Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the authorities didn't keep Lincoln off the ballot. Lincoln never tried to get on any ballots in the South. So, it's rather disingenuous of you to claim that the South ensured he could not receive any votes, when the South didn't have to do anything at all. HE DIDN'T RUN in the South.
If any Republican had attempted to register on the ballot in any Southern state, do you believe that the local authorities would have allowed it? If on the ballot, do you think that Republican political speakers campaigning in the South would have been safe from hostiles in the crowds? I think that it would be safe to say that the Republicans were "discouraged" from organizing local political parties in the South.
Quote:
And you do need to look up the details about campaigning at that time. Lincoln wasn't sitting at home with his fingers crossed hoping to win votes.
I have looked up the details about campaigning at that time. Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln dedicates an entire chapter to the election of 1860.
During the 1860 presidential election, Lincoln stayed at his home in Springfield and did not campaign for himself, even to the point of refusing to be interviewed by the press. When questions were forwarded to him via correspondence, Lincoln instructed the person making the query to refer to the speeches that Lincoln had made in the past. This lack of political activity on the part of presidential nominees was the expected norm. Instead, it was customary that others in the political party would go out and stump for their party's candidate. Lincoln was definitely following and influencing his campaign, but the reality is that the nominee's election was run by party bosses and the speeches at rallies given by notable party members.
In contrast, Stephen Douglas actively campaigned in 1860, and was derided for his actions. From Team of Rivals, page 273:
Quote:
For weeks, Stephen Douglas had been barnstorming the country, having decided immediately after his nomination to defy custom. Disregarding criticism that his unbecoming behavior diminished the "high office of the presidency...to the level of a county clerkship", he stumped the country, from the New England states to the Northwest, from the border states to the South, becoming "the first presidential candidate in American history to make a nationwide tour in person."
If any Republican had attempted to register on the ballot in any Southern state, do you believe that the local authorities would have allowed it? If on the ballot, do you think that Republican political speakers campaigning in the South would have been safe from hostiles in the crowds? I think that it would be safe to say that the Republicans were "discouraged" from organizing local political parties in the South.
I have looked up the details about campaigning at that time. Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln dedicates an entire chapter to the election of 1860.
During the 1860 presidential election, Lincoln stayed at his home in Springfield and did not campaign for himself, even to the point of refusing to be interviewed by the press. When questions were forwarded to him via correspondence, Lincoln instructed the person making the query to refer to the speeches that Lincoln had made in the past. This lack of political activity on the part of presidential nominees was the expected norm. Instead, it was customary that others in the political party would go out and stump for their party's candidate. Lincoln was definitely following and influencing his campaign, but the reality is that the nominee's election was run by party bosses and the speeches at rallies given by notable party members.
In contrast, Stephen Douglas actively campaigned in 1860, and was derided for his actions. From Team of Rivals, page 273:
Yes, I'm very familiar with Team of Rivals, I own a copy.
And this blather is all moot.
If you were a Southerner at the time, and the President that was elected was completely selected by another region of the country, with no input from the South whatsoever, when the legislature was dominated by the representatives of another region, and when just a few decades ago your ancestors had fought in a war to assure you a government that represented you, that was of the people, by the people and for the people, but that now excluded you, you might be wondering why your ancestors fought in that war? What was the point, if the political reality was that now your region of the country would be ruled by a different region of the country?
Yes, I'm very familiar with Team of Rivals, I own a copy.p
You should read it sometime. It's a very well written book.
Quote:
And this blather is all moot.
One person's argument is another person's moot blather. I've stated my case, you simply choose to discard it.
Quote:
If you were a Southerner at the time, and the President that was elected was completely selected by another region of the country, with no input from the South whatsoever, when the legislature was dominated by the representatives of another region, and when just a few decades ago your ancestors had fought in a war to assure you a government that represented you, that was of the people, by the people and for the people, but that now excluded you, you might be wondering why your ancestors fought in that war? What was the point, if the political reality was that now your region of the country would be ruled by a different region of the country?
By that logic, the states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 should have seceded from the Union when George Bush was "selected" by a conservative dominated Supreme Court.
By that logic, the states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 should have seceded from the Union when George Bush was "selected" by a conservative dominated Supreme Court.
By that logic?
What logic is that?
The South had zero input into who was elected in 1860. They were outnumbered in the legislature. Not because of one election, but because of the demographics. The country had reached a tipping point. And there was no going backwards. They had just fought a war in order to have a voice in the nation's government, and they had just lost that voice. For the foreseeable future. The election spoke to the fact that the rural south was no longer relevant to the federal government. This was what they faced.
Actually, the authorities didn't keep Lincoln off the ballot. Lincoln never tried to get on any ballots in the South. So, it's rather disingenuous of you to claim that the South ensured he could not receive any votes, when the South didn't have to do anything at all. HE DIDN'T RUN in the South.
And you do need to look up the details about campaigning at that time. Lincoln wasn't sitting at home with his fingers crossed hoping to win votes.
Was he on the ballot of "Border States" such as Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware or for that matter the state of his birth, Kentucky?
The South had zero input into who was elected in 1860. They were outnumbered in the legislature. Not because of one election, but because of the demographics. The country had reached a tipping point. And there was no going backwards. They had just fought a war in order to have a voice in the nation's government, and they had just lost that voice. For the foreseeable future. The election spoke to the fact that the rural south was no longer relevant to the federal government. This was what they faced.
The South cast votes for other presidential candidates during that election, so the claim that they had "zero input" is mere hyperbole. Just because your candidate didn't win doesn't mean that you didn't have input. And if the Southern delegates hadn't split the Democratic Party, they might have won the 1860 Presidential election.
The Southern states were outnumbered in the House because that's how it's supposed to work. The Southern states were outnumbered in the Senate because the slave-holding South had running out of room to expand and the states being admitted were not in areas conducive to growing cotton. But the South was still represented in both chambers of Congress and still could form political alliances with Northern Democrats. It's simply not possible to claim that they had no influence at the federal level.
As for the comparison that you are attempting to make to the American Revolution over eighty years prior, consider that the English colonists of North America had absolutely no representation in Parliament, the port of Boston had been closed for commerce by an act of Parliament, the city was actually occupied by British Troops, civilians were required to quarter those troops at their own expense, and those troops were making forays into the countryside to seize armories from the citizenry. The colonists sent petitions to the King George for relief and were simply ignored.
Exactly what deprivations were the Southern states suffering from in December 1860 that you would consider comparable to the English colonies in 1774?
Was he on the ballot of "Border States" such as Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware or for that matter the state of his birth, Kentucky?
That's a good question, and I believe he was on the ballots in some of those states, but that has little bearing on the issue of the South progressively being disenfranchised from the federal government. That was the political reality that faced the South. The North and South represented a cultural, social, political, and economic dichotomy. The North was originally settled by immigrants who wanted to escape Europe's influence. The South was settled by immigrants who were extending Europe's influence. The Northern states were small, and their economies were more industrialized from the very beginning, more sophisticated financially. The Southern states were much larger, much more agrarian, and because of the nature of the agrarian economy, they had greater debt. They also had stronger ties to Europe, socially and economically, which fostered a very different culture than the culture of the Northern states. The North had a denser population base, and was attracting immigrants because of it's increasingly industrialized economy. They had jobs, and people came to fill those jobs.
All these things meant that the North and South were very different places. Completely different places. And those differences mean that the two regions had different political goals and agendas. Different political goals and agendas that each wanted to accomplish, within a federal government framework. They were in competition with one another, economically and politically. And because of population density, the North had gained the advantage, a fact that was made abundantly clear by the 1860 election. From the South's perspective, it was an advantage that the North would never lose, they would always have the numbers that in our democratic republic allowed them to control the federal government. And the prospect of growing disenfranchisement was not a happy one. This would have been a political reality that most Southerners would have understood. They would have had grandparents who fought in the Revolutionary War for the right to have a government that represented them and their interests. And now, they were looking at a future where they would once again have a government where someone else's interests took precedence. It doesn't matter if it's a king across the ocean, or if it's politicians from the North. What matters is that it wouldn't be politicians from the South making decisions for the South.
Was he on the ballot of "Border States" such as Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware or for that matter the state of his birth, Kentucky?
The Republican party was on the ballot in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland. Lincoln did very poorly in those states, only about 10% in Missouri and low single digits in the other states mentioned.
Lincoln also wasn't on the ballot in South Carolina - but then, nobody was on the ballot in South Carolina. The birthplace of the secession movement and defender of state rights didn't choose its presidential electors by popular ballot but instead had its state legislature hand-pick them.
The perception that someone from elsewhere would be making government policy that would govern them.
So would you say that their perception didn't rise to the level of oppression that the colonists experienced in 1774?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
