Compared to Democrates that means he was a conservative.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
Go find another litmus test.
EITHER would say or do anything to get more POWER.
BOTH were nothing more or less than CHEAP, scheming politicians & shyster lawyers.
had it been "popular" to promote cannibalism during their administrations, EITHER/BOTH would have come out for "the well-known benefits of consuming human flesh".
imVho, NEITHER deserves ANY of the hero worship bestowed on them by the left & popular media.
free dixie,sw
I never said he was like Ike. He was moderate for the Republican Party of the 1860's, which included more than its share of extremists and outright nutcases like Ben Wade, Chuckie Sumner, and Thad Stevens. But that Republican party ceased to resemble the current Republican party after the electoral realignment of 1896.
Compared to Democrates that means he was a conservative.
Nope. Prior to the electoral realignment of 1896 the Democrats were traditionally the conservative party. Their constitutional philosophy more closely resembled strict constructionism, whereas Lincoln and the Republicans adhered to loose constructionism.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
That remains to be substantiated. As I have noted, Lincoln differed substantially from Reagan on his tax philosophy (Lincoln never supported any significant tax cut at any point in his career and ALWAYS supported the tax hikes whereas Reagan consciously worked to reduce taxes). I'll add to that list that he differed from Reagan on his constitutional philosophy (Reagan was a strict constructionist and Lincoln a loose constructionist).