Abraham Lincoln: Alternative History?

[jwoodie]

We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote. What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots. By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.

By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded. It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.

What if Lincoln had adopted a less aggressive posture towards these States? What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion? This would have been entirely justified by any standard as well as compliant with international law. Virginia was essential to the viability of the Confederacy. Would it have joined in the absence of Lincoln's attack on State Sovereignty?

Within 20 years of the end of the Civil War, slavery had been abolished in the Western Hemisphere and most of the rest of the world. Could not an accommodation with Virginia have been reached? The importation of slaves was already prohibited. For example, might not there have been an agreement that, henceforth, the children born to slaves would be free? Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have collapsed under its own weight.

Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined? Might this armageddon have been avoided with a little less concern about Presidential prestige and legacy?

 

[Unkotare]

Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined?

Yes.

 

[jwoodie]

Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined?

Yes.

Deep thinker, eh?

 

[Unkotare]

Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined?

Yes.

Deep thinker, eh?

Question - Answer

Not that complicated


And it does not make one a "deep thinker" to play make-pretend.

 

[HenryBHough]

Lincoln staved off Global Warming by probably ten years (if you believe in that religion) by getting all those people killed. After all, humans are the scourge of the Earth - the sole cause of the looming heat wave that's going to dry up all the water, kill all the crops, roast all the livestock and probably make strong women weep.

See, Lincoln was a great savior to the Algore crowd as well as to the former slaves!

Get with the program, folks!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion?

Lincoln called for no invasion. He only required that slavery remain in the Old South, the return of federal properties, and the acceptance of constitutional and electoral process.

 

[regent]

The South was probably bent on leaving and just as one third of the colonists were intent on leaving Britain. As for slavery being the issue, check out the Ghost Amendment to the Constitution that Lincoln said he would accept.

 

[oldfart]

Where do you get this drivel?

We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote. What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots.

Lincoln was not on the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. South Carolina did not have direct election of presidential electors; the state legislature chose them. By contrast Douglas was on every ballot except New York and New Jersey, where a unified anti-Lincoln slate was run. The Southern candidates, Breckinridge and Bell were on every ballot except SC, NY, & NJ as noted, and Rhode Island, with Bell but not Breckinridge on the Pennsylvania ballot.

So Lincoln was on the ballot in slave states that remained in the Union and Virginia. In the North, either an anti-Lincoln coalition or at least two other candidates were on the ballot everywhere except Rhode Island. The states that Lincoln carried, a majority of the electoral vote, he carried by majorities, not just pluralities.

Now the only real question is whether you have the integrity to admit you have no idea of what you are talking about or if you try to weasel again. But we already know that answer.

 

[GHook93]

We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote. What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots. By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.

By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded. It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.

What if Lincoln had adopted a less aggressive posture towards these States? What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion? This would have been entirely justified by any standard as well as compliant with international law. Virginia was essential to the viability of the Confederacy. Would it have joined in the absence of Lincoln's attack on State Sovereignty?

Within 20 years of the end of the Civil War, slavery had been abolished in the Western Hemisphere and most of the rest of the world. Could not an accommodation with Virginia have been reached? The importation of slaves was already prohibited. For example, might not there have been an agreement that, henceforth, the children born to slaves would be free? Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have collapsed under its own weight.

Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined? Might this armageddon have been avoided with a little less concern about Presidential prestige and legacy?

Get your facts right! There were four candidates. It wasn't like now-a-days where all the 3rd party truly is only a spoiler. In 1860, Lincoln even at 40% was more than 1 million over the Southern Democratic opponent (18% - Breckinirdige). More than 500K over the Democrat (29%) and more than 1 mil over constitutional candidate (12%).

United States presidential election, 1860 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lincoln's election was legit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jwoodie has an axe to grind on this issue.

Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address (paragraph 29). Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln's detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis. Ironically, it fell to Lincoln to notify the states that the Corwin amendment was open for ratification.
Read more at Ghost Amendment: The Thirteenth Amendment That Never Was

Lincoln still would not have permitted slavery in the territories or the free states.

 

[GHook93]

What if the Trent Affair (US boarding a British Warship) let to the British and French intervening on the South's side. The Confederates were lobbying the British hard for them to intervene. They promised them the moon and the stars once they won. The French wanted to intervene to protect their trade, but were too weak to do it without the British. If the British and French landed troops in the States, the Confederates surely would have won the war.

What would America have looked like if that happened? When would slavery have ended?

My guess is slavery would have continued for 20-30 more years and would have been squashed out near the turn of the century!

 

[JoeB131]

The thing is, a few rich people got a lot of dumb poor white people to fight so they'd have a right to keep raping their slaves.

The profound stupidity of it all is mind-boggling.

At least the Germans have the good sense to be ashamed of what the Nazis did.

 

[JWBooth]

Alternative history is what has been successfully taught in our schools since 1866. General Pike was right.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.

There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons. Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.

 

[editec]

The problem was after the war, we decided to let the South keep it's dignity, instead of treating it like a defeated nation that did something wrong.

There should have been massive war crimes trials for the Southern leaders and execution for treasons. Anyone who wore the Gray never should have been allowed the vote again.

I often feel this way, myself.


At least the CSA TOP brass and TOP military ought to have been hanged! I complain


But putting myself in the position of the POTUS at that time, realizing what the result would have been ( a protracted war of terrorism in the South) I suspect I'd have tried to bind the wounds of the nation by not doing the above, too.

 

[regent]

The framers of the Constitution were afraid of allowing the poor to vote. The poor in a majority would vote for their own best interests at the expense of the rich.
Yet in the South, the poor white southernor would fought for the wealthy fought for the South and for the wealthy upper class. Why? Perhaps it was because the poor white Southernor still had status, he was not on the bottom, and still had rank.
But today we have, poor Americans, the bottom of the economic heap voting for the best interests of the upper class. Why? If money, nor status, are the key for people to vote against their own economic self-interests, what is the key?r Were the framers wrong believing self-interest is why people vote? And what of upper-class individuals that vote against their own best interests. For example, when running for president, FDR was labeled as a traitor to his own wealthy class.
I wonder how much money has been poured into this quest to find why people vote as they do?

 

[Darkwind]

I hear he slayed a mean vampyre too!

 

[paperview]

"...with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots."

Very first paragraph in the OP - and he gets it wildly wrong.

Why even bother with the rest?

 

[oldfart]

Where do you get this drivel?

We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote. What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots.

Lincoln was not on the ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. South Carolina did not have direct election of presidential electors; the state legislature chose them. By contrast Douglas was on every ballot except New York and New Jersey, where a unified anti-Lincoln slate was run. The Southern candidates, Breckinridge and Bell were on every ballot except SC, NY, & NJ as noted, and Rhode Island, with Bell but not Breckinridge on the Pennsylvania ballot.

So Lincoln was on the ballot in slave states that remained in the Union and Virginia. In the North, either an anti-Lincoln coalition or at least two other candidates were on the ballot everywhere except Rhode Island. The states that Lincoln carried, a majority of the electoral vote, he carried by majorities, not just pluralities.

Now the only real question is whether you have the integrity to admit you have no idea of what you are talking about or if you try to weasel again. But we already know that answer.

And a follow-up:

In the votes that really counted, a full third of the CSA forces were engaged in attempting to put down Unionist insurrections and trying to hold the South. Every state in the South except for South Carolina supplied white regiments to the Union armies. In fact, black and white, about as many slave state soldiers fought for the Union as for the Confederacy.

 

[SayMyName]

We all know that Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860 with less than 40% of the popular vote. What is less well known is that two Democrats and a Whig candidate split the rest of the vote, with only Lincoln's name appearing on all States' ballots. By modern standards, the election results would never have been accepted.

By the time of Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861, South Carolina and six other States had seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. Interestingly, neither Virginia nor three other States had yet seceded. It was not until after President Lincoln's call for 75,000 soldiers to invade the seceding States that Virginia, the most populous and industrial southern State, joined the Confederacy and pulled in the rest of those States with her.

What if Lincoln had adopted a less aggressive posture towards these States? What if he had merely demanded the return of Federal property and compensation for any damage, rather than calling for an invasion? This would have been entirely justified by any standard as well as compliant with international law. Virginia was essential to the viability of the Confederacy. Would it have joined in the absence of Lincoln's attack on State Sovereignty?

Within 20 years of the end of the Civil War, slavery had been abolished in the Western Hemisphere and most of the rest of the world. Could not an accommodation with Virginia have been reached? The importation of slaves was already prohibited. For example, might not there have been an agreement that, henceforth, the children born to slaves would be free? Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have collapsed under its own weight.

Was "Preservation of the Union" worth 620,000 lives, more than all of our other wars combined? Might this armageddon have been avoided with a little less concern about Presidential prestige and legacy?

Worth lives? When going into war, you take calculated risks not knowing what the result will actually be. In this case it was over keeping the Union together. Before the war was over, it became also about slavery. I am glad that the war helped defeat the side that supported slavery. It is a scar upon our nation up to this present day. It is inconceivable that such a vile practice was ever allowed to exist in the United States.