The debate "Abraham Lincoln would be a Republican by present day platforms and standards" was started by
January 24, 2016, 7:30 pm.
By the way, ReadyToBegin is disagreeing with this statement.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, ReadyToBegin posted 3 arguments, PsychDave posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Firplius, sabrina, yashie, rob5998 and 6 visitors agree.
ReadyToBegin, PsychDave, sloanstar1000, blackqueeny, historybuff, AngryBlogger, omactivate and 14 visitors disagree.
At what point would people here say the parties have "changed"? As I see it, Lincoln would be an independent, because neither party seems to have a monopoly on the values given. In fact, there is a Moral foundations theory that compares the left and right on 6 values. There is also a Moral matrix, Dr John Haidt's work is good for seeing the divide on reasonable people, because of the values held. Both parties have some of the same values, with different approaches in either direction. While some values are different, they aren't completely discarded.
Lincoln was more for the people and equal rights of human beings. He would be Democrat.
That is true. Fun to ponder however.
I do think it is hard to tell what he would be today, as things have changed so much. If I had to pick I'd say he would be a democrat, but not a huge liberal. I don't think he would vote for abortion or gay marraige as those two things are morally wrong. we really don't know.
if you took Lincoln or another historical figure and put them in our society they would most likely be an independent. Now if someone like Lincoln grew up in our society we don't really know what he would be.
I agree. I feel that his love for the union and national power would align him with today's democrats. As well as his views on civil liberties.
most of his haters hated him because he opposed slavery. most of his supporters supported him because he was smart, wanted peace, and was going to do whatever it took to uphold the union.
after studying Lincoln I say he actually did quite the opposite of what your saying.
He did oppose slavery. He believed all men should be free, including blacks. He did not make slavery illegal because he knew it would cause war, and rebellion in the south. He also didn't like the idea of former slaves with no education or job wandering around the street. Lincoln made slavery legal once he realized that 1. war was already full scale, and outlawing slavery would not do too much to the war itself. 2. he morally knew slavery was wrong, so he banned it himself.
Lincoln was not perfect, he did not think a world where blacks and whites living together would ever happen. But he did oppose slavery, and only held of banning it because he did not want war.
To be fair, he wasn't actually opposed to slavery, he just made a political decision. If he could have won by defending slavery, he would have. Since getting rid of slavery got him more support, that is what he did.
I suspect if the situation came up today it would play out very similarly to the gun control debate. Some American's being opposed to slavery as they are now opposed to gun ownership, some defending their rights to own slaves as they now defend their right to guns, and the majority of the population falling somewhere in between the extremes. From that perspective, he would be looked at as being very liberal no matter what party he belonged to.
I remember my history teachers always saying he would be, but he wouldn't. I was just seeing if anyone was seeing what they were, because I am not.
of course not, slavery is a tradition defended with the bible as it was. we know who the religious nuts are politically.