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 ...
Lincoln said two completely contradictory things on the same subject. Believe what you will, but I think he lied on one or both occasions to get the votes he needed and his character was as resolute as Bill CLinton's.
No, that honor would go to President-for-Life FDR, who vastly expanded the size of the federal government, gave labor unions dictatorial power over the economy, prolonged the Great Depression to twelve years, outlawed gold ownership, allowed a third-rate military power to wipe out our Pacific Fleet, and made the world safe for Communism. But I suppose not too many 'Southern Sympathizers' will go for that, because it was the South's kneejerk votes that elected FDR to four terms.
With regards to Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney that is absolutely false. Both the federal enabling legislation in 1794 and the South Carolina legislation in 1805 were for conditional cessions to be granted on unilateral action of the state and under the state's terms. South Carolina's terms were to maintain a garrison there and keep the forts in working order or else the contract would be voided after a couple of years expired. Fort Johnson, for example was virtually abandoned by the feds within a year and fell into disrepair on their watch, thus voiding that contract within about 2 years of the cession.
With regards to Sumter, as I said - that's a far more contentious legal issue than the clear cut cases on the other three. On the one hand the feds did construct the thing, but on the other hand it was unilaterally ceded and, holding that South Carolina was no longer a member of the United States at the time, they were accordingly not restricted from repealing the previous act.
South Carolina revoked that deed with their secession ordinance. Since the land was in their state and since they were no longer governed by the United States government, they had every right to revoke the deed as they saw fit. Of course the north had a competing claim that SC was still a state thereby making the land theirs, but that is the nature of the dispute itself. You may choose to argue that side, but other is still there. The fact is it simply wasn't as clear cut as you would have us believe.
Even if the southern secession had been legal, that did not automatically transfer title to Sumter or any other federal facility to them.
It sure did when the SC government voided all the previous acts tying it to the US govt.
Without any reason to doubt his warnings then Lincoln quite rightly launched a resupply effort
Though there is nothing inherently wrong about sending food, much does depend upon the manner of delivery he intended. It is the difference between ringing the doorbell and showing up at 2am with a shotgun. Lincoln, being the reckless warmonger that he was, chose the shotgun route.
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.
False. Lincoln did not say he would land men if opposed. Nor did he say that he would fight his way in if opposed, though those are the exact orders he gave to his fleet. He said only that he was coming with food and that he would NOT land men if his ships were recieved. His memo to Pickens was a carefully phrased message - Clintonesque really - designed to decieve and provoke. Besides, even if Lincoln said he wasn't going to land men both his manner of delivery and past experience gave Pickens more than ample reason to oppose it. The same yankees who had tried to sneak arms into Sumter previously sent a naval fleet this time to accomplish their goal. It's just like the guy at the door with a shotgun demanding entry - I don't care how many times he promises that he won't shoot it at me, my house, or my family. The fact is he's standing there with a shotgun while simultaneously making threats of breaking the door down and that is reason enough for me to deny him entry.
And had Davis been interested in a peaceful solution then he would have held his fire and that is what would have happened.
Davis was interested in a peaceful solution. That is why over a month earlier he sent representatives to Washington to negotiate the dispute over Sumter with Lincoln. Lincoln refused to even meet with them and instead went ahead plotting his war.
Or perhaps the propensity for Federal troops to bombard civilians?
Consider US General Gillmore's demand of the Confederates. In August 1863, he demanded "immediate evacuation of Morris Island and Fort Sumter by the Confederate forces" or else he would fire upon the city of Charleston "from batteries already established within easy and effective range of the heart of the city."
The Confederates didn't surrender the forts, and the Union army bombarded civilians in Charleston for the next 18 months.
Yeah. And Saddam Hussein could have dumped anthrax in our cities but didn't. Nevermind that he had used the stuff elsewhere before and nevermind that in all likelihood he was plotting to use it against us if he ever got the chance. I guess the fact that he never did means we had no basis to remove him from power, and I guess that it is only legitimate to remove a threat to you AFTER it has pulverized a couple of your cities and waged terroristic warfare on your people.
The fact is that the Fort Sumter garrison was a hostile army exercising hostile and threatening intent against the city of Charleston. Under the doctrine of preemptive war the people of Charleston had every right in the world to remove that threat.
The Star of the West ignored the efforts of a pilot boat placed at the entrance of the channel by Governor Pickens to warn her off. The guard boat General Clinch then saw her and preceded her up the channel firing rockets to alert the Confederate gunners. The Star of the West then ignored a warning shot placed across their bow by the shore guns. Finally, the shore gunners started shooting at the ship itself, perhaps no surprise to a captain who proceeded right along after being warned.
To paraphrase your logic, the owner of the Star of the West got his ship back, didn't he?
You are absolutely correct. For reasons unknown to me the south often gets blamed by yankees for some of our worst liberal presidents. On this very forum I've seen us blamed for FDR, for Woodrow Wilson, for LBJ, for Clinton, for Truman, you name it. It's always "if the south hadn't voted Democrat blah blah blah" but the fact is when you consider each and every one of those elections it is dubious if not outright fraudulent to blame the south as they do.
Woodrow Wilson? Yes, the south voted for him but the reality is he got into office due to TR and Taft splitting the Republican vote.
FDR? The south voted for him...but so did practically every other state in the country! And as you pointed out, he actually ran on a platform of cutting government spending in 1932!
Truman? Last I checked the "solid south" was not quite so solid from about 1948 on, with several states going for conservative Strom Thurmond and the next time around several southern states actually voted for Eisenhower.
1960? Nixon won 4 CSA states/territories. Mississippi and Alabama cast protest votes by throwing their support behind conservative democrat Harry Flood Byrd.
LBJ? Hardly. The ONLY states that Goldwater won were all former members of the CSA. So much for the solid south that time as well.
1968? Nixon and George Wallace split the south with Humphrey winning only one southern state.
And of course Clinton. Never did he win a majority of southern electoral votes, despite being a southern governor himself. Yet Clinton swept every single yankee state but Indiana not once but twice.
Cause it wasn't going to be abandoned in 24 hours. Anderson told them that without supplies he would turn over the garrison in a couple days, but Lincoln sent supplies along with a fleet of warships and troops.
Fortunately, Confederate spies saw the warships departing and learned of their destination. The message was relayed to Gen. Beauregard, who in turn sent it to Davis informing them of the impending arrival of Lincoln's fleet. So rather than face a larger, better equipped force that would undoubtedly inflict greater bloodshed in a battle to take the fort, the confederates moved to preempt the fleet's arrival and take the fort.
L. Pope Walker, Montgomery:
Major Anderson has just replied as follows to my summons to evacuate Fort Sumter.
Gen. G. T. Beauregard:Sir -- I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication, demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to say, in reply thereto, that it is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor, and of my obligations to my Government prevent my compliance. Thanking you for the fair, manly and courteous terms proposed, and for the high compliment paid me, I am, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
[signed] Robert Anderson
Major Anderson adds verbally, “I will await the first shot, and if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days."
Please answer.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard
-----------------------------------
Montgomery, April 11, 1863
Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree in the meantime that he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood.
If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort in the manner you, in your judgment, decide to be most practicable.
[signed] L. Pope Walker
----------------------------
Charleston, April 11
L. Pope Walker, Montgomery:
Major Anderson will not consent to enter into the engagement you propose. I write you to-day.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard
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.