Talk:1864 United States presidential election

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peace platform 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  States Participating 

message: 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. -- 68.146.234.123 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  National Union Party 

message: 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)
thread_title: Winner/Runner-Up

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lincoln's death. 

message: *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 http://elections.harpweek.com/1864/Overview-1864-2.htm --JimWae 09:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fremont & the Radical Democracy Party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed wording of confederate states 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Home state 

message: 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 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1864  Qrobert (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Electoral Map Oregon 

message: 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 70.53.150.214 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the map  

message: 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)
thread_title:  SVG vs PNG 

message: 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)
replies: text: no--these had no actual power in their claimed lands. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: - 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)
thread_title:  Border states 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: 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., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_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)
thread_title:  Layout issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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:
* 1864 United States presidential election in Louisiana
* 1864 United States presidential election in Tennessee
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Pinging just in case he hasn't seen my reply yet. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Alright then, I created the two articles on March 14th and 15, respectively. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Yay or Nay, Articles for Louisiana and Tennessee

message: Can someone change the text colour for the states listed by margin of victory (Section 3.3 of the article) from normal blue (Democrat) and light pink (Republican) to darkblue and darkred (those are the names for the colours per HTML or Wikicode or whatever you use) respectively to match more recent elections like the 2016 United States presidential election and for the sake of visibility? 45.251.33.20 (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thank you for notifying us of this problem, the original red font was difficult for me to read! If you notice this problem on other pages, I encourage you to WP:BEBOLD and make the changes yourself. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-COI Edit Request (I ended up tripping an edit filter while using a different IP on my range ( /24 if you must know) and an Edit Filter manager denied my false positive report)