"Bold, Skillful Ohio Doctor Saved Douglas; Thus Started Lincoln Toward White House"

"Bold, Skillful Ohio Doctor Saved Douglas; Thus Started Lincoln Toward White House"

"By WALTER MORROW

"... for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and jor want of a horse the rider was lost."
—Poor Richard's Alnmanac, 1757.

"If there had not been a Dr. Horace Ackley at Cleveland in 1855, Stephen A. Douglas probably would have lost his voice or died. If Douglas had lost his voice there would have been no Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1 858. If there had been no debates Abraham Lincoln quite probably would have remained an obscure country politician in 1860.

"Without Lincoln the country might have been partitioned, because some of the strongest Abolitionists wanted 1o let "our erring sisters go in peace." But the. nail that saved the shoe and the horse and the rider was ready when needed. A tough, pioneer, whisky-loving surgeon named Ackley, who fought off mobs when he wanted to operate on human beings, was the nail..." https://archive.org/details/lincolndouglasdegenlinc/page/n21

On Douglas's near-fatal attack of bronchitis in 1855, see Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, pp. 484-5:

"The 'Illinois Platform' was enthusiastically adopted by the crowds at Douglas' remaining speaking engagements. On October 27, the Senator was in Paris, on the state's eastern edge, and was beginning to show the effects of his stumping tour. His voice had become hoarse, and he was physically tired. Following his Paris appearance, a group from Terre Haute, across the boundary, in Indiana, insisted that he gratify local Democrats with a speech, and, although his remaining appointments in Illinois were tightly scheduled, he agreed to accommodate them. Appearing before the assembled crowd, he discovered that his hoarseness had become so aggravated that he could not speak effectively. A severe cold added to his problem, and early the next day he was seized by coughing spasms. He immediately took to bed and placed himself under the care of a local physician. He was suffering from an acute case of bronchitis. His remaining engagements were canceled, and he received strict orders to do no further speaking until his lungs and throat had healed. Recovery, however, did not come as expected, and his condition steadily worsened. Three weeks later, his physician reported no significant change, adding that it was impossible to predict when it would be safe or prudent for Douglas to leave his room. Deep solicitude was expressed throughout the nation, and at one point rumor of his death was circulated.

"Illinois' Democratic leaders made frequent trips to Douglas' Terre Haute sickroom and sent back full reports on his condition, although they found him unable to converse. By December 1, improvement had begun. Thomas L. Harris, who remained with Douglas for much of the period, wrote to Lanphier, 'Judge Douglas is slowly recovering, he now sits most of the day. He is still very hoarse, talks with difficulty, and has much soreness in the chest, and at intervals a hard cough. His attack was very severe. There was a general inflammation of the throat and respiratory organs, so much so, that suppuration has taken place, and the membranes sloughed off.' There was hope, Harris noted, that Douglas might be able to start for Washington by mid-December. The hope proved vain. Although he resumed his correspondence with friends and relatives, he was still unable to return to his normal activities. As a final measure, throat surgery was recommended. In late December, he traveled by easy stages to Cleveland, where a series of operations on his throat was performed by Dr. Horace Ackley, a professor of surgery at the Cleveland Medical College. Early in January, Douglas wrote that his throat 'is now very sore in consequence of the surgical operations recently performed, the last of which was a few days ago to cut off the Uvula or lower pallate. The doctor 'delights in running Probings down the windpipe, and cutting off pallates, & clipping Tonsils, and all such amusements. I confess that I do not enjoy the fun quite as well as he seems to do.' More worrisome than his physical condition was his absence from the Senate. 'I have been shut out from the political world,' he complained. With each day of convalescence his impatience to return to Washington mounted, but it was not until early February that he was back at his home in the capital and even later before he felt strong enough to appear in the Senate. It was not a convenient time to be out of circulation.. ." https://books.google.com/books?id=pCzhaQTh5SEC&pg=PA484

So suppose Douglas dies in 1855--or even that his voice never recovers, which could mean political death for someone as dependent on oratory as Douglas. Lincoln was not quite as unknown before 1858 as Walter Morrow's article suggests (his name was even placed in nomination for the vice-presidency at the 1856 Republican national convention) but it's true that the debates gave him a big boost, and I'll assume that without them he would not have been nominated in 1860. Obviously, having (say) Seward nominated would have big effects, but what Morrow ignores is that the absence of Douglas could have major effects well before the 1860 or even 1858 elections. For example, without Douglas's opposition, the admission of Kansas as a slave state under the Lecompton constitution could well have made it through Congress--certainly some northern Democrats would have rebelled against it, but the question is, would enough have done so to defeat it. Even in OTL, sixty percent of northern Democrats in the House voted for Lecompton! http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/US_History_reader/Chapter5/freehlinglecompton.html
 
If Douglas had died in 1855, his Senate seat would have become vacant, and a replacement would have been elected. That replacement would probably have been Lincoln, who was nearly elected to the Senate earlier that year. (He was just short of a majority, and withdrew in favor of Free-Soil Democrat Lyman Trumbull.)

Thus Lincoln's career would be accelerated, not retarded. Lincoln would need to gain re-election in 1858, but that seems fairly probable in the absence of Douglas. So Lincoln would be a prominent figure in 1860.

And if Douglas was merely de-voiced, Lincoln would probably win in 1858.

Another question is what happens to the Democrats without Douglas. The Doughface/Fire-Eater wing of the party led by Buchanan would dominate, making things easier for Republicans.
 
If Douglas had died in 1855, his Senate seat would have become vacant, and a replacement would have been elected. That replacement would probably have been Lincoln, who was nearly elected to the Senate earlier that year. (He was just short of a majority, and withdrew in favor of Free-Soil Democrat Lyman Trumbull.)

He might indeed be elected, but don't forget that the Anti-Nebraska Democrats still hold the balance of power in the legislature, and might once again prefer another an anti-Nebraska Democrat. Maybe William Bissell?

Anyway, I'm not sure whether being elected senator (even in both 1856 and 1858) would be enough to make Lincoln the nominee in 1860. Without Douglas a foil, he may be seen as just another Republican senator. His reputation as a near-killer of the Little Giant in 1858 in OTL probably would mean more than a victory over, say, Matteson in 1855-6. (BTW, if the death happens when the legislature is not in session, Governor Matteson gets to make a temporary appointment. Maybe he even appoints himself? And he seems to have been an opportunist on slavery--maybe with Douglas gone, he tries to appeal to moderate anti-Nebraska Democrats?...)

One should also not assume that without Douglas the Democracy will not split. After all, one of the reasons Douglas came out against Lecompton was that he knew it was unpopular in the North. Fewer Democrats might oppose it if he were not around, but some surely would. And even apart from Lecompton, the stance that the pro-southern wing of the Democracy took on the territorial issue by 1860--that the federal government had a duty to provide positive protection for slavery in all territories--would be resisted by large numbers of northern Democrats for reasons of political self-preservation if nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I'm not sure whether being elected senator (even in both 1856 and 1858) would be enough to make Lincoln the nominee in 1860.
I don't say it would be; in fact I can see how it might interfere.

OTL, Lincoln "peaked" at just the right time to take the nomination away from Seward. He had become prominent enough, but not so prominent as to seem a threat. Thus Seward's team were complacent going into 1860 and right up to the convention.

The Republicans chose to hold the convention in Chicago at the suggestion of an Illinois man who pointed out that Illinois had no contender for the nomination. If Lincoln is a Senator, they can't get away with that.

At the convention, Seward's manager, Thurlow Weed, accepted the general consensus that the nomination was in the bag for Seward. Unlike Lincoln's manager, David Davis, Weed did not survey the delegates to establish the actual situation, nor did he actively court the uncommitted delegates. Weed could have approached Simon Cameron and bought the support of the Pennsylvania delegation as Davis did OTL. Had he done so, that would have clinched the nomination for Seward.

If Lincoln is a Senator, the convention won't be in Chicago. (Boston?) So there will be no packed gallery of Lincoln boosters. Also, Weed will be more aggressive and seek to lock down the nomination beforehand.

One should also not assume that without Douglas the Democracy will not split. After all, one of the reasons Douglas came out against Lecompton was that he knew it was unpopular in the North. Fewer Democrats might oppose it if he were not around, but some surely would. And even apart from Lecompton, the stance that the pro-southern wing of the Democracy took on the territorial issue by 1860--that the federal government had a duty to provide positive protection for slavery in all territories--would be resisted by large numbers of northern Democrats for reasons of political self-preservation if nothing else.

All true, but IMO northern Democrats would not bolt the convention and nominate their own ticket as the Southerners did. The Southerners thought that by splitting the party, they would insure the election of a Republican - which at least some welcomed because it was expected to trigger secession. Northern Democrats... They would have to be angry enough at the Southerners to want to tank the election - without going over to the Republicans, as many Free-Soilers had done already.

Though it is possible that they might think by forming a "Free-Soil Democracy", they could run for the House and state offices without the millstone of Lecompton. But that looks like threading a needle: some individuals would do it, but there wouldn't be enough to gain to drive an organized split of the party.
 
Last edited:
Top