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

[labard1]

In bringing down the Soviet Union and its control of Eastern Europe Reagan freed more souls from oppression than Lincoln ever did. Moreover, Lincoln only "freed" slaves in territory not controlled by the Union.

[wideminded]

Regardless of the opinion of Lincoln I've always found it a bit odd how Washington gets ignored in "Greatest President" arguments.

He's so OBVIOUSLY our greatest President even having a debate seems silly. He DEFINED what the office of President is.

While visiting Mount Vernon I picked up a book called something like Maxims of George Washington. I was disappointed at the contents. I think the reason that Washington sometimes is less regarded is that he doesn't come across as having anything like the intellectual power of Lincoln. National Geographic once published a map showing all the pieces of land owned by Washington which were numerous and some very large. Acquiring land seems to have been one of his main goals in life.

[oursacredhonor]

"Don't besmirch the memory of Lincoln..."

Since when is stating UNREFUTED facts about Lincoln besmirching his memory? Everything Natural Law stated in post #19 is historical fact.

[republicanwizard]

Oh please. Give me a break. Did Reagan ever have to give meaning to a fratricidal war in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died? Did he ever come close to uttering the profound sentiments of Gettysburg? No.

Lincoln at the Chicago debate:

"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty burns in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal."

Reagan:

"There you go again."

Personally, both statements were telling politically, but the second doesn't come close to the first.

[Age of Reason]

Greater than Washington? Madison? Jefferson? Reagan?

Reagan?

[Natural Law]

You have fallen victim to the pretense that the greatest presidents have been those who have expanded the power of the presidency and the federal government at the expense of the other branches and the states.

[beckett]

Your point is well taken. I certainly wouldn't want to get into a p***ing contest over who was better, Washington or Lincoln. I have a special regard for Lincoln because I read lots of books about him when I was a teenager, so I've been well versed in his life and place in history for a good part of my life. Only later did I come to appreciate Washington's enormous importance, especially for, as you say, defining what an American President is.

I am more than willing to assign both men the top spot in the hierarchy of American Presidents, and even, if push came to shove, to give good ol' Georgie a leg up on Abe.

[MattAMiller]

Terry McAuliffe Demands Recount

It was an anti-establishment vote, Bush is in trouble.

[republicanwizard]

Okay. Here I go:

"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government."

Seems to me like the Constitution still stands. I haven't read about it being destroyed.

"Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus"

He had that right in a time of war. Congress couldn't act, and the country needed to put down a rebellion.

"He launched a military invasion without consent of Congress, blockaded Southern ports without declaring war"

The Supreme Court ruled in the Prize Cases that Lincoln had every right to do so, in keeping with his role as the executor of the laws of the land.

"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;"

All the more power to Lincoln. I say hurrah. Down with the Traitor! Up with the Stars!

"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;"

He didn't nationalize the railroads except as military necessity required it. If the three states didn't like it, they could have left the union too. And have been put down with a vengeance. Last I checked, the citizens of West Virginia left Virginia because they wanted to remain in the Union.

"ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior;"

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. He sent soldiers home to vote. What a crime. God forbid soldiers vote for their commander in chief. I know it enrages you. Just as one contemporary put it, the Democrats objected to soldiers voting because they were as dangerous to their treasonous plans in the ballot box as they were on the battlefield.

"confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments."

Woe is me. I'm surprised most of you ignorant slavehounds know what the word "eviscerated" is.

"A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag;"

I wish I could have had the opportunity to participate as a member of the firing squad.

"ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln, and Fort Lafayette in New York harbor became known as "The American Bastille" since it held so many thousands of Northern political prisoners."

Wasn't it your hero who shouted, "Thus always to tyrants?" Well, I say, "Thus always to traitors!"

Lincoln further arrested legislatures of Maryland who opposed the war and apponted their replacements.

That is sheer blather, not based in fact or reality.

"He claimed the right to arrest anyone because he had suspended habeas corpus."

You breathless rebel. You are repeating yourself.

"When the Chief Justus of the Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional Lincoln ordered him arrested too"

Taney? Oh what a valiant slavehound you are. Yes, let's put Taney's mug on Mount Rushmore. All hail the man who said the slave is not a man, but property! HOW JEFFERSONIAN!

[republicanwizard]

Does States Rights entail the right to enslave man? Was the Constitution a contract to protect all Americans, or only the slaveowner? I think the 10th Amendment does not grant the right to enslave.

[labard1]

"Did Reagan ever have to give meaning to a fratricidal war in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died?"

Nope, Reagan ended one of the world's greatest tyrannies with hardly a shot being fired.

Most nations ended slavery without war. Lincoln was unable to do even that.

[republicanwizard]

Yes, I know. Lincoln and Davis both had their thumbs on the button. The football was never far from Lincoln.

School children practiced in the Civil War hiding under their desks to shield themselves from nuclear dust.

The MAD concept, of course, was born in the Civil War period. Everyone knew that if war started, it could mean the end of mankind.

[oursacredhonor]

"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;"

All the more power to Lincoln. I say hurrah. Down with the Traitor! Up with the Stars!

If this is truly how you feel then this discussion is hopeless. Lincoln TOTALLY DISREGARDED the Constitution of the United States and all you can say is "All the more power to Lincoln". Unbelievable.

[wardaddy]

Why are you whining....you baited them.

You could have just posted about Lincoln and left out the inviting editorializing.

I'm ambivalent about Lincoln....much like I am all US Presidents.....Washington comes closest to being relatively a sure-thing.

[republicanwizard]

"If this is truly how you feel then this discussion is hopeless. Lincoln TOTALLY DISREGARDED the Constitution of the United States and all you can say is "All the more power to Lincoln". Unbelievable."

The defeaning roar of your condemnation of the slavehounds who enslaved fellow men, beat them, abused their wives, and sent their children away, all in violation of the principles of justice and independence upon which this nation were founded surely distracted me from the details of your argument.

Now where were we?

Ah, yes. Lincoln totally disregarded the Constitution. That's why he sent thousands to the battlefield to enforce the oath he took to enforce it.

[republicanwizard]

I didn't bait them. I posted an interesting article. Everyone knows I adore Bush and Lincoln, so this should come as no surprise.

[labard1]

Well, at least we can agree about Bush.

[subedei]

I think it is a real disappointment that we cannot discuss Abraham Lincoln on this site without being deluged with pseudo-facts or blind assumptions regarding his presidency. It is as if some people are actively seeking NOT to respond or acknowledge facts that may throw their own easy to swallow assumptions into wack.

"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.".

This is absolutely hilarious. You tell people here not to "stain the Declaration of Independence with the aspersions of the slavehound.", who in the world do you think wrote the Declaration of Independence??? It was Thomas Jefferson. oh wait, he was both a slave owner and the leader of the Jeffersonian Republicans. It was the Jeffersonian Republicans who fought for ideals like Nullification and States Rights. But apparently Thomas Jefferson, John Taylor of Caroline, John C. Calhoun,
J.W. Randolph, Abel Parker Upshur, James Monroe and the many many others and their ideals should be ignored as if they didn't exist. Instead all those who fail to bow before the Lincoln shrine should be painted as a "slavehounds", "traitors", "Neo-confederates" or "Lords of the Lash"? How exactly is that reasonable or logical? You are seemingly ignorant of history and the ideological basis for sucession and its support by MANY of our founding fathers and instead use ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with your position. Bravo!!

"The future inhabitants of {both} the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so..." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America

[wardaddy]

Well I too adore W aside from a handful of policy disagreements..FWIW. I think what I like about W is that he is fairly transparent in a good way. He is what he looks and acts like....someone who means well and is about as honest as any politician can afford to be but who will fight if pressed. He also recognizes the moral clarity of using violence to thwart a serious threat to our nation. That is so important in this age of relativism. We are very lucky to have him at this juncture warts and all.....it's providence to me...if I may be so bold as to surmise what God is thinking..lol.

Lincoln, I am grateful for the terms he would have purportedly offered my ancestors had he lived. I regard him somewhere between saint and villian....which is admittedly quite a gulf.

Like I said before, I really only view Washington as somehow above it all and that I realize is my perception because I'm sure someone will point out his flaws soon enough to me.

As for this neoconfederate stuff. I delve into Southern threads on occasion and I have yet to see anyone Southern enthusiast calling for a new secession seriously.

We ALL talk about the red zone-blue zone conflict but that is hardly simply Southern and does not entail the probability of seccession but rather a multi faceted true civil war or upheaval.

[tort_feasor]

I thought I would post some of the actual Constitution as it relates to this debate.

Article 1

Section 7 - The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections.

Section 9 - The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 10 - No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...

Article 2
Section 1 ...Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It would seem to me that Lincoln or any other president for that matter has the right power to suspend habeus Corpus in times or Rebellion.
It also seems that the "Confederecy" was specifically prohibited.

While Lincoln's presidency saw an expansion of the federal government it was not until FDR that the modern "big government" welfare state was created.

While the original colonies might be seen as having had soverignty prior to the constitution and could possibly succeed, the succession of states that were not in existence when the constitution was created is another question entirely. They never existed as independent "States". They were paid for by the United states government in the Louisiana and subsquent transactions and belonged entirely to the people of the United States as a whole. They also were organized as territories and admitted as states under the Constitution.