Sectional Party of 1860

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
A common criticism of Southerners against Lincoln and the Republicans were that they represented a "sectional party."

Given that the Constitution makes not mention of political parties a sectional party candidate being elected might seem wrong to some but it's not unconstitutional.

But more importantly in 1860 Southerners bolted the Democratic party because they refused to accept Stephan Douglas as a presidential candidate. Thus even if Breckinridge had been elected his victory would have also represented the election of a sectional party. Arguably there were only sectional parties in 1860: 2 Northern, 1 Southern, 1 border states & upper South.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
"Sectional" elections are common in American history:
  • 1828 Andrew Jackson wins the Electoral College 178-83 over John Quincy Adams. Adams won New England (MA-ME-NH-VT-RI-CT) plus NJ and DE. Jackson took every other state (NY and MD were close splits).
  • 1824 John Quincy Adams wins in Congress. Jackson leads in the Electoral College with 99 over Adams (84), Crawford (41) and Clay (37). All were technically in the same party, the Democratic-Republicans. States split like this:
    • Jackson took SC-NC-TN-AL-MS-IN-PA-NJ-MD(7-4)-LA(3-2)
    • Adams took New England (MA-ME-NH-VT-RI-CT) plus IL(1-2)
    • Crawford took VA-GA-DE(2-1)
    • Clay took OH-KY-MO
  • 1816 James Monroe won the Electoral College 183-34. Rufus King took MA-CT-NJ; Monroe won everywhere else.
  • 1812 James Madison won the Electoral College 128-89. DeWitt Clinton took most of New England (MA-ME-NH-RI-CT) plus NY-NJ-DE while Madison took everything else.
  • 1808 James Madison won the Electoral College 122-47-6 over Charles C. Pinckney and George Clinton. Pinckney took most of New England (MA-NH-RI-CT) plus DE. Clinton took 6 votes in NY to Madison's 13.
  • 1804 Thomas Jefferson won the Electoral College 162-14 over Charles C. Pinckney. Pinckney took CT-DE and 2 votes in MD
  • 1800 Thomas Jefferson won the Electoral College 73-65 over John Adams. The Federalists (Adams and Pinckney ticket) won New England (MA-ME-NH-VT-RI-CT) plus NJ-DE, lost PA 8-7 and NC 8-4.
Look at the above and you'll see a clear "sectional" difference, with New England and the tier of states near it along the Eastern seaboard usually opposed to "the South" (as in "the rest of the country"). NY-NJ-DE-MD look like "border states" in that difference.

"The South" had no problem with a sectional dominance when they had the upper hand. The problem in 1860 is that "the South" is not on top.
 

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
A key difference between earlier elections that had sectional results and the 1860 election was who was on the ballot where.

In 1860, most of the South only had Breckinridge and Bell as choices. In 1828, weren't Jackson and Adams on ballots nationwide?

Candidate A winning the North 60-40 while B wins the South 60-40 is a very different situation than if those results are 95-5, even if the electoral votes are the same.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
A key difference between earlier elections that had sectional results and the 1860 election was who was on the ballot where.

In 1860, most of the South only had Breckinridge and Bell as choices. In 1828, weren't Jackson and Adams on ballots nationwide?

Candidate A winning the North 60-40 while B wins the South 60-40 is a very different situation than if those results are 95-5, even if the electoral votes are the same.

In the early days, ballots were printed and handed out by your supporters locally (often the printing was done at the local party newspaper). The government did not do it in the early days.

Lincoln was not on the ballot in most Southern states because the Republican Party did not have any infrastructure in "the South" to raise funds, print ballots and get them to voters. Southern society actively suppressed attempts to bring contrary ideas down to "the South", often through the control of local postmasters (a Federal patronage job in those days). One of the reasons Southerners were afraid of a Republican President being elected is that such a man could hand out patronage jobs in Southern states (controlled by the Democrats in the 1850s), leading to the creation of a Republican Party in "the South".

Lincoln did get a few votes in Virginia, up by the Ohio River.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
A common criticism of Southerners against Lincoln and the Republicans were that they represented a "sectional party."

Given that the Constitution makes not mention of political parties a sectional party candidate being elected might seem wrong to some but it's not unconstitutional.

But more importantly in 1860 Southerners bolted the Democratic party because they refused to accept Stephan Douglas as a presidential candidate. Thus even if Breckinridge had been elected his victory would have also represented the election of a sectional party. Arguably there were only sectional parties in 1860: 2 Northern, 1 Southern, 1 border states & upper South.
Yes, the Republicans were the first truly sectional party in the country. Lincoln and the Republicans triumphed in the election of 1860 because of their party’s unity and the division within the Democrat Party. In addition, there was a growing antislavery feeling in the North, where the Dred Scott decision and other events outraged many people. In addition, the Republican economic program appealed both to farmers (with homestead legislation) and to manufacturers and workers (with tariffs) far more than the Democratic economic policies. Also, there was a sense of public disgust at the corruption of Democrats, most notably those in the Buchanan administration.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Yes, the Republicans were the first truly sectional party in the country. Lincoln and the Republicans triumphed in the election of 1860 because of their party’s unity and the division within the Democrat Party. In addition, there was a growing antislavery feeling in the North, where the Dred Scott decision and other events outraged many people. In addition, the Republican economic program appealed both to farmers (with homestead legislation) and to manufacturers and workers (with tariffs) far more than the Democratic economic policies. Also, there was a sense of public disgust at the corruption of Democrats, most notably those in the Buchanan administration.

Anyone looking for a little information on corruption in the Buchanan administration might want to take a look at the Impeach James Buchanan thread.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Republican Party was the first sectional party, because they were anti Southern. They wanted to take away all influence of Southerners in the Federal Government. They were successful. Southerners seceded. However, even that wasn’t enough for the Yankee.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Republican Party was the first sectional party, because they were anti Southern. They wanted to take away all influence of Southerners in the Federal Government. They were successful. Southerners seceded. However, even that wasn’t enough for the Yankee.

The slaveholding South encouraged a Northern sectional party for favoring slavery and Southern views on the topic when they were in control of the federal government for nearly 70 years.

The North simply got tired of a sectional elite dictating to the majority of the country and decided to counter that long era of sectional control
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Stephen A. Douglas ran a national campaign and received many votes in southern states. Lincoln won the election because more southerners did not vote for Douglas, which made it unrealistic or impossible for him to get the necessary EC votes. John Bell's candidacy made it nearly impossible for Douglas to win in the border states and throw the election to the House of Reps.
The Republicans were strong in the north, but also won in California and Oregon, and they received votes in Missouri. For a party that did not exist in 1852, their achievements in 1860 were only a prelude to what was to come. The secessionists were right, the Republican party was made up mainly of former Whigs that no longer had to defend slavery. They were just getting started.
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Political turmoil was one of the reasons for the Civil War. The slow collapse of the Whig Party due to sectional divisions within the party gave rise to the Republican Party in 1854. The Republican Party was formed from a loose coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists. This led to the first truly sectional party in the country and paved the way to Lincoln’s election in 1860. In addition, the split within the Democratic Party in 1860 led to separate conventions in order to nominate a Presidential candidate. This fracturing of the Democrats led to a Republican victory and Lincoln was elected as President of the United States. The disruption of the traditional two party system was one of the factors that resulted in the war.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The slaveholding South encouraged a Northern sectional party for favoring slavery and Southern views on the topic when they were in control of the federal government for nearly 70 years.

The North simply got tired of a sectional elite dictating to the majority of the country and decided to counter that long era of sectional control

Glad you agree. The Republican Party was a Sectional, Anti-Southern Party. Formed to take Political and Economic Control away from Southerners. So, Southerners seceded. Tripe about the Negro is just that.

Southerners didn’t complain about Yankee Slave trading. Yankees reducing the Northern Blacks to a class lower Than the Irish. Didn’t complain when they paid The Irish in liquor. Didn’t complain when they starved the Irishman, so he would work. Didn’t complain about the overcrowded, filthy cities, immigrants were forced to live in. Using the potty in the streets, which they still are. Didn’t complain about the Yankee Federal Government raping, stealing and enslaving Native Americans. Let the Yankee sell them insurance policies on Negroes as if they were cattle. Didn’t complain when the Yankee traded Coolies for Opium and sell them to Cuba and Peru. Didn’t say anything about the Yankee selling Opium to China. I could go on. Maybe you get the picture. So, we are to believe the Yankee was Benevolent? No it all was about Power and Empire!
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Glad you agree.

Don't do that. Say I said something that I didn't.


The Republican Party was a Sectional, Anti-Southern Party. Formed to take Political and Economic Control away from Southerners. So, Southerners seceded.

It was a sectional party because the slaveholding leaders of the South forced into being.


Tripe about the Negro is just that.

It wasn't tripe to those Southern slaveholding elitists.

Southerners didn’t complain about Yankee Slave trading.

Why should they as they were the primary benefits of that trading. No Southern slaveholder ever had to have a gun held to his head by a Yankee ship captain carrying slaves to Charleston and forced to buy slaves.

Yankees reducing the Northern Blacks to a class lower Than the Irish. Didn’t complain when they paid The Irish in liquor. Didn’t complain when they starved the Irishman, so he would work.

Wow! What a dark vision you paint.

Didn’t complain about the overcrowded, filthy cities, immigrants were forced to live in. Using the potty in the streets,

And the slave cabins were antiseptic and cleaned to perfection every day? Let's both realize the century we are talking about.

which they still are.

You of course have modern stats and sources for this claim.

Didn’t complain about the Yankee Federal Government raping, stealing and enslaving Native Americans.

There were Southern Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen in that federal government, at times leading it, who did the same with no protest or reproach over such crimes.

Let the Yankee sell them insurance policies on Negroes as if they were cattle.

It happened, a service called for and happily supplied to those slaveowners who requested such.

Didn’t complain when the Yankee traded Coolies for Opium and sell them to Cuba and Peru.

Didn't complain about those in the South that invested in such voyages.

Didn’t say anything about the Yankee selling Opium to China.

Check the investor's list supporting those Yankees doing such?

I could go on.

I'm sure.

Maybe you get the picture.

I get your views of what you think the picture is.

So, we are to believe the Yankee was Benevolent?

Benevolent? No. I view them as a portion of the United States that got a bit tired of being treated like cattle by those who felt they were superior to other folks because of where they resided and had it all pretty much their way with a 3/5ths vote based on black slavery.

No it all was about Power and Empire!

On this we agree. If the slaveholding South could not dictate from Power and form their version of a slave Empire, they would try and steal it another way.

Unionblue
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Political turmoil was one of the reasons for the Civil War. The slow collapse of the Whig Party due to sectional divisions within the party gave rise to the Republican Party in 1854. The Republican Party was formed from a loose coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists. This led to the first truly sectional party in the country and paved the way to Lincoln’s election in 1860. In addition, the split within the Democratic Party in 1860 led to separate conventions in order to nominate a Presidential candidate. This fracturing of the Democrats led to a Republican victory and Lincoln was elected as President of the United States. The disruption of the traditional two party system was one of the factors that resulted in the war.

One of the major issues in "the South" was the fear that the Republican Party was going to expand into "the South" and become a truly national party. This led to aggressive efforts to prevent that expansion (largely because the planter class saw it as a threat to separate the non-slave-holding-class in "the South" from the planter class politically).

The Democrats needed to change with the times, as political parties always have to do. "The South" wanted to keep things as they were; in reality, they wanted to march forward into the past, demanding an expansion of slavery when the worldwide-tide of abolition was against them. This issue of slavery is what fractured the Democrats.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Glad you agree. The Republican Party was a Sectional, Anti-Southern Party. Formed to take Political and Economic Control away from Southerners. So, Southerners seceded. Tripe about the Negro is just that.

Southerners didn’t complain about Yankee Slave trading. Yankees reducing the Northern Blacks to a class lower Than the Irish. Didn’t complain when they paid The Irish in liquor. Didn’t complain when they starved the Irishman, so he would work. Didn’t complain about the overcrowded, filthy cities, immigrants were forced to live in. Using the potty in the streets, which they still are. Didn’t complain about the Yankee Federal Government raping, stealing and enslaving Native Americans. Let the Yankee sell them insurance policies on Negroes as if they were cattle. Didn’t complain when the Yankee traded Coolies for Opium and sell them to Cuba and Peru. Didn’t say anything about the Yankee selling Opium to China. I could go on. Maybe you get the picture. So, we are to believe the Yankee was Benevolent? No it all was about Power and Empire!
The Republican Party certainly was associated with anti-slavery policies. I have seen no evidence that it was "anti-Southern" -- unless being anti-slavery is the same as being "anti-Southern". Is that what you are saying here?
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
There were numerous policy differences between the Republican Party and the Democrats in the South. As you mentioned, the Republicans opposed the extension of slavery into the territories which the south disagreed with. Furthermore, as part of their party platform, the Republicans in 1860 also advocated tariffs to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. Most of the manufacturing sector was located in the north and the southern states were opposed to such tariffs which would increase the cost of imported goods. The Republicans also wanted to pass a Homestead Bill in order to encourage the settlement of farms in the western region by offering cheap land in small parcels. Southerners feared that such a policy would discourage the establishment of large scale plantation agriculture. The Republicans also favored internal improvements to support the development of transportation facilities. Southerners viewed federal subsidies for such projects primarily as a benefit to the northern states which had a more developed transportation network. These are just a few examples of why the Republican Party was considered to be anti-southern.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The Republican Party certainly was associated with anti-slavery policies. I have seen no evidence that it was "anti-Southern" -- unless being anti-slavery is the same as being "anti-Southern". Is that what you are saying here?

North over South by Susan Mary Grant has written a book about Northern Nationalism. Political Historians have written about it. Here is an excerpt from Grant's book:

Via its image of the antebellum South, the North increasingly came to regard the South as a world apart from but not necessarily a threat to its own. The North's attempt to define a national ideal was not, in and of itself, a destructive or wholly exclusive impulse, but over time it became so. This is the crux of the matter as far as the ideological and political changes of the mid-nineteenth century are concerned, by it is a point that is too often overlooked. The Republican Party in 1856 and again in 1860 promoted itself as the party of Union, the party of the nation, but it was not. It was a sectional party with a sectional ideology, and ideology, as Foner has shown, that was predicated on opposition to the South, to the economic, social, and political reality of that section. The South was necessary to the development and refinement of this ideology. I will not go so far as to say that if the South had not existed the North would have invented it--but the South played an important role in the development of what became American nationalism. And to a degree, that was the role of scapegoat. pp17

All of this goes back to when the Ships first hit the Shores. But, by 1860, the Republicans had cast the Southerners as the Others. Just like the Patriots cast the King of England and their associates in the DOI. Their was very little Union in 1860. It is true the Republicans were able to connect all Democrats to the South, but the focus was on the South. Republicans wanted to forever Change the South, or isolated them. It is also true that limiting Slavery would rob Political and Economic Power away from the South, but it was Deeper than that. All about Nationalism.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
North over South by Susan Mary Grant has written a book about Northern Nationalism. Political Historians have written about it. Here is an excerpt from Grant's book:

Via its image of the antebellum South, the North increasingly came to regard the South as a world apart from but not necessarily a threat to its own. The North's attempt to define a national ideal was not, in and of itself, a destructive or wholly exclusive impulse, but over time it became so. This is the crux of the matter as far as the ideological and political changes of the mid-nineteenth century are concerned, by it is a point that is too often overlooked. The Republican Party in 1856 and again in 1860 promoted itself as the party of Union, the party of the nation, but it was not. It was a sectional party with a sectional ideology, and ideology, as Foner has shown, that was predicated on opposition to the South, to the economic, social, and political reality of that section. The South was necessary to the development and refinement of this ideology. I will not go so far as to say that if the South had not existed the North would have invented it--but the South played an important role in the development of what became American nationalism. And to a degree, that was the role of scapegoat. pp17

All of this goes back to when the Ships first hit the Shores. But, by 1860, the Republicans had cast the Southerners as the Others. Just like the Patriots cast the King of England and their associates in the DOI. Their was very little Union in 1860. It is true the Republicans were able to connect all Democrats to the South, but the focus was on the South. Republicans wanted to forever Change the South, or isolated them. It is also true that limiting Slavery would rob Political and Economic Power away from the South, but it was Deeper than that. All about Nationalism.
The idea of sectionalism was an important issue that eventually resulted in the war. There have been noted historians who have regarded sectionalism as a cause of the war including the late Frank Owsley. Professor Owsley was a faculty member at Vanderbilt University for an extended time during the first half of the 20th century. Owsley believed that the USA had never been a united country but a collection of sectional interests that over time led to its eventual disintegration. The concept of sectionalism resulted in an attempt by one section of the country to gain control of the federal government and destroy the sectional balance that existed in the nation. In Owsley's analysis, the sectional attitudes of the North and South were a crucial element in the coming of the war.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
There were numerous policy differences between the Republican Party and the Democrats in the South. As you mentioned, the Republicans opposed the extension of slavery into the territories which the south disagreed with. Furthermore, as part of their party platform, the Republicans in 1860 also advocated tariffs to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. Most of the manufacturing sector was located in the north and the southern states were opposed to such tariffs which would increase the cost of imported goods. The Republicans also wanted to pass a Homestead Bill in order to encourage the settlement of farms in the western region by offering cheap land in small parcels. Southerners feared that such a policy would discourage the establishment of large scale plantation agriculture. The Republicans also favored internal improvements to support the development of transportation facilities. Southerners viewed federal subsidies for such projects primarily as a benefit to the northern states which had a more developed transportation network. These are just a few examples of why the Republican Party was considered to be anti-southern.

There are always "policy differences". It doesn't matter whether we are talking about modern day America or the 1850s or the 1770s. It doesn't matter if we are talking about France or Austria or Britain or the Roman Empire. There are always "policy differences". Having "policy differences" doesn't make the Republican Party "anti-Southern".

While there was certainly more industry in "the North" (as in "the rest of the country") than in "the South", "the North" was still largely agricultural -- particularly in OH-IN-IL-MI-WI-MN-IA. "The South" could have aligned itself with that area against the northeast -- but they could not bear to compromise and so lost out.

You can find Southerners supporting protective tariffs before the Civil War easily enough -- you just have to look at items where a protective tariff was a benefit to 'the South". When the day came in the 1830s where South Carolina planters discovered that rice from Java could be sold for less on the dock in Charleston than rice they floated downriver to Charleston, they immediately decided they wanted a protective tariff -- and they pushed it right through Congress in the next Tariff. Over on a different river, the sugar planters of Louisiana happily pocketed all the extra profits the tariff on sugar imports gave them without protesting the protection of their business.

In 1860, the Republicans saw two advantages in the Tariff:
  • in PA and parts of NJ, the protection of the iron-and-steel industry was very popular -- because that was where the iron-and-steel industry was largely concentrated and they were being badly hurt by British imports in the Panic of 1857 (just as they were in the 1830s leading to the Panic of 1837). This was also popular in parts of western VA (which was more closely associated with Pittsburgh than Richmond).
  • everywhere else, the real interest was in the new tax on wool imports -- because somehow small farmers saw that as "their tariff". Apparently, farmers dreamed of making a bit of cash off higher prices on wool from sheep. Again this was a popular thought in western Virginia.
On "cheap"land, the cost of an acre in "the North" was roughly three times the cost of an acre in "the South".

"The South" wanted to be able to buy land at cheap prices just like people everywhere else did. In particular, the entire cotton plantation system was closely tied to cheap Federal land sales because of the exhaustion of land in growing cotton (roughly a seven year cycle from first clearing-and-planting to the end of productive crops) -- which drove a continual migration-and-expansion into new land. What you are describing points to "the South's" opposition to the proposed cheap land in the Homestead Act as being a bit hypocritical -- they want land they buy to be cheap, but are opposed to letting the land others buy be cheap.

Virtually all of the income of the Federal government came from two sources: the Tariff (the largest part by far) and Federal land sales. Given the financial disaster presided over by the Southern-dominated Buchanan administration, an increase in revenue was essential in 1860 to pay down the Federal debt and generate operating funds -- but "the South" appears to have been opposed to paying to clean up the mess they made.

"The South" also seems to have wanted more Federal spending where it would help them -- and was opposed to Federal spending elsewhere. They wanted the protection of Federal power (troops and ships, economic strength, a merchant marine, diplomatic leverage) -- but they did not want to pay for what they got.

These are the "policy differences" that no one ever wants to discuss from the Southern standpoint. If they did not want higher tariffs or land prices, how did "the South" propose to raise the necessary income to run the government? Did "the South" want an income tax, particularly on rich planters? Did they want a tax on real property -- which would hit the planter class heavily? Just how did "the South" plan to run a government if they did not want to pay for it?
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
North over South by Susan Mary Grant has written a book about Northern Nationalism. Political Historians have written about it. Here is an excerpt from Grant's book:

Via its image of the antebellum South, the North increasingly came to regard the South as a world apart from but not necessarily a threat to its own. The North's attempt to define a national ideal was not, in and of itself, a destructive or wholly exclusive impulse, but over time it became so. This is the crux of the matter as far as the ideological and political changes of the mid-nineteenth century are concerned, by it is a point that is too often overlooked. The Republican Party in 1856 and again in 1860 promoted itself as the party of Union, the party of the nation, but it was not. It was a sectional party with a sectional ideology, and ideology, as Foner has shown, that was predicated on opposition to the South, to the economic, social, and political reality of that section. The South was necessary to the development and refinement of this ideology. I will not go so far as to say that if the South had not existed the North would have invented it--but the South played an important role in the development of what became American nationalism. And to a degree, that was the role of scapegoat. pp17

All of this goes back to when the Ships first hit the Shores. But, by 1860, the Republicans had cast the Southerners as the Others. Just like the Patriots cast the King of England and their associates in the DOI. Their was very little Union in 1860. It is true the Republicans were able to connect all Democrats to the South, but the focus was on the South. Republicans wanted to forever Change the South, or isolated them. It is also true that limiting Slavery would rob Political and Economic Power away from the South, but it was Deeper than that. All about Nationalism.

Susan Mary Grant is a history professor at Newcastle University in England. I don't know anything else about her, so I would be happy to see why she is a good source on this topic. What can you tell us about her and the depth of research in her book?

I don't see how this answers my question, though. As I asked before:
The Republican Party certainly was associated with anti-slavery policies. I have seen no evidence that it was "anti-Southern" -- unless being anti-slavery is the same as being "anti-Southern". Is that what you are saying here?​
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Susan Mary Grant is a history professor at Newcastle University in England. I don't know anything else about her, so I would be happy to see why she is a good source on this topic. What can you tell us about her and the depth of research in her book?

I don't see how this answers my question, though. As I asked before:
The Republican Party certainly was associated with anti-slavery policies. I have seen no evidence that it was "anti-Southern" -- unless being anti-slavery is the same as being "anti-Southern". Is that what you are saying here?​

She is a good Source to begin with. One reason I used her, she has no ties to the South, Abbyville or anything else. Southern Nationalism has been studied at nausea. Not so much the Yankee.
 
Top