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

[Non-Sequitur]

Curious claim from and individual who could not substantiate it if his life depended on doing so.

OK, if you say so.

[WhiskeyPapa]

What was the name of the superceding legislation?

The Ordinance of Secession.

And the ordinance of secession mentions Fort Sumter specifically?

Or even generally?

But if that were the case, why offer to pay for it?

Walt

[PeaRidge]

Walt from #414:

"Southerners were in debt to northern creditors to something like the tune of $200,000,000. And their wealth was in land and slaves. They didn't have much liquid capital."

You from #416: "Source please."

I would like to see him offer more in the way of information. But he won't.

In 1860, there was more gold and silver specie on deposit in Southern Banks than in the North. And that trend began in 1857. (Source--US Secretary of Treasury report for fiscal years 1857-60.

So, actually they were more liquid than the Northern banks--Walt refuted again. Ho hum.

At any given point there was debt recorded in all US banks due to the costs of buying seed crop, transportation, and the purchase of bank "bills" to allow trade. Normal financing of business, as you know.

In 1859, $240,000,000 worth of Northern manufactured goods were sold and sent South. Another $106,000,000 of Northern bought imports were sent South.

This was the nature of trade since it began. It would seem that on the eve of War, the Northern importers and manufacturers would have been against the disruption of this condition. And many were.

But by the time that the Confederacy announced its much lower tariff rates, they were more afraid of the free-trade potential of the South. Then, Lincoln organized the Naval expedition to Ft. Sumter.

Even though New York was threatening to secede, Massachusetts was pushing for war. And Lincoln arranged it.

[GOPcapitalist]

And the ordinance of secession mentions Fort Sumter specifically?

No need to. It dissolves all previous arrangements connecting SC to the union. That, by necessity, includes all laws pertaining to Sumter.

[PeaRidge]

"But if that were the case, why offer to pay for it?" (Ft. Sumter).

Well, they had been trying to pay for it since December of 1860. Why? To prevent hostilities from breaking out, and because the government of South Carolina and later the Confederate government knew they had a responsibility to pay the other states for mutual property forfetited by secession.

And, since the Confederacy wanted normal relations with the Union, it was the responsible thing for a new confederacy of states to do.

Specifically South Carolina Governor Pickens provided these instructions in writing to President Buchanan: that Isaac William Hayne had been given authority "to effect if possible an amicable and peaceful transfer of the fort (Sumter) and the settlement of all questions relating
to the property."

Later, others from the South stayed in Washington several weeks attempting to offer Lincoln the same thing. But the grand old statesman preferred cannon fire to negotiated repayment.

[WhiskeyPapa]

It dissolves all previous arrangements connecting SC to the union.

Obviously not. South Carolina has never been out of the Union for an instant.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Walt from #414: I wrote:

"Southerners were in debt to northern creditors to something like the tune of $200,000,000. And their wealth was in land and slaves. They didn't have much liquid capital."

You from #416: "Source please."

I would like to see him offer more in the way of information. But he won't.

All in good time, my pretty.

"The Confederate economy had started with two strikes against it. Most of the South's capital was tied up in the nonliquid form of land and slaves. While the Confederate states possessed 30 percent of the national wealth (in the form of real and personal property), they had only 12 percent of,the circulating currency and 21 percent of the banking assets. The cotton embargo prevented the South from cashing in on its principal asset in 1861-62. Instead of possessing money to invest in Confederate bonds, most planters were in debt-mainly to factors who in turn were financed by northern merchants or banks.

The South initially hoped to turn that planter debt into a means of making Yankee bankers pay for the war. On May 21, 1861, Congress enacted a law requiring that Confederate citizens to pay into the Treasury the amount of debts owed to U.S. citizens, in turn for which they would receive Confederate bonds.

Later legislation confiscated property owned by "alien enemies." Like so many other southern financial measures, however, these laws yielded disappointing results-no more than $12 million, a far cry from the estimated $200 million owed to northern creditors."

-- BCF, p. 437

Ho hum.

The idea of the so-called CSA paying for federal property within its borders is absurd.

The men that made the rebellion were not heroes, they were bums.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

In 1860, there was more gold and silver specie on deposit in Southern Banks than in the North. And that trend began in 1857.

Verifiable source please.

Dr. McPherson says that only 12% of the currency and 21% of the banking assets were in the south.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

South Carolina has never been out of the Union for an instant.

You keep telling yourself that but it remains that South Carolina was the de facto government of itself from 1861-65

[Non-Sequitur]

You keep telling yourself that but it remains that South Carolina was the de facto government of itself from 1861-65.

I imagine that would come as a hell of a shock to the Davis regime. In any case the U.S. government was the de jure government over South Carolina 1861-65.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, they had been trying to pay for it since December of 1860. Why? To prevent hostilities from breaking out, and because the government of South Carolina and later the Confederate government knew they had a responsibility to pay the other states for mutual property forfetited by secession.

If you are correct the GOP has to be wrong. Your position is that the state of South Carolina admitted that the property wasn't theirs just because the left the country and therefore the owners had to be compensated. GOP's position seems to be that secession invalidated everything, and any property belonging to the U.S. was forfit because it was built on land that now never belonged the the U.S.

[WhiskeyPapa]

If you are correct the GOP has to be wrong. Your position is that the state of South Carolina admitted that the property wasn't theirs just because the left the country and therefore the owners had to be compensated. GOP's position seems to be that secession invalidated everything, and any property belonging to the U.S. was forfit because it was built on land that now never belonged the the U.S.

ROFL

It's a tangled web alright. :)

It does seem as if the rebs offered to pay for property they didn't -really- have to, doesn't it?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You keep telling yourself that but it remains that South Carolina was the de facto government of itself from 1861-65

Eric Rudolf was on the lam longer than that.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Dr. McPherson says that only 12% of the currency and 21% of the banking assets were in the south

McPherson lacks the credentials to make that determination.

[GOPcapitalist]

any case the U.S. government was the de jure government over South Carolina 1861-65.

Not really. They simply made an ex post facto claim that they were after four long years of being unable to govern there.

[Non-Sequitur]

Not really. They simply made an ex post facto claim that they were after four long years of being unable to govern there.

In the imagination of southerners only. Being in rebellion doesn't change the legalities of the issue.

[GOPcapitalist]

In the imagination of southerners only.

No imagination at all. Southern home rule was a de facto reality in those years and its legal status unchallenged until after the fact.

[Non-Sequitur]

Southern home rule was a de facto reality in those years and its legal status unchallenged until after the fact.

Unchallenged? It seems to me that the status was challenged from the time the south initiated hostilities until the time they surrendered. The south may have believed their 'home rule' but nobody else did.

[PeaRidge]

"most planters were in debt-mainly to factors who in turn were financed by northern merchants or banks."

Let's examine that. Each year around September, the cotton crops appear at market. By June of the next year, the loans were paid off. Then the cycle began again. So, sometimes they were in debt, sometimes not.

During the business cycles of 1857-1860, the value of cotton sales profits on balance in Northern banks was more than the South borrowed to buy raw materials and manufactured goods. So, the Southern banks were paid in gold or silver coins, specie.

I already gave you the source, the United States Department of the Treasury. The figures are thus for 1860:
Value of Specie in all Union banks: $40,618,000
Value of Specie in all Southern banks: $48,359,000

So, your statement from McPherson, "They didn't have much liquid capital." requires one to say, compared to whom, Dr McPherson?

[GOPcapitalist]

So, your statement from McPherson, "They didn't have much liquid capital." requires one to say, compared to whom, Dr McPherson?

You are exactly right. It is statements like this one that make McPherson a junk historian.

He is NOT an economist and lacks any significant formal training or even a reasonably educated background in that field (save, of course, his strong interests in a single bearded german economist from the mid 19th century). As a result practically everything McPherson writes on economic matters is a farce characterized by statistical selectivity, frequent error, and outright falsehoods.