Maitland,
Can you recommend a better site?
Actually, the site opens with remarks about the fact that the
nation at war, and divided in the war, held an orderly election. The site
says that the election occurred with "relatively little corruption". In
looking at the scope and purpose of the overall site, it perhaps suggests
that whatever "fraud" took place was not as significant as in other
elections ????
I think Lincoln was realistic. He was not the picture of a
president, and did not subscribe to the "polite" conventions of the "PC"
folks of his time. To paraphrase Davey Crockett (or his spin doctors), "he
was sure he was right, then went ahead." It took some courage to agree to
his nomination before Sherman did in Atlanta, but he had that courage, and
it paid off.
Unless you know of better sites, I'll probably add this link to my
student link pages. It's a useful source for students and teachers seeking
information on the presidential elections, even if it has inadequacies for
history majors.
Anne
At 07:30 AM 3/4/03 -0800, you wrote:
>The site refered to is a softshoe approach to the election of '84. It
>doesn't cover the fraud, etc in the elections and under plays the role of
>Sherman's actions in the Southeast. This site is designed to preach to
>the choir and the PC minded of today and glosses over the full impact of
>the election, most noteworthy due to the fact that for the first time a
>country at war actually held elections, and the great amount of fraud that
>took place.
>
>Even Lincoln thought he would lose and only felt good about the election
>after Atlanta fell.
>
>M. Westbrook
>
>--- Anne Pemberton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > war expectations for the south than Lincoln did. Check out
> > http://elections.harpweek.com/4Overview/overview-1864-1.htm and other
> > sites
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
