How did southern states keep Lincoln off their ballots?

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Ohio
Absolutely true.

Since the thread topic refers to Lincoln, I was assuming that pre-1860 political parties were not germane.

In any case, the Free Soil party united with anti Kansas-Nebraska Act Whigs in 1856 to form the Republican party. So essentially they're one in the same.

And of course the Liberth Party, largely a creation of Salmon P Chase, folded his movement into the Free Soil party, making them more or less a Republican party precursor as well.

If memory serves they were uncompromisingly abolitionist. The Free Soilers perhaps a bit less so.

Exactly. The Liberty Party was uncompromisingly abolitionist, which gave it a small base of support. The Free Soil party was more willing to compromise, which gave it a much larger base of support. The Republican Party was even more willing to compromise, which combined with the outrage over the Kansas-Nebraska act, gave them an even larger base of support. All three parties were anti-slavery, and none of them appeared on Southern ballots.
 

CW Buff

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Location
Connecticut
Exactly. The Liberty Party was uncompromisingly abolitionist, which gave it a small base of support. The Free Soil party was more willing to compromise, which gave it a much larger base of support. The Republican Party was even more willing to compromise, which combined with the outrage over the Kansas-Nebraska act, gave them an even larger base of support. All three parties were anti-slavery, and none of them appeared on Southern ballots.

And being sectional was not their idea. If the section that practiced slavery was not even going to consider halting its expansion, then parties that wanted to halt its expansion were naturally doomed to be sectional. The only alternative I can see is 'shut your mouth, leave it alone', the same **** that had been done for decades B4.

Edited to add: the **** was not an actual profanity, it was what I thought was a inoffensive alternate, but, my bad. Sorry!
 

RochesterBill

Corporal
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
The Liberty Party ran an abolitionist candidate in 1860 because some folks thought Republicans were too soft on the slavery subject.

I can't look it up right now but iirc that was actually an offshoot Liberty Party more or less limited to Upstate New York. When Chase led the majority of the original Liberty party into a merger with the Free Soilers - which, as someone pointed out above, was a compromise with a somewhat more moderate group - the die hard abolition faction refused to follow him.

I didn't know they ran someone in 1860 though. Interesting, since that was one of those watershed realignment elections where it made sense to join with the big tent party (in this case the Republicans) even if they weren't as militant as you might have wished but at least shared your desire to kick the slave power out of the White House.
 
Last edited:

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Ohio
I can't look it up right now but iirc that was actually an offshoot Liberty Party more or less limited to Upstate New York. When Chase led the majority of the original Liberty party into a merger with the Free Soilers - which, as someone pointed out above, was a compromise with a somewhat more moderate group - the die hard abolition faction refused to follow him.

I didn't know they ran someone in 1960 though. Interesting, since that was one of those watershed realignment elections where it made sense to join with the big tent party (in this case the Republicans) even if they weren't as militant as you might have wished but at least shared your desire to kick the slave power out of the White House.

Yes, the Liberty Party of 1860 was just a shadow of the original Liberty Party, and much more radical. Their support was literally down to only a couple hundred people. Their candidate was the wealthy New York abolitionist Gerrit Smith, who had been their candidate in 1848. But in 1860 he insisted he was too ill too run. They nominated him anyway. Needless to say, he didn't win. :smile:
 

CW Buff

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Location
Connecticut
The Liberty Party ran an abolitionist candidate in 1860 because some folks thought Republicans were too soft on the slavery subject.

That's very interesting. I never realized it, and it's right in the Wikipedia article on the 1860 election, which I've refered to many times. Apparently their total for the popular vote excludes the Liberty/Union party. Their convention had 100 delegates with members "from New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, and Massachusetts." William Goodell gave the absent Smith a run for his money. And Frederick Douglass was an elector.

Can't find much else on them on the internet.
 

who

Cadet
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Though my answer leads to the question of why didnt they have State organizations in the deep south.

In May 1860, newspapers reported on a political rally in support of Sam Houston at which the president of the Texas&Lousiana Railroad gave a speech in which he said "No men could have assembled anywhere in Texas to elect delegates to the Chicago Convention [the Republican convention that nominated Lincoln] and lived till morning."

Fascinating. Thank you for that.

Citation: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101195/m1/538/
 

civilken

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
I guess you could say this was the southern states showing how they supported the Constitution of the United States by only putting the people on they wanted.. sounds very democratic I guess that's why they needed to separate so in the future only candidates they wanted could be on a ballot the ones that did what the ruling class allowed.
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
It is my understanding that most southern states did not even have the republican nominees on their ballots. My question is how did they do these and why wasn't there a stink about it? I have never heard of the northern states doing this during the election of 1860. Nor have I ever come across this happening in any other election.
Lincoln was on the ballot in Missouri, but only received roughly 10% of the vote.

http://www.missouridivision-scv.org/election.htm

Its no surprise that Lincoln made his strongest showing in those Counties where large German immigrant populations resided.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
At the time, ballots were provided by local representatives of the political party and a voter would choose their ballot and cast it publically. Since the Republican Party was made unwelcome throughout the South, no representatives meant no ballots.

Ryan
So this was not a conspiracy by the slave /plantation owners to debrive the common man of his choose?I have read that in order that none of the swing slave states vote Republican that they removed any canditate from the ballot.
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
So this was not a conspiracy by the slave /plantation owners to debrive the common man of his choose?I have read that in order that none of the swing slave states vote Republican that they removed any canditate from the ballot.
The opposition to Lincoln and the Republican party in the South was universal. There was no need to inhibit their voters, because their numbers were insignificant.

To the everlasting shame of our nation, blacks were wholesale deprived of their civil rights, including the right to vote. It is true that they entered the country in a state of enslavement and their situation was accepted almost universally by Americans. However, that is another story for another thread.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
It is my understanding that most southern states did not even have the republican nominees on their ballots. My question is how did they do these and why wasn't there a stink about it? I have never heard of the northern states doing this during the election of 1860. Nor have I ever come across this happening in any other election.

John C. Breckinridge and John Bell weren't on the ballot in New Jersey, New York or Rhode Island.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1860
 

huskerblitz

Major
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
It is my understanding that most southern states did not even have the republican nominees on their ballots. My question is how did they do these and why wasn't there a stink about it? I have never heard of the northern states doing this during the election of 1860. Nor have I ever come across this happening in any other election.
I don't know enough about election laws to answer definitively, but even today certain parties (such as the Green Party) have to register and receive x-amount of signatures to even be on the ballot here in Nebraska. I'm not sure if that was the case in 1860 or not.
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
Whoever was on any given ballot, there was no secret ballot in any state. Pre-marked ballots were provided by the different political parties, each distinguished by color -- almost everyone voted a straight party line for all national, state, and local candidates. Anyone present would immediately know who you had voted for -- and in a district with a strong pro-slavery majority, the possibility of negative repercussions could be very intimidating.

The Australian Ballot, prepared by the state, with all parties' candidates included, was a later development -- S.C. didn't adopt it until 1950.
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
Whoever was on any given ballot, there was no secret ballot in any state. Pre-marked ballots were provided by the different political parties, each distinguished by color -- almost everyone voted a straight party line for all national, state, and local candidates. Anyone present would immediately know who you had voted for -- and in a district with a strong pro-slavery majority, the possibility of negative repercussions could be very intimidating.

Wouldn't this work against anti-abolitionists voting in the North, as well? I don't recall reading about open minded, benevolent, Yankee occupyers in regards to the Federal government's treatment of Southern civilians residing in slave holding States. In fact, their first order of business was to force citizens to pledge loyalty oaths in order to do business or simply go to work.
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
Wouldn't this work against anti-abolitionists voting in the North, as well? I don't recall reading about open minded, benevolent, Yankee occupyers in regards to the Federal government's treatment of Southern civilians residing in slave holding States. In fact, their first order of business was to force citizens to pledge loyalty oaths in order to do business or simply go to work.
In the North really militant Abolitionists were such a small minority, nobody had to fear their ire. Besides, they had more important things to do.

As to the loyalty oaths after the war had begun ... those southern civilians had forsworn their allegiance to the U.S. -- to expect they would be easily forgiven without having to recant their disloyalty is rather foolish. If the Confederacy had won, you can bet every southern Unionist would have been harassed for his oath as well.
 
Last edited:

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
The opposition to Lincoln and the Republican party in the South was universal. There was no need to inhibit their voters, because their numbers were insignificant.

To the everlasting shame of our nation, blacks were wholesale deprived of their civil rights, including the right to vote. It is true that they entered the country in a state of enslavement and their situation was accepted almost universally by Americans. However, that is another story for another thread.
According to the Constitution they were couted as ,I think,a percentage of a person,Was this to give a edge over the Nothern population which was mostly white? But then one can ask ,what if women had the right to vote,they follow the men and vote as the male ? Would there been a chance that their vote would have altered the election in 1860?What if they had the vote in the Southern states which way would they vote in regards to seccession?This is very interesting and important in considering their effect on the issues of that period.Not all white males could vote in certain states,there were restrictions on being able to vote,property requirments and taxes.
 
Top