4 Huge Differences Between Abraham Lincoln And Modern Liberals

thefederalist.com ^ | May 1, 2015 | Carson Holloway

[PROCON]

As America observes the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, we find that this great American’s legacy is as much a source of division as of unity. Lincoln is the first and greatest of America’s Republican presidents. Nevertheless, some voices on the contemporary Left claim that the Republican Party no longer deserves to call itself the party of Lincoln.

Lincoln, after all, believed in an expansive exercise of the national power (at least by the standards of his day), while the modern Republican Party says it is more concerned with limiting the reach of the federal government. On this view, Lincoln was more of a progressive than a conservative.

The contemporary Left also seeks—at least implicitly—to enlist Lincoln in its effort to transform American society. There are some comparisons for them to exploit. Lincoln headed a great transformation of American society in his own day: the abolition of slavery. The contemporary Left is now pressing hard for a great transformation of American society in our own day: the redefinition of marriage.

[PROCON]

1. Abraham Lincoln Was Charitable to People Who Disagreed with Him

Snip

2. Abraham Lincoln Upheld Natural Rights; Liberals Reject Them

Snip

3. Abraham Lincoln Fought to Restore America’s Founding Ideals

Snip

4. Abraham Lincoln Didn’t Write Things Into the Constitution

Well thought out and accurate essay.

Will it convince a liberal?

[rockrr]

In before the lost causers...LOL

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Lincoln had a real hole in his head.

[PROCON]

In before the lost causers...LOL

Isn't that the truth; there seem to be a whole lot more pessimists than optimists here on FR.

[golux]

Abraham Lincoln himself would admit he was a clever man and consummate liar who lived a generally unprincipled life, but who by borrowed fate and stolen blood - none his own - is now in the pantheon of greats. .

[rockrr]

Why would he “admit” a lie?

[jjotto]

Abraham Lincoln believed Negroes should be repatriated to Africa.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

It is worth reviewing the difference because Lincoln’s principles are essential to maintaining our civilization, and the Left’s rejection of them is a threat to our civilization . . . The contemporary Left is seeking to achieve its goals in ways that undermine all of [our] essential principles.

.. and the fault is ours. Abe will explain from "the other side."

You initiated a policy to tolerate the Marxist-Alinsky radicals and let them rant; not only has it not ceased but was constantly augmented by decades of infiltration and indoctrination. You now have two Americas. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half statist and half free; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

[rockrr]

Lincoln explored the idea of voluntary emigration - an idea he got from Thomas Jefferson. In hindsight perhaps we should have given it more thought, eh?

[sparklite2]

In hindsight, we should have
picked our own damned cotton.

[Regal]

“Abraham Lincoln believed Negroes should be repatriated to Africa.”
_________-

Ooohhh. You must have read that somewhere on the internet. Best thing about the internet, is that you can find just about anything to support whatever bs theory that you already want to believe.

[Politicalkiddo]

Yeah, but Democrats and their predecessors have been screwing us all over since our nation was in its cradle. They have dictated policies which have slowly zapped our freedoms and then used their own failed policies to aid them in their crusade to steal said freedoms. Clever devils that they are. Then the stupid party has been defeatist since its inception. It’s all very pathetic. I see why some of the Founders were strongly against two-party systems.

[jjotto]

Actually, Lincoln dropped the idea (at least publicly) during the war after delegations of former slaves told him they felt like Americans, not Africans. Unlike Central and South America, the importation of slaves was very limited in the US. Most US slaves were from families that had been here for several generations.

[Yardstick]

*bump*

[jjotto]

Yes, many of Lincoln’s speeches and writings can be found on the internets.

[Regal]

And his e-mails. Both personal, and related to his time in office.

[jjotto]

But not his server...

[mjp]

Lincoln, after all, believed in an expansive exercise of the national power (at least by the standards of his day)

Lincoln championed the leaders to the European socialist revolutions of 1848.There were American advocates of marxism and socialism, such as Charles Dana and Horace Greely, who were influential in the nomination and election of Lincoln and were influential in the Union army. There were thirteen or more radical European socialists commonly known as "Forty Eighters", such as General Weydemeyer, Franz Sigel, and Carl Schurz who were Republican and officers in the Union army.These men were socialist, Marxist, or outright communists.

[rockrr]

Lincoln championed the leaders to the European socialist revolutions of 1848.

Interesting. You have a link to a quote by Lincoln to that effect?

[gusty]

The revolutions of 1848 were Liberal, in the classical sense, revolutions, not Socialist. Just about the entire population of the USA supported the 1848 Revolutions in that they reflected their own ideals. The only people who would have been opposed to the 1848 Revolutions were extreme Roman Catholics who championed absolutism. Lajos Kossuth of Hungary was only the second foreigner beside the Marquis de Lafayette to ever speak to a joint session of Congress.