Even though Lincoln was a "republican"......?
598558
let's look at the facts...\n\nA. Lincoln freed the slaves... his opponents did not want this to happen in the south... he was a Republican...\n\nB. in the 1960's Republicans were fought with everything they could to stop the civil rights movement... prominent republican figures like strom thurmond and jessie helms are clearly not in the line of Lincoln... \n\nhow do you explain this difference?
1019736
Washington was more photogenic than Lincoln (who I'd say was definitely more distinct, though).\n\nLincoln would not have played well on camera. People wanted to kick him out of office in his first few years, and for awhile it wasn't sure if he'd even be reelected. It took some years before his greatness was truly recognized, because while he was kind and likeable, he did not cater to people and demographics.\n\nIn many ways (well, all, maybe), he was the opposite of our current president. Lincoln surrounded himself with his political enemies so that he could hear alternate points of view; he wanted to be involved in what was going on in the field; he was extremely strategic in his thinking and planned far in advance; he was often torn over how to proceed and would have liked to avoid war if at all possible (and it took awhile for him to take a strong stance on slavery); he was an actual uniter, rather than divider; he was interested in issues; he was extremely honest; he was quite intelligent; he was a superb orator and debater and writer.\n\nIf George W. Bush is truly reflective of the will of today's US people, then Lincoln should surely fare poorly in an election if one were held today. If Lincoln were actually president, hmmm... it could go either way. He most certainly would have planned better as well as respected and cared more about other people and countries. \n\nI'm quite sure he'd get a kick out of the Internet and would be very tech-savvy. He'd probably be one of our more technological/geek presidents. He'd appeal more to the Gen X and younger.\n\nWashington would do a little better -- he's Al Gore, but with charisma and less hubris. He was considered noble and honorable, he was tall for his time, he was considerate, he was good at logistics, he was brave and knew he had to be in front of his people during the war, he understood how to be a symbol of the people, someone they could look up to as a leader. (i.e., he had to convey leadership, even if he was not great at some things). \n\nAgain, I'd point towards a more personable version of Al Gore of George Bush, Sr. -- he'd definitely garner more respect, but they're similar temperaments. People would probably nod and accept his tenure.
1129890
It is true... While the names have differed slightly, the people who are republicans now have always sided with the easiest way out... Meaning keeping things the way the are/were rather than trying to fix the problem... Like declaring independence from England or changing the issue of slavery.
763742
You had Stephen Douglas who was an old school Democrat but believed in keeping things the way they were. The Southern Democrats were not pleased and demanded a Constitutional Ammendment or a law that would protect slavery. The argument was so heated the Souther Democrats put up thier own choice; James Breckenridge who promised such. The other two parties were the Constitution Party, equivilent to today's Green Party in the sense that who cares about them? Bah. Then the Republicans. You see; back in the day you had the Whigs and the Democrats. The Democrats were the champions of the everyday man being in charge. The Whigs believed strongly in the smartest of the elite being in charge. Then the Whig Party suddenly went free soil and crazily liberal. The classic conservatives of the day all switched over to the Democratic Party. That left the shattered remnents of the Whig Party which soon collapsed under it's own weight. Then came the Republicans who failed to garner success in their first White House bid with John C. Fre'mont and God be praised for it; he was a loon. Thier next try they got in with Lincoln and then the rest is Civil War history.
716972
Republicans. He didn't take a party label, but his principles were clearly Federalist. He certainly believed in a strong defense. I don't think any of our founding fathers would support most of the Dem social positions such as gay marriage & abortion.
347761
Don't listen to these people...Lincoln was flaming.  We're talking Brokeback gay here.  It's rumored he wrote showtunes while on the toilet and had a beauty salon installed off of the Oval Office.
473355
Lincoln was just a heterosexual. He did share a private room with another man for several years, circumstances which would be considered decidedly odd in our current society, but it was normal practice for two bachelors to share a room and even a bed in those days.
191418
I agree with your general statement. I am a self-proclaimed democrat. However, I find that I agree with many republican political views. I wish that things weren't so black and white and people were more receptive to others views. I really feel badly when republicans say how they hate "liberal whiners" because even though I consider myself liberal, I'm not so liberal and open minded that my brains have fallen out. I can see when the democrat reps are in the wrong. I can admit when republicans may have a better idea. We all need to reach our hand out to each other and embrace our differences and also our similarities.
897512
He didn't. There weren't organized parties as we know them then and he was against their formation. He is commonly referred to as a Federalist however.
880417
I'm not a republican.  Every day I consider myself more of an independent.  Republicans do not have the corner on blindness.  Labelling is not helping anyone.  My guess is that many republicans truly wanted to improve the lot in life for many in the middle east and elsewhere.  They were frustrated and wanted to confront murderous fanaticism.  They, like many of the majority, were misguided and not well enough versed in history to understand what we were getting into.  The real question is how do we make something decent come out of this horrible situation?  Education,  focus, open discussion, sheer will and avoiding cynicism (like we're doing now).  Merry Christmas!
900877
To me, it goes back to the Civil War, when the Confederacy was red and the Union was blue. In other words, Republicans(today, even though roles were reversed back then) are in many ways still like the Confederacy, pretty much all the states that were in the Confederacy are still Republican.
868217
DuBois saw Lincoln as a whole being. He appreciated what he did  with the E.P. of 1863, and I think that he hopes that Lincoln believed what he did was right. He also saw ,what to some of the more refined, aristocratic politicians were Lincoln's less appealing qualities.  Perhaps DuBois found this to be  the basis of Lincoln's understanding for the situation of the slave and the need to rectify the situation .Lincoln also realized that if the country was allowed to be driven apart that the truth in United we stand, divided we fall would become only too real. Washington started it, Lincoln held it together and Churchill saved it. Our country and freedom. And yes I am, as my name would suggest from the South.
156048
The Civil War years were worse.  Lincoln was absolutely hated because of the draft, the fact that the war wasn't going well.  There were quite a few courtmartials because of what Union troops said after he was killed
985827
No, Republicans are not racist, and no, they aren't always from the South.\nBoth want what's best for America, but both have different visions of how to bring this about.\nThe Republicans and Democrats became separate parties prior to the Civil War.\nIt was a Republican that illegalized slavery.
481179
Actually, Lincoln said while he felt whites were superior to blacks (this sounds awful now, but remember that even as late as Harry Truman this was considered a legitimate statement), this did not give any justification for blacks to be slaves to whites. He said there was no justification to keep a black man from enjoying the fruits of his own labor. Further, he felt that black slavery was a burden that stifled free labor, which led into one of his more famous sayings was that "A house divided cannot long stand," meaning that the two separate systems could not be at peace because slave labor was a constant threat to free labor, just as we are seeing today when jobs that used to be done by Americans are now being done by Chinese political prisoners, or how employers here are luring illegal workers because they will then be at the mercy of whatever the employer wants to pay.\n\nAt his inauguration, Lincoln had said that he wanted the end of slavery, but that he wanted to preserve the Union even more. "If I could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves, I would. If I could save the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that."\n\nThe Emancipation was certainly a generous act, and took a great deal of courage, but it was also politically calculated. He had intended to issue it for a while, but waited for a fairly successful battle (Antietam) to announce it. Because of the growing intolerance of slavery in Europe, emancipation combined with a federal victory would make it impractical for England or France to lend material assistance to the Confederate cause.
964664
He did not so much abuse presidential power as he expanded it. \n\nHe convinced Congress to suspend Habeus Corpus. \n\nNothing in the Constitution prior to the Civil War suggested that states could not secede, but Mr. Lincoln forged an amendment in blood over the issue.
984946
Just exactly who is Aberham lincoln?\nI know Abraham did not start the tradition.