How did southern states keep Lincoln off their ballots?

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
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.
Actually antebellum blacks were allowed to vote least some Northern states unlike the South where no antebellum blacks were allowed to vote.
Leftyhunter
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Location
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.

The Republican's strategy was to alienate the North from the South to take away the South's political power. They could win the Presidency without a single future Confederate State and they did. Lincoln was not on the ballot in the South because there was no reason to be on the ballot.

You can make a case for Lincoln himself being a uniter, but the early Republicans as a whole were most certainly not uniters. Their lack of presence in the South from the beginning speaks volumes about their intentions against the South.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
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.





You might read Lincoln's Cooper's Union Address, in which he addresses the issue of the Republican's being sectional, by their southern opponents.

He argued that he and his party were sectional, but not because of anything they did, but by what their opponents in the South did.

One of the great 'What If's' of that time, was Lincoln's challenge to southerners to stop their campaign of intimidation and allow him and his party to debate the issues fairly in the South. That if they did that, there would be proof enough, of whether the Republican Party was actually sectional at all.
 

rpkennedy

Lt. Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
May 18, 2011
Location
Carlisle, PA
The Republican's strategy was to alienate the North from the South to take away the South's political power. They could win the Presidency without a single future Confederate State and they did. Lincoln was not on the ballot in the South because there was no reason to be on the ballot.

You can make a case for Lincoln himself being a uniter, but the early Republicans as a whole were most certainly not uniters. Their lack of presence in the South from the beginning speaks volumes about their intentions against the South.

Or their absence in the South had to do with Southern antipathy towards the party. In all honesty, Republicans would have been perfectly happy with support in the South but their message ran absolutely counter to that of the Southern movers and shakers and those same people made it clear what support for Republicans meant.

Ryan
 

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.
Women were deprived of their rights to vote,in certain states men could not vote unless they were property owners.For as the black man being deprived of his vote,he was not alone. For to allow him to vote would place him equal just as to allow the woman to vote would give her the power to control her political furture.No man in a position of power was going to give these people the authority to change the system.There was once a item called the "pole tax" which was used to keep certan men out of the booth .The influenceal men kept those who they deemed unfit out of the system.In states only the legislative were the ones to determin what occured in those states.How many states succeeded on the decesion of those men?How many would have remain if the comman man was to have had the choose?
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Location
Texas
Generally, candidates need to be nominated at the state level to be balloted. There was virtually zero support for Lincoln in the South and so that didn't happen.



This is an oversight on your part and has wildly modern connotations. I'll not address it here.
I doubt SERIOUSLY they were ever going to allow his name to be brought up for balloting! What would have happened to anyone who tried?

Kevin Dally
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
Women were deprived of their rights to vote,in certain states men could not vote unless they were property owners.For as the black man being deprived of his vote,he was not alone. For to allow him to vote would place him equal just as to allow the woman to vote would give her the power to control her political furture.No man in a position of power was going to give these people the authority to change the system.There was once a item called the "pole tax" which was used to keep certan men out of the booth .The influenceal men kept those who they deemed unfit out of the system.In states only the legislative were the ones to determin what occured in those states.How many states succeeded on the decesion of those men?How many would have remain if the comman man was to have had the choose?
Thought this was a site devoted to history, specific to a particular era. We can talk about what was or we can talk about hypothetical situations.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Thought this was a site devoted to history, specific to a particular era. We can talk about what was or we can talk about hypothetical situations.
These issues to deal with that time frame. If women did have the vote and the comman man did select their represenitives would history of this period been a different outcome? This issue was a result on a question on the blacks not having the vote
Thought this was a site devoted to history, specific to a particular era. We can talk about what was or we can talk about hypothetical situations.
This does pretain to this period. If women could vote and if the comman man had more voting rights would this alter in any way what occured during this time?What states would not have suceeded and in the North would the Republican part had suceeded as they did? This responce was to a statement concerning the violation of black's civl rights/voting .Can you imagine what would have happened if slaves or free blacks in the North could have voted?
 

rpkennedy

Lt. Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
May 18, 2011
Location
Carlisle, PA
These issues to deal with that time frame. If women did have the vote and the comman man did select their represenitives would history of this period been a different outcome? This issue was a result on a question on the blacks not having the vote

This does pretain to this period. If women could vote and if the comman man had more voting rights would this alter in any way what occured during this time?What states would not have suceeded and in the North would the Republican part had suceeded as they did? This responce was to a statement concerning the violation of black's civl rights/voting .Can you imagine what would have happened if slaves or free blacks in the North could have voted?

Which states still had enforced property requirements in order to vote? Most states had elections open to virtually all white men by 1860.

Not to mention that free blacks could vote in parts of the North.

Ryan
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Northwest Missouri
These issues to deal with that time frame. If women did have the vote and the comman man did select their represenitives would history of this period been a different outcome? This issue was a result on a question on the blacks not having the vote

This does pretain to this period. If women could vote and if the comman man had more voting rights would this alter in any way what occured during this time?What states would not have suceeded and in the North would the Republican part had suceeded as they did? This responce was to a statement concerning the violation of black's civl rights/voting .Can you imagine what would have happened if slaves or free blacks in the North could have voted?
My first inclination was to respond, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas". However, I thought it impertinent. Looks like I should have gone ahead with my first thought.
 

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Ohio
Can you imagine what would have happened if slaves or free blacks in the North could have voted?

No need to imagine, since it actually happened. Black people could vote in several Northern states, which was one of the reasons the slaveholding states seceded:

"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

- South Carolina declaration of causes of secession

Source: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
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.
In 1787, the question of whether we would become thirteen, united states was undecided. Forces were undermining that proposition, none more than the issue of slavery.
There was agreement that the decision of who voted was for the states to decide. It wasn't difficult: all of them basically agreed that the right to vote should follow custom and Common Law. That is, only property owners could vote. Since some women were property owners they had the right to vote until it was later taken from them: Connecticut was the last to do this, in 1807.
There was enormous disagreement on the method to be used to determine each state's representation in the House of Representatives and- by extension- the Electoral College. It was agreed representation should be based on the population; it was not agreed who made up that population.
Slave-holding states had long argued that slavery was justified because slaves were property, the same as horses or cattle. But when it came to determining representation, the delegates of these same states insisted that slaves were, indeed, people and all people- including slaves- should count.
Delegates from non-slave holding states insisted just as forcefully that, since slaves were not free, but were considered property, if slave-holding states were allowed to count them, then non-slave holding states should be allowed to count their property- horses, cattle, etc.
Faced with this 'deal breaker', the delegates adopted a compromise, first proposed for apportioning revenue requests in 1783, that allowed slaves to be counted in reduced numbers for purposes of determining representation. This compromise, the Three Fifths Compromise, permitted the counting of slaves, but only at three-fifths of their actual number.
(Even with this, a further compromise was required. Passage was finally secured when the delegates agreed that taxation would also be determined in proportion to Representation.)
The result was politically beneficial to the slave-holding South, but not so much as their original proposal. Nonetheless it foiled attempts to limit or end slavery until the Civil War, then to foil civil rights legislation until the 1960s.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
The Republican's strategy was to alienate the North from the South to take away the South's political power. They could win the Presidency without a single future Confederate State and they did. Lincoln was not on the ballot in the South because there was no reason to be on the ballot.

You can make a case for Lincoln himself being a uniter, but the early Republicans as a whole were most certainly not uniters. Their lack of presence in the South from the beginning speaks volumes about their intentions against the South.
The reason Lincoln was not on the ballot in southern states was not by some grand scheme developed by political consultants. It was simply because the southern states would not allow the Republicans on the ballot. Then as now, each state determined who was on the ballot.
In order for one to be "a uniter", the parties involve must want to be united. Sadly, by 1860, there were all too many in the south who had decided against 'uniting'. Further, except for the Democrats, all the candidates were from largely regional parties.
 

CW Buff

Sergeant Major
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Location
Connecticut
Women were deprived of their rights to vote,in certain states men could not vote unless they were property owners.For as the black man being deprived of his vote,he was not alone. For to allow him to vote would place him equal just as to allow the woman to vote would give her the power to control her political furture.No man in a position of power was going to give these people the authority to change the system.There was once a item called the "pole tax" which was used to keep certan men out of the booth .The influenceal men kept those who they deemed unfit out of the system.In states only the legislative were the ones to determin what occured in those states.How many states succeeded on the decesion of those men?How many would have remain if the comman man was to have had the choose?

Social morality works painfully slow. The Enlightenment got the ball rolling. Slavery was fine for millennia, even for two centuries in America. Voting standards were more liberal in the colonies than Britain itself (which I believe may have been the only real nascent democracy in the world until the US). The hypocrisy of slavery in a nation founded by men who were supposedly resisting their own enslavement went far, but only so far. The franchise was widened to all white males in many states in the 1820s, resulting in Jacksonian Democracy. Another ball got rolling in the 1830s and 1840s, and by 1860 most of the country would no longer tolerate the expansion of slavery (and that was populist, not top down). The Reconstruction Amendments were passed. Men in power did eventually give African Americans and women the vote. Liberalization continued throughout the West, and beyond. Civil rights for all was assured via 14th Amendment Incorporation, the Civil Rights Movement, and the associated laws that followed (a Southern president was rather insistent on those laws). Racism (blatant, at least) itself finally became unsavory after the Holocaust. The world forced South Africa to abandon Apartheid in the 1990s.

Maybe not there yet, but things are getting better. Slavery in the South represented one form of resistance to such change, perhaps even some back pedaling, relative to the Revolutionary Era.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Social morality works painfully slow. The Enlightenment got the ball rolling. Slavery was fine for millennia, even for two centuries in America. Voting standards were more liberal in the colonies than Britain itself (which I believe may have been the only real nascent democracy in the world until the US). The hypocrisy of slavery in a nation founded by men who were supposedly resisting their own enslavement went far, but only so far. The franchise was widened to all white males in many states in the 1820s, resulting in Jacksonian Democracy. Another ball got rolling in the 1830s and 1840s, and by 1860 most of the country would no longer tolerate the expansion of slavery (and that was populist, not top down). The Reconstruction Amendments were passed. Men in power did eventually give African Americans and women the vote. Liberalization continued throughout the West, and beyond. Civil rights for all was assured via 14th Amendment Incorporation, the Civil Rights Movement, and the associated laws that followed (a Southern president was rather insistent on those laws). Racism (blatant, at least) itself finally became unsavory after the Holocaust. The world forced South Africa to abandon Apartheid in the 1990s.

Maybe not there yet, but things are getting better. Slavery in the South represented one form of resistance to such change, perhaps even some back pedaling, relative to the Revolutionary Era.
An interesting summary. Thanks!
Sadly, according to some sources, there are more slaves in the world today than ever before. This includes the most despicable of all: children sold for sex.
The fight is not won... yet.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Location
NC
The reason Lincoln was not on the ballot in southern states was not by some grand scheme developed by political consultants. It was simply because the southern states would not allow the Republicans on the ballot.

The Republican Party was formed to destroy the South's political power, ability to run Southern Presidents, and slavery with it. So, it should be no surprise they were not allowed on the ballot. Not that they even cared, because they didn't.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
The Republican Party was formed to destroy the South's political power, ability to run Southern Presidents, and slavery with it. So, it should be no surprise they were not allowed on the ballot. Not that they even cared, because they didn't.
Thanks for your response.
The way you've chosen to phrase your comment seems quite similar to the complaints of slave-holding, southern Democrats of the period. However, its order seems 'to put the cart- or carts- before the horse'.
I submit that:
1. The Republican Party was formed to win elections. That certainly meant defeating the Democratic Party, since it was the party in power at the time, wherever possible. Though the Democratic Party held much of the south, it also was strong in the north.
2. The founders of the Republican Party had a common objection to the expansion of slavery. Many- but fewer than we sometimes are led to believe- supported outright, forced abolition. More supported some negotiated solution.
Though there is overwhelming evidence to support these two points, nowhere in any documentation I have seen of the founding or early platforms of the Republican Party, or in statements made by early Republicans is there evidence to support an intent to simply "destroy the South's political power" except for the obvious need to defeat candidates wherever the election. The Republicans would have been happy to win the presidential election regardless of where the electoral votes originated. The division over slavery simply made that easier for them in 1860.
 

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
In the early summer of 1860, no matter what scenario he envisioned or twisted as far as he could, Lincoln now saw himself losing the presidency.

That’s when Lincoln, an innovative politician since his twenties, came up with an unprecedented plan to capture the presidency—an all-sectional election campaign that would target only the Northern states. If he captured all of the Northern states but one, such as Pennsylvania with twenty-seven electoral votes or Ohio with twenty-three, and ignored the Southern states altogether, he could win the election. Winning almost all of the Northern states would be a difficult task, but Lincoln thought he could do it.

Lincoln envisioned victory if he could now spend all of his campaign money in the Northern half of the nation, put all of his surrogate speakers on tours through Northern states, lobby Northern newspaper editors, and circulate his campaign literature only in the Northern section of the country. That total effort on just one-half of the country could bring him victory. That chancy strategy had never been attempted before and would never be attempted so boldly again. The reason: it presented what seemed like too many problems.

But Lincoln agreed to that strategy. He concentrated his campaign on the Northern states, especially those near the Great Lakes. These had grown rapidly since 1850 and now had far more electoral votes than in past elections. In addition, New York had gained nearly one million residents since 1850, and Pennsylvania’s population had grown by six hundred thousand. The population spurt made his radical election plan possible.

Lincoln decided not to send any speakers to the Southern states, to cancel any funds the party had scheduled to be spent there, to ignore the usual campaigns to win regional newspaper support, and to no longer count on the independent voters in the South that the Republicans had been successful in rounding up in the last election.
Source: Lincoln for President: An Unlikely Candidate, An Audacious Strategy, and the Victory No One Saw Coming, p. 114, By Bruce Chadwick



Lincoln, the Republican Party, and Lincoln’s election managers never envisioned the South in their election strategy. They understood the important strategy was to win the electoral college vote, and to do that they would have to win the states that Fremont did not win in the 1856 election. The four Northern conservative states, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser degree New Jersey, were the key to Republican success in the presidential election of 1860. Those four states along with the Northern states carried by Fremont in the election of 1856 would provide the margin for victory. Lincoln totaled 180 electoral college votes, while only needing 152 to win, but totaled only 39.8% of the popular vote.
Now some will wish to play Lincoln’s lack of being on the ballots of the Southern states due to “fear” fact is, there were threats of murder and harm no doubt, but that isn’t the reason Lincoln was not on Southern ballots. The South was not needed, and the Republicans along with Lincoln knew it.


Lincoln’s platform offered to Pennsylvania and New Jersey the Tariff plank, offered the Homestead to the west, offered the Germans the pro immigrant plank, offered California the promise of a railroad to the pacific, and to the Great Lakes region was offered river-and-harbor improvements the congressional Democrats had voted down. There was something for everyone in the Republican platform. (source: The Real Abraham Lincoln, pp. 231-232, by Reinhard H. Luthin).

But had nothing to offer the South, other than, and I paraphrase, “I will not bother the peculiar institution in the states it already exists, but I will attempt to overturn the SCOTUS’s ruling allowing you to take your slaves (property) into Federal territories, there by denying you of your constitutional right to do so. I will do this in hopes of slowly strangling to death the peculiar institution, and your economical livelihood.”


Respectfully,
William
Civil War Logo.JPG
 

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Ohio
In the early summer of 1860, no matter what scenario he envisioned or twisted as far as he could, Lincoln now saw himself losing the presidency.

Come on, William. That's baloney, and I think you know it. If not, pony up some evidence of it.

Lincoln, the Republican Party, and Lincoln’s election managers never envisioned the South in their election strategy. They understood the important strategy was to win the electoral college vote, and to do that they would have to win the states that Fremont did not win in the 1856 election.

Heaven forbid! A presidential candidate going for the electoral vote. Imagine that! What sacrilege!

But had nothing to offer the South, other than, and I paraphrase, “I will not bother the peculiar institution in the states it already exists, but I will attempt to overturn the SCOTUS’s ruling allowing you to take your slaves (property) into Federal territories, there by denying you of your constitutional right to do so. I will do this in hopes of slowly strangling to death the peculiar institution, and your economical livelihood.”

So we can put you in the same camp as John C. Calhoun, then - that you believe that the only way the South could survive and prosper was by enslaving their fellow man. Lincoln and many others believed that pushing for the gradual, peaceful extinction of slavery was in fact a benefit to the South. And if the leaders of the South had given them any opportunity to make that case in the South, they might very well have convinced a large number of Southerners of the wisdom of that course. But you seem to be saying that slavery itself was the benefit, and that the South couldn't survive or prosper without it, and without forcing it on territories that had already freed themselves of its yoke. Sad, William, very sad. (Not to mention that you inserted your own personal opinion into your Lincoln "paraphrase", completely altering his sentiment. Lincoln always insisted that there was no constitutional right to take slaves into the territories, and backed it up on numerous occasions with good, solid evidence.)

But I do like the dachshund avatar. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
Come on, William. That's baloney, and I think you know it. If not, pony up some evidence of it.



Heaven forbid! A presidential candidate going for the electoral vote. Imagine that! What sacrilege!



So we can put you in the same camp as John C. Calhoun, then - that you believe that the only way the South could survive and prosper was by enslaving their fellow man. Lincoln and many others believed that pushing for the gradual, peaceful extinction of slavery was in fact a benefit to the South. And if the leaders of the South had given them any opportunity to make that case in the South, they might very well have convinced a large number of Southerners of the wisdom of that course. But you seem to be saying that slavery itself was the benefit, and that the South couldn't survive or prosper without it, and without forcing it on territories that had already freed themselves of its yoke. Sad, William, very sad. (Not to mention that you inserted your own personal opinion into your Lincoln "paraphrase", completely altering his sentiment. Lincoln always insisted that there was no constitutional right to take slaves into the territories, and backed it up on numerous occasions with good, solid evidence.)

But I do like the dachshund avatar. :thumbsup:


BN, I didn't say there was anything wrong with Lincoln going for a EC victory, matter of fact it was the smart move. I was pointing out that it was not fear that kept Lincoln off the ballot, but if you feel it was fear then it is sad. I don't think you believe that though.

Slaves were property, and not allowing the slave holders to take their property into the territories would be denying them their constitutional rights, and you know that. The SCOTUS also ruled it was unconstitutional to bar slave holders from taking their property into the territories. I suppose constitutional rights meant nothing to Lincoln. If you wish to believe otherwise you by all means are entitled to that belief.

I paraphrased it as to how I saw it.

I suppose I should have seen it this way. "Lincoln is a God, he is perfect" Heaven forbid anything other than the continuing myths of Lincoln be stated. I have not bought into the Lincoln kool-aid in many, many years.



Thanks, that is Ben my big little buddy.....................

Respectfully,
William
A. Lincoln  3.jpg
 
Top