Replies

Lincoln was not a particular standout when he was in Congress. However, he was a highly competent, sophisticated, experienced and successful lawyer. He was anything but the frontier rube that is often his popular image. He was one of the leaders in the formation of the Republican Party. He was also a highly skilled orator, a very important skill to have at that time. My point is that he had amply demonstrated skills, abilities and leadership that would be important in the selection of a President. He was hardly "just some Congressman."

Why do I always see this Lincoln worship on this site? Lincoln was the LIBERAL of his time, the Republicans were the LIBERAL party! He was the left wing candidate in both 1860 and 1864. Was slavery wrong, yes. But Lincoln only ended it to keep England from supporting the south. The Republican Party did not become the conservatives until T.Roosevelt pulled the liberal wing from the party and tried to create a third party with them. Lincoln was against states rights, he trampled the Constitution, he was the main reason for the power moving from the states to the federal government, he destroyed the south. I wouldn't have voted for Lincoln then, I wouldn't vote for him now.

Why do I always see this Lincoln worship on this site? Lincoln was the LIBERAL of his time, the Republicans were the LIBERAL party! He was the left wing candidate in both 1860 and 1864. Was slavery wrong, yes. But Lincoln only ended it to keep England from supporting the south. The Republican Party did not become the conservatives until T.Roosevelt pulled the liberal wing from the party and tried to create a third party with them.

Thomas Jefferson was a LIBERAL in his day. Worse, he and Washington were REVOLUTIONARIES. How about trying to think, rather than simply throw around labels and react to them? To be a liberal or a radical in 1770 or 1860 may have meant something different than it does today.

I'm not so sure Lincoln was a liberal or radical in his own era. He championed the continuation of the republic at a time some wanted to shatter it. And if you look at what he had to say about individual enterprise and personal responsibility, he doesn't sound very much like a 21th century liberal at all.

Lincoln was against states rights, he trampled the Constitution, he was the main reason for the power moving from the states to the federal government, he destroyed the south. I wouldn't have voted for Lincoln then, I wouldn't vote for him now.

Lincoln was faced with an unprecedented situation that required strong measures. He was not more restrictive of individual rights than Jefferson Davis. And whatever measures he took to restrict civil liberties didn't last beyond the end of the war and weren't intended to. The great growth of the federal government took place in the 20th century long after Lincoln left the scene.

If you don't like Lincoln, fine. But he did make a contribution to American liberty and to the survival of the country, and that's why many people here respect and admire him.

Calm down. OK, you wouldn't have voted for Lincoln, but lots of people did, and he is a significant part of our country's history whether you approve of him or not. He did save the union, but I probably don't want to hear how you stand on that aspect of our history.

The point of my original post was that the author of the comment that compared Congresswoman Bachman's achievement and leadership qualities with those of Lincoln didn't seem to know much about the real Lincoln. Quite apart from his Congressional experience, Lincoln was an accomplished lawyer at the very highest levels of law practice of the time. He was not some country bumpkin living in a log cabin. That's a matter of history, not a matter of politics or opinion.