| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 of the 66 seats in the United States Senate (with special elections) 34 seats needed for a majority | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Results of the elections: Democratic gain Democratic hold Republican gain Republican hold Senator left for the Confederacy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 1860–61 United States Senate elections were held on various dates in various states. As these U.S. Senate elections were prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures. Senators were elected over a wide range of time throughout 1860 and 1861, and a seat may have been filled months late or remained vacant due to legislative deadlock.[1] In these elections, terms were up for the senators in Class 3.
These elections corresponded with Abraham Lincoln's election to the presidency. The nascent Republican Party increased their Senate seats in the regular elections, and after southern Democrats withdrew to join the Confederacy, Republicans gained control of the Senate. To establish a quorum with fewer members, a lower total seat number was taken into account.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:3 461 98819 125287 5552 189 50027 229
-
The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18
-
The Election of 1860 Explained
-
The Election of 1860 and SECESSION [APUSH Review Unit 5 Topic 7] Period 5: 1844-1877
-
The American Civil War: 1861 - 1865 | Documentary
-
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
Transcription
CCUS18 Election 1860 Hi I’m John Green; this is Crash Course US History and today we discuss one of the most confusing questions in American history: What caused the Civil War? Just kidding it’s not a confusing question at all: Slavery caused the Civil War. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, but what about, like, states rights and nationalism, economics-- Me from the Past, your senior year of high school you will be taught American Government by Mr. Fleming, a white Southerner who will seem to you to be about 182 years old, and you will say something to him in class about states rights. And Mr. Fleming will turn to you and he will say, “A state’s rights to what, sir?” And for the first time in your snotty little life, you will be well and truly speechless. intro The road to the Civil War leads to discussions of states rights...to slavery, and differing economic systems...specifically whether those economic systems should involve slavery, and the election of Abraham Lincoln, specifically how his election impacted slavery, but none of those things would have been issues without slavery. So let’s pick up with the most controversial section of the Compromise of 1850, the fugitive slave law. Now, longtime Crash Course viewers will remember that there was already a Fugitive Slave Law written into the United States Constitution, so what made this one so controversial? Under this new law, any citizen was required to turn in anyone he or she knew to be a slave to authorities. And that made, like, every person in New England into a sheriff, and it also required them to enforce a law they found abhorrent. So, they had to be sheriffs and they didn’t even get little gold badges. Thought Bubble, can I have a gold badge? Oh. Awesome. Thank you. This law was also terrifying to people of color in the North, because even if you’d been, say, born free in Massachusetts, the courts could send you into slavery if even one person swore before a judge that you were a specific slave. And many people of color responded to the fugitive slave law by moving to Canada, which at the time was still technically an English colony, thereby further problematizing the whole idea that England was all about tyranny and the United States was all about freedom. But anyway the most important result of the fugitive slave law was that it convinced some Northerners that the government was in the hands of a sinister “slave power.” Sadly, slave power was not a heavy metal band or Britney Spears’s new single or even a secret cabal of powerful slaves, but rather a conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of pro-slavery congressmen. That conspiracy theory is going to grow in importance, but before we get to that let us discuss Railroads. Underrated in Monopoly and underrated in the Civil War. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Railroads made shipping cheaper and more efficient and allowed people to move around the country quickly, and they had a huge backer (also a tiny backer) in the form of Illinois congressman Stephen Douglas, who wanted a transcontinental railroad because 1. he felt it would bind the union together at a time when it could use some binding, and 2. he figured it would go through Illinois, which would be good for his home state. But there was a problem: To build a railroad, the territory through which it ran needed to be organized, ideally as states, and if the railroad was going to run through Illinois, then the Kansas and Nebraska territories would need to become state-like, so Douglas pushed forward the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act formalized the idea of popular sovereignty, which basically meant that (white) residents of states could decide for themselves whether the state should allow slavery. Douglas felt this was a nice way of avoiding saying whether he favored slavery; instead, he could just be in favor of letting other people be in favor of it. Now you’ll remember that the previously bartered Missouri Compromise banned slavery in new states north of this here line. And since in theory Kansas or Nebraska could have slavery if people there decided they wanted it under the Kansas-Nebraska Act despite being north of that there line, this in practice repealed the Missouri Compromise. As a result, there was quite a lot of violence in Kansas, so much so that some people say the Civil War really started there in 1857. Also, the Kansas Nebraska Act led to the creation of a new political party: The Republicans. Yes, those Republicans. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, Douglas’s law helped to create a new coalition party dedicated to stopping the extension of slavery. It was made of former Free-Soilers, Northern anti-slavery Whigs and some Know- Nothings. It was also a completely sectional party, meaning that it drew supporters almost exclusively from the free states in the North and West, which, you’ll remember from like, two minutes ago, were tied together by common economic interests and the railroad. I’m telling you, don’t underestimate railroads. By the way, we are getting to you, Dred Scott. And now we return at last to “slave power.” For many northerners, the Kansas Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise was yet more evidence that Congress was controlled by a sinister “slave power” group doing the bidding of rich plantation owners, which, as conspiracy theories go, wasn’t the most far-fetched. In fact, by 1854, the North was far more populous than the South--it had almost double the South’s congressional representation--but in spite of this advantage, Congress had just passed a law extending the power of slave states, and potentially--because two new states meant four new senators--making the federal government even more pro-slavery. And to abolitionists, that didn’t really seem like democracy. The other reason that many northerners cared enough about Kansas and Nebraska to abandon their old party loyalties was that having them become slave states was seen as a threat to northerner’s economic self-interest. Remember the west was seen as a place where individuals--specifically white individuals--could become self-sufficient farmers. As Lincoln wrote: “The whole nation is interested that the best use be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. They cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery is planted within them. New Free States are places for poor people to go to and better their condition.” So, the real question was: Would these western territories have big slave-based plantations like happened in Mississippi? Or small family farms full of frolicking free white people, like happened in Thomas Jefferson’s imagination? So the new Republican party ran its first presidential candidate in 1856 and did remarkably well. John C. Fremont from California picked up 39% of the vote, all of it from the North and West, and lost to the Democrat James Buchanan, who had the virtue of having spent much of the previous decade in Europe and thus not having a position on slavery. I mean, let me take this opportunity to remind you that James Buchanan’s nickname was The Old Public Functionary. Meanwhile, Kansas was trying to become a state by holding elections in 1854 and 1855. I say trying because these elections were so fraudulent that they would be funny except that everything stops being funny like 12 years before the Civil War and doesn’t get really funny again until Charlie Chaplin. Ah, Charlie Chaplin, thank you for being in the public domain and giving us a much-needed break from a nation divided against itself, discovering that it cannot stand. Right so part of the Kansas problem was that hundreds of so called border ruffians flocked to Kansas from pro-slavery Missouri to cast ballots in Kansas elections, which led to people coming in from free states and setting up their own rival governments. Fighting eventually broke out and more than 200 people were killed. In fact, in 1856, pro-slavery forces laid siege to anti-slavery Lawrence, Kansas with cannons. One particularly violent incident involved the murder of an entire family by an anti-slavery zealot from New York named John Brown. He got away with that murder but hold on a minute, we’ll get to him. Anyway, in the end Kansas passed two constitutions because, you know, that’s a good way to get started as a government. The pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was the first that went to the U.S. Congress and it was supported by Stephen Douglas as an example of popular sovereignty at work, except that the man who oversaw the voting in Kansas called it a “vile fraud.” Congress delayed Kansas’ entry into the Union (because Congress’s primary business is delay) until another, more fair referendum took place. And after that vote, Kansas eventually did join the U.S. as a free state in 1861, by which time it was frankly too late. Alright so while all this craziness was going on in Kansas and Congress, the Supreme Court was busy rendering the worst decision in its history. Oh, hi there, Dred Scott. Dred Scott had been a slave whose master had taken him to live in Illinois and Wisconsin, both of which barred slavery. So, Scott sued, arguing that if slavery was illegal in Illinois, then living in Illinois made him definitionally not a slave. The case took years to find its way to the Supreme Court and eventually, in 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, from Maryland, handed down his decision. The Court held that Scott was still a slave, but went even further, attempting to settle the slavery issue once and for all. Taney ruled that black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” So...that is an actual quote from an actual decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Wow. I mean, Taney’s ruling basically said that all black people anywhere in the United States could be considered property, and that the court was in the business of protecting that property. This meant a slave owner could take his slaves from Mississippi to Massachusetts and they would still be slaves. Which meant that technically, there was no such thing as a free state. At least that’s how people in the north, especially Republicans saw it. The Dred Scott decision helped convince even more people that the entire government, Congress, President Buchanan, and now the Supreme Court, were in the hands of the dreaded “Slave Power.” Oh, we’re going to do the Mystery Document now? Stan, I am so confident about today’s Mystery Document that I am going to write down my guess right now and I’m going to put it in this envelope and then when I’m right I want a prize. All I ever get is punishment, I want prizes. Okay. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I already did that. And then I get rewarded for being right. Alright total confidence. Let’s just read this thing. And then I get my reward. “I look forward to the days when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South, when the black man … shall assert his freedom and wage a war of extermination against his master; when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South, and blot out the last vestige of slavery. And though I may not mock at their calamity, nor laugh when their fear cometh, yet I will hail it as the dawn of a political millennium.” [1] I was right! Right here. Guessed in advance. John Brown. What? STAN! Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings? Seriously, Stan? AH! Whatever. I’m gonna talk about John Brown anyway. In 1859, John Brown led a disastrous raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, hoping to capture guns and then give them to slaves who would rise up and use those guns against their masters. But, Brown was an awful military commander, and not a terribly clear thinker in general, and the raid was an abject failure. Many of the party were killed and he was captured. He stood trial and was sentenced to death. Thus he became a martyr to the abolitionist cause, which is probably what he wanted anyway. On the morning of his hanging, he wrote, “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” Well, he was right about that, but in general, any statement that begins “I-comma-my-name” meh. And, so the stage was set for one of the most important Presidential elections in American history. Dun dun dun dun dun dahhhhh. In 1860, the Republican Party chose as its candidate Abraham Lincoln, whose hair and upper forehead you can see here. He’d proved his eloquence, if not his electability, in a series of debates with Stephen Douglas when the two were running for the Senate in 1858. Lincoln lost that election, but the debates made him famous, and he could appeal to immigrant voters, because he wasn’t associated with the Know Nothings. The Democrats, on the other hand, were--to use a historian term--a hot mess. The Northern wing of the party favored Stephen Douglas, but he was unacceptable to voters in the deep South. So Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, making the Democrats, the last remaining truly national party, no longer truly a national party. A third party, the Constitutional Union Party, dedicated to preserving the Constitution “as it is” i.e. including slavery, nominated John Bell of Tennessee. Abraham Lincoln received 0 votes in nine American states, but he won 40% of the overall popular vote, including majorities in many of the most populous states, thereby winning the electoral college. So, anytime a guy becomes President who literally did not appear on your ballot, there is likely to be a problem. And indeed, Lincoln’s election led to a number of Southern states seceding from the Union. Lincoln himself hated slavery, but he repeatedly said that he would leave it alone in the states where it existed. But the demographics of Lincoln’s election showed Southerners and Northerners alike that slave power--to whatever extent it had existed--was over. By the time he took office on March 1, 1861, seven states had seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. And the stage was set for the fighting to begin, which it did, when Southern troops fired upon the Union garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor on April 12, 1861. So, that’s when the Civil War started, but it became inevitable earlier--maybe in 1857, or maybe in 1850, or maybe in 1776. Or maybe in 1619, when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia. Cuz here’s the thing: In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney said that black Americans had quote “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” But this was demonstrably false. Black men had voted in elections and held property, including even slaves. They’d appeared in court on their own behalf. They had rights. They’d expressed those rights when given the opportunity. And the failure of the United States to understand that the rights of black Americans were as inalienable as those of white Americans is ultimately what made the Civil War inevitable. So next week, it’s off to war we go. Thanks for watching. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Usually every week there’s a libertage with a caption, but there wasn’t one this week because of stupid Chief Justice Roger Taney. However, please suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course US History and as we say in my hometown of nerdfighteria, don’t forget to be awesome. election 1860 - ________________ [1] Quoted in Goldfield p. 119
Results summary
Senate party division, 37th Congress (1861–1863)
- Majority party: Republican (29), later rose to 30
- Minority party: Democratic (30), later dropped to 14
- Other parties: Unionist (1), later rose to 4
- Vacant: (8), later rose to 20
- Total seats: 68
Change in Senate composition
Before the elections
After the October 2, 1860 special election in Oregon.
D3 | D2 | D1 | |||||||
D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 | D9 | D10 | D11 | D12 | D13 |
D23 | D22 | D21 | D20 | D19 | D18 | D17 | D16 | D15 | D14 |
D24 | D25 Ran |
D26 Ran |
D27 Ran |
D28 Unknown |
D29 Unknown |
D30 Retired |
D31 Retired |
D32 Retired |
D33 Retired |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Majority → | D34 Resigned | ||||||||
R24 Ran |
R25 Unknown |
R26 Retired |
KN1 | KN2 Ran |
D38 Withdrew |
D37 Withdrew |
D36 Withdrew |
D35 Withdrew | |
R23 Ran |
R22 Ran |
R21 Ran |
R20 Ran |
R19 | R18 | R17 | R16 | R15 | R14 |
R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 | R10 | R11 | R12 | R13 |
R3 | R2 | R1 |
As a result of the elections
V3 D Loss |
V2 D Loss |
V1 D Loss |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 | D9 | D10 |
D20 | D19 | D18 | D17 | D16 | D15 | D14 | D13 | D12 | D11 |
D21 | D23 | D22 | D24 | D25 Re-elected |
D26 Re-elected |
D27 Hold |
D28 Hold |
D29 Hold |
D30 Gain |
Plurality ↑ | KN1 | ||||||||
R21 Re-elected |
R22 Re-elected |
R23 Re-elected |
R24 Re-elected |
R25 Hold |
R26 Hold |
R27 Gain |
R28 Gain |
R29 Gain | |
R20 Re-elected |
R19 | R18 | R17 | R16 | R15 | R14 | R13 | R12 | R11 |
R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 | R10 |
V4 D Loss |
V5 D Loss |
V6 D Loss |
Beginning of the next Congress
V4 D Loss |
V3 D Loss |
V2 D Loss |
V1 D Loss |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V5 D Loss |
V6 D Loss |
V7 D Loss |
V8 D Loss |
D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 |
D16 | D15 | D14 | D13 | D12 | D11 | D10 | D9 | D8 | D7 |
D17 | D18 | D19 | D20 | D21 | D22 | U1 Changed |
R29 Hold |
R28 | R27 |
Majority → | R26 | ||||||||
R17 | R18 | R19 | R20 | R21 | R22 | R23 | R24 | R25 | |
R16 | R15 | R14 | R13 | R12 | R11 | R10 | R9 | R8 | R7 |
V12 | V11 | V10 | V9 | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
V13 | V14 | V15 New state |
V16 New state |
End of 1861
V4 | V3 | V2 | V1 | ||||||
V5 | V6 | V7 | V8 | V9 D Loss |
V10 D Loss |
D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D14 Gain |
D13 Gain |
D12 | D11 | D10 | D9 | D8 | D7 | D6 | D5 |
U4 Gain |
U3 Gain |
U2 Gain |
U1 | R30 Gain |
R29 Hold |
R28 Hold |
R27 Hold |
R26 | R25 |
Majority → | R24 | ||||||||
R15 | R16 | R17 | R18 | R19 | R20 | R21 | R22 | R23 | |
R14 | R13 | R12 | R11 | R10 | R9 | R8 | R7 | R6 | R5 |
V16 | V15 | V14 | V13 | V12 R Loss |
V11 R Loss |
R1 Gain |
R2 Gain |
R3 | R4 |
V17 | V18 D Loss |
V19 D Loss |
V20 D Loss |
Key: |
|
Race summaries
Special elections during the 36th Congress
In these special elections, the winners were seated during 1860 or in 1861 before March 4; ordered by election date.
State | Incumbent | Results | Candidates | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Senator | Party | Electoral history | |||
California (Class 1) |
Henry P. Haun | Democratic | 1859 (appointed) | Interim appointee lost election to finish the term. Winner elected March 5, 1860. Democratic hold. |
|
Oregon (Class 2) |
Vacant | Legislature had failed to elect in 1858/1859. Winner elected October 2, 1860. Republican gain. |
▌ Edward D. Baker (Republican) [data missing] | ||
Maine (Class 1) |
Hannibal Hamlin | Republican | 1848 (special) 1851 1857 (resigned) 1857 |
Incumbent resigned to become U.S. Vice President. Winner elected January 17, 1861. Republican hold. |
▌ Lot M. Morrill (Republican) [data missing] |
Races leading to the 37th Congress
In these regular elections, the winners were elected for the term beginning March 4, 1861; ordered by state.
All of the elections involved the Class 3 seats.
State | Incumbent | Results | Candidates | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Senator | Party | Electoral history | |||
Alabama | Benjamin Fitzpatrick | Democratic | 1848 (appointed) 1849 (retired) 1853 (appointed) 1853 <span style="font-size:85%;">(special)</span> 1855 |
Incumbent withdrew January 21, 1861. No replacement was elected. Democratic loss. Seat would remain vacant until 1868. |
None. |
Arkansas | Robert W. Johnson | Democratic | 1853 (appointed) 1854 <span style="font-size:85%;">(special)</span> |
Incumbent retired. Successor elected in 1860 or 1861. Democratic hold. |
▌ Charles B. Mitchel (Democratic) [data missing] |
California | William M. Gwin | Democratic | 1850 1855 (failure to elect) 1857 (special) |
Unknown if incumbent retired or lost re-election. Winner elected in 1860. Democratic hold. |
▌ James A. McDougall (Democratic) |
Connecticut | Lafayette S. Foster | Republican | 1854 | Incumbent re-elected in 1860. | ▌ Lafayette S. Foster (Republican) [data missing] |
Florida | David Levy Yulee | Democratic | 1855 | Incumbent withdrew January 21, 1861. No replacement was elected. Democratic loss. Seat would remain vacant until 1868. |
None. |
Georgia | Alfred Iverson, Sr. | Democratic | 1854 or 1855 | Incumbent withdrew January 28, 1861. No replacement was elected. Democratic loss. Seat would remain vacant until 1871. |
None. |
Illinois | Lyman Trumbull | Republican | 1855 | Incumbent re-elected, January 9, 1861. |
|
Iowa | James Harlan | Republican | 1855 1857 (election invalidated) 1857 (special) |
Incumbent re-elected in 1860. | ▌ James Harlan (Republican) [data missing] |
Indiana | Graham N. Fitch | Democratic | 1857 (special) | Incumbent retired. Winner elected in 1860. Republican gain. |
▌ Henry S. Lane (Republican) [data missing] |
Kansas | Vacant | Kansas had become a state January 29, 1861, but did not elect its senators until the next Congress, see below. | None. | ||
Kentucky | John J. Crittenden | Know Nothing | 1816 1819 (resigned) 1835 1841 (retired) 1842 (appointed) 1842 or 1843 (special) 1843 1848 (resigned) 1854 |
Incumbent retired. Winner elected December 12, 1859, far in advance of the term. Democratic gain. Winner was subsequently expelled, see below. |
▌ John C. Breckinridge (Democratic) [data missing] |
Louisiana | John Slidell | Democratic | 1853 (special) 1854 or 1855 |
Incumbent resigned February 4, 1861. No replacement was elected. Democratic loss. Seat would remain vacant until 1868. |
None. |
Maryland | James Pearce | Democratic | 1843 1849 1855 |
Incumbent re-elected in 1861. | ▌ James Pearce (Democratic) [data missing] |
Missouri | James S. Green | Democratic | 1857 | Unknown if incumbent retired or lost re-election. Legislature failed to elect. Democratic loss. Seat would remain vacant until March 17, 1861, see below. |
[data missing] |
New Hampshire | Daniel Clark | Republican | 1857 | Incumbent re-elected in 1861. | ▌ Daniel Clark (Republican) [data missing] |
New York | William H. Seward | Republican | 1849 1855 |
Incumbent retired, expecting appointment to the Lincoln Administration. Winner elected February 5, 1861. Republican hold. |
|
North Carolina | Thomas Clingman | Democratic | 1858 (appointed) 1858 (special) |
Incumbent re-elected in 1861. | ▌ Thomas Clingman (Democratic) [data missing] |
Ohio | George E. Pugh | Democratic | 1854 | Incumbent lost re-election. Winner elected in 1860. Republican gain. |
|
Oregon | Joseph Lane | Democratic | 1859 | Incumbent retired. Winner elected in 1860 or 1861. Democratic hold. |
▌ James Nesmith (Democratic) [data missing] |
Pennsylvania | William Bigler | Democratic | 1856 | Incumbent retired. Winner elected January 8, 1861. Republican gain. |
|
South Carolina | James Henry Hammond | Democratic | 1857 | Incumbent withdrew November 11, 1860. No replacement was elected. Democratic loss. Seat would remain vacant until 1868. |
None. |
Vermont | Jacob Collamer | Republican | 1855 | Incumbent re-elected in 1861. | ▌ Jacob Collamer (Republican) [data missing] |
Wisconsin | Charles Durkee | Republican | 1854 | Unknown if incumbent retired or lost re-election. Winner elected in 1861. Republican hold. |
▌ Timothy O. Howe (Republican) [data missing] |
Elections during the 37th Congress
In these elections, the winners were elected in 1861 after March 4.
State | Incumbent | Results | Candidates | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Senator | Party | Electoral history | |||
Pennsylvania (Class 1) |
Vacant | Incumbent had resigned in the previous Congress. Winner was elected March 14, 1861. Republican gain. |
| ||
Missouri (Class 3) |
Vacant | Legislature had failed to elect. Winner was elected March 17, 1861. Democratic gain. |
▌ Waldo P. Johnson (Democratic) [data missing] | ||
Ohio (Class 3) |
Salmon P. Chase | Republican | 1849 1855 (retired) 1860 |
Incumbent resigned December 4, 1860, to become U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. Winner was elected March 21, 1861. Republican hold. |
▌ John Sherman (Republican) [data missing] |
Kansas (Class 2) |
New state | Kansas became a state January 29, 1861. Winner was elected late April 4, 1861. Republican gain. |
▌ Jim Lane (Republican) [data missing] | ||
Kansas (Class 3) |
Kansas became a state January 29, 1861. Winner was elected late April 4, 1861. Republican gain. |
▌ Samuel C. Pomeroy (Republican) [data missing] | |||
Virginia (Class 1) |
James M. Mason | Democratic | 1847 (special) 1850 1856 |
Incumbent expelled July 11, 1861 for supporting the Confederacy. Winner was elected July 13, 1861. Unionist gain. |
▌ Waitman T. Willey (Unionist) [data missing] |
Virginia (Class 2) |
Robert M. T. Hunter | Democratic | 1846 1852 1858 |
Incumbent expelled July 11, 1861 for supporting the Confederacy. Winner was elected July 13, 1861. Unionist gain. |
▌ John S. Carlile (Unionist) [data missing] |
Kentucky (Class 3) |
John C. Breckinridge | Democratic | 1859 | Incumbent expelled December 4, 1861 for supporting the Confederacy. Winner was elected December 10, 1861. Unionist gain. |
▌ Garrett Davis (Unionist) [data missing] |
Maryland
| ||||||||||||||||
80 members of the Maryland General Assembly | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
James Pearce won re-election by an unknown margin of votes, for the Class 3 seat.[3]
New York
The New York election was held February 5, 1861.
Whig William H. Seward had been re-elected in February 1855 to this seat, had become a Republican upon the foundation of that party in September 1855, and his term would expire on March 3, 1861. Seward did not seek re-election, instead being certain to be appointed to an office in the incoming Lincoln administration (Lincoln subsequently appointed Seward Secretary of State).
At the state election in November 1859, 23 Republicans and 9 Democrats were elected for a two-year term (1860–1861) in the State Senate. At the state election in November 1860, 93 Republicans and 35 Democrats were elected to the Assembly for the session of 1861. The 84th New York State Legislature met from January 1 to April 16, 1861, at Albany, New York.
Ira Harris was the candidate of the Republican Party. Harris had been a Whig assemblyman in 1845 and 1846, and a justice of the New York Supreme Court from 1847 to 1859.
Ex-Governor Horatio Seymour (in office 1853–1854) was the candidate of the Democratic Party.
Both in the Assembly and the Senate a strict party vote confirmed the caucus selections.
In the Assembly 119 votes were given: Republicans Smith Anthony (Cayuga Co.), Martin Finch (Essex Co.), Henry A. Prendergast (Chautauqua Co.), Victor M. Rice (Erie Co.) and Perez H. Field (Ontario Co.), along with Democrats Luke F. Cozans (NYC), Benjamin H. Long (Erie Co.), N. Holmes Odell (Westchester Co.) and Christian B. Woodruff (NYC) did not vote.
In the State Senate, 31 votes were given as William H. Ferry (Rep., 19th D.) was absent.
Ira Harris was the choice of both the Assembly and the Senate, and was declared elected.
House | Republican | Democratic | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
State Senate (31 members voting) | Ira Harris | 22 | Horatio Seymour | 9 |
State Assembly (119 members voting) | Ira Harris | 88 | Horatio Seymour | 31 |
Pennsylvania
There were two elections in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania (regular)
The regular election in Pennsylvania was held January 8, 1861. Edgar Cowan was elected by the Pennsylvania General Assembly to the United States Senate.[4]
Incumbent Democrat William Bigler, who was elected in 1856, was not a candidate for re-election to another term. The Pennsylvania General Assembly, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, convened on January 8, 1861, to elect a new Senator to fill the term beginning on March 4, 1861. The results of the vote of both houses combined are as follows:
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Republican | Edgar Cowan | 98 | 73.68 | |
Democratic | Henry Foster | 35 | 26.32% | |
Total votes | 133 | 100% |
Pennsylvania (special)
A special election was held in Pennsylvania on March 14, 1861. David Wilmot was elected by the Pennsylvania General Assembly to the United States Senate.[5]
Republican Simon Cameron had been elected to the United States Senate by the General Assembly, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in January 1857. After Senator Cameron resigned his seat on March 4, 1861, to become United States Secretary of War in Abraham Lincoln's administration,[6] the Pennsylvania General Assembly convened on March 14, 1861, to elect a new Senator to fill the vacancy.
The results of the vote of both houses combined are as follows:
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Republican | David Wilmot | 96 | 72.18 | |
Democratic | William H. Welsh | 34 | 25.56% | |
Republican | Winthrop W. Ketcham | 1 | 0.75% | |
Democratic | William Wilkins | 1 | 0.75% | |
N/A | Not voting | 1 | 0.75% | |
Total votes | 133 | 100% |
See also
Notes
References
- ^ "17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913)". National Archives and Records Administration. February 8, 2022.
- ^ Journal of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, 1861. Springfield, IL: Bailache & Baker, Printers. 1861.
- ^ "Our Campaigns - MD US Senate Race - Jan 00, 1861". www.ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved 2022-11-05.
- ^ a b "U.S. Senate Election - 8 January 1861" (PDF). Wilkes University. Retrieved December 22, 2013.
- ^ a b "U.S. Senate Election - 14 March 1861" (PDF). Wilkes University. Retrieved December 23, 2012.
- ^ "CAMERON, Simon, (1799 - 1889)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Retrieved December 23, 2012.
- ^ "PA US Senate - Special Election". OurCampaigns. Retrieved December 22, 2012.
- Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present, via Senate.gov
- The New York Civil List compiled by Franklin Benjamin Hough, Stephen C. Hutchins and Edgar Albert Werner, 1867 (see pg. 568 for U. S. Senators; pg. 442 for State Senators 1861; pg. 492ff for Members of Assembly 1861)
- Result NY state election 1859 in The Tribune Almanac for 1860 compiled by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune
- Result NY state election 1860 in The Tribune Almanac for 1861 compiled by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune
- FROM THE STATE CAPITAL.; Election of United States Senator in NYT on February 6, 1861
- Result, NY State Senate: Journal of the Senate (84th Session) (1861; pg. 137)
- Result, NY Assembly: Journal of the Assembly (84th Session) (1861; pg. 247f)
- Pennsylvania Election Statistics: 1682-2006 from the Wilkes University Election Statistics Project.