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 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 961-964 next last
To: rustbucket
Single lines can be pretty effective.

If backed up with actions. But there is no evidence at all that Davis did that. Reagan backed up his words with actions by winning the Cold War. Kennedy backed up his words with massive funding for NASA. Bu Davis? He did nothing, nothing at all, to promote the establishment of a supreme court. He was more than happy to allow the senate to violate the constitution and didn't mind at all not having another branch of government to answer to.

721 posted on 11/22/2003 4:16:24 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Sure he has. It appears in a very prominent public address before Congress.

Nonsense.

722 posted on 11/22/2003 4:17:45 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck; GOPcapitalist; Non-Sequitur
[mac truck] On a separate point, it is interesting to speculate who would have been appointed to a confederate supreme court. Roger Taney comes to mind (even though he died in 1863). Are there any other confederate jurists who might have been considered?

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney served on the U.S. Supreme Court until his death, October 12, 1864.

"HILL, WILLIAM PINCKNEY." The Handbook of Texas Online.

LINK

HILL, WILLIAM PINCKNEY (?-1870). William Pinckney Hill, Confederate judge, was born in Georgia, the son of John and Sarah (Parham) Hill; his birthdate is not known, but he was somewhat older than his brother, United States senator Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia, who was born in 1823.

In 1863 and again in 1865 Hill was widely mentioned as a candidate for governor but declined to run. He was considered a principal contender for chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Confederacy, a court debated but never established by the Confederate Congress. In 1866 he was nominated for the Supreme Court of Texas but refused to run. He practiced law in Galveston after the war and in 1869 went to Washington, D.C., to represent the Galveston, Houston and Henderson Railway Company in a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. He became ill and went first to Tennessee and then to Georgia to recover. He died on April 30, 1870, while visiting his brother in Athens, Georgia.

723 posted on 11/22/2003 4:42:35 AM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I've already documented the location of at least 8 separate letters or speeches by Davis on the subject of creating a court.

You have not. You claimed eight instances were the words 'supreme court' may have been used but have not presentd quotes or context.

724 posted on 11/22/2003 4:43:30 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
The people who opposed the Supreme Court weren't necessarily Davis allies in all things.

In all things? Or just in some things? And what about Senator Phelan, Senator Semmes, Senator Sparrow, Senators Oldham and Barnwell and Johnson? Were they all bitter foes of his, too, out to deny him the supreme court y'all claim Davis pined for?

725 posted on 11/22/2003 4:47:31 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
He was considered a principal contender for chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Confederacy, a court debated but never established by the Confederate Congress.

Considered by who?

726 posted on 11/22/2003 4:50:57 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Still lurking...
727 posted on 11/22/2003 6:35:13 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Ain't missing much.
728 posted on 11/22/2003 6:42:25 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Bu Davis? He did nothing, nothing at all, to promote the establishment of a supreme court. He was more than happy to allow the senate to violate the constitution and didn't mind at all not having another branch of government to answer to.

Speculation. No proof. Diversion.

729 posted on 11/22/2003 6:43:55 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Speculation. No proof. Diversion.

Just like those who claim he worked for one. Speculation, zero proof, no evidence. So there we are.

730 posted on 11/22/2003 6:45:55 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Yes, it is a big waste of time debating with neo-Confederates.

Some of these treason-enthusiasts are intelligent (and some are beyond stupid), but at a time when insurgents once again threaten to destroy our country, it is disgusting that any Freeper would ally himself with enemies of the United States of America, present or past.
731 posted on 11/22/2003 6:47:13 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
In all things? Or just in some things? And what about Senator Phelan, Senator Semmes, Senator Sparrow, Senators Oldham and Barnwell and Johnson? Were they all bitter foes of his, too, out to deny him the supreme court y'all claim Davis pined for?

More diversion. Here on a motion put forward in the Supreme Court debate on Jan. 27, 1863 were the recorded votes of the senators.

On motion by Mr. Yancey,

The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative are,

Messrs. Baker, Barnwell, Brown, Burnett, Clay, Dortch, Henry, Maxwell, Phelan, Wigfall, and Yancey.

Those who voted in the negative are,

Messrs. Caperton, Davis, Haynes, Hill, Hunter, Johnson of Arkansas, Mitchel, Orr, Semmes, and Sparrow.

The foes of the Supreme Court carried this vote 11 to 10.

732 posted on 11/22/2003 6:54:24 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
it is disgusting that any Freeper would ally himself with enemies of the United States of America, present or past.

Um ... weren't the British our enemies in the past?

733 posted on 11/22/2003 7:08:09 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Are you going to start a thread arguing the British side during the War of 1812 -- perhaps lamenting that their troops didn't completey destroy the Capitol Building and the White House?

734 posted on 11/22/2003 7:16:38 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
No. I see you are still coming to these boards to get educated.
735 posted on 11/22/2003 7:22:02 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Well he does have a point. There seems to be a lot of hatred for the United States showing through the veneer on these threads, that I don't see your side taking issue with. This post is just one example 706 and there are plenty of others.
736 posted on 11/22/2003 8:44:11 AM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
My in-laws hated Yankees with a passion. Their parents were children during the war and had experienced Sherman's troops coming through their farms and reconstruction, so perhaps their strong feelings were to be expected. Perhaps others whose families were brutalized during the war feel the same way. I suspect that is behind some of the posts you object to.

The majority of posters on these threads are history and heritage buffs. I've certainly learned a lot from them -- from your posts and from others. It has deepened my respect for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law. We all probably share that respect. Cheers.

737 posted on 11/22/2003 9:15:18 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Probably calling the other side traitors doesn't help either.
738 posted on 11/22/2003 10:04:40 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You claimed eight instances were the words 'supreme court' may have been used

There's no "claim" or "may have been" about it. I have given you the specific location of at least eight different Davis speeches and letters that are explicitly indexed as being on the subject of the Confederat Supreme Court.

That fact in itself contradicts your oft-stated yet wholly gratuitous allegation that Davis abandoned the issue after paying it "lip service" in a single speech.

739 posted on 11/22/2003 10:18:54 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
The majority of posters on these threads are history and heritage buffs. I've certainly learned a lot from them -- from your posts and from others. It has deepened my respect for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law.

Agreed and likewise.

740 posted on 11/22/2003 10:30:19 AM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 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