Johnson: Lincoln was a third-party candidate in 1860

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/780474591235993601

The stupid...it burns...

[Yank2133]

He is an idiot.

[tinman64]

IIRC, The World Almanac used to list Lincoln as the only successful third-party candidate. That never made any sense to me, since the GOP was well established by that time and had a presidential candidate in 1856.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

IIRC, The World Almanac used to list Lincoln as the only successful third-party candidate. That never made any sense to me, since the GOP was well established by that time and had a presidential candidate in 1856.

Yeah. It's a stupid thing to say, but Johnson isn't the first to say it.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Meh. Lincoln was only the second presidential candidate that Republicans ran, and the first to actually be elected. Furthermore, in the south he only had ballot access in MD/DE/KY/VA, which sort of mirrors the tough ballot access environment third parties today face, even though the reason why it is that way is completely different.

[DoctorWinstonOBoogie]

IIRC, The World Almanac used to list Lincoln as the only successful third-party candidate. That never made any sense to me, since the GOP was well established by that time and had a presidential candidate in 1856.

Yes, the Whigs had completely fallen off the map by 1860, making the Republican Party one of the two major parties (until the split of the Northern/Southern Democrats and Constitutional Union).

[Devout Centrist]

Meh. Lincoln was only the second presidential candidate that Republicans ran, and the first to actually be elected. Furthermore, in the south he only had ballot access in MD/DE/KY/VA, which sort of mirrors the tough ballot access environment third parties today face, even though the reason why it is that way is completely different.

Yeah, but the Republicans came in second in 1855 and the only reason for multiple major parties in 1860 was division amongst the Democrats.

[Famous Mortimer]

The Whig Party didn't even really exist by 1856. Millard Fillmore was more the candidate of the Known Nothings than the Whigs that year, despite having been a Whig as president.

Regardless, even if he had been representing the Whigs, he still came in third. The Republicans came in second in both the presidential election and congressional elections.

In 1858, the Republicans actually became the largest party in congress.

So yeah, not a third party at all in 1960.

Still, I've heard many people make the dumb claim otherwise.

[PeteB]

On this issue, Johnson at least has a historic argument (although I still think he is ultimately wrong).  The Republicans were formed in 1854 and had just 13 seats in Congress after the 1856 Presidential elections.  However, they later amalgamated the majority of the Whig party (and other splinter groups) so they were arguably the second party (after the Democrats), when Lincoln won in 1860. 

However, Johnson may claim that because the Democrats were split in that election (North vs South) with two separate candidates, and that a new Constitutional Union party was formed (also absorbing some of the Whig members), that the Republicans (then only six years old) were really a third (or even fourth) party.  Of course, this assumes that Johnson knows more about US history then about world leaders or Aleppo, and is not just quoting a meme he saw somewhere.

In reality, the Republicans were definitely one of the two strongest parties in that election, and because Douglas and Breckinridge split the Democratic vote, they were probably the strongest.  After all, noone remembers a Douglas-Breckinridge debate, just a Douglas-Lincoln one!

[Virginiá]

I don't really get how one can argue Republicans were not one of the two majority parties in 1860. It was essentially Democrats and Republicans, and Whigs, iirc, didn't even hold any seats in Congress at that point and had their last convention in the 1850s. Just because you were a major party before doesn't mean you'll automatically be one the next election. If you have no little to no representation and your party has clearly begun or maybe even completely disbanded, you're not a major party anymore. Republicans and Democrats clearly had the most representation at the state and national level going into 1860.

Even seeing people argue this topic on Twitter just reminds me of how people put too much stock in the presidency, as if nothing else is a factor.

[Vosem]

The Republicans were clearly one of the two largest parties in 1860, but at the same time they had never elected a President, and that's a big mental hurdle to clear (for instance, was Tom Mulcair a third-party candidate to be Prime Minister of Canada in 2015? or Alexis Tsipras in Greece?). The Whigs had fallen off the map, but successor parties still existed at that time, and John Bell was clearly the "successor-to-Whigs" candidate.

So, it kinda comes down to how you define "third-party candidate". Are the two major parties the two largest parties, or the two parties who have won in the past? When those definitions conflict, it can be difficult to say whether a party is a third-party or not.

[Figueira]

Either way, his situation is obviously not analogous to Gary Johnson's.

Mulcair is actually a better comparison, aside from the fact that he lost.

[Simfan34]

The fact that historians consider this claim worth debating over  should make it obvious that there's no grounds for bashing Johnson for making it.

[Maxwell]

The Republicans already basically became America's 2nd major party by 1856, so obviously Johnson is wrong.

I can't imagine why historians even argue this point.

[Famous Mortimer]

The fact that historians consider this claim worth debating over  should make it obvious that there's no grounds for bashing Johnson for making it.

Historians don't really debate it though. They mostly just refute it.

The only people who believe it are modern day third party activists who probably never even looked at the election results on Wikipedia.

It's like saying that historians "debate" whether George Washington chopped down a cherry tree or not. They don't. They just have to waste time refuting incorrect popular notions.

That said, I don't hold this against Johnson. I think he's suffering from a pile on effect right now. If he had said this 4 months ago, no one would have noticed. Now though, everyone is actively looking for crap to mock him over.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I guess one could say that the Constitutional Union was the second party as Bell's campaign was their last stand.

[Arbitrage1980]

Not quite accurate. The 3rd party candidate that year was John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party. The Democrats were split between Breckenridge and Douglas. So I don't think we can classify Lincoln as 3rd party per se, but it is true that 1860 was only the 2nd year that the GOP put up a presidential nominee. Even in 1856 though, John Fremont was the runner-up, with Millard Filmore of the American Party finishing 3rd. So it's not accurate to say that Lincoln 1860 is analagous to Johnson 2016.

The reason why Lincoln was not on the ballot in the southern states was because not enough electors were willing to publicly pledge themselves to vote for Lincoln, which is one of the requirements for a candidate to appear on the ballot in a state. Such was the hatred of Lincoln in that region.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

1860 is a unique case because the North and the South essentially had two different Presidential races.

North: Lincoln (R) vs Douglas (D)
South: Breckenridge (D) vs Bell (CU)

Neither Lincoln nor Douglas appeared on the ballot in Texas, while Breckenridge and Bell failed to get on in New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.  Bell was also missing in Minnesota.

In the North, Breckinridge failed to gain 7% in any state except Connecticut (Conspiracy to split the Dem vote?).  Bell failed to surpass 10% in any Northern state except Massachusetts.

In the South, Douglas didn't fare much better, though he did surpass 10% in GA, AL, LA, and KY. (Anyone know why Douglas only got 3.5% in PA?  Ballot shenanigans?)

So the label "3rd party" doesn't really apply to any of the four, save possibly Bell.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

1860 is a unique case because the North and the South essentially had two different Presidential races.

North: Lincoln (R) vs Douglas (D)
South: Breckenridge (D) vs Bell (CU)

Neither Lincoln nor Douglas appeared on the ballot in Texas, while Breckenridge and Bell failed to get on in New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.  Bell was also missing in Minnesota.

In the North, Breckinridge failed to gain 7% in any state except Connecticut (Conspiracy to split the Dem vote?).  Bell failed to surpass 10% in any Northern state except Massachusetts.

In the South, Douglas didn't fare much better, though he did surpass 10% in GA, AL, LA, and KY. (Anyone know why Douglas only got 3.5% in PA?  Ballot shenanigans?)

So the label "3rd party" doesn't really apply to any of the four, save possibly Bell.

There was a fusion ticket agreement between Douglas, Breckinridge, (and Bell to a point), where only Douglas would appear on the ballot in New Jersey and New York, while only Breckinridge would appear on the ballot in Pennsylvania in hopes that they could unify the anti-Lincoln vote and defeat Lincoln in those states (Bell kept his PA access and some of the fusion NY/NJ electors were pledged to Bell in the event that they were elected). Had it worked, Lincoln would have been left begging the HoR to support him.  The reason why Douglas got 3.5% in PA is that some people who weren't happy with the fusion deal put Douglas on the PA ballot anyway.

[President Johnson]

Now he blows it... hope he fades and Hillary gets more than 50% in the end.

[Illiniwek]

I've heard this going around. No he wasn't.

[Arbitrage1980]

1860 is a unique case because the North and the South essentially had two different Presidential races.

North: Lincoln (R) vs Douglas (D)
South: Breckenridge (D) vs Bell (CU)

Neither Lincoln nor Douglas appeared on the ballot in Texas, while Breckenridge and Bell failed to get on in New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.  Bell was also missing in Minnesota.

In the North, Breckinridge failed to gain 7% in any state except Connecticut (Conspiracy to split the Dem vote?).  Bell failed to surpass 10% in any Northern state except Massachusetts.

In the South, Douglas didn't fare much better, though he did surpass 10% in GA, AL, LA, and KY. (Anyone know why Douglas only got 3.5% in PA?  Ballot shenanigans?)

So the label "3rd party" doesn't really apply to any of the four, save possibly Bell.

Yeah this is right. 1860 was truly unique. It's the only election where the person who finished 2nd in popular votes (Douglas) finished worse than 2nd in electoral votes (he finished 4th). Douglas was in the worst possible situation: he got squeezed out in the South by Breckenridge, by Bell in the border southern states, and by Lincoln in the northeast and midwest.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/780474591235993601

The stupid...it burns...

I'm so sorry. Maybe you can see a doctor about that?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's already been established he's not the brightest fellow.

[Devout Centrist]

Anyone remember this gem?