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

[Non-Sequitur]

Judge Judy...

Fairly appropriate choice for judge, given the contempt that the Davis regime had towards the idea of an independent judiciary.

[Non-Sequitur]

However, you seem to think that the South was a disaster area before the war.

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Apparently a lot of blockade runners got through. A visiting British colonel noted in 1863 that they were seldom captured.

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.

[nolu chan]

From Financial History of the United States, Davis Rich Dewey, 1922, Part 1, § 115, p. 267,:

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.

[PeaRidge]

Interesting data.

Part of the annual spending was on normal operations of the Government, Army, Navy, Pensions, Interest on public debt.

The rest was Congressional discretional spending. The percentage of the discressional spending of the total spent increased 25% over the two years 1858-1859. That was the explosion. It caused public debt to look like this:

Public Debt of the Federal Government 1857-1860
(Source: Historical Statistics of the US, Series Y-493-504, page 1118)

1857 $28,701,000

1858 $44,913,000

1859 $58,498,000

1860 $64,844,000

And as you know, with the debt and recession and other factors, lenders were charging much larger interest rates and asking for access to government land as collateral.

[PeaRidge]

Very good read, and shows that at the time of the writing, November of 1861,that this was known:

"The impression exists, that the people of the South proposed, from the first, to pay for all Federal property, and sent commissioners to Washington to arrange this."

[PeaRidge]

The point was in reply to Walt's Big Mac Pherson quote which was:

"statement from McPherson, "They didn't have much liquid capital."

Which I refuted. You can ask him what Big Mac says about war time spending.

[rustbucket]

Your point about that depression is well taken. Congress added to the debt problem, or wanted to, in 1860-1861. From the remarks of a Representative Phelps speaking to the House on February 6, 1861 (paragraph breaks mine):

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.

[rustbucket]

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

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.

[PeaRidge]

In my opinion, you have pointed out one of the two reasons for Lincoln starting the war.

The Northern states had vastly overextended themselves, anticipating repayment of loans from tariff revenue which they were about to double with Morrill.

With secession, that plan wouldn't work since the North had very little to export.

The South, getting ready to begin direct trading with Europe, by-passing both the tariff and the expense of using New England shipping, was the other reason.

Not only was the Lincoln government either going to fail financially, or have to start direct taxiation, but also the trading centers of the North, Philly, NYC, and Boston, were going to shift to Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans.

Thanks for the quote. I am going to add it to my collection.

[PeaRidge]

"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."


Not before the war. See above.

[GOPcapitalist]

Fairly appropriate choice for judge, given the contempt that the Davis regime had towards the idea of an independent judiciary.

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.

[nolu chan]

LINK

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.

[Held_to_Ransom]

According to Time magazine, Bush has violated Habeus Corpus now 17,000 to 19,000 times. That's a record. No one knows the exact number because they can't talk to anyone. They just disappear.

[nolu chan]

From The Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase, J.W. Schuckers, 1874, p. 355

[Lazamataz]

According to Time magazine, Bush has violated Habeus Corpus now 17,000 to 19,000 times. That's a record. No one knows the exact number because they can't talk to anyone. They just disappear.

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Contempt? That's a funny word considering that all those years Davis was fighting Congress trying to get them to establish a supreme court!

Jefferson Davis fought for a supreme court? Next you'll be saying that Jefferson Davis fought to end slavery, too.

[Non-Sequitur]

How many countries must recognize a state/nation for it to be officially a "nation"?

At least one would be nice.

[Non-Sequitur]

Imagine having to account for $600 in treasury notes as part of the government debt. Things were certainly different then.

[Held_to_Ransom]

You have a right to be safe on the streets. If I rob you, I have violated that right. You have a right to the legal protections granted in the Constitution, and if those are removed, your rights to them have been violated.

Laz, grow up and give the clintonisms. The truth of the matter is that Nixon was the only president to embarrass himself out of office, and while the technical process of impeachment under your legalistic definitions was applied to others, it didn't mean crap in the end.

Go ahead, tell that Nixon leaving office all depended on the meaning of the word is.

Laz, if walks like a duck, looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then it is a duck no matter how many times and way you define it to be porter house steak or whatever other childness nonsense you want to delude yourself with.

You are just hiding behind legalisms, and are behaving exactly as clinton did. Wake up and smell the coffee.