Skip to comments.Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President 143 Years Ago Tonight
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.
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 ...
Since when is stating UNREFUTED facts about Lincoln besmirching his memory? Everything Natural Law stated in post #19 is historical fact.
In point of fact, #19 is riven with falsehood and distortion -- the hallmark of the neo-confederate.
Oh ho. What Supreme Court case did President Lincol disregard? Don't say "Merryman", that's not a Supreme Court case.
Don't say "Milligan". That case was after the war.
Most historians agree that President Lincoln bent but did not break the Constitution. Blather all you like.
I guess you don't think the war in Korea and in Viet Nam were part of the downfall of Communism, or the capture of the U.S.S. Pueblo, or the numerous shoot downs of U.S. reconnaisance aircraft along the borders of the Soviet Union?
All of that was part and parcel of the fall of the Soviet Union and it sure wasn't bloodless.
"The men at the [Constitutional] convention, it is clear enough, assumed that the national government must have the power to throw down state laws that contradicted federal ones: it was obvious to them that the states could not be permitted to pass laws contravening federal ones...
It did not take long for the supremacy of the Supreme Court to become clear. Shortly after the new government was installed under the new Constitution, people realized that the final say had to be given to somebody, and the Connecticut Jurist and delegate to the Convention Oliver Ellsworth wrote the judicary act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court the clear power of declaring state laws unconstitutional, and by implication allowing it to interpret the Constitution. The power to overturn laws passed by Congress was assumed by the Supreme Court in 1803 and became accepted practice duing the second half of the nineteenth century."
"The convention was slow to tackle the problem of an army, defense, and internal police. The Virginia Plan said nothing about a standing army, but it did say that the national government could 'call forth the force of the union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof.' The delegates had expected to discuss something like this clause, for one of the great problems had been the inability of the old Congress to enforce its laws. Surely it should be able to march troops into states when necessary to get state governments to obey.
But in the days before the convention opened Madison had been thinking it over, and he had concluded that the idea was a mistake. You might well march your troops into Georgia or Connecticut, but then what? Could you really force a legislature to disgorge money at bayonet point? 'The use of force against a state,' Madison said, as the debate started on May 31, 'would be more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.' Although he did not say so at the moment, he had another way of enforcing national law, which not only would be more effective, but also philosophically sounder. As the government was to derive its power from the people, it ought to act on the people directly. Instead of trying to punish a state, which was, after all, an abstraction, for failure to obey the law, the U.S. government could punish individuals directly. Some person -- a governor, a tax collector, a state treasurer -- would be held responsible for failure to deliver the taxes. Similarly, the national government would not punish a state government for allowing say, illegal deals with Indians over western lands, but would directly punish the people making the deals. All of this seemed eminently sensible to the convention and early in the debate on the Virginia Plan the power of the national government to 'call forth the power of the Union' was dropped. And so was the idea that the government should be able to compell the states disappeared from the convention. It is rather surprising, in view of the fact that the convention had been called mainly to curb the independence of the states, that the concept went out so easily. The explanation is, in part, that the states' righters were glad to see it go; and in part that Madison's logic was persuasive: it is hard to arrest an abstraction."
--"Decision in Philadelphia" by Collier and Collier
Everyone in the generation of the framers knew the Constitution was permanently binding under law.
That's what galls the neo-confederates about President Lincoln. He helped advance human freedom.
President Lincoln preserved the Constitution. He didn't break it. The Framers clearly wanted a permanent Union, and that is what came out on the far side of the war.
President Lincoln was wise, merciful and just.
Straight from "1984".
So burning a bridge is a terrorist activity?
No, it's treason. Ask John Merryman.
"Dred Scott" was -not- based in law or precedent. Blacks could vote in 5 northern states at the time.
It was an attempt at social engineering.
Two things. One, please refer me to the law on which it was based, and then please tell me whether or not you agree with the Scott decision.
In your view, how did President Lincoln do that?
Of course, you cannot bend something that is inflexible (without breaking it, your rediculous symantics aside).
This was the typical "southern" voice:
The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language:
"It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid of slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that we cannot do without;that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently,intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here foreveris our property, and ours foreveris never to be emancipatedis to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days."
-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton
"He has all the qualities of a dog except fidelity."
On the one hand, his actions led to the abolition of slavery on this continent, which was one of the greatest achievements in all human history. On the other, his actions destroyed state sovereignty, led to the rise of an all-powerful central government that has not ceased to grow, and also were the genesis of the income tax. He settled by force something the founding generation took for granted the right of the states and the people to disolve the union should such become necessary.
Lincoln did not so much lead the country through a crisis, as he took advantage of the crisis in order to redesign our system of government. One can applaud and honor the abolition of slavery while also noting that other parts of Lincoln's legacy are just as destructive of liberty, only in a different way.
Southerners had controlled the federal government for decades. When the election of a man Like Lincoln -- always an opponent of slavery -- showed that control slipping, they tried to bolt.
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.