Replies

DiogenesLamp: "Back in the 1970s, I read a book about Lincoln, and in it was mentioned some of his shenanigans in rigging his election to the Illinois legislature. (bribing voters, getting them drunk, re-directing his opponents bribed/drunken voters into voting for him instead.)"

And yet again, you are applying our standards to those times.
Would you equally despise George Washington, if you knew the truth about his first election?

In 1755 young George Washington was just 23 and ran for election to the Virginia House of Burgesses, from Frederick County, VA.
He lost that election because, it was said, he didn't provide enough booze for voters before they voted.
In those days, the custom was known as "swilling the planters with bumbo".

Washington learned his lesson and ran again in 1758.
This time, he wasn't physically even at his home in Mount Vernon but was a British army colonel in command of British forces of the French & Indian War in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
So, Washington's political campaign in Frederick County, VA, was managed by his friend and supporter, Col. James Wood.
Wood made certain that voters were provided with plenty of food and booze, and so Washington easily won that election, and never lost another election.

So, what do you think, does that make Washington just as "evil" as Lincoln?

Another example you often cite is the 1860 Republican convention at Chicago, in the Wig-Wam.
Do you realize that Lincoln was never in the Wig-Wam, was not even in Chicago for the convention?
Lincoln was at home in Springfield, 200 miles away.
Lincoln's instructions to his supporters were to not tie his hands with campaign promises.

In 1755 young George Washington was just 23 and ran for election to the Virginia House of Burgesses, from Frederick County, VA. He lost that election because, it was said, he didn't provide enough booze for voters before they voted. In those days, the custom was known as "swilling the planters with bumbo".

Doesn't bother me. If it was an accepted practice, then no one gains an unfair advantage if they simply do it better than the other guy.

But I think this view had changed by Lincoln's time, and bribing voters with drinking isn't the only thing Lincoln did to "win" his elections.

Do you realize that Lincoln was never in the Wig-Wam, was not even in Chicago for the convention?

Yes. Deliberately so. He relied on "bully boys" to do his dirty work in Chicago, brought in by the hundreds through his connections to the railroads. He shipped them in by rail car, and they bribed and intimidated the delegates and their supporters until they stole the nomination away from William Seward.

I sometimes wonder if Chicago corruption came first, or was the result of Lincoln's involvement in these sort of tactics.

In any case, Chicago has been the center of corruption in this nation (apart from Washington DC) for a long time.