Posted on 05/22/2010 2:31:12 PM PDT by AlanD
Lincoln has often been portrayed as gaining the White House largely because of the disarray of the opposition party in the general election. Closer examination reveals that his meteoric rise from prairie lawyer to chief executive came as the result of an extraordinary work ethic, canny allegiance building over three decades, and a political team not afraid of a little skullduggery.
“Make no contracts that bind me,” Lincoln wired his supporters. But Davis ignored him, telling his team that “Lincoln ain’t here and don’t know what we have to meet. So we will go ahead as if we hadn’t heard from him and he must ratify it.”
Using his contacts as a railroad lawyer, Judd convinced clients to discount fares into town—triggering an onrush of locals eager to cheer Lincoln’s progress.
He arranged for the printing of counterfeit ducats and quietly distributed them to Lincoln loyalists along with an appeal to show up early. While Seward supporters paraded through the streets, Lincoln enthusiasts surged into the hall—“men of good lungs” ready to roar for their man. Startled and then angry Seward supporters with official tickets found themselves turned away in droves. Seward’s name went into nomination that day to the expected “deafening shout.”
The Ohio delegation chairman, David Kellogg Cartter, broke the logjam by rising dramatically—moments after someone from the Lincoln camp reportedly promised him “anything he wants”—to switch four votes to the man from Illinois.
Geography and biography, packed galleries and lung power, bare-knuckle politics and deal making, and above all the brilliant strategy of casting Lincoln as everyone’s second choice, triumphed in Chicago. Electability trumped inevitability, and a paradigm shifted. With rival Democrats hopelessly split, delegates to that convention 150 years ago not only chose a candidate—they picked the next president.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanheritage.com ...
Fremont was never even close to being elected in 1856 so you don’t have your history straight.
I don't have my history straight? Are you high? Seriously, where did I ever even remotely suggest otherwise?
We are talking about the Civil War era and then you started talking about 2008, as if that were relevant.
Let’s keep to the subject.
How charming.
Fine. Show me where my history isn't straight. Otherwise, an apology is in order.
And for the record, John Frémont did come much much closer to winning the Presidency in 1856 than did a conservative in 2008.
You can talk about 2008 somewhere else. I am looking for Civil War buffs here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2476955/posts
______
I try, check out the posts on this thread. Sorry you’re the ignorant, uninformed one.
I have no problem discussing the War of Northern Aggression with you. However, I have a big problem with little boys telling me that my history is in error when that is most certainly not the case here. And I have a huge problem with pissant liberals making false accusations that they cannot back up, and then when called on it, they change the subject instead of admitting they were wrong. It's an integrity thing which you obviously know nothing about.
Thanks for the link. I remember that one.
James Buchanan was a useless POS who did nothing to prevent the Civil War. Probaly the worst President ever besides Carter or Obama.
I can answer the question on how well Frémont did. He carried 11 states for a total of 114 EVs (with 33% of the vote, far below McCain). Had Millard Fillmore gotten out of the race and endorsed the GOP ticket (he placed a respectable 3rd), Frémont would have actually won the national vote (with nearly 55% of the vote), but he still would have lost the electoral college, adding just CA, IL & NJ to his column (which would’ve been 152-136 in Buchanan’s favor). The 1856 race actually resembled (in actual vote breakdown) more like the 1992 Clinton-GHW Bush-Perot one.
Frémont more than likely would’ve faced the same problems as Buchanan and had he aggressively pursued abolitionism, probably would’ve sped up the onset of secession by 1857/1858, or the Democrat-majority Congress would’ve tried to impeach him. To Buchanan’s credit (with respect to a last ditch effort to save the Union), he at least (in 1860) cleared out his cabinet of all the Southern sympathizers, but too little too late. He was in a terrible bind having to hold together a fracturing Democrat majority, and in a no-win situation. I’m not nearly as hard on him as many other historians are.
There really is no realistic scenario of Fremont being elected President in 1856. There was a very realistic chance of Seward being elected, however, and I think his more moderate and solicitous treatment of the South could have easily avoided a bloody Civil War.
James Buchanan’s nickname was “Doughface” for whatever reason.
That referred to Northerners (usually Dems) who were sympathetic to the South. Some confusion over its origin, since they may have meant “Doe-Face” (as in deer) as opposed to “Dough.”
I don’t think there was any way to avoid it. Too many holding diametrically opposed positions, a powderkeg.
ping
Much better to go to Lost Cause mythologists to get a true picture, is that it?
Lincoln also didn't set foot in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, or any other state during his election campaign. Back in the day the candidate did not travel around and campaign as they do today.
Lincoln opposed any such deal and merely repeated by the Republican Platform from the Chicago Convention.
And what plank of the platform might that be?
Lincoln thought that the South was only bluffing, they would never secede.
Hello. They had announced their secession weeks before Lincoln was inaugurated. It wasn't a surprise to him.
If anyone could have cut a deal to avoid Civil War, that would have definitely been William Seward, the almost President of the United States.
I think you're badly overstating the case.
Lincoln also received almost 60% of the electoral votes, and would have been elected even if the Democrats had not fractured because in most of the states he won by an absolute majority.
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.