Talk:1864 United States presidential election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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 Mid-importance).

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

Peace platform[edit]

From the article: "[McClellan] and ticketmate George H. Pendleton were nominated on a peace platform - a platform McClellan personally rejected." Does this mean that McClellan privately rejected the policy on which he was running?

I have a really dumb idea. Why not link to the actual text of the platforms so readers can see what they really SAID! For years I've been looking these up here and now all of a sudden they've been removed and replaced with blather. Who removed the platform text? translator (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Electoral picture peculiarity[edit]

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) 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

States Participating[edit]

Comment. Portions of Southern states occupied by Union troops participated in the election. Tennessee and Louisiana had substantial elections, in which Lincoln won. Congress chose not to count these votes, and in my research I have not been able to find a tally of the Lincoln vs. McClellan popular votes. Chronicler3 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

Comment.My question is how could the 1864 election be valid with so many states not being allowed to participate? If the president wanted to claim to exercise power in the name of ALL states, even the ones which are "in a state of rebellion" which was the fiction that was being use to justify the war, than he should have had to deal with their votes, and not just the votes of states where his polices were popular. If the union had been truly 'broken' than the Washington government was justified in ignoring the Confederate States but it then would have to admit that it was an invader in the south and that these states were not a part of the same country. I really think the 1864 election should have, at the very least an * beside it because it was the decision of only a part of the country that had been chosen by the party in power. What government could not have won reelection if they had been free to exclude a third of the country which was least friendly to their candidate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corumplex (talkcontribs) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Government did not "choose" which states would participate. No southern states sent electors to vote in the electoral college. They were perfectly free to do so (I'm sure Lincoln would have been eager to accept this implied return to the Union), but as they considered themselves an independent nation, CHOSE not to. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

National Union Party[edit]

The section in this article disagrees with the article National Union Party, which states that this was a real, albeit short-lived party in opposition to the Radical Republicans. I assume the other article is closer to the truth since it is more detailed, but neither is well-cited, so hopefully someone who knows something can come along and clear this up. -- 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Union Party was no other but a name used to describe the exact same entity as the Republican Party. Much as calling it the GOP as we do today. The term was coined as a response to the 1863 and 1864 state elections in contrast to the Democrats who supported peace at essentially all cost. The Republican Party, often referred to as the Union party or cause even by their own was as such because they supported in the preservation of the union at all cost, mainly continuation of the war and not allowing the CSA to gain independence as cost for peace.

This article is very misleading by suggesting Lincoln ran as anything other than a Republican. The Republican convention was held under the name of Union in 1864, but the Republican party, membership, and its structure was that in the same.

Read up on it in Team of Rivals, it discusses how Lincoln handled the convention of 64, as well as how Chase attempted to seize the nomination, both before hand and during, misguided as he was. (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. The best way to describe the National Union Party I think is that it was made up of Mainstream Republicans and War Democrats, the latter a sizable minority. Andrew Johnson would actually attempt to keep this coalition alive going into the '68 Presidential Election and run as its nominee, but the effort fell apart. Your correct on just about everything else however. --Ariostos (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln's death.[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article that Lincoln was only president for one year, because he was shot in 1865? TheBlazikenMaster 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fremont & the Radical Democracy Party[edit]

  • May 31, 1864 Several hundred radical Republicans held their own small convention in Cleveland. Republican abolitionists unhappy with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and other things, nominates John C. Fremont for president. They formed a new political party called the Radical Democracy. Fremont had been the Republican presidential candidate eight years earlier & his orders freeing slaves had been countermanded by Lincoln. Most of the radical Republicans in Congress did not take part in the convention in Cleveland. There were strong doubts Fremont could win the election.
  • June 7, 1864 The Republican (National Union) Convention opens in Baltimore, Maryland.
  • June 8, 1864 The Republican National Convention nominates Abraham Lincoln to run for President and Andrew Johnson to run for Vice-President. President Lincoln, nominated for a second term, calls for an amendment abolishing slavery
  • August 31, 1864 Democrats nominate George B. McClellan for President and George H. Pendleton for Vice-president. Although the party platform called for an immediate end to the war McClellan advocated continuing the conflict.
  • September 1864 Frémont abandoned his political campaign after he brokered a political deal in which Lincoln removed U.S. Postmaster General Montgomery Blair of Missouri from office
  • Nov 1864 Fremont got no votes. Fremont was aware that his campaign could result in Democrats winning.

more at --JimWae 09:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC) also --JimWae 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed wording of confederate states[edit]

The reason for the change is that Missouri and Kentucky had conflicting governments and were considered by the South to be Confederate states, but since they were controlled by union governments, these states participated in the 1864 elections.

Roadrunner (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Electoral Picture[edit]

I believe there is a mistake on the electoral college map as Louisiana is marked as having contributed electoral votes 7 electoral votes to Lincoln. My understanding is that they were part of the confederacy and did not vote in the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR Jean Valjean (talkcontribs) 17:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does Nevada only have two electoral votes? Are not all states promised at least three?-- (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One elector didn't vote. It was assigned three but only cast two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Home state[edit]

How does WP determine home state? Gen. McClellan was born and raised in PA, but certainly had ties as an adult to NJ (later becoming Gov.). Is there a rule to be followed here? Electiontechnology (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Electoral Map Oregon[edit]

The map shows Oregon in blue (Democratic). This is not correct. Only three states' electoral votes went for McClellan (NJ, DE and KY) making up his total of 21 votes. See Qrobert (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I had just been reading Team of Rivals and came to Wikipedia to look up info on the elections of 1860 and 1864 and noticed that as well. It looks like almost two months later nothing has been done. I'll post something over on the WikiProject United States presidential elections page and see if someone can redo the map. Davidpdx (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To the map[edit]

There is a mistake in the current presidential map of 1864, Oregon is stated blue (McClellan) instead of red (Lincoln) McClellan only won in three states, Kentucky, New Jersey and Delaware. Lincoln won in Oregon, i am trying to get a Wikipedia team to fix up the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are the 24 votes from? Did Republican Party really cease to exist?[edit]

One map had Oregon going for McClellan, now the other does not. The article says there were 24 votes for him from 4 states. The 4th state AND the rest of the 24 votes seems to be missing.

Also can we say so flatly that "Thus, for a brief period, the Republican Party ceased to exist"?<r ef>The American Pageant</r ef> I wonder if a high school textbook is the best reliable source for such a definite claim. Did the party cease to exist OR did 2 factions hold 2 separate conventions & at one a coalition & a new name (not necessarily a new PARTY) were worked out? --JimWae (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it is a high school textbook? It was written by well known historians. Also, McClellan only won three states (Kentucky, Delaware, and New Jersey for a grand total of 21 electoral votes). Oregon went for Lincoln

Because textbooks are notorious for oversimplification. Aren't parties legal entities with charters, that do not just cease to exist just because of a temporary name change? Furthermore, it is most likely that there were many, many local chapters that were well attended... And I still am looking for the quote--JimWae (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, the quote is in the textbook. I'm not sure about local chapters but in this article and the book, we are talking about the party on the NATIONAL level. World Book says that "By 1868, Republicans felt strong enough to drop the Union Party label". Is World Book also notorious for oversimplification? In the 1864 Congressional Elections, the National Union Party won 42 Senate seats, and 149 House of Representatives seats.

If state & local chapters of the National Republican Party existed, then the party did NOT cease to exist. World Book, in treating Union Pary as a label, supports my point.--JimWae (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because a temporary label was put on a coalition engineered by the party does not mean the party with the older label does not exist. Coca-Cola did not cease to exist when Coke came along. Apparently the new label was adopted at the Republican National COnvention of 1864. If Standard Oil changes to Esso then to Mobil then to Exxon and ExxonMobil, what company has ceased to exist?--JimWae (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading one can readily see the attendees considered themselves a continuation of the former party, as did the attendees at later Republican conventions consider the 1864 convention one of their own party --JimWae (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but I still believe in the black and white. It's not factually wrong just because it does not support your conclusions. National Union = Republicans + Democrats. Republican Party = Republicans. The National Union Party was a unique political party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The "black and white" of it is that the Republican Party never disbanded. There are two informative works on the 1864 election that go beyond high school textbooks and tertiary sources, David Long's "The Jewel of Liberty" and John Waugh's "Reelecting Lincoln". Both, of course, mention the coalition but neither even hints that the Republican Party "ceased to exist". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You dip the way you want to and I'll dip the way I want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a co-operative project. No single voice rules it. For such a definitive claim, you'll need several sources (with quotes here) of high reliabity. A claim that "The Republican Party ceased to exist" is no more than an exaggeration. National Union Party was not a new party - it was a new banner that allowed War Democrats to join the arena--JimWae (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Republican Party TEMPORARILY ceased to exist because the National Union Party was formed. Lincoln ditched the Republican Party and ran under the National Union Party because he believed he would have a better chance of being elected. Lincoln didn't care under which party he was running; Lincoln did whatever it took to win reelection. By 1864, Lincoln's chances of reelection looked doubtful. To stress the national character of the war, and to gain more supporters, he ran under the newly created National Union Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A party temporarily having no candidate using its banner does not mean it "ceased to exist". You want to put an extraordinary claim in the lede - to justify that you will need more sources and better sources. --JimWae (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So I have to use YOUR standards? Apparently for JimWae, The American Pageant isn't good enough even though it was written by HISTORY PROFESSORS. I guess there is no way in Hell HISTORY PROFESSORS now what they are talking about. My most humble apologies (sarcasm).-- (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No, a single high school text book is not the best available source for articles about American History. Have you read ANYTHING (such as the two books I noted above) intended for an adult audience written by HISTORY PROFESSORS that support your position? Pulitzer Prize winner David Herbert Donald writes in "Lincoln" (page 504) of the nominating convention, "Speeches frequently emphasized that this was not just the third national convention of the Republican party, but the first convention of the National Union party." Pulitzer Prize winner James McPherson in "Battle Cry of Freedom" (page 716) writes of "The Republican convention in Baltimore," and says that "The assemblage called itself the National Union convention to attract War Democrats and southern unionists who might flinch at the name Republican. But it nevertheless adopted a down-the-line Republican platform ..."
There were instances in American history where old parties ended and new ones began -- this is not the case, however, in 1864. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have read things intended for adult audiences. However, I look at all sources, including textbooks. "The assemblage called itself the National Union convention to attract War Democrats and southern unionists who might flinch at the name Republican." You are kind of making my argument for me. Southerners were heavily anti-Republican (look at how Andrew Johnson campaigned against Lincoln in 1860). It was a genius move to create a NEW political party that could attract War Democrats and southern unionists. "But it nevertheless adopted a down-the-line Republican platform ..." The differences between the War Democrats and the Republicans were small.-- (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you take a look at yet. The 1868 Republican national convention considered it had been only 4 years since it last met. If they had "ceased to exist", they should have had some inkling of it --JimWae (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been there many times before. In other books that list party affiliation, Lincoln is listed as being both a Republican and a National Union. Notice how they do not just say Republican. If we were to go by what you suggest, then Republican should be the only thing listed. Andrew Johnson is listed as National Union, NOT Democrat. I know I won't be able to convince you so I am not going to say anymore on the subject.-- (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if Lincoln had run under the banner of the Whigs, Free-Soilers or even the Democrats, that would not be evidence that the Republican party "ceased to exist"--JimWae (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

SVG vs PNG[edit]

In the event that the SVG image is incorrect, the PNG image is preferable to having it simply say "no image available". If there is a further issue, please discuss it here. I would fix the SVG image if I was able. Recognizance (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


Only 2 Electoral votes? This is correct? (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One Nevada elector did not cast his vote Soxrock24 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Then the map should have an * with a note on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good eye !! What is the back story? Was it an anti-Indian, anti-Lincoln protest, or did the elector get caught in a snowstorm or merely die with no replacement?
- I remember most first U.S. senators from western states were usually Democratic, even though from free-soil states, such as California, Minnesota, and Oregon, since the national Democratic Party was more sympathetic to territorial Indian policy encroaching on native lands, versus the pro-treaty Whigs, Republicans and Abolitionists. The Lincoln administration with Republican majorities in Congress had abolished slavery in Indian Territory, and Lincoln had pardoned hundreds of Sioux accused of uprising. How did that all play out in Nevada by 1864? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Border states[edit]

Should the map show the rump Confederate governments in Missouri and Kentucky, and/or the Confederate claims to Arizona Territory, New Mexico Territory, and Indian Territory? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 02:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

no--these had no actual power in their claimed lands. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Then shouldn't we also show the by-then-conquered areas of the Confederacy as belonging to the U.S. and simply not being able to vote (those states having not yet been readmitted to the Union)? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- The map is clearly labelled, Presidential election results -- that is to say, the votes for president that the U.S. Congress certified as lawfully cast when it opened the electoral college ballots. Congress did not certify "states not voting", as I recall. Do you have a source for that? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Announcing the result[edit]

Voting took place on November 8th, exactly a week before Sherman set off on his March to the Sea.

Was the result known by then - especially in Georgia, where the telegraph wires had been cut? (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

- This is a good question. I think the vote was taken on different dates in different states, no later than November 8th, was election day nationally uniform by 1864? Telegraph from Wilmington and Savannah into Georgia was not cut. -- As telegraph generally followed rails, since Wilmington supply continued into Richmond, was telegraph cut from Richmond?
- Troops shared newspapers between the lines. While informal enlisted truces were less frequent that earlier in the war, election news was transmitted to Union rank and file via intact telegraph lines. The blockade was economically effective but did not seal out small coastal craft. Election results would have been forwarded from Richmond or Wilmington within a day or two as returns for each state came into Washington. It would be good to have sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Preliminary from Eric David's paper, |News “from Yankeedom” 2005. presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and mass communication, San Antonio, TX. Just online info, and not from a scholar, but interesting leads for further research.
- November 11, The Richmond Enquirer, "The re-election of Lincoln is no longer doubtful" and provided the following results: Maine and Vermont for Lincoln. All the New England States for Lincoln. New York State for Lincoln. New York City for McClellan. Maryland “supposed to have voted” for Lincoln along with Baltimore. Pennsylvania and Michigan for Lincoln. "New Jersey and Missouri are [for McClellan], but doubtful. No other States heard from."
- November 14, The Raleigh NC Daily Conservative reported the election results from the New York Herald which announced the re-election of Lincoln. The Baltimore American confirmed it. A telegram from New York said the NYC Tribune claims for Lincoln all the New England States, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Kansas -- "making a total of one hundred and ninety electoral votes".
- Looks like the "total war" was not so total as World War I since there seems to be regular newspaper exchange and telegraph communication from St. Louis, Baltimore and New York City into Richmond and Raleigh as of mid-November 1864. This is not for the article as a reliable source, but interesting. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 8, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Democratic presidential ticket, 1864
A Democratic campaign poster from the United States presidential election of 1864, showing presidential candidate George B. McClellan (left) and his running-mate George H. Pendleton. They lost to the Republican candidate, incumbent Abraham Lincoln, who became the first American president in 32 years to be reelected.Lithograph: Currier and Ives; Restoration: Lise Broer

Map Problem ?[edit]

Not being an American, I am unsure of the details of the allegiance of the various states, but the state immediately to the east of Texas is marked pink for Lincoln, returning 7 electors, surrounded by a sea of Confederate brown. Is this correct ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 16:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That state was the Reconstructed State of Louisianna, which by the 1864 election was controlled by Federal forces. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know that I'd actually call it incorrect, but it's certainly misleading and unclear without additional information. If you look at the "results" section, it says. "The reconstructed [i.e., under Union military control] portions of Tennessee and Louisiana chose presidential electors, although Congress did not count their votes." If you total the votes for all the pink states on the map, including Louisiana's 7 and Tennessee's 10, you get 229 votes even though the total shown for Lincoln is 212. But even though the Electoral votes were not counted, those two states did hold an election and Lincoln did win the popular vote, so showing them in Confederate brown doesn't seem quite right either. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
US Congress decided in the case of presidential and congressional elections that the vote was too small compared to 1860. The democratic process was disrupted by rebellion and so invalid. See Kenneth C. Martis, The historical atlas of political parties in the United States congress, 1789-1989, map p.115, map p.117.
Seven district Representatives in the 37th congress were NOT in the 38th, they were vacant as were the other House seats from Louisiana, Tennessee and Virginia: 1-LA, 2-LA: New Orleans and adjacent west; central Tennessee 2-TN, 3-TN and 4-TN; northeastern Virginia 1-VA and 7-VA. --- Virginia districts 10, 11, and 12 are roughly replaced by 1-WV, 2-WV and 3-WV in the 38th Congress.
This is different from the Confederate congress solution, which seated full delegations, regardless of Union occupation/election disruption. They simply allowed expatriate governors to appoint members of congress, or at-large selection of nominee slates in the army camps viva voce by regiment. Conquered territories uniformly supported Davis policies against the rising peace sentiment, especially vocal in North Carolina and Georgia. See Kenneth C. Martis, The historical atlas of the congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How many states?[edit]

There seems to be a problem (edit war) regarding how to count state’s carried by Lincoln in 1864. The distinction lies between a) states carried by Lincoln in November elections held in states, or b) states carried by Lincoln in Electoral College count as ratified by Congress.

Both considerations should be represented, in the following way. a) The article narrative should report elections in Tennessee and Louisiana for President (and for Congress) which were so disrupted in civil war that Congress did not seat Representatives from districts or count Electoral College votes from states with very small percentages of votes compared to the 1860 turnouts. b) For comparison purposes among presidential elections, the Infobox should report Electoral College count. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of what I put in the infobox: "22 (+2[1])" with a footnote explanation? It's a bit complicated, but so were the circumstances. Nearwater (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I kind of like it at first glance. When I tried to something else a little unconventional for the Infobox at the 1860 election, wanting to rank the candidates by popular vote, and making a short note of the geographic distribution of their support, both got taken out on the grounds they were unconventional and therefore confusing to the reader. I think there was also some reluctance to promote Douglas and demote Breckinridge.
But I'm afraid that your innovation should be taken out as unconventional on the same grounds mine was. The Infobox is for simple and comparable data at a glance. The subtlety of elections not counted in the EC is for the body of the article. But let's see how other editors react before restoring the original. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Layout issues[edit]

Using gallery mode=packed seems to create some pretty unfortunate and unnecessary line breaks (like "Massachuset/ts"). It seems like removing this attribute leads to a better layout (e.g.,,_1864&diff=prev&oldid=756009849). Any objection to removing it for all the galleries on the page? tlesher (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


two Confederate states (Louisiana and Tennessee) were controlled by the Union by 1864 and held elections (although their electors were not ultimately counted). Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.

If that is the case I would argue that there should not be numbers on Louisiana or Tennessee, as neither state were allocated valid electors. SecretName101 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A year late but agreed. Alternatively, we could add an asterisk or something next to the two numbers to let readers know that the votes didn't count. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yay or Nay, Articles for Louisiana and Tennessee[edit]

While I already know that both Louisiana and Tennessee were controlled by the Union in 1864 and cast their ballots for Lincoln in the 1864 election, their voted were not counted. Though the two states didn't have their votes counted, does anyone think that articles for the 1864 Presidential Election in Louisiana and Tennessee should be created? Yes or no to the two articles? Both articles could mentioned what happened during the election process and such and how their votes weren't counted by Congress. They would be named:

If no, then nothing happens. If yes, both articles get created by either myself or someone else and both states get added to the state election 1864 template and the 1864 state table on the article mentioning that neither Louisiana or Tennessee's voted were counted. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I was going to say no at first until I saw pages like 2016 United States presidential election in Guam and 2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands, both of which were nominated for deletion; they were kept because they were real elections. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@JCC the Alternate Historian: Pinging just in case he hasn't seen my reply yet. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, Walk Like an Egyptian. I have now read you message. I will probably create those articles eventually, but I'm not sure how I'm going to add Louisiana and Tennessee to the wikitable without screwing it up. Eh, I'll find a way. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done Alright then, I created the two articles on March 14th and 15, respectively. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)