The Fiery Trial_ Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery - Eric Foner [89]
Many Republicans also considered Salmon P. Chase of Ohio too radical. Chase had launched his political career in the Liberty party, worked to secure blacks’ rights in Ohio, and supported efforts to combat the Fugitive Slave Act. On the other hand, Edward Bates of Missouri, the favorite of conservatives and Republicans like Greeley who feared the northern electorate would never accept a true antislavery candidate, had been closely associated with the Know-Nothings, thus alienating immigrant voters. Bates did not appear to be a Republican at all; he had voted for Millard Fillmore in 1856 and his nomination was certain to antagonize the Radicals.
In discussing the politics of Illinois, a microcosm of the North, Lincoln outlined the situation of the front-runners: “I think Mr. Seward is the very best candidate we could have for the North of Illinois, and the very worst for the South of it. The estimate of Gov. Chase here is neither better nor worse than that of Seward…. Mr. Bates, I think, would be the best man for the South of our State, and the worst for the North of it.” Less prominent candidates also had weaknesses. Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania was widely considered corrupt, and Benjamin F. Wade, another Radical, could not rely on the united support of his home state of Ohio with Chase in the running. Justice John McLean, also of Ohio, at age sixty-five was too old, and John C. Frémont had failed four years earlier.15
Lincoln, as Illinois congressman John Farnsworth reported, seemed to be “the second choice of everybody.” His private life was “unimpeachable,” and his humble origins appealed to working-class voters (who before Republicans began to identify him as the “Rail Splitter” knew Lincoln as “the Flatboatman”). Lincoln had defended the rights of immigrants and was popular among German-Americans, but had not been “too severe” in public on the nativists. He opposed black suffrage, reassuring western voters, yet his principled condemnations of slavery and opposition to efforts to water down the party platform appealed to the Radicals. Indeed, because of the House Divided speech many conservatives, according to Lyman Trumbull, declared, “If you are going to nominate a man of that stamp, why not take Seward?” Overall, as Mark Delahay, a supporter from Kansas, explained to Lincoln, “You represent the middle” of the party and “could hold the head and tail on and beat the Democracy,” especially since “Penna, Ills, and Indiana will be the field of battle,” none of which Seward could carry.16
For many, Lincoln’s appeal boiled down to the fact that he seemed electable. “I don’t care a fig for any of the candidates,” wrote George Ashmun of Massachusetts a month before he departed for Chicago as a delegate, “except as they may give assurance of success.” Lincoln had already proved he could fight Douglas, still the presumptive Democratic candidate, to a draw. (By the time the Republicans met, the Democratic National Convention had broken up along sectional lines without making a nomination and was set to reconvene in June.) As Republicans gathered in mid-May 1860, the Chicago Press and Tribune printed a long editorial recapitulating the arguments for Lincoln’s nomination and gave it the title “The Winning Man.” The delegates chose him on the third ballot. With no input from Lincoln, they selected as his running mate Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, who as an easterner and former Democrat balanced the ticket. Hamlin professed himself “astonished”—he had not campaigned for the post and “neither expected nor desired it.”17
The platform adopted by the convention that nominated Lincoln avoided most divisive issues while seeking to broaden the party’s electoral appeal. In deference to Pennsylvania, it included a carefully worded resolution that avoided mention of “protection” but called for an adjustment of import duties to “encourage the industrial interests of the whole country.” It also endorsed a homestead