S.H.A.P.E.
 
Main Menu
 Home
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 Forum
 Downloads
 Members
 Image Gallery
 S.H.A.P.E Store
 Other Websites
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Members: 0

Click To Show - Guests: 6

Last Seen

Patrick Sun 21:56
gpthelastrebel Sat 17:08
MatthewBlile Fri 15:50
Robray Wed 14:28
D. L. Garland Wed 18:09
Forums
Moderators: gpthelastrebel, Patrick
Author Post
gpthelastrebel
Wed Aug 12 2009, 05:50PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
The 3rd plank of the 1860 Republican party platform reads;
"3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population; its surprising development of material resources; its rapid augmentation of wealth; its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may; and we congratulate the country that no republican member of congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence."
********************************************************************

Could this strongly worded plank of the 1860 Republican party be the real reason the South was fearful of Lincoln? Could this power grab be the real reason the south was pushed toward secession?

GP


[ Edited Wed Aug 12 2009, 05:51PM ]
Back to top
Lady Val
Wed Aug 12 2009, 07:37PM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 03:22PM
Posts: 475
I believe that it's one of those "which came first" questions.

Did the threat made by the South regarding the election of Lincoln bring about the "plank" or was the "plank" just one more reason why the South refused to entertain any discourse with Republicans. Either way, the plank was certainly a "wake up call" for those who believed that secession could be peacefully achieved! It also says that the States of the South should have gotten their ducks in a row before moving. It was a typical "independent" Southern action rather than any type of a well planned, concerted strategy. It could be said that the South's efforts were in fact defeated before they began and only the strength of their character and the skill of their military kept the struggle alive for four years.

[ Edited Wed Aug 12 2009, 07:39PM ]
Back to top
8milereb
Thu Aug 13 2009, 03:01PM

Registered Member #2
Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1030
Many considered the fate of the union to rest upon the election of 1860. Stephen Douglas of Illinois presented a moderate program on the slavery issue, popular sovereignty. An increasing number of leaders in the slave states were advocating secession. Delegates from eight southern states withdrew from the Democratic convention when they failed to have their way with the platform. The seceding Democrats named John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky as their candidate for President. A splinter party called the Constitutional Union ticket nominated John Bell of Tennessee. With the disarray of their opponents, Republicans sensed the possibility of victory. Abraham Lincoln's careful and logical approach to the issue of slavery in the territories and his eloquent articulation of the moral aspects of this burning question made his name well known not just to party leaders but to a much wider audience.
The sectional nature of the election of 1860 was evident in the outcome. Douglas, the only national candidate, won the undivided electoral vote of only one state, Missouri, though he received almost 30 percent of the popular vote. Breckinridge carried the slave states and had a popular vote of 570,000. Bell trailed Breckinridge by only 55,000 votes. Lincoln's plurality of 39 percent of the popular vote gave him a majority in the Electoral College. He received 180 electoral votes, followed by Breckinridge with 72 votes, Bell with 39, and Douglas with 12. Lincoln did not receive one vote in the Deep South because his name did not appear on any of the ballots. Viewed superficially, the returns suggest that Lincoln was victorious because of the Democratic split. However, had all of the opposition votes been united behind a single candidate, Lincoln would still have won an electoral majority. Such was the strength of the Republican coalition in its second presidential contest.

Southerners had promised secession if Lincoln won, but after the election only Douglas seemed aware of the immediate and real danger. Republicans, including Lincoln, discounted the threat to the Union as just overblown rhetoric. All of that changed when scarcely a month after Lincoln's election, South Carolina seceded from the Union. South Carolina was followed within two months by the secession of the entire Lower South. Fearful of their own simmering problems with slaves, free blacks, and the landless poor whites who outnumbered them, a group of political and community leaders sought and won the allegiance of the yeoman class. They convinced these small farmers that the incoming Lincoln administration, through the resources of the federal government, would destroy the existing power structures throughout the South, abolish slavery, and raise both landless poor whites and blacks to positions of economic and social equality.
Back to top
8milereb
Thu Aug 13 2009, 03:04PM

Registered Member #2
Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1030
The life of Abraham Lincoln, as it is written and accepted today, is false history. The South can never have justice until he is dethroned, and he can only be dethroned by proving from absolute authority these falsehoods to be false. He must have his rightful place in history if the South ever expects to have her rightful place in history. Whence may we look to prove these teachings of present day history to be false? The answer, "To Northern authority."
Was Abraham Lincoln a friend to the South or was he a friend to the slaves of the South? If one studies the history of the War 1861-1865, it will be found that he was not a friend of the South or of the Negroes up to the time of his assassination. Then why could it be thought that he would be a friend later had he lived, rather than that he would have carried out the schemes of conquest by further unconstitutional methods and falsehoods? Let us remember his double dealing with Virginia after the fall of Richmond.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860 by an avowedly anti-South party without an electoral vote from the South. In his campaign speeches he had promised everything that any party or section demanded -- showing that his promises could not be relied upon. Hear what he said in a speech delivered on 27 January 1837:

Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of '76 did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, and so to the support of the Constitution and laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor -- let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, in spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.

This was a fine speech. See what Lincoln said, and then see what Lincoln did.
http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_/Articles/The%20Lincoln%20Myth.htm
Back to top
red house
Thu Aug 13 2009, 04:14PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
Lincoln reminds me a lot of our current president; both of them were way too accommodating for their own good. There are some types of folks who will inevitably interpret moderation as weakness. Any willingness to compromise with such kinds of people will only make them that much more militant and belligerent. Lincoln learned quickly though, if only he had served out his last term the South might have learned their lesson too. Sometimes the best medicine in the long term is the bitterest pill to swallow.
Back to top
8milereb
Fri Aug 14 2009, 04:13PM

Registered Member #2
Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1030

"Lincoln reminds me a lot of our current president; both of them were way too accommodating for their own good"
Red House I must say I agree with you 110% on that comment
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Aug 14 2009, 06:39PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Val,

I think secession came first. If I remember correctly, several New England states threatened secession in the early 1800s then South Carolina threatened in 1832. The idea of secession was nothing new to this collection of states. It appears they thought (and did) they had that right.

This plank is nothing more than and out and out threat to any state contemplating secession, it is no wonder that the South joined together for mutual defense. The issue is not about slavery, but party power.


GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Aug 14 2009, 06:43PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
red house wrote ...

Lincoln reminds me a lot of our current president; both of them were way too accommodating for their own good. There are some types of folks who will inevitably interpret moderation as weakness. Any willingness to compromise with such kinds of people will only make them that much more militant and belligerent. Lincoln learned quickly though, if only he had served out his last term the South might have learned their lesson too. Sometimes the best medicine in the long term is the bitterest pill to swallow.



And who did Lincoln accommodate besides his party and terrorist like John Brown ? Where was he moderate? He came into office and started a war.

GP
Back to top
 

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System