Talk:United States presidential election, 1860

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

ĶPlease see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.

Contents

[edit] American deaths greatest in Civil War?

The last sentence says "More Americans would die in this conflict than in any other conflict before or since". I wonder whether it means "white Americans"? The Spanish conquest of Latin America certainly killed more Americans than the US Civil war; I'm not sure about the numbers for the genocide against the Native Americans in North America, but I would expect that these were also higher. Fpahl 14:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it means "U.S. citizens". Meelar 14:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it refers to U.S. citizens. As for the Native Americans (the ones on U.S. soil, anyway), population loss came more from disease than warfare. Military campaigns against them generally aimed not to wipe them out completely, but to herd them onto reservations. Funnyhat 22:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Change This To

This is another one that needs changing to the better format of the the other election pages. -- (unsigned contribution by 207.228.220.93 14:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

[edit] moved here from Wikipedia:RC Patrol

You're right. I've reverted it. SWAdair | Talk 03:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Text/graphic discrepancy

There's a disparity between the graphic and the text. The text says Douglas got Missouri's TWELVE EC votes, but the graphic shows Missouri with only NINE EC votes. I don't know enough to be sure which is correct, but someone ought to doublecheck this one. -- (unsigned contribution by 216.184.2.22 19:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

it should be NINE EC votes, but im not sure which part of the text your refering to, i couldnt find it. Maybe its been changed since.--vierstein 06:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This was fixed way back on November 7, 2004 by an anonymous user. The problem was that the three votes Douglas got from New Jersey were folded in with Missouri's nine votes. — DLJessup 14:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Democratic party link

Should the link called "Southern Democratic" in the tables point to the "Southern Democrats" page rather than the "US Democratic Party" page? Seems to be much more related information on the Southern Democrats page. Testudo aubreii 19:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm torn -- both Douglas and Breckinridge are listed as nominees on the U.S. Democratic party article. As the table is intended to show party affiliation, I think the links might need to stay (Southern Democrat was never a national party), but you're right that it isn't very clear. I'm curious what others think -- maybe we can find another solution? -- (unsigned contribution by Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC))
One possible solution would be to footnote the party link ((c) See also: Southern Democrats). — DLJessup 18:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to "Results" section

As long as changes are in order, what abt the American Party results? I am reading John Sherman's memoirs where in 1859 there were 27 American Party members serving in Congress--hardly a 3rd party to ignore! Imagine 27 Libertarians in Congress today if you can... Yet nowhere on this page do I find them mentioned, and I navigated here to see what they were claiming in their platform. The search for American Party 1859 also found no platform. One of the big draws of the Wikipedia is being able to look this stuff up. What gives? Why the omission? translator (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just modified or reverted some of Funnyhat's changes to this article, and I should explain them.

  • While the 1860 election is a textbook example of getting an electoral majority without a popular majority, it is not often cited in this context — the elections of 1888 or 2000 seem to be more popular because they lack the confusing split vote.
  • The vote split "ultimately proved" doesn't really add anything in this context; instead, it just sounds long winded.
  • En-dashes (–) are used to denote ranges. For example, one could write: "The monthly rent for an apartment is this building is $600 – $900." Breaks in the flow of text are denoted by em-dashes (—): "Meanwhile, Douglas — the only candidate to receive votes in every state (except for South Carolina, which did not hold a popular vote) — finished second in the popular vote.
  • I reverted "not counting" to "except for" which just sounds cleaner.

I should add that many of the changes that Funnyhat made were quite good — just not all of them.nfdghnbjfhfdkcxjkghsfdjkhgfjkfsadhdsfaghdshjgehdsfhgdsjnhgsjdhbdhjdsagdfshbsnjgsduysdhfkseghsfdajksdfhksdfdfsj

I also made some changes that affected pre-Funnyhat text:

  • Lincoln's electoral majority against a single candidate would have been 169 - 134, not 173 - 130; the latter figure failed to take into account the 4 electoral votes from New Jersey.
    • NJ is a tough case - there WERE only 2 candidates. Lincoln lost & still got 4 of 7 electoral votes--JimWae 01:50, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • I moved the "…example of getting an electoral majority …" sentence to the beginning of the paragraph because it was a much better introduction to the paragraph.
  • I eliminated the sentence "Lincoln developed a base of political support that extended far enough to gain him the electoral victory," entirely, as it seemed to be content-free.

— DLJessup 00:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic convention

The section on the Democratic convention seems odd to me. I seem to recall that the fire-eaters walked out in Charleston before they walked out in Baltimore. Our current article gives no sense of this. john k 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused: the second sentence of "Democratic nomination" reads: "At the convention in Charleston in April 1860, 50 southern Democrats walked out over a platform dispute," and there have been no changes to the text of this article since October 21.
— DLJessup (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral picture peculiarity

shhh dont ell

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.
— DLJessup (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Question What is the story on the first named Democrat placed in nomination? This person, whose name raises red flags by itself, is not mentioned in Convention Decisions and Voting Records, p. 66, where the 1860 Democratic National Convention is chronicled. Chronicler3 10:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"... with Lincoln not even on the ballot in nine Southern states...." I don't really know how voting took place at this time. I didn't think there were printed ballots; I thought party officers distributed tickets with the appopriate candidate names on them to voters. Should this sentence read "with no Republicans in nine Southern states to distribute Lincoln-Hamlin tickets to people at the polls"? Boris B 11:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

to "run" for president means to have a slate of presidential electors. The GOP did not have any slate in some states. It did have a slate in Virginia and got some votes in Wheeling area. Rjensen 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we then say "with the Republicans not even submitting a slate of electors in nine Southern state" john k 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes "with the Republicans not even submitting a slate of electors in nine Southern state" does the job (Rjensen 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion ticket

The Fusion ticket of non-Republicans drew 595,846 votes.

Exactly how did a Fusion ticket work? Was it a mixed slate of electors or an agreement to throw the entire slate behind whichever candidate was dominant? Timrollpickering 14:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See electoral fusion. Article needs improvement, but the basics are there. The general idea behind electoral fusion is that multiple parties would nominate the same candidate. The votes for the individual candidate would be totaled, regardless of the party. At the time, I believe there were many more local and state parties and that national parties did not have quite the same influence as they do currently. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm - so just who were the Fusion tickets nominating in this election? Timrollpickering 14:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
A "ticket" is a list of presidential electors. A voter votes for a whole list. A fusion ticket has people from different factions and they are allowed to vote for anyone they want in the electoral college.Rjensen 11:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Bell

For someone who carried 3 states, there is very little discussion in this article of John Bell, such as what his platform was, what his differences were with the other candidates, why he was able to win 3 states, etc. Nightkey 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bell represented old school conservative Whigs, whose strength was largely in the upper south (in addition to the states he won, Bell came very close in North Carolina and Maryland). john k (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery in NJ

http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm

In 1846, NJ took some steps against slavery. At the start of the Civil War, New Jersey citizens owned 18 "apprentices for life" (the 1860 federal census listed them as "slaves")
"New Jersey's emancipation law carefully protected existing property rights. No one lost a single slave, and the right to the services of young Negroes was fully protected. Moreover, the courts ruled that the right was a 'species of property,' transferable 'from one citizen to another like other personal property.' "[10] Thus "New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state."[11]

It would seem to have been "permitted" in some form until 13th amendment --JimWae (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see Slavery_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_Slaves --JimWae (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey electoral vote

Anyone know why four of New Jersey's electors voted for Lincoln, despite Douglas winning the state? john k (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Horace Greeley wrote, "Every Free State but New Jersey had chosen the entire Lincoln Electoral ticket; and in New Jersey the refusal of part of the Douglas men to support the "Fusion" ticket (composed of three Douglas, two Bell, and two Breckinridge men), had allowed four of the Lincoln Electors to slip in over the two Bell and the two Breckinridge Electors on the regular Democratic ticket. The three Lincoln Electors who had to confront the full vote of the coalesced anti-Republican parties were defeated by about 4,500 majority." (1866, The American Conflict, p. 328). Seems like a reasonable explanation, anyway. Settler (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Perhaps we should include that somewhere in the article. john k (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)