This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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))

• Special:Contributions/216.79.136.51 changed "free states" into "free nuts" on U.S. presidential_election, 1860. Doesn't make much sense to me.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, people representing different parties, sometimes in a 'unity convention' with the consent of the candidate, agree to certify to the State Secretary of State that they intend to vote for the named President and Vice President, nominees of a party certified in the state. Usually they take an oath, and violation in the modern era is a misdimeanor.

Although I think its Minnesota that provides for anyone presuming to be faithless and mispeaks against his oath is simply administratively removed, and the alternate becomes the elector. But then, as now, those chosen as electors are meant to have a good reputation in their communities that will reflect well on the head of the ticket. I did some looking into 'unfaithful electors' in the 20th Century; in the 1960s and 70s they were all big contributors, not long time party faithful ... TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 23:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Bell stands for Union without coercion, sort of like Buchanan, who left the Presidency declaring secession as illegal, but making no overt action to deny extra legal military forces, even before secession resolves in come cases, forts, armories, federal court houses, customs houses or Treasury mints.

Some scholars like Freehling, believe Bell's run was meant to throw the election into the House where the southern states would enjoy a very great advantage over their Constitutional numbers in the Electoral College.

After Sumter, Bell will retire from public life to invest in mills and mines, and acknowledges the authority of Tennessee secessionists. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

New Jersey is hard to get a handle on. The revolutionaries of 1776 allowed women to vote -- one of the variables the Electoral College had to be open-ended about in the Constitution ... but lots of anit-Lincoln, anti-war sentiment of all kinds of political stripes, not only anti-war (copperhead?) Democrats ... TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

It doesn't make sense to me. How did the voters cast their votes to produce such a result? Digestible ( talk) 06:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Quarterly has an updated edition of its "Presidential Elections" which details the various ways EACH state chooses Electors for each presidential eleciton since 1789 ... really powerful ... splits can be by Congressional district plus two at large, single districts (two more than Congressional), at large by legislature, at large by popular vote, 50-50 popular and legislature, proportional by legislature, ... TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The article says the election occurred November 6. I've just finished reading Fite's The presidential campaign of 1860, which may have said that different states voted in different months in arguing for how apparent the final result of the election was as early as August. I just turned in the book, unfortunately, so I can't check until it's back on the shelf of my library in a few days. Anyone know about this? Albortron ( talk) 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The date was set in 1845 to be nationally uniform, by Congress. Here's a source:
William C. Kimberling. The Electoral College. Page 7. (Revised May 1992) (Kimberling was formerly Deputy Director, Office of Election Administration, at the Federal Elections Commission)
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 05:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That just raises further confusion for me, though, especially because I managed to dig this up. Not sure how to do the source all fancy like you, but
Jerry R. Desmond. Maine and the Elections of 1860. Page 455. Does it make sense if they had elections for governor and congress in September and President in November, because that appears to be the most logical explanation, to me at least. Albortron ( talk) 06:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't access that article but it seems historically people have been confused about what As Maine goes, so goes the nation actually meant and were confusing the Presidential election which was held in November with the state elections still held in September. Indeed an earlier version of that article maintained that even though a glance at the results shows that one as false. (In every Presidential election from 1856 to 1960 Maine went reliably Republican except in the split year of 1912 - it even voted Republican in the disastrous years of 1932 & 1936. It was Democrat in 1964 - another absolute armageddon election for the Republicans - and 1968 - when the Democrat Veep nom was from Maine - but otherwise always voted Republican until 1992, since when it's always voted Democrat.) Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Answering the query, yes, congressional and state elections did not align with the presidential election date in the mid- 1800s; states were allowed diversity on the that topic until a federal law finally was passed. A history of the federal law that finally set the congressional election dates would find your answer. See article I, section 4, of the US constitution:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations..."

And the current law, is at Title II, Chapter 2, Section 7 of the United States Code (Section 1 states the Senator election dates). [1]

-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 13:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite confusing the way the candidate photos are underlined by colors that don't match the map just below. Can someone either change the map to match the lines, or change the lines to match the map? I don't know if either one is the "official" colors or anything, but they ought to match. Nerrolken ( talk) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to figure out how to fix this, John Bell is listed as getting the most electoral votes at the same time as Abraham Lincoln. J'onn J'onzz ( talk) 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

young moolock thiz girl look like a man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.146.3 ( talk) 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been my understanding that Abraham Lincoln did not run as a Republican until 1864, and that in 1860, he ran under the Union (not to be confused with Constitutional Union) Party. Mk5384 ( talk) 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article seems to say that this happened in 1864, so I guess I'll go with that. Mk5384 ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Where the article observes that Lincoln won 40% of the popular vote (Results-second paragraph), it should be observed that candidates who declared they would fight to sustain the Union won 70%, and Unionists altogether won 82%.

Threats of secession and civil war filled the newspapers, speeches and letters of 1860. (These were serious enough for Britain to expand cotton production in Egypt and India.)

Lincoln said that he would fight to maintain the Union, and following his election in the states, Electoral College certification in a Republican-minority Congress, and Inauguration as President by Chief Justice Taney. He was re-elected on a platform of sustaining the Union and his Emancipation Proclamation as a Constitutional Amendment.

Douglas, campaigning in all sections, ended his Southern swing at Norfolk where he declared in his 'Norfolk Doctrine' he would, like Lincoln, fight to maintain the Union. In the event, he returned to Illinois to recruit for Lincoln’s Army, persisted in the winter rains, contracted typhoid and died.

Bell was a Unionist, but would not fight, acknowledged secessionist authority in Tennessee, and retired into private life as an investor in salt and iron.

Breckinridge would support secession from within the US government, resign, and in the event, fought as a Confederate General to make secession a reality.

The position that candidates took on the issue should be aligned (Lincoln, Douglas, Bell v. Breckinridge) or (Lincoln, Douglas v. Bell, Breckinridge) in the narrative, maps, and charts.

The 1860 Election was not a contest over organizing caucuses in the House of Representatives. It was about Union, with more or less slavery, whether it would be fought over, and the subsequent numbers that could be sustained in the field during Civil War. The ballots may not have related to bullets 4:1 in literally the same ratios, but over time, numbers mattered. TheVirginiaHistorian 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk • contribs)

So, I re-read the reference footnote six more thoroughly, and saw that my point was already made in the reference. So I paraphrased the 'not monolithic as an Electoral College map' paragraph from the citation, and tried to make it more readable. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional introductory language to place the popular vote in the context of presidential elections of the time. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean to put 'Lincoln won' at the lead of the 1860 Election 'results' section.

Constitutionally there are three parts in the process which I intend to document with this addition.

• Election of the President of the United States in the states by Constitutional processes.
• Certification in the Electoral College convening in the US Capitol, and Congressional certification.
• Inauguration, swearing in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in this case, under duress.

I moved the wonderful Capitol image up by the Electoral College/Congressional/Inauguration lead-in description.

The amazingly good map by counties of election returns is now aligned with the discussion about the NOT monolithic South. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 21:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Here I'm trying to let the narrative show through convention vote charts, so I've added the collapsed chart title as a default. I like the idea of embedding them in the applicable sections, rather than making a footnote link. And I added some descriptive language to the chart titles. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The descriptive language for the campaign button is abreviated for space and balance. Lots of innovative things going on in the 1860 Election...

The paragraph on Yancey's tour is added and tied to Douglas' to explain some of the give and take. These speeches were recorded by reporters in the New York-based Associated Press, who then telegraphed them across the country to other papers. The political contest was reported in real time in major cities. in some way, I think his main audience were the readers back home, fair warning and all that...but I don't have an authority yet.

More should be developed...the state elections for state offices and for Representative and Senator could also be held on other dates before the Presidential election...these were seen as bell weathers...these were very much a part of the 'campaign'.

'Storming the Castle' is one of the choicest political cartoons of the period for the presidential race. I was never able to see before what the issues that were supposed to be Douglas' keys to the White House. Wiki Commons gives us the Library of Congress document code to pull it up and read the LOC transcript description. They bear directly on the relationships among the campaigns...

On the "needs citation" on Southern big city/port city Irish support for Douglas...I'm sure we can find a reference...

-Irish were in direct competition with leased out slaves...Frederick Douglass' work on a rope walk in Baltimore comes to mind...so the slave holders were not concerned with 'working men's rights' in the way that a Douglas Chicago speech would address.

-The property requirements to vote were much more restrictive in the South than the westerly states like the Illinois of Stephen Douglas. In western states, immigrant whites could get state citizenship and voting rights before US citizenship.

-In the South, immigrants were not so welcomed (German laborers were jailed in Richmond for drinking beer on their one day a week off). The Confederate Constitution will deny the rights of citizenship to anyone not born in the Confederacy. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 02:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a short section linking the presidential and congressional elections of 1860 to answer the critique of the Wiki project, and to place the strengthening unionist sentiment in context of the six years leading up to the crisis. The analysis is based on Kenneth Martis' monumental work...the historical essay addressing the entire political history of the United States in Congress in the Introduction is superlative...out of print, last time I looked, but available in the reference 'Atlas' section of many libraries. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 17:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a chart showing the change of numbers and percents as shown in the Martis Atlas (he also has a Confederate Congress which I have not read). Nebraska's US Senators show as vacant, so numbers do not total; percents are rounded up... TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This does not belong in the article, as the topic of this article is the presidential election of 1860. There are articles for the House and Senate elections of 1860 that this information should go into. Section deleted. Vidor ( talk) 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Not a 'minority' presidency" is a rewrite to meet Vidor's critique, more tightly focusing on presidential election, while still meeting the previous wiki tag calling for "linking presidential and congressional elections of 1860". Without some context, the reader might otherwise think Lincoln had not popular support following his election. Congressional election is the best we have for a polling sample of likely voters available from that time. Would you support Lincoln if he were elected president? over two-thirds of our poll said yes. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Further consolidated that section into the "results" section and tightened up the prose. Also, the article has links to the House and Senate articles in the "see also" section at bottom. Vidor ( talk) 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

-Candidate descriptions below each picture in Candidates Galleries are standardized.

-The Republican gallery is expanded to include connection to transportation, and position in Lincoln's cabinet (see Goodwin's 'Team of Rivals').

-Cosmetic changes for the table of contents, 'galleries' subordinated to nomination.

The two sections for each nomination can now be consolidated, since the narrative of the nominations are written in the 'galleries' sections, without objection. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding buildings where the conventions were held. I've got two wiki commons, one maybe, and one government source.

• 1860 Democratic Convention met in Institute Hall, Charleston. Bolting Cotton delegates met in Military Hall[1]. This was taken from Wiki Commons, Image: Institute Hall, 1881, by F. A. Nowell.jpg. It is a diarama, and page instruct not to modify it...uploading downloading...seems to have been deleted in Spanish?

Charleston Military Hall is still unfound...

• Maryland Institute Hall is the place of the walkout Southern delegates first nominating Breckinridge. Wiki Commons, seems to be okay.

• Richmond's Military Hall was named as an open warehouse floor in one contemporary's account as the top floor 'above the Old Market Hall' at Main Street and 17th. This had been a market in Richmond since the 1790s, trading with Native Americans. The present building is the forth on the site, now with a sylish 'Farmer's Market' awning. I've got a mid-19th Century Richmond Main Street scene in Wiki Commons in that 'Shockoe Bottom' area, but the Market Hall/Military Hall location is not identified...down near Edgar Allen Poe's home... still looking...

• The Baltimore's 'Front St. Theater' is pictured on the Baltimore County Legacy Web, but I do not know about free access. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In a couple of items I mis-called Douglas, a pro-union man, as a unionist. They have been removed without attribution. I have tried twice to correct the same mislabelled attribution in the adjacent electoral college map which the wiley expunger missed. I checked My talk, but find no notice of suspended editorial privileges. The two sets of errors occured after Aug 6. How can I accommodate the other editor's correct assessment that I messed up after midnight?

Also, the description line above the campaign button does not show on the article page as it had before, |left|caption=" Campaign buttons in 1860 saw the first candidate portraits. Here, tintype images.">

Any help? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time at it, I will try to disambiguate unionist meaning pro-union versus unionist meaning Constitutional Union Party. Both may be seen as pro-union, but unionist is too easily misunderstood in the discussion of political parties. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On the edit by Ben76266 of 16 Jun 2011, I am reluctant to change what is in the primary documents. By New Jersey law, on December 7, 1860, Lincoln won 4 electoral votes, Douglas won 3, as found in New Jersey archives, | “Electoral College Minutes”. The U.S. Congress certified the count on February 11, 1861 as found on |“Map: 1860 Election Results”.

I thought editor 96.25.248.210 rendering ½ to ½ was generous since Lincoln won 3/5 of NJ electors. But If we must round one way or the other (per POV?) for editorial economy of style in a chart, can there be some sort of asterisk-note to explain the historical detail?

Please discuss how there were 'Faithless' electors in this 1860 New Jersey elector count, along with references that dispute the findings of the U.S. Congress. There were federal court challenges in Illinois and Texas for the 1960 election, but I have not run across any for 1860. Were there charges of 'faithlessness' in the contemporary newspapers? What can be found in the record?

Apart from the article discussion, California’s 2008 winner-take-all count effectively disenfranchised five millions who would have been more nearly represented with a district plan. Rats, that is SOAPBOX. But I do apologize that New Jersey’s 1860 experiment in Electoral College fairness does somehow disappoint. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 12:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Without discussion, Jayron32 deleted the elections map illustrating the “results” section alongside a discussion of the sectional nature of Lincoln’s electoral victory. The rationale was that the map was badly hand drawn, a finely software-generated map being available to readers elsewhere on the page. Here is a discussion for restoring it.

1. The map “elsewhere” does not illustrate the section. It is not aligned with the text, which, on my browser, is six screens below the software-generated map in the box. The hand drawn map is aligned with the text.
2. The software map visually misleads the reader. By using peach-”red” and “orange”, it applies hues too close on the spectrum for the eye to make clear areal distinctions. That is, it conflates the graphic representation of the Republican party with the Constitutional Union party. The hand drawn map clearly shows the point of the text, the Republican’s sectional geographic base in red, all others in variegations of gray.
3. The legend used in the software map misapplies the use of color spectrum. It is unintelligible, not to say nonsense. The hand drawn map coloration is visually clear and it sharply defines the intended distinction made in the text.

At the cusp of Civil War over secession by slave states, the range of political positions in the 1860 Presidential Election was (a) Breckinridge: pro-slavery, pro-secession at Lincoln's election, (b) Bell: pro-slavery, pro-secession at federal coercion of the states, (c) Douglas: pro-slavery, war for union, and (d) Lincoln: restrict-slavery, war for union. This is not visually conveyed by green, blue, orange and peach, respectively.

How about (a) red, (b) orange, (c) green and (d) blue? For Civil War buffs, Republican blue aligns with the Union soldier "bluebellies" where uniform dyes stained their stomachs (no offense intended). For academics, the premier scholar of political parties and elections is Kenneth C. Martis whose "Historical Atlas of Political Parties" uses blue for Republicans and red for Democrats, 1789-1989.

In the spirit of collegiality, the Jayron32 editor should provide a well crafted, software-generated election results map reflecting the clear presentation of the “badly hand drawn” placeholder, aligned at the text as it is now. As I understand it from reliable authority, such a contribution would be effortless, not to say trivial for anyone under 30. And, also, it would be greatly appreciated by all us babyboomer geezers. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- Jayron 32 01:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Among the states which would become the Confederacy, the three big turnout states voted extremes. Texas at 5% Confederate population voted only 20% pro-Union candidates. Kentucky and Missouri with one-fourth the Confederate population claimed, voted a combined 68% for pro-Union candidates. The first six signatory states establishing the Confederacy counted about one-fourth its population. They voted 43% for pro-Union candidates, excluding South Carolina which did not allow a popular vote for President." This is written very awkwardly. I don't really get what it's trying to say; whoever knows for sure what it's getting at, could you please clarify it? 147.226.196.162 ( talk) 03:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Very true. Thank you. Rewrite summary: In the paragraph on highest voter turnout, the highest turnouts in states admitted to the Confederacy were Texas, Kentucky and Missouri. These had extreme pro-secessionist returns on the one hand among 5% CSA population, and an extreme pro-union canvass on the other, among 25% CSA population. In comparison, CSA states with lesser turnout in the Deep South making up one-fourth voting population split 57% to 43% pro-union, and the four admitted to the CSA after Sumter with about half the wartime South split more narrowly 47% to 53% pro-union. This paragraph development supports the article section showing that the election of 1860 was not monolithic by state or by section, as is sometimes misrepresented. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

While we are asking about disparity between graphic and the text, The table in the text shows different vote counts than the graphic at the beginning of the article. Which one is correct? Did Douglas gain as much of the popular vote as the table says and still only walk away with 12 EC votes? And did Breckinridge gain ~500,000 or ~800,000 votes? 99.83.4.255 ( talk) 08:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)PhyreSpirit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.83.4.255 ( talk) 08:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

-At [ Historical Election Results 1789-1996], U.S. Archives, viewed October 13, 2012,

- Lincoln has 180 E.C. votes with 1,865,908 popular votes

- Breckinridge has 72 E.C. votes, 848,019 popular votes

- Bell has 39 E.C. votes, Douglas has 12 E.C. votes.

- I'll look for a complete government source. Often the point for looking at the popular vote is to declare Lincoln a "minority" president, BUT when combining the popular votes of the two candidates who stand with the Union, Lincoln and Douglas, versus the two candidates who support secession after 1861, we see something like 4:1 pro-Union in the country, since National Democrat Douglas ran a close second behind Breckinridge in several large population southern states where Lincoln is not on the ballot. I'll double check. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Constitutional (Southern) Democrat section is expanded with reliable source, names of the Democratic Party split (a) National (Northern) (regular nomination) Democrats and (b) Constitutional (Southern) (bolter nomination) Democrats. Hope the combination term meets all requirements. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

- Post-election titles for the winning party came from convention, campaign, inauguration and cabinet selection ARE within the scope of the article "presidential election 1860"

-HidyHoTim altered captions on Republican candidates with this justification. "Removed post-election titles as they -- would-not-have-been-notable -- in this specific election."

- Except, they ARE notable in this specific election. The Bibliography as written shows, "Goodwin, Doris Kearns (2005). Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN  0-684-82490-6." -- the book pivots on her account of the Republican party rivals of Lincoln in (a) the run-up to the convention, (b) the convention, (c) the surrigate campaign performance those pictured, and (d) their appointment to Lincoln's cabinet -- also (e) their service during the civil war, truncated and extended.

- The mere captioning a picture for the purposes of understanding the immediate events surrounding THE ELECTION of 1860 -- (a), (b), (c), and (d) cannot reasonably be stretched into an objection to (e) as cabinet titles AFTER the immediate events surrounding the election as addressed in the article.

- Captions are specifically meant to lead the reader into the text. The text discusses the Republican nomination process, "As the convention developed, however, it was revealed that Seward, Chase, and Bates had each alienated factions of the Republican Party." Each of their factions were wooed by Lincoln operatives to get second Lincoln their second-ballot second-choice votes.

- Wikipedia has an avowed edit strategy to expand stubs into articles, not reduce expanding articles back into stubs. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Should the order in the graphic be according to the popular vote or the electoral college? Jay72091 ( talk) 14:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected the infobox content, by placing the prez candidates in electoral votes order. GoodDay ( talk) 06:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

- [insert] on further consideration an alternate proposal below occurs Nothing before was incorrect to correct. You amended the infobox, I disagree to your proposal. -- You have placed infobox portraits top as (a) regular Republican, (b) splinter 'Constitutional Democrat' -- bottom, (c) splinter Whig 'Constitutional Unionist' and finally (d) regular 'National Democrat'.

- Most voters (70%), electors (192) and states (19) chose Unionist candidate who were loyalists, the two candidates of the regularly nominated national political parties, Lincoln and Douglas. Their portraits should be on the top row, (a) and (b).

- Fewer voters (30%), electors (111) and states (14) chose candidate who became secessionists, Bell, a unionist who went secessionist and Breckinridge. Their portraits should be on the second row, (c) and (d).

- By sections, you show (a) north AND west (Lincoln), (b) slave-only (Breckinridge), -- (c) slave-only (Bell), (d) lastly border slave AND north free-state elector winner (Douglas) -- versus -- top multi-section candidates Lincoln & Douglas -- bottom, slave-only Bell & Breckinridge.

- By total popular vote, your #1, #3, -- #4, #2 -- versus -- top, Lincoln 40%, Douglas 30%, -- bottom, Breckinridge 20%, Bell 10%.

- By states -- votes over 10,000 --, your: #2, #4, -- #3, #1 -- versus -- top, Douglas (19), Lincoln (18), -- bottom, Bell (16), Breckinridge (15).

- As it stands now, it appears that there might have been an equivalence between those for union and those for disunion, but that appearance would be unjustifiable by the history of the time. [insert] on further consideration an alternate proposal below occurs TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

- Were the portrait order to remain by electoral vote without consensus here at Talk, the "states carried" infobox line needs revision to avoid misrepresenting POV Douglas as ranking 1/11 the importance of Breckinridge in the national election returns. We could add an indication of the CONTINGENCY of things in 1860.

- as a quick way of conveying information about the candidate's relative electoral strength we could ADD context, showing how it was that EVERY candidate could believe they had a reasonable chance -- depending on how the vote split in each state -- each having a reliably significant voting bloc in approximately the SAME number of states,

-- allowing for a possible electoral majority (Lincoln, Douglas, Bell), or lacking that -- an election by the House (Douglas, Bell, Breckinridge) with just as much legitimacy as Jefferson enjoyed in his first term:

- Using States > 10,000 : Lincoln 18 n, w. -- Breckinridge 15 s, w. -- Bell 16 n, s, w. -- Douglas 19 n, w, s. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than noting "no objection" for five days, in the sprit of collegiality, I thought to render an excerpt of the infobox as proposed, as sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Hopefully, your browser does not bleed the box into the next section.

The proposal pictured now accepts the undiscussed GoodDay edit, and shows on line five below the portrait "states carried", [state number] greater than 10,000 [votes], [regions where votes found]. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 17:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

- Copy edit 25 November.

- (1) Reflect contingency of 1860 election, reporting substantial voter support (a) in nearly equal number of states, (b) all four candidates in 2or 3 regions of the 1860s 3 major geographic regions.

- (2) Copyedit process using 15-day discussion period, 10-day Infobox preview, without objection. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I took down the Infobox display. See section below, "Infobox -- states carried" for a collaborative approach carried forward. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

- The states carried were Lincoln --17, Breckinridge --11, Bell --3, Douglas --1. BUT -- three -- Lincoln, Douglas, Bell -- had a chance at winning an Electoral majority, and -- three -- Douglas, Bell, Breckinridge -- had a chance to win in the House.

- The edit showing UNIFORM reporting of the candidates, (a) states carried AND (b) states greater than 10,000 votes conveys (a) the convention Infobox information which the reader expects AND (b) a statistic which represents the CONTINGENCY of the election -- how all four candidates had a reasonable chance at election.

- States-over-10,00-votes shows Lincoln --18, Breckinridge --15, Bell --16, Douglas --19. The array 18 : 15 : 16 : 19 more accurately portrays the closeness of THIS election than the states-carried convention which shows 17 : 11 : 3 : 1 -- on the ground, the "states-carried" story is NOT what it looked like at all.

- The States-carried and states-over-10,000-votes Infobox edit achieves BOTH aims in an unusual race, the likes of which will not be repeated until 1912. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just seen the changes you've made to the infobox, and as things stand I disagree with them. The reason being that the lay reader will have no clue as to what those figures mean. To be frank, and at the risk of sounding rude, I've read the comments you've made here on this talk page about three times, and even I after that still don't have a clue what you're getting at. On top of that, the changes you've made fly against the format established in other presidential election articles. I ask you please try to reword your rationale here as to why you made your changes. Thanks. Redverton ( talk) 17:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

- The general reader will see the infobox conforms to the other presidential election infoboxes. Lincoln wins all electoral votes, 17 "states carried", likewise Breckinridge 11, Bell 3, Douglas 1. The statement using in the universal symbol for "greater than" is a 5th grade attainment by national U.S. math standards. The U.S. is below average for the WP |general reader internationally. Each candidate had substantial (>10,000 voter) support in states from two or three regions, every one of the four. My public school students in 11th grade reading at a 5th-grade level could read elementary algebra "greater-than".

- Lincoln carried all electoral college votes in 17 states, in 18 states he had greater-than 10,000 votes. Likewise the others as noted. Previous editors variously proposed "non-standard formats" to represent E.C. vote splits. Popular vote is the usual shorthand to show relative importance of candidate to signify minority status. The two major candidates by popular vote were those with over a million votes: Lincoln and Douglas. The two minor candidates -- relative to their vote-getting ability -- were Douglas and Bell, both sectional slave-holding electoral votes only versus Lincoln's North and Far West.

- Without the notation, the Election of 1860 infobox chart should show the two major candidates, Lincoln (national Republican) and Douglas (national Democratic) on the top row. The two splinter third party candidates Bell (old-Whig) and Douglas (bolting Democrat) should be pictured on the bottom row, appropriate to their popular vote. Would it it simpler for editors to restore the picture order to a month or so ago? I would agree to that Lincoln-Douglas-Breckinridge-Bell sequence -- by popular vote order. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 23:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the reply. Let me break it up into a few things and respond in turn. 1) You're arguing that candidates should be ordered by popular vote, not by the electoral vote. I'm going to be dismissive and say that's never going to happen. That debate has been done to death on other presidential election articles, and the consensus has always been that since it is the electoral college that wins elections, not the popular vote, candidates should be ordered by their electoral vote. If you want to change that consensus, one presidential election article is not the place, but instead somewhere like the relevant WikiProject, although I would recommend you don't even try as, as stated, this debate has been done to death with exactly the arguments you have used. 2) Yes, most people know what > means. I know what it means. However, the 17: 18>10,000 votes as a whole would have made no sense to me had I not asked you now. And I utterly guarantee if we were to bring in other editors, they would agree it looks confusing. In addition, why 10,000 votes? Why not 5,000? Or 15,000? It seems such an arbitrary number that its inclusion has no worth. In addition, the infobox is meant to be simple - it is a glorified summary - and really if you want to illustrate the spread of the vote for someone like Douglas, that should be included elsewhere in the article: might even be worth a brief note in the intro. But it's not for the infobox. Redverton ( talk) 07:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

- Done. Thank you, I find your two-point reply persuasive. Thanks for the patience and courtesy.

- Earlier I had a great idea to change the color scheme, akin to that used in Martis, "Historical atlas of political parties in the U.S. Congress" then found out a bit about mapping in tonal variations which is coincidentally (?) adopted by Wikipedia, which makes its maps as graphical presentations better than most maps found in textbooks throughout the country. Ahah!

- Earlier, I introduced some observations about the generation coming to power in this election -- here or in 37th Congress? -- from Howe and Strauss Generations, but it was blanked with the explanation something like, 'this has always been a political science page, they are not academic political scientists.

- I actually thought it would be interesting to go through the presidential or congressional elections applying the book's insights. Is that something to run by the political science WikiProject first? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

May I inquire as to where the data for that map originated? I have interest in using it myself, but the source listed is no longer active, and I cannot find any such source elsewhere. -- Ariostos ( talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought about doing this, but I didn't wish to place it into the main article without any secondary opinions. -- Ariostos ( talk) 00:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to open this for discussion and input before making any changes, but (IMHO) the editor's use terminology to describe the sub-regions of the South, and the groupings/inclusions of the states within, have some noteable historical issues. Specifically, every previous source I have ever read on this topic -- not tooting my own horn, there have been quite a few -- divide the South of that era -- when considering ecomonics, culture, and politics, into three: Border (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware), Upper(Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia), and Lower[or "Deep", in some modern day history sources](South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas).

On the contrary, this editor groups them as Upper(Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware}, MIDDLE(Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia and Texas), and Deep(South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana)

Now, the editor does note that what s/he refers to as the Upper South were also known as Border States. And too be fair, what he calls the Deep South, is also sometime used in history books to refer to the 7 states that initially seceded and formed the Confederacy (South Carolina thru Texas). However, the term Deep South was not actually coined until well into the 20th Century. The term used for those states during the election period being discussed was actually "Lower South".

In any event, my main point of contention is the used of the term "Middle States" rather than the proper-era term of "Upper South", and even more, the inclusion of Texas within it. This is baffling, as in historical source or the era and later, agreed that -- at least during that period -- Texas was a Lower South state by every measure the writer uses as well (economic, political, and culturally). If nothing else the percentage by which Texas went for Breckenridge would confirm it at least in the political realm, which is the main theme of the whole article (presidential elections). It was clearly a cotton state, settlers from other states of the Lower South made up a majority of its new settlers, and it was one of the original members of the Confederacy, with its vote for withdrawing being higher percentage wise than any other Lower South state except South Carolina (where the vote was unanimous). It was also the second to last state to be re-admitted. Now, some of the bonds to the Lower South would begin to change after Reconstruction, but the era being discussed is in 1860.

I certainly don't want to cast aspersions on anyone's motives for doing so, but I can't help think -- with all due respect to the original writer -- that at least part of the reason was to inflate the percentages of voters in the Lower South going for candidates other than Brekenridge in the analysis.

Also, I am unsure why Texas is grouped with Kentucky and Missouri as being the "Big Three" in voter turnout in the South. Texas was not nearly top in that regard. Along with Missouri and Kentucky, the other would have been Virginia.

Anyway, again, would welcome comments and inputs before doing any changes! Thanks! TexasReb ( talk) 18:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to see we have the same interests. Texas had a high percent turnout, did it not? Where is the passage, I could not find "big three" give me a quote and I will search for it. I thought several of your second looks at Confederate States were right on, spot on, correct. Also, narratives are changed, and sometimes citations get deleted. It's been a couple years, so I want to take a second look.

Relative to the unionist/secessionist analysis for this 1860 article: The source for geo-political analysis came from Freehling, William W., The Road to Disunion: Volume II. Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 447. His map on p. 2 has Texas in the Lower South. The divisions came from his focus on the subdivisions of the South, rather than subdivisions of the entire country. The Lower South had cotton as king, nearly half slave population, and ratio of slave to free black at over 50:1.

Unionist/secessionist variations in the South are significant in the run-up to the 1860 election. Indeed, secessionists claimed the election of Lincoln would lead to war. That sentiment was not uniformly shared across the south, and the variations were according to Frehling's analysis, Upper, Middle and Lower. In Texas, Governor Sam Houston successfully led a wait-and-see movement of Unionists, which likewise characterized the Middle South, --- unlike leading secessionist political elements in the Lower South which were far more precipitous. That is the main point relevant to this article.

And in the secessionist crisis, the Unionists failed across the states that would become the Confederacy, which is related to Rjensens point earlier for the Confederacy article on the difference between a November 1860 southern "Unionist" (patriot) and a November 1863 southern "Unionist" (defeatist). I hope I conveyed the nuance I intended. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 12:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Greeting TVH! How are things in the Old Dominion State? :-) Anyway, if you go back to the article (this one) and to the bottom, in the "A Revolution for Disruption" section, you will find the following passage: In the states that would become the Confederacy, the three states with the highest voter turnouts voted the most one-sided. "Texas, with five percent of the total wartime South's population, voted 80 per cent Breckinridge. Kentucky and Missouri, with one-fourth the total population, voted 68 per cent pro-union Bell, Douglas and Lincoln."

Now, the term "Big Three" does not appear in this particular article, but in the source cited by the original editor back on the other article ("Confederate States of America") Here it is: The first six signatory states establishing the Confederacy counted about one-fourth its population. They voted 43% for pro-Union candidates. The four states which entered after Fort Sumter held almost half its population. They voted 53% for pro-Union candidates. The three big turnout states voted extremes. Texas at 5% population voted only 20% pro-Union candidates. Kentucky and Missouri with one-fourth the Confederate population as claimed, voted a combined 68% for the pro-Union Lincoln, Douglas and Bell. See Table of election returns at United States presidential election, 1860 (This would be reference #11).

Now, so far as voter turnout goes? If you go to the table at the bottom of the page in this article, you go over to the "state total" on the far right, and see the total voter turnout for each state; Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri had the highest numbers.

I agree with you that Texas (because of Sam Houston) was a little out of step with the rest of the Lower South regarding secession, but such was not because of

lack of support within the state. Rather, it was because of the delaying tactics taken by Gov. Houston; alone among other governors of the sub-region, he strongly favored remaining in the Union (at least for the moment, as you say a "wait and see"). Thus, he refused to call the Texas legislature into special session to consider the question (as he knew what the outcome would be). He relented when Texas voters elected representatives to a special "convention" (legal under the Texas Constitution) to meet in Austin. At that point, Houston called the legislature into secession, gambling that he might persuade them to block any separatist action by the secession convention (or whatever their official name was). Well, it was sorta like -- in poker parlance -- a man trying to bluff with a pair of deuces! The legislature not only upheld their decision (to secede), but voted them travel and expense money. All in all, it was probably only because of Houston's delaying tactics that Texas was not the 3rd, perhaps even 2nd, state to secede as, as early as late 1860 (right after South Carolina's secession), many in the Texas legislature and other powers within the state, began to advance the position that Texas should follow immediately. BTW -- if you are interested, you can read more about it in the "Texas in the Civil War" article, under the section "Secession Convention and the Confederacy". I modestly admit to having written quite a bit of it! LOL

But anyway, I can see where Texas could be grouped with the "Middle States/Upper South" in that very narrow rubric, but that would be the extent of it. Otherwise, it was like Freehling, and all the rest saw it...as in placing Texas in the Lower South grouping. I will have to read his book! Best Regards! TexasReb ( talk) 19:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Texas is classified as a Deep/lower South, even with a Upper-Middle-Lower paradigm. And that voter turnout has to be the three largest percentages turning out, or the largest turnout percentages, -- certainly not -- Texas as one of the top three voter turnouts, because the population was then one of the smallest. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 20:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I will have to do some calculating on that (i.e. dividing total total turnout into total voting population), and see what it comes to. Will let you know the results! Thanks! TexasReb ( talk) 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I had to go to James Buchanan to find out why he didn't run... seems to me an important issue in the context of this article but he isn't even mentioned here. Rcbutcher ( talk) 11:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I would be open to your contribution.

Would you feature the administration corruption? --- The failure to run for a second term was in the context of no president since Andrew Jackson had had two terms. The Democratic party had just blown apart into Douglas and Breckinridge factions, one saying they would use force of arms to keep the Union together, one with adherents saying they would cause civil war rather than admit Lincoln as president. --- Buchanan did not stiffen into a Unionist position until after the 1860 elections, and then under the sway of Edwin Stanton (later in Lincoln's cabinet) who gave him some backbone.

One term was the norm. In Lincoln's inaugural, he referred to the circumstance when he noted he could not do much harm in the course of four years to justify breaking up the Union on the part of the secessionists. Did you want to emphasize the administration corruption or the party division or Buchanan's character for his not running? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I added 'Trigger for the Civil War' section, noting "The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the immediate cause of southern resolutions of secession." The source is Vol. 6 of LSUs History of the South, "The growth of Southern nationalism, 1848-1861", by Avery O. Craven, using pages 391, 394, 396.

This replaces a section written by another editor using the Miller Institute online at the University of Virginia which had been challenged as original research, etc. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The count should be eleven states disrupted in the Civil War in the 1864 election, not thirteen. Kentucky and Missouri, with full delegations of U.S. members of Congress elected in 1860, 1862 and 1864, had electoral votes counted in 1864. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This entire paragraph is incredibly POV and definitely written from a white, antebellum perspective. I doubt very much the 2.5 million slaves held during that period would agree with the sentiment of this paragraph, in addition, the resource is from a self proclaimed "Student of Southern History." It is incredibly ethnocentric and inappropriate for an objective article.

"The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the immediate cause of southern resolutions of secession. He was the nominee of the Republican party with an anti-slavery expansion platform, he refused to acknowledge the right to secession, and he would not yield federal property within Southern states. Southerners desired the break up of the Union or came to accept it as necessary for their self-respect and the regard of their neighbors. The alternatives in a time of action brought on by the fire-eaters were submission or secession. The South was supposed to be turned pitiable. Added to economic and political inferiority were the accusations of immorality and social backwardness. Lincoln's election meant the South would suffer a reduced status of permanent minority, subject to the will of a majority, they thought, "whose purpose was the alternation of their social structure." This reduction of political contest which had before met with compromise came to the value-laden, simple terms of "right" of northern anti-slavery versus "rights" of southern slavery extension. These terms placed issues beyond the democratic process, and they placed "the great masses of men, North and South, helpless before the drift into war."

24.86.234.175 ( talk) 00:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)parkertherepal28

Okay IP.175, The source is Avery O. Craven, " Growth of Southern Nationalism, 1848-1861", 1953. p. 391, 394, 396. Where does African-American scholarship differ with the existing narrative assessment? How does it differ? Black History Month is coming up, historian Carter G. Woodson was a Virginian, so I pay attention. What exactly is your proposed sourced substitution to describe how Lincoln's election triggered the American Civil War?

It is understood that "the South" meant the white South of national political power as it was relevant to the presidential election, the title of this article. "The South was supposed to be turned pitiable [in the minds of the white supremacists]. Added to economic and political inferiority [for the Southern region of whites with poorer family farms and little manufacturing] were the accusations of immorality [associated with slave-holding atrocities widely perceived in the Northern best-seller Uncle Tom's Cabin and its sequel] and social backwardness [lack of public education and illiteracy among Southern whites]. Lincoln's election meant the South would suffer a reduced status of permanent minority, [a regional minority in Congress already in both House and Senate would just get worse for the slave-power over time]. I hope this helps. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing myself. VH, while I certainly respect you as an intelligent man and very competent historian -- and very fair in terms of compromise -- the POV in some of articles you write/edit of full of lots of POV via' biased sources. I don't see how you can take issue with certain points the earlier poster brings up. For instance, the emphasis on "white supremacy" and all. I hasten to add -- and have always said -- history is a subject that by its very nature is non-objective. To that extent, I empathize. But yours often goes quite a bit beyond a summation of the source, into a POV that make it dubious as in being "readable" for someone who is looking to find a "fair and balanced" article of encyclopedic quality. Further, I know there is a somewhat "fine-line" to walk in this regard, yet long quotations from a source -- which obviously reflect your own feelings -- are a bit over the said "line." Let's be honest, why don't we? "White Supremacy" was a concept that was not unique to the South, no matter how desperately it often portrayed as such to cover-up their own history of the same. That is the real issue I have a problem with. I mean, you know full well -- and I never made any secret about it -- that I take a "Southern" viewpoint on the War. But...I try not to color that viewpoint with quotations from sources that are obviously slanted. For instance "pitiable". Well, ok, but terms like that belong more on a talk/opinion page than in an article...no matter how "covered". Don't you think? TexasReb ( talk) 23:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

IP.175 was objecting to the self-portrait white Southerners had of themselves — as sourced to Avery O. Craven in his volume in Louisiana State University’s multi volume History of the South, —

The IP thought the WP editorial voice was characterizing BLACKS as “pitiable” of “economic inferiority” with “accusations of immorality and social backwardness”. — when it was the WHITE South who objected to the characterization of slave-holders by Northern abolitionists as “supposed to be turned pitiable”, etc. …

Typically at WP, Northerners object to my "over-use" of the LSU sources (Craven out of the University of Georgia, author of “The Confederate States of America” volume in the series is called racist), criticizing my sources as being pro-South. --- How do you read the passage?

Where should the text be amended so that it is not misunderstood as referring to African-Americans “turned pitiable” in the eyes of WP editors, but referring to the slave-holding South “turned pitiable” in the eyes of Northern abolitionists for THEIR economic inferiority, immorality and social backwardness — as Craven clearly intends? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 11:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Avery Craven is pretty old-fashioned ( he reflects the antiwar attitudes of the 1930s And has seldom been cited in the last 50 years). I revised to include much more current emphasis on honor by Wyatt Brown. Editors interested in this Historiographical controversy should turn to Mary A. Decredico, "Sectionalism and the Secession Crisis," which is mostly available online at John B. Boles (2008). A Companion to the American South. p. 240f. Rjensen ( talk) 18:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, VH. I confess I didn't read it all the way I should have. Yes, I do have an objection to lengthy quotations from any given source -- no matter how good and valid they may be -- but I didn't really "absorb" as I should have. In terms of having a grasp on what I was arguing. So, again, for that part of it? I definitely apologize. TexasReb ( talk) 23:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No need, Rjensen dug us out of this one, but thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 06:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The unexplained deletion of informative captions identifying candidates is not justified by an assertion that the vandalism will be widespread throughout the presidential election series without discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been making such deletions across the US presidential election articles. IMHO, those captions of previous offices, are un-needed. We already have such description in the preceding lists. GoodDay ( talk) 15:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, using home-states in the captions of federal executive office holders, is confusing. GoodDay ( talk) 15:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What preceding lists are embedded in this article? Your vandalism is unjustified just because you can get away with it in the face of indifference.

On the eve of a Civil War, the state of origin for candidates is especially instructive. That the North fought the South is general knowledge. There is no confusion that the states named are of the United States. That objection is nonsense, in the case of identifying Lincoln as from Illinois, it is common knowledge that Illinois is north of the Ohio River, that is confusing to whom exactly? TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I do wish you would stop describing my edits as vandalism. It's bad form to make such accusation. GoodDay ( talk) 20:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation for making the change without consensus is that you are making arbitrary changes taking away informative captions throughout the article series without discussion, because you can delete faster than other editors can research and restore the lost information.

It is based on the assertion that identifying national candidates by their home state is confusing -- which is nonsense. That is the conventional identifier of persons in national politics since 1776. The reference to previous governmental service or field of reputation is of considerable use in assessing the qualifications of candidates in comparison with one another side by side, and in comparing slates of candidates in the same election.

Your wholesale deletion of a standard convention without establishing a need or a justification is bad form in an encyclopedia that is to be collegially edited. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've modified my stance, to merely deleting the states from Federal executive office holders captions. Such info is already in the candidate lists, which is above the candidate gallery. For example, in the United States presidential election, 1864 in the gallery sub-section, it was confusing having President Abraham Lincoln of Illinois. There's no such office as President of Illinois. GoodDay ( talk) 14:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment makes it truly comical. Wow. need to avoid that, but, strictly, doesn't "of Illinois" modify Lincoln in "President Lincoln of Illinois"? It would have to be "Illinois President Lincoln" to take on your interpretation. But on the other hand, I don't like the convention of labeling a candidate with the title, I'd rather identify the candidate for president as "Lincoln of Illinois, incumbent" regardless of the office, president, senator or representative, and title the gallery "candidates for president" etc. Then the candidates would be identified as "Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, incumbent", "George McClellan of New Jersey, Army General" in a more neutral or uniform manner. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1860 United States presidential election/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential election, 1860. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1860 to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/96.2/grinspan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1860 to http://www.multied.com/elections/1860Pop.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1860 to http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundElection.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1860 to http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/outlines/election.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1860. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120053702/http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/candidates-douglas.html to http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/candidates-douglas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed Fitzpatrick from the infobox, because (unlike Eagleton in 1972) he never accepted his party's vice presidential nomination. GoodDay ( talk) 16:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the article, it mentions that three states ( New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island) all had anti-Lincoln votes combined into fusion tickets. However, both the 1860 election in Pennsylvania article and the results by county map show that Pennsylvania also had an anti-Lincoln fusion ticket. With that, the were four states with fusion tickets and not just three. However, Lincoln ended up winning both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island by decent margins while also narrowly winning New York and winning four of the seven electoral votes from New Jersey despite losing the popular vote to the Democrats.

I was the one who created the 1860 election in New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island articles by the way. I just wanted to clear up some confusion. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 15:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright then, I updated the New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island 1860 Presidential election articles to make it clear that those three states had fusion tickets supporting the Democrats. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 20:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to have them ordered by the results but the result is the Democrat split is badly explained with the breakaway faction appearing before the actual split. I'm reordering the article to put the split before Breckenridge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has the title "1860 United States Presidential Election", 1860 United States Presidential Election links here, and has the 1860 presidential candidates. However, the rest of it appears to be on the 1840 election. Could this please be sorted out at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SSkamai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I added liberals to the opening paragraph. 2601:582:C480:BCD0:71EF:1EAD:6DBA:73B7 ( talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

In the introduction, this article states that Lincoln was "absent from the ballot in ten slave states." This is a very misleading statement, as it implies that he was actively excluded from the ballot, but this is not how ballots worked in 1860. Before 1888, ballots did not have a list of candidates; the political party of each candidate would distribute ballots within that candidates name, and voters would put that ballot, or a paper with a candidates name written in by that voter, in the ballot box.

I use a VPN, so I am not allowed to edit articles. I propose an edit be made to the introduction, either removing this statement or substituting it with something along the lines of "without recieving any known votes in ten slave states," which would be true. 2601:805:8100:E2C0:2185:42DE:60E5:B578 ( talk) 18:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)