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 ...
Cynics do well in politics. It will always be so.
Most of what we know about Lincoln today has been invented by Northern folklorists, many who were, and are, enemies of the South. In fact, nearly every one of the 16,000 books that have been penned about Lincoln are by Northern writers and have been published by Northern publishers. Can we honestly expect to get a true and unbiased picture of who Lincoln really was from such works?
History would have been much different if William Seward had been nominated instead of Lincoln. Seward opposed re-supplying Fort Sumter and wanted to strike a deal with the South. Lincoln on the other hand was completely uncompromising and even refused to set foot in the Southern United States during his election campaign. Seward was a major expansionist (Alaska) and offered to annex Cuba as a state if the South would stay in the Union. Lincoln opposed any such deal and merely repeated by the Republican Platform from the Chicago Convention. Lincoln thought that the South was only bluffing, they would never secede. Seward as a Senator knew all of the major Confederate personalities, and knew much better the dire situation than Lincoln did.
Lincoln wasn’t looking for a war , like the Souther Fire-eaters were, but he had no real interest in avoiding a war either. Seward was Lincoln’s opposite in that regard. 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.
Many liberal historians make a big deal of the fact that Lincoln appointed a lot of his Republican Rivals to the Cabinet, as that was an act of great courage. In truth, Lincoln HAD to appoint these “rivals” to his Cabinet because many of them had been promised patronage jobs in return for their votes at the Convention.
Though Lincoln received only 39 percent of the popular vote, Lincoln wouldn’t appoint anyone to his Cabinet who did not support him for President.
How much better America would have been had John Fremont won the Presidency four years earlier.
I appreciate your comments sir.
I have two relatives listed on the monument at Vicksburg under the Union flag. Then again, reading outside the “history books” has provided a bit of a different view. The War of 1861 was not a civil war since the South had no interest in taking over the North—they just wanted to be left alone. Lincoln’s decision to force the South into submission killed many an innocent boy on both sides and for what?? So the DC Empire could rule all within reach. Why is the quest to satisfy government greed of more value than a single life?
Why would Fremont have been any different than Lincoln? In terms of policies, Fremont was more radical than Lincoln and teamed up with the Radical Republicans to try to oppose Lincoln’s moderation toward the South.
What do you like about Fremont, in other words?
What magic do you think Fremont was capable of ? I wouldn’t have envied any person elected President in 1856, let alone 1860.
Heh...
It is important to remember that the Democrats of the Deep South weren’t really looking to avoid war. Every day in every way, the North was getting more populous and economically powerful. The longer the Southerners waited, the weaker they would become. That was why it was so important for the Southern Fire-eaters like Rhett and Davis to provoke a crisis. Better in 1860 then ten years from now, when they would be weaker.
The move to split the Democratic Party in 1860 was a deliberate attempt to destroy the Union and elect a Republican to the Presidency. They could use that as an excuse to secede from the Union.
You’re a Scott Brown loving troll.
The best thing about a Frémont Presidency is that it would have kept James Buchanan out of the Whitehouse. Other than that, Frémont was a hard core abolitionist who happened to be from the South. His opposition to Lincoln centered upon his belief that Lincoln was not willing to use his power to accelerate the abolitionist cause.
I suppose. But the American people really did not support the abolitionist cause in 1856 or 1860.
Is that your idea of an intelligent comment?
Which of those two people are you?
That's like saying the American people really did not support conservatism in 2008. It doesn't make it any less right. Frémont lived up to the creed that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. I will take a man like that over someone like James Buchanan any day.
Incidentally, I believe a Frémont Presidency would have advanced the cause of women's rights as well.
and you’re still a troll.
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.