Why did John Breckenridgedo so well in Connecticut in 1860?

[Asenath Waite]

Breckenridge received 20.5% of the vote in Connecticut and in no other northeastern state did he do any better then the 6.3% he received in Maine. Did Connecticut have a lot of business tied in with the southern cotton trade?

[Cassius]

My understanding is that, whilst Breckinridge is often portrayed as the ‘southern’ Democratic candidate in the election (as opposed to Douglas, the ‘northern’ Democrat), the reality was that he was more the candidate of the Buchanan faction of the party. Of course, Buchanan was a doughface, but then so were many northerners, which helps explain why Breckinridge did have a base of support in the north. He also outpolled Douglas in Pennsylvania, which makes sense given that it was Buchanan’s home state. Given the close proximity of Connecticut to New York, where trading interests also opposed the war, I suspect your point is also correct.

[Orser67]

My understanding is that, whilst Breckinridge is often portrayed as the ‘southern’ Democratic candidate in the election (as opposed to Douglas, the ‘northern’ Democrat), the reality was that he was more the candidate of the Buchanan faction of the party.

I would argue the opposite; Breckinridge was the Southern candidate who was also supported by Northern Buchananites. Buchanan despised Douglas (largely because of disagreements over Buchanan's handling of KS) and did indeed throw his support behind his VP, but Buchanan had relatively little to do with Breckinridge's nomination, which was the work of dissatisfied Southerners.

[RINO Tom]

I can only offer an anecdote here, but it's very interesting that I happened to have quoted a Union soldier from Connecticut writing home about the Civil War in a paper I wrote in college for an advanced Civil War elective.  It's saved on my old computer, but if I remember I would really like to cite it in a few weeks when I am back at my parents' house.

Anyway, the jist of it was that this soldier effectively didn't see any reason why they shouldn't just let the South go, and that his views on slavery were closer to a Southerner's than the federal government by this point (I think the letter was written in the later stages of the war?).  Considering CT seems to have been a lot less Republican than the rest of New England and close to a Democratic base in New York City, perhaps this wasn't an overly uncommon attitude in the state around this time?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can only offer an anecdote here, but it's very interesting that I happened to have quoted a Union soldier from Connecticut writing home about the Civil War in a paper I wrote in college for an advanced Civil War elective.  It's saved on my old computer, but if I remember I would really like to cite it in a few weeks when I am back at my parents' house.

Anyway, the jist of it was that this soldier effectively didn't see any reason why they shouldn't just let the South go, and that his views on slavery were closer to a Southerner's than the federal government by this point (I think the letter was written in the later stages of the war?).  Considering CT seems to have been a lot less Republican than the rest of New England and close to a Democratic base in New York City, perhaps this wasn't an overly uncommon attitude in the state around this time?

I am on my phone but their was certainly a rural vs urban, pious vs mainline, and populist vs elite dynamic to the formation of Republican Party in New England. The painted picture of a smooth departure of Whigs fails to account for this rather bloody process, politically speaking. A number of establishment and/Websterite  Whigs ended up politically homeless or even reluctantly backing Democrats.

Holt's book on the Whig party is pretty good read to get a good understanding of this chaotic transition.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Probably had more to do with local party politics than anything else.  Consider Pennsylvania, where Breckenridge got over ten times the votes that Douglas did.  The Little Giant had made some enemies in the party during his time in the Senate.  It wasn't just slavery that caused the Democrats to fracture in 1860.

[Samof94]

Probably had more to do with local party politics than anything else.  Consider Pennsylvania, where Breckenridge got over ten times the votes that Douglas did.  The Little Giant had made some enemies in the party during his time in the Senate.  It wasn't just slavery that caused the Democrats to fracture in 1860.

Douglas was also just a person who angered a lot of people.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We tend to imagine all of New England as an extension of Massachusetts and specifically Concord, but Southern New England was a very different place in the nineteenth century politically and culturally from the rest of the region. The established Congregationalist Church continued here far longer than it did in other New England states, and Connecticut and Rhode Island continued to cling to their property requirements for voting well into the nineteenth century. Perhaps most significantly for 1860, the abolition of slavery in Connecticut proceeded at a much slower pace than in Vermont or Massachusetts, where the institution was outlawed by those states' constitutions soon after the Revolution; like New York and Rhode Island, Connecticut opted for a gradual version of emancipation that meant slavery was still technically legal there in 1839 when the Amistad came into port at New London. Thus Connecticut had a more conservative (in the feudal sense) political establishment than other New England states at the time, perhaps contributing to the strength of the Buchanan-Breckinridge party there.

Consider Pennsylvania, where Breckenridge got over ten times the votes that Douglas did.

Well, not really. Douglas and Breckinridge agreed to run together on a "Fusion" ticket in PA (and also several other Northeastern states) composed from electors nominated by both campaigns. Electors pledged to Breckinridge outnumbered those pledged to Douglas on the Fusion ticket, which is presumably why Leip counts the Fusion vote in that state for Breckinridge. A few Douglas loyalists refused to support the Fusion ticket and nominated their own slate who competed against the Fusion electors, which is where the smaller Douglas vote comes from.