Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Fact Neil. Lincoln was elected President with a minority vote. The Republican party based its entire platform on Abolition, plain and dirty.
I will say this however about Mr. Lincoln. My feelings for him changed a bit last night when I read that in March 1865, he presented before his cabinet and Congress a plan to pass a bill for the remunerations of previous slave owners in the amount of (either, can't remember this afternoon) 4 millions or 4 billions dollars. The cabinet and congress kind of just laughed, which caused Lincoln to exclaim that they were all against him.
I have a deeper appreciation for this man since reading that one fact. Took me for surprise, I can tell you that!
Ron, thank you for your comment and the idea that I could ever catch you by surprise!
But I tend to disagree (shocked, aren't you?) that the Republican Party based it's "entire" platform on Abolition. After rolling up on this thread and checking out the post by Rick with the party platforms, doesn't seem that way to me (Please check out paragraph 4 of the Republican party platform above).
As for the rest of the platform, yes, it comes out strongly for the restriction of slavery from the territories, the shutting down of the slave trade, and advocates trial by jury. Just what the party had promised it's numerous supporters.
As for Lincoln being a minority President, He still got more of the popular vote than the other candidates, did he not? That means he was legally elected, does it not? Although the percentage of the popular vote was not over 50% (39.9% as I recall) Lincoln still had the majority of the electorate, as split as it was, and was elected. What if Davis had received 39.9% and won the election, would it matter that he would have been a minority President? The rules were the same for everyone, Ron, and as unhappy as that made the South, I am sure they would not have complained if their man had won "by a minority", true?
Just thinking outloud,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Many are quick to point out that Lincoln was a minority president because he was not elected by a majority of the popular vote. While the fact that he did not receive a majority of the popular vote is true it is by no means a fact that applies only to this election.
In the presidential election of 1844 James K. Polk received 48.1% of the popular vote while his Whig opponent, Henry Clay, received 48.1% of the popular vote with James Birney, the Liberty candidate receiving 2.3% of the popular vote. Polk won the election with 170 votes in the electoral-college to Clay’s 105 even though they received the exact same percent of the popular vote.
In the presidential election of 1848 Zachary Taylor received 47.3% of the popular vote. His Democrat opponent, Lewis Cass, received 42.5% of the popular vote while Martin Van Buren, running as the Free Soil candidate, received 10.1% of the popular vote. Taylor won the election with 163 votes in the electoral college compared to 127 for Cass.
In the presidential election of 1852 Franklin Pierce received 50.8% of the popular vote. His Whig opponent, Winfield Scot, received 43.9% of the popular vote with the remaining 4.9% of the popular vote going to Hale. Pierce won the election with 254 votes in the electoral-college as compared to 42 for Scot.
In the presidential election of 1856 James Buchanan received 45.3% of the popular vote. His opponent John Fremont, the first candidate of the newly formed Republican Party, received 33.1% of the popular vote while Millard Fillmore, the incumbent running as a Know Nothing candidate, received 21.6% of the popular vote. Buchanan was elected with 174 votes in the electoral-college as opposed to 114 for Fremont and 8 for Fillmore.
In the presidential election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln, Republican, received 39.9% of the popular vote. Stephen Douglas, Democrat, received 29.5% of the popular vote. John C. Breckinridge, Southern Democrat, received 18.1% of the popular vote. John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party received 12.5% of the popular vote. Lincoln was elected with 180 votes in the electoral-college. Douglas received 39, Breckinridge 72, and Bell 12.
Of the four presidential elections preceding Lincoln’s election, men who did not receive a majority of the popular vote won three. The only winner of a majority of the popular vote in these four elections was Franklin Pierce in 1852 and he only won a majority of the popular vote by .8%. The constant friction in Congress and divisions in the country along sectional lines were causing endless re-alignments among the political parties, which showed up in mixed returns at ALL presidential elections from 1844-1860.
Much has been made of the split of the Democratic party in 1860. Obviously, this split made it impossible for either of the 2 Democratic candidates to be elected. However, if you combine the total electoral votes of all 3 of the other candidates opposing Lincoln in 1860 he would still be the clear winner of the election 180-123.
In the face of all these facts I hardly see why the fact that Lincoln did not recieve a majority of the popular vote is somehow dismissive of his right to be president.
As an interesting aside, the only other presidential race preceding the race of 1860 where there were in fact four major candidates was in 1824. John Quincy Adams received 30.9% of the popular vote. Henry Clay received 13% of the popular vote. William H. Crawford of Georgia received 11.2% while Andrew Jackson received 41.3% of the popular vote. In the electoral-college Jackson had 99, Adams 84, Clay 37, and Crawford 41. The framers of the constitution had made provisions for such an occurrence. The top 3 vote getters in the electoral-college would go to the House of Representatives where the election would be decided. Henry Clay, who arguably held the most power in the House, transferred his support to Adams in return for Adams appointing him Secretary of State. This was widely known as the “corrupt bargain” and did much to ruin the career of both. Jackson had won the largest number of popular votes and had won the largest number of electoral votes yet still lost the election. His subsequent distrust of the electoral-college system and efforts to have it abolished were fruitless in the end.
Ron, is this what one would consider a "single source" answer? What is your point? Lincoln was a minority President, but he still gathered more votes (electorial and popular) than the other candidates.
This had happened before and the country did not have to tear itself apart, so why is this such an issue with you?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil,
In 2001, the US almost came apart again, this time because a vote was too close, some "groups" felt their votes were not counted, other "ballots" were disallowed because of dented vote indicators, hanging chads, etc.
I believe that had we been, in 2001, in the same political climate that we were in in 1860, you might have seen the same results.
It is obvious, when Mr. Lincoln said, "of the people, by the people and for the people", he did not include the Electorial College. This is NOT how a democratic republic should elect a leader for four years.
As Pickett said (Movie version) at Gettysburg, "The Union got all the smart ones, heh,,,and look where it got them."
This is why it is such a sticking point with me. The country had since 1849 been on the verge of ripping apart. It was in 1849 that Mississippi, God bless my home state!, took their first vote and PASSED articles of secession. The SOuth stated that IF Lincoln was elected, it would leave the Union. The south felt, and with some good reason, that Lincoln was anti-slavery, would abolish slavery, would prohibit the growth of slavery in the territories, and would not actively enforce the fugative slave act. They WARNED the Federal government repeatedly, that if Lincoln was elected, they would secede. The North just did not give a **** at that time, under Buchanan, and they allowed the election to proceed, UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES, and it came to pass, Lincoln was elected by the Electorial College, although his name did not appear on the ballots of 13 states (or was it 11, I forget). Now, while I realize a lot of Presidents have been elected as a minority President, how many (Rich, can you supply this info?) have been elected when their name did not appear on over 30% of the state's ballots?
Not a single source answer, but a culmination of questions, issues, confrontations, etc.
Ron, I cannot agree that the 2000 election ever put this country in danger. It was high comedy, but never dangerous. What's that old saying? 'God looks out for drunks, little children and the United States of America.'
At no time were any forts, ships or armories seized by any of the States contesting ballot over/under counts. No National Guard troops were called out to keep order, no services were interrupted and people still got paid and had to pay their bills.
In short, the people got a lesson in participative democracy and should have got off their dead butts and voted instead of staying at home and complaining about the system. Out of all the eligible voters who could have voted and didn't, I say shame on you.
As for the South WARNING the rest of the country NOT to vote for Lincoln or put him on the ballot, that is the height of restricting the country's freedom of choice and seems to be a bit of a dictatorship to me. Everyone had been playing by the same set of rules until the South came up against a party and a candidate it could not whip in the Congress or general elections. Then the rules just didn't apply anymore.
So what was the country supposed to do? Wait for the South to post the approved candidates for each election?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
First, the south did not tell anybody NOT to vote for Lincoln. They let it be known that if ANY BLACK REPUBLICAN won the presidency they would leave. They spoke their piece, and then they did what they said.
Second, The Constitution does not even require a public ballot, as best as I can read it. Here is what the Constitution says about being elected President, Article II, Section I,
"Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. "
So, there it is. We, of the people, can not vote, for the people, for President by the Constitution, by the people.
And finally, yeah, it would have been nice for the North to waited for the South to post the "approved" candidate list.
I concede that the Nation was never in danger, but tensions were running high particularly in those States where votes were deemed inadmissable, where challenges were offered.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
