Some Democrats think Bill Clinton was the greatest of their ranks who ever lived as well, but that does not mean either is any less disconnected with reality.
Stevens was, at best, a glorified noisemaker and, at worst, a self serving demagogue who bordered on mental instability.
Not much better may be said of his Senate counterpart Charles Sumner, who was an all around repulsive individual. He was obnoxious, dishonest, crude, vitriolic, and downright unpleasant to be around. Except for his following of fellow radicals (I guess one could call them the Wlat Brigade of the day), Sumner was disliked by even his own party members. One need only look at some of the private letters of Charles Francis Adams and William Seward to see exactly what they thought of him.
Unfortunately, Partisan, the leading ranks of the Republican Party in its early days are NOT something that any member of this party today should revere today. They generally included all sorts of unsavory characters - radicals, crooks, atheists, robber barons, welfare whores, liars, and other virtual Bill Clintons of their day (Do not get me wrong - there were a few respectable and level headed individuals, but the Sumner crowd was by far the most outspoken). In fact, some of the more moral-minded abolitionists, such as Lysander Spooner, refused to have anything to do with the GOP at the time not for the slavery issue but rather because they included so many immoral frauds within their ranks.
You have previously quoted many of these individuals, Partisan, not the least among them being the vile Robert Ingersoll - the hero of Madeline Murray O'Hare and a virtual Ted Kennedy of the 19th century. Even Ulysses Grant's image recoils when the light of honest historical scrutiny shines upon him. Prior to Clinton, his was one of the most corrupt administrations in american history. Grant surrounded himself with so many unsavory characters that after his term he himself was scammed into near bankruptcy by one of them. The list of scandals from Grant's administration all the way through Arthur - a string of 4 consecutive mid-19th century Republican presidents - is almost continuous. You know the names - Credit Mobilier, the Whiskey Ring, the 1877 robbery, the Mulligan Letters, the Star Route Affair. You also know the people as well: Grant, Ingersoll, Garfield, Schuyler Colfax, James G. Blaine and their wretched ilk. Did I mention that practically every single one of 'em also championed raising taxes?
If you want to advertise the Republican Party (not something I would disagree with in this day), don't do it by glorifying our pigs, weasils, and bottom feeders. Pick somebody that is deserving of the honors you give them. Pick a Calvin Coolidge or a Thomas Reed. Pick an Everett Dirksen. Pick a Teddy Roosevelt. None of these are by any means perfect, but each is at least a reputable individual - more so than any of the people you regularly praise around here.
In case you are still lost, answer me this - are you offended when the Dems parade the disreputable likes of Bill Clinton around as if he were a hero or saint? Do you not feel an urge to vomit when they call him a "statesman," sing praises of his "legacy" or, worst of all, turn the microphone over to him to do both for himself? If so, then you know the feeling that many historically aware southerners - nay - many historically aware Americans who posess a sense of decency get when the vile likes of Sumner and Ingersoll are paraded around as heroes; when demagogues like Stevens are upheld as roll models; when drunkards and theives like Grant, Blaine, and Colfax, are presented as "statesmen." They are neither in possession of nor deserving of the honors you give them.