Lincoln's name wasn't on the ballot in most of the states you mention, and South Carolina didn't hold presidential elections at all.
Lincoln's name wasn't on the ballot in most of the states you mention, and South Carolina didn't hold presidential elections at all.
And that matters how? The premise is still the same.
Shoulf I have phrased it:
Imagine a President getting elected who isn't even on the ballot for you to vote against in your region ...
Or perhaps:
Imagine a President getting elected who can't even be bothered to put his name forward on the ballot in your region ...
The country was torn up over the issue of slavery and here a Presidential candidate runs for the office without even so much as bothering to put his name on the ballot in the most affected area of the country. What gall!
It would be as if the overriding issue of the day were water rights and a President won an election when he did not put his name on the ballot in the western states. Imagine some liberal effete easterner not even connected to the issue winning. Here you have a liberal mid-westerner winning the Presidency over the issue of slavery who doesn't come from a slave state and doesn't even bother to put his name on the ballot in the slave states. Actually, that's even more appalling.
You must look at the issue from their point of view. No one in the south today is advocating secession, but they were in 1861. They thought differently then. If you want to understand history you need to understand what motivated them then, not how we would approach the issue today.