On the Abraham Lincoln was conservative claim.

[Intell]

Am I the only one who gets pissed at this claim, I'm not saying he was a liberal, but you know, it's quite obvious from the attitudes of the day he wasn't conservative, and was quite liberal to the standards of the day

The republican party became quite conservative, due to it's voter base, and the erosion of republican support among the poor, this started in 1890's and finished in the 1930's, mainly due to the populist party and the great depression.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The attitudes of the day are the key here. There's nothing more useless than wonder whether "George Washington was a liberal or conservative" or better yet, "what party would Andrew Jackson belong to now...", since... do I really need to spell it out?

Lincoln, given the attitudes of the day, was certainly not on the conservative side, and I'm not just referring to slavery. Not to the extend of Thaddeus Stevens or Ben Wade, but still.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Modern Liberalism and Conservatism labels cant be given until the 1896 election where it's clear William McKinley was the conservative candidate and William Jennings Bryan is the liberal candidate

[RINO Tom]

This topic is so pointless.

[Bismarck]

"Conservative" just means on the side that wants to preserve the status quo, but modern conservatism is a particular ideology that does not line up with what was the conservative position in the past always. For example, Jefferson was not a conservative at all in his own time but his overall philosophy is much closer to the GOP than the modern Democratic Party. Another example is in Europe when the capitalists were the liberals and the monarchists were the conservatives. Don't confuse conservatism the ideology with conservatism the upholding of the current order.

[Intell]

"Conservative" just means on the side that wants to preserve the status quo, but modern conservatism is a particular ideology that does not line up with what was the conservative position in the past always. For example, Jefferson was not a conservative at all in his own time but his overall philosophy is much closer to the GOP than the modern Democratic Party. Another example is in Europe when the capitalists were the liberals and the monarchists were the conservatives. Don't confuse conservatism the ideology with conservatism the upholding of the current order.

But Lincoln was the liberal of the day, like Jefferson, wherever their bases may have been.

[Kingpoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CMB222]

Modern Liberalism and Conservatism labels cant be given until the 1896 election where it's clear William McKinley was the conservative candidate and William Jennings Bryan is the liberal candidate

This ^^

[RINO Tom]

Nevermind, I'll bite: Lincoln was, almost to the point where it can't be debated, clearly a moderate for his time.  He was constantly called one, and that was the reason he was picked as the nominee in the first place.  Let's also assume we are not using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they might have been used in practice then, but rather as a pseudo-synonym to our modern terms, which unfortunately has become near-equal to "supporting DNC policies" or "supporting RNC policies."  Because of this assumption, there are somewhat significant consequences of saying a near universally praised President like Washington or Lincoln was "conservative" or "liberal," as it draws a direct tie to modern conservatives or liberals; one side, if it is agreed that Lincoln was either, gets to effectively claim his political legacy, which is just really, really stupid.

As far as engaging in the incredibly futile exercise of pushing our political terms onto the 1800s, let's start with the constantly used and even more tired reasoning that the side that was trying to maintain the status quo/existing institution was the "conservative" side and the reformer was "liberal."  Yes, I guess that might be true in some sense, as the former was "conserving" something.  However, we don't even use that logic in modern times whatsoever, so why is it even relevant to a political discussion about Lincoln?  Democrats have been fighting to uphold Roe v. Wade for decades now, and that doesn't make their support for it conservative; similarly, Republicans trying to repeal it are not being "liberal" in their attempt to bring about change.  That might sound silly to you now, but is it so crazy to imagine a future where abortion is outlawed and the "pro-choice era" is looked back upon as a dark spot on America's history and some dumb-as-all-hell high school student says, "Actually, the GOP of the day was the liberal party; Democrats were fighting to protect the right to kill the unborn, and the GOP used the government to intervene!"  I don't give a shlt what your politics are, it bears eery similarities to how people talk about the GOP "freeing the unborn slaves."  The ironic thing?  Both would have been done by people who were laughed at as being religious zealots.

So, if we are now just using our modern terms which have come to be associated with certain things - conservative (support for the free market, a strong national defense, against abortion, blah, blah, blah) and liberal (support for the social safety net, environmental regulation, SJW shlt, blah, blah, blah) - then we can only really talk about the issues that were present in both times.  I'd argue they are really only these:

- Immigration (will always be an issue)
- Business interests vs. the welfare of "the people" (will always be an issue)
- Moral issues in general/legislating morality (will also likely always be an issue)
- Power of the federal government vs. the states (will likely always be an issue)

Let's start with getting that last one out of the way: anyone with any ounce of intelligence and historical perspective can see that both liberals and conservatives, when convenient, have championed both small and big government at different times.  There is hardly anything inherently conservative about one or the other.  Liberals across the US are threatening to defy federal authority on things like sanctuary cities IN 2017 because they're perfectly willing to use whatever tool necessary to achieve what they want; just a few years ago, a liberal in the White House was doing the exact opposite thing.  I think, maybe naively, that this debate should die forever.  There was nothing conservative about the Southern states wanting to increase "states' rights" (well, when it was convenient for them, of course ... see Dred Scott Case), and there was nothing liberal about the North wanting to use federal authority to keep the Union together ... just as there was nothing conservative about the Northern states wanting to exercise states' rights to ignore the Fugitive Slave Law, and there was nothing liberal about the Southern states wanting the federal government to override them.

With that out of the way, we can move to immigration.  Though Lincoln himself might have been even a little "liberal" on immigration, especially compared to his party, there were probably quite a few Irishmen in New York City who would have protested that claim.  Additionally, the fact remains that Lincoln was well to the left of his party on the issue of immigration, and I don't think liberals are trying to claim the Republicans who supported immigration reform as one of their own, LOL.

As far as class issues, well, this shouldn't be debated.  Lincoln grew up poor only to rise to literally be a corporate lawyer for the railroads and become a champion of the free market until the day that he died.  He worshiped the idea of the self-made man who *pulled himself up by his bootstraps* to a degree that would make many modern Republicans look like socialists.  As far as the parties, it is also pretty clear that Democrats of the day campaigned relentlessly against Republicans as representing the "established classes" of society and being in the pockets of the railroad companies and big corporations.  Lincoln has largely avoided this reputation with the overshadowing of the Civil War, but only a fool thinks the GOP goes from a leftie to a widely acknowledged corporatist in Grant one President later.  There was definitely a clear - if not perfect - link between Hamilton's Federalism, Clay's Whigism (Lincoln's self-professed political icon) and Lincoln's Republicanism, IMO.

On moral issues, Lincoln was again a moderate in a very, very conservative party on the subject.  I find it amazing that people can't even KIND of see the rabidness of the Religious Right in some of the early Republicans' behavior.  Lincoln himself didn't seem to embody it, but I'd argue that had more to do with his persona.  Still, he pretty angrily denied accusations by Douglas that he used to own a liquor store and largely denounced such behavior (even if he did it with a classic, self-deprecating joke).  People have argued that prohibition actually found some progressive roots in that it protected women from domestic battery, but let's not forget what eventually got abolition - and by extension the GOP - going: the Second Great Awakening.  I find it undeniable that there was a deeply religious and, honestly, conservatively religious force in the GOP trying to purge 1800s America of excessive sin.  Cathcon's post a few days ago about Federalists often accusing the DRs of being atheists and heathens comes to mind ... another direct link, in my mind, between the rather elitist religiosity of the Federalists, Whigs and now Republicans.

On none of these issues was Lincoln a (for lack of better term) "right winger," but I never said he was.  I said he wasn't, at least not simply, a "liberal."  I have never claimed anything except that Lincoln was a moderate Republican (a damn near historical fact), and there isn't overly compelling reason to not think that is MAYBE what he still would be today.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Marxism which stated in 1865 which had secular roots started around Lincoln's time.  And compassionate conservatism which wasn't coined until 2000, which Dubya added his name, because his father was.  So, moderate GOPers are secularist or compassionate conservatieves.

Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, George Vonovich, and Norm Coleman believe in strong Federal Bank and Buracracy and are moderates.

[RINO Tom]

Marxism which stated in 1865 which had secular roots started around Lincoln's time.  And compassionate conservatism which wasn't coined until 2000, which Dubya added his name, because his father was.  So, moderate GOPers are secularist or compassionate conservatieves.

Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, George Vonovich, and Norm Coleman believe in strong Federal Bank and Buracracy and are moderates.

Touche!!

[SoLongAtlas]

He was a moderate and a pragmatist but very much a realist on many issues. I recommend reading Team of Rivals. Great insight into his background and political development.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with most all of the points that RinoTom posted.


One thing I would say though, is that it must be emphasized that Lincoln was nominated as a moderate on the slavery issue, and someone who had a broader message on economic nationalism, which Fremont had not. This helped rally the traditional nationalist Whig vote (in the North at least), but also the growing segments of Northern ILL and Indiana, not to mention historically protectionist Pennsylvania.

One more critical aspect of his moderate stance on abolition, was the impact of the Dred Scott case. Prior to that, you had a lot of people who voted to preserve slavery as a means of preserving the economic status quo by keeping blacks in chains in the South. These working class white voters voted for Buchanan and Pierce and many of them were at the very least Jeffersonian or even Jacksonian in tendencies. Dred Scott opened the spectre of slavery being foisted on free states in the name of the 4th and 5th amendments. The Dred Scott decision was the product Executive branch interference, as well as ignoring of multiple precedents, the result of an increasingly radicalized nature of pro-slavery politics, corrupting the judiciary. The consequence of this was that a certain segment of those voters, now felt threatened by the pro-slavery Democratic party and helped push Lincoln over the top in ILL, IN and PA and thus give him the Presidency.

Lincoln often sought to justify his positions by referencing Thomas Jefferson's statements 60 and 70 years prior about the evil of slavery and desiring its eventual end. His purpose was to strike a moderate or even "conservative" tone that would appeal to those voters, reluctant to embrace abolition, but willing to embrace a return to previously excepted conventions. Republicans had nominated the right candidate with the exact right temperament to tap into this "conservative" vein of working class voters. The effects of this was illustrated in the point in the Lincoln movie, about the need to pass the 13th Amendment before the war ended, otherwise there was no chance of it happening.

The pro-slavery faction was certainly not liberal and certainly not conservative. They were without a doubt radicalized, when you consider the corrupting influence on the courts, the ever increasing demands of more and more unreasonable concessions to prop up the institution and increasingly the legitimization and eventual acting on secession to achieve that end, all of which was motivated by intense fear of domestic servile insurrection. The increasing concentration of slave populations and the resulting fear of an uprising (these people knew the classics, knew of Rome and Spartacus etc), made the expansion of slave states a non-negotiable demand. Be it CA, or Mexico, or Brazil even. More land to feed the monster. In order to alleviate this fear, freedom of speech, religion and association were curtailed, people were forced to join posses to hunt down runaways and so forth. A slave society is by necessity, a police state, because if someone speaks against slavery, tries to teach the slaves, joins an organization opposed to slavery or refused to assist in capturing runaways, the risk is massive societal upheaval.

Meanwhile you had someone running on curtailing expansion, restoring the institutions of the Republic and firmly re-establishing the view towards Slavery held by Jefferson at the time of the founding. At the same time running on the same economic nationalist/pro-business agenda that had defined the American right for the first 150 years of the country's existence, an agenda similar to that of Bismarckian right in Germany. RinoTom mention "Situational conservatism" (blindly favoring the status quo), and conservatism as a set ideology (defined today). However the right also typically had a defined set of ideas back then, certainly internationally, but also in the US. Institutionalism, reform through established legal channels, opposition to radicalism, mob rule/anarchy, and economic nationalism while yet remaining generally favorable towards business. Who does that sound like?

[vanguard96]

Modern Liberalism and Conservatism labels cant be given until the 1896 election where it's clear William McKinley was the conservative candidate and William Jennings Bryan is the liberal candidate

I would put him closer to Hamilton and the Federalists and of course the Whigs which he was before joining the Republican party. They were a party for modernization but also favored public education and an expanded role of the federal government.

[RINO Tom]

Modern Liberalism and Conservatism labels cant be given until the 1896 election where it's clear William McKinley was the conservative candidate and William Jennings Bryan is the liberal candidate

I would put him closer to Hamilton and the Federalists and of course the Whigs which he was before joining the Republican party. They were a party for modernization but also favored public education and an expanded role of the federal government.

Probably wasting my breath talking to a libertarian with this argument (), but I don't think supporting tactics often used by modern liberals ("favoring" public education and an expanded role of the federal government) for CONSERVATIVE reasons (outlined above, but the main ones were we did not have the infrastructure in place for individual talent and private business to thrive like we did today) makes it a "liberal" thing to support.  Conservatives and liberals can both utilize small and big government when it suits their interests.  Democrats of the time often accused the Whigs' plans of only benefiting the wealthy and those who could afford to take part in that infrastructure; it's a FAR cry from supporting higher taxes so that sidewalks can be repaired to support a continental railroad that's going to have tickets that poor people will never be able to afford, for example.  The chief concerns of the Federalists, Whigs and Republicans, regardless of how they thought they could best achieve their goals, remain clearly conservative in my view.

[The Mikado]

Lincoln definitely grew progressively more radical through his administration, partially as a reaction to the intransigence and stubbornness he was met with. For a candidate like him winning to trigger a third of the country to depart was a sign that the South had hit a point of extremism where any politician who wouldn't bend over backwards to pander to them and their sectional interests was totally unacceptable. Lincoln originally tried some more gradualist approaches, including floating a federal slave buyout route to emancipation to some of the remaining slave states, but Delaware turned him down on that.

[vanguard96]

Modern Liberalism and Conservatism labels cant be given until the 1896 election where it's clear William McKinley was the conservative candidate and William Jennings Bryan is the liberal candidate

I would put him closer to Hamilton and the Federalists and of course the Whigs which he was before joining the Republican party. They were a party for modernization but also favored public education and an expanded role of the federal government.

Probably wasting my breath talking to a libertarian with this argument (), but I don't think supporting tactics often used by modern liberals ("favoring" public education and an expanded role of the federal government) for CONSERVATIVE reasons (outlined above, but the main ones were we did not have the infrastructure in place for individual talent and private business to thrive like we did today) makes it a "liberal" thing to support.  Conservatives and liberals can both utilize small and big government when it suits their interests.  Democrats of the time often accused the Whigs' plans of only benefiting the wealthy and those who could afford to take part in that infrastructure; it's a FAR cry from supporting higher taxes so that sidewalks can be repaired to support a continental railroad that's going to have tickets that poor people will never be able to afford, for example.  The chief concerns of the Federalists, Whigs and Republicans, regardless of how they thought they could best achieve their goals, remain clearly conservative in my view.

I am still reading more into the 19th century. I am a little more read up on the later part of the century particularly economic history. However I am also touching on the general direction the country took from the time of the founding fathers and the Civil War and Lincoln are a big part of that even though I would not consider myself a big fan of studying battles and military history.

I appreciate your post.

My reading of the Civil War was a considerable defeat for states' rights (especially since it was lumped in with the pro-slavery side) and the preservation of the Union being more critical in Lincoln's view than ending slavery. Is this wrong to say?

Note I do not agree at all with Tom DiLorenzo's hit piece against Lincoln.

He's not my favorite president by any stretch nor the worst but he's better than Davis (of course), Andrew Johnson, Fillmore, Grant, and a lot of others in that general time period.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties were the Democratic and GOP parties.

However, the Labor mov't grew out of the anti-trust laws concerning child labor, minimum and fair wages out the Karl Marx era in 1865.  And Lincoln was associated with fair labor due to Blacks working without wages; known as slavery. Got rid of that with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment. As well as Teddy Roosevelt who said child labor were against the law.

From then on, with Woodrow Wilson and FDR took up the income and the payroll taxes and social security to help the poor and elderly to transfer of wealth from the rich people.

That's why Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were known as compassionate conservatives.

[Kingpoleon]

"Conservative" just means on the side that wants to preserve the status quo, but modern conservatism is a particular ideology that does not line up with what was the conservative position in the past always. For example, Jefferson was not a conservative at all in his own time but his overall philosophy is much closer to the GOP than the modern Democratic Party. Another example is in Europe when the capitalists were the liberals and the monarchists were the conservatives. Don't confuse conservatism the ideology with conservatism the upholding of the current order.

But Lincoln was the liberal of the day, like Jefferson, wherever their bases may have been.

Lincoln called himself a conservative in the Cooper Union speech and decisively declared the Democrats to not be conservatives.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

"Conservative" just means on the side that wants to preserve the status quo, but modern conservatism is a particular ideology that does not line up with what was the conservative position in the past always. For example, Jefferson was not a conservative at all in his own time but his overall philosophy is much closer to the GOP than the modern Democratic Party. Another example is in Europe when the capitalists were the liberals and the monarchists were the conservatives. Don't confuse conservatism the ideology with conservatism the upholding of the current order.

But Lincoln was the liberal of the day, like Jefferson, wherever their bases may have been.

Lincoln called himself a conservative in the Cooper Union speech and decisively declared the Democrats to not be conservatives.

I think he was referring to the sense of religion.  But, Lincoln was a moderate GOPer.  But he believe  in Church and State. As for the Dixicrats, they believed in the separation of church and state, but believed strongly in state rights which is conservative.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The US (and the UK and continental Europe) was going through many radical (emphasis) changes throughout the 19th century, on account of the Industrial Revolution and related advances in science and technology, increased immigration from Germany, Scandinavia, and the British Isles (including the infamous Irish Catholics - some of my ancestors! ) and the rise of both radical evangelical Protestantism in the US (see: the Second Great Awakening) and different forms of liberal and radical Protestantism in parts of Europe (Germany, Scandinavia, etc.), along with with new, revolutionary or borderline-revolutionary artistic, literary, and philosophical schools associated with Romanticism, the Hegelians (and then Marx, of course), utopian socialists, anarchists, and so on and so forth. Much of that was in Europe, but obviously some of it crossed the Atlantic and contributed to significant changes in American culture.

Domestically, the US was engaging in massive westward expansion, (American) Indian removal, wars with Mexico, adding new states every decade, and of course was rapidly growing in population both due to high birth rates and increased immigration. And even with all of this craziness and growth that led to what would become the entire continental United States, the slavery issue became THE issue that polarized the country by region/section, and directly led to the utterly transformative (revolutionary in its effects, really) Civil War. And American politics had already been going through seismic upheavals of its own; think of "Jacksonian democracy, the extension of the franchise and the rise of strong parties and political machines, as well as all the political parties and factions that came and went during this period!

My point in all of this is that neither the mid-19th century Republicans nor the mid-19th century Democrats - any faction of them, really - could be considered truly "conservative" even by the standards of the period because the period in question was one of so much radical change and social, economic, cultural, and political upheaval that there was no hope of "conserving" much of anything. Radical change was happening and would continue to happen for a while; the relevant question for political actors was which of these upheavals would they be willing to embrace, and by how much.

[TDAS04]

It's hard to define where 19th century politicians would fit on the modern liberal/conservative spectrum, for obvious reasons.

I won't claim Abraham Lincoln was exactly the modern liberal, but some Republicans argue the opposite extreme that the parties haven't changed in any meaningful way since Lincoln's time.  If someone claims that Lincoln might be a modern conservative if he were alive today, that's fine, but I do think he might have been a moderate liberal.

To this day, some Republicans claim that Lincoln perfectly embodies the conservative ideal of capitalism.  Lincoln was born poor, rose from rags by pulling himself up from his bootstraps, no government help...  That doesn't necessarily mean that he would never of supported any safety net for the needy over time.  Who knows, maybe he would have been sympathetic to the poor, as he was born poor, and the means and prospects of rising up are not the same today as they were back in the 1800s.  

Obviously it makes no sense to discuss Lincoln's position on gay marriage or abortion or marijuana.  We can't say he opposed the death penalty, because he did permit some executions and it wasn't much of a debate back then.  However, moments where Lincoln had to decide whether or not to allow executions to proceed reveal that he was a pretty soft-hearted man (even while he was strong enough to lead America through the bloody Civil War).  He disliked approving the executions of young men who deserted in war, and he granted clemency to many of them.  He even disliked killing animals and he did not enjoy hunting.  If Lincoln was a conservative, he must have been a compassionate conservative.  Not that temperament or compassion necessarily determines political ideology, but it's hard to imagine today's tough-minded Trumpsters and tea-partiers not rolling their eyes at many of Lincoln's merciful tendencies.

It's true that it's tricky to determine how politicians from the distant past fit on modern political spectrums, and it can seem pointless.  However, the OP had a point in starting this thread.  After all, many Republicans claim that they're still the party of Lincoln in every sense, and that the party of Trump is exactly the same as it was in Lincoln's era.  Many of today's Republican who support Trump are in fact neo-confederate types who hate Lincoln, while many others are just ignorant enough of history to think that Lincoln would have been a Trumpster.  After all, they're both Republican, right?

[RINO Tom]

I really don't think that many people claim the parties haven't changed at all; that'd be ridiculous.  There are, however, TONS of people who claim the parties effectively switched platforms (how a thinking person can say those exact words and not laugh out loud is beyond me), which is equally dumb.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

What really defined conservatism is the income tax.  In 1913 and the GOP with Taft was dead set against it.  And the Bryan-Jennings clan with W Wilson wanted it. The GOP don't believe in redistriction of wealth through the income tax and Democrats or Socialist do. 

And the 19th Century GOPers depended on tarrifs, not income tax to get their revenue.  But, Teddy Roosevelt did believe in tax cuts but not estate taxes like John McCain.