To what extent was the growing strength of abolitionism the reason for Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 Presidential election?

The 1860 Presidential election witnessed Abraham Lincoln's victory, a triumph often attributed to the burgeoning abolitionist movement. While the heightened anti-slavery sentiment in the North undoubtedly played a role, attributing Lincoln's success solely to abolitionism would be an oversimplification. A confluence of factors, including the fragmented Democratic Party, astute Republican strategies, and the emergence of smaller parties, collectively contributed to Lincoln's ascension.

The growing abolitionist sentiment in the Northern states undoubtedly influenced the political landscape of the late 1850s. Events like Bleeding Kansas had radicalized many Northerners, pushing them towards staunch abolitionist stances. John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry further intensified the debate, with some hailing him as a martyr while others condemned his actions. However, this surge in abolitionism didn't necessarily translate into unwavering support for Lincoln. Although opposed to slavery, Lincoln didn't advocate for its immediate and complete eradication. This ambiguity left many abolitionists questioning his commitment, leading some to consider alternative candidates who embodied a purer abolitionist ideology. The American Anti-Slavery Society's [AASS] annual report aptly captured this sentiment, deeming Lincoln "a good enough Republican for the party's purposes, but far from being the man for the country’s need."

Further complicating the political landscape was the deep fissure within the Democratic Party. The 1860 Democratic National Convention in Charleston exposed this rift. Northern Democrats, favoring Stephen Douglas's popular sovereignty stance, believed he stood the best chance against Republicans in the North. However, Southern Democrats vehemently opposed Douglas, viewing popular sovereignty as a threat to their way of life. This discord led to a walkout by Southern Democrats, who later nominated John C. Breckenridge as their candidate. This split within the Democratic ranks proved fatal, paving the way for a Republican victory.

The Republican Party, recognizing the opportunity presented by the divided Democrats, adopted shrewd electoral tactics. At their Chicago convention in May, Republicans understood the imperative of selecting a candidate who could secure the North and, crucially, the Electoral College. States like New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana became key battlegrounds. Lincoln, projected as the embodiment of the self-made frontiersman, resonated with voters in these states. His nomination exemplified the Republicans' astute political maneuvering, capitalizing on the Democrats' self-inflicted fragmentation.

Adding another layer to this intricate political tapestry was the emergence of smaller parties like the Constitutional Unionist Party. This group, seeking to shift the focus away from slavery, nominated John Bell. While their impact remained limited, they further fragmented the electorate, diverting votes that might have otherwise gone to the major parties, thus indirectly benefiting Lincoln.

In conclusion, while the surge in abolitionism undeniably contributed to the political climate surrounding the 1860 election, it wasn’t the sole determinant of Lincoln’s victory. Lincoln's success stemmed from a confluence of factors, including a fractured Democratic Party, the strategic acumen of the Republicans, and the presence of smaller parties that further divided the electorate. The election wasn't so much a resounding endorsement of abolitionism as it was a rejection of a fractured opposition. Lincoln secured the presidency with only 40% of the popular vote and 180 electoral votes, highlighting that a significant portion of the electorate had cast their ballots for alternatives. Therefore, while abolitionism shaped the political landscape, it was the interplay of these diverse factors that ultimately propelled Lincoln to victory in the pivotal 1860 Presidential election.