Talk:John C. Breckinridge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[United States presidential election, 1860#Results|Election of 1860]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.()  The New York Times gives the same date.() 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.() 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.()   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.() 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)
thread_title:  Resolution of December 4, 1861 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anything he did during his Vice Presidency? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Contradiction

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

message: >>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)
thread_title: Not sure about this line

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Duplicate Template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confederate States of America 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "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)
thread_title:  1860 Election Results 

message: ::Breckinridge remained in the city (Richmond) to oversee the destruction of facilities and supplies to prevent their use by the invading federal forces.[173] In the process, he ensured that the Confederate archives, both government and military, were captured intact by the Union forces, ensuring that a full account of the Confederate war effort would be preserved for history.
I checked the reference for this, which is to a tertiary source the Encyclopedia of the Confederacy.  Here's all it says: 
::When Richmond fell he was instrumental in preserving many of the military records. 
Are there other sources discussing this matter, or is this the sole reference?  Because this seems quite a leap in logic.  The source doesn't say anything about this being part of his duties to destroy facilities in Richmond, or that he specially excluded records, or that they were captured by Union forces on the spot rather than in Danville or released later from his personal archives or the like.  So it comes across as quite a leap.  Any clarification about what happened here?  SnowFire (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate records 

message: There is no mention of him being elected as a senator in 1860. It focuses on his presidential election, but then just notes that he was elected a senator and took office after leaving as Vice-President. Is there anything that can be added to address this? Kaiser matias (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The last paragraph in "Vice presidency (1857–1861)" did mention that the Kentucky General Assembly chose Breckinridge as senator in 1859. --SilverReaper (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election as Senator 

message: I previously edited this page so that Vice President was the highest title and switched with confederate secretary of war because typically vice president is an individual’s highest title unless they ascend to the presidency. However, my edit was reverted to the confederate position superseding the senatorial position and vice presidency. Which should be the higher title? Crazy Jay Fox (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it isn't about which title is "higher". The titles are in reverse chronological order. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Title 

message: Given the chronology of it all shouldnt the titles given his treason precedence --Volvlogia (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , your post contains numerous grammatical errors, and so I had some difficulty deciphering it. But I believe that I have sorted it out. The highest office that Breckinridge ever occupied was Vice President of the United States. That seems to be why it is listed first. The same is true for other articles; John Quincy Adams and Andrew Johnson both held elected office after their presidencies, but presidency is listed first. Similarly, John C. Calhoun held office after his time as vice president, but his vice presidency is listed first. As such, I do not support changing the infobox to this article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should his confederate status take precedence in the infobox.  

message: "American" seems a little misleading if his largest contributions were under the CSA flag, would "American and Confederate" be more accurate? Orchastrattor (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Confederacy was not an internationally recognized state and existed for only four years of Breckinridge's life. I think that it's fine as is. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality