Why Abe Lincoln was lucky

[Phillip V]

There was no shrug. There was secession.

Lincoln went out of his way to be as moderate as possible, but he was silent in the media until his First Inaugural Address. During that time, the media portrayed Lincoln as an inexperienced radical gorilla nigger-loving buffoon. Thus in the five months before he took office, most of the South had already left the Union.

Any candidate whose policy was not to bend over for the South's interests and policy on slavery was an unacceptable candidate for the South in 1860. Unless a Southern slaver or a Northern Democrat crony was elected, the South was heading straight for secession, Lincoln or not.

There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.

[Caliga]

Lincoln was lucky because he was a resident of Kentucky for a portion of his life.

[Drakken]

There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.

Personally, I set with the latter. Secession was part of the Southern political discourse for more than a decade and the North, for better or for worse, set up their policy from the belief that the South was merely bluffing, to blackmail the North into tailoring the country's policy according to Southern interests first and foremost. At first, I believe they were right in believing so, the South had no political will to indeed go through with secession until the late 1850s at least. The ante had reached such a high stake, that no side could bend over and "moderate" its stance without losing face.

What Lincoln "did" was not his personal fault. The new Republican party was ostensibly seen, as a new party, as a Northern party, aimed officially against the South and openly poising to block the South at every turn as a matter of policy. Whether it was true or not, most of the Southern's vocal elite took a Lincoln victory as an official declaration of divorce and a slap in the face.

Both sides have been shrilling for more than years so much that any moderate discourse between the two sides of the borders, aside of personal friends really sticking together, was almost impossible.

[Caliga]

Was Lincoln opposed to: Southern seductionists 

[Valmy]

There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.

His plans were only moderate from a northern perspective.  As far as the South was concerned any limit to their rights as defined by the Dredd Scott decision and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was unacceptable.  They made their point crystal clear when they walked out of the Democratic Convention.  It was a point of honor by that point.

And even if Lincoln had made a series of very mild and conciliatory speeches it would have gone like the Seward speech I described did.  The Southern Press would have made it sound like he was the respectable face of an army of John Browns that were soon going to be flooding the South.

[The Minsky Moment]

The OP is badly misconceived.

The "modern media" did exist in 1860, even if the technology differed.  Overtly political newspapers and broadsheets were ubiquitous and widely circulated, and if anything the scandal and rumor-mongering was even worse because of the relative lack of media gatekeepers, fact-checkers and eminence grises.   Instead of Fox News, Lincoln had Horace Greeley and even worse.

Lincoln would have handled the modern media very well just as he handled the very difficult media of his time very well.  He was a gifted and disciplined communicator with a common touch, a superb grasp of rhetoric and style; all those qualities are still important today. How would Lincoln handle a town hall debate?  Hell he practically invented the format.

[FunkMonk]

This columnist is an idiot.

[Kleves]

There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.

Lincoln wasn't going to let slavery expand (but wasn't going to interfere where it already existed). The South knew that, and seceded because of it. I am not sure what Lincoln could have said, other than completely abandoning the central tenant of the Republican platform, that would have mollified the South.

[derspiess]

Lincoln was lucky because he was a resident of Kentucky for a portion of his life.

I never got lucky in Kentucky.

Wait, yeah I did! 

[garbon]

Lincoln was lucky because he was a resident of Kentucky for a portion of his life.

I never got lucky in Kentucky.

Wait, yeah I did! 

That's not lucky as you were in Kentucky.

[dps]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

Weren't the contents and tone of 19th century newspapers even more scurrilous than anything Fox News or MSNBC puts out there?

In some ways, but they didn't have the access or reach of modern media.  Also, they were just the written word--the consumers of news didn't hear the politician actually say something stupid in their own voice, so it was easy to shrug off stuff as being made up by the media.

There was no shrug. There was secession.

Lincoln went out of his way to be as moderate as possible, but he was silent in the media until his First Inaugural Address. During that time, the media portrayed Lincoln as an inexperienced radical gorilla nigger-loving buffoon. Thus in the five months before he took office, most of the South had already left the Union.

The deep South wasn't going to accept the election of a Republican President, period.  It wouldn't have mattered what the media wrote at that point.  Heck, they ripped the Democratic party into shreds rather than accept Douglas as the party's nominee.

[derspiess]

That's not lucky as you were in Kentucky.

Well I wasn't stuck there.  I went home the next day, actually.

[garbon]

But you were there.

[The Minsky Moment]

I am not sure what Lincoln could have said, other than completely abandoning the central tenant of the Republican platform

Rent control?

[Kleves]

Rent control?

I was speaking of William Seward, of course. He was quite important to the Republican Party, and one of his central tenets was the prevention of the spread of slavery.