Talk:John C. Breckinridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

misc[edit]

I think that Wikipedia should have a bit more about the beliefs of Breckinridge *ideas and stuff*. Thanks~ moodoo

I do Breckinridge as a 1st person living history impression. His is a fascinating story of an American giant of his time. The William C. Davis biography is captivating. Thanks GW Young

J.C. Breckinridge photos[edit]

Seems to me the men on this page are not the same person.

Same guy at different ages. Notice the nose shape is the same. I verified both images. Hal Jespersen 02:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The nose shape might be the same, but the eyes and ears are quite different. The second man with the moustache is not John C. Breckinridge.
The first is a formal portrait, a painting, and is included in the Congressional biography article on him. I don't know where the photo came from. studerby 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Photo is during the Civil War. J.C. Breckinridge began to wear a mustache during and after the war. Also, eyes in a tintype photograph (the second picture) can come out quite different than eyes in a portrait. Soldan 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Election of 1860[edit]

The election article ranks JCB in third in the 1860 election. This article claims that he was in second. I'm not a master of history but the election article seems better sourced. Any one who knows more than me want to weigh in? Olleicua 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The election article lists Breckinridge as second in electoral (versus popular) votes, as does this one. Seems consistent to me. Hal Jespersen 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of December 4, 1861[edit]

Excuse me, but I would like to know where you researched the resolution of December 4, 1861 or if it even exists. I've search a lot for this resolution and cannot find it. If it does exist it must have been a presidential resolution (please specify it as such if indeed it is) because congress was not in session on December 4, 1861. Thank you. Hellfire Preacherman (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The resolution exists, it was a Senate Resolution (not a "presidential resolution" whatever that might be since a resolution, being a joint action, requires the involvement of more than one person), and the United States Congress was in session on December 4, 1861. The United States Senate Historical Office lists December 4, 1861 as the date of the Senate Resolution expelling Breckinridge.(U.S. Senate Historical Office (1995). United States Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases: 1793-1990. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp. 102–103. ) The New York Times gives the same date.("THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS.; SENATE". New York Times. 5 December 1861. Retrieved 17 November 2012. ) The Resolution of Expulsion appears in the United States Senate Journal for the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventy Congress on pages 22-23, with the date noted as December 4, 1861.("Senate Journal. 37th Cong., 2nd sess., 4 December 1861, 22-23". Retrieved 17 November 2012. ) If you look at the Senate Journal for December 4, 1861, you will see that the Senate conducted a considerable amount of business on that date. The first part of the debate on Breckinridge's expulsion is recorded at the bottom of page 22 and the resolution continues on page 23 of the Senate Journal for December 4, 1861. Article One, Section IV, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution states: "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day." December 2, 1861 was a Monday, the first Monday in December, so according to the Constitution the Congress should have convened on that date and should have still been in session on December 4, 1861, which was a Wednesday. The Senate Journal lists the starting date of the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress as convening on Monday, December 2, 1861.("A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, vol. 54, pg. 3". Retrieved 17 November 2012. ) You can view the first page of that Journal which clearly gives the date on which the session began.Title Page for the United States Senate Journal of the 2nd Session of the Thirty Seventh Congress. As noted previously, the Senate Journal shows the the United States Senate was still in session on December 4, 1861. According to the Senate Journal, the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress continued until July 17, 1862.("A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, vol. 54, pg. 868-881". Retrieved 17 November 2012. ) The New York Times, the United States Senate Historical Office, and the United States Senate Journal, all agree that the Senate was in session on December 4, 1861 and passed the resolution expelling John C. Breckinridge on that date. --Johnwilliammiller (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gravestone[edit]

I have an image of his gravestone to place here, but this article is rather filled with pics. Let me know if y'all are interested in placing it on the article.--Bedford (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead if it's a decent photo. Hal Jespersen (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything he did during his Vice Presidency?[edit]

The Vice Presidency seems to have been singularly uneventful since nothing at all is said about anything he did during those years. Please add. -- 85.179.115.169 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

In this article it says "Breckinridge was an unsuccessful candidate for President in 1860, nominated by the Southern faction of the split Democratic Party and supported by the incumbent Democratic President, Buchanan." - but in the James Buchanan article it says "The southern wing walked out of the Charleston convention and nominated its own candidate for the presidency, incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge, whom Buchanan refused to support". Jooler (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death[edit]

Can someone please update the cause of death of John C. Breckinridge. People don't just drop dead at age 54 with no cause of death. Please update the cause of death and place it in the category. Thank you. Anthony. 21:39 2 January 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.116.167 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cause added. Actually, people of any age don't drop dead without a cause. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about this line[edit]

>>Breckinridge had ample reason to fear charges of treason. In 1863, premature rumors of his death prompted the New York Times to print what is perhaps the most vituperative obituary ever written about a nationally elected American official.<<

Even if there is a way to quantify "most vituperative"--the editorial is pretty negative--how exactly does that translate into Breckenridge having ample reason to fear being charged with treason? It's a newspaper editorial. Perhaps one might argue that it represented the common opinion of him at the time, which would lead him to feel that he would be charged...but trying to figure out how to say that without using a number of weasel words seems problematic. Would there be an objection to taking out the sentence about him having ample reason to fear the charges, and leaving the part about the premature obituary as a stand-alone item?Mcglotda (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Template[edit]

This article appears to have a duplicated Democratic Party template on the bottom of the article, but I for the life of me cannot seem to find it so the duplication can be fixed. Can someone assist with this? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Those two nominee templates were just redirects to the party template. I replaced both with one direct link to the party template. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Confederate States of America[edit]

Wow I just found a letter from John C. Breckinridge(Secretary of War)letter head,War Department to William McComb,Breckinridge is asking McComb to report to Robert E Lee to Command the Archers Brigade,If McComb accepts he will become a Brigadier General, dated Feb 13th 1865. It is so cool to hold this history in my hand,any ideas what I should do with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.210.23 (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Many of the images in this article have insufficient sourcing and licensing information. Just wanted to give notice here that I intend to delete them unless improved information is added shortly. I will also be on the lookout for better images with appropriate sourcing to upload to Commons. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

1860 Election Results[edit]

"These three men split the Southern vote, allowing Republican Abraham Lincoln to win the election, even though Breckinridge carried most of the Southern states"

This is highly contentious, but stated as if it's fact. Even if all three other candidates were added together, Lincoln would have won a majority of electoral votes - the only way the Democrats would have won is if they took more votes as the result of uniting (which is possible, but not clear at best). The southern vote simply wasn't enough to win a general election at this stage. This should either be removed or edited to clarify. 06:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.245.7 (talk)