http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1856
Voting for Fremont, the only candidate willing to stand up to Slave Power.
Also there is this amusing political cartoon (in retrospect) about the election: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/1856-Republican-party-Fremont-isms-caricature.jpg
I chose Fremont but, judging from this 2011 Salon article, he probably wouldn’t have been much better as a leader than Buchanan. With those two as the major party nominees, it looks as though the Republic was screwed no matter who got elected.
Pretty much my opinion. Fremont was the kind of person who might have started the war but, unlike Lincoln, been unable to win it.
Still, I gave him the benefit of the doubt over a historically proven failure like Buchanan.
Fremont, without any great enthusiasm. Looked good on paper (Ooo, an exciting explorer of the West!) but not a particularly skilled politico, and a failure as a general in the Civil War.
It appears we all like the promise of free soil, free labor, free speech, and free men. It’s the Fremont we’re iffy on.
Buchanan is more qualified.
To be fair to Fremont, I’ll list his good qualities first. He was brave, honest, intelligent, and resourceful, and there is no doubting the strength and sincerity of his antislavery convictions.
The latter point is impressive considering that he grew up in Charleston (SC) and married the daughter of a Senator from a slaveholding state. This election pitted two proslavery northerners (Fillmore and Buchanan) against an antislavery native southerner.
But alas, Fremont’s record screams “caution” in thinking of him as a Civil War commander-in-chief. (And if elected he would certainly have been so, because the South would have seceded just as it did in 1861.) He was prone to impulsiveness, over-reach, and unbelievable lapses in judgment. (As examples of the latter, he twice tried to cross mountain ranges in midwinter, and despite being a subordinate army officer sided with the navy in a nasty interservice conflict in California during the Mexican War, for which he was court-martialed.) He didn’t work well with others, and had none of Lincoln’s patience or tact or political skill.
Perhaps US Grant put it best when he said that he voted for Buchanan because “I knew Fremont”. I wouldn’t vote for Buchanan, not even in this poll, but I’m not altogether sorry that he won.
The Republic was screwed, regardless the nominees. I’ve been reading up on 1856 and by then the war was practically inevitable. I’d vote for Fremont but pray that the crazies held off until we got someone in 1860 who could handle the explosive fracturing. But with him as the incumbent I can’t see the Republicans winning in '60, so it was probably for the best that Buchanan won.
Also, ok, speaking as a 1856 New Yorker, Fremont’s only real platform seems to be slavery and Kansas. Sure, there’s something in there about a transcontinental railroad and harbor improvements, but that’s like two lines. And here’s the thing. Ok, so they say slavery is bad. I’m sure it is. I wouldn’t want to be a slave. But you know what? I’m not. I don’t see how it has anything to do with me. And it’s legal, right? George Washington had them, right? Thomas Jefferson? Besides, the Republicans say they’re not going to try to get rid of it, but come on! You believe that? And if they do, what are you going to do with all the slaves? Send them to Africa? What’s to keep them from coming up here? I say if Mississippi wants to have slaves, let them. If New York doesn’t, don’t make them. And that works for Kansas too. The problem isn’t the Kansas law, it’s that everybody got so worked up about stuff and started shooting each other rather than letting democracy work. The whole slavery problem goes away if everybody stops shouting about it and decides to live and let live. That’s what I say.
Yep, Frémont is pretty much it. As this poll bears out.
Weirder things have happened. But right now I can’t think of any!
Trivia footnote: Fremont’s father was French, so Fremont, if elected, would have been the first non-WASP President. Fortunately, however, for Fremont’s future political ambitions, his Anglo mother saw that he was raised as Protestant.
Re non WASPs… Van Buren was Dutch, Andrew Jackson was Scots-Irish, as were Buchanan and James Polk. James Monroe was Scottish and French. So a bunch of non WASPs.
The problem was that one of the only issues that both sides agreed on was that slavery needed to expand in order to continue. So both sides insisted expansion was non-negotiable.
Well, and 2014 me says slavery is terrible and lets get rid of it, but 1856 me says “Is it really worth fighting over? If they want slaves in Kansas or someplace, who really cares? Why get all bent out of shape over a bunch of slaves?”
Interesting, and common, position, from an 1856 POV. On the other hand,
[QUOTE=Frederick Douglass]
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.
[/quote]
I don’t know enough history to vote in these historical election threads, but I was curious about this cartoon. The first supplicant mentions a desire to ban Tobacco, Animal food, and Lager. Lager and Tobacco I understand but can anyone explain why animal food is included on this list?
I believe the person is a prototypical vegan who wants to ban meat, dairy, and all other animal-derived food products.
I see, food from animals not food for animals. Got it.
Amusing? Downright filthy, it is! “Col. I wish to invite you to the next meeting of our Free Love association, where the shackles of marriage are not tolerated & perfect freedom exists in love matters and you will be sure to Enjoy yourself, for we are all Freemounters.” Sir, I do not believe that was a typographical error. :mad:
Or this one:
