Was Lincoln's presidency invalid?
- Thread starter alchemize
- Start date
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Shows the impact that the large states have vs the small population states.
And poeple want to toss the EC.
And poeple want to toss the EC.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Sucession did not start until after the election. Some of the states had threatened to do so if Lincoln was elected.
Lincoln's victory was the signal for the secession of South Carolina (Dec. 20, 1860), and that state was followed out of the Union by six other states?Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Immediately the question of federal property in these states became important, especially the forts in the harbor of Charleston, S.C.
The offical start of hostilities is considered to be Ft Sumter (April 12-13, 1861)
oh okay, i knew sumter was the start of the war, but i didn't recall whether it was before or after lincoln's re-election. so then the original poster is wrong, we were not in a civil war during the re-election
No kidding, god damn the "land voting" crowd just doesn't get it. I mean look at all the land the south had, and they still lost the election (and the war). Land doesn't vote, and land doesn't fight, people do.
No offense, but that's just stupid. The modern Republican areas were the liberals in the past. And the liberal states now were the conservative states in the past. Could it be that different times call for different ideas and that the south is just full of dummies?
Lincoln beat McClellan, his former general, by a margin of 55%-45% in the 1864 election, largely because of Union victories at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and especially Atlanta...
Southern states, of course, had no voice, nor did they want one, having seceded from the Union.
Anbody who knows diddly about that era knows that the radical republicans, of which Lincoln was a member, were ousted from power ~10 years after the end of the war, and their heirs, the true progenitors of today's republicans, allowed the South to have their segregation, and helped themselves mightily to whatever the business interests of the time had to offer, culminating in the near total corruption of the McKinley era, reform efforts by Teddy Roosevelt, and a whole lot of other turmoil...
Nice synopsis of Civil War politics-
http://www.nps.gov/liho/1864/1864a.htm
Southern states, of course, had no voice, nor did they want one, having seceded from the Union.
Anbody who knows diddly about that era knows that the radical republicans, of which Lincoln was a member, were ousted from power ~10 years after the end of the war, and their heirs, the true progenitors of today's republicans, allowed the South to have their segregation, and helped themselves mightily to whatever the business interests of the time had to offer, culminating in the near total corruption of the McKinley era, reform efforts by Teddy Roosevelt, and a whole lot of other turmoil...
Nice synopsis of Civil War politics-
http://www.nps.gov/liho/1864/1864a.htm
He had enough of a margin for it to be legit despite the martial law, if you can make the easy jump to "since the south had seceded they can't vote." Of course the war was fought to preserve the union, and if you don't count the votes of a large group of people who you claim to be part of the democracy, there is some inconsistancy.
Lincoln's election in 1860 was entirely legit, as near as anybody can tell. The election of Lincoln, an avowed abolitionist, was pretty much the last straw for proslavery forces in the South. He practically had to sneak into Washington DC thru hostile Maryland for his inauguration, and the Southern secession began shortly thereafter, and the war started when S Carolina forces fired on Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861... Lincoln's re-election in 1864 was apparently legit, too, although more than a few swing state and northern rabble-rousers had been jailed for the duration...
The gallant fools never really had a prayer- the war dragged out for as long as it did largely to inept generalship of Union forces. That ended when Meade took command of the army of the potomac, and when Grant , Sherman, and Sheridan visited the concept of total war on their southern cousins. The American Civil War was the precursor of WW1 in many respects- strategy, firepower, and the necessity of an industrial base coming into play as never before...
The gallant fools never really had a prayer- the war dragged out for as long as it did largely to inept generalship of Union forces. That ended when Meade took command of the army of the potomac, and when Grant , Sherman, and Sheridan visited the concept of total war on their southern cousins. The American Civil War was the precursor of WW1 in many respects- strategy, firepower, and the necessity of an industrial base coming into play as never before...
to think that the Republicans have now flipped once again to being liberal nation-building spend-o-crats
Originally posted by: alchemize
/amdfanboy mode
Well?
I miss the real amdfanboy. he's on vacation, i think.
I would suggest reading the article on the South's plans that a big paper ran a while ago ... very interesting study.
Shows you how "nice" both parties really were .... envious, greedy bastards
Shows you how "nice" both parties really were .... envious, greedy bastards
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter