Why Abe Lincoln was lucky

[Valmy]

Heck, they ripped the Democratic party into shreds rather than accept Douglas as the party's nominee.

Yeah the moment they all walked out in 1860 it was all downhill.

Man now that is a convention I wish had been televised.

[jimmy olsen]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

Weren't the contents and tone of 19th century newspapers even more scurrilous than anything Fox News or MSNBC puts out there?

Absolutely

[The Minsky Moment]

There were about 3700 newspapers in the USA in 1860 and the largest ones had daily circulations deep into the 5 figures.  Because of the telegraph, it was possible to turn get out "hot news" in a matter of hours.  The US was a highly literate population at the time, although there were regional variations (and most slaves were not surprisingly illiterate).  In the largest cities so-called "non-partisan" papers were common but in the smaller cities and towns, partisan papers were the norm. 

[jimmy olsen]

The US was a highly literate population at the time, although there were regional variations

IIRC it was 90% in the North and 70% in the South among whites

[Drakken]

It's incredible how the US population was that literate in the 1850s and 1860s. Compare with France, where 80-85% of the population was still composed of peasants at the same era, most of them illiterate or barely able to count and read, but voting anyway.

And before you mention that France was under Napoleon III at the time, people still voted for the legislative, and Napoleon III insisted in keeping it universal after taking power. For a Bonapartist dictator, Nappy was a nice chap. 

[Razgovory]

de Tocqueville comments on American literacy in the 1830's, claiming the first time he read some of Shakespeare's plays in some backwoods cabin.  So not only could Americans read, but they were often well read.  Even on the frontier.  I advise any non-American to read de Tocqueville if you want to understand the US and the American people.  Despite being over a hundred and fifty years ago his observations on the American character are extremely keen.  His predictions are often quite accurate as well, such as the prediction that the US and Russia would one day dominate the world, which occurred about a hundred years after he published his book.

[jimmy olsen]

de Tocqueville comments on American literacy in the 1830's, claiming the first time he read some of Shakespeare's plays in some backwoods cabin.  So not only could Americans read, but they were often well read.  Even on the frontier.  I advise any non-American to read de Tocqueville if you want to understand the US and the American people.  Despite being over a hundred and fifty years ago his observations on the American character are extremely keen.  His predictions are often quite accurate as well, such as the prediction that the US and Russia would one day dominate the world, which occurred about a hundred years after he published his book.

Yup, dude was brilliant.

There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world's attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing.... The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America's conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia's with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world.

[dps]

Heck, they ripped the Democratic party into shreds rather than accept Douglas as the party's nominee.

Yeah the moment they all walked out in 1860 it was all downhill.

Man now that is a convention I wish had been televised.

I'm not sure that it would have made a whole lot of difference if they hadn't violated the first unwritten rule of RPG's.  Even if all the votes for Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell had gone to the candidate of a unified Democratic party, Lincoln would have still won, though it's possible that a unified Democratic party might have run a better campaign.  Beyond that, though, the Democratic party before their disastrous convention was about the only institution left in American life that was nationwide.

[Valmy]

It's incredible how the US population was that literate in the 1850s and 1860s. Compare with France, where 80-85% of the population was still composed of peasants at the same era, most of them illiterate or barely able to count and read, but voting anyway.

And before you mention that France was under Napoleon III at the time, people still voted for the legislative, and Napoleon III insisted in keeping it universal after taking power. For a Bonapartist dictator, Nappy was a nice chap. 

He wanted to turn France into a British style government as he was a big anglophile and thought their system was the best.  Which is sort of funny really.

He even wrote a book proposing that this was Napoleon I's ultimate goal, or at least the culmination of his legacy.  The book is 'Napoleonic Ideas'.

[Scipio]

Lincoln's lucky because he was assassinated.

Which is pretty shitty luck.

[Valmy]

I'm not sure that it would have made a whole lot of difference if they hadn't violated the first unwritten rule of RPG's.  Even if all the votes for Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell had gone to the candidate of a unified Democratic party, Lincoln would have still won, though it's possible that a unified Democratic party might have run a better campaign.  Beyond that, though, the Democratic party before their disastrous convention was about the only institution left in American life that was nationwide.

Well yeah I hear that arguement from Lost Causers that the South taking down the Democrats did not cost them the election but of course that assumes everybody would have voted the exact same way in that scenario.  But they may be right because after the Dredd Scott decision the Republican momentum was too strong.  Any compromise the Democrats could have proposed would have been in violation of a Supreme Court decision which put them in an impossible position anyway.