1864, and Lincoln is running for a second term. The situation is grim. The North is tired of the fighting. The death tolls are staggering. Most people, including Lincoln himself, thought he was going to lose.
So, who ran against Lincoln for president in the middle of a war? It was George B. McClellan.
This is one of the most awkward moments in American history. McClellan was the General who Lincoln had fired a couple of years earlier for being too hesitant on the battlefield. Lincoln famously said McClellan had "the slows." Now, the General was running against his former boss on a "Peace" platform.
✨ Don't miss: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
The Northern Democrats (often called "Copperheads") wanted to end the war immediately through a negotiated settlement. McClellan was their man. If he had won, the United States might have remained two separate countries. But then, a few months before the election, General Sherman captured Atlanta. This changed everything. It showed the North that the war was winnable. Lincoln won in a landslide, taking 212 electoral votes to McClellan’s 21.
Why This Matters Now
Understanding the people who ran against Lincoln helps us see that the Civil War wasn't inevitable—it was the result of a total breakdown in the political process. We talk about "polarization" today, but 1860 was the ultimate version of that.
- The Power of Third Parties: The 1860 election showed how third (and fourth) parties can act as spoilers or represent niche regional interests that the main parties ignore.
- The Importance of Party Unity: The Democrats' split is the only reason a relatively unknown lawyer from Illinois had a path to the presidency.
- The Impact of Military Success on Politics: Without the fall of Atlanta in 1864, we might be looking at a very different map of North America today.
If you want to dive deeper into this, start by looking at the 1860 electoral map. It’s a haunting visual of a country splitting in two. You can find high-resolution versions on the Library of Congress website. Also, check out Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It’s a thick book, but it explains how Lincoln eventually brought his political enemies into his cabinet to save the country.
The next step for any history buff is to look at the local newspapers from 1860 in your own state. Seeing the "Letters to the Editor" from that era makes the tension feel incredibly real. You'll see that the people living through it were just as scared and confused about the future as anyone is during a modern election.