If the South held Congress, the Supreme Court and ...

[unionblue]

Ron, did not the South (at least in the form of their elected representatives) state that if a Republican candidate was elected that they would leave the Union? That the North must not have a Republican candidate at all, anywhere on the ballot?

Unionblue

To the best of my knowledge, no. I do not have that info at my fingertips right now, but I just finished reading the following in the past two months (since I joined the *&%#$$ forum and had to get edu-ma-kated real quick):
Coming of the Civil War - Crauch
Days of Defiance - Klein
Impending Crisis, 1842-1861 - Potter
and
Prelude to the Civil War - Freehling

While they all stated that the SOuthern States (deep South, King Cotton states anyway) that "if any Black Republican" was elected President they would leave the Union, I do not remember any such statement that they told any other state who could and could not be on the ballot. That would kind of make their "State's Rights" stand look pretty shallow and faceless, don't you think?

I have also reviewed a copy of website, such as the one from the University of Virginia, which is http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow.../election.html. They provide a nice brief history of the election of 1860 and they do not mention anything about any Southern State dictating who went on the ballot.

More on this as I get a more reading done.

my best, my very blue-blooded friend
oldreb

[unionblue]

I shall await your research, my dedicated rebel friend.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Ron, in order to assist you with your rebuttal, I present to you the following from the book, "Why The Civil War Came" by Gabor S. Boritt.

Chapter 4, The Political System and The Coming of The Civil War, page 120.

"That the Republican party was not allowed to contest elections in the South also had important consequences. Popular hostility prevented Republicans from campaigning or running candidates outside the border slave states, a situation that increased misperceptions on both sides. Denied access to the southern electorate, Republicans lacked a sound comprehension of southern public opinion, while at the same time they lacked means to counteract the distorted popular image of the party in the South. Most Southerners had never laid eyes on a Republican, and thus their perception of the Republican party and its aims derived entirely from assertions of its opponents. When condemned by Southerners for being a sectional party, Republicans responded that if allowed to campaign in the South, they would quickly develop a southern wing. Southerners defended this interference with the free democratic electoral process as necessary for their self-preservation."

And on page 122 of the same chapter:

"Whether secession represented the wishes of a majority of the whites in the Deep South or was the act of a minority cannot be determined from the existing evidence. Only one state, South Carolian, was irrevocably committed to secession, although disunion sentiment was also strong in Mississippi and probably would have triumphed there in a normal election. Whatever the true division of opinion, the process of selecting delegates to the secession conventions violated the fundamental norms of American democracy. Secessionist military companies constantly drilled prior to the election, whipping up revolutionary enthusiasm; southern radicals threatened Unionist voters and questioned their honesty of purpose; and undecided voter cam under heavy pressure to back secession. What the outcome would have been if southern voters had had more time to reflect on their action, and if the voting had been conducted free of intimidation, is unknowable, but there is a good chance that secession would have been rejected in several states of the Deep South, most notably Louisiana and Georgia, and perhaps in Alabama as well. Moreover, except in Texas, where the entire procedure was irregular, none of the original seven states that seceded provided for popular ratification of this decision."

That is where I draw SOME of my data that there were no Northern candidates for President on Southern ballots during the 1860 elections.

I await your research and reply.

Unionblue

[5fish]

This is a very enlightening thread for you can see which direction each party wanted to take our nation.

Democrats were slit because of slavery and support of the Fugitive Slave act and they still wanted to push Manifest Destiny...

Republicans were willing to leave slavery allow except for the new territories but was willing to support "popular sovereignty" in the territories it already resided in.

I am Democrat but I might have been willing to vote Republican in 1860 because I would have been slit over slavery...like many many Democrats were in 1860...


Look at the platforms which would you have supported..in 1860..

[samgrant]

The South did 'own congress" to some degree by virtue of that 3/5th's clause.

Anyone want to dispute that?

---

[trice]

Originally Posted by samgrant

The South did 'own congress" to some degree by virtue of that 3/5th's clause.

Anyone want to dispute that?

---

Even in the immediate aftermath of the 1860 election, the Republican Party did not control either house of the Congress. They picked up a few seats in the House, I believe they lost 1 or 2 in the Senate. They were very close to going over the 50% mark in both houses, but if everyone showed up and united against them they would, just barely, lose a vote in both houses.

This would change with new states being admitted, and at least one was pending in the Winter of 1860-61 (Kansas?) But there was no immediate reason to fear Republican domination during the next Congress (1861-62). It was probably more likely to be a complete stalemate unless some Northern Democrats sided with the Republicans.

In the Supreme Court, it was 5-4 South-North justices in 1860 when the Virginia justice (very pro-slavery, pro-states' rights, pro-secession, it seems) died. Lincoln intended to appoint another Virginian when he entered office, and kept the seat open until 1862 in the hope he might eventually offer it as part of a bargain to bring the South back.

Tim

[5fish]

I looked up the 36th U.S. Congress and 37th U.S. Congress and saw a few interesting things..

Here is the 36th congress by parties:

Senate:
D) 38
R) 26
A) 2

House:
D) 83
R) 119
A) 5
ID) 7
IO) 19
Anti) 8

This was the congress of the last two years of Buchanan's rule as president.. If you look at the break down by state the southern states were dominated by the Democratic party and the Republican party dominated the West, Midwest and Northeast..

Look at all the small one issue parties that had a place at the table in congress. You don't see that anymore.



37th congress by parties:

Senate:
D) 15
R) 31
U) 3

House:

D) 44
R) 108
U) 28
CU) 2
ID) 1


The 37th congress can to power as Lincoln came to power and and accepted the Presidency..The Republican had complete control of congress as the war began. The Republicans could easily muster a 2/3 vote in either chamber.

I think if the south would not have seceded the Republicans I guess would have had only working majorities in both chambers...not total dominance..

The Lincoln's party in total dominance in both chambers of congress it was a licences for total war....

The Democratic party dominated southern politics before the Civil War and after Reconstruction....

[trice]

Originally Posted by 5fish

I looked up the 36th U.S. Congress and 37th U.S. Congress and saw a few interesting things..

Here is the 36th congress by parties:

Senate:
D) 38
R) 26
A) 2

House:
D) 83
R) 119
A) 5
ID) 7
IO) 19
Anti) 8

This was the congress of the last two years of Buchanan's rule as president.. If you look at the break down by state the southern states were dominated by the Democratic party and the Republican party dominated the West, Midwest and Northeast..

Look at all the small one issue parties that had a place at the table in congress. You don't see that anymore.



37th congress by parties:

Senate:
D) 15
R) 31
U) 3

House:

D) 44
R) 108
U) 28
CU) 2
ID) 1


The 37th congress can to power as Lincoln came to power and and accepted the Presidency..The Republican had complete control of congress as the war began. The Republicans could easily muster a 2/3 vote in either chamber.

I think if the south would not have seceded the Republicans I guess would have had only working majorities in both chambers...not total dominance..

The Lincoln's party in total dominance in both chambers of congress it was a licences for total war....

The Democratic party dominated southern politics before the Civil War and after Reconstruction....

This is completely misleading.

The only reason the numbers show the Republicans in control of the 37th Congress is that 11 Southern states -- not one Republican Senator or Representative from them -- have decided to try secession and Civil War. Had they simply remained in Congress, the Republicans would have been a minority.

Tim

[elektratig]

Originally Posted by samgrant

The South did 'own congress" to some degree by virtue of that 3/5th's clause.

Anyone want to dispute that?

---

Sam,

I am the first person to emphasize the importance of the 3/5ths Clause, but "own" Congress may be too strong. Despite the Clause, population shifts had given the North substantial power in the House. The Wilmot Proviso, for example, repeatedly passed the House. After intense pressure by Douglas and others, Kansas-Nebraska just squeaked through the House, something like 113-100. The sticking point was always the Senate. Due to the equality or close-to-equality between the sections in the Senate, the North had to maintain absolute solidarity in order to prevail there. That rarely happened. The Wilmot Proviso never passed the Senate, and Kansas-Nebraska was never in doubt there.

I wonder, for example, whether the Democratic Party two-thirds convention rule (giving the South a veto over presidential nominees) was not more important: it produced Polk (over Van Buren), Pierce and Buchanan.

Looking forward, it's really impossible to figure out what would have happened to the Republican Party if the South had not been so foolish as to secede. The Republicans were born out of a specific grievance -- Kansas-Nebraska -- which was kept alive and fanned by subsequent provocations -- Bloody Kansas, the caning of Sumner, Dred Scott, Lecompton. Once they got down to the hard task of governing, would the bubble have burst?