Ukrainian President Zelensky announced no presidential elections

[David Lockmiller]

I submitted online today the following proposal to Senator Bernie Sanders:

Newsweek is reporting today (November 9, 2023):

“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced no presidential elections will be held in 2024 due to the ongoing war.”

The following relevant story was printed in the New York Times on Thursday, November 10, 1864 (the election took place on Tuesday, November 8, 1864):

At a late hour last night, President Lincoln was serenaded by a club of Pennsylvanians, headed by Captain Thomas, of that State. Being loudly called for, the President appeared at a window, and spoke as follows:

Friends and Fellow-Citizens: Even before I had been informed by you that this compliment was paid me by loyal citizens of Pennsylvania friendly to me, I had inferred that you were of that portion of my countrymen who think that the best interests of the nation are to be subserved by the support of the present Administration. I do not pretend to say that you who think so embrace all the patriotism and loyalty of the country. But I do believe, and I trust, without personal interest, that the welfare of the country does require such support and indorsement be given. I earnestly believe that the consequences of this day’s work, if it be as you assure me and as now seems probable, will be to the lasting advantage, if not to the very salvation, of the country. I cannot say at this hour what has been the result of the election; but, whatever it may be, I have no desire to modify this opinion – that all who have labored today in behalf of the Union organization, have wrought for the best interests of their country and the world, not only for the present, but for all future ages. I am thankful to God for this approval of the people. But while deeply grateful for this mark of confidence in me, if I know my heart, my gratitude is free of any taint of personal triumph. I do not impugn the motives of anyone opposed to me. It is no pleasure to me to triumph over anyone; but I give thanks to the Almighty for this evidence of the people’s resolution to stand by free government and the rights of humanity.

Senator Bernie Sanders, if you agree that this Ukrainian democracy also should have a presidential election even in time of war, you may want to add your own comments on the subject and send the message directly to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky through official diplomatic channels.

I believe President Zelensky is a brave and honest man.

Yours truly,
David Lockmiller

[Gene C]

Then there's FDR's situation...........

[David Lockmiller]

"How the Union Pulled Off a Presidential Election During the Civil War"
BY: BECKY LITTLE (A journalist based in Washington, D.C. - April 3, 2020)

Fearing Abraham Lincoln would lose reelection, some wondered if the country should delay the election.

Lincoln’s main weakness as a candidate was that the Union’s war against the Confederacy wasn’t going well. By the spring of 1864, the Civil War had been going on for three years with no end in sight, and many voters (i.e., white men ages 21 and up) were starting to get war-weary. Lincoln agreed with his advisors that his chances for winning reelection looked grim, but he disagreed with those who suggested he delay the election.

“Lincoln always felt that the Civil War was, number one, about democracy,” says Eric Foner, a professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution.
“[Lincoln thought] if you suspend democracy in the middle of the war, you are basically undercutting the whole purpose of the war,” he continues. “So even when he thought he was going to lose, he never really contemplated suspending the presidential election.”

On November 8, Lincoln won in a landslide. He received 54 percent of the civilian vote, 78 percent of the military vote and 212 electoral votes across 22 states. In comparison, McClellan took 21 electoral votes in only three states: Delaware, Kentucky and his home state of New Jersey. The victory meant Lincoln continued leading the war with the goal of reuniting the country and abolishing slavery.

“I think it was one of the most critical elections in our history,” says John C. Waugh, a historical reporter and author of Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency. “And thank God that Lincoln won.”

[Steve]

https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/1...n-possible

[David Lockmiller]

(11-11-2023 07:42 AM)Steve Wrote:  https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/1...n-possible

Thank you for posting this article, Steve.

I quote:

Where countries face elections amid upheaval, “there are often good reasons to postpone” a vote, former United States Institute of Peace elections expert Jonas Claes has written, noting recent years’ research showing a rising share of the world’s elections held in the face of violent conflict. (Emphasis added.)

I note that there is not a single reference in the posted article to President Abraham Lincoln's precedent decision on this issue for our democracy.

From my previous post, I post again other experts on the subject matter:

“Lincoln always felt that the Civil War was, number one, about democracy,” says Eric Foner, a professor emeritus of history at Columbia University and author of The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution.
“[Lincoln thought] if you suspend democracy in the middle of the war, you are basically undercutting the whole purpose of the war,” he continues. “So even when he thought he was going to lose, he never really contemplated suspending the presidential election.”

“I think it was one of the most critical elections in our history,” says John C. Waugh, a historical reporter and author of Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency. “And thank God that Lincoln won.”

[David Lockmiller]

Lincoln on the 1864 Election
November 10, 1864: In Response to a Serenade

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.

On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralyzed, by a political war among themselves?

But the election was a necessity.

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case, must ever recur in similar cases. Human-nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak, and as strong; as silly and as wise; as bad and good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.

But the election, along with its incidental, and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election, in the midst of a great civil war. Until now it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union, and most opposed to treason, can receive most of the people's votes. It shows also, to the extent yet known, that we have more men now, than we had when the war began. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, patriotic men, are better than gold.