[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Here you are making my case for evaluating behavior not by our standards, but by standards & values of the time.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?