Abe Lincoln was a Republican

I'm sort of confused here. I read that Gen. McLellan, a Union soldier, was too conservative for Lincoln's tastes, and he apparently ran as a Democrat. When did the roles reverse? Republicans started with Lincoln, as the more liberal party apparently.

IMO things started changing around Wilson although one could argue around Bryan or even later with FDR. Things did change yes. I think what that means actually is that McClellan's tactics were very conservative, he wasnt aggressive at all.

And they remained that way until the 1960's, when all the racist Democrats in the South switched to the Republican Party, and took it over, basically, pushing their radical hate-filled agenda that we still see today.

as early as William Jennings Bryan and as late as FDR for the GOP no doubt with Nixon's southern stragety.

ole "tricky dick#1)united the republican and the dixiecrats and now we have Lincoln's party soiled by the same racist the republican fought during the civil war(war between the states)

To the extent that he was actually praised by Marx for them :).

What's even more humorous is todays republicans actually attempt to point to Lincoln as a sign of their compassion for their fellow man :).

There was once an honest republican. Then a hundred years later, when democrats began to make some change in the nation's laws concerning race, the racists all fled to the repug party. A lot of folks don't know it, but in 1960 there was no repug party in Texas. That's about holding a grudge for a hundred years.

" Labor is and shall always be the superior of capital" something like that, anyway.



Peace

Most politicians before the turn-of-the-century, or I should say before FDR were Republicans. Nothing new - its called HISTORY!

You might want to get into this subject a bit.

:kick:

He kind of rejected the Republican party, didn't he?

Ran as a Bull Moose in 1912, was back amind the republican fold by 1916.

Crony Capitalism really got rolling.

mostly Dems at one time, pre-Reagan. Speaking of Lincoln, is it true that he killed more of his own people than did Saddam?

The civil war obviously doesn't count as killing your own people. As for Native Americans there was that whole Custer's last stand and sentiment against the Natives that didn't get paid much attention to at the time because of the war but do I think he could've possibly killed more people than Saadam.

ignored Custer's Last Stand since it happened 11 years after he war ended.

As Saddam attributed his various massacres to supressing armed rebellion, I'm sure he'd be delighted that you see things his way. Now, in the wake of Saddam's totalitarianism, we're privy to the unveiling of the violent anarchy he checked with an iron fist. Saddam's regime, for all its bloodshed and cruelty, represented an uneasy truce between some serious ethnic divisions.

Watch as it all comes apart at the seams.

Very, very well do I remember. I DON'T remember that most pro-lifers were Democrats.

Re more of his own people -- are you referring to the Civil War? Jefferson Davis started it.

...could be seen in the depredations of the Reconstruction Era carpetbaggers. But I don't think that their actions should tarnish the image of the great Abe Lincoln. After all, it seems that Jesus had some pretty good ideas, too, but look at how Christianity has been co-opted by fundamentalists, who, by the way, also call themselves Republicans.

just like anti Saddam propaganda.....Saddam was typical mid east political gangster, and he'd have been dead long ago if he wasn't as brutal as the rest etc....
Abe Lincoln never intentionally murdered anybody (ever heard of Clement Vallandigham? he was a rush limbo like character who attempted to undermine Lincoln and war effort and collaborated openly with the south, Lincoln had him kidnapped and shipped to Canada, forcing the idiot Ohioan to go nearly round the world to get back to the south; Abe coulda had him thrown in the river or just disappeared had he wanted!)
Also, tho 'carpetbaggers' and 'scalwags' have a bad connotation, it prolly the result of lies etc.... reconstruction produced some of the finest people the USA ever produced (Govenor Ames springs to mind) who, despite almost total indifference up north and outright hate in the south (the KKK started during reconstruction era) these white liberals went south to help black america get on its feet....within few years, the black southeners had more ELECTED representation throughout south then at any time until the 1980's! That was thanks to hundreds, maybe thousands of white northers AND SOUTHERS who today are called carpetbaggers, scalwags etc....
There has ALWAYS been a pro south, pro racist trend in the US entertainment/news media...which makes 'Reconstruction' an era white America can truly be proud of!
it breaks my heart to hear nazi-type anti north propaganda spouted on DU, tho i do not blame those who simply believe the big lie they've been told (see "Gone with the Wind' etc))

is about Van Langingham.

I would think most DU'ers would admire him as a principaled anti-war elected Democrat who took an unpopular stand and was run out of the country illegaly for it.

to take a guy like valladigham, still a hero to freepers types (which says alot imho) and portray him as a persecuted angel!.....it was Abe Lincoln who performed almost impossible feats of psychic strength to keep everything together, especially during early years when south seemed to be winning. I read Bruce Catton's civil war series which capture the feel of the era (american soldiers, when ordered to march for first time, laughed and asked the officers 'but WHY?') and valladigham was just the mouthiest and most brazen of alot of pro south northern dems who heaped abuse on Lincoln from safety of elected office.... there are freepers who claim Lincoln was a war criminal etc....
btw the official American belief that only the 'lone nut' is involved in US assasinations has always been a lie...2 of Lincoln's cabinet members were also shot at the time he was murdered.....it was a conspiracy tho John Wilkes Booth did Oswald's job apparently as only his part has ever been advertised in history books...

You're right it was a conspiracy, but none of Lincoln's cabinet members were shot.

Edited because I decided to be kind on a Sunday night.

had a right to be against the war?

Do you feel the same way today?

If Bush banished Dean to Iraq, would you support that too?

Or are the two cases different?

bush is a conman...lincoln was true rep of the people (i betcha most southers are GLAD that Lincoln won that fight!) plus there was lil detail of slavery, which even at that time was known to be a moral horrorstory, degrading to humanity....valladigham had no right when the NATION was in mortal danger to ally hisself with the ENEMY (and the secessionists were that!)
clement valladigham live on still in US politics; every cheap lie and fake righteous bog of swamp gas (fox news, cnn etc) is at home in the GOP (or georgebushamerica) which was what ole clem was working for!
btw the news that 2 lincoln cabinet members also shot was surprising to me too; i read that just last few days somwhere or other, and need to find out if there any truth to it... nevertheless 'efforts' to kill cabinet members were undertaken by the conspirators:

http://www.multied.com/CivilWar/assas.html

he did after all get 39.82 % of the vote.

Also, the nation was not in mortal danger. The seceeded states wanted to leave, not conquer. The USA and its form of government would have gotten along just fine without the 11 (or 13) states of the CSA.

Also, no cabinet members were shot in the conspiracy to kill Lincoln. Secretary of State Seward was to be shot, but the assasin who battled his way into Seward's sick-room ended up stabbing him, though not mortally. Quick action by Seward's son, an army officer saved his life.

VP Johnson was also to be killed at the same time, but the plan misfired.

to take a guy like valladigham, still a hero to freepers types (which says alot imho) and portray him as a persecuted angel!.....it was Abe Lincoln who performed almost impossible feats of psychic strength to keep everything together, especially during early years when south seemed to be winning. I read Bruce Catton's civil war series which capture the feel of the era (american soldiers, when ordered to march for first time, laughed and asked the officers 'but WHY?') and valladigham was just the mouthiest and most brazen of alot of pro south northern dems who heaped abuse on Lincoln from safety of elected office.... there are freepers who claim Lincoln was a war criminal etc....
btw the official American belief that only the 'lone nut' is involved in US assasinations has always been a lie...2 of Lincoln's cabinet members were also shot at the time he was murdered.....it was a conspiracy tho John Wilkes Booth did Oswald's job apparently as only his part has ever been advertised in history books...

In the southern states people REFUSED to vote republican since Lincoln had been one so the republicans changed party to the democratic.

before the Civil War. Lincoln didn't even appear on the ballot in 1860 in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, N Carolina, Tennessee or Texas, and South Carolina still didn't have popular elections for president. The S Carolina legislature just named electors as per the Constitution.

No, the vast majority of southerners were Democrats from long before the Civil War (minus the Whigs for a while) until the 1960's at least, probably 1980's.

probably got started with FDR in the 1930's, but it took the party adopting a civil rights plank in 1948 to force the racist element out (Dixiecrats) and into the Republican Party. I agree crony capitalism really got rolling under Grant, although in his defense he was not Presidential material and had no idea of what was going on around him. After Grant abandoned Reconstruction, the Republican party became the party of white rich men. So for a period of about 80 years, neither party really cared about African Americans, which led to the rise of Jim Crow laws.

Wilson started it when he openly began adopting Progressive Party policies in 1915-1916. FDR was a follower of Wilson (and a better politician!) and took it the next step, but even he was still dependent on right-wing southern democrats for support in Congress. Pre-1912 there were Progressive wings in both parties. The Progressive republican migration to the Democrats started under Wilson, stagnated in the 192os, and really got moving under FDR. Cooledge's election in 1924 pretty much cemented the republicans as dominated by the conservative pro-business interests. (over simplified for length)

Both parties were conservative, but before Taft, the Republicans did do some things for industrial labor, environmental standards, and civil service reform, whereas the Democrats - once the standard-bearers for slavery and "states'rights" - were the champions of farmers and rural interests. The Republicans begin to sell out on race relations after Reconstruction, and it wasn't until the Democrats embraced civil rights in the 1960's that the roles mostly reversed - almost 100 years in transforming.

Taft was Theodore Roosevelt's choice as successor, but he proved too conservative for TR's tastes, which gave TR the excuse to run on a more progressive third party ticket in 1912 - splitting the votes and giving the plurality to Wilson. The Tafts were the first Republican conservative dynasty, preceding the Bushes. Robert Taft, William Howard Taft's son, would become a prominent senator during the New Deal era, and the leader of the Republican opposition to New Deal reforms.

Safe to say that after Taft, the Republicans became the party of big business first, and the Democrats under FDR championed the "common man" and labor - then, eventually, civil rights.

The role reversal wasn't absolute, nor equitable, but there was a noticeable inversion.

Republicans were absolutely the liberal party at the time of their creation. By the 1920's we start to see Republicans practicing fiscal conservatism and then in the 1930's FDR with a more liberal fiscal policy. I think that Ike kind of brought the whole religion aspect back to the Republican party and in the 1960's all of the white trash migrated to the Republican party probably because they were pissed off at Kennedy for supporting civil rights. Vietnam also had a lot to do with it. By the time of the mid Nixon administration and definately by the time of the Carter administration you see Democrats and Republicans taking almost exactly the same stances on issues that they do today. Ronald Reagan did a little more reforming of the Republicans but most of the changing with both parties ended with carter. Basically the process started in the 1920's and ended in the early 1970's.

The Socialist Party grew as the Republicans became more entwined with monied interests, drawing people who saw (as we would say these days) one party with two right wings. They hit their peak in the Teens, but lost steam as the New Deal Democrats adopted the more popular parts of their platform.

If you're ever dumbfounded why people support the Greens, look at the way the Socialists pulled the Democrats to the left for what they're thinking.

Then again, remember that out in the "heartland" the New Deal wasn't sold as charity for people with hard times, it was sold as getting New York City millionaires to pay them getting electricity, improved roads, and other infrastructure projects.

McClellan, while admittedly doing a great job creating an army, was too concerned with things..well...McClellan.

Republicans began leaning toward the progressive when Teddy "trustbuster" Roosevelt became President. He was in favor of some type of pension program also and it was the Republicans after all, that sent the 16th Amendment up for ratification.

As far as finding a common thread running through the Democrat Party, it just doesn't work that way, IMO. Kinda analagous to the earth changing its polarity every so often. :-)

I was just engaging someone about this yesterday in the Lounge. Liberalism today is losing touch with its source. Many of us could find common ground with even the wooliest freeper, over a tome in the classical liberal tradition.

The Republican Party was, in fact, the more
liberal of the two parties for about 60 years
after its founding in the 1850's.

They were always the party of business interests
because the Northern politicos were anxious to establish
a political base that opposed the agrarian South.

The Dems were, until the 1920's the party of the KKK. The
Pubbies tried to kick the progressives out after the Bullmoose
rebellion of 1912. At that point the progressives began
to migrate to the Dems because the Pubbie estblishment
beleived (correctly) that the progressives had caused the
election of Wilson.

FDR changed everything and established the Dems as the
liberal party but he allowed the Southern Dems to continue
to support segregation as long as they supported him on the big
ones.

To the demise of the Whigs ...

when the Republicans deposed the Whigs as the opposition party to the Democrats.

By 1860 when Lincoln ran, the Whigs were pretty much gone.

You could argue that John Bell and his Constitutional Union Party was a remnant of the Whigs in 1860, but they only got 12 % of the vote.

Lincoln wrote to a friend on his political views as a Whig in 1855 "that is a disputed point. I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. The Declaration of Independence now practically reads that all men are created equal, but if the Know Nothings (or whigs) win it would read all men are created equal except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics. When things come to pass, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where depotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy."

Clearly Lincoln had grown disgusted with the party he started out in, but was it wrong for him to help start what would become the country's dominate party?

Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott..... all of the early women suffragists. The first women's movement was brought about by Republicans and was tied to the abolition movement. How they all must be tossing and turning in their graves!!!!
We all would have been proud Republicans in those days. We may not have been able to afford to be a part of the movements. The Republican activists were blue bloods. It was a sort of "fashionable" hobby to spend liesure time on politics. "Wayward" kids with inheiretances would occupy themselves with politics rather than picking up careers sometimes because they could do it on their own time and they got to travel a lot. There was a connection to Europe in early activism. The Republicans held onto their blue blood base that wasn't particularly attentive to politics when they courted the racists, as well as those who weren't particularly interested in having "those people" as a base.
Some women were no longer interested in women's issues, because once their own colleges were established they had leverage for intimidation. They were women who were interested in status in the form of a dpiploma and would simply demean some men with their language skills now and then to feel powerful. They could use connections to marry a man with plenty of money and spend time on "charity work" or something and felt like they had plenty of power. Many of the "blue blood" women of the 60s continued to limit their interest to connections and money as opposed to opportunity. They aren't interested in what is good for all women. Thus you have the Barbara Bushes and Ann Coulters of today.
Thus blue bloods stayed with the Republicans while the Rupulicans found that they could win by courting racists and chuavenists without losing the blue bloods by offering them money.
And, this is why our base is largely women, minorities, and the white men who have enough of a sense of fairness to sympathize with all of us.