Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President 143 Years Ago Tonight

http://www.nytimes.com ^ | 11/06/2003 | RepublicanWizard

[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

[Badray]

"Reagan=President while United States was a super power..."

And did so at the height of the 'Cold War' and he destroyed the biggest single threat to freedom around the world - The Soviet Union - without firing a shot.

"...and governed during a period of relative prosperity."

Are you forgetting that he took office after the Peanut President and had to deal with the high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. We gained prosperity after his tax cuts while fighting a Democrat Congress. We regained our prestige in the world at his hand while fighting the communists.

Don't dismiss Reagan so lightly or try to elevate Lincoln by disparaging Reagan.

[Badray]

""There you go again.""

And there you go again. Reagan's remark was a quip to put down a sneering jerk. You are obviously not familiar with Reagan's speeches. Before you go around singing Lincoln's praises, perhaps you should do some reading about Reagan. Start with "In his hand".

[zarf]

I live RR, but Lincoln faced a scenario unlike any other president. His ability to negotiate the nation through the Civil War was epic.

Your comparing Lincolns situation with that with Reagans tenure - a calm civil society, dealing with some moderately difficult economic circumstances, is ridiculous.

Reagan is a hero of mine, but he's not in Abe's league. Washington maybe, but that's about it as far as presidents are concerned..

[zarf]

Remember that it's the events that make the man, and Lincoln WAS the man for all time.

[Held_to_Ransom]

It is rumored that Lincoln's Ghost still haunts the White House

Woodrow Wilson and second wife used to sleep in the Lincoln bed. It was said that the first thing she did when Wilson proposed was fall out of it.

Harry Truman also got the bed the night FDR died. He just didn't feel comfortable sleeping on it, so he curled up on the couch in the room. The next morning he found out that Lincoln, when up at all hours in the night during the war, would more often sleep on the couch than in the bed so that he wouldn't disturb his wife when he went woke up at all hours of the night. Truman said he slept very comfortably on it.

[LenS]

Sheesh. Learn some history. Lincoln freed all the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the ones in Confederate territory (in theory -- practice waited for the arrivals of Union Armies). But the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery in the US everywhere. Lincoln used a lot of political capital to twist arms in the Congress to get the needed 2/3rd's majorities. He even signed the document despite the President having no official part in the process. While final ratification by the states took until December of 1865 and Lincoln didn't see the final step (murdered by a fanatic like today's Al Qaeda or Neo-Confederates), he was the driving force behind the Amendment's passage.

The Neo-Confederates on this board clearly need to stop preaching on this board. Instead, they need to onto the streets of DC or Harlem and start telling people that they shouldn't be free. I'm sure that you'll find plenty of people just willing to become the Neo's property. But that would require the courage to tell lies away from the safety of their PC's.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Lincoln saved the south from destroying itself with poverty, ignorance, corruption and the barbarism of slavery.

http://www.contemplator.com/folk2/johnbrown.html

[Held_to_Ransom]

Jefferson Davis suspended Habeus Corpus for every single living person in the Confederacy, and except for the 3.5 million slaves who never had it a day in their lives, and who were legally counted as furniture, not people.

Every single man who carried arms in the Confederate Army did so under National Conscription.

[subedei]

"Article 1

Section 7 - The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections.

Section 9 - The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 10 - No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...

Article 2
Section 1 ...Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.".


Article 1, Section 7: An insurrection is different than secession, one of the main issues surrounding the constitution was whether or not the Constitution was a compact of states or the legislative act of the people. If it is the former then each state retained the power, as Jon Roland puts it, "to withdraw from the compact if it were violated, either partially, by nullification of an offending act, or entirely, by secession.". Clearly there is a logical and ideological basis for the proposal that article 1 section 7 did not apply to the seceding states, whether or not you agree to the basis for it is up to you. Does one want an intentionally weakened federal government with power resting primarily in the hands of the states and the people therein, or does one want a powerful centralized federal government with weakened checks and balances against oppression?...

Article 1, Section 9: Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in reaction to the copperheads, what amazingly wicked thing were they doing? Protesting lincolns actions and his violations of the constitution. I seem to remember speech being protected by the first amendment, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to get rid of opposing voices to his own.

Article 1, Section 10: They seceded, they were no longer bound by the this article of the constitution...

Article 2, Section 1: How was waging war on the south, or for that matter refusing to resolve the issue peaceably as Jackson did, protecting the constitution? How did he protect the constitution by violating it and assuming powers in the executive branch and federal government that were never delegated to them to begin with?


Without the actions of lincoln we never would have had the abuses of power and enlargement of government by FDR. With concepts like Nullification the federal government doesn't have the power to assume rights that were never granted it.

You are wrong to assume that they lost their sovereignty when they joined the union, all one has to do is read the constitutional debates, doctrine of 98', and other writings by the Jeffersonian Republicans and other founding fathers to see this. Does power lay in the hands of the people or the federal government? I cannot see how you could rail against the governmental enlargement and abuses by FDR, and then ignore the previous usurptions of power that caused it to happen, or the fundamental basis of our freedoms and sovereignty.

[tort_feasor]

I think you have a valid point as to the original thirteen colonies. They had existence as soverign states prior to adoption of the Consitution. However, the other states are "products" of the United States and as such owe their existence to the United States.
The proposition that we as modern day Americans would be better off if the South won or Lincoln let them go is moot because Lincoln did what he did.
I think a good deal of the debate on Lincoln is healthy...especially the extension of power of the federal government.
However, I think people who despise Lincoln should examine who precipatated the crisis. Lincoln won the election under the constitution. The northern states had compromised repeatedly to preserve the union. It was the southern states that having lost an election took up arms to void the results.
Finally, I think people who admire Lincoln are suspicious of the motives of people who hate Lincoln. Slavery must be rejected and vilified. Lincoln while not alive for the 13th -15th amendments certainly can be seen as the person most responsible for the end of slavery. The failure to give credit to Lincoln for this acheivement leads to (perhaps) a (mis)understanding that the critic is a racist.

[DeepDish]

"But the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery in the US everywhere. Lincoln used a lot of political capital to twist arms in the Congress to get the needed 2/3rd's majorities."

I heard that Lincoln packed the union. That is to say that he got congress to admit Nevada to the union even though it did not have the constitutionaly required population because he needed the votes to get the 13th passed. That must have galled Roosevelt when he couldn't get away with the same scheme for the supreme court.

[subedei]

Are you unable to grasp the simple concept that people can disagree with Lincoln and *gasp* not be a "neo-confederate" or other common simple minded attempted slurs? Since when is one automatically a supporter of slavery if one adheres to the concept of government as envisioned by Jefferson or is against abuses of power as was seen during Lincolns presidency?? And what "lies" have those critical of Lincoln been stating here? Please cite examples and opposing FACTS.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.... I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." - Abraham Lincoln, August 21, 1858, debate in Ottawa, Illinois with Stephan Douglas.

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right --a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases I which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." - Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848.

On emancipation, "Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot, then make them equals." - Abraham Lincoln.

[DeepDish]

When Lincoln was assasinated, 20 of the required 27 states had already ratified the 13th.

[tort_feasor]

He was not alive for ratification. I was trying to be as accurte as possible.

[subedei]

Again, the assertion is that whatever power is not specifically delegated to the federal government lays with the states and the people therein. The fact remains that even though territories were purchased or claimed, the people decided to form a state. If you have proof that the union was owed some special allegiance or rights from the states that were not involved in our initial founding but came after, please cite it. You must first _assume_ that rights aren't inherent in the people, and that the federal government has some special delegated or assumed powers for you to make such a claim. Which goes back to one of my previous statements, "Does one want an intentionally weakened federal government with power resting primarily in the hands of the states and the people therein, or does one want a powerful centralized federal government with weakened checks and balances against oppression?...".

The proposition that we would have been better off without the abuses of power by Lincoln is not a moot point. We are currently living under the affects that his abuses have had, and currently are having on our government and society today.

The act of secession was not in response to Lincoln being elected but his refusal to seek a peaceful resolution or compromise to the issues (which happened to involve more than just slavery). Jackson was willing to compromise and secession wasn't needed, Lincoln was unwilling and so forced the Southern States to secede.

Finally, the assumptions of Lincoln's supporters concerning those who hate his many abuses of power are merely that, assumptions. The voiced slurs have in no way been civil or logical, but have been either an inane attempt to avoid a logical debate or to delegitimize and dehumanize opposing arguments and people. When has any critic of Lincoln here made implied or overt comments that supported slavery?

Am I supposed to ignore the ENORMOUS costs that came from Lincolns actions? Over 600,000 dead, more than all our other wars combined through Vietnam? Implicit change to our governmental form, incredible economic destruction, "total war" specifically waged on the innocent citizenry of the south, abuses of rights in the North, constitutional abuses, etc etc? So that was the preferred and higher moral solution to the issue of slavery, which basically all Lincoln supporters propose as the single reason for the civil war??

Although I am completely against slavery, I am not sorry that I fail to support such a war and Lincolns many abuses of power.

[subedei]

"Seems to me like the Constitution still stands. I haven't read about it being destroyed.".

um, the constitution does not stand as it was originally formed, ours is not a voluntary union. Exactly what was so important about maintaining the union to begin with when you destroy its form and intent by doing so? So anyone can violate the constitution as Lincoln did or use any of those methods in the pursuit of something supposedly worthwhile?


"He had that right in a time of war. Congress couldn't act, and the country needed to put down a rebellion.".

He had the right to suspend it, but he did so illegally and merely to silence opposing voices to his own. Since when is the first amendment not valid in this case? The "copperheads" were not inciting treason, but protesting Lincolns abuses of power, we do have the constitutional right to do that in this country...


"The Supreme Court ruled in the Prize Cases that Lincoln had every right to do so, in keeping with his role as the executor of the laws of the land.".

You of course ignored his reference to the lack of Congressional consent for the military invasion of Virgina, and the initial issue of the legality of South Carolina's secession and their actions concerning Fort Sumter. Which were the things that caused the ensuing Supreme Court actions. But as James Ostrowski put it, "If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union’s initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.". The Supreme Court saw the firing on Fort Sumter as the beginning of a state of civil war, regardless of the legality of secession, Lincolns intentional provocations and the complete lack of threat that the seizure of the fort posed, it being 500 miles away from the nearest state remaining in the Union.


"All the more power to Lincoln. I say hurrah. Down with the Traitor! Up with the Stars!"

wow, hurray for oppression, abuse of power and infringement of fundamental rights as long as you agree with the person or assumed reasons behind it!!! uh huh... You say that you will disassociate yourself with the Republican Party, conservatism, and FreeRepublic if attitudes critical of Lincoln are indicative of these organizations and movements. But then you go and praise oppression and abuse of fundamental freedoms and rights, for what again? What was your reasoning? Oppression for oppression's sake? Or free slaves by any means necessary and viciously oppress anyone who disagrees with any abuse of power? Down with free speech and ideas such as freedom as long as the cause is "righteous" enough? In my humble opinion, any freedom loving person should disassociate themselves from you and your concepts of convenient rights and freedoms.


"If the three states didn't like it, they could have left the union too. And have been put down with a vengeance. Last I checked, the citizens of West Virginia left Virginia because they wanted to remain in the Union.".

So this makes Lincolns unconstitutional actions regarding this ok, because they SUPPOSEDLY wanted to remain in the union? What legal concept or precedent is your little theory here based on again? oh wait, US Constitution Article IV, Section 3 "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any state be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress". Stupid constitution... And also, d*mn that whole concept of inherent rights of man, who cares if the people of Kansas, Nevada and West Virginia never formally consented, put them down if they disagree. What a brave new world you propose for all of us.


"Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. He sent soldiers home to vote. What a crime.".

What in the world are you talking about? Are you making this stuff up as you go along? The reference he was making to Federal troops interfering with Northern elections is specifically referring to the 1864 New York elections where votes were gained at the end of a federal bayonet (Lincoln Reconsidered), not because he sent troops back to vote...


"Woe is me. I'm surprised most of you ignorant slavehounds know what the word "eviscerated" is.".

wow, no wonder you wanted to ban anyone who disagreed with your Lincoln praise... "oursacredhonor" states that Lincoln violated basic private property rights, violated the second amendment, and "eviscerated" the Ninth and Tenth amendments, and your response is with an ad hominem attack and implied baseless comment about the supposed educational worth of someone else. Just what kind of Republican or conservative are you again? Are there any fundamental "conservative" rights or beliefs that you wouldn't flippantly disregard or debase to denegrate the statements of others and suckle at the teet of Lincoln?


"I wish I could have had the opportunity to participate as a member of the firing squad.".

Absolutely stunning, if you are serious I pity you and anyone who might have to rely on your amazing grasp of basic humanity and justice.


"Wasn't it your hero who shouted, "Thus always to tyrants?" Well, I say, "Thus always to traitors!"".

You assume John Wilkes Booth is his hero without any apparent factual basis to delegitimize him and further your own little sound bite? How typical of you. Good to see how you would equate failure to pray for a president as traitorous activity though. Do you plan on being logical or factual anytime soon?


"That is sheer blather, not based in fact or reality.".

Actually the Federal army occupied Maryland in 1861, threw most of the legislators in military prison, which kept them from discussing secession.


"You breathless rebel. You are repeating yourself.".

Again, you state that he is a rebel, nice baseless assumption and attempted slur. This still doesn't change the fact that your original statement was wrong.


"Taney? Oh what a valiant slavehound you are. Yes, let's put Taney's mug on Mount Rushmore. All hail the man who said the slave is not a man, but property! HOW JEFFERSONIAN!"

Nice ad hominem attack to start the comment off. And where is the constitutional basis for your rebuttal of Chief Justus Taney? oh wait, you failed to make any logical rebuttal of Taney and instead decided to *gasp* attack him. We sure haven't seen this from you before. And frankly, you have shown absolutely no evidence of any understanding of Jeffersonian ideals or principles, merely incivility, illogic, and an apparent pathological need to portray any opposing viewpoints other than your own as racist or something of that ilk.

Absolutely pathetic...

[righthand man]

If they come, I'll ask the AdminMod to kick them off the thread.
what happened to free speech

[TexConfederate1861]

Yes..be grateful that he destroyed our constitutional government, forced one half of the nation to re-unite at bayonet point, and ruined the economic health of the South for years...(SARCASM)...sure. (and pigs must fly up North, right?)

I will "celebrate" by lowering my flags to half-staff in MOURNING for the government of the founding fathers....

[TexConfederate1861]

Ask away, cause it ain't gonna happen! You threw out the gauntlet, so let the chips fall where they may!

[Fledermaus]

I'm sure Tom Dasshole is deeply saddened.