The Election of 1860

[rangerrebew]

  The Election of 1860

Douglas Campaign Ticket
Valley of the Shadow: Two Communities in the American Civil War, Virginia Center for Digital History, University of Virginia
This Democratic ticket from Staunton, VA, showing Douglas as the party nominee is unusual because Douglas wasn't shown as the nominee for the Democratic Party in most of the South.

The Democrats met in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1860 to select their candidate for President in the upcoming election. It was turmoil. Northern democrats felt that Stephen Douglas had the best chance to defeat the "Black Republicans." Although an ardent supporter of slavery, southern Democrats considered Douglas a traitor because of his support of popular sovereignty, permitting territories to choose not to have slavery. Southern democrats stormed out of the convention, without choosing a candidate. Six weeks later, the northern Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then Vice-President John C. Breckenridge.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/32d.asp

[Smokin Joe]

Nominees    Electoral Vote    Popular Vote
     Presidential    Vice Presidential
    Republican    winner    Abraham Lincoln    Hannibal Hamlin    180    59.4%    1,865,908    39.9%
    Southern Democratic         John Breckenridge    Joseph Lane    72    23.8%    848,019    18.1%
    Constitutional Union         John Bell    Edward Everett    39    12.9%    590,901     12.6%
    Democratic         Stephen Douglas    Herschel Johnson    12    4.0%    1,380,202    29.5%
Four people voted for Lincoln in the County I came from (white, male, 21, and a property owner). They were asked to leave.

[Hondo69]

Very interesting - damn shame we don't study history much in this country.  Lots of valuable lessons to be learned.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/32d.asp

With four candidates in the field, Lincoln received only 40% of the popular vote and 180 electoral votes — enough to narrowly win the crowded election. This meant that 60% of the voters selected someone other than Lincoln. With the results tallied, the question was, would the South accept the outcome? A few weeks after the election, South Carolina seceded from the Union.

According to the record books the Civil War officially began in 1861.  But if you lived in Missouri or the Kansas Territory you'd been experiencing all out war for for seven full years by 1861. 

Quantrill's Raiders
James J. (Jim Crow) Chiles
Kansas Red Legs
Jayhawkers

The 1850's are referred to as "bleeding Kansas" in this area but there was a lot of bleeding in Missouri as well.  Both the state and federal governments experimented with a number of solutions that only made matters worse.  Union soldiers would sweep through sections of Missouri taking what they wanted, burning down the houses and barns, and shooting any remaining livestock.  Thousands of people were displaced. 

By the time 1861 rolled around and the Civil War was official nationwide bloodshed was nothing new to those in the western territories.

[Smokin Joe]

Very interesting - damn shame we don't study history much in this country.  Lots of valuable lessons to be learned.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/32d.asp

According to the record books the Civil War officially began in 1861.  But if you lived in Missouri or the Kansas Territory you'd been experiencing all out war for for seven full years by 1861. 

Quantrill's Raiders
James J. (Jim Crow) Chiles
Kansas Red Legs
Jayhawkers

The 1850's are referred to as "bleeding Kansas" in this area but there was a lot of bleeding in Missouri as well.  Both the state and federal governments experimented with a number of solutions that only made matters worse.  Union soldiers would sweep through sections of Missouri taking what they wanted, burning down the houses and barns, and shooting any remaining livestock.  Thousands of people were displaced. 

By the time 1861 rolled around and the Civil War was official nationwide bloodshed was nothing new to those in the western territories.

On the other 'front'...had Virginia acted faster, the war would have been different indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861

[Bigun]

On the other 'front'...had Virginia acted faster, the war would have been different indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861

  And there were other lost opportunities as well.

[Hondo69]

On the other 'front'...had Virginia acted faster, the war would have been different indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861

Thank for posting that link.  I had never heard of that incident before.

Little by little I'm learning a lot.

[Smokin Joe]

Thank for posting that link.  I had never heard of that incident before.

Little by little I'm learning a lot.

The so called 'border' states, while on the border, had definite sentiments either statewide, or by region. Virginia was divided during the war and West Virginia carved out of the state, for instance. The mountains formed a very real barrier to transportation, not to mention troop movements.

The union blockade of Southern ports was designed to keep the South from engaging in what could have been serious commerce with Europe, not only to finance the war effort, but that would have established diplomatic ties as well with European nations which could have ended up as military alliances as well. Dealing with the South would have simplified matters for the British, especially. (see Egyptian Indebtedness at this link:http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his312/lectures/egypt.htm). Preventing that trade was paramount to Union strategy (and reserving it primarily for northern cotton mills).

Trade between the North and South did not end with the war, either: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/trading-with-the-enemy/?_r=0

[Hondo69]

The union blockade of Southern ports was designed to keep the South from engaging in what could have been serious commerce with Europe, not only to finance the war effort, but that would have established diplomatic ties as well with European nations which could have ended up as military alliances as well.

Some pretty interesting reading here.  I've heard some historians make the case that the North was simply better equipped for war because they had better road, trains, ships, etc.  They could simply outproduce the South, move men and supplies more easily, and use their Navy to not only move supplies but cut off those from the South as well. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I've always been fascinated by the election of 1876, which nobody usually remember. It's probably the closest we've ever come to a second civil war, and was a real actual,constitutional crisis, rather than people who scream such at everything unusual that happens in government.

[Hondo69]

I've always been fascinated by the election of 1876, which nobody usually remember. It's probably the closest we've ever come to a second civil war, and was a real actual,constitutional crisis, rather than people who scream such at everything unusual that happens in government.

The history books seem to ignore the period following the Civil War, which is a shame.  So many strange things were going on that don't seem like they could ever happen in America.  Even the names of some the political parties of the era were strange.  Radical Republicans vs Liberal Republicans for example.  Lots of hate to spread around with reconstruction troubles, civil rights and women's rights, and widespread corruption.  What a mess.

[Smokin Joe]

Some pretty interesting reading here.  I've heard some historians make the case that the North was simply better equipped for war because they had better road, trains, ships, etc.  They could simply outproduce the South, move men and supplies more easily, and use their Navy to not only move supplies but cut off those from the South as well.

One of the economic problems that led to troubles was the advent of industrialization in the South which meant the ability to make their own mills, etc. Atlanta was important for the railroad shops, for example. It wasn't that the south didn't have resources, but that they were only just beginning to be developed. That industrialization, though was only a step away from not shipping cotton north, but fabric, a value added good and the margin would have been stripped from the northern industries who pocketed the difference.

If you can take a product from field to finished good, you collect more of the final value of that product. Supplying raw goods (baled cotton, for instance) is far down the food chain from cloth or clothing.  With sectional friction, economic freedom was becoming more important.

At the start, the North had the resources of the Navy, the standing (Federal) army, the foundries and mills of the North, the mines (iron and other), and the ports (especially by keeping Maryland in Union control). That freed Northern ships for blockade duty, at least those who were not chasing commerce raiders and blockade runners, which is what made those doubly important to the war effort.

Consider the CSS Hunley, the first purpose-built submarine to sink an enemy vessel in War (even though the Hunley was lost on the mission), was built to try to break the blockade.) And the ironclad Virginia, built on the raised hull of the Merrimac, also was built to break the blockade. Had it been used thus, instead of fighting the Monitor to a stalemate, even in that one battle, the die could have been cast until such time as the Union would have been able to get enough ironclads for the blockade forces. Then next innovation in the line of naval defense was the floating mine, credited with sinking more Union ships than sea action http://kms.kapalama.ksbe.edu/projects/2002/civilwar/battle09/scientist.html

Land mines were also developed (though they did not originate during the War Between the States), but little used. http://members.iinet.net.au/~pictim/mines/history/history.html  Land mines, in particular, were viewed as a coward's weapon. I'll spare you my comments on tactics.

While innovation was present, unfortunately the manufacturing capability was not yet developed.

[Smokin Joe]

The history books seem to ignore the period following the Civil War, which is a shame.  So many strange things were going on that don't seem like they could ever happen in America.  Even the names of some the political parties of the era were strange.  Radical Republicans vs Liberal Republicans for example.  Lots of hate to spread around with reconstruction troubles, civil rights and women's rights, and widespread corruption.  What a mess.

It is no surprise that those who claimed glorious victory did not want to own the aftermath with the corruption, theft, and carpetbagging that went on. Many southerners were stripped of their lands, either by the war itself, or by the taxman afterwards, and ended up moving west. Ironically, it was the taxman who took my wife's ancestors lands (some 4 million acres) by following the wagons when the deeds were distributed and presenting the natives (who had seldom, if ever needed cash or coin and often could not even read) with a bill for back taxes.

[Bigun]

The history books seem to ignore the period following the Civil War, which is a shame.  So many strange things were going on that don't seem like they could ever happen in America.  Even the names of some the political parties of the era were strange.  Radical Republicans vs Liberal Republicans for example.  Lots of hate to spread around with reconstruction troubles, civil rights and women's rights, and widespread corruption.  What a mess.

One of the problems with history books is that what's in them often bears little resemblance to what actually happened. That is especially so in and after wars because the victor get's to write them and only wants to portray his side of things in the most favorable light possible.

[Frank Cannon]

Isn't this 1860 election the one where Douglas started sweating on camera during the debate and Lincoln looked more composed to the home viewer?