I don’t know.
It just seems a bit like a smear.
Maybe I’m wrong. He was a Republican, and held America together through a terrible war.
I would give me a bit of slack. That is just me however.
Your opinion may differ.
>> He was a Republican, and held America together through a terrible war.
Yes, I would agree with that. (I realize you mean “Republican” in the sense of “defender of the concept of the Republic” rather than “zealot of the party”.)
I would add, the future BENEFIT of his holding together the *United* States as a nation-entity outweighs the DAMAGE to that same nation-entity he may have caused by his methods. That’s in my opinion, but it seems obvious.
Still, I’d encourage you to weigh precisely which of the facts mentioned you don’t agree with. As an exercise, even if you don’t post the result of your analysis here.
FRegards
A person’s political party is irrelevant when they set aside the Constitution. The word “traitor” gets defined by the winner of every civil war ever fought, including the American Revolution.