At that time in history, the parties didnt represent what they do today. Democrats were fighting for a bigger national government, while the Republicans were fighting for states rights. By todays standards, Lincoldn was a Democrat even if that is not what his policics was called in Civil War times.
2007-01-29 02:25:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by shannon d 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
There is a strong link to the Lincoln era and this era, there can be comparisons made especially on the fact that most of the country was against the Civil War in its repeating failure to a date and the call for withdrawal.
There are simple minded people who don't see it but its there.
Democrats in general have always been swayed by the public opinion more often than not. This is not a bad thing, however it can go too far. It is the position of the party most often to take the easy road and give out "gifts" to please the people while taking a stand in words only on other harder issues.
It is easy to stand against the president calling for change in words only but to have a plan and to take measures is a completely different measure. Democrats wave the victory flags because they stand against something not because they DO something.
2 examples- Calling for the withdrawal of troops
Stopping the Social Security resolution by Bush last year, the party offered no compromise but rather rejoiced because they halted Bush.
Democrats take the side of the polls because its easy to do so.
2007-01-29 06:32:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by BOB the horrible. 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
All the segregationists were Democrat, it was the Republican majority that passed the civil rights act, every Southern Democrat voted against it and yet the tables get turned and the Dems come out smelling like a rose. Senator Byrd from West Virginia was a former Grand Wizard in the KKK yet his past is brushed under the rug.
Any African American who is a conservative is bashed by the left and all kinds of racial slurs are used, but because it came from a liberal it is ok. Richard Steele was the running mate of Maryland Republican Governor Robert L. Ehrlich. Democrat Maryland State Senate President Mike Miller Jr. even called him “an Uncle Tom”. Then, the liberal and most-intolerant Baltimore Sun gleefully joined Miller’s racism when it wrote that Steele “brings little to the team but the color of his skin.” How’s that for liberal “broadmindedness”? The usual and to-be-expected Democrat tactic of “if you can’t destroy the message, ruin the messenger” ploy was in full play.
2007-01-29 02:36:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by crazyhorse19682003 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Both parties have changed radically after 140 years. It seemed that when the Democrats embraced civil rights in the 1950s, many democrats left the party and became republicans. So much for the Party of Lincoln
2007-01-29 02:26:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You gotta remember the Democrats of today are close to the Republicans of 1860 and the parties have done almost a 180-degree turn in what they believed in then versus now. Democrats then were mostly southern, very rural, believed in slavery, state's rights, no taxes, free trade, each state printing their own money, etc.
2007-01-29 02:39:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Today, Democrats vote against everything Lincoln stood for.
2007-01-29 02:24:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rob D 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
The Democratic Party has supported slavery, Jim Crow laws, and voted against the Civil Rights Acts in larger numbers than did Republicans.
2007-01-29 02:22:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by C = JD 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
once again, another historically ignorant person. the two parties had a shift in doctrines in the 20s-30s. FDR was the first democratic candidate that is similar to the democrats today. democrat does not mean liberal and republican does not mean conservative. those terms are interchangeable and can evolve over time. maybe in 50 years, the republicans will be the liberals again...who knows. so yes, the democrats voted against lincoln because he was a republican. if he were to run for office today, he would definately run as a liberal.
2007-01-29 02:24:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by 2010 CWS Champs! 3
·
3⤊
3⤋
Byrds of a Feather
Many Democrats refer to Robert Byrd as the "Conscience of the Senate"
He was born in Nov. 20, 1917.
Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat) served as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan.
He now explains this away by pleading ignorance and a misguided youth.
Robert Byrd voted against The Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was 46 years old.
He helped lead a Filibuster with other Democrats including Al Gore, Sr.
Sen. Robert Byrd (Democrat) spoke for 14 hours and 13 minutes, finishing the morning of June 10 – the 57th day of the filibuster.
This is what Democrats must mean when calling the filibuster a Senate Tradition.
Byrd also opposed Supreme Court nominations of Thurgood Marshall in 1967 and Clarence Thomas in 1991.
Byrd could say he opposed Clarence Thomas because he was a Conservative but Thurgood Marshall was a Democrat favored by nearly every Democrat.
Robert Byrd is the only Senator to oppose both black Supreme Court nominees.
Byrd was 49 years old when he opposed Democrat Thurgood Marshall's Supreme Court Nomination.
In 1945 at age 28, Robert Byrd said this regarding desegregation of the military, "[I will] never submit to fight beneath that banner (the American flag) with a ***** by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
In March of 2001, at age 83, Robert Byrd said, "There are white n*ggers. I´ve seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time."
So this is what Robert Byrd means by youthful indiscretions?
2007-01-29 02:24:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
That was more than 140 years ago. Parties & people change. I somehow doubt that anyone on this board voted either for or against Lincoln.
2007-01-29 02:22:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
5⤊
0⤋