Had he not fucked up by pissing off the Southern Democrats and perhaps been more vocal in defending the Dred Scott Decision and the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution, could Stephen Douglas have retained the support of the Breckinridge wing of the Democratic Party and won the election of 1860?
The general impression that I get is that South Carolina would've seceded unless Breckinridge won, so if Douglas were more pro-slavery, would he have stood a chance at holding the country together? If the Supreme Court under Taney passed a decision similar to Dred Scott that restricted Congress from legislating against slavery, could we have seen the North secede from the Union like New England almost did in the War of 1812?
>>2415579
I think at this point, the South was going to secede no matter what. I mean, after the North celebrated John Brown as a martyr, tensions were at the boiling point. Had Douglas won, I imagine he would have only been able to stave off the rebellion for another term. I doubt the North would have rebelled, a great many of the States fought for the Union to keep it preserved, not to free the slaves.
>>2417219
this
No, even if Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge combined their votes they would've still lost the election with ~60% of the vote. The entire reason that the south was chimping out was because the Republicans were a northern sectarian party who was abusing the north's electoral advantage to find a path to the white house. All they had to do was push a sectarian issue (slavery) to win slim margins the increasingly populous northern states. This was the number one fear of the founding fathers who called sectarian parties the biggest threat of the republic and made up a bulk of Washington's final farewell address.
The south was terrified that once a Republican monopoly formed they'd be pretty much fucked economically and socially. The south was going to secede if Lincoln won. Jefferson pretty much wrote the exact thing 40 years earlier, pic related.