No, once again, supposition is just that supposition
Historical context does matter. Evidently not to you. If you had your way we could just gloss over Lincoln's documented lifelong belief in tax hikes and pretend he wouldn't have kept that belief in his second term despite all evidence indicating that he would have.
No, a war was being fought which required high taxes.
The Confederates fight without high taxes.
Historical context-a war.
If Lincoln had lived out his second term we could have seen what his fiscal policies would have been like.
Moreover, not cutting taxes does not make one not a conservative.
The traditional view is that balance budgets are the issue and if the spending was necessary, so was taxes to raise revenue.
Lincoln was an ex-Whig. They were strong believers in a weak Presidency, letting the Congress do what it was suppose to do. And your example of this type of "weak" president is Abraham Lincoln? BWA-HAHAHAHAHA! Sure thing, ftD. And on that same note Hillary Clinton is a conservative! /sarcasm
And had there been no Civil War, Lincoln could have been one of the weakest Presidents in history, as had the ones that had preceded him and followed him for some time had been.
The war thrust him into a leadership role.
A Republican controlled Congress would have called the shots and Lincoln would have simply made sure that the bills were constitutional. Evidently not seeing as he signed many bills that were blatantly unconstitutional including the income tax.
Not during the emergency war they weren't.
The constitutionaly pure confederates did not have an income tax?
So your complaint about Lincoln as a high taxer and driving the tax issue goes against the very political philosopy he adhered to. Sorry to intrude upon your fantasy, but the reality of Abe Lincoln simply says otherwise. He was planning to push for a massive tariff hike whether there was a war or not and openly admitted that to his advisors and friends.
The Republicans favored high tariffs-so what!
The interstate trade between the States was one of the greatest free trade markets in existance.
There were sound arguments in the 19th century to keep cheap goods out of the nation, while the nation developed its own industry.
Doesn't Pat Buchanan advocate a return to protectism?
Would anyone consider him a 'raging liberal'?
He may have supported high tariff's but he would not have seen his role as interfering with the Congress in their role of making the tariff bill. His speech in Pittsburgh circa February 1861 where he pledges to push the tariff issue through congress says otherwise.
Well, according to you he did not have to push through anything, Congress was going to hand it to him.
It is not the Yankee's that we are discussing, it is the so-called conservative South And I cited some conservative southern movements against FDR that gave him more trouble than any yankee ever did.
What movements did you cite?
How did they cause him trouble?
The only reason the South is going GOP now is because so many Yankees have moved down here. Utter nonsense just like everything else you spew. The yankee transplants tend to vote democrat and are the primary reason why the otherwise conservative state of Florida is close in so many elections. Just look at that state's district level voting patterns to see the truth. Florida's most conservative section is its panhandle, which is almost entirely native born Floridians or transplants from neighboring Georgia and Alabama. The "chad corridor" of Fort Lauderdale through West Palm Beach, OTOH (aka the place that gave us Robert Wexler) is heavy on yankee transplants (the geezers from New York who move down there) and votes Democrat.
I was not talking about retiree's, but average working people.
Besides Florida went overwhelmingly Republican in the last two elections.
Still-Stephenson!? Still, Goldwater.
I will grant that five out of the 11 made a radical turn around.
That makes 6 that voted for LBJ, one of our most liberal Presidents.
And only five Southern 'conservative' states supported him out of the 11 Confederate ones. ...as opposed to ZERO states out of all of yankeeland, which LBJ carried unanimously and without effort. So? So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the south's record of voting Democrat prior to Goldwater is a basis for condemning them, yankeeland's unanimous support for the second biggest communist to ever run on a major ticket in 1964 is more than enough reason to condemn it. Furthermore, unlike Stephenson, LBJ actually got a chance to push his insidious programs through so the yankee states that elected him bear the blame for that as well.
What the ýellow dog'South did was give the control of Congress for 50 years to the Democrats and that is what allowed Johnson to get his polices through.
In a Democrat controlled state? Who said it was a Democrat state? Illinois had a sizable Whig party too from 1839 on and for many years in the late 1830's and early 1840's had no clear organized party system in its government.
No, the Democrats controlled the state in the 40's-50-s.
He must have a very powerful legislater. Evidently he was. In 1838 Lincoln even got the second highest number of votes for Speaker of the Illinois house and subsequently became one of the main Whig floor leaders.
That is because they recognzied his genius.
Ike gave us the interstate highway system, would you regard him as liberal? I already told you I regard Ike as a moderate. Robert Taft was the conservative at the time.
And both could be in the same Republican Party, as could have Lincoln and Reagan.
Which is what started this long drawn out series of posts.
It was needed to fight a very costly war The constitution is supreme, be it war or peace. Lincoln violated that constitution by imposing an income tax.
In war, extreme measures are necessary and one of them was the temporary tax.
Did the Confederacy ever violate its own constitution by taxation?
It was ended. It was later restored.
Not by Lincoln it wasn't.
Getting any tax is removed is tough. So is amending the Constitution, yet they did just that so they could restore Saint Abe's income tax.
No, it wasn't Lincoln's tax, it was a progressive income tax.
Lincoln's tax had been removed years earlier.
Just because something is like something else, doesn't mean it is the same.
It was hard to get rid of wage and price controls after WW2 also. That would've never been a problem had they not enacted them in the first place. Same goes for Abe's taxes.
Well, they were, but they to were temporary, as were the taxes.
Government does not like to give up its revenue. And neither did Abe.
Lincoln never had a chance to, he was killed before he could be a peace time President.
If you believe otherwise then by all means name one! Name a tax hike Lincoln opposed or a tax cut that Lincoln backed. There simply aren't any. There aren't any because Lincoln, unlike Reagan, was a lifelong adherant to the tax and spend philosophy.