Lincoln !860 Electoral Map & Results

[ole]

Absolutely. Throw a big variable in like the Democrats not splitting, and it's a whole new ballgame. Remember too that Douglas aborted his campaign early when it became apparent he would lose, and instead went on a campaign to save the Union. Thus it's very likely that Douglas received far fewer votes than he otherwise would have.

We still have to wonder if a united Democratic party could have overcome Lincoln's electoral vote. After all, his was the majority of all three candidates combined.

 

[brass napoleon]

We still have to wonder if a united Democratic party could have overcome Lincoln's electoral vote. After all, his was the majority of all three candidates combined.

Agreed. It's questionable. And the evidence leans towards a Lincoln victory regardless, IMO. But it's not a given. A united Democratic party changes the dynamics of the election entirely.

 

[ole]

Agreed. It's questionable. And the evidence leans towards a Lincoln victory regardless, IMO. But it's not a given. A united Democratic party changes the dynamics of the election entirely.

Perzackle. Can't know what a united Democratic party might have pulled off.

 

[frontrank2]

Perzackle. Can't know what a united Democratic party might have pulled off.

I'm sure Al Gore thinks the same thing!!

 

[ole]

Perzackle. Can't know what a united Democratic party might have pulled off.

And then, there were three.

 

[kevikens]

I would love to see such a map of the 1860 election by state by county. It would be interesting to see how local feelings went, especially in the border regions.

 

[brass napoleon]

I would love to see such a map of the 1860 election by state by county. It would be interesting to see how local feelings went, especially in the border regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860#An_election_for_disunion

 

[kevikens]

Thank you, Major. That map is fascinating. You can trace the Mason Dixon Line and the Ohio River by just the color coded counties. Look at that boundary line between Maryland and Pennsylvania. It's as though it were the Cold War Iron Curtain between East Germany and West Germany. How very different, and significant it was, which side of a state line one lived on but it raises a question for me. How really different were people in adjacent counties in different states? Were the citizens of Adams County Pa. all that much different from those a few miles away in Carroll County. MD, ? What made residents of Emmetsburg likely to vote for a Southern slave holder while a few miles away in Gettysburg they were voting for a man on record opposing its spread? As the then reigning King of Siam surmised, "Tis a puzzlement".

 

[brass napoleon]

Thank you, Major. That map is fascinating. You can trace the Mason Dixon Line and the Ohio River by just the color coded counties. Look at that boundary line between Maryland and Pennsylvania. It's as though it were the Cold War Iron Curtain between East Germany and West Germany. How very different, and significant it was, which side of a state line one lived on but it raises a question for me. How really different were people in adjacent counties in different states? Were the citizens of Adams County Pa. all that much different from those a few miles away in Carroll County. MD, ? What made residents of Emmetsburg likely to vote for a Southern slave holder while a few miles away in Gettysburg they were voting for a man on record opposing its spread? As the then reigning King of Siam surmised, "Tis a puzzlement".

Here's a couple of thoughts. The map clearly shows that the regions with the highest proportion of slaves went with Breckenridge. As for the border states, remember that everybody was acutely aware going into the election that slaveholders were threatening to secede if a Republican was elected. So a Unionist non-slaveholder in western Maryland would probably have been much more inclined to vote for Bell than Lincoln, simply out of concern that the slaveholding counties in eastern Maryland would try to secede if Lincoln was elected. OTOH, a Pennsylvanian with similar attitudes would not have been worried about Pennsylvania seceding from the Union. Instead he would have been more concerned about the growing slave power and what it was doing to the country as a whole, and thus would have been more inclined to vote for Lincoln.

 

[John Winn]

We still have to wonder if a united Democratic party could have overcome Lincoln's electoral vote. After all, his was the majority of all three candidates combined.

That's true but if you add up all the non-Lincoln votes then there are a number of states where he just barely would have won with a few thousand or even a few hundred votes margin. When looked at like that one can see that it could indeed have been extremely close and a united opposition to Lincoln could have taken enough electoral votes to prevent him from winning. Like I said, close enough that something like different weather might have tilted things differently had there not been three opposition candidates.

What happened happened but it's possible to imagine a different outcome. What I see is Lincoln as not-as-popular a candidate as he is often portrayed.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

It's my opinion that a Democratic Party united behind either Breckenridge or Bell is still a situation in which Lincoln Republicans had the advantage; the very nature of the split in the Democratic Party does not lend itself to either candidate's favor, and so rather than previously Lincoln states changing electoral college allegiance due to an undivided Democratic Party, what you instead get is greatly depressed Democratic turnout.

 

[John Winn]

It's my opinion that a Democratic Party united behind either Breckenridge or Bell is still a situation in which Lincoln Republicans had the advantage; the very nature of the split in the Democratic Party does not lend itself to either candidate's favor, and so rather than previously Lincoln states changing electoral college allegiance due to an undivided Democratic Party, what you instead get is greatly depressed Democratic turnout.

That's certainly a possibility too. I don't think, though, that substantial portions of the electorate would just not have voted because their "guy" wasn't in the race. Rather, I think it more likely that the race would have devolved into Lincoln/not Lincoln. But that's part of the "what if" fun isn't it ?

 

[Blessmag]

And if you want just Illinois:

 

[kevikens]

Had the Democrats not split at Charleston and had they united on Douglas (or any other Democratic candidate) I think they would have won the election. Why? Though the turnout was very large as it was, I think some Dems, disappointed by the divided party, stayed home and did not vote because they themselves saw the Dems' tickets as a losing cause and who wants to walk seven miles to the county seat to vote for a loser?

 

[JeffBrooks]

Bell had some surprising strength in the Mississippi River valley, didn't he?

Also, I'm sure it pained Breckinridge to lose his home state of Kentucky.

 

[John Winn]

Bell had some surprising strength in the Mississippi River valley, didn't he?

Also, I'm sure it pained Breckinridge to lose his home state of Kentucky.

And I know it pained our boy Joe Lane to lose Oregon by 254 votes. His political career was done after that.

 

[spurrier458]

I always found the politics in my home state during the war to be interesting. Their results in 1860 had Breckinridge at 46%, Douglas at 6%, and Lincoln and Bell at 24% each. New Castle County in the north part of the state had a Quaker influence, so that's probably where all the Lincoln strength was, but what surprises me was that considering how weak slavery was in Delaware, there wasn't more Bell support.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Had the Democrats not split at Charleston and had they united on Douglas (or any other Democratic candidate) I think they would have won the election. Why? Though the turnout was very large as it was, I think some Dems, disappointed by the divided party, stayed home and did not vote because they themselves saw the Dems' tickets as a losing cause and who wants to walk seven miles to the county seat to vote for a loser?

Which states do you think the democrats would take back from the republicans with the extra turnout?

 

[ole]

Which states do you think the democrats would take back from the republicans with the extra turnout?

Excellent observation, Ned. At the time, it had become so FUBAR, that we really can't know.

 

[KeyserSoze]

The Republicans ran a smart campaign in 1860 and took the need electoral votes. Is there anyway the Democrats could have won if they had not ran two candidates? I don't see it as likely.

No. Lincoln took absolute majorities of the votes in every state he won except California and Oregon. Even had he lost those he'd still have 173 electoral votes.