Where the heck did you get that? If you're going to do polemic, fella, it helps if you make sure you're zipped up before you rush out of the men's room and into the forum.
Urban ethnics who wanted city services and federal assistance were the liberals of their day. What's hard about that? Nobody seems to have trouble with that correlation except you. Ever hear of the Progressive Movement?
Thus, the backers of high tariffs in the 19th century have to be for "vast, programmatic expansions of government and infrastructure," because it fits your projection of 20th century politics back on the 19th century.
I don't do that. I bring threads of identity and "commonality" forward. The Morrill Tariff was a fairly complex scheme that would have been reviled by the Jeffersonians of an earlier and was in fact reviled by the old Jacksonians of the Civil War era. And its parentage also brought forth the corporate-welfarist railroad legislation and the distributive Homestead Act.
What is your problem? You're just throwing the kitchen sink. Take a pill. Chill.
The details get lost in this imposition of the scheme on the realities of the time, and you don't see how the past may differ from the present.
Oh, please! You're just being silly now.
Your portrait of Lincoln as an abolitionist not very different from the more militant members of the movement is also worthy of comment. You don't want to be described as "pro-slavery," but you attack those in 19th century politics who weren't even modestly opposed to slavery or who weren't fully pro-slavery. The fellow who believes that eventually slavery should end some day and begins by restricting its territorial expansion is lumped in with those who favor direct action and immediate abolition.
Yeah, well, political parties tend to do that. The Republican Party did it on purpose -- it's called "base-broadening". Or will you deny that, too?
Perhaps having a conspiracy theory helps one to do that, but it looks like you deny anti-slavery Northerners any opportunity to stand their own ground,.....
No, I don't. Representative Clement Vallandigham didn't support slavery, but he tried to stand his own ground, and look where it got him.
.... and put any opposition to slavery or its expansion beyond the pale. If you actually were proslavery or "pro-slavery-as-it-existed-in-the-Southern-states-in-19th-century-America," how would your view be any different?
Another hyperventilating attempt to hang pro-slavery views on me? This is what, the fourth time we've been around on this? You trying to use Goebbels's technique of just repeating something over and over again?
Your question is keyed to a false premise. I don't support slavery, I've told you that, and you aren't tall enough or smart enough to put hateful words like that in my mouth. So flake off.
What I do put beyond the pale is instigating open war between sister American States and killing nearly a million citizens over a political difference. And I'll repeat that one as many times as you care to hear it.
Missouri had some pro-slaver, Lincoln supporters, too. But then that state was in a whirlwind for years before and after the War.
If you actually were protyranny or "pro-tyranny-as-it-existed-in-the Northern-states-in-19th-century-America" how would your view be any different?