Extra Credit Questions

[David Lockmiller]

(05-15-2024 12:08 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

Going back to one of your earlier posts, you wrote:

Quote:If he had done so, he would have lost his requisite close political base of support in Illinois. This asset was critical to Lincoln being elected President of the United States. The mistake to his political career would have been irreparable.

This comment is exactly what I'm talking about regarding your historical myopia. In the 1860 election, Illinois had only 11 electoral votes. Five other states had more electoral votes than Illinois (Indiana and Massachusetts, 13; Ohio, 23; Pennsylvania, 27; New York, 35). A candidate needed 152 votes of the 303 available to win the White House. Had Lincoln lost Illinois, he still would have received 169 electoral votes (from the five I mentioned and the various smaller states he also won) and easily won the presidency. So not only was Illinois NOT critical to Lincoln's victory, but accepting the territorial governorship would not have caused "irreparable" harm.

It should also be noted that your belief that Lincoln would have lost his "close political base of support" had he moved west is merely a matter of opinion. Stephen A. Douglas wasn't even a factor in Illinois, and he was by far better known and politically closer to voters there statewide.

By the way, thanks for acknowledging my genius.

Best
Rob

I acknowledged that you had acknowledged your genius.

As I recall, the national news coverage of the Lincoln-Douglas debates brought Abraham Lincoln national notoriety. In 1860 the Lincoln-Douglas debates were printed as a book and used as an important campaign document in the presidential contest that year, which once again pitted Republican Lincoln against Democrat Douglas.

His astute friend Joseph Gillespie believed that the debates with Douglas “first inspired him with the idea that he was above the average of mankind.” (Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Vol. One, page 558.)