Why didn’t Lincoln just let the Southern states secede and leave the Union?

29thWisCoG

Private
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Sorry if this is a dead horse topic.... but I have always been curious what negative outcomes would have occurred if this happened. I understand the institution of slavery would have continued (as a negative), but what else?
 

LetUsHavePeace

Volunteer
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
The people who elected Lincoln - the former Know Nothings, American Party, Whig, Free Soil and Unionist Democrats from the Midwest - were not willing to have the Mississippi River closed to them. Unlike the New Englanders who voted Republican, the voters in the Midwest gave very little thought to slavery as a political issue. (A simple reading of the Old Northwest State laws regarding the rights of free Negroes is a reminder of how little the voters in those jurisdictions cared for emancipation.)
What Lincoln's swing voters cared about very much was whether their growing export trade in hogs, corn and flour would be taxed and even shut down by the Cotton Southerners. The Confederates were talking about replacing import tariffs with export taxes; and only a fool could believe that the products of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio would be part of the Confederacy's "free trade" area. Cotton would not be taxed; and to make up for the revenues lost by the abolition of import taxes, the exports from the Northern states would pay export duties.
The most rabid Northeastern abolitionists might be ready to let the South go; their trade would not be threatened by the Confederacy. But the people in the Midwest who grew and raised food crops and livestock (including those in the slave states of Kentucky and Missouri) were not going to allow Lincoln to abandon the Union. Fort Sumter was a godsend because it resolved all doubt among those Midwesterners about whether or not the Confederates would settle for some kind of customs union that preserved the commercial arrangements that already existed. They would not. In the eyes of the people who had elected Lincoln, Jefferson Davis was setting himself up as the next King George. The Confederates intended to do the equivalent of what the English Crown had done at the end of the French and Indian War when King George decreed that there would be no settlement west of the Appalachians by his subjects. The Cotton South was going to be the monarch over all those same lands and force free, white Midwesterners to have lives no better of that Negro slaves.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Sorry if this is a dead horse topic.... but I have always been curious what negative outcomes would have occurred if this happened. I understand the institution of slavery would have continued (as a negative), but what else?
Rule of Law -- the US considers the law as paramount; John Adams famously said we are "a government of laws, not of men.” but if a President (Lincoln in this case) can decide that the laws are optional on part of the country, the whole concept becomes meaningless

Border conflict - there had been conflict along the boundary between slave and free for a while (for example the Kentucky raid of 1847, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown...) but it was managed as an internal issue. If it became an international issue it would lead to international conflict, likely leading to war similar to what happened with Mexico.

Expansionism - the rebel states had expansionist goals to include Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland in the CSA. If Lincoln just sat back and did nothing, there would be further insurrection and violence to push more states to act until Washington DC itself would be absorbed within the CSA and the US would have to move its capital elsewhere
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
The people who elected Lincoln - the former Know Nothings, American Party, Whig, Free Soil and Unionist Democrats from the Midwest - were not willing to have the Mississippi River closed to them. Unlike the New Englanders who voted Republican, the voters in the Midwest gave very little thought to slavery as a political issue. (A simple reading of the Old Northwest State laws regarding the rights of free Negroes is a reminder of how little the voters in those jurisdictions cared for emancipation.)
Disagree. Look at the politics of Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan - See Salmon Chase, Ben Wade, George Julian, Alexander Randall, Zach Chandler and Austin Blair.
 

LetUsHavePeace

Volunteer
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Let's examine the records of the 1860 Republican politicians from the Midwest whom NB has mentioned and see how strong they were for emancipation. This note will start with Salmon Chase; I promise to follow up with others for Wage, Julian, Randall, Chandler and Blair.

Chase was a Barnburner Democrat when he was elected to the Senate by the Ohio legislature in 1849. In presenting himself as "anti-slavery" IN THE TERRITORIES he was as artful as other American and Liberty Party members in assuring people that he had no sympathies for the rights of "free Negroes" in Ohio. When he left the Democrat Party in 1854 by issuing his Appeal of the Independent Democrats, his issue was "free" labor, not emancipation. The text's only references to "free" are for laborers and States; its one mention of "race" refers to the "human race". The issue of emancipation - the elimination of civil disabilities based on race - is completely ignored.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/appeal-of-the-independent-democrats/
Yet, in the narrative told entirely in retrospect by Chase and those who praise him, this document is to be viewed as a radical call for emancipation.

In 1855 Chase wins the election as governor thanks to the opposition splitting between Medill, the Democrat, and Trimble, the Know-Nothing. Trimble was a Jacksonian National Republican who literally came out of retirement after being out of office for two decades to run as a spoiler. Medill, who deserves more attention for being the first Comptroller of the U.S. Treasury, was a conservative Democrat who wanted Ohio government to get out of the business of running canals and turnpikes, on which the State was losing money and undercutting its credit. Chase defended these government enterprises as necessary for economic stimulus and part of the movement for "free labor". He made no speeches or statements during the campaign about emancipation.

At the Republican convention Chase displayed his extraordinary gift for not seeing his own party's economic interests. He presented himself as the anti-tariff candidate and lost bigly.
 
Last edited:

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Let's examine the records of the 1860 Republican politicians from the Midwest whom NB has mentioned and see how strong they were for emancipation. This note will start with Salmon Chas e...
The spin depends on the sources.


"Chase was a strong abolitionist, known for defending escaped slaves and those who were arrested for helping them."
- https://ohiomemory.ohiohistory.org/archives/3121


"This silver pitcher was presented to Salmon P. Chase by Mr. A. J. Gordon in a ceremony on May 6, 1845 on behalf of the free black people of Cincinnati as an expression of gratitude for Chase’s efforts in defense of the slave Samuel Watson. ...
Although Chase lost the case, the free black population of Cincinnati had watched the case carefully and were moved by the passion and force of Chase’s arguments."
- http://library.cincymuseum.org/topics/c/chasepitcher.htm

"exclusion of colored people from the election franchise as incompatible with true democratic principles."
- Chase quoted in The History of Ohio Law, V1, Benedict & Winkler 2004

"a renowned antislavery politician... Chase found his calling as an abolitionist lawyer defending fugitive slaves and an organizer for abolitionist political meetings"
- https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...itics-of-racial-reform?rgn=main;view=fulltext

"Chase developed an interpretation of American history which convinced thousands of northerners that anti-slavery was the intended policy of the founders of the nation"

- http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/library/mr-lincolns-contemporaries/salmon-p-chase/

"Whatever apologies may be offered for the toleration of slavery in the states, none can be offered for its extension into territories where it does not exist, and where that extension involves the repeal of ancient law and the violation of solemn compact. Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime.

For ourselves, we shall resist it by speech and vote, and with all the abilities which God has given us. Even if overcome in the impending struggle, we shall not submit. We shall go home to our constituents, erect anew the standard of freedom, and call on the people to come to the rescue of the country from the domination of slavery. We will not despair; for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God."
- https://teachingamericanhistory.org...democrats-in-congress-to-the-american-people/

Not sure how you can spin the "cause of human freedom is the cause of God" as anything other than a call for emancipation.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
The spin depends on the sources.


"Chase was a strong abolitionist, known for defending escaped slaves and those who were arrested for helping them."
- https://ohiomemory.ohiohistory.org/archives/3121


"This silver pitcher was presented to Salmon P. Chase by Mr. A. J. Gordon in a ceremony on May 6, 1845 on behalf of the free black people of Cincinnati as an expression of gratitude for Chase’s efforts in defense of the slave Samuel Watson. ...
Although Chase lost the case, the free black population of Cincinnati had watched the case carefully and were moved by the passion and force of Chase’s arguments."
- http://library.cincymuseum.org/topics/c/chasepitcher.htm

"exclusion of colored people from the election franchise as incompatible with true democratic principles."
- Chase quoted in The History of Ohio Law, V1, Benedict & Winkler 2004

"a renowned antislavery politician... Chase found his calling as an abolitionist lawyer defending fugitive slaves and an organizer for abolitionist political meetings"
- https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...itics-of-racial-reform?rgn=main;view=fulltext

"Chase developed an interpretation of American history which convinced thousands of northerners that anti-slavery was the intended policy of the founders of the nation"

- http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/library/mr-lincolns-contemporaries/salmon-p-chase/

"Whatever apologies may be offered for the toleration of slavery in the states, none can be offered for its extension into territories where it does not exist, and where that extension involves the repeal of ancient law and the violation of solemn compact. Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime.

For ourselves, we shall resist it by speech and vote, and with all the abilities which God has given us. Even if overcome in the impending struggle, we shall not submit. We shall go home to our constituents, erect anew the standard of freedom, and call on the people to come to the rescue of the country from the domination of slavery. We will not despair; for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God."
- https://teachingamericanhistory.org...democrats-in-congress-to-the-american-people/

Not sure how you can spin the "cause of human freedom is the cause of God" as anything other than a call for emancipation.
"Not sure how you can spin the "cause of human freedom is the cause of God" as anything other than a call for emancipation"

A strong wager says we'll find out.
 

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sorry if this is a dead horse topic.... but I have always been curious what negative outcomes would have occurred if this happened. I understand the institution of slavery would have continued (as a negative), but what else?

I think there were two major issues here aside from the perpetuation of slavery (which is obviously the big one):

1) Precedent. If the Southern states are allowed to leave the country at will then any state is allowed to leave the country at will. Any state that disagrees with the decisions of the government can simply threaten to leave or actually leave the Union, thereby weaponizing it as a tool to subvert the will of the majority.

2) Democracy. This ties into the above point. A quick jaunt around the world in the mid-19th Century will find very few examples of democracies. To quote Allen Guelzo - "It's important to us, as Americans today, because by all historical rights, we shouldn't be here. By all historical rights the Civil War should have destroyed us as a nation. By all historical rights the skeptics, the aristocrats, the despots should have rejoiced and should have watched the American democracy destroy itself." This interpretation requires a bit of an "American exceptionalism" view, but, essentially, monarchies and emperors were counting on the American experiment to fail in order to prove to their own people that democracy didn't work. To prove that democracy was a ticket to chaos, mob rule, collapse of social order, civil war, and, eventually, the inevitable fall of the democratic state. To prove that democratic countries were inherently weak. European monarchs and emperors wanted to be able to say to their own people "stop trying to stage democratic revolutions every ten years because democracy doesn't work. Do you really want to end up like the United States, riven in two and doomed to perpetual conflict and chaos?"

Guelzo quoted here:
 

LetUsHavePeace

Volunteer
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
The spin depends on the sources.


"Chase was a strong abolitionist, known for defending escaped slaves and those who were arrested for helping them."
- https://ohiomemory.ohiohistory.org/archives/3121


"This silver pitcher was presented to Salmon P. Chase by Mr. A. J. Gordon in a ceremony on May 6, 1845 on behalf of the free black people of Cincinnati as an expression of gratitude for Chase’s efforts in defense of the slave Samuel Watson. ...
Although Chase lost the case, the free black population of Cincinnati had watched the case carefully and were moved by the passion and force of Chase’s arguments."
- http://library.cincymuseum.org/topics/c/chasepitcher.htm

"exclusion of colored people from the election franchise as incompatible with true democratic principles."
- Chase quoted in The History of Ohio Law, V1, Benedict & Winkler 2004

"a renowned antislavery politician... Chase found his calling as an abolitionist lawyer defending fugitive slaves and an organizer for abolitionist political meetings"
- https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...itics-of-racial-reform?rgn=main;view=fulltext

"Chase developed an interpretation of American history which convinced thousands of northerners that anti-slavery was the intended policy of the founders of the nation"

- http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/library/mr-lincolns-contemporaries/salmon-p-chase/

"Whatever apologies may be offered for the toleration of slavery in the states, none can be offered for its extension into territories where it does not exist, and where that extension involves the repeal of ancient law and the violation of solemn compact. Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime.

For ourselves, we shall resist it by speech and vote, and with all the abilities which God has given us. Even if overcome in the impending struggle, we shall not submit. We shall go home to our constituents, erect anew the standard of freedom, and call on the people to come to the rescue of the country from the domination of slavery. We will not despair; for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God."
- https://teachingamericanhistory.org...democrats-in-congress-to-the-american-people/

Not sure how you can spin the "cause of human freedom is the cause of God" as anything other than a call for emancipation.
I don't think we can agree about Chase. My point was that his "abolitionism" was always safely removed from actual electoral politics in Ohio. Chase was very careful never to get very far ahead of the principles and interests of his actual voters; and those voters did not care at all about slavery in the South and very few, outside of the stalwart Republicans, cared very much about slavery in the territories.
Your "sources" are sketchy and almost all retrospective praise, not contemporary statements and opinions. They would have to be because Chase's actual record on equal rights is almost all smoke and mirrors. Allowing John Rock to appear before the Supreme Court in 1865 was hardly an act of political courage; there was no one left on the court to oppose it. Taney had just died. Yet that is the only fact used in the piece from Ohio memory that is your first reference and the "source" for the assertion that "Chase was a strong abolitionist, known for defending escaped slaves and those who were arrested for helping them." Chase was "known" for defending an escaped slave - Samuel Watson's - and that concluded 5 years before Chase even entered politics.
$50 to CWT for a citation or other official reference to a second Chase appearance on behalf of an escaped slave or an Ohio resident who gave a slave help.
Once he was in the game for real, Chase's abolitionism consisted of making regular speeches to assure everyone he was on God's side while remaining sensibly mute on all trivial questions such as the application of the principle of civil equality to Ohio's laws. On that question, Chase was, as always, safely on the side of virtue but not too much of it and not too soon. He did, indeed, speak out against the outright exclusion of black-skinned adult males from voter registration; and, like Martin Van Buren, his first political mentor, he also spoke out against civil equality. Your last reference - another passage from Chase's appeal - seems to me to make that point quite well. Chase declined to oppose outright "toleration of slavery in the states"; his definition of the "enormous crime" was simply "extension into the territories".
To repeat the basic fact of Midwestern politics in 1860: the voters were economic voters. The platform of "free soil, fee labor" had great appeal because it promised that there would be no black-skinned labor, free or slave, to bring down wage rates. Ohio did not care at all about general emancipation before 1860 and they were not that keen about it even in 1868 when Ben Wade lost his race for re-election. What they care about was Union, which they defined as open navigation rights on the Mississippi.
If we are both going to claim as "sources" words written long after the political questions of 1860 and Lincoln's election had resolved themselves, it seems only fair that the opinions of the Sherman family be introduced into evidence. I hope we can agree that they were, until the Tafts came along, the first family in Ohio Republican politics.
In December 1863 W. T. wrote to Grant: "To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River, I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane but mad. Fortunately, the great west is with me there." They were.
 
Last edited:

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
I don't think we can agree about Chase. My point was that his "abolitionism" was always safely removed from actual electoral politics in Ohio. Like all the other "abolitionists" (sic) form the Midwest, Chase was very careful never to get very far ahead of the principles and interests of his actual voters; and they did not care at all about slavery in the South and very few, outside of the stalwart Republicans, care very much about slavery in the territories.
Your "sources" are sketchy because they have to be. Chase's actual record on equal rights is almost all smoke and mirrors. Allowing John Rock to appear before the Supreme Court in 1865 was hardly an act of political courage; there was no one left on the court to oppose it. Taney had just died. Yet that is the only fact used in the piece from Ohio memory that is your first reference and the "source" for the assertion that "Chase was a strong abolitionist, known for defending escaped slaves and those who were arrested for helping them." Chase was "known" for defending escaped slaves because of one case - Samuel Watson's - and that concluded 5 years before Chase even entered politics. Once he was in the game for real, his abolitionism consisted of making a few speeches to assure everyone he was on God's side while remaining sensibly mute on all trivial questions such as the application of the principle of civil equality to Ohio's laws. On that question, Chase was, as always, safely on the side of virtue but not too much of it. He did, indeed, speak out against the outright exclusion of black-skinned adult males from voter registration; and, like Martin Van Buren, his first political mentor, he also spoke out against civil equality. Your last reference - another passage from Chase's appeal - seems to me to make that point quite well. Chase declined to oppose outright "toleration of slavery in the states"; his definition of the "enormous crime" was simply "extension into the territories".
The Midwesterners, in their mass politics, did not care at all about general emancipation before 1860; they cared about their navigation rights on the Mississippi.
If we are both going to rely on sources that are words written long after events have resolved themselves, my choice is a comment from a member of the Sherman family, about whom we can agree that they were, until the Tafts came along, the first family in Ohio Republican politics. In December 1863 W. T. wrote to Grant: "To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River, I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane but mad. Fortunately, the great west is with me there." They were.
Two things can be in play at the same. It's inconvenient for making an argument but it's reality.
 
Lincoln himself answered this question in his 1st Inaugural speech.

Exactly. The answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is found in these two paragraphs of his 1st Inaugural:

"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.

"Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary."
 

LetUsHavePeace

Volunteer
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Two things can be in play at the same. It's inconvenient for making an argument but it's reality.
What precisely is the other "thing"?
The reality of this discussion so far is that you all are committed to a belief in the racial good-heartedness of some thoroughly slippery characters - Chase, first among them - and there is very little evidence that they saw "slavery in the territories" as anything more than a perfect dodge of the much more difficult question: after the slaves were freed, where would they go?
Why is it so difficult to concede that the Midwesterners in 1860 were wary of emancipation and had no enthusiasm for civil equality?
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
What precisely is the other "thing"?
The reality of this discussion so far is that you all are committed to a belief in the racial good-heartedness of some thoroughly slippery characters - Chase, first among them - and there is very little evidence that they saw "slavery in the territories" as anything more than a perfect dodge of the much more difficult question: after the slaves were freed, where would they go?
Why is it so difficult to concede that the Midwesterners in 1860 were wary of emancipation and had no enthusiasm for civil equality?
Why is it so difficult to concede that many of 'the Midwesterners" were, others were not, and that you're further mixing it by combining "emancipation" and "civil equality"? I see the "single answer" mentality quite a bit in these debates - for example only, there is a lot of posting to the effect that Confederate enlistees weren't motivated by "preserving slavery" but by "defending their home states". Many were motivated by both and for them the two were inseparable. And kindly don't tell me what I believe with your phrasing. I'll leave for a different discussion what "the Midwesterners" thought after they actually began seeing the reality of slavery in their service to the United States.
 

LetUsHavePeace

Volunteer
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Why is it so difficult to concede that many of 'the Midwesterners" were, others were not, and that you're further mixing it by combining "emancipation" and "civil equality"? I see the "single answer" mentality quite a bit in these debates - for example only, there is a lot of posting to the effect that Confederate enlistees weren't motivated by "preserving slavery" but by "defending their home states". Many were motivated by both and for them the two were inseparable. And kindly don't tell me what I believe with your phrasing. I'll leave for a different discussion what "the Midwesterners" thought after they actually began seeing the reality of slavery in their service to the United States.
What else did emancipation mean besides civil equality? I am happy to choose a different synonym for what the 13, 14 and 15 Amendments say. Any particular suggestions?
My point remains the same: what the several million voters in Ohio 1860 thought was fundamentally different from what the 310 thousand Ohio veterans came to understand.
https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Civil_War_Infantry_Units
I am not suggesting that the Mississippi was the only issue; I am pointing out that it was the major concern of the Midwest's voters and the reason for Lincoln's nomination.
Again, why is that so emotionally troublesome?
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
What else did emancipation mean besides civil equality? I am happy to choose a different synonym for what the 13, 14 and 15 Amendments say. Any particular suggestions?
My point remains the same: what the several million voters in Ohio 1860 thought was fundamentally different from what the 310 thousand Ohio veterans came to understand.
https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Civil_War_Infantry_Units
I am not suggesting that the Mississippi was the only issue; I am pointing out that it was the major concern of the Midwest's voters and the reason for Lincoln's nomination.
Again, why is that so emotionally troublesome?
Speaking only for myself and not for you, rest assured that nothing about this is "emotionally troublesome". If a poster finds any part of a thread on a topic "emotionally troublesome", best to step away for a bit. By the way, how on earth do you know what "several million voters in Ohio 1860 thought"? We have enough trouble figuring that out today, and the last time I looked, there weren't even opinion polls around at the time. (By the way, there were 433,000 voters in Ohio in the 1860 election - not "several million").

As for "emancipation" and "civil equality", I know that you know the difference, but I'll lay it out succinctly anyway. "Emancipation" meant that someone held in bondage and owned as chattel property by another was no longer in that condition. "Civil equality" covers a host of other things - "equal" right to school, "equal" right to vote, "equal" right to etc etc etc. It's the difference between the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Pretty easy, actually.
 
Last edited:

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
I don't think we can agree about Chase.

I guess not


My point was that his "abolitionism" was always safely removed from actual electoral politics in Ohio. Chase was very careful never to get very far ahead of the principles and interests of his actual voters; and those voters did not care at all about slavery in the South and very few, outside of the stalwart Republicans, cared very much about slavery in the territories.

Seems to me that the historical facts don’t support your point


Your "sources" are sketchy and almost all retrospective praise, not contemporary statements and opinions.

Yours (what little there was) seem sketchier to me
Mine did include contemporary statements

They would have to be because Chase's actual record on equal rights is almost all smoke and mirrors. Allowing John Rock to appear before the Supreme Court in 1865 was hardly an act of political courage; there was no one left on the court to oppose it. Taney had just died. Yet that is the only fact used in the piece from Ohio memory that is your first reference and the "source" for the assertion that "Chase was a strong abolitionist, known for defending escaped slaves and those who were arrested for helping them."

Actually not the only fact in that piece
But at least I have pointed to facts


Chase was "known" for defending an escaped slave - Samuel Watson's - and that concluded 5 years before Chase even entered politics.

False. He was a politician at the time. State leader of the Liberty Party


$50 to CWT for a citation or other official reference to a second Chase appearance on behalf of an escaped slave or an Ohio resident who gave a slave help.

He was famous for his appearance in Jones vs Vanzandt. CWT should enjoy your $50

Once he was in the game for real, Chase's abolitionism consisted of making regular speeches to assure everyone he was on God's side while remaining sensibly mute on all trivial questions such as the application of the principle of civil equality to Ohio's laws.

He was instrumental in repealing Ohio’s black codes in 1849

Sherman family be introduced into evidence. I hope we can agree that they were, until the Tafts came along, the first family in Ohio Republican politics

Seriously? No we don’t agree. John Sherman was the leading Ohio politician for the second half of the 1800s but WT was not invoked in politics, definitely not in Ohio politics. He had no first hand knowledge of what Ohio voters cared about in 1860 so quoting him in this is absurd. WT lived in Louisiana in 1860, had not lived in Ohio for many years

“ Sherman and his brother William T. Sherman had a close and supportive relationship, but unlike his brother, John Sherman was a committed abolitionist. ” - http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org...ess/visitors-congress-john-sherman-1823-1900/


Also, the Mississippi wasn’t the prime concern. to many Ohioans - commerce went by way of the lakes and the railroads eastward to NY. Same with Michigan and most of Wisconsin.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
... in 1868 when Ben Wade lost his race for re-election. ....

In the 1800s US Senators were chosen by the state legislature. In the 1867 state elections, democrats got control of the Ohio state legislature and as a result were able to name a democrat to replace wade. It certainly tells us something about democratic voters at the time but doesn’t tell us about the Republicans who voted for Lincoln etc
 

Similar threads

Top