Kentucky Hated Abraham Lincoln

The Kentucky Museum on the campus of WKU is currently building a permanent Civil War exhibit called "A Star in Each Flag: Conflict in Kentucky." The exhibit opens in mid-October 2008, and it promises to be a good one. Mark your calendars. Further, the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth (in KY) is fast approaching (1809-2009) and there will undoubtedly be much programming at the KY Building celebrating this event.

That said, as I was in the KY Building with my classes this week, I picked up a copy of Lowell Harrison's The Civil War in Kentucky (Lexington, KY: The University of Kentucky Press, 1975) to skim over between classes. In the opening pages, I learned something quite interesting about Lincoln and Kentucky: he got trounced in his bid for the presidency in his home state. You can't swing a dead cat in this state without hitting a poster for an event connecting Abe to the land and place of his birth (near Hodgenville, KY, just an hour or so up I-65 from Bowling Green). Kentuckians love to lay claim to Lincoln.

But, the 1860 election is a real thorn in the Kentucky/Lincoln love fest. Harrison notes, "when the Democratic party split along sectional lines, one of the last political bonds holding the nation together disappeared." The Southern Dem's went with John C. Breckinridge (the US Vice President under James Buchanan) as their candidate, while Northern Dem's backed Stephen A. Douglas. Harrison then lays out the good stuff:

Kentuckians found little solace in the nomination of Lincoln by the Republicans. He was a native of Kentucky, but his "house divided" speech had alarmed many slaveholders who would not accept the curtailment of slavery expansion that he and his party demanded. As the campaign progressed, many Kentuckians turned toward John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate from neighboring Tennessee, who simple platform was the preservation of the Union.

Bell captured a majority in 35 of Kentucky's 110 counties in 1860 and won a plurality in 25 more...Breckinridge had a majority in 36 counties but pluralities in only 7...Douglas had a majority in only 7 counties, and Lincoln did not carry a single one. The popular vote was 66,501 for Bell, 53,143 for Breckinridge, 25,638 for Douglas, and 1,364 for Lincoln. Although Fayette County contained a number of Lincoln's in-laws, he received just five votes there.(1) [bold mine]

Of course, Lincoln won the election powered by his sweep of most of the northern states. But, make no mistake, the native Kentuckian was not only stomped in his state of birth, but came in a distant fourth, garnering less than 1% of the vote! Lincoln was viewed as the anti-slavery candidate and that just did not play in a state looking to preserve the Union. Keep this in mind as we celebrate Lincoln over the coming year. This is just another interesting tidbit in Kentucky's rich and bizarre history.

Read more about the 1860 Election here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Harrison, 4-5.

Hillary's Conundrum

She tried being (somewhat for her) nice to Obama leading up to Super Tuesday. It did not work. She fired her campaign manager and took the gloves off for the last few primaries, sharpening her attacks on Obama. She has gotten thoroughly thrashed since then (it's 10 in a row now). The conventional wisdom is that negative campaigning works. Well, it did not work in Wisconsin for Hillary, as Obama beat her by more than two touchdowns (58%-41%).

So, does she play nice and try to win by drawing contrasts with Obama, or does she turn her negativity amp up to 11 to try to squeeze out wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4? I think I know the answer to that query.

And, this brings me back to where I started in this election process. People do not like Hillary Clinton. They like the IDEA of Hillary Clinton.

Go Arithmecrats!

Your average Joe/Jane (or Republican who does not care about the Dem primary) might have glanced at Tuesday's results and said, "Well, Hillary is going to win again." After all, she took the big prizes in California and New York, and some papers even touted her "win." But, headlines and conventional wisdom do not nominate candidates. Delegates do. And, the Arithmecrats on Slate.com remind us of this fact. In that count, it was a dead heat, with both sides claiming a small win on Tuesday.

Add to that that Obama has closed a MASSIVE poll gap on Clinton in the last two months and won 13 states to Clinton's 8 on Tuesday, and it seems to me that Obama has both math and momentum on his side. The more people see Obama, the more support he garners. Further, the next several races favor Obama (Maine, Nebraska, Washington state, Louisiana, and the three Potomac races). If he wins all five, that is going to help with momentum in upcoming delegate-rich states like Texas and Ohio, where Clinton currently leads. Clinton has focused on the big prizes, which makes sense. However, Obama is cleaning up in smaller states and has drawn even in national polling numbers. If that trend continues and he pulls off a win in Texas or Ohio, it's trouble for Clinton.

Also, he hauled in $32 million in support in January while Hillary Clinton just wrote a $5 million personal check to her campaign.

Hmmm. I thought only Mitt Romney was doing that? EDIT: And Romney dropped out soon after I typed this.

Four More Years?

Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other, this latest survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life illustrates the voting power of religious Republicans (RR's). Among registered voters who self-identified as Republican or "leans Republican" and attended worship services at least once per week, 71% still approve of the job President Bush is doing. Nationally, the number is 29%. A startling 80% of RR's believe that using force in Iraq was the right decision. Nationally, it's 40%.











The results of the Pew Center's survey raised my eyebrows. Although President Bush's approval rating has plummeted, he has maintained healthy support among religious Rep's. This is not terribly surprising, I guess, but the strength of the support is eye-popping when compared to the national numbers. I wonder what the numbers look like if the RR's are pulled from those statistics. The gap is likely even greater.

The real message here is what RR's are saying to their '08 candidates...and it's not "don't be like Bush." In fact, the message may be "four more years," at least in policy matters.

So, which is more important for Republican presidential hopefuls? To be like Bush, or to NOT be like Bush? Within their party, it may be the former if they want to win the nomination. Nationally, it may be the latter if they want to be President. At the very least, trying to be both should prove to be entertaining.