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 ...
So what would the letter have said? "Dear Jeff, Love what you're doing with the government control of industry but there's still that slavery thing I can't support you on. Regards, Karl?"
You are aware that just about everything in your post was either incorrect or an exaggeration, aren't you?
No it isn't.
They were called Copperheads back then. Maybe we should re-issue that term for the modern day Copperheads. Jay Rockefeller comes immediately to mind.
If you would bother to read the Constitution you would find that there is no constitutional requirement for statehood.
Yes, a UNIFIED nation rather than two or more weakend countries. If the secessionists had their way, today there would be no USA nor CSA since one of the toltarian Eurpean powers would have defeated us. Most likely we would today be the USSA (United Socialist States of America) under Communist rule.
If he had the right to suspend it then how were his actions illegal? And since the most famous 'victim' of the habeas corpus suspension, John Merryman, was arrested for terrorist activites (he burned a bridge) then how can you say Lincoln's actions were 'merely to silence opposing voices to his own?"
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.
Why did Lincoln need Congressional consent to combat the rebellion? He had all the authority he needed to do that under the Militia Act of 1795. And I'm pretty sure that shooting up Fort Sumter violated some law or another.
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.".
This makes no sense. Even assuming for a moment that the secession of South Carolina was legal where does that automatically give her title to federal property within her borders? And Sumter was federal property, built with federal dollars on land deeded to the federal government in perpetuity by the legislature of South Carolina. The troops occupying the fort were no more tresspassing than were the troops occupying the forts in New York harbor. And the U.S. did not 'retaliate or initiate war against the (c)onfederacy.' It responded to an attack on Sumter by the Davis regime. Legal or not, the southern states forced war upon the U.S. When Virginia joined the rebellion she left brought upon herself the results of her action.
So this makes Lincolns unconstitutional actions regarding this ok, because they SUPPOSEDLY wanted to remain in the union?
Lincoln's actions were not unconstitutional simply because you say they are.
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".
And that is what happened. People from Virginia, primarily western Virginia, organized an alternate, loyal Virginia legislature and it was this body which petitioned the government for permission to separate, in accordance with Article IV. There was nothing unconstitutional with that.
Actually the Federal army occupied Maryland in 1861, threw most of the legislators in military prison, which kept them from discussing secession.
Flat out false.
I have to disagree with you there. Lincoln as a young man participated in debating societies in Springfield and was an excellent speaker. Witness his lyceum address in 1838, years before he went to Congress. This was Lincoln at his most eloquent and, as it happens, most prophetic.
"How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
I find it far more disappointing that, according to some of the persons here, we should not be able to discuss anything about Abe Lincoln on this thread that is less than flattering no matter how factual it may be. I certainly don't recall any efforts to suppress dissenting views from threads about the south or CSA, yet curiously you insist upon a Lincoln thread where only blind idolatry is permitted.
No, and unlike Lincoln he didn't cause one either.
Nope, and I personally tend to favor Spooner's ultra-strict constructionist view of the Constitution, which deems slavery itself an unconstitutional act in theory. For the record, many of the great states righters of American history such as founding father Luther Martin were also the strongest opponents of slavery in their day.
It should be noted that colonization was also supported by men like Robert Lee, James Madison, and John Breckenridge. Are you condemning them as well?
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.