Replies

If that's true, then Lincoln was a pretty crappy republican. He proved as such when he stated that he'd do whatever he had to to preserve the union. He said that if he could do that by freeing slaves, he would. If he could do it by not freeing slaves, he'd do that. And he said if he could do it by freeing some slaves and not freeing others, that he would also do that.

That's gradualism, taking care of the crisis of the moment and not getting distracted by the next step before you actually come to it. It's a valid response to a country falling into civil war.

The Republican Party wasn't founded to abolish slavery but to restrict its growth. Expansionist slave-owners were a real force in 19th century America. Those who opposed slavery had to concentrate on countering their power. Abolition was distant goal for some Republicans, and many were content to let the South maintain its own "institutions", but it should not be concluded that early Republicans were more pro-slavery than the actual slave-owners, as some jokers like to suggest.

While the first Republicans may not have come up to the moral standards 21st century Americans have come to have, they were fighting a good fight, and deserve some recognition for that.

Lincoln: the original RINO.

And a "real Republican" would have done what? Collapsed before the slave-owners? Let them have everything they demanded? The Republican Party isn't just Dixiecrats. It never was -- and a good thing that. It wasn't a radical abolition party either, and wouldn't have succeeded if it were.