What do our resident members of the Party of Lincoln think of this quote?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Sick topic, bro.  I prefer this one, though:

 “It is best for all to leave each man to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.”

That sure doesn't sound like a socialist to me.

[RINO Tom]

This thread got me really curious about the actual platforms and voting records of the early Republicans. In looking at the platform of 1856 and 1860 we see support for the use of federal funds for the establishment of a pacific railroad as well as the improvement of rivers and harbors. The 1860 platform specifically states:

"15. That appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

16. That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the federal government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established."

Now this sounds remarkably similar to the demands for "internal improvements" of the Whigs. The desire to use federal funding, with congressional approval, to support local and municipal infrastructure. One could argue that this is a very "liberal" policy as it would require greater federal expenditure. Using public funds to build up public infrastructure isn't the most laissez-faire or "free market" strategy.

Beyond this, the Republicans in the Congress overwhelmingly supported the Revenue Acts of 1861 and 1862, which established a crude form of income tax. The Republicans again supported raising these taxes in 1864. Lincoln himself gave no indication that he supported the eventual lowering of the  taxes, and they weren't lowered until 1872, after the Democrats made serious gains in 1870.

Given all this, I think its hard to put the Fremont-Lincoln-Grant Republican party on the right side of the economic spectrum.

A couple of things I'd like to add.  All infrastructure spending is not equal.  In the timeline of societal development, there's going to be a point where nearly everyone supports heavy infrastructure investment (earlier on) and a point where it'll become much less popular (later on).  Lincoln lived in a very different United States, and it's dubious to draw a parallel between wanting a railroad that was regularly attacked as being only beneficial to those wealthy and powerful enough to use it (it was unanimously supported by the Northern business community) and supporting something like a higher tax to improve an already fine sidewalk in 2016.  Supporting infrastructure spending just can't be chalked up to a liberal view, IMO.  It's so much more complicated than that.  As for those taxes, they were explicitly designed to be a wartime measure in anticipation of drastic increases in spending due to the war.  Those taxes were obviously repealed, and it wasn't until the 1890s that a Democratic Congress gave us our first permanent income tax.  There were several "Rockefeller Republicans" during the 20th Century who had no problem with raising a modest tax (which Lincoln's absolutely was) in order to help balance the budget, most recently one George HW Bush, and I don't see people so eager to claim them as liberals, no doubt because they haven't attained the largely mythical status that early Republicans have.

How you place the early GOP (and Federalists and Whigs, for that matter) will depend highly on what metric you use.  If you define conservatism as relating to small government (which I find horrifyingly dumb, but I digress), then sure, the Democrats (and DRs before them) were easily the more "conservative" party.  If you are talking about cultural conservatism, I don't think you can draw a good line.  Democrats were trying to "conserve" slavery, but many Republicans (including Lincoln) saw slavery, especially by the 1850s, as a corruption of the ORIGINAL intent of the Constitution, and that is a fairly conservative argument against it.  Additionally, as Shua said, things were so regional that it's hard to draw a line.  Republicans and Democrats from NYC were going to oppose prohibition, for example, while many rural Republicans and rural Democrats strongly supported it (I believe the GOP was definitely more supportive of it as a whole).  On immigration, it seems rather beyond debate that the GOP held a more conservative view on the issue.

However, if you view those ideologies like I do and believe that one's motive is much more important than one's method, then there's little doubt that (outside the 1850s to 1950s South, which was a one-party region which was obviously going to include Democrats of all ideologies) the Federalists then Whigs then Republicans have represented a traditionally "conservative" collection of interests that revolved around support for business interests, pushing moral superiority and being suspicious of mass immigration, while the Democratic-Republicans and then Democrats have fancied themselves as the champion of the downtrodden and needy (whatever method they had to use to do help them) and the more morally relaxed (anti-Puritan) party ... the one big asterisk is that Democrats have very much changed who they consider worthy of saving over the years.

[Rick Grimes]

But seriously, does anyone genuinely think, while being intellectually honest, that Abraham Lincoln would be proud of the present day GOP? The party of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Dick Cheney, Steve Stockman, Joe Wilson, Scott DesJarlais, Joe Barton, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Chris McDaniel, Louie Gohmert, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Steve King, Newt Gingrich, Paul LePage, Sam Brownback, Rick Scott, Mary Fallin, Orly Taitz, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Steve Scalise, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, David Vitter, Jim Inhofe...and the list goes on.

no lincoln would be considered a socialist by todays standards but more socially conservative.

[All Along The Watchtower]

  (outside the 1850s to 1950s South, which was a one-party region which was obviously going to include Democrats of all ideologies)

I'm singling out this section because the South basically controlled the Democratic Party at the national level through the Civil War period, and well after it. Also there were a lot of rural Protestant Democrats in places like the Midwest and West who could plausibly be considered conservative.

[RFayette]

  (outside the 1850s to 1950s South, which was a one-party region which was obviously going to include Democrats of all ideologies)

I'm singling out this section because the South basically controlled the Democratic Party at the national level through the Civil War period, and well after it. Also there were a lot of rural Protestant Democrats in places like the Midwest and West who could plausibly be considered conservative.

This is fair.  I'd imagine the Democrats in places like Southern Indiana/Illinois/Ohio could definitely be called conservatives.  I still think the ethnic urban Dems in NYC/Boston probably would have been "left" of center in most respects even back then, but that started out as a small chunk of the Democratic Party.