Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a single county in Maryland voted for Lincoln or Douglas. However, the Pennsylvania counties that bordered Maryland all voted for either Lincoln or Douglas. Given that these areas near the PA/MD border both had a lot of German influence, what could have produced the difference in the way these two states voted?
Maryland was a slave state, Pennsylvania was not. Loyalists in Maryland favored retention of the Union but with slavery undisturbed. There was a candidate running on exactly that platform, John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party. Unsurprisingly, Bell won the second most Maryland votes, 45.1 %.
For those Marylanders who favored slavery to the degree that they wanted a strengthening of the Constitution to shore up slavery on a national basis, or secession if that was refused by the northerners, there was a candidate running who favored that, John Breckinridge of the ad hoc Southern Democrat Party (the faction which had splintered from the Democrat Party when it nominated Stephen Douglas.) Breckinridge won a plurality of the Maryland vote, 45.9 %.
Pennsylvania, which did not have the institution of slavery to uphold, cast the majority of their votes for the main party candidates rather than the splinter candidates.
In Kentucky and Missouri, the other two border states with slavery, the splinter candidates also finished ahead of the main party nominees.
Maryland was a slave state, Pennsylvania was not. Loyalists in Maryland favored retention of the Union but with slavery undisturbed. There was a candidate running on exactly that platform, John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party. Unsurprisingly, Bell won the second most Maryland votes, 45.1 %.
For those Marylanders who favored slavery to the degree that they wanted a strengthening of the Constitution to shore up slavery on a national basis, or secession if that was refused by the northerners, there was a candidate running who favored that, John Breckinridge of the ad hoc Southern Democrat Party (the faction which had splintered from the Democrat Party when it nominated Stephen Douglas.) Breckinridge won a plurality of the Maryland vote, 45.9 %.
Pennsylvania, which did not have the institution of slavery to uphold, cast the majority of their votes for the main party candidates rather than the splinter candidates.
In Kentucky and Missouri, the other two border states with slavery, the splinter candidates also finished ahead of the main party nominees.
But weren't the northern and western counties of Maryland opposed to slavery? I thought those counties were German and didn't have much slavery leading up to the Civil War.
But weren't the northern and western counties of Maryland opposed to slavery? I thought those counties were German and didn't have much slavery leading up to the Civil War.
No one was running who was opposed to slavery, as in "elect me and we will eliminate it."
The Republicans ran on a platform which opposed further expansion of slavery, but did not advocate abolition.
The Constitutional Union Party ran on a platform which called for everything being left just as it is...the Constitutional guarantees of slavery would remain intact, continuing compromises would settle disputes.
The Democrats (Douglas) were very much the same as the Constitutional Unionists....leave slavery alone, do nothing to promote it beyond what and where it was, do nothing to restrict it.
The Southern Democrats (Breckinridge) had walked out of the Charleston Convention in reaction to the refusal of the Douglas Democrats to make an aggressive defense of slavery. They ran on a platform which called for strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law, and declaring that the federal government had no right to interfere with the institution's of individual states...or dictate what future states may or may not do about slavery.
Marylanders gave the majority of their votes to the two parties who were advocating leting things stand as they were, the same thing as happened in the other border states. Their message was "Whether you like or dislike slavery, it isn't worth making a lot of trouble over it. Leave things as they are."
Western Maryland went for Bell and the Constitutional Union Party, the eastern part of the state favored Douglas and the Democrats, which in Maryland in 1860, described the difference between the attitudes of those who owned slaves and those who did not. Neither was championing their abolition, both were hoping to avoid trouble over the matter.
Last edited by Grandstander; 01-17-2014 at 12:21 PM..
Western Maryland went for Bell and the Constitutional Union Party, the eastern part of the state favored Douglas and the Democrats, which in Maryland in 1860, described the difference between the attitudes of those who owned slaves and those who did not. Neither was championing their abolition, both were hoping to avoid trouble over the matter.
But Breckenridge won Maryland?
Nevertheless, that still doesn't explain the difference in the 1860 vote. Seven PA counties along the MD/PA border voted for Lincoln. Not a single county in Maryland voted for Lincoln. If none of the parties, as you say, were opposed to slavery, and Western Maryland did not have many slaves, then why wouldn't those counties also go for Lincoln?
Nevertheless, that still doesn't explain the difference in the 1860 vote. Seven PA counties along the MD/PA border voted for Lincoln. Not a single county in Maryland voted for Lincoln. If none of the parties, as you say, were opposed to slavery, and Western Maryland did not have many slaves, then why wouldn't those counties also go for Lincoln?
Because not owning slaves, and advocating anti slavery actions, are not the same thing. Maryland was not chockablock with abolitionists, east or west. That someone was not a slave owner did not automatically make that person willing to endure a national crisis in order to further curb slavery.
Because not owning slaves, and advocating anti slavery actions, are not the same thing. Maryland was not chockablock with abolitionists, east or west. That someone was not a slave owner did not automatically make that person willing to endure a national crisis in order to further curb slavery.
Yes, but I'm still confused, because you said that none of the parties were advocating abolition. So if the Republicans were not advocating abolition, then why wouldn't Western Marylanders vote for them the same way Pennsylvanians did?
Yes, but I'm still confused, because you said that none of the parties were advocating abolition. So if the Republicans were not advocating abolition, then why wouldn't Western Marylanders vote for them the same way Pennsylvanians did?
Maryland was a slave state, Pennsylvania was not. Marylanders wanted to leave slavery alone, they did not want any disturbances over the issue. The Republicans promised to disturb the issue by making it national policy that slavery was not to expand beyond the places where it already existed. They were asserting that while the national government did not have the power to interfere with slavery where it existed, it had the power to regulate it everywhere else, most especially in future new territories and states.
The Southern Democrats held the opposite position. They wanted a national policy which unambiguously stated that the national government had no power to regulate slavery anywhere, not where it currently existed, and not where it might exist in the future.
So, if you were a Maryland resident, slave owner or not, and your goal was to have no civil unrest related to the issue of slavery, you definitely did not want either the Republicans or the Southern Democrats taking power.
In Pennsylvania, where no one owned any slaves, even if you were not an abolitionist you could still be attracted to the Republican stance against further expansion of slavery because that would be a blow against slave power in general. If slavery ceased expanding, soon the free states would greatly outnumber the slave states and the agenda of the free states could be pushed through Congress with less opposition from the slaves states...such as Maryland.
The Democratic Party had already split into two factions, the
regular "northern" and the Southern Democratic party.. there
was also a 4th party involved, the Constitution Union party, made up
of Southern Whigs and Know-Nothings, unable to ideologically vote
Republican or Southern Democratic, they formed a coalition. There
were another two smaller parties which won no states.
Maryland at the time was a battleground politically in which
there were influences of all these. For example, Tennessee and
Kentucky voted for Bell in the CU party. So did Virginia to the south of MD.
Neighboring to the north, it was Republican, Lincoln, in Penn. and NJ.
To be concise what happened in Maryland in 1860 is similar to what still
happens today.. namely that in the final ballot, people generally have a
good idea whether or not a party/nominee actually stands a chance to win
the Presidency or not. The CU party was very strong in Maryland but
not strong enough nationwide to win the general election nationally.
Bell still got 41,760 votes by Marylanders. He was barely edged out by
Breckenridge at 42,482. Douglas got 5,966, Lincoln only 2,294.
If only 723 souls voted for Bell instead of the other 3, he would have won
Maryland along with Tenn, KY, VA.
Another factor is that the Maryland strongly supported Hunter in the primary
of the National Democratic Party, not Douglas, who won. Hunter was a Senator
from VA. See how VA also went CU party.
Now, if you add up all the electoral votes from any party together, it still
wouldn't have been enough to defeat Lincoln. The voting population then was
most concentrated in the Northeast and modern-day Rust Belt. Hence, Lincoln
won 180 electoral votes with only 39.7% of the popular vote.
Bad things happen when a nation is this divided, and boy did bad things ever happen.
Maryland voted about the same as Virginia, with a slightly larger vote for the northern candidates, but they still got less than 10% of the vote. The mountain counties of Maryland presumably voted similarly to the mountain counties of Virginia, most of which later became West Virginia. West Virginia wasn't a hotbed of abolitionism, but it didn't like the southern planters, or voting on the same side as them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
