Talk:1856 United States presidential election

General Election: No Fremont Votes in 12 states?

Was the guy not on the ballot at all? Blueteam (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In the 1860 Election, Lincoln was not on the ballot in many of the southern states because of his positions on slavery. I'm guessing that's what happened here.Nathaniel Greene (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Material from "Origins of the Civil War"

The material that has been pasted is not really a propos - it doesn't seem like an article about the election, but like excerpts from a longer article about, I don't know, the origins of the Civil War. Some major rewriting really ought to be done. john 08:18, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree it could be better. However, it seems like very good starting material, and certainly better than what was there before (nothing). Do you want to take a stab at a rewrite? -- RobLa 08:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...not tonight...I'll try in a few days, maybe. john 08:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Electoral picture peculiarity

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 20:53, 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) 21:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Republican Nomination

I am not sure why Seward is mentioned as a contender for the Republican nomination. Fremont won the first ballot (called the informal ballot) with 359 votes to 190 for John McLean, not voting 14, Seward 1, and others 3. On the second ballot (called the formal ballot), Fremont won 520 votes to 37 for McLean, one for Seward, and 9 for everyone else. This information comes from Richard C. Bain and Judith H. Parris, Convention Decisions and Voting Records, the standard reference on presidential nominating conventions of the 1832-1972 era. Chronicler3 00:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the revision of the text within this article

I by no means wish to challenge the established model for Presidential Election Pages but instead would like to offer some suggestions for possible modifications to the current format up for debate amongst the contributors to Wikipedia. The easiest and hopefully the least obtrusive of these would be to include the platforms of the parties who nominated canidates in the campaign as I have tried to do in this article. I believe there inclusion within the general election section of the page, due to the platforms inclusion of major sources of debate between parties within them, is a proper location but would be willing to listen to any other suggestions for their possible location. Many of these platforms can be found posted online and can be easily linked to these articles because they were creation was for dissemination into the public domain and therefore have no copyrights to be infringed. Including the platforms written by the party at the time of the campaign will not only offer a chance to verify the information on the article but will also increase the validity ofthe article through the inclusion of a primary source. The decision is up to a vote of course but I am going to stand up and complain about the deletion of the Know-Nothing Campaign info. If a party wins a state in the electoral college or at least a significant portion of the popular vote I believe we should include the party platform to explain what these people were voting for the sake of better understanding history and the people who lived during this time period.

Respectfully Epignosis

K-N platform

6367. Porter, Kirk H., and Donald Bruce Johnson, comps. National party platforms, 1840-1956. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1956. 573 p. 56-10916 JK2255.P6 1956 American (Know Nothing) Platform of 1856, p.22

I. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being who rules one universe, for His protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their revolutionary struggle, and hitherto manifested to us, their descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the independence and the union of these states. II. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of American independence. III. Americans must rule America; and to this end, native-born citizens should be selected for all state, federal, or municipal offices of government employment, in preference to naturalized citizens—nevertheless, IV. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad, shall be entitled to all the rights of native-born citizens; but V. No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognizes any alliance or obligation of any description to any foreign prince, potentate or power, who refuses to recognize the federal and state constitutions (each within its own sphere), as paramount to all other laws, as rules of particular political action. VI. The unequalled recognition and maintenance of the reserved rights of the several states, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal goodwill between the citizens of the several states, and to this end, non-interference by Congress with questions appertaining solely to the individual states, and non-intervention by each state with the affairs of any other state. VII. The recognition of the right of the native-born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory thereof, to frame their constitutions and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the federal Constitution, with the right of admission into the Union whenever they have the requisite population for one representative in Congress. Provided, always, That none but those who are citizens of the United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence in any such territory, are to participate in the formation of the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said territory or state. VIII. An enforcement of the principles that no state or territory can admit other than native-born citizens to the right of suffrage, or of holding political office unless such persons shall have been naturalized according to the laws of the United States. IX. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty-one years, of all not heretofore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers or persons convicted of crime from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners. X. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no interference with religious faith or worship, and no test oaths for office, except those indicated in the 5th section of this platform. XI. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public expenditures. XII. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial authority. XIII. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the present administration in the general management of our national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing "Americans" (by designation) and conservatives in principle, from office, and placing foreigners and ultraists in their places, as shown in a truckling subserviency to the stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the weaker powers; as shown in reopening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; as shown in granting to unnaturalized foreigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska, as shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Nebraska question; as shown in the removal of Judge Bronson from the collectorship of New York upon false and untenable grounds; as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the departments of the government; as shown in disgracing meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice; as shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations. XIV. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the disastrous consequences otherwise resulting therefrom, we would build up the "American Party" upon the principles herein-before stated eschewing all sectional questions, and uniting upon those purely national, and admitting into said party all American citizens (referred to in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th sections) who openly avow the principles and opinions heretofore expressed, and who will subscribe their names to this platform.—Provided nevertheless, that a majority of those members present at any meeting of a local council where an applicant applies for membership in the American party, may, for any reason by them deemed sufficient, deny admission to such applicant. XV. A free and open discussion of all political principles embraced in our platform. Is it useful to summarize all this? Rjensen 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to linking party platforms and page format

Yes your completely right they are far to extensive and wordy to be included within the article and a summary with a link would be the best way to include these platforms. My next question for you is what is the best way to present that link I was thinking of a format like this with the title for each platform summary acting as a link in itself but am open to any suggestions.

General Election

Republican Platform - This would be hyperlinked

The Republican platform opposed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise through the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the policy of popular sovereignty in deciding whether a state would enter the Union as a free or slave state. The Republicans also accused the Pierce administration of allowing a fraudulent territorial goverment to be imposed upon the citizens of the Kansas Territory, allowing the violence that had raged in Bleeding Kansas, and advocated the immediate admittance of Kansas as a free state. Along with opposing the spread of slavery into the continental territories of the United States the party also opposed the Ostend Manifesto which advocated the annexation of Cuba from Spain. In summation the campaign true focus was against the system of slavery, which they felt was destroying the Republican values that the Union had been founded upon.

Respectfully Epignosis

Fillmore

Fillmore should be listed a t the top as a Know Nothing, rather than a Whig, but w hen I tried to replace it, I got code gibberish. Can anyone help? john k 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

colors (again)

I realize that the colors issue is a hot topic, so I'm not going to say change the map. But shouldn't the color of the bars under the candidates and the colors of the states at least match? If the map needs to stay with red for democrats, fine, but can't we make it so everything democratic is consistently red? Avraham (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cass a candidate?

An anon IP keeps deleting Cass from list of candidates. Cass got more votes than Pierce on 2 ballots & received votes on every previous ballot. On what gounds are you saying he was not a candidate? Even if he did not want to be nominated to be THE Dem candidate, he was nominated & he received votes. --JimWae (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fillmore's Party

On the tempalte, it says his party was "Know Nothing," when that name actually refers to a political movement, not his actual party (the American Party). I suggest this point be amended, since editing the tempalte results in unfavorable red text. 98.217.152.183 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party Nomination

It is not exactly correct that "This election was the only time in American history where a man who had been elected president (Pierce) was denied re-nomination after seeking it."

Harry Truman sought renomination in 1852

"Truman's main opponent was populist Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver, who had chaired a nationally-televised investigation of organized crime in 1951 and was known as a crusader against crime and corruption. The Gallup poll of February 15 showed Truman's weakness: nationally Truman was the choice of only 36% of Democrats, compared with 21% for Kefauver. Among independent voters, however, Truman had only 18% while Kefauver led with 36%. In the New Hampshire primary, Kefauver upset Truman, winning 19,800 votes to Truman's 15,927 and capturing all eight delegates. Kefauver graciously said that he did not consider his victory "a repudiation of Administration policies, but a desire...for new ideas and personalities." Stung by this setback, Truman soon announced that he would not seek re-election (however, Truman insisted in his memoirs that he had decided not to run for reelection well before his defeat by Kefauver)."

Lyndon Johnson sought renomination in 1968

"On March 31, 1968, following the New Hampshire primary and Kennedy's entry into the election, the president announced to the nation in a televised speech that he was suspending all bombing of North Vietnam in favor of peace talks. Johnson concluded his speech and startled the nation by announcing 'With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office—the presidency of your country. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.' "

Both Truman and Johnson withdrew only after being humiliated in the New Hampshire Primary. Truman actually lost to Kefauver. Johnson beat McCarthy 50/42.

That said, it is the only election in American History where a party won the general election after repudiating their own incumbent.

Arlindsay (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC) ARLindsay

References

Joint American-Republican Electoral Slate in Pennsylvania

While doing research on Third Party victories in congressional elections I was trying to dig up information on what was labeled as the "Union Party" in Pennsylvania, which at the time I thought was merely another incarnation of the Republican Party, not yet having finalized its identity like the People's Party of Indiana or the Anti-Nebraskas Party, and I was half right; it was actually a coalition of what labeled themselves as Anti-Buchanan types, a collection of Republicans, Americans, Whigs and Democrats. What I hadn't expected though was that in regards to the Presidential race, the State Republican and American parties had each named the same (26) individuals to represent their electoral slate, (1) being left over to be unique on each slate. The actual resolution as reported by the New York Times is below -

"Resolved, that we recommend to the Convention thus assembled the formation of the Union electoral ticket upon the following basis -

Twenty-six electors shall consist of the same names; the twenty-seventh elector on the Fillmore ticket shall consist of a different name from the twenty-seventh on the Fremont ticket. For example, Millard Fillmore and twenty six other names selected from the several Congressional districts shall form one ticket; and John C. Fremont and the same twenty-six names above referred shall form the other ticket. The twenty-six electors shall be pledged to cast the electoral votes of the State for Millard Fillmore and John C. Fremont, respectively, precisely in proportion to the popular vote cast for each, as indicated by the twenty-seventh elector on each ticket. For example, if Millard Fillmore (or the twenty-seventh elector who represents him) receives an equal nomber of votes with John C. Fremont, or his representative, then thirteen electoral votes shall be given for Millard Fillmore and thirteen for John C. Fremont.

This will enable every voter to act efficiently against James Buchanan without any sacrifice of principle. The Fillmore men vote for him alone, the Fremont men for him alone, and yet by associated action, they increase the chances of each. We think no one can object to this proposition who is not in heart in favor of Buchanan."

This is the NYT Article in Question.

While interesting, what is actually intriguing is that this arrangement very nearly threw the election into the House of Representatives; if you poll the votes altogether the margin between the Buchanan electors and the (26) Fremont-Fillmore electors is only (1,211), and were you to take those (26) electors out of Buchanan's column he would end up with (148), (1) short of the majority of electors required. THAT I believe would be of immense interest, but I'm not sure how best to write it into the main article page.

I'll also be on the lookout to see if any other coalition tickets like this cropped up anywhere. --Ariostos (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1856. 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/20070929122824/http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20061104-know-nothing-nativism-american-party-immigration-catholicism.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20061104-know-nothing-nativism-american-party-immigration-catholicism.shtml

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) 01:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

General Election - Campaign: "the last time to date (2020) that a Democrat was elected to succeed a fellow Democrat as president"

I feel like I'm missing something here: what about Truman succeeding FDR? Is this sentence intending to mean that it was the last time to date that a *non-incumbent* Democrat was elected to succeed a fellow Democrat as president? Reading the cited source doesn't seem to clarify... 96.51.138.253 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Buchanan’s image

Should we change Buchanan’s image? It seems odd that we are using an engraving. I have a proposal that is effectively the same pose and style, but in a photograph. Plus, the engraving was posthumous, when the photograph was contemporary. If it’s good enough for his main article, it’s good enough for the election that made him president. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

My proposal

I like the photograph. deisenbe (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

new results by county map

I wondering if it's possible to get a svg version of the results by county map being used instead of the .gif current one. Also free to let me know if I can help someway with this happening. Uhrfuvf (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Name of the American Party in the infobox

The American Party is frequently colloquially referred to as the Know-Nothings. However this was not the actual proper name of the party and the infobox should reflect that. 128.62.151.247 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)