Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President 143 Years Ago Tonight

http://www.nytimes.com ^ | 11/06/2003 | RepublicanWizard

[republicanwizard]

Astounding Triumph of Republicanism.

THE NORTH RISING IN INDIGNATION AT THE MENACES OF THE SOUTH

Abraham Lincoln Probably Elected President by a Majority of the Entire Popular Vote

Forty Thousand Majority for the Republican Ticket in New-York

One Hundred Thousand Majority in Pennsylvania

Seventy Thousand Majority in Massachusetts

Corresponding Gains in the Western and North-Western States

Preponderance of John Bell and Conservatism at the South

Results of the Contest upon Congressional and Local Tickets

The canvass for the Presidency of the United States terminated last evening, in all the States of the Union, under the revised regulation of Congress, passed in 1845, and the result, by the vote of New-York, is placed beyond question at once. It elects ABRAHAM LINCOLN of Illinois, President, and HANNIBAL HAMLIN of Maine, Vice-President of the United States, for four years, from the 4th March next, directly by the People.

The election, so far as the City and State of New-York are concerned, will probably stand, hereafter as one of the most remarkable in the political contests of the country; marked, as it is, by far the heaviest popular vote ever cast in the City, and by the sweeping, and almost uniform, Republican majorities in the country.

RELATED HEADLINES

ELECTION DAY IN THE CITY: All Quiet and Orderly At the Polls: Progress of the Voting in the Several Wards: The City After Nightfall: How the News Was Received: Unbounded Enthusiasm of the Republicans and Bell-Everett Headquarters: The Times Office Beseiged: Midnight Display of Wide-Awakes: Bonfires and Illuminations

[republicanwizard]

Not after the abuse Washington took at the end of his term. He never had to make the death of hundreds of thousands of young Americans into a great moral cause, thereby rallying an apathetic nation which was willing to compromise.

[x]

It looks like you are right:

General Election Day.
Elections for all federal elected officials are held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years (November 5, 2002 for the next mid-term congressional elections, and November 2, 2004 for the next presidential election); presidential elections are held in every year divisible by four. Congress selected this day in 1845 (5 Stat. 721); previously, states held elections on different days between September and November, a practice that sometimes led to multiple voting across state lines, and other fraudulent practices. By tradition, November was chosen because the harvest was in, and farmers were able to take the time needed to vote. Tuesday was selected because it gave a full day’s travel between Sunday, which was widely observed as a strict day of rest, and election day. Travel was also easier throughout the north during November, before winter had set in. ... In most rural areas, the only polling place was at the county seat, frequently a journey of many miles on foot or horseback.

I do seem to remember from history that some states did vote earlier in Lincoln's day and thus gave an indication how the voting was likely to go in the country as a whole. Either those were non-Presidential elections, or those states had been allowed to keep their earlier arrangements. The 1845 law may just have been a guideline suggested to get the states started if they chose to line up on the same day.

[x]

Secession and the formation of the Confederacy marked the end of the older American Republic in any case. Whatever came afterwards would have been different from what came before and in many ways worse. If Lincoln had simply done nothing and let the rebels have their own way on all matters, he'd likewise be reviled by people today and blamed for what happened.

[billbears]

Actually, there isn't much difference between the unpatriotic Democrats of Lincoln's days and those of today.

Except in those days the Democrats were the conservative party and lincoln's party was the 'progressive' party. I don't remember reading about Confederate leaders getting letters of praise from Karl Marx. Are you getting a caravan together or shall we all meet at the monument and pray to our god?

"Two persons have been elected to the offices of President and Vice-President exclusively by the people of ONE SECTION of the country...A clearer case of foreign domination could not well be presented."-- John W. Ellis, North Carolina governor 1860

[Little Bill]

Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln’s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

What else was he supposed to do when you where trying to destroy the Union.

[GOPcapitalist]

If they come, I'll ask the AdminMod to kick them off the thread.

All we ask you to do is represent Lincoln honestly. Do that and you won't have any complaints. If somebody else tells of a truth you do not like that is no grounds to ask for their removal from a thread.

[5veingrafts]

I think I got your point. Lincoln destroyed the country by keeping it together. Kind of the inverse of "We had to destroy the village to save it." Viet Nam 1970.

[GOPcapitalist]

In honor of Lincoln, here are a few words from the most genuine of America's abolitionists.

"Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people --- or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) --- could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats --- so transparent that they ought to deceive no one --- when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." - Lysander Spooner, 1870

[subedei]

"If they come, I'll ask the AdminMod to kick them off the thread.".

Why is that exactly? Admittedly I am a lurker, and have been for over four years. But there has always seemed to be a general attitude and willingness by most here to debate the issues logically rather than resort to censorship. Why would you seek to censor people rather than debate the issue at hand logically?

[ServesURight]

Bump for the greatest President in American history.

Greater than Washington? Madison? Jefferson? Reagan?

[GOPcapitalist]

No one has dealt with so much tragedy with so much fortitude and moral direction.

Moral direction? That was sadly the one thing that was most lacking from Lincoln's little war.

"You, and others like you have done more, according to your abilities, to prevent the peaceful abolition of slavery, than any other men in the nation; for while honest men were explaining the true character of the constitution, as an instrument giving freedom to all, you were continually denying it, and doing your utmost (and far more than any avowed pro slavery man could do) to defeat their efforts. And it now appears that all this was done by you in violation of your own conviction of truth. In your pretended zeal for liberty, you have been urging on the nation to the most frightful destruction of human life; but your love of liberty has never yet induced you to declare publicly, but has permitted you constantly to deny, a truth that was sufficient for, and vital to, the speedy and peaceful accomplish­ment of freedom. You have, with deliberate purpose, and through a series of years, betrayed the very citadel of liberty, which you were under oath to defend. And there has been, in time country, no other treason at all comparable with this." - Lysander Spooner to Charles Sumner re. the policies of the Lincoln republicans, 1864

[zarf]

Reagan greater than Lincoln?

BWHAHAH!!

[GOPcapitalist]

Reagan greater than Lincoln?

Lincoln Administration = massive tax hikes, large centralized government, neglect of states rights, and a loose constructionist view of the constitution

Reagan Administration = massive tax cuts, decentralization of government, return to states rights federalism, and a strict constructionist view of the constitution

Those are the facts so you tell me. From a conservative point of view, which one was better?

[republicanwizard]

Better than any of them, easily and far away, greater than any of them. Only Washington deserves to stand in the same league as Lincoln.

Jefferson and Madison were thinkers more than leaders. Neither ever really dealt with a situation which would have required sustained exercise of power. Reagan was a great President, but is to Lincoln was a white dwarf is to a stellar giant.

[republicanwizard]

Freepers, Friends, Republicans,

I think it is a real disappointment that we cannot discuss Abraham Lincoln on this site without being deluged with neo-Confederate partisans. If the attitudes that many of these posters express is indicative of what the beliefs of the Republican Party, conservatism, and FreeRepublic are, then slowly but surely I, and many like me, will come to disassociate ourselves with any of the three.

Please, don't let this forum become a fighting ground for NeoConfederates. Don't let conservatism be tained with bigotry. Don't stain the Declaration of Independence with the aspersions of the slavehound. Don't besmirch the memory of Lincoln with the invective of the traitors. This is my plea to all of you.

[subedei]

"Better than any of them, easily and far away, greater than any of them. Only Washington deserves to stand in the same league as Lincoln.

Jefferson and Madison were thinkers more than leaders. Neither ever really dealt with a situation which would have required sustained exercise of power. Reagan was a great President, but is to Lincoln was a white dwarf is to a stellar giant.".

How was he better? You still have yet to respond to the facts that others posted about Lincoln's presidency. In the light of those facts how can he been seen as anything other than a dictator?

[republicanwizard]

I won't sink to their level for I do not consort with the Lords of the Lash or the Traitors.

[zarf]

Love your comparison!!

Lincoln=governed during a racist, slave state rebellion
Reagan=President while United States was a super power and governed during a period of relative prosperity

[bluecollarman]

Abe was a good liberal (if there is such a thing) President.

[zarf]

In light of those facts, Lincoln did what was necessary to preserve the Union and crush the racist/slaveholding state insurection.

Inlight of those facts, he is an American hero of great stature