Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AzaleaCity5691; fieldmarshaldj; Impy
Well sorry AzaleaCity, the facts show otherwise. If Lincoln was a "Radical Republican", why did the Radical Republicans in Congress constantly grumble and complain about his policies and try to have him removed from the ticket in 1864? Lincoln and the Radical Republicans got along as well as the Christian Coalition does with the Log Cabin Republicans. They're bitter rivals.

Read the facts for yourself. The Radical Republicans OPPOSED President Abraham Lincoln's terms for reuniting the United States during Reconstruction, which began in 1863, which they viewed as too lenient. They proposed an "ironclad oath" (which Lincoln blocked) and the Wade-Davis Bill (which Lincoln vetoed) in 1864. s. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, whom they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality. Angry with Lincoln, In 1864 some Radicals briefly formed a political party called the Radical Democracy Party with John C. Frémont as their candidate for president, until the party collapsed and Frémont withdrew.

>> And when during Reconstruction and for decades after it the Democratic Party appeared on the ballot in this state as the Conservative Democratic Party. <<

By that logic, the major right-wing party in Japan and Australia must really be left-wingers in disguise, since they appear on the ballot as the "Liberal Party". "Conservative" can mean a lot of things and it certainly didn't mean what we associate with "conservative" today when people called themselves "Conservative" 140 years ago.

>> A lot of people don’t like that the parties switched but the parties did switch. Thats why liberal formerly staunch Republican areas in the Northeast are now Democrat and its why the South is now Republican. The parties switched. That’s just the way it is. <<

Ah, the ol' mainstream media argument that all the Republicans who fought for equal rights in this country were "really" liberals and all the Democrats that bitter opposed it were "really" conservatives. Unfortunately it doesn't hold water. Robert Byrd, the Senate's foremost klegal, is still a proud liberal FDR Democrat. Indeed, the only "conservative Democrat" who opposed civil rights and then "switched sides" to the GOP was Strom Thurmond, and he left his racial policies behind when he joined our side, rather than become a mean nasty racist Republican as the media would have people believe.

There's a reason why the mainstream media wants the public to believe the racist southern Democrats of decades ago "would be conservative Republicans today". It's unfortunate you don't see why.

278 posted on 12/22/2009 8:06:27 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies ]


To: BillyBoy

Lincoln rejected that states had a right to secede and when the Confederate States of America asked him to remove his troops from Confederate territory he refused thereby starting his war of conquest over a sovereign nation

He was not as much of a flaming liberal as U.S. Grant or Thaddeus Stevens but he was a liberal. He believed that an overintrusive central government had the right to contravene the will of the individual states. He was the president who began the march towards the overbearing central government.

Lincoln was a liberal. That’s just the way it is. Lincoln is why we have such an overintrusive government today. His presidency started the rationale for it.


279 posted on 12/22/2009 8:17:00 PM PST by AzaleaCity5691
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson