the northern and southern viewpoint on the election of abraham lincoln?
137893
My understanding was that the election directly caused the start of secession of states in the South from the union since Lincoln was known for his stand on slavery. The crisis was already at a boiling point by that time already due to non-handling/concessions on slavery of previous administrations.
651461
This was a period in which the former States of the Confederacy were impelled and coerced through a societal transformation.  During this period 10 to 15 percent of the white voters were disfranchised as the local Republican Party united illiterate blacks, “scalawags,” and northern “Carpetbaggers” into an unscrupulous political triumvirate that indulged in an orgy of extravagance, corruption, and debauchery.  (from “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,” by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel).  \n\nDuring this same period, the Union military occupation forces made elected members of some State legislatures removed from office because they would not support ratification of the 14th Amendment.  They then replaced these legislatures with hand picked individuals who would vote the way they wanted.  While this is clearly extra-Constitutional, in the 1869 case of Texas v. White these acts of the Union were justified as legitimate “by right of conquest.”  \n\nThese acts of reconstruction were far outside the intent for Reconstruction of President Lincoln (prior to his assassination) further destroying the culture of these States and building resentment which would last for generations into the future.  For those interested they could find interesting such books as:\n\n“The Tragic Era: The Revolution after Lincoln” by Claude G. Bowers;\n“History of the United States From the Compromise of 1850 to the Restoration of Home Rule in the South in 1877”, by James Ford Rhodes;\nAlso by William Archibald Dunning, “Reconstruction: Political and Economic, 1865 – 1877; and,\nEssays on the Civil War and Reconstruction,” 2nd edition.
1084134
Can you give a little more info?  This is one theory from the right-wing attack poodles that I haven't heard yet.\n\nCan I play the game too then?  I want to pose a theory that the American Civil War started because of the supposition of the denial of the flat-world.  Abe Lincoln was a full believer in the heretic lie that the world is round, and so I think those good God-fearing Southerners made sure he knew just how wrong he was.
351950
It was Abraham Lincoln's description of the Union of the United States of America.
614067
Bill Maher said:\n"I know this is about 140 years late, but to the Southern states, I would say upon further consideration, you can go."\n\nI am Southern AND liberal. Let's not confuse southern and conservative. Not all Southerners are conservative. The South was once predominately democratic, and then something shifted. I think a lot of people in the south are traditional and very family-values oriented. While I don't agree with all of these views, I don't think this is a bad thing. We are not a nation where everyone has to have the same beliefs and ideals, and that's what I think makes it such an interesting place. If all the southern conservatives left, who would I have to argue with?
244362
The Iron Curtain as we knew it is gone.\n\nAnd yes, there still are large differences between North and South in the USA.
620938
Lincoln asked them to abolish slavery. The Southern Sates did not agree as that would mean losing their entire workforce which worked in their plantations and farms and were the source of their wealth and economy.\n\nFaced with no choice, the Southern States left, what followed was the Civil War.
1000198
Don't have a clue as to who our next pres will be, still too many candidates out there.\n\nBut I don't think we are on the way to a civil war, I don't think that geographically we are divided enough and economically and viewpoint - wise, I think we all recognize that we can't stand on our own...
598558
let's look at the facts...\n\nA. Lincoln freed the slaves... his opponents did not want this to happen in the south... he was a Republican...\n\nB. in the 1960's Republicans were fought with everything they could to stop the civil rights movement... prominent republican figures like strom thurmond and jessie helms are clearly not in the line of Lincoln... \n\nhow do you explain this difference?
981555
I do not think there was a way to poll slave owners. I would guess perhaps less than 3%.The plantation owners owned the majority and they as well were in politics as always it's who has the money and power, so when the North pushed the slave issue guess who voted for secession?
77696
I lean to the right however it is not cut and dry. Frankly I think if Bush is the best the republicans can come up with and Kerry is the best the democrats can come up with then maby we are in trouble. I don't hate Bush by no means, in fact if you read my answers you will find that I spend alot of time defending him. I think it is kinda like at work how everybody complains about the boss and thinks they can do a better job. Here is my attempt to answer your question; It basically comes down to democrat or republican when you vote. So even if you don't agree with everything one or the other is doing you have to figure what is the most important for you and support that. For instance I am passionatly against gun control and abortion so voting for a democrat is probably not going to happen, unless the republcans were pro something that I felt even more passion for. My next point is people who agree with somethings and not others usually feel so strongly about that one thing that it clouds there judgment on everything else. For example anti-war liberals who think the president is violating our civil liberties by tapping phones and emails. They can't get over the fact that they hate the war and so there for they hate Bush and any and everything he says or does. They fail to realize the lengths past presidents have gone to during a time of war. Lincoln had a man who was running for office in the north deported and shipped to the south. Think about the violation there. Prevented the process of a free election. He is widly reguarded as one of the best Presidents of all time. So as I sit here knowing that my dislike of liberals is strongly polerized to the right I have to say it is because I feel so strongly about some core issues.
965457
Nothing.  We won't see until years later how good he was.  Abraham Lincoln was considered a bad president doing his time.  Now we love him.  The fact that people don't like him is they listen to the liberal news and the walk around repeating what the news told them, so they think they sound smart.  If these people were to research a little on their own, they would see what the President is doing is good.  Just take a look at this post, how many say bad things about the president.  Some don't even give reasons, the just use lame excuses and say bad things about the President of the United States.
633081
Lincoln and the Republicans, a new political party at that time, opposed the spread of slavery to the Northwest Territories.  He outlined his reasons for opposition and the arguments put forward from the other side; then asked that opposing ideas be discussed civilly.
1109324
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
218572
This is going to be just a quick summary...\nFor the most part, it was not all about slavery. The states North of the Mason-Dixon line were content with slavery in the South...the problem was the "Westward Expansion." The North wanted the new states to be free from slavery, whereas the South wanted those states to be open to slavery. There were a few compromises made years before the actual war began, however, those obviously did not work. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina announced it's leave from the Union...Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed. \nOn February 4th, 1861, the Confederate States of America was formed with Jefferson Davis as the president. A new constitution was drawn up. Key differences were:\n*The president and vice president were elected for six year terms whereas the North had only four years. \n*The protection of slavery in new territories was given. \n*No slave trade with Africa\n*President Davis could take a loan for $15 million for the creation of a military force of 100,000. \nPresident Davis was inaugurated February 18, 1861. \n\nPresident Lincoln for the Union said, "Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face and face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after seperation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old quesetions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it..." (Page 8)\nThe first shots of the Civil War were fired on April 12th, 1861 at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina. The fight lasted for thirty-four hours, and ended by the North surrendering. The war continued until April of 1865. \nAfter it was all said and done, most of the South was destroyed and the loss of lives on both ends, are up to this day, only an estimate (over 100,000). It is said, the number of Yanks and Rebels who died are greater than the loss of American lives in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietiman War...all combined.\n\nI hope this has been helpful to you. Here are some other books to check out if you are really interested in the Civil War:\n-"After the Civil War" by John S. Blay\n-"The Life of Johnny Reb" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"Embattled Courage" by Gerald F. Linderman\n-"The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts" by Burke Davis
1064481
Are you so sheltered to think southern white conservatives are racist or ignorant? We have all kinds, just like New York, but get with the program already. The KKK has always had greater membership in the north than the south since the 1920s & still does today. \n\nDr Rice would be a great candidate we'd love to vote for, but I fear she's too connected to the war. Powell on the other hand would be excellent. I think it's going to be Rudy though & a huge victory.
120273
Both were admirable men, but Lincoln presided over the country during its only time of all out Civil War - not an easy feat by any stretch of the imagination.  He was also re-elected during the conflict, which is a good indication of his handling of the situation.  The Civil War was a tremendously destructive conflict, but the results could have been much more disastrous with the strong leadership exhibited by Lincoln.