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

Skip to comments.

Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President 143 Years Ago Tonight
http://www.nytimes.com ^ | 11/06/2003 | RepublicanWizard

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 ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anniversary; bush; civilwar; dixielist; history; lincoln; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 961-964 next last
To: GOPcapitalist
Once South Carolina gave it to the federal government, it was no longer theirs to take back(without a fight).

But thats a nice try.


281 posted on 11/10/2003 12:46:05 PM PST by hirn_man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Walt, why do you continue to waste our time? You offer nothing to back up your claims. Show me the federal law stating unilateral secession is revolution. You can't, and you've admitted you can't, so go back to your Clinton worship and leave the discussion here to those of us who will stick with facts.
282 posted on 11/10/2003 1:00:29 PM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Sumter belonged to the U.S. government. Built with federal funds on land deeded to the U.S. government, the confederacy had no legal rights to it whatsoever so there should have been no dispute. Even if the southern secession had been legal, that did not automatically transfer title to Sumter or any other federal facility to them.

Up until a few weeks before the attack, a food arrangement had been made and they were being fully fed.

"Up until a few weeks before.." One of the last messages that the Lincoln administration had from Major Anderson warned that he didn't have enough supplies to hold out for more than a few weeks. Without any reason to doubt his warnings then Lincoln quite rightly launched a resupply effort, making it clear to the Davis regime through a message to Governor Pickens that the effort was meant to land food only, and would only land men and munitions if opposed. And had Davis been interested in a peaceful solution then he would have held his fire and that is what would have happened.

...yeah, on a fleet of heavily armed warships with explicit directions to fire upon anything and everything that denies them access to Charleston harbor.

A prudent decision, given the confederate propensity to fire on anything and everything flying the U.S. flag.

Lincoln's orders to fight their way into the harbor say differently.

U.S. actions say different. In the three months leading up to the southern attack, and inspite of a number of provocations, the Lincoln administration had not made a single aggressive action.

283 posted on 11/10/2003 1:40:05 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
They could have been.... But wasn't. Ships were not stopped, the city wasn't fired on, not a single hostile act was taken towards the people of Charleston or the Davis regime from the moment the rebellion began until the minute that the confederate army began the bombardment of Sumter. This in spite of confederate hostile actions like firing on ships, cutting off communications and food, refusing to allow U.S. officer on shore.
284 posted on 11/10/2003 1:44:45 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Some have suggested that.

Lincoln's actions confirm it.

285 posted on 11/10/2003 1:45:53 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You are blatently wrong in this. Lincoln used the issue, but not out of principle.

In his 1860 inaugural address, Lincoln said: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)."

In 1858 Lincoln wrote: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

286 posted on 11/10/2003 2:07:14 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
You are blatently wrong in this. Lincoln used the issue, but not out of principle.

It is you who are incorrect. Speaking of the Republican platform in a June 1864 letter to the Republican party leadership accepting nomination for reelection, Lincoln stated the following:

"I will say now, however, I approve the declaration in favor of so amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughtout the nation. When the people in revole, with a hundred days of explicit notice, that they could within those days, resume their allegiance, without overthrow of their institution...elected to stand out, such amendment to the Constitution became a fitting and necessary conclusion to the final success of the Union cause."

Lincoln went on to campaign on the passage of the 13th Amendment and in his annual message to Congress in December urged the House of Representatives to pass the amendment, noting that the elections had made it clear that the people wanted the Amendment passed out of Congress and the results of the election ensured that it would be passed once the new Congress was sworn in in January. And he proudly acknowledged that his home state of Illinois was among the first to ratify the Amendment in February 1865.

Two years later, President Lincoln wrote...

Please present the quote if full:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. "

And don't forget the next paragraph where he says, "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

287 posted on 11/10/2003 2:24:22 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
All of which only proves that Lincoln was a politician not above revisionist spin.

Now ask yourself if the preservation of one form of representative government over another was worth the lives of an entire generation.

288 posted on 11/10/2003 2:32:51 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Yes, it was.
289 posted on 11/10/2003 2:58:46 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; x; Ditto; Huck; Held_to_Ransom; rdf

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!


290 posted on 11/10/2003 3:07:14 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Madison was for voluntary colonization. (pro-liberty)
Lincolon - Involuntary. (that's anti-liberty)

"The slaves themselves, connected, as they generally are, by tender ties with others under other masters, would be kept from the list of emigrants by the want of the multiplied consents to be obtained. "

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/emancslaves.htm
291 posted on 11/10/2003 3:08:12 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: LenS
"But the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery"

Yes, Georgia ratified it, giving it 3/4ths of the States' consent, and freed the slaves in the North.

292 posted on 11/10/2003 3:12:38 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Two years later, President Lincoln wrote:

"Whereas, while heretofore, States, and Nations, have tolerated slavery, recently, for the first time in the world, an attempt has been made to construct a new nation, upon the basis of, and with the primary, and fundamental object to maintain, enlarge, and perpetuate human slavery, therefore,

Resolved, that no such embryo State should ever be recognized by, or admitted into, the family of christian and civilized nations; and that all Christian and civilized men everywhere should, by all lawful means, resist to the utmost, such recognition or admission."

4/15/63

Walt

293 posted on 11/10/2003 3:14:07 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: LenS
Lincoln used a lot of political capital to twist arms in the Congress to get the needed 2/3rd's majorities.

Did that 2/3rds include any southern states?

"No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" - Article V, US Constitution

Rump Congresses are invalid congresses.

294 posted on 11/10/2003 3:15:51 PM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
In 1858 Lincoln wrote: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

Big deal.

By 1865 he had changed his mind.

By any reasonable standard, Lincoln's position was far in advance of most people of the day.

Walt

295 posted on 11/10/2003 3:17:16 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
Lincoln used a lot of political capital to twist arms in the Congress to get the needed 2/3rd's majorities.

Did that 2/3rds include any southern states?

Irrelevant as to process.

Are you complaining that the slaves were freed? Sounds like it.

Walt

296 posted on 11/10/2003 3:19:21 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston
"No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" - Article V, US Constitution

Yeah, well. A lot of southern congressmen and senators packed up and went home having sworn off their allegiance to the Constitution.

Sorry, bucko. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Walt

297 posted on 11/10/2003 3:21:15 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Gee, and I thought this thread was gonna dry up with only @ 300 piddly notes. Then whatshisname showed up.

Why don't we segue onto black confederates, or tarrifs, or who paid for Fort Sumter? Are all the good issues talked out?

Walt

298 posted on 11/10/2003 3:23:36 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
"...leave the discussion here to those of us who will stick with facts.

What facts? Like the fact that states pay tarrifs?

What a hoot -that- was.

Don't worry; I'm leaving soon. It's almost time for the Phil Fulmer Show and the Tennessee-Miami replay.

And on my birthday too!

Walt

299 posted on 11/10/2003 3:30:18 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; GOPcapitalist
...not a single hostile act was taken towards the people of Charleston or the Davis regime from the moment the rebellion began until the minute that the confederate army began the bombardment of Sumter.

Tell that to the captain of one of the schooners chartered by Anderson to transport women, children, and supplies from Fort Moultrie to Fort Johnson on Dec 26, 1861. The Federal soldiers onboard overcame the captain of the schooner (he put up a fight), then redirected the ship to Fort Sumter.

Or tell that to the civilian workmen at Fort Sumter who were charged with bayonets by Abner Doubleday's troops on Dec 26, 1861.

300 posted on 11/10/2003 3:32:48 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 961-964 next last

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.

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