[Non-Sequitur]

How about the fact that when Lincoln ran for reelection in 1864 which he won by a slim margin against General George McClellan who wanted to end the war the South did not vote.The vote was conducted in the North only. Had the South been able to vote Lincoln would have been defeated by a landslide. In that he was an illegitimate president.

I should point out that Lincoln didn't take a single southern state in 1861 and still won with almost 60% of the electoral vote. Had the southern states voted as a block for McClellan in 1864 then Lincoln still would have won 212 to 109.

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, was appointed in February 1861 and ran unopposed the following November. How legitimate is that?

[4CJ]

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, was appointed in February 1861 and ran unopposed the following November. How legitimate is that?

For the zillionth time, Davis was ELECTED provisional President by a vote of the delegates. He was later ELECTED President by the people of the Confederate States of America. Many incumbents are re-elected unopposed. Regarding the legiimatecy of such, can you post a LAW that prevents running unopposed?