xt7sj38kdv14 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sj38kdv14/data/mets.xml Scrugham, Mary, b. 1885. 192  books b92-161-29919573 English Lexington, Ky. Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, : [Lexington] : Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865. Clay, Henry, 1777-1852. United States History Civil War, 1861-1865 Causes. Slavery United States. Secession.Townsend, William H. (William Henry), 1890-1964. Force or consent as the basis of American government  / by Mary Scrugham ; the debate on the subject by the author and W.H. Townsend. text Force or consent as the basis of American government  / by Mary Scrugham ; the debate on the subject by the author and W.H. Townsend. 192 2002 true xt7sj38kdv14 section xt7sj38kdv14 

Force or Consent as The

   Basis of American




The Debate on the Subject by the Author
    and Attorney W. H. Townsend

          Published by the
              of the
    United Daughters of the Confederacy



A  I      I-'                  E--  




T   HIS pamphlet contains a lecture delivered before the
Lexington Chapter of the United Daughters of the
     Confederacy and the debate which followed its pub-
lication in the Lexington Herald. The letters of the debate
were written to the Editor of the Herald and were published
in successive Sunday editions of the paper. They are pub-
lished just as they appeared in the Herald. This republi-
cation in more permanent form is the outcome of the feel-
ing among -the members of the Lexington Chapter, (and
others, including some well-known leaders of thought in
both the ranks of the U. D. C. and the S. C. V.) that the
subject dealt with deserves a wider publicity as a matter
of educational policy in the spreading of the truth.
   The historical research upon which "Force or Consent
as the Basis of American Government" is founded covers
a period of ten years reading through the original sources
upon which all statement of fact must rest if it is to have
a rock foundation of truth. The general public neither has
the time nor the taste for reading innumerable old letters
and papers and must rely for its knowledge of the past
on the statements of those who have done this reading.
Any historian who neglects to consider all the evidence is
as guilty as a judge would be who refused to hear both
sides of a case. In order that the general public may not
be deceived by quack historians-any account printed about
the past is not necessarily history, for history is not history
unless it is the truth-the great Universities of America
and Europe have established graduate schools of history
just as they have schools of law and medicine. The degree
of Ph. D. is conferred by the Universities on any person
who has completed the study and research prescribed by
the University authorities as evidence that the person is a
"qualified" and not a "quack" historian. This is not to
say that no one but a Ph. D. can write true history, but it
does mean that a Ph. D. is more likely to be more accurate
than one who has not received the rigid training of a great
graduate school in writing accurate accounts-just as a
trained physician is more certain to diagnose correctly a
complicated disease than a practical nurse. It happens
that the author of "Force or Consent as the Basis of Ameri-
can Government is a "qualified" as distinguished by Colum-
bia University from a "quack" historian.



   The general public's opinion of Abraham Lincoln and
the part he played in the opening of the Civil War seems
to be largely the result of Republican propaganda. That
is to say the Republican press has long and systematically
held up Lincoln as the model of all perfection. As a matter
of cold historical fact, Lincoln was a very shrewd politician.
The fact that in 1860 both radical Abolitionists and conser-
vative Whigs voted for him on the basis of his statements
which could be interpreted to mean policies friendly to
both radicals and conservatives is the determining evidence
that makes it necessary to classify Lincoln as a very shrewd
politician. The conservatives would certainly not have
voted for a John Brown Abolitionist and the Abolitionists
would not vote for any one who was not an abolitionist.
Nevertheless, Linooln managed to have both groups-both
conservatives and abolitionists-vote for him. And how
did he manage to accomplish such a political miracle By
the politically shrewd expedient of making remarks which
could be interpreted to suit the tastes of both groups.
   In the Fort Leavenworth address, Lincoln stated that
it would be his duty to deal with the persons who most
strenuously objected to his policy as old John Brown was
dealt with. There was nothing he could have said which
would have given more satisfaction to the radical abolition-
ists of the north than this "eye for an eye and tooth" re-
mark just after the hanging of John Brown for inciting the
Virginia slaves to murder their masters in the dead of
night. Is It any wonder that the radical abolitionists of
the north voted solidly for Lincoln Or can it be a matter
of surprise that the southerners voted unanimously against
the author of such a sentiment. However, in the same ad-
dress, Lincoln did not say that John Brown was wrong and
should not have done as he did, but "it could avail him
nothing that he might think himself right." However, the
conservatives of the north came to the conclusion that
Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist and also voted for
   Not only this Fort Leavenworth address but also Lin-
coln's Oooper Union speech and the famous House-Divided
Ispeech made in the debate with Douglass contained similar
strategic remarks which blended, even adroitly blended,
the radical and conservative views in such a manner as to
attract and hold the votes of both the radical and conser-
vatives in his following. Either Lincoln was a radical or
he was a conservative; or he was a politician playing for



the support of both radicals and conservatives in order to
get elected to office. The conservatives claimed him as a
conservative, and Attorney W. H. Townsend so believes
him to have been to this day and seeks to prove him to
have been by selecting all of his conservative remarks and
laying great stress on them, but at the same time Ignoring
the remarks that attracted the radicals. In order to de-
termine whether Lincoln was a conservative or a radical,
the correct test Is undoubtedly not that used by Attorney
Townsend but that advocated by the Bible, i. e., " by their
fruits ye shall know them." Judged by his fruits, Lincoln
was a radical and also a politician, for, the results of the
Civil War amounted to a John Brown raid into the South
and Lincoln continued to be supported by both radicals and
conservatives even in his second election. It is incon-
ceivable how he can be regarded as a "conservative" by
any one who undertakes to examine the evidence in order
to ascertain the truth. The radicals no doubt knew that
Lincoln had contributed substantially to John Brown's
expedition but the conservatives were not aware of this
   It should be perfectly clear to the general public why
the southern people did not want a sympathizer with John
Brown as the chief executive officer of their states. The
southern leaders demanded that Lincoln give incontrover-
tible evidence about which branch of the party which
elected him-whether conservative or radical wing-that he
intended to belong to as President before they settled down
to accepting him, even though the southern people had
unanimously voted against him. They wanted to have
everybody absolutely certain where he stood including not
only the radicals and conservatives of the north but also
the people of the south. If Lincoln had been frank about
what he intended to do, either the radical or the conserva-
tive wing of his party would have repudiated him. Lin-
coln refused to make a clear cut, unequivocal statement of
his position. Therefore, it Is necessary to conclude that
Lincoln was a politician. Lincoln told the truth but he
failed to tell all of the truth in such a way that the common
man could get his exact meaning. Lincoln said that the
Civil War was caused by politicians. Undoubtedly this
contains the truth. But to have told the whole explicit
truth, he should have said, "The Civil War was caused by
politicians, chief among whom is myself."


This page in the original text is blank.


Force or Consent as The Basis of

           American Government

                    By DR. MARY SCRUGHAM

(Author of "The Peaceable Americans of 1860-1861," published as one
          of the Cclumbia University studies in History,
                   Economics and Public Law.)

       NOTE-By editor of the Lexington, (Ky.) Herald. The accompany-
    ing article is a lecture given by Dr. Mary Scrugham before the Daughters
    of the Confederacy in a meeting and is based on a thesis by which Dr.
    Scrugham won her Ph. D. degree at Columbia University In 1921.

    The glory bestowed upon Abraham Lincoln for saving the Amer-
ican Union is a strange paradox. For he did not save the Union. The
tact is he came very near destroying it.
    The principle on which free government is based is the consent of
the governed. In a speech which Lincoln made in New York before
he was nominated for the presidency, he denied this right to the
Southern states in so far as their consent to the choice of a President-
the chief executive officer-of the United States was concerned. He
frankly admitted that a nominee of the so-called Black Republican
party could not receive a single vote in most of the southern states.
But he maintained that government based on consent was not being
denied them because they were offered the privilege of voting for a
Black Republican and could vote for him or not if they wanted to. It
would be just as reasonable to maintain that the Belgians were granted
the same kind of privilege by the Germans in 1914 because they had a
right to -say "Yes" to the German proposals. Consent means saying
"Yes." It does not mean saying "No." If a man asks a woman to
marry him and she says "No," it can not be said that her consent
has been given. If, regardless of "No," he drags her to the altar and
at the point of a bayonet forces her to say "Yes," the marriage can not
be said to be based on consent. Obviously, it Is based on force. A
union based on force and a union based on consent are as different as
day and night-whether in government or in matrimony. Force is
force; and the mailed fist Is the mailed fist, whether it is raised on
the fields of Flanders, by the streams of Ireland, or on a march through
   The difference between the workings of government based on
force and government based on consent is well brought out in the dif-
ference in the relations which have existed through centuries between
Wales and England on the one hand and between Ireland and England



on the other. The Welsh swore that they would never be governed by
a prince who was not born in Wales. And Edward I. of England
promised them a Welsh prince and presented them with his own son
born at the Castle Carnarvon in Wales. To this day the King of Great
Britain is first Prince of Wales before he becomes King of Britain.
As a result the relations between England and Wales have been peace-
ful and friendly and the fact that Lloyd George, war premier of the
British empire, was a Welshman born proves how close is the union
that Edward I. cemented when he presented the Welsh with a Welsh
prince. But how different have been the relations between Ireland
and England. Government in Ireland has been based on conquest
and force for centuries, and the only part of Ireland which shows
loyalty to England is Ulster, a county inhabited by the descendants
of Englishmen. That Ireland is a Free State today is due directly
to the original method of uniting and maintaining government there
by force on the part of the English. Happily for Scotland and England,
the Scotch king, King James VI., fell heir to the English crown upon
England was not based on force. Thus ended the traditional hostility
the death of Queen Elizabeth and the resulting union of Scotland and
between the English and the Scotch with the accession of James VI. of
Scotland as James I. of England.
    The American Union before 1861 was based on consent and the
American Union after 1876 has been based on consent; but the Amer-
ican Union between 1865 and 1877 was based on force. From the
summons for 75,000 troops issued by Lincoln in 1861 to the surrender
of the last Confederate General in 1865 the American Union did not
exist. Lincoln was president of the dis-United States up to the time
of the surrender of Lee at Appomattox and president of the United
States only from the time of the surrender to the time of his assassi-
nation shortly after. Certainly, Lincoln was not president of the Con-
federate States at the same time that Jefferson Davis occupied this
office. From the surrender of Lee to 1877 when President Grant is-
sued the recall for the last of the northern troops from the southern
states after Samuel Tilden had acceded the election of Rutherford B.
Hayes, the American Union was based on force. Abraham Lincoln was
never president of the American Union based on consent.
    Lincoln did not receive a single vote in ten states of the Union and
very few in four others; three-fifths of the American voters in 1860
voted against him and only two-fifths for him. In a free government
it is held that a majority should rule and that such a government must
be based on consent. How many people does it take to say that the
consent of a state is given This is still a moot question. But be the
number large or small, there has at least to be one person to say "Yes."
Lincoln expressed the desire shortly before his death that military law
be withdrawn from any of the southern states in which coul dbe found
one-tenth of the people willing to elect and organize a state government
under Republican administration at Washington. However, in the
election of 1860, Lincoln received absolutely no vote at all, as has



been said, in ten states, and practically none in four others. There
was no consent given to his occupying the presidency of the South.
    During the presidential campaign of 1860 which preceded the elec-
tion the Republicans had argued that John C. Breckinridge, the candi,
date most acceptable to the southern states, was of the same variety
as Lincoln and would receive no votes in the northern states; that
what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. But the elec-
tion proved this argument untrue, for Breckinridge received 6,000
votes even in Maine and nearly that many in Massachusetts, the home
of the Abolitionists, and over 14,000 in another typical New England
state. Breckinridge received votes in every state of the Union. When
the results of the election became known and it was revealed that Lin-
ceoln, who had received only two-fifths of the popular vote, was the
technically chosen president of the whole United States, in ten of which
he had not received a single vote, an unprecedented commotion fol-
lowed. Somebody was bound to have protested, for though chosen
in accordance with the form of the law, his election was manifestly a
violation of the principle on which the American government was
formed. It was a violation not only of the right of one or two states to
say "Yes," but of the right of a whole group of states and also a viola-
tion of the right of a majority to rule. Under this triple violation it
should be no matter of surprise that the most emphatic protest should
have been registered. South Carolina promptly seceded from the
Union based on consent. Just one single state alone seceded at first
by way of protest. Others followed later when they became convinced
that the single state's protest produced no results.
    Manifestly, the people of the seceding states in which Lincoln had
not received a single vote were wedded to a government of, by and
for the people, and they did not propose to permit the representative
of two-fifths of the people living exclusively in one section of the nation
to take control of the enforcement of law in their states. And why did
they not want such a man as Lincoln The answer is obvious and if
any person of the present or future generations wishes to know exactly
why the southern people lacked confidence so universally lacked con-
fidence-in Abraham Lincoln, he or she should read the speech he
made at Fort Leavenworth in which he spoke favorably of John Brown.
The Republican platform of 1860 repudiated John Brown and
all of his   ways;   but  the  candidate  who  stood  on  that
platform  had spoken favorably of John Brown.     It was not
as clear as the sun in the cloudless sky to the southern
people just what action the southern people could expect in
case other John Browns disturbed the domestic tranquillity of the
South during the administration of an executive who had spoken fa-
vorably of John Brown. In view of this fact it can not be truthfully
maintained that the southern people fought to maintain or to perpet-
uate slavery. The majority of the southerners did not own any slaves
and fought against what they believed to be a system of management
which would encourage the development of a state of affairs in their



midst similar to that which Bolshevism has brought to Russia. To
a man, slave holder and non-slave holder, they were against John
Brown raids. Certainly, they fought and they fought well; for there
would have been but one worse way to have settled the slavery ques-
tion than the way in which it was settled and that would have been
to have submitted to the John Brown raids without a murmur. One of
the chief reasons for the formation of the American Union was a pres-
ervation of the domestic tranquillity of the people. "Where there is
no protection, no allegiance is due," is a basic principle of all or-
    When the technically legal election of Lincoln became an ascer-
tained fact, the editor of the Louisville Journal wrote Lincoln and re-
quested that he make some explanation of his exact position on the
slavery question which was agitating the South. Lincoln replied and
calmly referred the editor to his already published speeches and well-
known views and refused to add one dot to an "i" or a cross to a "t."
To this day it has not yet been decided just where Lincoln stood on
the slavery question at this time, in view of the fact that he was
elected on the platform of his party. By some historians he is hailed
as a thorough-going abolitionist from start to finish; by others he is
regarded as casting aLside all considerations in order to save the Union
from disruption. But, be the fact as it may, he refused to give the
southern people satisfaction as to where he stood in 1861, and state
after state solemnly separated themselves from the Union based on
    On account of their geographical position, the Kentuckians of 1860
knew that the northern people had not intended to abrogate the princi-
ple on which the Union was founded in voting for Lincoln as president.
Up to 1860, no man had been elected president who had not received
votes in all of the states and in all sections of the country. Henry
Clay of Kentucky had been chiefly responsible for this unbroken cus-
tom. Clay should be known as the Great Commoner-not because he was
a common man, not because he had any special admiration for the com-
mon man, not because he believed that the same law should be com-
mon to rich and poor alike, nor yet because he championed the Oom-
mon Law of England, but because he insisted eloquently, forcefully and
continually throughout his long career in public life that the federal
and state governments alike should concern themselves with the com-
mon interests of all the states and all the people in those states and
not with the special interests of a few states or a few people. Es-
sentially this is a fundamental principle. The federal government
must concern Itself with the interests which are common to all the
states and all of the states must decide what those interests are and
the people of no state be entirely ignored. It was for this principle that
Henry Clay stood like Gibraltar. When Clay said "I would rather be
right than President," it was this principle that he had in mind. Clay
could readily have secured an election to the presidency if he had con-
sented to abrogate it as Lincoln did. He chose to lose the presidency



three times rather than abrogate, or take any chances on abrogating,
the principle on which our government rests and on which the Ameri-
can Union was formed. The states themselves, and the people within
those states who are qualified voters, are held to be the best judges
of what their own inteststs are; inherently, such is the nature of gov-
ernment of, by and for the people.
    Naturally, the State of Kentucky, which had followed the lead of
Henry Clay for half a century, would be the state which would make
the most heroic effort to see the principles of the Great Commoner
sustained. As has been said, the Kentuckians knew that the average
northern voter who had voted for Lincoln had voted for him for reasons
other than his supposed friendliness to John Brown, and they had no
intention when voting for Lincoln of abrogating government of, by
and for the people of all of the states. An investigating committee
had been at work in Congress such as the one which unearthed the
Teapot Dome scandal and had revealed some corruption in the Demo-
cratic administration of President Buchanan who at the time was
president. Turn the rascals out and put in an honest man such
as "Honest Abe" was the greatest issue of the day. The Republicans
had also advocated a higher tariff than then existed and Kentucky
knew that this was sufficient alone to have thrown several states into
the Lincoln electoral column regardless of some remarks he may
have made about John Brown. Kentucky knew that a majority of the
northern people did not approve of John Brownism in the South, but
they also knew that the southern Deople did not realize this fact. The
Kentuckians understood the situation and they knew how it had arisen.
They fully realized the seriousness of the misunderstanding arising
from the entrance of a man to the executive power with John Brown
sympathies in whom the southern people lacked confidence and in
whom the northern people had no such reason to lack confidence.
    However, the Kentuckians felt that a disruption of the Union was
uncalled for and that a war to settle the misunderstanding was en-
tirely unnecessary. The State of Kentucky laid proud claim to Henry
Clay and It was but natural that Kentuckians should also propose a
statesmanlike settlement of the difficult situation arising from the ab-
rogation of the principle of a man's becoming chief executive officer of
the nation without the common consent of all the states forming the
nation. The Kentuckians therefore requested the calling of a national
constitutional convention to settle the matter-just such a solemn
convention as had drawn up the Constitution in 1787. They were cer-
tain that if the northerners and southerners could calmly talk the mat-
ter over, that no fighting would be necessary to save the Union. Under
the circumstances, the Republican leaders could not hope for a ma-
jority in such a convention; for they had received only two-fifths of the
vote of the people as it was and that on the assurance by the Repub-
lican newspapers (which were the only papers that a number of them
took), that the election of Lincoln would lead to no attempt to dis-
solve the Union; that there would be no war, nothing but "peace and



prosperity" resulting from his election; nothing but honest government
by Honest Abe and the elimination of the negro question from politics
forever. Such were the campaign promises of the Republicans in 1860.
A national convention similar to that of 1787 might well have recon-
isidered the election of Lincoln. The only certain hope for the Repub-
licans to occupy the offices to which they vociferously claimed they had
been properly and justly elected was for the leaders of the party to
maintain the propriety of such an election and to avoid the full and
free discussion of the matter in a national constitutional convention.
Instead of taking steps to call such a convention and effecting
a delay of the opening of hostilities until it could assemble and settle
the abrogation of the American principle of basing the election of a
president on the common consent of all of the states, Lincoln issued a
call for 75,000 troops to put down the "insurrection of the South."
    These being the facts in the case, it can readily be understood how
Incorrect it is to jump to the conclusion that Lincoln saved the Union.
What Lincoln saved in 1861 was the Republican party.
    Therefore it seems that Lincoln should primarily be regarded as a
great Republican, perhaps the greatest; but not necessarily as a great
American, certainly not the greatest of all Americans, for he abrogated
a great American principle. Very clearly, the road to power is the
road that Lincoln took in calling for troops. To this day, the Repub-
licans are still in power, still in federal office, as a result of Lincoln's
course. Doubtless the ambitious Republican officeholders would like
to stay there forever.
    And now as to the slavery question. There were several ways In
which it could have been settled right. John Brownism was obvi-
ously not the right way. And neither was a war under the guise of
sustaining government of, by and for the people. The slaves could
have been bought by ardent abolitionists and then freed. It would
have cost a great deal less than the Civil War and all the pensions
that have been paid the survivors. Or, they could have been freed
by their masters, who were coming to find that the slave labor system
was unprofitable and becoming Increasingly so on account of the in-
vention of machinery. By 1861, the industrial revolution was in full
swing and before the close of the Civil War the McCormick reaper had
been invented, which revolutionized the system of farm labor and
made it entirely unnecessary to feed, clothe, house and otherwise main-
tain the year round, year in and year out, enough hands to do the
labor which machinery can do at much less expense. In 1861 it was
but a matter of a few years before slavery would have died a peaceful
and natural death because of its unprofitableness to the owners.
Within ten or twenty years it would have been understood by every-
body that slaves were as poor economy for getting work done as
horses are for getting over the ground rapidly in the days of auto-
mobiles. Verily, the Civil War was as unnecessary either to save the
Union or to abolish slavery as the battle of New Orleans after the
signing of the Treaty of Ghent.



    The United Daughters of the Confederacy have rendered a signal
service to the perpetuation of government based on consent of the
governed by keeping alive the memory of the bravery of those who
died that such a government might not perish from the southern
    Their work will not be completed until they have convinced the
world after the manner of the Athenian Greeks that the Greek memo-
rial to Lincoln in Washington is dedicated to the wrong man. The
great Unionist, who three times laid his election to the presidency on
the altar of his country by insisting that a full, free and fair discussion
could settle all problems arising between the states without an appeal
to arms, is Henry Clay. His procedure was identical with that ad-
vocated by the Greeks who undertook the execution of no policy un-
discussed but thoroughly talked matters over before acting. Lincoln's
failure to summon a national constitutional convention in order to en-
able the American people to understand each other before the firing
began puts him entirely out of the Greek class, in which Clay is en-
tirely at home. Clay, not Lincoln, deserves the Greek memorial on the
    However, the Daughters of the Confederacy should proceed to the
completion of their task with no hostility toward Lincoln. For Lin-
coln is on record as saying that the presidency was his first great case
misunderstood. When it came to a show down, Lincoln was not in
favor of the establishment of a black republic in the southern states.
He never advocated the enfranchisement of the negro nor the disen-
franchisement of the southern whites; before the war was over he
favored shipping all of the negroes back to Africa as the solution of
the race problem in this country. The intense sadness in Lincoln's
eyes which deepened as the war between the states dragged on and the
lists of the killed and wounded lengthened, and his manifest desire at
the close of the war to do everything to wipe out as quickly as possible
the bitterness resulting from the clash of armies, indicate that he may
have felt genuine regret for the part he played in opening the great
tragedy which resulted from his failure to give the American people
time to talk the difficulty over and reconsider his election to the
presidency of the United States by a minority living in only one section
of the Union. By his act he sowed the wind and both he and the Amer-
ican people reaped the whirlwind. But

              "The tumult and the shouting dies,
              The captains and the kings depart;
              Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice."
    And still stands the Union based on the common consent of all of
the states.


     A Reply by W. H. Townsend

Editor, Lexington Herald:
    In your paper of last Sunday appeared an address by Dr. Mary
Scrugham entitled, "Force or Consent as the Basis of American Gov-
ernment," in which Abraham Lincoln is severely arraigned. The in-
dictment is in tour counts, to-wit:
    1.   That Lincoln was an usurper and never President of the
American Union.
    2.   That Lincoln in a speech at Ft. Leavenworth "spoke favor-
ably" of John Brown, and that the southern people "universally lacked
confidence" in him by reason thereof.
    3.   That Lincoln "refused to give the southern people satisfac-
tion as to where he stood in 1861," which caused "state after state to
solemnly separate themselves from the Union."
    4.   That Lincoln rushed the country headlong Into war, instead
of giving the two sections opportunity to peaceably settle their dif-
   During his lifetime, Lincoln promptly and successfully defended
himself when assailed, but, since he has been in his tomb these sixty
years, that task, in this instance, must be performed by another. Allow
me, therefore, as one of the many of those in this country and in
foreign lands, who love every seam of sorrow in Lincoln's rugged
homely face, in the interest of truth and historical accuracy, to repre-
sent the defense.
    The evidence presented by Dr. Scrugham, in support of her
charges, is, I 'submit, insufficient to go to the jury. In other words,
even if no testimony was introduced in contradiction, the case would
be dismissed at the bar of public opinion on peremptory instruction,
as they say in court. But as Lincoln was never willing that such a
case be terminated this way, neither am I. We shall file our answer
and, where relevant, produce Lincoln's own words in refutation of
these charges.
   Was Lincoln President of the American Union
   Dr. Scrugham says he was not because:
   (A) Ten states cast no vote for him and therefore did not "con-
sent" to his election, and that these states followed the example of
South Carolina which seceded because her right of "consent" had
been violated; and
    (B) He received a minority of the total popular vote in 1861.
    The Constitution of the United States sets out explicitly how the
President shall be chosen. He Is not elected by the popular vote, as
such. He is elected by the Electoral College only. After providing how
the electors shall be chosen, the Constitution says:



        "The person having the greatest number of (electoral)
    votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a
    majority of the whole number of electors appointed."
    The records show that In 1861 the votes of the Electoral Col