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 ...
a NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING & REMEMBERENCE would be NICE. and a SINCERE apology on behalf of the whole populus too.
free dixie,sw
that is one of the MAJOR differences in the southerner & the damnyankee. the southerner cares about HONOR & family;the damnyankee cares most about MONEY and more MONEY.
this has ever been so, thus we will always be UN-equally yoked together UN-happily until dixie LIBERTY.
face it, you & all the other damnyankees would be happier with all us southrons across the international border & out of your country. we'd be MUCH happier too.
free dixie,sw
everybody with any brains knows that things were awful in the 1864-65 southland. some of the GUARDS starved to death at Camp Sumpter.
furthermore, President Davis offered to free every yankee prisoner without exchanges. lincoln, the GREAT BLOODSPILLER & war criminal REFUSED to take the POWs back. SADLY for the damnyankee apoligists, the LETTER still exists, where lincoln REFUSED to send a train to pick up the POWs there! the origional of lincoln's letter is in the US Archives.
MOST of the POWs died as a direct result of continuing to drink the water DOWNSTREAM from the latrines, even after MAJ Henry Wirz, the camp medical officer, begged them not to do so.
that is the un-varnished truth.
otoh, the MURDERS, TORTURES & other abuses of CSA POWs in damnyankee hands was INTENTIONAL!
free dixie,sw
NO, war crimes are NEVER acceptable in any civilized country, regardless of the reason/excuse given by the WAR CRIMINALS!
mac_truck,do you REALLY believe that "the end justifies the means"? do you believe ANY CRIME is/was OK???
free dixie,sw
And that my friend, is what sets us apart from despots, tyrants and dictators.
Davis only gave ONE subsequet speech to Congress after the 1862 address. Thus your complaint is misleading.
That would seem to imply that Mr. Foote thought that Mr. Benjamin was up to something, not that he was acting on behalf of the Davis regime.
Regardless of what Foote thought, it does not change the fact that Benjamin was lobbying for the court bill.
Unless, of course, the Davis regime was trying to organize a court that would please the secretary of state. Hardly evidence in support of Davis.
Then I ask you once again: Was or was not Judah Benjamin a Davis ally? If he was then his actions may indeed be cited as evidence supporting Davis. I should also probably ask what evidence you have that Foote's charge against Benjamin's motives was true, other than, of course, that they are of a highly conspiratorial nature not unlike the stuff you naturally attract to in your own dementia.
And in the senate the legislation was constantly opposed, postponed, put off, and deferred by a variety of senators.
Yeah, and you know why? Cause the states-righters crowd, aka the Davis opponents, had a MAJORITY in the senate!
What you haven't presented is any actions by allies of Davis to override these delays or
Uh, yes I have. The journal is full of them in fact - Davis allies moved to take up the bill or proceed on it or amend i repeatedly. Sometimes they were blocked and the measure was immediately postponed. Other times they got in a couple hours of debate or a couple changes and the sort, before seeing the measure voted down etc. There are dozens upon dozens of these cases, including the ones I posted for you.
indeed, any indication that all the senators involved were foes of the Davis regime. They could very well be allies of Davis in the senate.
Earth to stupid: as has been previously noted and extensively documented, the members who blocked the bill were a states-rights anti-Davis majority headed by Yancey and Wigfall. Those two were by no means allies of the Davis administration by any standard. Oh, and find me ANY credible historian who maintains otherwise and you win a cookie.
Why would Davis 'enthusiastically' fill lower courts but not fight for the one court required by the constituion?
Seeing as you have NOT demonstrated a failure to fight for the supreme court, such a question is without basis in fact and need not be responded to. Try again.
The one which, coincidentally, might be in a position to oppose his actions?
Why would a court of Davis' ideological allies who HE appointed because he know they were his ideological allies work to undermine him? That makes about as much sense as stating that FDR feared his court appointments would undermine the New Deal.
So how did we get from 8 instances of Davis papers referring to a supreme court, as you claimed in reply 631, to 8 explicit references to creating a supreme court?
Cause the INDEX, as I have previously noted several times (though it thus far appears to have failed in breaching your thick head), explicitly places the term "Supreme Court" under the heading "Confederate States:" as you may find here http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/PubVol.cfm?doc_id=1658
In light of this indexing Davis could not have been referring to any other supreme court but the one he wanted in the CSA.
False, tu quoque boy. I've provided at least five cases of mutually supportive evidence for my argument. It remains though that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF DAVIS EVER SAYING SO MUCH AS ONE SINGLE WORD IN OPPOSITION TO THE COURT.
Yassuh, Massa GOP suh.
Passing?
"I invite the attention of Congress to the duty of organizing a Supreme Court of the Confederate States; in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution."
Looks to me like an active and explicit request to create one.
And never mentioned again in any future message to congress. Some fight.
Intentionally misleading. Davis only gave ONE subsequent address to Congress after that.
And yet the journals of the confederate congress makes no mention of any message from Mr. Benjamin or any tirade from Mr. Foote on or around the date in question.
Are you truly that dense, non-seq? I already told you why looking at the newspaper date would yield you no results. There was a newspaper lag of about a week between the day events happened and the day they were reported in other cities. They didn't have cell phones in 1863, you know.
You are, once again, expecting us to accept on faith that something means what it means because you say it does.
Isn't that your entire argument with regards to this alleged, yet wholly undocumented, anti-court conspiracy you keep speaking of? Nice try to project, but my statement on Benjamin is fully documented.
And in his STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS in 1863 and 1864 and 1865
Once again, Davis only gave one subsequent State of the Union after 1862 and that was 1864.
and in every message to the congress in between
That is not certain. Presidents transmit messages to Congress all the time, of which only a few get printed in their entirity by the Congress, and those normally in the index of the register of debates - not the journals. Only short or partial messages make it into the journals, plus a few entries such as "Person XX transmitted message YY to the senate and it was ordered written into the record without objection."
Why was it no longer a legislative priority if he really wanted one?
You have failed to provide any evidence that it had ceased to be a priority. Thus an answer to that question is unmerited.
The message you quote from Benjamin came before any significant diplomatic events other than the first visit of A. Dudley Mann a month earlier. Mann had sent Benjamin a copy of the pope's proclamation, arguing that it was indicative of diplomatic recognition to which Benjamin expressed his disagreement. Despite this, both after Mann's first letter and over the next several months, Cardinal Antonelli became openly receptive to CSA diplomacy, indicating that the recognition was of the nature Mann described. He granted diplomatic protection to Mann and other confederate envoys. After Benjamin's letter, Bishop P.N. Lynch of Charleston even served as a formal diplomatic intermediary between the two and the CSA granted him full recognition as their envoy. Antonelli continued to recieve CSA diplomats throughout the year and, in a following letter from November 1864, spoke of the confederate "government," "president," and the war that was waging between the "two countries." Such is indicative of clear diplomatic distinguishment. Thus, it appears that Benjamin drew an erronious conclusion at an early point in diplomacy before it had the opportunity to develop.
Don't you know? It's a CONSPIRACY between Bush and Pat Leahy to deny justice in courtrooms across America! They make themselves look like enemies during the day but at night they really meet over poker with the execs from Enron to decide on secret and nefarious ways of oppressing people. Or at least an application of non-seq logic would make it seem so...
I hate to bust your bubble but Davis didn't even give that one, he sent a message written by his secretary (who may have been the one who actually wanted the supreme court). After that he sent well over 200 messages to congress and not a single one ever referred to a supreme court ever again. Must have slipped his mind, huh?
Regardless of what Foote thought, it does not change the fact that Benjamin was lobbying for the court bill.
All Foote says is that Benjamin was trying to organize a court to his advantage. For all we know it had nothing to do with the senate bill, which just called for organizing the court, it didn't specify the organization itself.
Earth to stupid
Well, I think that's enough discussion. Call me when your cramps subside.
Curious. Non-Seq appears to think that he is either Fritz Hollings, Colonel Sanders, or Foghorn Leghorn.
IIRC, presidents at the time did not normally give a state of the union speech in person. That practice had been the case in the early days of the republic and was, from time to time used in extraordinary circumstances, but quickly dropped off in the early 1800's. It did not resume again in standard practice until sometime in the early 1900's (I believe Wilson greatly increased its frequency). Nevertheless it is what we consider the equivalent of a state of the union address.
he sent a message written by his secretary (who may have been the one who actually wanted the supreme court).
And so the conspiracy widens. BTW, you got any evidence for that one either? What, you mean no? I didn't think so.
After that he sent well over 200 messages to congress and not a single one ever referred to a supreme court ever again.
Got evidence? As I previously noted, the entirity of the papers Davis transferred to Congress does NOT appear in the journal (though some were likely printed in a register of debates).
Quit acting stupid and I won't call you stupid. But if you persist in making stupid statements, such as suggesting that the congressional faction led by Wigfall and Yancey was really a Davis ally, I will describe those statements factually and that means calling them and the person who stated them stupid.
Who'd a thunk it? "Leaky" Leahy, Ted "Kopechne" Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer et al in cahoots together with President Bush. What fantastic actors! </sarcasm>
And I'll put you down as opposed to defending Americans with nuclear weapons. There's a protest over the Enola Gay exhibit I'm sure you'd be interested in joining.
btw- did you vote for McGovern also?
What a happy PC sentiment. And its FREE! Are you enjoying your vacation in dreamland?
Wrong. I'm not opposed to the use of nukes - I'm opposed to attacking innocents. If the target is military and isolated nuke away. Otherwise, there are still conventional weapons that can be used. But again, do you wish terrorists/our enemies to attack your family? Is it ok to vaporize them? Is that acceptable to you?
btw- did you vote for McGovern also?
Reagan. Twice. Bush I & II. Dole.
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.