Few people I know, actually do. A piss-poor description is at Wikipedia. Since it’s the most recent thing I’ve read, I’d recommend Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Had I been around in the 1850s, I’d have been a Whig with a keen eye on the new Republican Party. If I had a pony in the 1860 GOP race, I will say, probably to the amazement of the historically ignorant, that I would have been a Seward booster (can’t vouch for that link, but read some books, too!). Yeah, Lincoln was good, but I think Seward would have been better—experience and a strong ideological base are important, IMO, not to mention a kick-ass wife like Fanny.
Anywho, before I start getting all KidOakland on ya’ll with my fondness of Seward, a look at the 1860 GOP convention is worthwhile. Why? Well, because the person (Seward) with the most votes on the first ballot didn’t end up winning the nomination. Further, he wasn’t even the VP (of course SoS was probably more important, but we won’t go there now). Lincoln won after a few ballots because he had alienated the fewest people. Yup, all this grandiose talk about Lincoln the transformational figure—he was, during his presidency—ignores the fact that he was not the front runner or the person with the most initial votes. But you know what? The guy won the nomination and the presidency, despite that.
How is this relevant? Well, I see Hillary as the Seward of the nomination who ended up in Lincoln’s position. She’s the most qualified and probably the person who would be the best president (the Seward part). But given the screwed up nature of the caucuses and delegate allocation system, she’s going into the convention behind (Super-Ds don’t count until they cast their votes). She can still win the nomination and is following through on making her case: winning the important states and tying or winning the popular vote, her same strategy since February. Further, she can win the presidency despite a contentious convention battle. In fact, Hillary’s base has expanded since February (she’s now winning white men and increasing her share among Independents), while Obama has lost ground in most demographics (exception being the near complete support of African Americans).
History is our friend if we chose to take time to reexamine it. You don’t need to have the most delegate votes going into the convention to win the nomination or the presidency. Hillary can win the nomination and the presidency. If we think things are bad now (e.g. Bush/McCain/Iraq/economy), in 1860 the country was on the verge of secession. Though the 1860 GOP convention was contested and the “favorite” didn’t even make the VP spot, the eventual GOP nominee was still able to win. All this gloom and doom talk about what will happen if Obama isn’t the nominee is silly.
Front page
Interesting Post,, gqm
What I take from the 1860 nominating process, and the campaign; how hard it is to predict what kind of a president candidates will be.
It’s well to remember how unpopular Lincoln became during his presidency; if you’ve ever looked at the political cartoons of the period, particularly those published in Harper’s Weekly, I’m sure you were shocked - Lincoln as a monkey-man.
Also, both parties today are more committed to some semblance of choosing their candidates by more democratic means than, although the Democratic super delegates were surely meant as hedge against that.
Just don’t get your hopes up too high in regards to Hillary.
you lost me at "doris goodman"
you know she’s a lying, plagiarising, teevee whore and hack, don’t you? and a midgrade “intellect” to boot, as far as people in the biz are concerned.
sorry, i ignore her completely, as i do all academics who break the Only Rule That Matters to us. if you can’t think of it yourself, have the fucking good grace to admit you found it via some better, more creative mind. she’s the perfect example of why the Academe and teevee don’t and should never mix. it corrupted her, i’ll bet. or she was always a lazy whore, who knows.