Lincoln got zero popular votes in the South (excluding that part of Virginia that became West Virginia), not electoral votes mind you -- but popular votes. That should tell you something.
Given the reaction of the blue staters to Bush's election and even talk of secession, can you imagine how they would have reacted if Bush were elected with no popular votes at all from a large contiguous portion of the US? I can at least understand Southerners hostility to the Lincoln administration after he was elected.
One would not receive many votes when one was not on the ballot.
Virginia--2 thousand
Delaware--4 thousand
Kentucky--1 thousand
Maryland--2 thousand
Missouri--17 thousand
For Delaware that represented about 25% of the vote (so Lincoln was about as popular as Kerry was in Utah in 2004); for Missouri the Republican vote was about 10% (of 165,000).
Lincoln got less than 1% of the vote in his native state. In 1864 he did better, getting almost 1/3 of the popular vote in Kentucky, but the total that year was the lowest since 1836 and less than 2/3 of the 1860 total--a lot of Kentuckians were either actively or passively showing their support for the other side in the conflict.
Apparently he wasn't on the ballot in many states
They would have been just as opposed to Stephen Douglas since he was not fanatically pro-slavery enough for the Slavers. In fact, the reason Lincoln won (38% of the pv) was because the aristocratic southern lunatics refused to support Douglas and split the RAT party into three parts each with its own candidate. True lunacy if there ever was such.
Because he wasn't on the ballot. Just like today, candidates had to collect signatures to win ballot placement. Anyone in the deep south trying to collect signatures for a "Black" Republican in 1861 would have had the life expectancy of a possum crossing I-95.
BTW. The State of South Carolina back then did not even have presidential elections -- the state legislature picked all the presidential electors.
In the movie "Gangs of New York", the general feeling about Lincoln is well-portrayed. They hated Lincoln in New York (Tammany Hall, Boss Tweed, etc.) and hated the blacks and the Chinese, too. I guess they hated everybody up there, and when the draft was first instituted, they were REALLY upset. It wasn't perfect up North, either. Only the South is seen as evil. There were good AND bad "slave owners" (but they were all wrong - granted). Some were treated as family members, some were treated horribly. But Gone With the Wind is JUST A MOVIE, not social commentary, set in that time and place. It's a LOVE STORY. Prissy was s l o w, the Carpetbaggers are historically accurate, Mammy was loyal to the O'Hara family, and lots of scum came in to take over the South and pick up what was left, etc. Good grief, why can't the Left just leave SOMETHING alone? Since they're so worried about it, they don't mention that in the film Ashley said he was going to free all the slaves when the war was over anyway. He WAS decent. Weak, but decent. But does any of this REALLY matter now? No.