The Party of Lincoln?

[Stark of Winterfell]

I often have seen Republicans deflect any criticisms of racism directed towards their party with "But the Republicans are the party of Lincoln". Now I know that technically they are since they are Republicans and so is Lincoln, but it got me thinking: due to the fact that the parties have changed so much since then, how disingenuous is it to claim that modern Republicans are the successors to Lincoln?

The Democrats in 1860 were a party far more friendly to slavery than the Republicans, especially in the South. After the Civil War, African Americans voted almost strictly for the Republicans, who had ended slavery. The Southern Democrats succeeded in disenfranchising most African Americans in the South by the late 1890s, thus cementing the South as a Democratic stronghold. This would remain the case until the 1930s. Franklin Roosevelt was initially unwilling to involve himself in civil rights matters. However, his wife Eleanor made several close friends among African American leaders and became aware of their plight. At her urging, FDR took steps towards supporting a civil rights agenda (for example, equalizing pay for whites and blacks working for New Deal programs). This, and other small steps like it began to worry Southern Democrats, who defected from FDR's coalition at the end of the 1930s (though not from the Democratic Party). Meanwhile, the FDR Coalition--consisting of progressives, blacks, and women--had been formed. This would dominate the Democratic Party for the next half century. Two decades later, President Lyndon Johnson's support for the 1964 Civil Rights act became the final nail in the coffin, and the Southern Democrats (the main opponents of the Civil Rights Act) soon fled the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. And that's where things more or less stand today. Lincoln's opponents--the conservative Southerners--were driven out of the Democratic Party by its drifting towards civil rights, and now they reside in the Republican Party. The Democratic Party of today might not be the "Party of Lincoln", but neither is the Republican Party.

[Col. Tartleton]

Which is why I believe in the "Grand Old Party." The Republican party stood for the Republic. Now they stand for all things conservatism (which is hypocritical as hell). Now they come across as being backwards when they were originally the radicals. I stand for that party of Lincoln so I consider myself a Republican. But I don't stand for the guys in there now. I'm a bit of a Mugwump...

[Angrychris]

politics change just as there priorities

[manofarms89]

I often have seen Republicans deflect any criticisms of racism directed towards their party with "But the Republicans are the party of Lincoln". Now I know that technically they are since they are Republicans and so is Lincoln, but it got me thinking: due to the fact that the parties have changed so much since then, how disingenuous is it to claim that modern Republicans are the successors to Lincoln?

The Democrats in 1860 were a party far more friendly to slavery than the Republicans, especially in the South. After the Civil War, African Americans voted almost strictly for the Republicans, who had ended slavery. The Southern Democrats succeeded in disenfranchising most African Americans in the South by the late 1890s, thus cementing the South as a Democratic stronghold. This would remain the case until the 1930s. Franklin Roosevelt was initially unwilling to involve himself in civil rights matters. However, his wife Eleanor made several close friends among African American leaders and became aware of their plight. At her urging, FDR took steps towards supporting a civil rights agenda (for example, equalizing pay for whites and blacks working for New Deal programs). This, and other small steps like it began to worry Southern Democrats, who defected from FDR's coalition at the end of the 1930s (though not from the Democratic Party). Meanwhile, the FDR Coalition--consisting of progressives, blacks, and women--had been formed. This would dominate the Democratic Party for the next half century. Two decades later, President Lyndon Johnson's support for the 1964 Civil Rights act became the final nail in the coffin, and the Southern Democrats (the main opponents of the Civil Rights Act) soon fled the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. And that's where things more or less stand today. Lincoln's opponents--the conservative Southerners--were driven out of the Democratic Party by its drifting towards civil rights, and now they reside in the Republican Party. The Democratic Party of today might not be the "Party of Lincoln", but neither is the Republican Party.

Another thing to note was that Lincoln was just as racist as anyone else, his platform, as well as the platform of the Republican Party was not the abolition of slavery, but stopping the slave trade from spreading. He did not begin to change his mind until after the war, when he said that some African Americans may have the vote.

[hellheaven1987]

?? Lincoln was planning segregation of African Americans and White American after war by sending African Americans to West and set up an "African American only state". That policy was exactly like how Andrew Jackson treated Native Americans, believed colored people could not live together with White and still survived.

[Del Valle]

?? Lincoln was planning segregation of African Americans and White American after war by sending African Americans to West and set up an "African American only state". That policy was exactly like how Andrew Jackson treated Native Americans, believed colored people could not live together with White and still survived.

Never heard of this before. Source?

[Stark of Winterfell]

It was probably just an idle musing somewhere, Lincoln was far too concerned with winning the war to think about implementing something like that until victory.
@manofarms
I'm not sure if Lincoln was a racist, but its true that he definitely didn't care about ending slavery, thought he didn't have the legal power to end it, and mainly wanted to preserve the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was enacted to win the war, not free the slaves.

[Col. Tartleton]

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.
Abraham Lincoln

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Abraham Lincoln

My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth.
Abraham Lincoln

The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use.
Abraham Lincoln

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln

I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly, those who desire it for others. When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
Abraham Lincoln

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - 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.
Abraham Lincoln

I want every man to have the chance - and I believe a black man is entitled to it - in which he can better his condition, when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him. That is the true system.
Abraham Lincoln

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Abraham Lincoln

Yup definitely supported slavery... you might get away with "he tolerated it for the moment."

[Gromovnik]

He did not begin to change his mind until after the war, when he said that some African Americans may have the vote.

How did he manage to do that?

[Col. Tartleton]

Yeah... he was dead before the war ended. Lee had just surrendered days before IIRC but the confederacy hadn't.

Lincoln may have been openly racist but his heart was in the right place. When he says "I am not, nor ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races- that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." he might be idk predicting how things worked out...

There is a physical difference (skin color) between blacks and whites which has prevented them from becoming equal socially and politically. Thats how it worked out. He wasn't sure what to do with them. He thought slavery was immoral so he wanted to free them. He recognized however that the constitution protected it and he didn't think screwing with the constitution was a good idea. Lincoln was a lawyer. Follow the letter of the law if not the spirit. He could free the slaves in the south because it was seizing and destroying the property of rebels. He couldn't free all slaves. That was up to congress. He could free a lot and maintain the union. Pragmatism before idealism.

[Viking Prince]

The civil rights movement is pretty much accepted by all Americans of most political stripes. Johnson's policies were also supported by Nixon. The biggest difference in broad terms between the Democrats and the Republicans regarding race has to do with the group versus the individual as a focus. Both are right some of the time and very wrong some of the time.

[Enemy of the State]

Why would anyone want to be the party of Lincoln anyway? Horrible president, horrible person.

[Stark of Winterfell]

Any president that destroyed much of the slave-holding South gets props from me, regardless of his other flaws. Despite the fact that it was not his original intention of the war, he did set the path for the abolishing of slavery. Also, he kept the Union together, allowing the US to become the superpower that would help end the reigns of terror of two horrible regimes almost a century later. Lincoln wasn't perfect, but I'm glad he was president at the time.

[CiviC]

The party of Lincoln is no more. Today the electorate of of Lincoln vote with Democrates and vice versa. One hundread years ago and more, Democrats were the conservatives and Republicans were the Liberals, Democrats were based in the South (the Solid South) and Republicans in the North, a reversal produced first with Roosevelt who conquered the nation for Democrats leaving the Southern fief, with his New Deal. Then Democrats promoted civil rights and they lost the South gained by Nixon with his Southern Strategy. Then Reagan with his conservatism appealed definitevly to Southerners (and Midwest), while Democrats with their liberalism to Northerners (and West). So in the last half century Republicans and Democrats effectively switched places both geographically and on political stage.

[Sphere]

What makes Lincoln interesting though is that his own personal evolution on the issue of slavery and racial equality, and how it really did cause a turning point in US history where after the US did set out to fullfill the unkept promises of its foundation.

This short letter is a good summerization of Lincoln's pre-war and early-war views, which reflected the popular view of the North that perserving the Union was paramount, and was more important than the issue of slavery however unsavory it might be on a personal level.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.

I won't post the Gettysburg address here as I think most everyone knows it, and the idea of re-directing the war towards a "new birth of freedom" i.e. that the war was about ending the institution of slavery and not just keeping the Union whole. But I will post this segment of Lincoln's last speech before his death (the one that Booth personally heard, and seems to have sparked the assassination plan), as it clearly shows that Lincoln is behind full citizenship for blacks

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. Their Legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the Union, and to perpetual freedom in the state--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things the nation wants--and they ask the nations recognition and it's assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject, and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We in effect say to the white men "You are worthless, or worse--we will neither help you, nor be helped by you." To the blacks we say "This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how." If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have, so far, been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize, and sustain the new government of Louisiana the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts, and nerve the arms of the twelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it? Again, if we reject Louisiana, we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national Constitution. To meet this proposition, it has been argued that no more than three fourths of those States which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this, further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned; while a ratification by three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable.

This is really the best way to look at Lincoln and his approach to slavery & black citizenship. His internal evolution directed the national evolution, that part of creating "a more perfect Union" was about extending personal freedoms, and breaking down old costums. Idea's that were almost non-existent in the post Constitution to pre-Civil war era.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

It's the problem you have when you pretend your current political party is the same as it was centuries ago, and you can pick and choose stances accordingly. I understand the truth in that yes, the Republicans are the party of Lincoln because he was a Republican. But the ideological break is so great that saying modern Republicans are clear of any racial issues because of that is indeed disingenuous.

But I don't think anyone seriously argues this stance; it's just a easy way out if someone's under attack.