Why were there three candidates Wlilliam, Stephen and Abraham in the election of 1860?
109979
First of all, William Seward wasn't nominated, and there were 4 candidates. At the time of 1860 election, the party system was fracturing, as there were many people who disagreed with the Democrats on certain issues, like spreading slavery, etc., but did not agree with the Republicans either, and did not want to fracture the union. Thus, 4 major parties had nominees for the presidency, Lincoln for the Republicans, Douglas for the Democrats, John Breckenridge for the Southern Democrats (who took a stronger view on states rights than the Democrats), and John Bell for the Constitutional Union Party.
762324
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and James Madison were Liberals. John Adams was a Conservative.
1164872
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected four\ntimes in a row, because he was an outstanding President. He died during his fourth term having complications from Polio.\n\nIt was later, that a Constitutional Ammendment was added, which restricted a President to serve no more than two terms.
154936
George Washington,  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,  James Madison,  James Monroe,  John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson,  Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler,  James Knox Polk, Zachary Taylor,  Millard Fillmore,  Franklin Pierce,  James Buchanan,  Abraham Lincoln,  Andrew Johnson,  Ulysses Simpson Grant, Rutherford Birchard Hayes,  James Abram Garfield,
734774
Here are the candidates, visit Politics1 for more information:\nhttp://www.politics1.com/md.htm
939284
Well the 3rd-party candidate in 1968 was running on a pro-segregation and anti-civil rights platform. His name was George Wallace and he won 46 Electoral Votes by winning Arkanas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.
150032
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. \nJohn F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. \n\nAbraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. \nJohn F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. \n\nBoth were particularly concerned with civil rights. \n\nBoth wives lost their children while living in the White House. \n\nBoth Presidents were shot on a Friday. \n\nBoth were shot in the head. \n\nBoth were shot in the presence of their wives. \n\nBoth were assassinated by Southerners. \n\nBoth were succeeded by Southerners. \n\nBoth successors were named Johnson. \n\nAndrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. \nLyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908. \n\nJohn Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln was born in 1839. \nLee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy was born in 1939. \n\nBoth assassins were known by their three names. \nBoth names comprise fifteen letters. \n\nBooth and Oswald were both southerners favoring unpopular ideas. \n\nBooth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse (barn). \nOswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater. \n\nBooth and Oswald were assassinated before a trial.\n\nLincoln defeated Stephen Douglas, born in 1813; Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon born in 1913.\n\nBoth presidents while in their thirties, married women in their early twenties. \n\nLincoln was killed in Ford's Theater, Kennedy was killed in a Ford automobile; a Lincoln. \n\nThe names Stephen and Richard, their political opponents have seven letters each.The name Johnson contains seven letters. \n\nThe fathers of the presidents, Thomas and Joseph respectively, each have six letters. \n\nThe names Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson each contain 13 letters, as do the names of their wives, Eliza McCardle and Claudia Taylor. \n\nThe names John Wilkes booth and Lee Harvey Oswald both total 15 letters.
878314
President Abraham Lincoln.
651461
This was a period in which the former States of the Confederacy were impelled and coerced through a societal transformation.  During this period 10 to 15 percent of the white voters were disfranchised as the local Republican Party united illiterate blacks, “scalawags,” and northern “Carpetbaggers” into an unscrupulous political triumvirate that indulged in an orgy of extravagance, corruption, and debauchery.  (from “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,” by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel).  \n\nDuring this same period, the Union military occupation forces made elected members of some State legislatures removed from office because they would not support ratification of the 14th Amendment.  They then replaced these legislatures with hand picked individuals who would vote the way they wanted.  While this is clearly extra-Constitutional, in the 1869 case of Texas v. White these acts of the Union were justified as legitimate “by right of conquest.”  \n\nThese acts of reconstruction were far outside the intent for Reconstruction of President Lincoln (prior to his assassination) further destroying the culture of these States and building resentment which would last for generations into the future.  For those interested they could find interesting such books as:\n\n“The Tragic Era: The Revolution after Lincoln” by Claude G. Bowers;\n“History of the United States From the Compromise of 1850 to the Restoration of Home Rule in the South in 1877”, by James Ford Rhodes;\nAlso by William Archibald Dunning, “Reconstruction: Political and Economic, 1865 – 1877; and,\nEssays on the Civil War and Reconstruction,” 2nd edition.
581123
Rudolph Guilliani. He's also a Republican which makes it a double plus. I do not trust the Democrats to run the country well. They're wusses - no gumption and selling the country out.
763742
You had Stephen Douglas who was an old school Democrat but believed in keeping things the way they were. The Southern Democrats were not pleased and demanded a Constitutional Ammendment or a law that would protect slavery. The argument was so heated the Souther Democrats put up thier own choice; James Breckenridge who promised such. The other two parties were the Constitution Party, equivilent to today's Green Party in the sense that who cares about them? Bah. Then the Republicans. You see; back in the day you had the Whigs and the Democrats. The Democrats were the champions of the everyday man being in charge. The Whigs believed strongly in the smartest of the elite being in charge. Then the Whig Party suddenly went free soil and crazily liberal. The classic conservatives of the day all switched over to the Democratic Party. That left the shattered remnents of the Whig Party which soon collapsed under it's own weight. Then came the Republicans who failed to garner success in their first White House bid with John C. Fre'mont and God be praised for it; he was a loon. Thier next try they got in with Lincoln and then the rest is Civil War history.
811809
I'd gladly vote for Hillary, or perhaps even Barack Obama, who is also considering running for the Democrats. I've always been frustrated with the fact that as huge and diverse a country this is, it's primarily been a choice between two, middle-aged or higher, Christian, white men for President. It's time to bring some diversity to the Presidential race.
510708
Abraham Lincoln, "Second Inaugural Address," 4 March 1865\n\n\nFellow-Countrymen:\n\nAt this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.\n\nOn the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.\n\nOne-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."\n\nWith malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting
708958
Lincoln. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ruled Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to be unconstitutional (only Congress has such power), but he was ignored by Lincoln as the mass arrests of political dissenters continued. As described by Dean Sprague in Freedom Under Lincoln (p. 161): "The laws were silent, indictments were not found, testimony was not taken, judges did not sit, juries were not impaneled, convictions were not obtained and sentences were not pronounced. The Anglo-Saxon concept of due process, perhaps the greatest political triumph of the ages and the best guardian of freedom, was abandoned." Thousands of political prisoners languished in Fort Lafayette in New York harbor, which came to be known as "The American Bastille." \n\nDozens of Northern newspapers were shut down and their editors and owners were imprisoned if they opposed the Lincoln administration. On May 18, 1864 Lincoln sent the following order to General John Dix: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers."\n\nAll telegraph communication was censored, the railroads were nationalized, and federal troops were ordered to interfere with Northern elections to ensure Republican victories. Lincoln won New York state by 7000 votes "with the help of federal bayonets," wrote Pulitzer Prize–winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered. Several dozen members of the Maryland legislature were thrown into military prison along with the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May of Maryland so that they could not meet to discuss secession.
39504
Besides being the President whose face is on the penny and the $5.00 bill he was the 16th president of the U.S.  His Presidency was almost all during war to hold the U.S. together.  Having started as a war over States rights after several Southern States seceeded from the U.S. the Civil War covered most of his presidentcy as it started just over a month after he entered office and was not officially over until about 6 weeks after his death.  He was the first president to be assasinated in the only preidential assasination that was proved to be a consperacy.  In 1862 as a political move to keep England from recognising the South as a free and independent nation issued the Emancipation Proclimation to free the slaves in territory that the Union forces freed.  England along with most of the rest of the world never did recognise the South as a free and Independent Nation and open any sort of diplomatic relations with them.  This hurt the South in their war effort in the long run.  Only one other Nation freed their slaves after the U.S. did and that was Brazil also I believe in the 1860's, the rest of the world had done away with that before that time.  It is said that Lincoln fulfilled the freedoms for all that our founding fathers had eluded to, but had not delivered to all men.  As far as to why was he strong there is no real answer to that, he was as strong as was necessary for the circumstances, which were certainly extrordinary having been the only president to serve his entire term(s) under civil strife between the states, however beyond the scope of his circumstances he would have gone down in history as an average president.
989894
President Lincoln\n\nFido
795839
Fusion voting was tried in the past. In the 1860 elections groups ran slates of electors agreeing to proportion their vote.  It did not work, and was abandoned.  With the high cost of running, the major parties don't want to siphon off their strength.