The election of 1860

[ironfoot]

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NWI2MWNmNGViZGZiMDMxNzY2ODc5YjdhZGNlMzAxNTM=

[SouthernByGrace]

ironfoot,

Was this supposed to prove some kind of point? If so, it proved many of OUR points.
This would be some pretty interesting stuff here, but I have to question Professor Jaffa's research.
First of all, Jefferson Davis' name was NOT Thomas Jefferson Davis, as Jaffa states in his interview, it was Jefferson Finis Davis. However, he was correct about Alexander Stephens' middle name being Hamilton. Just to prove Many points made in this forum, Jaffa states near the end of the interview that "BOTH North and South of the day believed slavery to be a biblical and benign institution and supported by God and History."

In NO way does he ever even mention Lincoln being Right, in the slightest way. In fact, he never even mention Lincoln at all!
Reckon why that is? Especially when the entire election of 1860 was about Lincoln! Maybe Professor Jaffa knows a whole lot of what we know...

SBG
DEO VINDICE

[ironfoot]

I think what he was trying to say was that Jefferson Davis was named after Thomas Jefferson.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/jefferson_davis
and his vice president was named after Alexander Hamilton.
He found that ironic and amusing.

His main point was that the secession resulted from the South's unwillingness to accept the results of a presidential election.

[Ga.windbreak]

the secession resulted from the South's unwillingness to accept the results of a presidential election.

Changing horses in mid stream are we? First slavery and now presidential election. My oh my.

[ironfoot]

the secession resulted from the South's unwillingness to accept the results of a presidential election.

Changing horses in mid stream are we? First slavery and now presidential election. My oh my.

Same horse, same stream. The reason the South wouldn't accept the results of the presidential election, was that Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform. The South seceded in order to preserve slavery where it existed, and in hopes of expanding it to the territories.

[Cabin4]

the secession resulted from the South's unwillingness to accept the results of a presidential election.

Changing horses in mid stream are we? First slavery and now presidential election. My oh my.

Same horse, same stream. The reason the South wouldn't accept the results of the presidential election, was that Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform. The South seceded in order to preserve slavery where it existed, and in hopes of expanding it to the territories.

Nothing wrong with that if its the case. Any state can leave the Union when it so desires.

[ironfoot]

the secession resulted from the South's unwillingness to accept the results of a presidential election.

Changing horses in mid stream are we? First slavery and now presidential election. My oh my.

Same horse, same stream. The reason the South wouldn't accept the results of the presidential election, was that Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform. The South seceded in order to preserve slavery where it existed, and in hopes of expanding it to the territories.

Nothing wrong with that if its the case. Any state can leave the Union when it so desires.

 How can a democracy survive if the losers in an election can secede whenever they want? Lincoln was elected President of the whole counrty, not just the states that voted for him.

[Cabin4]

the secession resulted from the South's unwillingness to accept the results of a presidential election.

Changing horses in mid stream are we? First slavery and now presidential election. My oh my.

Same horse, same stream. The reason the South wouldn't accept the results of the presidential election, was that Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform. The South seceded in order to preserve slavery where it existed, and in hopes of expanding it to the territories.

Nothing wrong with that if its the case. Any state can leave the Union when it so desires.

 How can a democracy survive if the losers in an election can secede whenever they want? Lincoln was elected President of the whole counrty, not just the states that voted for him.

The constitution is clear enough on this point, so were some of our most prominent founding fathers and so was the Declaration of Independence. Joining the Union was voluntary. Secession is the right of the states. The federal government has no ball & chain on the states. The majority of power is afforded to the states under our constitution, not the federal government. The federal government is subservient to the states, not the other way around. The Civil war was nothing more than subversion of power which has manifested into the horrific situation we have today. Our federal government is out of control and exercising authority in complete violation of our constitution.

There is no mandate for the Union to survive. That was the desire of one man (Lincoln) which has no basis in law. It's akin to forcing your wife to stay married to you evne if she wants and can acheive a divorse. If she wants a divorse, you have no choice in the matter. Same goes for this screwed up, so called "Union".

[SouthernByGrace]

His main point was that the secession resulted from the South's unwillingness to accept the results of a presidential election.

And the results of that presidential election meant the South was to be forced to pay a 47% tariff on all exports. That tariff did NOT apply to the Northern states. The South was already paying the vast majority of the tax revenue (80%) collected by the Fed. Gov. and it was not right that it be increased only in the South.

Lincoln was actually quoted by U.S. Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, when Stanton asked the President why he didn't "just let the South go?" Lincoln said, "Let the South go? Where would we get the funds to run the government? No, I will not just let the South go."

The election of 1860 also meant the complete nullification of the Constitution. History speaks volumes to this day about it. The Southern hierarchy saw this coming. They saw the exact same situation that existed under King George III, when the American Colonies SECEDED from England. Their fathers fought that war, so it was still very fresh in their minds. There was no legal basis for secession to be stopped.

Abraham Lincoln himself said it best in this resolution speech (on behalf of Hungarian Freedom) on January 9, 1852,

"Resolved, 1. That it is the RIGHT of ANY PEOPLE, sufficiently numerous for national independence, TO THROW OFF, to REVOLUTIONIZE, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead AS THEY MAY CHOOSE."

But I guess ANY PEOPLE meant any people but Southerners... 


SBG
DEO VINDICE

[Bush Master]

Ironfoot, where do you get the crazy notion that this is a democracy? Clearly the Constitution provided us with a representative republic, not a democracy. FYI, a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, the tyranny of the majority, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A democracy is the very worst form of government ever dreamt up by the minds of men this side of communism. If 51% of the people vote to enslave the other 49%, do they, the 49%, have a right to secede? Or, as you argue, do they have to report to the stockades? After all, we wouldn't want our precious democracy to fail would we?

[SouthernByGrace]