The 1864 Election

MobileBoy · #1 10-27-2005, 09:14 PM

I have read countless times about Lincoln's runaway win in the 1864 election.Ater Gettysburg,Vicksburg, and Atlanta had fallen it seemed to me that Union victory was all but guaranteed.I was browsing through an old college notebook where I had jotted down some figures from that 1864 election.I was startled today to compare the numbers.The numbers more or less speak for themselves.
Lincoln lost the states of New Jersey,Deleware, and Kentucky in the election.
New York 368,726 for Lincoln and 361,986 against(even with Butler's shenanigans)
Pennsylvania 296,389 for Lincoln and 276,308 against
Ohio 265,154 for Lincoln and 205,568 against
Indiana 150,142 for Lincoln and 130,233 against
Illinois 189,487 for Lincoln and 158,349 against
Wisconsin 79,564 for Lincoln and 63,875 against
Hampshire 36,595 for Lincoln and 33,034 against
Connecticut 44,693 for Lincoln and 42,208 against

These results at the poll seem to indicate that much of the Northern populace didn't support Lincoln's war even with victory pretty much assured.The vote was fairly tight if you examine the figures.I always wondered how the vast majority of the Northern population in a democratic society could support using violence to stop the Confederate states from their right to self-government.Apparently many Northerners felt the same way 140 years ago as I do now.It seems many Northerners alive at the time of this conflict didn't share the same opinion on the justice of this war as the esteemed Yankees on this forum do today.

samgrant · #2 10-27-2005, 09:46 PM

I didn't know it was regarded as a 'runaway'. From what I recall, there was much apprehension in the White House about the results of this election.

It is very true there was much difference of opinion in the North, but I think it was not so much a matter of "using violence to stop the Confederate states from their right to self-government", but rather a difference of opinion as to: preserving the Union at all costs and protecting the North from the South (by this time the North HAD been invaded) on the one hand, and a reluctance to make the terrible sacrifice for the sake of abolitionism on the other.

Good post! I'll be interested in other's opinions on this.

ole · #3 10-28-2005, 12:12 AM

Ashley:

"These results at the poll seem to indicate that much of the Northern populace didn't support Lincoln's war even with victory pretty much assured.The vote was fairly tight if you examine the figures.I always wondered how the vast majority of the Northern population in a democratic society could support using violence to stop the Confederate states from their right to self-government.Apparently many Northerners felt the same way 140 years ago as I do now.It seems many Northerners alive at the time of this conflict didn't share the same opinion on the justice of this war as the esteemed Yankees on this forum do today."

It is true that the war didn't have universal support. It is also true that Lincoln didn't have universal support. It doesn't necessarily follow that a vote against Lincoln was a vote against the war.

Although I have suspicions about those numbers, I'll have to take your word for it until I've checked them.

Good post.
Ole

unionblue · #4 10-28-2005, 06:39 AM

Ole,

Here's a web site you can check out on the 1864 Presidential election.

http://www.multied.com/elections/1864.html

Gives you a lot of information.

Unionblue

samgrant · #5 10-28-2005, 08:13 AM

But the 'States Carried' part is wrong. It is headed '1860' and the map shows the 1868 results. The same section for 1868 also is headed '1860'. Otherwise it's OK.

elektratig · #6 10-28-2005, 08:33 AM

The assumption that voters who voted for McClellan were voting against "using violence to stop the Confederate states from their right to self-government" is unfounded.

When he accepted the nomination, McClellan made clear that he believed that "the Union must be preserved at all hazards."

"I could not look in the face my gallant comrades of the army and navy who have survived so many bloody battles, and tell them that their labors, and the sacrifices of so many of our slain and wounded brethren, had been in vain, that we had abandoned that Union for which we have so often perilled our lives. A vast majority of our people, whether in the army and navy or at home, would, as I would, hail with unbounded joy the permanent restoration of peace on the basis of the Union under the Constitution, without the effusion of another drop of blood, but no peace can be permanent without Union."

It is more probable that many of those who voted for McClellan were expressing their willingness to restore the Union with slavery intact. As McClellan put it, "The Union is the one condition of peace. We ask no more."

Even so, Lincoln won by 55% to 45%, a pretty resounding victory if you ask me. Hey, even Michael Dukakis got 45.6% of the popular vote.

MobileBoy · #7 10-28-2005, 09:28 AM

Hey guys,
Thank for the responses.If you guys could check the numbers far from minding I would appreciate it.I discovered these numbers in notes I took in class, so I'm not sure as to the absolute validity of the numbers myself.When I saw them one big question that I had was the vote of the soldiers in the Union army.I was wondering how many actually voted and whether their votes counted in their home states or where they were stationed?I was also wondering if their is any record or indication of which candidate they voted for.I believe there was about 1 million men in service.As such if they would have determined the election if they were universally for one candidate.Neil, I'll check out the web site you sighted when I get a free moment.
Ashley

elektratig · #8 10-28-2005, 10:34 AM

I've seen many references to the fact that Lincoln received about 70% of the (Union) military vote. I assume -- but don't know -- that votes of soldiers in the field were recorded to their states of residence, presumably because they were furloughed home to vote or voted by absentee ballot (which is how it's done now - remember how Al Gore didn't want to count un-postmarked absentee ballots of Florida military personnel serving overseas?).

I can't see how the soldiers' votes could have been counted where they were stationed, since so many were stationed in the Confederate States.

Hopefully, someone can confirm this.

elektratig · #9 10-28-2005, 10:50 AM

Of course, it turns out there's a book on the subject, by the author of The Class of 1846, no less. I haven't read it. Googling around, it appears that some soldiers did in fact "vote in the field", with their votes then attributed to their home states. Whether soldiers were able to vote in the field may have turned on the electoral laws of their home states.

John C. Waugh, Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&v=glance

ole · #10 10-28-2005, 11:55 AM

Electratig:

Is there a subject about which there is no book?

Excellent post. I was going to weigh in with a particular recollection --that soldiers from selected states were sent home to vote -- but I won't because it would take about three years to find it.

I'm guessing that the Republicans arranged for as many soldiers as possible to get their votes counted. And why not?

Ole