And what did GOP run on in the electorial realignment of 1894 (not 1896)
The outcome of 1894 had even larger significnce for Republicans. It represented what political scientists call a 'realigning'election, in which the electoral landscape of the nation was transformed....This congressional election was one of the most important in the nation's history because it laid the basis for a long period of Republican leglislative dominance (Grand Old Party, Gould, p.119)
The election of 1896 solidified the result in 1894 and meant the Republicans were now the majority party of the nation everywhere but in the Solid South(ibid,p.127)
What was happening in the Democratic South?
The late 1890's saw an upsurge of racial violence as Southerners imposed segregation firmly on the African-American population there.(Ibid,p.131)
So, in 1894-1896 what was the Republican Party running on?
It was running on a gold standard and high tariffs
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.
It did?
Who was favoring the Dred Scott decision, Republicans or Democrats?
Who was supporting the expansion of slavery, Democrats or Republicans?
On some things, like economics, the Democrats can be seen as being more conservative, but in terms of individual liberty, the Republicans were (and that is what Conservatism is suppose to advocate, individual liberty)
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).
Still do not know where you get the idea that Lincoln was a loose constructionist.
As for Reagan, how did his Supreme Court appointments turn out-strict or loose?
Jefferson was a ''strict constructionist'until the Louisiana purchase came up and necessity led him to act úunconstitutionally'.
1894 was a congressional election year, ftD. 1896 was the McKinley/Bryan realignment.
The outcome of 1894 had even larger significnce for Republicans. It represented what political scientists call a 'realigning'election, in which the electoral landscape of the nation was transformed....This congressional election was one of the most important in the nation's history because it laid the basis for a long period of Republican leglislative dominance (Grand Old Party, Gould, p.119)
Gould's got his dates wrong just like you do. The McKinley-Bryan electoral realignment of 1896 is universally seen by political scientists as the first watershed in the emergence of the two modern political parties.
So, in 1894-1896 what was the Republican Party running on? It was running on a gold standard and high tariffs
No. It was running on RETAINING high tariffs that had more or less been in place since Lincoln save a few slight interuptions. The Gold Standard it ran on was anti-Lincolnian to the core as Lincoln favored centralized bankings and greenbacks.
It did?
Yes ftD. It did. Or have you forgotten Lincoln's arguments used for habeas corpus and the income tax during the war? They were all loose constructionists.
Who was favoring the Dred Scott decision, Republicans or Democrats?
Dred Scott does not fit neatly into either the loose constructionist or strict constructionist category. That is one of the major critiques made by Robert Bork against Harry Jaffa - Jaffa's constitutional philosophy is single-mindedly obsessive around the Dred Scott case to the detriment of all else and naturally lost in the process is the strict/loose construction dispute that has dominated the court since day one.
Who was supporting the expansion of slavery, Democrats or Republicans?
That's a political question, ftD, not a matter of strict versus loose construction.
On some things, like economics, the Democrats can be seen as being more conservative, but in terms of individual liberty, the Republicans were (and that is what Conservatism is suppose to advocate, individual liberty)
Economics is essentially half of what the government does. There cannot be any true liberty if there is not economic liberty, which is what economic conservatism espouses. Whereas Lincoln did advocate some degree of political liberty for some former slaves (albeit often for less than moral purposes) he was also openly hostile to economic liberty and thus has no claim to a monopoly on liberty in even the simplest sense.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
Nah. Lincoln would've seen Reagan's tax cuts and bolted. He would've bolted because tax cuts were intolerable to him. He never saw a tax hike he didn't like.
Still do not know where you get the idea that Lincoln was a loose constructionist.
It's called habeas corpus for starters. Whether you adhere to it as valid or dismiss it as junk, it cannot be denied that Lincoln's habeas corpus argument was a loose constructionist view. Same goes for his other stretches of the wartime powers.
As for Reagan, how did his Supreme Court appointments turn out-strict or loose?
One turned out strict (Scalia). A second leans toward strict most of the time (Kennedy, who it should be noted was his third choice after trying to name two bona fide strict constructionists that the Dems would not approve). The third swings between strict and loose (O'Conner). As for Reagan, his own espoused constitutional views were always closer to Scalia.
In that one case Jefferson believed the gain from the Louisiana purchase substantially outweighed any constitutional harm it did, and once complete he did everything in his power to justify the action to Congress and bring about constitutional compliance. Not so for the loose construction of Abe Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus on his own brazen act and essentially told the courts and congress where to go if they didn't like it.