Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 21st, 2012, 11:33 PM   #441

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAlexMatt View Post
He had been elected President when they started leaving and you know that.
Was he on the ballots in the South States whatsoever to claim being "elected"?
Lors is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 21st, 2012, 11:39 PM   #442
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 647

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Was he on the ballots in the South States whatsoever to claim being "elected"?
Uh, he won a majority in the Electoral College, per Constitutional procedures.

He was elected.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 11:51 PM   #443

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Was he on the ballots in the South States whatsoever to claim being "elected"?
In most of the South, Lincoln was not even put on the ballot. Mostly because the political culture of the South could not abide with a president that even remotely challenged slavery, which many took Lincoln's intended policy of restricting slaver as an attack on the system.

It also demonstrates a rather non-democratic look at politics in American history. The South had a greatly inflated sense of self importance and figured that Lincoln couldn't win the White House without the support of the South, as generally speaking, every previous presidential candidate had done something to balence the ticket between North and South.

The 1860 elections proved that theory wrong. Lincoln won a clear majority with regard to the Electoral college without winning a single southern state. Breckenridge, the Southern Democrat was second with regard to the electoral vote as he carried the southern states, but didn't win as much support in the north. They were even lost the popular vote. Lincoln won the most popular votes, but overall, Lincoln's win here was by plurality. And in the popular vote, the second place finisher was Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat...

And this was defeat for Southerners because Lincoln won the electoral college, and the majority of the American population preferred two men from Illiniois (Lincoln or Douglas) to Breckenridge.

And so, many southerners got a bad case of sour grapes and began seceding. Though the timing of secession varied. The deep south seceded before Lincoln could even take office, while some other states, such as Virginia didn't actually secede until later.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 12:27 AM   #444

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

MAlexMatt and Sam-Nary.

So what are you saying is: not putting Romney's (or Obama) name on the ballots of the half of the States would not make the election illegitimate regardless his victory. Just claim the majority of votes and all should be fine. Is that really the way you are handling the elections?
Lors is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 12:43 AM   #445

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

I would like to ask one more question which relevant to the slavery only.

I am under impression that the slaves did not act like contemporary middle-class nuclear families (for pretty obvious reason). For centuries the cared of each others' kids regardless of "my children for whom I'm responsible" and "your children for whom you're responsible" freeman's attitude. How long did it take to recuperate and get back fully to standard families? Does it still exist in any rudimentary form or echoing here and there? In other words are they completely the same than others for the time being concerning family relationships?
Lors is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 02:59 AM   #446

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAlexMatt View Post
I don't know about that.

Unionist nationalism had been the dominant political ideology for the few generations preceding the Civil War. Even the State's Rights Party started as Jacksonians. I can't really prove this contention, but I suspect many Southerners (or, at least, many Southern movers and shakers) highly suspected that Lincoln wasn't going to let them leave by any measure. I don't feel too bad about being able to prove this very well because I'm pretty sure you'd have some problems proving that there was much a chance at all the Federal government was going to let the Deep South go.
The Founding Fathers knew England wasn't going to let us leave peacefully but they still exhausted every peaceful measure first. Even during the first year of fighting they offered at least one "Olive Branch."
Yankee is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 04:20 AM   #447

Rongo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Ohio
Posts: 5,685

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The Confederacy was willing to negotiate. It probably would have made significant concessions in exchange for the north accepting secession. There are points the Confederacy could concede, such as western territories belonged to the US, the Confederacy would not ally with European powers, fugitive slaves didn't have to be returned, and favorable trade agreements for the US.
Negotiations at gunpoint don't count. If they wanted to negotiate seriously, they should have done it BEFORE they started seizing federal property, taking United States soldiers captive, and pointing cannons at Fort Sumter. "Negotiations" after the fact are merely a pretense and a sham.

Furthermore, all negotiations have to be conducted with Congress. As Lincoln said in his inaugural address, "The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it." Buchanan felt the same way. And the Confederates knew it. It was a pretense and a sham.
Rongo is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 04:22 AM   #448
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,320

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Was he on the ballots in the South States whatsoever to claim being "elected"?
There was no support for the Republican Party in the south. Lincoln was on the ballot in several slave states, but not in the deep south. He got 23% of the vote in Deleware, 10% in Missouri, 3% in Maryland, 1% in Virginia (including West Virginia), and 1% in Kentucky.

Blacks free or slave did not vote in the south. There was no secret ballot. You announced your votes at the polling place. There was no official intimidation, as there was in some border states during the war. However, it might have been uncomfortable or dangerous to vote for Lincoln in some counties.

I am not sure you could say that Lincoln was not fairly elected. However, the fact that he was elected with no support in the south on what was seen as an antisouthern platform is part of what lead to secession.
betgo is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 04:26 AM   #449
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,320

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rongo View Post
Negotiations at gunpoint don't count. If they wanted to negotiate seriously, they should have done it BEFORE they started seizing federal property, taking United States soldiers captive, and pointing cannons at Fort Sumter. "Negotiations" after the fact are merely a pretense and a sham.

Furthermore, all negotiations have to be conducted with Congress. As Lincoln said in his inaugural address, "The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it."
There have been many negotiated peaces agree to under threat of war. If the north accepted the secession of the south, I am sure the captured US soldiers would have been released and the Confederacy would have made other concessions. The US invaded the Confederacy. The Confederacy would not have invaded the US.
betgo is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 04:37 AM   #450

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,343
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
There have been many negotiated peaces agree to under threat of war. If the north accepted the secession of the south, I am sure the captured US soldiers would have been released and the Confederacy would have made other concessions. The US invaded the Confederacy. The Confederacy would not have invaded the US.
That's simply not correct at all. As I've already mentioned, the Confederacy was committed to taking Missouri and Kentucky, two of the stars in their flag. Plus, the Confederates attempted to crack down on Unionists in East Tennessee and West Virginia when those regions preferred to remain in the Union.
Viperlord is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
acw, myth, slavery


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Biggest Myth about Slavery. etamaze Middle Eastern and African History 75 March 29th, 2013 09:59 AM
The 9/11 Myth Lord Sonny Speculative History 20 March 4th, 2013 02:27 PM
History or Myth? Caracalla General History 4 October 25th, 2011 07:29 AM
Your Favorite Myth??? Salah General History 48 April 17th, 2011 08:35 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.