Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: x

“Constitutional? No. There was nothing in the Constitution about secession.”

Government exists by the consent of the governed.

“And those were very irregular elections.”

And that is the basis *for* Lincoln’s authority. Secession on the other had broad and substantive support across the south.

“Any number of rejections apparently didn’t count, but one acceptance changed everything.”

Virginia originally rejected things - but when Lincoln levied Virginian troops to fight against their brothers, Virginia changed their mind. Had Lincoln chose not to levy troops - Virginia would have stayed in the Union, and the Confederacy would not have lasted long. Had Lincoln levied non-Virginian troops - they would have also stayed in the Union, and the war would not have lasted long.

“Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities in the election of delegates that they couldn’t conclude who had won.”

Except for the fact that it wasn’t Lincoln.

“South Carolina? Do you understand that it wasn’t just the African-American majority of the state that wasn’t allowed to vote in that election? Even free white property owners didn’t vote. The state legislature made the choice.”

And that was constitutional at the time. Same with the North.

“If you don’t show your citizens the courtesy of actually asking what they think about the political choices you make for them, you can’t claim that they somehow, without being allowed to vote, implicitly “voted” for the choices you made. We’ve discussed all that, and any sane, thoughtful person would at least acknowledge and consider the point.”

Is 38 percent support for Lincoln a ‘broad and deep mandate from the United States? No.

“You are willing to split up the country because of some questionable actions in various states, but you reject the results of a national election?”

I don’t see how Lincoln was representative of the United States as a whole - when he did not have the support of the majority or a near-majority of the people. Nearly two thirds did not support him.

“In a two candidate run-off, Lincoln might very well have won a majority.”

Well, then Lincoln should have insisted on one. This is pure speculation. .

“Was a 40% minority president really that threatening?”

Was Lincoln inclined to work with the majority or was he inclined to go to war?

“why was secession necessary?”

For the people of the South to govern themselves according to the principles of Liberty.


699 posted on 03/18/2013 2:18:43 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies ]


To: JCBreckenridge
Your answers don't always fit my points or make sense, and some important points go unanswered. At 39.65% of the popular vote Lincoln was closer to a majority than any other candidate. Certainly closer than Breckenridge who had less than half that.

Some of your answers are downright bizarre. Lincoln wasn't a candidate in the elections to the Georgia secession convention. Free White propertied citizens clearly did vote in the other states. It was only South Carolina that decided not to count any popular votes or hold real popular elections in the 1860 presidential contest. Constitutional or not, you can't claim that popular votes that weren't even cast went against Lincoln and the GOP.

Had Lincoln chose not to levy troops - Virginia would have stayed in the Union, and the Confederacy would not have lasted long. Had Lincoln levied non-Virginian troops - they would have also stayed in the Union, and the war would not have lasted long.

It's a matter of conjecture how long the Confederacy would have lasted, but Davis and the secession commissioners were doing all they could to draw Virginia and the Upper South into the Confederacy. Understand that it was they who fired the first shot and hoped to gain the benefits from it -- not Lincoln or the United States.

Moreover, who's to say that the Virginia convention would not have voted for secession if an army drawn from other states had crossed its state lines on the way South? It's pretty clear to me that they would have. Even if a blockade had been imposed or the seceding states attacked in another way, it's likely that secession would have been a result.

This is pure speculation.

Geez, Louise, it's all speculation. How do you go from speculating about whether Virginia would have seceded to all of a sudden condemning "speculation"?

701 posted on 03/18/2013 2:38:50 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies ]

To: JCBreckenridge
And that was constitutional at the time. Same with the North.

Another thing that your Constitution says that I can't find in mine. Which article and clause is it where this is outlined?

705 posted on 03/18/2013 4:17:08 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson