1860 Election Results by County

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jackt62

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,818
Location
New York City
That's a pretty remarkable electoral map. You can read all about how Lincoln's victory was essentially gained in the northern states but seeing the colors on that map make it really vivid.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,680
Location
Lexington, SC
What I find interesting. Is it appears to me Lincoln took counties in GA, TN and Western, VA. It looks like North N.C. and Texas also.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,426
Location
Right here.
What I find interesting. Is it appears to me Lincoln took counties in GA, TN and Western, VA. It looks like North N.C. and Texas also.
Those were Bell counties due to a poor choice of colors by whoever created the chart.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

16thVA

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
1,369
Location
Philadelphia
What about the Western, VA counties? I would have little difficulty believing Lincoln took a county or two there.
Lincoln got about 1400 votes in western Virginia and about 500 votes in eastern Virginia. Over half the votes in western Virginia came from Ohio county, which had a lot of non-native residents.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

NathanTowne

Corporal
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
351
Location
United States
What about the Western, VA counties? I would have little difficulty believing Lincoln took a county or two there.
The Lincoln/Hamlin ticket carried only two counties in all of the slaves states, both of them in Missouri. Of course, they weren't even on the ballot in the majority of them (ten or eleven depending on how you count it).
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

NathanTowne

Corporal
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
351
Location
United States
Guess my state has changed a little bit since then lol.
The Republican Party was formed out of a conglomeration of opposition groups, including limited government Democrats, conservative Whigs and the moral reform element of the Whig and Free Soil parties. This reality didn't simply disappear. The basis of the party, the unifying condition, was grounded upon the slavery issue. The vast splintering in the party, especially following Reconstruction and continuing into the 1930's, was no accident. These vast underlying ideological differences would play a substantial role in the course of the party and would put much stress upon it as issues pertaining to the role of government and economics resumed a position in which they were seen by party members as the foremost issues in the country.

So, I would be hesitant to make any clear comparisons that way.
 
Last edited:

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,934
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
I didn't say definitely but without Virginia they didn't have a chance Jefferson Davis knew this.

Jefferson Davis did know it. Virginia's men, leadership, and resources were needed if the CSA stood a chance to survive. Without Virginia, I don't think North Carolina would have went out, and I also believe that Davis understood that as well. The CSA needed the upper South, especially Virginia, North Carolina, And Tennessee as far as men, and resources went.


Respectfully,
William
Crossed Flags - 1.JPG
 

NathanTowne

Corporal
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
351
Location
United States
The Republican Party was formed out of a conglomeration of opposition groups, including limited government Democrats, conservative Whigs and the moral reform element of the Whig and Free Soil parties. This reality didn't simply disappear. The basis of the party, the unifying condition, was grounded upon the slavery issue. The vast splintering in the party, especially following Reconstruction and continuing into the 1930's, was no accident. These vast underlying ideological differences would play a substantial role in the course of the party and would put much stress upon it as issues pertaining to the role of government and economics resumed a position in which they were seen by party members as the foremost issues in the country.

So, I would be hesitant to make any clear comparisons that way.
I should also conclude this comment with one other addition. The term "conservative," as used in the Whig-Democratic context took on a somewhat different meaning than it does today, or even in other spheres at the time. That is important to note, so as to avoid confusion in these types of discussions.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,740
Location
Pennsylvania
Interesting to see that the presidential election system really does not work when there are four candidates who have a reasonable support. It is bound to lead to a result that will not be accepted in the atmosphere that existed in the 1860 election.
The system produced a clear winner in the electoral vote, with an absolute majority despite the four-candidate split. A better example of system failure would be 1824, when a four-candidate election threw the decision into the House of Representatives. 1860 put the man with the plurality of the popular vote into the White House; 1824 did not.

The problem in 1860 was that the southern states were determined not to accept a Republican victory. If Lincoln had won in a two-man race, which the results suggest he would have, secession would have happened just the same.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top