Lincoln Lincoln. A Republican?

[alexjack]

When I first got interested in the Civil War it kind of surprised me that Lincoln with his early life of relative poverty was a Republican politician, a party I associate with privilege and the rich. Or was it different in his time?

 

[JAGwinn]

Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican. Not today's Republican, but a pro-Unionist organisation.

"Lincoln's early Whiggery was bound up with his admiration for the Kentuckian Clay, "my beau ideal of a statesman," as Lincoln called him. Clay's integrated economic program, termed "the American System," won Lincoln's endorsement. Clay was a role model as well as a political leader for Lincoln; he, too, was a self-educated, self-made man. "During my whole political life, I have loved and revered [Clay] as a teacher and leader," Lincoln acknowledged after his election as president. [20] Clay was a well-known figure among Springfield Whigs, many of whom, like Lincoln himself, came originally from Kentucky.[21] Perhaps Lincoln found in Clay a father figure more satisfactory than his real father. In 1842 Lincoln married into the Kentucky patriciate, just as Clay had done earlier. His marriage to Mary Todd strengthened Lincoln's ties to the Clay wing of the Whig party, for his wife's family were on good personal terms with their senator."

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...ham-lincoln-was-a-whig?rgn=main;view=fulltext

 

[E_just_E]

When I first got interested in the Civil War it kind of surprised me that Lincoln with his early life of relative poverty was a Republican politician, a party I associate with privilege and the rich. Or was it different in his time?

It was somewhat different in his time, of course. The considerations of the 1860s were different than modern considerations. FDR after the depression was the first Democrat who ran with social issues (the New Deal) in his agenda.

 

[WilliamH]

When you hear Democrat or Republican applied to 1850-60s don't assume it has anything to do with those same modern political parties today. The issues of that day were very different then the issues we have today. The main issue of that day was the expansion of slavery into new territories and that is what lead to the forming of the Republican party.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The two parties basically changed position since then...

 

[Jimklag]

When I first got interested in the Civil War it kind of surprised me that Lincoln with his early life of relative poverty was a Republican politician, a party I associate with privilege and the rich. Or was it different in his time?

Parties were reversed in those days. The Republicans were the liberal, anti-slavery, big government party. Democrats were the establishment, conservative, small government party.

 

[AndyHall]

Recall that decades later it was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who went hammer-and-tongs against the big trusts and industrial magnates. His principle of the "square deal" for working people helped define national progressivism a hundred-odd years ago. The founder of modern progressivism, Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, was Republican.

 

[WilliamH]

The two parties basically changed position since then...

I hear this a lot and disagree with it. It's not as if the Republicans are now pro expanding slavery into new US territories or pro secession. The important issues of 1860 do not even exist today thus neither party has a position on them. I don't believe being a Republican or Democrat today would have any bearing on what political party you would be in 1860 or vice versa.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I can't say what I think without immediately stepping in modern politics.

But in terms of history, I think the elections of 1908, 1912, and 1916 signaled the shifts in the parties, though not all of that shifting was really done till half a century later.

 

[WilliamH]

Parties were reversed in those days. The Republicans were the liberal, anti-slavery, big government party. Democrats were the establishment, conservative, small government party.

Republicans weren't "big government" when it came to enforcing the fugitive slave act, and Democrats were for the big government spending of a transcontinental railroad as long as it went South.

As I stated above I don't think the parties switched on issues but I think issues have changed since 1860.

 

[Jimklag]

Republicans weren't "big government" when it came to enforcing the fugitive slave act, and Democrats were are for the big government spending of a transcontinental railroad as long as it went South.

As I stated above I don't think the parties switched on issues but I think issues have changed since 1860.

Republicans were the party of internal improvements, railroads, The Homestead Act, tariffs . . etc. all big government initiatives.

 

[AndyHall]

The two major parties did switch in profound ways, in economic policy in the 1930s, and over civil rights after WWII. The specific campaign issues are different than in 1860s, but some of the basic, guiding priorities persist over the generations.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican. Not today's Republican, but a pro-Unionist organisation.

"Lincoln's early Whiggery was bound up with his admiration for the Kentuckian Clay, "my beau ideal of a statesman," as Lincoln called him. Clay's integrated economic program, termed "the American System," won Lincoln's endorsement. Clay was a role model as well as a political leader for Lincoln; he, too, was a self-educated, self-made man. "During my whole political life, I have loved and revered [Clay] as a teacher and leader," Lincoln acknowledged after his election as president. [20] Clay was a well-known figure among Springfield Whigs, many of whom, like Lincoln himself, came originally from Kentucky.[21] Perhaps Lincoln found in Clay a father figure more satisfactory than his real father. In 1842 Lincoln married into the Kentucky patriciate, just as Clay had done earlier. His marriage to Mary Todd strengthened Lincoln's ties to the Clay wing of the Whig party, for his wife's family were on good personal terms with their senator."

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...ham-lincoln-was-a-whig?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Republican Party of 1860 was a coalition, just like the Republican Party of 2016.

In 1860, the basic building block of the coalition were the old Northern Whigs, like Lincoln. Republican Party attracted a lot of the Know Nothings and Anti-Masons too.

Northern Whigs were historically the home of big business, which would have included Lincoln himself as a corporate lawyer for big business (railroads) in his private life.

 

[mofederal]

Lincoln was a Whig until that party broke up in 1854, although Lincoln he claimed no interest in politics when he decided to concentrate on his law practice in 1849. I think he was always interested in politics. He joined the Illinois region Republicans in 1854. The Republican Party in 1864 joined with the War Democrats to form the National Union Party.

 

[infomanpa]

The two major parties did switch in profound ways, in economic policy in the 1930s, and over civil rights after WWII. The specific campaign issues are different than in 1860s, but some of the basic, guiding priorities persist over the generations.

To see evidence of the reversal, check voter results over the past 150 years. From Lincoln's time until the 20th century, southern states voted Democrat. Today, Republicans can count on consistent Republican voter majorities.

 

[SharonS]

I'd like to recommend the Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, by Michael Holt, published about 20 years ago. There may be a more recent book on the Whigs, but I don't think it could be much better than this one. It's a fascinating subject. The demise of the Whig party had a lot to do with how the new and surviving political parties stood in relation to slavery and war. That's a major part of this VERY thorough book. This book is really readable in spite of its length and if you have any interest in the politics of the immediate pre-war decade you'll find it worthwhile.

 

[AndyHall]

Republicans were the party of internal improvements, railroads, The Homestead Act, tariffs . . etc. all big government initiatives.

Legacy of the Whigs.

 

[Jimklag]

Legacy of the Whigs.

Yep.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Sort of the leftovers of the Federalists there, too.

 

[thomas aagaard]

As I see it the basic issue then as now, is the fact that the rules promote a two party system, with very big parties.
As a result each party cover a very wide part of the political spectrum...
(Where in comparison we, here in Denmark currently got 9 parties in Parliament... and even back in the late 19th century we had 3 - one for the workers, one for the farmers and one for the nobility/rich/officers)

And that makes it a bit harder to track what they mean and why.