United oposition in the 1860 election?

[Redem]

IIRC the Southerner had present there own guys splitting the vote enabling Lincoln to win. So WI it had been a more "dual" election.

[Straha]

Say goodbye to the civil war.

[Wendell]

IIRC the Southerner had present there own guys splitting the vote enabling Lincoln to win. So WI it had been a more "dual" election.
I don't think that can work effectively. What might be plausible is to have the same four run, do better when combined than Lincoln alone, and then conspire with each other to settle the election (as it would be inconclusive) in the House.

[Mark Ford]

Even though Lincoln got about 39% of the popular vote in 1860, a united opposition wouldn't have prevented him from winning the election. With the exception of California and Oregon, Lincoln got over 50% in the states he won and several states gave him majorities over 60% and 70%. On reflection his almost non-existant support in the southern states where he was a candidate, highlights his political skill in keeping Deleware which gave him 24%, Missouri which gave him 11%, Maryland 3% and Kentucky 1% out of the CSA.

[Max Sinister]

Not very much if you consider that those states hadn't much slavery. Interesting that they still stayed in the union if over 75 or even 90 % of the people NOT voted for Lincoln.

[Derek Jackson]

I also wonder if Linoln had more support in extreme places in the South than appears.

I am not certain how secret the ballot was in, say, Alabama.

I am sure that if you were a white guy whoyou lived in Montgomery and you did not did not want slavery further expanded in 1860 You might have chosen to keep your opinion to yourself

[NapoleonXIV]

I also wonder if Linoln had more support in extreme places in the South than appears.

I am not certain how secret the ballot was in, say, Alabama.

I am sure that if you were a white guy whoyou lived in Montgomery and you did not did not want slavery further expanded in 1860 You might have chosen to keep your opinion to yourself

Good point, secret elections were not the rule until 1892

In many states secession was more of a legislative coup by a small minority of close and sometime more than close to violent hotheads than a considered action. It seems reasonable to assume that the same sort of thing might prevail among the general populace in the Presidential election seen as determining secessionary fervor as well.

[Redem]

Good point, secret elections were not the rule until 1892

In many states secession was more of a legislative coup by a small minority of close and sometime more than close to violent hotheads than a considered action. It seems reasonable to assume that the same sort of thing might prevail among the general populace in the Presidential election seen as determining secessionary fervor as well.

and wasn't a man was able to vote many times because of poor election policies

[Imajin]

Hm, but could a unified Douglas ticket take votes from Lincoln in the North more than a disunited Democratic Party?

[Redem]

can't say really I mean election are sometime touchy things to control.

Lincolon held 40% the votes and had 180 Electoral Vote (and he needed 152) if you add up the electorals votes of all it's major oponnement he still win the electoral one(IIRC)

Kinda funny although I remember one seeing it was like an article (or poster) were the Words "If Linclon elected South Carolinas will boldly lead a southern Confederacy" were widen from a text totally unrelated. It was kinda funny.

[Shawn Endresen]

To make Lincoln lose i any way, you have to prevent the North from uniting in a desire to pay back the South for its violent abuses of democracy. Three things happen in 1857-60 that shocked and repulsed the North; the beating of Senator Sumner on the Senate floor (causing permanent spinal damage), the murder of the man who may or may not have been the legitimate governor of Kansas by pro-Slavery Missourians, and the execution of John Brown in Virginia for attempting to incite a slave riot (something which, his previous anti-slavery acts notwithstanding, he probably wasn't doing at all). To the entire North in 1860, the South was a lawless region full of murderers whose conduct actively menaced the Republic. They have the will and the numbers to elect someone who promises to restore the rule of law in the South.

To break the North's unity you have to restrain Southern violence. Good luck.

[Wendell]

I also wonder if Linoln had more support in extreme places in the South than appears.

I am not certain how secret the ballot was in, say, Alabama.

I am sure that if you were a white guy whoyou lived in Montgomery and you did not did not want slavery further expanded in 1860 You might have chosen to keep your opinion to yourself
From what I understand, Lincoln did not carry more than half a dozen counties in the whole of the Deep South.

[Anaxagoras]

From what I understand, Lincoln did not carry more than half a dozen counties in the whole of the Deep South.
Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in the Southern states.Regarding a united opposition, if you add up the Douglas-Breckinridge-Bell votes, it would likely swing large numbers of states away from Lincoln. SOmeone should add up the numbers.

[Wendell]

Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in the Southern states.Regarding a united opposition, if you add up the Douglas-Breckinridge-Bell votes, it would likely swing large numbers of states away from Lincoln. SOmeone should add up the numbers.
But could they all agree.

[Mark Ford]

Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in the Southern states.Regarding a united opposition, if you add up the Douglas-Breckinridge-Bell votes, it would likely swing large numbers of states away from Lincoln. SOmeone should add up the numbers.
In the states Lincoln won he got 58% in Connecticut, 51% in Illinois, 51% in Indiania, 55% in Iowa, 62% in Maine, 63% in Massachusetts, 57% in Michigan, 63% in Minnesota, 57% in New Hampshire, 54% in New York, 52% in Ohio, 56% in Pennsylvania, 61% in Rhode Island, 76% in Vermont, 57% in Wisconsin, 32% in California and 36% in Oregon. In the states he lost he got 24% in Deleware, 1% in Kentucky, 2% in Maryland, 11% in Missouri, 48% in New Jersey and 1% in Virginia.

[Max Sinister]

So he could lose only California and Oregon. Not that many electors. The Democrats would have to rig the election to win. I wonder whether that could happen - and whether the North would secede in that case.

[Wendell]

So he could lose only California and Oregon. Not that many electors. The Democrats would have to rig the election to win. I wonder whether that could happen - and whether the North would secede in that case.
I doubt that the Northern states would secede.

[Smaug]

Didn't the south and all states, receive 3 for 5 legislative voice, population wise, for its slave population in the Constitution? Argueably, they had 1/3 more voice, without the annoying prospect of having slaves be part of the election process. Certainly this would have swayed any Electoral College voting.

I can't swear to this, but I thought it was layed out that way in the Constitution, which rightly or wrongly allowed slavery very implicitly.

[PeterEzgo]

Anonymous US citizen 1858- "Like the southern states would ever succeed." :eek: