1860 election

[Christine]

I am just wondering if any of you have seen any published articles or op ed pieces comparing this election to the 1860 one.

Do you think if the Democrats had fielded only one candidate instead of 2 (or some argue 3) they would have taken the White House that year?

[Thomas Thorne]

I have yet to see any comparison between this years' election and 1860.

The idea of an old fashioned open political convention actually deciding who the candidate will be, is fascinating and was the norm during most of our history.

On a purely static analysis, Lincoln would have won a majority of the 1860 electoral vote with only 39% of the popular vote even if Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell's popular vote had been combine.

The political history of the 1850's can be interpreted as how the Democratic Party threw away its majority in the free states by catering to Southern Democrats demands for the expansion of Slavery.

That Stephen Douglas who had carried so much water for the South and his devoted following in the North could be lumped in with the Republicans by Southern Democrats in 1860 is striking. There is evidence that many of Douglas's followers in the Kansas Nebraska fracas subsequently became Republicans after Douglas revolted against Buchanan and the South for their repudiation of Douglas's conception of popular sovereignty.

Tom

[RJNorton]

(03-17-2016 05:15 PM)Christine Wrote:  I am just wondering if any of you have seen any published articles or op ed pieces comparing this election to the 1860 one.

Do you think if the Democrats had fielded only one candidate instead of 2 (or some argue 3) they would have taken the White House that year?

(03-17-2016 08:30 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  I have yet to see any comparison between this years' election and 1860.

The idea of an old fashioned open political convention actually deciding who the candidate will be, is fascinating and was the norm during most of our history.

On a purely static analysis, Lincoln would have won a majority of the 1860 electoral vote with only 39% of the popular vote even if Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell's popular vote had been combine.

The political history of the 1850's can be interpreted as how the Democratic Party threw away its majority in the free states by catering to Southern Democrats demands for the expansion of Slavery.

That Stephen Douglas who had carried so much water for the South and his devoted following in the North could be lumped in with the Republicans by Southern Democrats in 1860 is striking. There is evidence that many of Douglas's followers in the Kansas Nebraska fracas subsequently became Republicans after Douglas revolted against Buchanan and the South for their repudiation of Douglas's conception of popular sovereignty.

Tom

Christine and Tom, many thanks to Bill Richter for sending this interesting article.

Christine, regarding your question on whether Lincoln would have won had the Democrats not split, there is an interesting (and perhaps surprising) analysis here.

One of the observations Dr. Hylton makes is:

"While receiving only a plurality of the popular vote, Lincoln nevertheless won a substantial majority in the Electoral College, totaling 180 votes compared to 72 for Breckenridge, 39 for Bell, and only 12 for Douglas.

Although it is often assumed that Lincoln prevailed only because his three opponents split the opposing votes, that was not the case. Because of the way in which Lincoln’s votes were concentrated outside the South, he would have won a majority of votes in the Electoral College even if all of the voters who voted for his three opponents had instead cast their ballots for a single candidate. That candidate would have received 60.3% of the popular vote but would have still lost the Electoral College by a margin of 169 votes to 134."

[Gene C]

We have now had two presidential debates, but how does the current mud slinging compare to 1860?

Not a topic I am the most familiar with, but I would be interested if someone could share some of the talking points, sound bites, distorted positions of the candidates, to compare to. Let's try to keep current politics out of this.

The Lincoln Museum in Springfield has an excellent exhibit on this, showing how even Mary Lincoln was dragged through the mud.

[Angela]

As far as I understood, it was customary at that time that candidates would not campaign for themselves. And while Lincoln followed tradition he hated having to sit out the campaign.
Only a month after Lincoln was nominated, William Herndon wrote in a letter to Lyman Trumbull: "He is bored – BORED badly. Good gracious, I would not have his place and be bored as he is – I could not endure it.”

[Gene C]

One thing I can say for the election of 1860, they had a few catchy songs. The even had a Republican Song Book.
https://archive.org/stream/hutchinsonsre...0/mode/2up

One of my favorite tunes of that time was "Lincoln and Liberty To" on page 71
https://archive.org/stream/hutchinsonsre...0/mode/2up

Here's the song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqO2x39FLs

The tune is from an old Irish, Scottish, English drinking song, "Rosin the Beau"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv6aI3lDS5k