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

[PeaRidge]

Or at the very least to have a peaceful separation.

[nolu chan]

[n-s 621] Are you suggesting that that official blessing was behind the alleged recognition of the confederate government? That the Union had no chance of Papal support because of the Emancipation Proclamation?

My 574 (to which you responded with your 576) was addressed to 4CJ (think MENSA) who does not share your difficulty in comprehension and therefore needed no explanation.

If you believe the pope gave papal support to the Confederacy by his bull of January 5, 1455, I do not believe I want to disturb your intellectual slumbers.

It would seem that the Wlat Brigade has abandoned its position that there was no diplomatic recognition and is now moaning about the nature of the diplomatic discourse.

[PeaRidge]

Also, I think we now know this:

1. The Confederate Congress took up the issue of Supreme Court Justices but blocked the creation of the court for the explicit purpose of restraining Davis' power.

2. Davis himself openly expressed a desire for creating a court and did so publicly in the plainest of English.

Agreed and accepted.

[4CJ]

It would seem that the Wlat Brigade has abandoned its position that there was no diplomatic recognition and is now moaning about the nature of the diplomatic discourse.

Considering the US had diplomatice relations with the Vatican since 1848, I guess the only question can be that of how the Pope supported the Confederacy in 1455, or question the Pope's understanding of Greek fire.

[stand watie]

sadly, the tyrant, bloodspiller & war CRIMINAL, lincoln the 1st of the damnyankees wanted ANYTHING but a peaceful separation.

free dixie,sw

[mac_truck]

Vol 11, covering the second half of 1864 and 1865, has yet to be published.

It would seem incredible that at this point in time to suppose that Jeff Davis' collected works has not been published in its entirety. Am I correct to assume that the above comment refers to online publishment as opposed to to hard copy?

On a separate point, it is interesting to speculate who would have been appointed to a confederate supreme court. Roger Taney comes to mind (even though he died in 1863). Are there any other confederate jurists who might have been considered?

[GOPcapitalist]

It would seem incredible that at this point in time to suppose that Jeff Davis' collected works has not been published in its entirety. Am I correct to assume that the above comment refers to online publishment as opposed to to hard copy?

Actually they haven't all been published. There are apparently a heck of a lot more papers written by Davis than most historical figures. Lincoln's entire works, for example, fit into 8 volumes. 10 Davis volumes have been published so far with a new one coming out every 3 or 4 years.

[Non-Sequitur]

False. The Senate took up the bill and debated it at length.

When?

[Non-Sequitur]

If I have this right, then Non-Seq would argue that in spite of the fact that Gustavus Fox presented his plan to invade Charleston Harbor to the Cabinet, that because the US Navy did not carry it out constitutes irrefutable evidence that Fox never supported the idea.

You don't have it right. No surprise there.

[Non-Sequitur]

At present though, no reason exists to believe that they said anything different than the one we do know the quote from, namely his 1862 speech.

And no reason exists to believe that they didn't, either.

[Non-Sequitur]

it is the nature of a propagandist AND nitpicker to get "wholly consumed" by MINOR details.

It doesn't surprise me that you would classify complying with the constitution as a 'MINOR detail'. Especially given the actions of the Davis regime throughout it's tenure.

[4CJ]

Considering that the President does not create the Court system, and cannot under the Constitution, he does not vote or debate legislation, all he can do is sign it or veto it. No legislation was ever presented to create the courts.

But of course you understand that you are debating with the same folks that think the suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus is a executive power since it is not "expressly" prohibited to him. Maybe they think President Davis COULD create a court system by himself. Perhaps he could claim it as a war power. </sarcasm>

[Non-Sequitur]

But of course you understand that you are debating with the same folks that think the suspension of the writ of habeaus corpus is a executive power since it is not "expressly" prohibited to him.

You object to the suspension of habeas corpus on constitutional grounds, yet have no objection to failure to establish a branch of government required by the constitution. Why doesn't that surprise me?

[GOPcapitalist]

When?

I'll have to check the CSA debate registers. IIRC, the last time it came up was somewhere in mid to late 1864.

[GOPcapitalist]

And no reason exists to believe that they didn't, either.

Sure there is. Everything we know about Davis' position on the issue indicates he supported it. There is accordingly no reason to believe that he would have changed his position in those documents. Face it, non-seq. You are grasping at straws in your bizarre obsession over the confederate courts.

[Dr Warmoose]

I prefer to celebrate April 14th. (1865)

[GOPcapitalist]

You object to the suspension of habeas corpus on constitutional grounds, yet have no objection to failure to establish a branch of government required by the constitution.

Curious. Tu Quoque Boy's tu quoque reasoning is getting sloppy. It is a constitutional right of Congress to set up the court system how it pleases. For better or worse, this also means it takes an affirmative act of Congress to create that court in the first place. If Congress drags its feet and blocks the bill there is effectively nothing constitutionally that may be done to speed it up other than the legislative process. Habeas Corpus, on the other hand, may only be suspended ONE way in the constitution. That is by a vote of the legislature.

[Dr Warmoose]

Your hero had the same mindset about quelling the opposition. He had as little disregard for the First Amendment as you do. Shame shame.

That's why they worship venerate Lincoln - birds of a feather. Lincoln was the most evil despot of a president this nation ever had.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'll have to check the CSA debate registers. IIRC, the last time it came up was somewhere in mid to late 1864.

I'll wait. But the constitution was adopted in February 1861, Davis made his half-hearted call in February 1862 and it gets ignored by all involved until May of 1864?

[4CJ]

You object to the suspension of habeas corpus on constitutional grounds, yet have no objection to failure to establish a branch of government required by the constitution. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Is it a comprehension problem? Totally the opposite. The power to suspend the writ is a power delegated to the legislature. The legislature creates the court system - the The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the US courts including the Supreme Court, 'Be it enacted, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices ...'

The Confederate Congress DID fail to create the Supreme Court, but the President does NOT have legislative powers. The fault was not attributable to President Davis, but to the legislature.

The post to which you replied was done tongue-in-cheek at those that think the President can exercise ANY power in time of war, or because he is not prohibited from doing so.