Lincoln 64 election question

[archieclement]

Would Lincoln have won re-election as a Republican?

Has there been any kind of study/appraisal of how many War Democrats Lincoln actually picked up by switching to the National Union Party?

 

[archieclement]

Its always seemed so gimmicky and transparent to me to seem almost a joke.......That the republicans had become seen too closely allied with abolitionists that democrats wouldn't vote for a Republican, so we just temporally change the name to pick up the war democrats.......It seems so transparent I wouldn't think it would have made much an impact......

Yet they actually did it....am I missing something?, Was it more then just a gimmicky transparent play, and was it really necessary?

 

[WJC]

Would Lincoln have won re-election as a Republican?

Has there been any kind of study/appraisal of how many War Democrats Lincoln actually picked up by switching to the National Union Party?

The issue in 1864 was whether the U. S. should continue its efforts to completely put down the rebellion or negotiate some sort of peaceful settlement.
The National Union Party was simply a mechanism to welcome those Democrats who favored seeing the conflict fought to its conclusion into Lincoln's reelection effort. Lincoln did not 'switch parties'.
Lincoln won an electoral landslide: 212 electors to 21 electors. Lincoln receiver 55% of the popular vote. These results seem to show that it is likely Lincoln would have won regardless of the party name on the ballot. The nation's voters wanted to finish the effort for which their sons and neighbors had fought and died.

 

[archieclement]

I agree it seems so gimmicky I wouldn't think it had much an impact, why I'm asking. However he did switch parties.....If he didn't he would simply have rerun as a Republican and not a National Union Party............However sleight of hand it may have been, it seems a conscious decision to try to appear to distance oneself from the Republican Party

 

[Canadian]

It was a short term expedient with long term results, since the Vice President who was added to the tickets to attract Democrats ended up in charge for four years

 

[jackt62]

I'm wondering how many voters, particularly soldiers, really thought enough about the name of the party that Lincoln was running under, or were voting for Lincoln regardless of his party affiliation.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

One of the reasons to coalesce under the Union Party label was to blunt the threat that Fremont-- who had strong abolitionist support-- posed by running in 1864. A three way race threatened to siphon off votes from Lincoln allowing a McClellan win. Fremont did not officially withdraw until late September. With Fremont gone from the race it was seen as too late to revert back to a strictly Republican label, and commitments had already been made.

All of these early possible candidates disavowed interest in advance of the convention. However, the strident antislavery forces coalesced around the candidacy of John C. Frémont , a bitter foe of Lincoln. The president had twice dismissed Frémont from military commands and had reversed his order to free the slaves in Missouri in 1861. These antislavery forces held an early convention in Cleveland and nominated Frémont.​

The regular Republican Party met in Baltimore and used the name National Unity Party in the hope of attracting War Democrats. Lincoln was selected on the first ballot and offered no preference for a running mate. The convention chose Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, a seemingly attractive candidate thanks to his Southerner and War Democrat background. The platform promised to prosecute the war effort until the Confederacy's "unconditional surrender."

During the campaign, Frémont relinquished his bid, fearing that he would split the Republican vote and enable the Democrats to win. The turning point came in early September with Sherman's capture of Atlanta, a victory that lifted spirits throughout the North and revitalized the Lincoln campaign. The Republicans warned the voters, "Don't change horses in the middle of the stream."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h201.html





​

 

[wausaubob]

He would have won. As usually happens in national elections, as the election date approaches, extreme positions fade away and the differences in the candidates' position narrows.
Lincoln offered one version of resolving the war, with slavery eliminated, but the status of the freedmen unresolved.
McClellan stood for another way to resolve the war, with the nation re-unified but with slavery permitted in those areas not occupied by US troops, mainly Texas, Louisiana and the Carolinas.
Since it is not obvious that the Confederates would accept anything other than an armistice and separation due to inertia, it is not clear that the positions had much practical difference.
Therefore the gap was much narrower then the Copperheads of Abolitionists would contend.

 

[67th Tigers]

In the Presidential election he appears to have won few Democrats over. The writers that claim otherwise (mainly McPherson) do so usually citing evidence that contradicts their position. White notes this:

"McPherson's For Cause and Comrades is the most important study to argue that Union soldiers had converted to Republicanism by 1864, but he has developed the thesis throughout his many works on the Civil War. In his 1982 Ordeal by Fire, McPherson writes:

"Although McClellan's name still evoked enthusiasm among many officers and men in the Army of the Potomac, few soldiers wished to vote for a Democratic party that declared the war a failure. A Democratic victory, wrote one veteran officer, would mean 'inglorious peace and shame, the old truckling subserviency to Southern domination.' Another soldier, a lifelong Democrat, said that 'we all want peace, but none any but an honorable one. I had rather stay out here a lifetime (much as I dislike it) than consent to a division of our country.' "6 The implication is obvious. The latter soldier—" a lifelong Democrat"— voted for Lincoln because the president stood for reunion and an honorable peace, whereas the Democratic Party and its nominee, Gen. George B. McClellan, stood for disunion and slavery. Like many other voters in the army, McPherson implies, this Democratic soldier cast his ballot for Lincoln.

But such was not the case— at least not with this soldier. And McPherson's misuse of this quotation entirely distorts the soldier's true political position. Not only did this soldier vote for General McClellan, he did so enthusiastically. When news reached the army that McClellan had received the Democratic nomination, this soldier reported that there were nine cheers in the army for him, "and three for those who nominated him with the exception of the peace on any terms men. The nomination pleases me as much as anything could.… I feel confident the General will give us peace six months after taking the [presidential] chair." This soldier loathed the dishonorable Peace men of his party. Accordingly, he refused to vote the Democratic state ticket. And if the choice had been between a Copperhead presidential candidate and Lincoln, he would have grudgingly voted for the incumbent. But Little Mac, in his mind, was no traitor. "I shall do my best to make him President," he wrote. "I support the [Lincoln] administration in the field but oppose it at the ballot-box." 7"

White, Jonathan W.. Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln (Conflicting Worlds: New Dimensions of the American Civil War) (Kindle Locations 159-176). LSU Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[archieclement]

One of the reasons to coalesce under the Union Party label was to blunt the threat that Fremont-- who had strong abolitionist support-- posed by running in 1864. A three way race threatened to siphon off votes from Lincoln allowing a McClellan win. Fremont did not officially withdraw until late September. With Fremont gone from the race it was seen as too late to revert back to a strictly Republican label, and commitments had already been made.

All of these early possible candidates disavowed interest in advance of the convention. However, the strident antislavery forces coalesced around the candidacy of John C. Frémont , a bitter foe of Lincoln. The president had twice dismissed Frémont from military commands and had reversed his order to free the slaves in Missouri in 1861. These antislavery forces held an early convention in Cleveland and nominated Frémont.​

The regular Republican Party met in Baltimore and used the name National Unity Party in the hope of attracting War Democrats. Lincoln was selected on the first ballot and offered no preference for a running mate. The convention chose Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, a seemingly attractive candidate thanks to his Southerner and War Democrat background. The platform promised to prosecute the war effort until the Confederacy's "unconditional surrender."

During the campaign, Frémont relinquished his bid, fearing that he would split the Republican vote and enable the Democrats to win. The turning point came in early September with Sherman's capture of Atlanta, a victory that lifted spirits throughout the North and revitalized the Lincoln campaign. The Republicans warned the voters, "Don't change horses in the middle of the stream."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h201.html





​

The whole thing appeared and still appears so gimmicky to me that I had to ask.

Fremont formed a 4th party though, the radical democracy party....so Lincoln would have still been free to run under the Republican ticket

Its appears as a game of musical political parties

 

[O' Be Joyful]

1864 Election poster that I found for Fremont.

http://elections.harpweek.com/1864/cartoons-1864-list.asp?Year=1864

 

[O' Be Joyful]

The whole thing appeared and still appears so gimmicky to me that I had to ask.

Fremont formed a 4th party though, the radical democracy party....so Lincoln would have still been free to run under the Republican ticket

Its appears as a game of musical political parties

Sure archie, Lincoln could have still run as a Republican, but you have to take into account the situation when the decision was made in May of '64. The Dem's had made respectable gains in the 1862 elections at the state level and in Congress. The war was seen by many as stalled, with Grant and Lee in what appeared to be a stalemate about Richmond and Sherman had yet to take Atlanta. Being prudent men they decided to take the safer route to re-election by altering their "branding" to appeal to a more diverse crowd. That's how they ended up with War Democrat Andy Johnson, why else would any sensible bunch do that?

And besides they had spent all that good money on Election posters. That woulda been a shame ta waste 'em.