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 ...
Fairly appropriate choice for judge, given the contempt that the Davis regime had towards the idea of an independent judiciary.
Not at all, I'm taking issue with your contention that the North was totally dependent on the south for her economic survival. The general overall economic health of the country during and after the war shows just how bogus that claim is.
In his book "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" Stephen Wise shows that it wasn't the blockade that halted the flow of supplies to the confederacy, it was the loss of ports to the advancing Union armies.
TOTAL RECEIPTS/EXPENDITURES
1854.... 73,800,000.... 55,038,000
1855.... 65,350,000.... 58,630,000
1856.... 74,056,000.... 68,726,000
1857.... 68,905,000.... 67,634,000
1858.... 46,655,000.... 73,982,000
1859.... 52,777,000.... 68,993,000
1860.... 56,054,000.... 63,201,000
1861.... 41,476,000.... 66,650,000
It does not appear that spending went wild, but rather, in an economic depression receipts declined significantly and spending continued as if the income were still there.
Then the existing debt of the United States is nearly seventy million dollars. The $10,000,000 Treasury notes recently issued were negotiated, a portion at twelve percent, and a portion at between ten and eleven. Your ten percent Treasury notes were sold in the market of New York below par; and if you authorize new loans that are not absolutely necessary, you cannot negotiate them except at ruinous rates.I have made a comparison of actual debt created and proposed to be created by this Congress. The balance of the loan authorized under the act of 22nd June, 1860 is $13,978,000. If the amendment of the Senate be concurred in, that loan cannot be negotiated. I am in favor of that amendment.
The tariff bill, which will probably become law, authorizes the loan of $21,000,000. The Pacific raailroad bill as it passed the House authorized an indebtedness of $96,000,000, and the Senate has put on an additional $25,000,000. In other words, the proposed indebtedness of the country is $167,000,000 [actually the figures above add to $165,978,000]; making with the present public debt and the loan already authorized, an aggregate of $250,351,649. With such indebtedness, how can you expect to raise a loan on favorable terms?
I gather a Pacific railroad bill didn't finally pass until 1862. I don't know whether the other new loans above came to pass. To make the figures balance, "the loan already authorized" that Phelps referred to must have been for $15,000,000.
The South could have justified secession based on the out of control spending of a Keynesian Congress alone.
Interesting point. Fort Pulaski (Savannah) was taken by Union forces. The forts at the mouth and along the Mississippi were taken. The fort or forts of Port Royal Roads (SC) were taken. Galveston was taken for a short while, then the Federals and their six-ship fleet were thrown out by a couple of Texas ships stacked with cotton bales on their decks to block the Federal sharpshooters. Brazos Santiago was taken at the mouth of the Rio Grande. I think Fort Marion in San Augustine, Florida, must have been taken. I don't know about Fort Morgan at Mobile.
Contempt? That's a funny word considering that all those years Davis was fighting Congress trying to get them to establish a supreme court!
But as you well know, the states-righters in the Senate didn't think that was such a wise idea. They knew that a supreme court would be used to consolidate federal power at the expense of the states just like it did under Marshall in the U.S. system. They therefore sat on the bill to create a federal supreme court, which made all the cases that arose go to the state supreme courts.
My post was from a chapter of a book by James Spence at pages 209-15. I posted the full chapter, in five parts, beginning at the above link on a different thread. You may find some items of interest in the others parts of the chapter.
While I am quite alarmed at the liberties taken, with liberty itself, by this administration, I still am in jaw-opened amazement at the lack of precision exhibited by you liberals.
You cannot 'violate' "Habeus Corpus" (sic). Habeas corpus is a demand. In latin, it means "produce the body", and in law is a demand for the prosecutor to produce the body of evidence. You can deny habeas corpus; you cannot violate it.
Furthermore, I would like to see that number substantiated. I suspect it is far lower and the individuals are deemed 'enemy combatants' -- an idea I am firmly against, BTW.
The reason I am against it so firmly is I dread to think what your gal, Hillary Clinton, will do with such a power.
Jefferson Davis fought for a supreme court? Next you'll be saying that Jefferson Davis fought to end slavery, too.
At least one would be nice.
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.