[Smokin' Joe]

They underestimated Lincoln.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but if you look at the electoral map, it is obvious Lincoln's election was a dividing point. If nothing else, it underscores the division inherent in the different states/regions.

[donmeaker]

The dividing point came earlier, when the Whig party died, and a Republican became Speaker of the House.

[Tau Food]

Perhaps, perhaps not, but if you look at the electoral map, it is obvious Lincoln's election was a dividing point. If nothing else, it underscores the division inherent in the different states/regions.

Well, there were plenty of hard feelings when Jefferson beat Adams (1800) and when J.Q. Adams "beat" Jackson (1824). The election of Lincoln didn't warrant any "secessions" or a Civil War.

When South Carolina announced its attempt to "secede" in December 1860, we had an extraordinarily weak president (Buchanan) and the "secessionists" correctly predicted that Buchanan was a pushover unable to defend the United States or its Constitution. I think the "secessionists" guessed that by the time Lincoln became president in March, 1861, he would be forced to accept the attempted "secessions" as a fait accompli. They guessed wrong.