COMMENTS:
Probably. He technically freed the slaves but in reality the status of most never changed. Sort of like how the republicans often treat civil rights.
Voted : Yes
I think so, because it appears (to my untrained eye) that Republicans favor a platform of self-sufficiency (i.e. teach a man to fish), and I don't recall Lincoln as being big on social programs. I could be horribly wrong, mind you. When I was meant to be studying the Civil War back in fourth grade, I was sick a lot, missed most of that section.
He wasn't a socialist, so he'd have more in common with the republicans.
"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." Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863.
"One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards." --George W. Bush, on holding six-party talks with North Korea, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2006
Unlike our CHIMP, Lincoln was clearly NOT an idiot so he wouldn't qualify to be a Republican.
modern day Republicans are in a class by themselves...so I really son't know...
*don't know*
He wasn't a racist, so he'd have more in common with the Democrats.
Not at gunpoint.
Lincoln was a racist, but his desire for power was stronger than his desire to hold down blacks.
Voted : No
It's important to note that Lincoln was the "first" Republican president. He was, imo, a visionary, and an idealist. He wouldn't belong to either party. He'd start his own; or join a third party that wasn't so "entrenched" in institutional ideologies (including, but not limited to, "political correctness") as to stop listening to new/fresh ideas from it's people. Maybe he'd get LUCKY again, who knows? But LINCOLN, as one might say, is HISTORY.
|
