Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm sorry if I over-estimated your intelligence and capacity for reading. However, whenever I post longer replies filled with factual analysis (and not unsupportable opinion or red herring arguments) you seem to be unable to digest them and respond critically with a similar fact-based reply. I've tried shortening my responses to you in order to help you but I'm not sure if that is working, as evidenced by your previous reply. I'll try to come up with another method. Now, I have a feeling you have another obsession you're going to indulge, so if you wake up in a semi-coherent state tomorrow, you may want to read replies to you and think about them (I know that's asking a lot of you) before you start your hootin' and hollerin'. Don't get too wlatted today - a man of your age can't take too much of that stuff... ;>)
Happy birthday, Wlat,
Sincerely,
Herny Eel II
Miss Plane, the lady reported as injured from a shell on Christmas morning, died on Wednesday from the effects of the injuries received. (Charleston Courier, Dec 31, 1863, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Jan 17, 1864)The St. Philip Street school-house remained untouched. A frame house adjoining it has nevertheless been hit by one of the shells, and fears were entertained for the safety of the school-house. Shells were flying round it constantly during the bombardment. The teachers, however, still keep the school open and the little girls and boys attended it in great numbers very regularly. (From The New York Herald, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Feb 12, 1864)
There have been lately two large fires in Charleston, caused by our shells. Deserters say the city is now divided into two districts, viz: 'in range' and 'out of range,' and that no other expression is used. Nine persons were killed a few nights since, and a large number wounded, including men, women, and children, and twelve homes burned to the ground. (Washington Republican, Feb 26, 1864, as reported in The Daily Picayune March 11, 1864)
The firing since our last has been about as usual. Eighty-six shots have been fired from six P. M. Monday evening to six P. M. Tuesday, at Fort Sumter, and twenty-nine shots at the city, most of which were time fuse shells. A colored woman, named Adstine Rostersats (? hard to read the name) was mortally wounded about 12 M. Tuesday, by the fragment of a fuse shell, and died about four o’clock Tuesday evening. (Charleston Daily Courier, Aug 31, 1864).
Forty-two shells have been fired at the city since our last report. A child’s arm was badly shattered by one of these missles. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 2, 1864)
In the city three persons, one man and two children, were wounded by pieces of shell. One child was severely wounded. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 9, 1864)
A colored barber named William, was struck in the head by a Parrott shell Friday morning and instantly killed. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 10, 1864)
During the twenty-four hours ending six o’clock Wednesday evening eighty-eight shots were reported fired into the city. A number of casualties occurred, but mostly from flying bricks or splinters.
Mr. A. W. Ladd was severely and dangerously wounded in the left shoulder by a fragment of shell, which exploded in the building where he was writing. Three other young men in the same room and building as Mr. Ladd, very narrowly escaped being killed. The shell passed through the desk of one (Mr. C. J. Porcher) just as he had risen to close a shutter of the window against the heat of the sun. It went under the desk, passing through the legs of Mr. W. Lambert, breaking the leg of the chair and leaving Mr. W with only a slight bruise on the ankle.
Another shell, which exploded in a building, wounded four females of the family of Mr. John Burkmyer, one of them seriously, breaking her collar bone, besides inflicting several slight bruises.
A man by the name of Collins, a laborer, had his leg taken off Wednesday evening by the explosion of a shell in the building in which he resided. (all from the Charleston Daily Courier of Sept 29, 1864)
I know there were some brave and honorable men on the Federal side, but this bombardment of civilians for 18 months was barbarous.
Per Jefferson Davis 2 1/2 years before:
If you will but allow us to separate from you peaceably, since we cannot live peaceably together, to leave with the rights that we had before we were united, since we cannot enjoy them in the Union, then there are many relations which may still subsist between us, drawn from the associations of our struggles from the revolutionary era to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us....if we must leave you, we can leave you with the good will which would prefer that your prosperity should continue. If we must part, I say we can put our relations upon that basis which will give you the advantages of a favored trade with us, and still make the intercourse mutually beneficial to each other.
Anderson made the first hostile move of the war by spiking the guns at Moultrie and mobilizing his garrison in the mothballed Fort Sumter, all of it without any orders to do so. That was on December 26th.
"Firing on that fort will inagurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend in the North...You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it put us in the wrong; it is fatal."
South Carolina Secession Ordinance:
"that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved."
Dissolving a union repeals all laws carried out tying the former state to that union. One of those laws was for Fort Sumter.
The resupply effort showed up during daylight, hours after the southern attack had begun.
Wrong. They began grouping off of Charleston in the middle of the night before the fort was attacked. The Harriet Lane made its infamous first shot sometime in the late evening or early morning.
What is threatening about that, especially when it was not unexpected.
So in other words, as long as you announce to me in advance that you are going to show up at 2AM with a shotgun I have no choice but to let you in? Lincoln's actions were made plain, there was nothing Clintonesque about it.
Sure there was:
Compare "and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of attack on the Fort" to "[repell] by force, if necessary, all obstructions towards provisioning the fort and re-enforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a re-enforcement of the garrison will also be attempted," the message given to the fleet. The first is a passive statement emphasizing that there will be no effort to throw in men while making no clear statement that one would follow from resistance. The second is an active statement ordering them to fight their way in the second they counter any resistance.
Put the "L" word back in your holster, Walt. You should know by now that I don't post things without backup, and if I make an error I acknowledge it. In this case, I'm right.
If you will remember, I've posted to you before about how the Southern Commissioners charged the Lincoln administration with perfidy about being misled about the evacuation of Fort Sumter. As I remember, the culprit in this case was Seward.
The book, Days of Defiance by Maury Klein notes that Lincoln's law partner and sometime bodyguard Ward Lamon had been sent by Lincoln to Charleston to assess the situation. The book says he intimated to Governor Pickens that Sumter would be evacuated. I've also seen this cited in other places too but can't remember where at the moment.
Yeah right. Lincoln wanted peace about as much as Saddam Hussein did! He made a series of completely hollow and meaningless overatures towards the south that he cannot have failed to know they would reject with good reason. If you believe that he truly meant peace then you will believe Saddam truly tried to get rid of his chemical weapons in that 10,000 page report to the UN he filed.
Show me the charges against them as such, the trial in which those charges were weighed, and the conviction declaring their guilt. Otherwise you have no demonstration of your alleged crime.
Nonsense. Nothing in the original agreement allowed South Carolina to legally take posession of Sumter without the agreement of both parties.
Wrong. They began grouping off of Charleston in the middle of the night before the fort was attacked.
And made no move towards the harbor until daylight. Again, nothing was done surrepticiously.
So in other words, as long as you announce to me in advance that you are going to show up at 2AM with a shotgun I have no choice but to let you in?
Leaving aside for the moment that I am expecting access to my property, nobody showed up on anyones door at 2 AM. The resupply attempt started in daylight.
Sure there was:
Ridiculous. In one letter you have the vow that no reinforcements will be landed unless the resupply is opposed. In the other you have the instructions to reinforce only in "case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition." Both make it clear that the primary objective is the peaceful resupply of the fort. Both make it clear that force is to be used only if the resupply is forcibly opposed. Neither contradicts the other.
...which would mean that I was right in my previous description. They came to settle the disputes between the two, which, among other things, meant negotiating the forts issue.
First and foremost was the recognition of the legitimacy of the southern rebellion and that was a non-starter from the beginning.
Non-starter or not, the simple fact is that they were at least willing to go to the negotiating table. Lincoln was not.
Now, had the commissioners been sent for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the states upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith, then there is no doubt that Lincoln would had talked with them as long as it took to reach an amicable settlement.
What evidence do you have of that? That's right. Nothing. Lincoln did not meet with any commissioner sent by any state. Heck, he would not even meet with the governments of the border states or the border state senators during the crisis. He rejected meetings with the Virginia government and senators before that state seceded even though they were at least making overatures towards a compromise plan that would keep them and others in the union. The fact is Lincoln wanted war and he pursued the course of war from December 26, 1860 forward. His shallow pretensions otherwise were about as believable as Saddam Hussein's or Hitler's.
Because they sure had all the rights their ancestors had fought and died for.
They didn't have one right that they had fought for and the Northern states had agreed to. That was the return of runaway slaves. As you no doubt know, there is a clause in the Constitution that addresses this, but Northern states had been flaunting it for years and disobeying the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that some of the Northern 'personal liberty' laws that prevented the return of runaway slaves were unconstitutional. Northern states were practicing nullification just like South Carolina had attempted years earlier over tariffs.
Without the runaway slave clause, the Constitution would never have been signed in the first place. The North later backed out of their Constitutional duties. Who was it again who was telling the country how it should be run?
The 1805 law governing Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney did. With Sumter, the principle of unilateral action applies. SC unilaterally ceded Fort Sumter and therefore could also unilaterally withdraw it.
And made no move towards the harbor until daylight.
They were awaiting the Powhatan, which never showed due to the bungling of the Lincoln admin.
Leaving aside for the moment that I am expecting access to my property, nobody showed up on anyones door at 2 AM.
Yes they did. The ships assembled sometime around midnight and made their first action, the Harriet Lane's infamous shot, shortly thereafter.
The resupply attempt started in daylight.
Impossible. The resupply never happened because it was preempted.
Ridiculous. In one letter you have the vow that no reinforcements will be landed unless the resupply is opposed.
False. The phrase "unless the resupply is opposed" is an active statement. It indicates directly that the consequence of opposing the resupply will be to throw in men. Lincoln intentionally used a passive statement, "if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made." THis leaves open the possibility that men will be thrown in but does NOT state it to be a certain an immediate consequence of opposing entry. Language is key, and as always you are tripping all over it.
Perhaps the following might answer your question. Again from Jefferson Davis on the floor of the US Senate in 1861:
Is there a Senator on the other side who to-day will agree that we shall have equal enjoyment of the Territories of the United States? Is there one who will deny that we have equally paid in their purchases, and equally bled in their acquisition in war? Then, is this the observance of your compact? Whose fault is it if the Union be dissolved? Do you say there is one of you who controverts either of these positions? Then I ask you, do you give us justice; do we enjoy equality? If we are not equals, this is not the Union to which we were pledged; this is not the Constitution you have sworn to maintain, nor this the Government we are bound to support.
“The first shell fell at 1:30 AM on August 29; it landed on Pinckney street and started a lively blaze. The first fire company to reach the scene was composed of free Negroes, who all through the war did valiant service in fighting fires started by shells.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.