Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.
What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.
In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."
Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.
It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.
Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.
Nice try but swingannamiss. Let's put it in its further context by filling out the 1861 quote with what sets it up:
>> In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism.It's about classism.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. --- excerpted from the SOTU address, December 3, 1861
Note that he touched on this concept two years prior before the Presidency, where he kind of straddled the fence on it; parts of the speech are directly copied But clearly he comes down on the side of standing up for the rights of the commoner versus the Elite. Which is after all what Liberalism is all about.
And? Today's liberalism teaches it's brainwashed followers that the rich get rich on the back of the poor, which is total bullshit. Lincoln believed as most normal people do in this country that one can start from laborer and work his way up to his own business and labor for himself and in turn hire others
Didn't read the speech, didja? He's talking about the class divisions that came with slavery. It was eighteen sixty frickin' one. And in the greater sense he's defending the stature of the common class. That's why it's Liberalism.
Political philosophies don't "teach" btw. Even if your strawman were real that's not what a political philosophy does. An ideology already knows what it believes, and seeks to act on it. And what you've got there has nothing to do with Liberalism.
(But if it did teach it might let you know that there is no apostrophe in its. "Teaches it is brainwashed followers" doesn't make any sense.)
Class division is a Marxist concept. Certainly not what Lincoln was talking about a person can move in and out of income brackets
You ain't real bright are ya?
Classes, again like slavery, existed LOOOOOOONG before Marx started writing his own analysis of them, which wasn't by any stretch the first. Not only do you have Lincoln's right here, you have the entire Enlightenment/Liberal movement that created this country in the first place. That itself was breaking down the classes of the aristocracy and church over the commoners (the so-called "Estates") Shit dood, the entire foundation of this country was all about class -- holding that power derives from the People and not from the King.. Ever hear the expression "We the People"?
"Class division a Marxist concept"....Holy shit.
Shit dude the only people that keep others down, stuck in the lower income brackets are today's liberals. Come to Detroit where i live see for yourself..."Dude"..Liberals reject the enlighten in favor of powerful government overseers
Yeah right. Except when they have. Like 
you're joking right? the republican party never supported that wack job.... town counsel? ok whose the KKK delegates at any Republican convention? Most Klansman were Democrats I give you credit for posting those few exceptions though
