Book Review: Year of Metors

Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War

Douglas R. Egerton

copyright 2010

Bloomsbury Press

I had heard some very good reviews and comments about Douglas R. Egerton's recent book Year of Meteors, so it was with great anticipation that I finally grabbed this volume from my shelf and read it for myself. I was not disappointed.

In this work, Egerton discusses the 1860 Presidential election, discussing the many candidates, parties, platforms, hopes, wishes and goals involved in the long, controversial process.

This is a very readable and informative book. It describes this famous election as one expected to feature Stephen Douglas of the Democratic Party and William Henry Seward for the upstart Republicans. Things did not work out that way and Egerton shows how and why such changes occurred.

Discussing the motives of fire-eaters, particularly William Yancey of Alabama and Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, the author shows how the Democrats could not agree on one candidate, as the northern members of the party supported Douglas and his popular sovereignty and Freeport Doctrine beliefs,  while southern members believed those positions were too similar to abolitionist beliefs and fought for more stringent guarantees of and protection for slavery. Eventually, the party split and Vice-President John Breckenridge of Kentucky became the choice of the Southern Democrats, while Douglas ran under the banner of the Northern Democrats, both sides claiming to represent the national party's interests. For some party members like Yancey and Rhett, this was not a bad thing.

Such controversy did not affect the other parties in the race, at least not with the same intensity. Egerton discusses how Seward was viewed as too radical, even as he gave more conciliatory speeches as the year unfolded, and how the ability to win states like Indiana, Illinois and Pennsylvania convinced many Republicans that a different candidate was needed. Men like Salmon Chase and Simon Cameron had their names mentioned, but in the end some clever maneuvering by his campaign leaders led Abraham Lincoln to win the party's nomination and be the unexpected challenger to the Democratic party's choice.

Egerton also describes a new party that formed for this race. This was probably my favorite part of the book, and at least was the most informative to me, as he discussed how Kentucky Senator John J. Crittenden tried to find a compromise between the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties. This eventually led to the formation of what was called the Constitutional Union party, with John Bell as its Presidential hoperful. Egerton's descriptions of how this party tried to run without a platform and to virtually ignore the issues surrounding slavery and the territories was eye-opening to me. I knew this was a conservative party,but never realized that they basically wrapped themselves in patriotic images and symbols,  while paying no attention to the major political issues of the day, fearing that such discussion would only inflame tempers. Maybe they were right about the issues causing anger, but the description of their virtual "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" approach really makes this party seem out of touch with reality and it is hard to comprehend how they could consider themselves a serious party. (Of course, I've since read other information that indicates the Whigs used a similar strategy in 1840 and even 1848, so maybe it was not as unusual as I thought.)

Egerton discusses other minor parties and candidates as well, such as Gerrit Smith and the Free Soil party, but focuses on the four main parties that captured most of the attention. He shows that the break-up of the Democratic party was no accident as several of the fire-eaters wanted to ensure a Republican victory as they thought that would lead their states to secede from the Union. Little did they realize the amount of pain and suffering that the split nation would suffer in the upcoming years.

One constant throughout this book is the importance of slavery and how the government related to and/or controlled it. Slavery is the dominant issue in this book, with men like Rhett and Yancey offering demands for its protection (the Alabama platform) and even men considered more moderate, like Jefferson Davis, insisting upon the rights of this institution to exist. Some mentions of southern hopes to acquire more territory for slavery pop up in this book, and virtually every discussion of political argument mentioned here is on this subject.

I really enjoyed this book and found it to be well-written, with a good flow to it. It describes the many different perspectives of the election, bases on records of the men who established said perspectives and does an excellent job of telling the story of how this election unfolded, from each party's selection of candidates to the election itself. It is a very fine book and I recommend it highly.

Courtesy americanhistory.si.edu

Marvellous Changes

The March 23, 1861 edition of the Covington Journal offers up a few opinions on a pair of the more prominent Republicans and soon-to-be Cabinet members in the following article.

In the rapid mutations which many of our public men have undergone within a month or two past, none is more marvelous than that which presents Seward and Chase as conservative politicians.

For twenty years Mr. Seward has been unceasing in his efforts to build up a sectional party based upon opposition to slavery. He has by his teachings made an irrepressible conflict where in fact there was no cause or reason for such a conflict. He has arrayed one section of the Union against the other section. By appealing to the passions and prejudices of the North he has installed a governmental policy which has forced seven Southern States to the last resort of an oppressed people.

Salmon P. Chase is undoubtedly a man of ability. But with all his ability he is distinguished for nothing but his opposition to slavery.

Sine the year 1845, when he was presented by the negroes of Cincinnati with a silver pitcher on which occasion he declared that the negro "was entitled to every original right enjoyed by any other member of the community," he has been noted for nothing but his incessant demands for office and his ultra views upon the slavery question.


Have these men really changed their opinions? Is it to be supposed that at the moment of their greatest triumph they will repudiate the opinions which have given them place and power? Mr. Seward, after having seen the Executive and Legislative Departments of the Government pass into the hands of his sectional party, has uttered some very guarded and indefinite expressions about "saving the Union;" but if he has at any time or on any occasion given as much as a hint that he would concede an iota to the just demands of the South, the fact has escaped our notice. In 1848 he declared that "slavery must be abolished." And we undertake to say - basing the assertion upon his record of twenty years past - that it is his fixed purpose to aid by all the powers under his control in the attainment of that end. If at times he has seemed to halt in his purpose, it has been only for the purpose of renewing his strength and making the attainment of his ultimate object the more certain.

But Chase, a Radical of Radicals, is also a conservative man - so we are told. About the time Chase took charge of the Treasury Department some confiding individual in Washington had a conversation with him and was "gratified to learn that he was quite conservative in his views." This loose opinion was made the subject of a telegraphic dispatch, which is being copied with apparent avidity by the "Union" papers of Kentucky. On this unsubstantial basis lays the claim set up for S.P. Chase's conservatism.


When we are asked to trust to the moderation and forbearance of such men as Seward and Chase we must beg be excused.