If alive today, would Lincoln be a Republican?

[Alonzo]

I've heard a lot of Republicans claim that not only was Lincoln a member of the party, but that his beliefs, and other early Republicans, were consistent with the modern day Republican party. So the question is why would Lincoln still identify more with the Republican party if alive today?

[PostmodernProphet]

one thing for sure, he would be really, really old.....

read a couple of pages worth of links under a google of Lincoln's political beliefs.....not a lot there...I speculate that because his attention was consumed by the war for most of his presidency, he didn't get much opportunity to shape the country in any particular direction....thus there isn't much information on what he would have done with the country in peace time.....one author said he was in favor of a strong central government....but I don't know if that conclusion is simply drawn from his opposition to secession or from something else....Wiki credits him with believing the government should have only limited involvement in controlling the economy.... Wiki also says he was a strong supporter of open immigration (which until the last year was a conservative principle).....

[spirobulldog08]

I believe he would be. The Republican Party, under his leadership, took a leading role in freeing the slaves. It was mostly Lincoln's own doing but after the war it was the radical republicans that wanted the south to have to accept the 13th - 15th Amendments and many other steep prices for readmittance to the Union. Even moderate Republicans wanted the south to accept hefty dues (not necessarily in money) to return. These dues included freeing of the slaves and allowing them their rights. It were the southern democrats who rejected being in the union altogether. I've said all that to say this. Republicans are still the party of equality, and Abraham Lincoln was a man of equality. Republicans haven't moved from their original intent of creation. It was based on the Kansas-Nebraska act in which Republicans didn't want the territory to be a slave state. Republicans have long fought for equal rights of all races and sexes. In the mix when Franklin Roosevelt was elected, he gave a lot of minority benefits which caused them to switch party identifications, but to this day the Republican party remains the party of equality. I believe that is what Abraham Lincoln would have stood for. Past the history lesson, there are probably lots of other reasons people would say he'd be a Republican. I'm sure there are those who claim a Democrat with good reason too. But for the purpose of the post this is simply my opinion that Abraham Lincoln would be a Republican even today.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I doubt it!

The Republican party is THE lead advocate for the "theory" of prohibition to build moral character. (knowing of course, morals are individually subjective)

Lincoln obviously would disagree with the BULK of current American social policy, and most likely against all of our national foreign policy.

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

[PostmodernProphet]

The Republican party is THE lead advocate for the "theory" of prohibition to build moral character.

lol, I seem to have missed that on the party platform.....but then I only went back and looked up to the point of my birth.......

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
lol, I seem to have missed that on the party platform.....but then I only went back and looked up to the point of my birth.......

If their PUBLIC ADDMITTED party platform was even close to their ACTUAL agenda, the party would be sorely lacking of members except for outgoing, unabashed neocons.

Same goes for the Democrats.... hence the reason they both lie with the direction of the ignorant and generally uninformed public supporters opinions, when they stand in front of them, and then do the opposite once in office.

Both parties today are absolutely lacking integrity, honor or any reason for respect.

[PostmodernProphet]

their ACTUAL agenda

lol, sorry...I didn't realize you had a copy.....I guess we need to beef up security....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
lol, sorry...I didn't realize you had a copy.....I guess we need to beef up security....

No problem, and don't worry, Bush and his cronies already deleted and destroyed all those e-mails, remember? They didn't want any incriminating evidence hanging around.

[Pookie]

I think Lincoln would be so disgusted with all the parties he'd start his own called "Common Sense."
I'd love to see his reaction to the deficit. He'd have cows!
Purrs,
Pookie

[Osborn F. Enready]

I think he, much like the bulk of the forefathers would take one look at things, walk to the nearest gun store, and set about another violent revolt.

[Drocket]

I think Lincoln would be so disgusted with all the parties he'd start his own called "Common Sense."
I'd love to see his reaction to the deficit. He'd have cows!
Purrs,
Pookie

I think the thing he would most be disgusted with is the level of political debate in this country, and especially how the media dismisses it. He came from a time where political debate was an absolute art form. Just look at the Lincoln-Douglas debates, a 21 hour slugfest over 7 days. Candidates would debate relatively minor issues for hours on end, citing source after source for their position. The media was extremely critical of any mistakes - even the slightest inaccuracy would get you positively evicerated in the editorial page the next day.

Now we live in a time where the most pressing issue is Obama's bowling score.

Getting back to the issue, though - Lincoln was a moderate liberal. As such, he'd be a Democrat today. Of course, I don't think he'd do too well in modern politics. He'd give a brilliant 2 hour speech, which would be distilled down to a 30 second soundbite that prove he's an unelectable crazed liberal.

[PostmodernProphet]

Now we live in a time where the most pressing issue is Obama's bowling score.

not the most pressing issue, simply the source of the greatest amusement....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
not the most pressing issue, simply the source of the greatest amusement....

I agree, but I am not sure if its in front of "navel gazing" or "American Idol".

[NortheastCynic]

I agree, but I am not sure if its in front of "navel gazing" or "American Idol".
Text your vote for navel gazing to 888-555-4383
Text your vote for American Idol to 888-555-4384

-NC

[Osborn F. Enready]

ROFLMAO.... ;)

[markre]

interesting quotes

[Osborn F. Enready]

markre said:
interesting quotes

Here is another wonderful quote pertaining to the topic of prohibition, and why the Republican and Democrats are in denial about our current prohibition laws and how they stand in the face of Constitutional Law.

Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

-Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-born NYU Professor and free market advocate, 1949


Lincoln, Washinton, Adams, Madison, Paine.... they understood this.....

Its a shame these fools the sheeple elect today don't, nor do the sheeple.

[AlanC]

I would say that Lincoln would be more likely to be a Republican than Kennedy would be a Democrat.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alan, I think it would be hard to dispute that Lincoln, and other forefathers would have picked up arms to shrug off this system LONG AGO....in fact, mainly in light of changes that have taken place since Lincolns death.

[AlanC]

Alan, I think it would be hard to dispute that Lincoln, and other forefathers would have picked up arms to shrug off this system LONG AGO....in fact, mainly in light of changes that have taken place since Lincolns death.

I don't disagree with that but the original post seemed to indicate the thought that Lincoln would somehow be a Democrat and frankly I find that assumption absurd.

As I said, it would be far more likely that Kennedy would be a Republican if he still held the same views and values that he did when alive. His aprty has gone considerably to the left of where it was 50 years ago.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm surprise no one's made the obligatory, "Log Cabin Republican" joke yet. This thread is screaming for it.

-NC

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alan said:
I don't disagree with that but the original post seemed to indicate the thought that Lincoln would somehow be a Democrat and frankly I find that assumption absurd.

As I said, it would be far more likely that Kennedy would be a Republican if he still held the same views and values that he did when alive. His aprty has gone considerably to the left of where it was 50 years ago.

Ok, I can agree with that line of thought and your statement makes more sense to me now. ;)

[Buck Laser]

I'm surprise no one's made the obligatory, "Log Cabin Republican" joke yet. This thread is screaming for it.

-NC
Someone DID publish a book a while back which speculated that Lincoln was secretly gay, mainly because he shared hotel rooms with other men. The "historian" who wrote it apparently didn't realize that was common practice in the 19th century.

Here's a link: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/01/16/the_gay_lincoln_controversy/

[David]

Nether. He'd be a member of the Libertarian Party.

[AlanC]

Nether. He'd be a member of the Libertarian Party.


I don't think so. The Libetarians would have let the South go. :grrrr:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alan, I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

Libertarians defend INDIVIDUAL rights, not based on gender or race.

Come on now.....

[AlanC]

Alan, I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

Libertarians defend INDIVIDUAL rights, not based on gender or race.

Come on now.....


Perhaps, but would you have used force of arms to impose your views on the South? I think not. You would have supported their right to determine their own path rather than project the force of a central govenrment that they did not want. Right? ;)

Hypothetically speaking of course.

[NortheastCynic]

If I'm not mistaken, Alan. The South were the aggressors in the Civil War...it was the CSA that fired the first shot in the Civil War. A libertarian would have attempted to end slavery in the US government, and then, after the CSA attacked the US, he/she would have retaliated and ended slavery once the country was re-united. Kinda like what Lincoln did.

-NC

[AlanC]

If I'm not mistaken, Alan. The South were the aggressors in the Civil War...it was the CSA that fired the first shot in the Civil War. A libertarian would have attempted to end slavery in the US government, and then, after the CSA attacked the US, he/she would have retaliated and ended slavery once the country was re-united. Kinda like what Lincoln did.

-NC

Under that circumstance, yes, I can see it. But would the South have felt the need to attack without the indication that the Federal Government was willing to use force to prevent the division of the Union?

While the shots at Fort Sumpter can be seen as the intial agressive action of the war, was it made inevitable by the agressive political intent of the Feds?

That type of government posturing is not usually met with favor by Libertarians. So would they have already been committed to the rightness of the Southern cause of grievance even before the first shots were fired?

Interesting discussion I think. Certainly one without a nice concrete answer though.

[NortheastCynic]

Agreed, Alan. I think you can logically argue either way. I'm not sure a libertarian would have preferred the gov't posturing/saber rattling, but on the other hand, it could be argued that a libertarian wouldn't recognize the CSA as a legitimate government, which would have resulted in war anyway.

-NC

[AlanC]

Agreed, Alan. I think you can logically argue either way. I'm not sure a libertarian would have preferred the gov't posturing/saber rattling, but on the other hand, it could be argued that a libertarian wouldn't recognize the CSA as a legitimate government, which would have resulted in war anyway.

-NC

True enough. It is the problem with trying to understand hypotheticals. Too many variables that can alter the equation.

[Troubadour]

I've heard a lot of Republicans claim that not only was Lincoln a member of the party, but that his beliefs, and other early Republicans, were consistent with the modern day Republican party. So the question is why would Lincoln still identify more with the Republican party if alive today?

A Deist, a lawyer, a Northerner, an intelligent and eloquent leader, the destroyer of the Southern murder-ocracy, an anti-war hero who had tried to stop the illegal war with Mexico as a Congressman...Republicans today wouldn't just shoot him, they would dance on his corpse.

[ECW]

A Deist, a lawyer, a Northerner, an intelligent and eloquent leader, the destroyer of the Southern murder-ocracy, an anti-war hero who had tried to stop the illegal war with Mexico as a Congressman...Republicans today wouldn't just shoot him, they would dance on his corpse.

...after they crucified his failed businesses, vilified his mentally ill wife and gloated over his dead son. Let the hoedown begin.

[Troubadour]

...after they crucified his failed businesses, vilified his mentally ill wife and gloated over his dead son. Let the hoedown begin.

And after he switched parties, spitting on the ground before his former "colleagues" and cursing the Republican Party as a den of traitors, killers, and thieves, the RNC would suddenly discover a keen interest in the claims of the Log Cabin Republicans. Don't pay any attention to that skinny, opera-watching, book-reading, bowtie-wearing, dead-son-having twinkle-toes over there. He's too much of a sissy to not have dead kids! Heh heh. God must have been punishing him in advance for beating the South, not that a godless atheist would know anything about that - although with that beard, maybe he's a Muslim. Yeah, that's it, he's a MUSLIM! And his first name's Abraham, so he's probably a Jew too! "Paid for by The Patriotic Citizens Council Against Jew/Muslim/atheist/homo/Yankee/Libruls."

[Osborn F. Enready]

Troubador, I find your blatant hypocrisy hillarious.

Funny how you never notice those same traits in your preferred Democrat party.

I fail to see how you can claim either is better than the other (republicans or democrats) since they are both equally to blame for where we are, how we got here, and the total abject disenfranchisement of the nations voters and misinformation they have been fed for the last 100 years.

Regardless though, thanks for the chuckles. ;)

[Troubadour]

Funny how you never notice those same traits in your preferred Democrat party.

Forgive me for not living in Moneytarian Land, where the sky is neon purple and Democrats and Republicans are morally equivalent.


I fail to see how you can claim either is better than the other (republicans or democrats) since they are both equally to blame for where we are how we got here, and the total abject disenfranchisement of the nations voters and misinformation they have been fed for the last 100 years.

We've been through this before. You divide the entire universe into Libertarian and Not Libertarian, and discount the most extreme moral and philosophical differences within the latter as having no significance whatsoever because all reality is boiled down to a binary struggle between Big Government and Small Government - two polar opposites on a SINGLE QUESTION, just like MARXISM, and everyone is either WITH YOU OR AGAINST YOU. You're boring me, Osborn.

[ECW]

And after he switched parties, spitting on the ground before his former "colleagues" and cursing the Republican Party as a den of traitors, killers, and thieves, the RNC would suddenly discover a keen interest in the claims of the Log Cabin Republicans. Don't pay any attention to that skinny, opera-watching, book-reading, bowtie-wearing, dead-son-having twinkle-toes over there. He's too much of a sissy to not have dead kids! Heh heh. God must have been punishing him in advance for beating the South, not that a godless atheist would know anything about that - although with that beard, maybe he's a Muslim. Yeah, that's it, he's a MUSLIM! And his first name's Abraham, so he's probably a Jew too! "Paid for by The Patriotic Citizens Council Against Jew/Muslim/atheist/homo/Yankee/Libruls."

Well said.

[Rage]

I've heard a lot of Republicans claim that not only was Lincoln a member of the party, but that his beliefs, and other early Republicans, were consistent with the modern day Republican party. So the question is why would Lincoln still identify more with the Republican party if alive today?

I believe he would, there really wasn't anything really liberal about the man.

[Troubadour]

I believe he would, there really wasn't anything really liberal about the man.

LMAO - Lincoln was more liberal than Bill Clinton by a long shot.

[Rage]

Well then again, liberalism around that time, and for the matter the liberalism that was around during the time of the federalists was good. The liberalism, and democratic party itself is different now. So is the republican party, so there is a lot of room for 'LMAO' speculation.

[Troubadour]

Well then again, liberalism around that time, and for the matter the liberalism that was around during the time of the federalists was good.

By the definition of some Orwellian commentators, the Confederacy was "liberal." Sorry, I only use words in their reality-based sense.

The liberalism, and democratic party itself is different now.

Yes - the Democratic Party of Lincoln's day was conservative (that's why he wasn't in it); then it slowly became liberal; then it became "centrist with liberal frills." Under the Obama administration, it will be liberal again. The Republican Party of Lincoln's day was liberal; then it rapidly became conservative as Northern industrial interests overwhelmed Northern social values in shaping its agenda; then it became fascist; and now it's irrelevant.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Troubador said:
Forgive me for not living in Moneytarian Land, where the sky is neon purple and Democrats and Republicans are morally equivalent.

I wouldn't know, the sky is blue or grey here depending on the weather, and it sometimes has clouds. However, the Republicans and Democrats are morally equaivalent to many more than myself.

Morals are subjective, as are opinions.

The FACT that both parties have long histories of constitutional treason however, that is an issue you don't seem to like to debate. You don't seem to like to acknowledge how both parties play tit-for-tat, and trade abuse of unconstitutional spheres of power, and I can't help but speculate that it must be because you support government force when it is "favorable" in your subjective opinion, and against it when it is "unfavorable" in your subjective opinion, having NOTHING to do with individual rights, where they eminate from or how individual rights are the basis, the limits and the objective arbiter of our legal systems basis and validity.

Troubador said:
We've been through this before. You divide the entire universe into Libertarian and Not Libertarian, and discount the most extreme moral and philosophical differences within the latter as having no significance whatsoever because all reality is boiled down to a binary struggle between Big Government and Small Government

WRONG!

Its the struggle between AUTHORITARIANISM and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Democrats and Republicans are both pro-big government......

Its about CONSTITUTIONALITY and the LIMITS on CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERES OF POWER which BOTH parties have trampled devoid of discretion or respect, much less observance.

Troubador said:
- two polar opposites on a SINGLE QUESTION, just like MARXISM, and everyone is either WITH YOU OR AGAINST YOU. You're boring me, Osborn.

I am not here to amuse you, so move on along if you can't meet the criteria for debate.

I won't be offended, honest.

[Troubadour]

However, the Republicans and Democrats are morally equaivalent to many more than myself.

Mainly comprised of Moneytarians and Naderites - single-minded ideologues for whom 99% agreement connotes an enemy indistinguishable from total opposition.

The FACT that both parties have long histories of constitutional treason however, that is an issue you don't seem to like to debate.

Well then, let's build a time machine and address those past evils. Or, failing that, we can deal with the reality that confronts us: A Republican Party in open insurgency against the United States, and Democrats opposing them.


You don't seem to like to acknowledge how both parties play tit-for-tat

And you don't seem to understand the difference between a party that's had ample opportunity to explore its human fallibility and one whose underlying values are evil and un-American.

and I can't help but speculate that it must be because you support government force when it is "favorable" in your subjective opinion, and against it when it is "unfavorable" in your subjective opinion, having NOTHING to do with individual rights, where they eminate from or how individual rights are the basis, the limits and the objective arbiter of our legal systems basis and validity.

If you're going to invent my politics for me, I personally don't have to be involved - you can engage in a little colloquy with yourself and a sock puppet whose positions are a one-dimensional negation of yours. That's much easier than dealing with a distinct set of ideas, isn't it?


Its the struggle between AUTHORITARIANISM and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. Democrats and Republicans are both pro-big government...

Ah, the incoherence of dogmatism. In one breath you deny that your ideology hinges entirely on the size of government, insisting it's all about liberty vs. authoritarianism, and then in the next completely forget what you just said and rave about "big government."

Its about CONSTITUTIONALITY and the LIMITS on CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERES OF POWER which BOTH parties have trampled devoid of discretion or respect, much less observance.

There are no constitutional limits on the size of government, and never have been. Nor are anyone's rights violated by the vast majority of spending priorities targeted by the right - they JUST WANT THE MONEY.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Troubador said:
Mainly comprised of Moneytarians and Naderites - single-minded ideologues for whom 99% agreement connotes an enemy indistinguishable from total opposition.

Once again you expose you obvious and open bias and lack of informed opinion formed by partisanship.

Quite the labelmaker you are....while avoiding the label that your actions firmly tie you to.

Troubador said:
Well then, let's build a time machine and address those past evils. Or, failing that, we can deal with the reality that confronts us: A Republican Party in open insurgency against the United States, and Democrats opposing them.

The Democrats didn't, aren't and won't oppose the war. The war couldn't have happened without their help, their support, their denial of the facts, or denial to stop funding it.

Ron Paul however, has argued against BOTH the Clinton AND Bush adminstrations wars of unconstitutional nature. Didn't see you supporting him..... wonder why? I sense partisan loyalty.....

Also, a time machine is not needed, a Constitutional Amendment for term limits for all seated appointments and elected positions is, as is a NECESSITY of Americans to drop their tired, undeserved bi-partisan loyalty to the TWO parties that have been selling them down the river for the last 100+ years.

Troubador said:
And you don't seem to understand the difference between a party that's had ample opportunity to explore its human fallibility and one whose underlying values are evil and un-American.

If you think that answer you just spit is anything other than subjective, partisan BS you are sorely mistaken. I will disregard it as the partisan tripe it is.

Troubador said:
Ah, the incoherence of dogmatism. In one breath you deny that your ideology hinges entirely on the size of government, insisting it's all about liberty vs. authoritarianism, and then in the next completely forget what you just said and rave about "big government."

In one breath I corrected you that my ideology does not hinge on size of government, and then I pointed out that even if that was your ASSUMPTION, which it was, it would be wrong, since BOTH PARTIES ARE PRO-BIG GOVERNMENT....

What don't you get?

It has nothing to do with SIZE, it has to do with SCOPE of government. The size is DIRECTLY RELATED to the scope of governments authority, something BOTH parties have sought to expand WITHOUT the will of the people ,directly at the cost of the people, both in blood and lives through unconstitutional usurpation of powers and the systematic eradication of checks and balances on power.

Both parties: GUILTY.

Troubador said:
There are no constitutional limits on the size of government, and never have been. Nor are anyone's rights violated by the vast majority of spending priorities targeted by the right - they JUST WANT THE MONEY.

LOL....

I suggest you take some reading and comprehension classes, and then perhaps a few Constituional Law classes and series of classes on the founding fathers quotes, intents and documented debates..... you obviously don't know much of what you are talking about... but that seems common these days amongst blind partisan loyalists.

[Rage]

By the definition of some Orwellian commentators, the Confederacy was "liberal." Sorry, I only use words in their reality-based sense.



Yes - the Democratic Party of Lincoln's day was conservative (that's why he wasn't in it); then it slowly became liberal; then it became "centrist with liberal frills." Under the Obama administration, it will be liberal again. The Republican Party of Lincoln's day was liberal; then it rapidly became conservative as Northern industrial interests overwhelmed Northern social values in shaping its agenda; then it became fascist; and now it's irrelevant.

You act like you know him, what was his favorite color? Go read the federalist papers dude, read what the word Liberal meant in 1776.

[davo]

I won't get into any arguements over whether Lincoln would be a 'liberal' or 'conservative' in today's politics; he'd most likely be disgusted that political opinion has been so easily divided and controlled in such a manner, and that mainstream media wields so much control over the outcome of elections.

If you're basing what his current political orientation is based on his racial and social views, he would probably be on the far right by today's standards and be wondering what the hell went wrong with America. Although his views in that respect were progressive for its time, they were far from egalitarian. Remember that slavery was the norm in those days, and although he was an abolitionist, he did speak a number of times against the equality of races, and had attended meetings of the colonization society. Such talk these days would get you put in the same basket as David Duke.


(Speech in Illinois, 1858)
I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.


Lincoln was also involved in a major struggle against banking interests who wanted to print America's money, instead of having congress directly issue greenbacks. He often took deliberately ambiguous positions on such issues, because the bankers (esp from the Bank of England) would finance Southern secessionists and copperheads if he spoke in favour of egalitarianism, and fund radical republicans when he didn't. He also forged close friendship with Tsar Alexander II of Russia and Otto Von Bismarck of Germany, who both knew what the bankers were trying to do, and probably weren't concerned with America's domestic dispute on the status of coloured persons. Meanwhile England build blockade runners for the confederacy and placed troops in Canada, and Russia was threatening war with Britain.

Its unknown what Lincoln would've thought of the 14th and 15th amendments as he was assassinated before he got to comment on the matter, although he did speak of leniency toward the South. He almost certainly would've hated the 16th amendment though :D and the Federal Reserve Act.

To sum it up, Lincoln probably would be a Libertarian-Republican in today's world, of the Ron Paul variety. Above all he'd likely be horrified at the level of plutocracy in the United States, and the size and scope of the Federeal government today would be totally resented and considered completely affront to the constitution by anyone from the 1860's.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I would agree on almost all counts there Davo.

Well said. ;)