Talk:United States presidential election, 1860

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as High-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

White, antebellum perspective[edit]

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)

Results by state[edit]

Abraham Lincoln
Republican
Stephen Douglas
(Northern) Democratic
John Breckinridge
(Southern) Democratic
John Bell
Constitutional Union
Fusion
(Non-Republican)
(Democratic Fusion)
State Total
State electoral
votes
#  % electoral
votes
#  % electoral
votes
#  % electoral
votes
#  % electoral
votes
#  % electoral
votes
#
Alabama 9 no ballots 0001361813,618 15.1 - 0004866948,669 54.0 9 27,835 30.9 - no ballots 90,122 AL
Arkansas 4 no ballots 5,357 9.9 - 28,732 53.1 4 20,063 37.0 - no ballots 54,152 AR
California 4 38,733 32.3 4 37,999 31.7 - 33,969 28.4 - 9,111 7.6 - no ballots 119,812 CA
Connecticut 6 43,488 58.1 6 15,431 20.6 - 14,372 19.2 - 1,528 2.0 - no ballots 74,819 CT
Delaware 3 3,822 23.7 - 1,066 6.6 - 7,339 45.5 3 3,888 24.1 - no ballots 16,115 DE
Florida 3 no ballots 223 1.7 - 8,277 62.2 3 4,801 36.1 - no ballots 13,301 FL
Georgia 10 no ballots 11,581 10.9 - 52,176 48.9 10 42,960 40.3 - no ballots 106,717 GA
Illinois 11 172,171 50.7 11 160,215 47.2 - 2,331 0.7 - 4,914 1.4 - no ballots 339,631 IL
Indiana 13 139,033 51.1 13 115,509 42.4 - 12,295 4.5 - 5,306 1.9 - no ballots 272,143 IN
Iowa 4 70,302 54.6 4 55,639 43.2 - 1,035 0.8 - 1,763 1.4 - no ballots 128,739 IA
Kentucky 12 1,364 0.9 - 25,651 17.5 - 53,143 36.3 - 66,058 45.2 12 no ballots 146,216 KY
Louisiana 6 no ballots 7,625 15.1 - 22,681 44.9 6 20,204 40.0 - no ballots 50,510 LA
Maine 8 62,811 62.2 8 29,693 29.4 - 6,368 6.3 - 2,046 2.0 - no ballots 100,918 ME
Maryland 8 2,294 2.5 - 5,966 6.4 - 42,482 45.9 8 41,760 45.1 - no ballots 92,502 MD
Massachusetts 13 106,684 62.9 13 34,370 20.3 - 6,163 3.6 - 22,331 13.2 - no ballots 169,548 MA
Michigan 6 88,481 57.2 6 65,057 42.0 - 805 0.5 - 415 0.3 - no ballots 154,758 MI
Minnesota 4 22,069 63.4 4 11,920 34.3 - 748 2.2 - 50 0.1 - no ballots 34,787 MN
Mississippi 7 no ballots 3,282 4.7 - 40,768 59.0 7 25,045 36.2 - no ballots 69,095 MS
Missouri 9 17,028 10.3 - 58,801 35.5 9 31,362 18.9 - 58,372 35.3 - no ballots 165,563 MO
New Hampshire 5 37,519 56.9 5 25,887 39.3 - 2,125 3.2 - 412 0.6 - no ballots 65,943 NH
New Jersey 7 58,346 48.1 4[nb 1] no ballots 3[nb 2] no ballots - no ballots - 62,869[nb 3] 51.9 -[nb 4] 121,215 NJ
New York 35 362,646 53.7 35 no ballots - no ballots - no ballots - 312,510 46.3 -[nb 5] 675,156 NY
North Carolina 10 no ballots 2,737 2.8 - 48,846 50.5 10 45,129 46.7 - no ballots 96,712 NC
Ohio 23 231,709 52.3 23 187,421 42.3 - 11,406 2.6 - 12,194 2.8 - no ballots 442,730 OH
Oregon 3 5,329 36.1 3 4,136 28.0 - 5,075 34.4 - 218 1.5 - no ballots 14,758 OR
Pennsylvania 27 268,030 56.3 27 16,765 3.5 -[nb 6] no ballots 12,776 2.7 - 178,871[nb 7] 37.5 -[nb 8] 476,442 PA
Rhode Island 4 12,244 61.4 4 7,707[nb 9] 38.6 - no ballots no ballots no ballots 19,951 RI
South Carolina 8 no popular vote no popular vote no popular vote 8 no popular vote no popular vote - SC
Tennessee 12 no ballots 11,281 7.7 - 65,097 44.6 - 69,728 47.7 12 no ballots 146,106 TN
Texas 4 no ballots 18 0.0 - 47,454 75.5 4 15,383 24.5 - no ballots 62,855 TX
Vermont 5 33,808 75.7 5 8,649 19.4 - 218 0.5 - 1,969 4.4 - no ballots 44,644 VT
Virginia 15 1,887 1.1 - 16,198 9.7 - 74,325 44.5 - 74,481 44.6 15 no ballots 166,891 VA
Wisconsin 5 86,110 56.6 5 65,021 42.7 - 887 0.6 - 161 0.1 - no ballots 152,179 WI
TOTALS: 303 1,865,908 39.8 180 1,004,823 21.5 12 669,148 14.3 72 590,901 12.6 39 554,250 11.8 0 4,685,030 US
TO WIN: 152
  1. ^ a b c d e Dubin, Michael J., United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860: The Official Results by County and State, McFarland & Company, 2002, p. 187
  2. ^ a b c d Dubin, Michael J., United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860: The Official Results by County and State, McFarland & Company, 2002, p. 188


Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).