Opinion of Abraham Lincoln

[Gass3268]

FF

Pros: Passed EC, actions helped pass 13th amendment, ending divisive political fights of 1830s 40s and 50s over expansion. Slavery needed to be abolished, the war was inevitable. Took both moral and constitutional stand against slavery. (on a personal note, I sympathize with him for his terrible childhood)

Cons: Blatantly violated constitution, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned political enemies without trial, economic issues (tariffs, national bank), unions troops destruction of private property.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Wouldn't you call the Civil War a case of rebellion?

[Rockefeller GOP]

FF

Pros: Passed EC, actions helped pass 13th amendment, ending divisive political fights of 1830s 40s and 50s over expansion. Slavery needed to be abolished, the war was inevitable. Took both moral and constitutional stand against slavery. (on a personal note, I sympathize with him for his terrible childhood)

Cons: Blatantly violated constitution, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned political enemies without trial, economic issues (tariffs, national bank), unions troops destruction of private property.

Exactly.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Wouldn't you call the Civil War a case of rebellion?

[Maistre]

One of the worst!

[Maxwell]

FF.

[Cory]

FF

Pros: Passed EC, actions helped pass 13th amendment, ending divisive political fights of 1830s 40s and 50s over expansion. Slavery needed to be abolished, the war was inevitable. Took both moral and constitutional stand against slavery. (on a personal note, I sympathize with him for his terrible childhood)

Cons: Blatantly violated constitution, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned political enemies without trial, economic issues (tariffs, national bank), unions troops destruction of private property.

Exactly.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Wouldn't you call the Civil War a case of rebellion?

[Mr. Smith]

FF since he only wanted the end of slavery, not much more than that.

[Rockefeller GOP]

One of the worst!

*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*

Anyway, care to explain why you feel that way??

[Citizen Hats]

One of the worst!

*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*

Anyway, care to explain why you feel that way??

Your party invited the racist hicks in when the Democrats grew tired of their bullsh**t

[Rockefeller GOP]

One of the worst!

*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*

Anyway, care to explain why you feel that way??

Your party invited the racist hicks in when the Democrats grew tired of their bullsh**t

Aww, we have a simplistic historian on our hands!!

[Citizen Hats]

One of the worst!

*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*

Anyway, care to explain why you feel that way??

Your party invited the racist hicks in when the Democrats grew tired of their bullsh**t

Aww, we have a simplistic historian on our hands!!

You don't say?

Your're in an interesting character, Rocky. Looking at posts I've seen of yours, it seems your reaction to the last 40 years of change in the republican party, rather than to, say, change parties to one that seems to more accord with what you seem to believe, as most of your type of Republican have done, has simply been to pretend they didn't happen at all

[Oakvale]

How can a "Rockefeller Republican" exist in 2014? I ask only with the greatest respect, of course.

[Rockefeller GOP]

How can a "Rockefeller Republican" exist in 2014? I ask only with the greatest respect, of course.

By maintaining the views you've always had and continuing to register with the party that your family has always registered with.  While people usually characterize Rockefeller Republicans as part of the old Eastern Establishment of the GOP, and that often comes with a liberal connotation, the views that this wing had (and I definitely still have) on the issues of taxes, business and regulations are still significantly more conservative than Democrats of 2014.

[Rockefeller GOP]

One of the worst!

*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*

Anyway, care to explain why you feel that way??

Your party invited the racist hicks in when the Democrats grew tired of their bullsh**t

Aww, we have a simplistic historian on our hands!!

You don't say?

Your're in an interesting character, Rocky. Looking at posts I've seen of yours, it seems your reaction to the last 40 years of change in the republican party, rather than to, say, change parties to one that seems to more accord with what you seem to believe, as most of your type of Republican have done, has simply been to pretend they didn't happen at all

I don't "pretend" anything.  I very much object to the high school-level, fairy tale notion of civil rights that gives us the story of how Democrats one day found a soul and started being champions of minorities, and conversely the old Southern Democrats came in droves over to the GOP.  This ignores 1) that the South had been trending Republican decades before the CRA, 2) the South continued to send mainly Democrats to Congress for several decades after the CRA and 3) that GOP gains in the South were mainly concentrated in growing suburbs that were filled with recently relocated Northerners.  Did Republicans use racial code words from time to time to get votes?  Yes, of course, but not as often or as significantly as history tells.  And besides, Democrats had been doing that for decades with no one crying foul, giving lame excuses like "well there are really TWO Democratic Parties: Northern liberals and Southern "conservatives."  Nevermind that this is simplifying everything, it's also completely ignoring that most of these Southern racists embraced the same fiscal liberalism still called for by Democrats today.

Sorry for the rant, but I do not like the narrative that has developed over the Civil Rights Era that has painted this picture of a Democratic Party that one day became a great moral crusader and virtually *switched places* with the GOP of old, because that's just not what happened.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It is telling that the Wikipedia article for Rockefeller Republican is in past tense.

Do you think that the Eastern Establishment laid the seeds of their own destruction through their WASPishness and elitism? I think that the GOP could regain a form of moderation, but the idea that a future moderate Republican party would resemble the Rockefellers of old seem naive.

[Citizen Hats]

One of the worst!

*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*

Anyway, care to explain why you feel that way??

Your party invited the racist hicks in when the Democrats grew tired of their bullsh**t

Aww, we have a simplistic historian on our hands!!

You don't say?

Your're in an interesting character, Rocky. Looking at posts I've seen of yours, it seems your reaction to the last 40 years of change in the republican party, rather than to, say, change parties to one that seems to more accord with what you seem to believe, as most of your type of Republican have done, has simply been to pretend they didn't happen at all

I don't "pretend" anything.  I very much object to the high school-level, fairy tale notion of civil rights that gives us the story of how Democrats one day found a soul and started being champions of minorities, and conversely the old Southern Democrats came in droves over to the GOP.  This ignores 1) that the South had been trending Republican decades before the CRA, 2) the South continued to send mainly Democrats to Congress for several decades after the CRA and 3) that GOP gains in the South were mainly concentrated in growing suburbs that were filled with recently relocated Northerners.  Did Republicans use racial code words from time to time to get votes?  Yes, of course, but not as often or as significantly as history tells.  And besides, Democrats had been doing that for decades with no one crying foul, giving lame excuses like "well there are really TWO Democratic Parties: Northern liberals and Southern "conservatives."  Nevermind that this is simplifying everything, it's also completely ignoring that most of these Southern racists embraced the same fiscal liberalism still called for by Democrats today.

Sorry for the rant, but I do not like the narrative that has developed over the Civil Rights Era that has painted this picture of a Democratic Party that one day became a great moral crusader and virtually *switched places* with the GOP of old, because that's just not what happened.

You can't complain about content when you start off with "*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*"

Yes, there was a fight within the Democratic Party starting in the 1940s to be rid of these views. You might know about the work done by figures like Hubert Humphrey to move the party in a racially progressive direction, away from 'states rights'.

There were many decent and honorable Republicans who supported equality in the olden days.  The Party, seeing that the Democrats were moving away from their previous toleration of southern views, saw opportunity and let in such loathsome creatures as Strom Thurmond and Jessie Helms who no longer felt at home in the party. The economic views of such voters are irrelevant

It's undeniable that the Republican Party made a play for these voters

The fact that the David Dukes of the country are all Republicans and that the vast majority of Ripon Society alumni are not says it all.  Now, does that mean that I'm saying that the Republican Party *is* racist? No, no it does not. Nor does it mean that you are racist.  It is, however, a whitewashing of the party's history to pretend that racial animus was not a huge motivating factor in the southernization of the GOP

[IceSpear]

One of the worst!

*Pukes that you call yourself a Republican and not a Democrat like the racist hicks who opposed Lincoln*

Anyway, care to explain why you feel that way??

Your party invited the racist hicks in when the Democrats grew tired of their bullsh**t

Aww, we have a simplistic historian on our hands!!

You don't say?

Your're in an interesting character, Rocky. Looking at posts I've seen of yours, it seems your reaction to the last 40 years of change in the republican party, rather than to, say, change parties to one that seems to more accord with what you seem to believe, as most of your type of Republican have done, has simply been to pretend they didn't happen at all

I don't "pretend" anything.  I very much object to the high school-level, fairy tale notion of civil rights that gives us the story of how Democrats one day found a soul and started being champions of minorities, and conversely the old Southern Democrats came in droves over to the GOP.  This ignores 1) that the South had been trending Republican decades before the CRA, 2) the South continued to send mainly Democrats to Congress for several decades after the CRA and 3) that GOP gains in the South were mainly concentrated in growing suburbs that were filled with recently relocated Northerners.  Did Republicans use racial code words from time to time to get votes?  Yes, of course, but not as often or as significantly as history tells.  And besides, Democrats had been doing that for decades with no one crying foul, giving lame excuses like "well there are really TWO Democratic Parties: Northern liberals and Southern "conservatives."  Nevermind that this is simplifying everything, it's also completely ignoring that most of these Southern racists embraced the same fiscal liberalism still called for by Democrats today.

Sorry for the rant, but I do not like the narrative that has developed over the Civil Rights Era that has painted this picture of a Democratic Party that one day became a great moral crusader and virtually *switched places* with the GOP of old, because that's just not what happened.

Does the past really matter? At this point, it's an empirical fact that formerly Southern white Democrats are now Republicans. If it wasn't for the large African American populations in states like AL/MS, Democrats would get like 10% of the vote.

[Flake]

Why are all these Libertarians against Lincoln?!

[Gass3268]

Why are all these Libertarians against Lincoln?!

Muh state rights!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why are all these Libertarians against Lincoln?!

Muh state rights!

Not merely that. The draft and the first federal income tax likely plays a role as well.

[Mechaman]

It is telling that the Wikipedia article for Rockefeller Republican is in past tense.

Do you think that the Eastern Establishment laid the seeds of their own destruction through their WASPishness and elitism? I think that the GOP could regain a form of moderation, but the idea that a future moderate Republican party would resemble the Rockefellers of old seem naive.

Indeed.

There is a reason why old school Republicanism has been thoroughly discredited.  I'll just briefly say that it was not anything close to the idyllic view that many on this forum seem to hold on it.  "Pro Civil Rights"?  Maybe.  But other than that there was very little "good" about it outside of a few naive leftists who thought it was still 1856.

I say "Pro Civil Rights" because until about the middle of the 20th century the Yankee idea of "Civil Rights" was actually very hypocritical.  Don't believe me?  Then read up on employment and education discrimination in New England in the 19th-early 20th century, something even conservatives like Ann Coulter admits happened.  Of course guys like Rockefeller GOP belong more to the mid 20th century brand of moderate Republicanism (though a bit more fiscally moderate), but even he would admit that brand was more driven by triangulating around the New Deal than it was with actual ideology (though as I've outlined elsewhere, those types were generally seen as more pro-Civil Rights than many Democrats who had to tiptoe on the issue due to anti-black voters in certain areas).

But I do agree with the man's assertion that many of you really do need to read your history books.  Civil Rights as an issue was by no means as black and white (metaphorically and literally) or as clean cut as it is sometimes portrayed as.

[SWE]

what

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Ultimately an FF, but he's certainly not all he's cracked up to be, and he certainly didn't emancipate the slaves as a matter of conscience.

He compromised at many points for the sake of the Union, but if you look very much at Lincoln's statements both in public and in private over the course of his political career, saying slavery was not for him a matter of conscience is not a tenable position.

[Dixie Reborn]

HP of course.

[Rockefeller GOP]

HP of course.

Care to say why?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

HP of course.

Care to say why?

His nae should be indicator enough.