Why was Lincoln unable to gain ballot access in Tennessee in 1860?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

This is honestly something I find rather perplexing. The reason why he was unable to get ballot access in 10 Southern States was because he was unable to get enough electors pledged to him to get on the ballot. Yet, while the other 9 states make sense, as every single region of those states were filled with people who would have been willing to act violently to anyone who said anything supportive of Lincoln, I feel that such surely must not have been the case in Tennessee, where there were sizable pro-Union, and occasionally even anti-slavery communities in several areas in the Eastern section of the state, where Lincoln should easily have been able to find enough people willing to run for his electoral slate. Even Kentucky had Lincoln on the ballot, where contemporary support for slavery was arguably somewhat closer to unanimous in 1860 than it was in Tennessee.

[TDAS04]

I don't know, but I find it more odd that Fremont wasn't on the ballot in Missouri.  That state elected a Republican to Congress in 1856, and Lincoln would carry St. Louis four years later.

[DINGO Joe]

Well, John Bell was from Tennessee  and his campaign probably did everything they could to keep Lincoln off the ballot.

[kcguy]

I just did a quick internet search on "ballot access", and it looks like governments in the U.S. didn't start printing ballots until the 1880's, when the secret ballot was introduced.

So I'm guessing people in Tennessee just didn't want their friends and neighbors knowing they'd voted for Lincoln.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I just did a quick internet search on "ballot access", and it looks like governments in the U.S. didn't start printing ballots until the 1880's, when the secret ballot was introduced.

So I'm guessing people in Tennessee just didn't want their friends and neighbors knowing they'd voted for Lincoln.

Yet, that was not an issue to the same extent in Kentucky?