How did the party of Lincoln (GOP) end up being the Confederate Party

[Boss]

So is there a black problem in the United States?
Is the Democratic response just to black people or to poor people?
If there is a problem, what has been the Republican response?

NO.. there is not a "black problem" anywhere except in the minds of the racist radical liberal who THINKS that way! I live in the state of Alabama and I see normal everyday black people and white people getting along with each other just fine. Their kids go to school together, have friendships with each other, they go to the same gatherings and events, they attend the same churches, they exchange Christmas gifts, they help each other in times of need... there is very little (if any) animosity between them. Now... are there SOME who this is NOT the case? Sure... there always WILL be! But the vast and overwhelming majority of society today are NOT RACISTS!

Republican Conservatives are completely all-inclusive. EVERY person matters! We don't have to break down society into little groups and pit them against each other. We don't have to single out this race or this minority to bestow favoritism on them. That's not what this country is about... ALL men are created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator. We ALL have the capacity to be successful in a free enterprise, free market capitalist system.

 

[regent]

So is there a black problem in the United States?
Is the Democratic response just to black people or to poor people?
If there is a problem, what has been the Republican response?

NO.. there is not a "black problem" anywhere except in the minds of the racist radical liberal who THINKS that way! I live in the state of Alabama and I see normal everyday black people and white people getting along with each other just fine. Their kids go to school together, have friendships with each other, they go to the same gatherings and events, they attend the same churches, they exchange Christmas gifts, they help each other in times of need... there is very little (if any) animosity between them. Now... are there SOME who this is NOT the case? Sure... there always WILL be! But the vast and overwhelming majority of society today are NOT RACISTS!

Republican Conservatives are completely all-inclusive. EVERY person matters! We don't have to break down society into little groups and pit them against each other. We don't have to single out this race or this minority to bestow favoritism on them. That's not what this country is about... ALL men are created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator. We ALL have the capacity to be successful in a free enterprise, free market capitalist system.

Well I'm glad Alabama is like that perhaps other areas are not? I grew up on the south side of Chicago and found it somewhat different.

 

[Boss]

Well I'm glad Alabama is like that perhaps other areas are not? I grew up on the south side of Chicago and found it somewhat different.

I've traveled up north as well and it's breathtaking how racist people are in some places. I happen to think this has to do with the fact that "racism" has been historically scapegoated onto the South after the Civil War and Civil Rights. Northerners can justify their racist views by saying... well at least we're not as bad as THEM! Contrast that with Alabama where every school student from 5th grade up has studied the state's history every year. We learned about Dr. King and the march from Selma to Montgomery, we learned about Rosa Parks, we learned about Bull Conner and the riots in Birmingham.... it's ensconced in our state history. I think the generational effect has been that we are much more sensitive to this and aware of our own prejudices, determined and committed to overcome that terrible stigma. I think we might be one of the least racist states in America because of that. Still, a lot of people up north think of us as a bunch of racist rednecks driving around in our pickups with the rebel flag waving, looking for black people to lynch. It's just not the case here.

 

[Pogo]

The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?

This is just sheer idiocy. Did you "learn" this from a left-wing blog or something?

Lincoln was very much a conservative. The first real modern liberal president was Woodrow Wilson, one of the most racist presidents in history and a Democrat.

Lincoln (along with the early Republican party) was absolutely a Liberal. Goes hand in hand with Abolition. "Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.

"All men are created Equal" is the quintessential Liberalist credo.

 

[Boss]

The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?

This is just sheer idiocy. Did you "learn" this from a left-wing blog or something?

Lincoln was very much a conservative. The first real modern liberal president was Woodrow Wilson, one of the most racist presidents in history and a Democrat.

Lincoln (along with the early Republican party) was absolutely a Liberal. Goes hand in hand with Abolition. "Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.

"All men are created Equal" is the quintessential Liberalist credo.

In modern context maybe, but not necessarily in philosophical context of the time. Lincoln was very pragmatic in his approach to problem solving. He had worked for years on trying to solve the problem of slavery through bipartisan efforts and considering both sides of the issue. Even in the Civil War, he stated that he would leave slavery as it were if that would save the Union. From every indication, every problem Lincoln was ever faced with, he used pragmatic approaches gleaned from wisdom of history and experience... a hallmark of Conservative philosophy.

Was abolition a "liberal" idea? Perhaps... but Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist and was perfectly content with leaving slavery where it already existed. He definitely wasn't a radical liberal. Again, because Conservatism is philosophy and not ideology, you can be liberal AND conservative at the same time.

Now... All men are created equal is certainly NOT a credo of modern liberals. Their policies are systemically geared toward selective groups of people who are not perceived as equal because they require some level of favoritism or advantage over others.

"Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.
Virtually EVERY politician of the time was Conservative. You couldn't get elected with far-out liberal left-wing views. The first true LIBERAL president was Woodrow Wilson... also one of the most racist presidents in history.

 

[rdean]

The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?

This is just sheer idiocy. Did you "learn" this from a left-wing blog or something?

Lincoln was very much a conservative. The first real modern liberal president was Woodrow Wilson, one of the most racist presidents in history and a Democrat.

Lincoln (along with the early Republican party) was absolutely a Liberal. Goes hand in hand with Abolition. "Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.

"All men are created Equal" is the quintessential Liberalist credo.

In modern context maybe, but not necessarily in philosophical context of the time. Lincoln was very pragmatic in his approach to problem solving. He had worked for years on trying to solve the problem of slavery through bipartisan efforts and considering both sides of the issue. Even in the Civil War, he stated that he would leave slavery as it were if that would save the Union. From every indication, every problem Lincoln was ever faced with, he used pragmatic approaches gleaned from wisdom of history and experience... a hallmark of Conservative philosophy.

Was abolition a "liberal" idea? Perhaps... but Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist and was perfectly content with leaving slavery where it already existed. He definitely wasn't a radical liberal. Again, because Conservatism is philosophy and not ideology, you can be liberal AND conservative at the same time.

Now... All men are created equal is certainly NOT a credo of modern liberals. Their policies are systemically geared toward selective groups of people who are not perceived as equal because they require some level of favoritism or advantage over others.

"Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.
Virtually EVERY politician of the time was Conservative. You couldn't get elected with far-out liberal left-wing views. The first true LIBERAL president was Woodrow Wilson... also one of the most racist presidents in history.

What exactly are "far out liberal left wing" views? How about a few examples?

Right wingers explaining what a liberal is, is always hilarious. Hilarious and delusional.

 

[rdean]

So is there a black problem in the United States?
Is the Democratic response just to black people or to poor people?
If there is a problem, what has been the Republican response?

NO.. there is not a "black problem" anywhere except in the minds of the racist radical liberal who THINKS that way! I live in the state of Alabama and I see normal everyday black people and white people getting along with each other just fine. Their kids go to school together, have friendships with each other, they go to the same gatherings and events, they attend the same churches, they exchange Christmas gifts, they help each other in times of need... there is very little (if any) animosity between them. Now... are there SOME who this is NOT the case? Sure... there always WILL be! But the vast and overwhelming majority of society today are NOT RACISTS!

Republican Conservatives are completely all-inclusive. EVERY person matters! We don't have to break down society into little groups and pit them against each other. We don't have to single out this race or this minority to bestow favoritism on them. That's not what this country is about... ALL men are created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator. We ALL have the capacity to be successful in a free enterprise, free market capitalist system.

You said: Republican Conservatives are completely all-inclusive. EVERY person matters! We don't have to break down society into little groups and pit them against each other. We don't have to single out this race or this minority to bestow favoritism on them.

Fucking hilarious. Here, look at this:

A Groundbreaking Interracial Marriage
In doing so, it put an end to the last piece of state-sanctioned segregation in the country.
Yet for decades after the decision, many states left the unenforceable laws on the books — South Carolina did not remove its prohibitive clause until 1998, and Alabama held on to its ban until 2000.

---------------------------------

Get it? Alabama, oh, such an inclusive state, had an anti interracial marriage ban on the books until 2000. That's what comes from your type of ignorance.

Shit for brains here it trying to say these states are all liberal Democrats who love the confederacy and all those lynchings were mean left wing liberals. Yet, somehow, inexplicably, all those Democratic liberals moved north and now those same states are all conservative black loving whites who just want to defend confederate holidays because, they, um, tell us again. Why are all these anti slavery white conservatives who love blacks defending a flag that's all about black slavery?

And I'm sure Alabama loves the gays just as much as it loves the blacks:

Alabama gay man severely beaten outside bar, but cops refuse to put anti-gay slurs in police report

Alabama Toughens Rules for Voting While Black

 

[Boss]

The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?

This is just sheer idiocy. Did you "learn" this from a left-wing blog or something?

Lincoln was very much a conservative. The first real modern liberal president was Woodrow Wilson, one of the most racist presidents in history and a Democrat.

Lincoln (along with the early Republican party) was absolutely a Liberal. Goes hand in hand with Abolition. "Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.

"All men are created Equal" is the quintessential Liberalist credo.

In modern context maybe, but not necessarily in philosophical context of the time. Lincoln was very pragmatic in his approach to problem solving. He had worked for years on trying to solve the problem of slavery through bipartisan efforts and considering both sides of the issue. Even in the Civil War, he stated that he would leave slavery as it were if that would save the Union. From every indication, every problem Lincoln was ever faced with, he used pragmatic approaches gleaned from wisdom of history and experience... a hallmark of Conservative philosophy.

Was abolition a "liberal" idea? Perhaps... but Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist and was perfectly content with leaving slavery where it already existed. He definitely wasn't a radical liberal. Again, because Conservatism is philosophy and not ideology, you can be liberal AND conservative at the same time.

Now... All men are created equal is certainly NOT a credo of modern liberals. Their policies are systemically geared toward selective groups of people who are not perceived as equal because they require some level of favoritism or advantage over others.

"Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.
Virtually EVERY politician of the time was Conservative. You couldn't get elected with far-out liberal left-wing views. The first true LIBERAL president was Woodrow Wilson... also one of the most racist presidents in history.

What exactly are "far out liberal left wing" views? How about a few examples?

Right wingers explaining what a liberal is, is always hilarious. Hilarious and delusional.

Well, the main one is that life can somehow be made "fair" for everybody. Or that the Federal government was established to give us shit and do things for us. Or that our Constitution is a "living document" that we can redefine as we please. That we can improve our health care system by turning it all over to government bureaucrats. That we can create jobs by castrating industry and commerce. That the poor can be made whole by destroying the wealthy. That we can tax our way to prosperity. That our courts are there to mete out social justice.

None of these viewpoints were prevalent in 1860 America. If anyone had run for office speaking this nonsense they would have gotten virtually NO support.

 

[rdean]

The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?

This is just sheer idiocy. Did you "learn" this from a left-wing blog or something?

Lincoln was very much a conservative. The first real modern liberal president was Woodrow Wilson, one of the most racist presidents in history and a Democrat.

Lincoln (along with the early Republican party) was absolutely a Liberal. Goes hand in hand with Abolition. "Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.

"All men are created Equal" is the quintessential Liberalist credo.

In modern context maybe, but not necessarily in philosophical context of the time. Lincoln was very pragmatic in his approach to problem solving. He had worked for years on trying to solve the problem of slavery through bipartisan efforts and considering both sides of the issue. Even in the Civil War, he stated that he would leave slavery as it were if that would save the Union. From every indication, every problem Lincoln was ever faced with, he used pragmatic approaches gleaned from wisdom of history and experience... a hallmark of Conservative philosophy.

Was abolition a "liberal" idea? Perhaps... but Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist and was perfectly content with leaving slavery where it already existed. He definitely wasn't a radical liberal. Again, because Conservatism is philosophy and not ideology, you can be liberal AND conservative at the same time.

Now... All men are created equal is certainly NOT a credo of modern liberals. Their policies are systemically geared toward selective groups of people who are not perceived as equal because they require some level of favoritism or advantage over others.

"Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.
Virtually EVERY politician of the time was Conservative. You couldn't get elected with far-out liberal left-wing views. The first true LIBERAL president was Woodrow Wilson... also one of the most racist presidents in history.

What exactly are "far out liberal left wing" views? How about a few examples?

Right wingers explaining what a liberal is, is always hilarious. Hilarious and delusional.

Well, the main one is that life can somehow be made "fair" for everybody. Or that the Federal government was established to give us shit and do things for us. Or that our Constitution is a "living document" that we can redefine as we please. That we can improve our health care system by turning it all over to government bureaucrats. That we can create jobs by castrating industry and commerce. That the poor can be made whole by destroying the wealthy. That we can tax our way to prosperity. That our courts are there to mete out social justice.

None of these viewpoints were prevalent in 1860 America. If anyone had run for office speaking this nonsense they would have gotten virtually NO support.

Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Boss]

Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.

We've changed the Constitution many times, there is a process called Amendment ratification for that. Dummycrats don't bother with that effort, they just have the SCOTUS "interpret" it into the Constitution and move on.

Don't tell me to fuck off when you asked me a question and I answered you. In 1860, you people would have been run out of this country if we didn't kill you first. You espouse the utter nonsense of Karl Marx and in 1860, no one in the North or South held those views.

 

[paperview]

Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.

We've changed the Constitution many times, there is a process called Amendment ratification for that. Dummycrats don't bother with that effort, they just have the SCOTUS "interpret" it into the Constitution and move on.

Don't tell me to fuck off when you asked me a question and I answered you. In 1860, you people would have been run out of this country if we didn't kill you first. You espouse the utter nonsense of Karl Marx and in 1860, no one in the North or South held those views.

Um...

The conservative Southerns were quite vocal in saying the Northerns were socialists and communists even before 1860....in the previous presidential election, they railed about it, and said a Republican being elected would result in a "carnival of blood."

 

[Boss]

Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.

We've changed the Constitution many times, there is a process called Amendment ratification for that. Dummycrats don't bother with that effort, they just have the SCOTUS "interpret" it into the Constitution and move on.

Don't tell me to fuck off when you asked me a question and I answered you. In 1860, you people would have been run out of this country if we didn't kill you first. You espouse the utter nonsense of Karl Marx and in 1860, no one in the North or South held those views.

Um...

The conservative Southerns were quite vocal in saying the Northerns were socialists and communists even before 1860....in the previous presidential election, they railed about it, and said a Republican being elected would result in a "carnival of blood."

You'll have to show me some historical documentation of this. (Socialist/Commie part)

As I said, virtually everyone in the country was conservative. There weren't any radical liberals. The closest thing to a "radical lib" you would have found would be the Quaker ministers who were preaching abolition. Isn't that ironic... the radical liberals were the bible thumpers!

Marxism didn't become widely debated as a political ideology until well after the Civil War. It was still in it's infancy at the time and would have been dismissed as kooky. No one could have been elected spouting that nonsense... hell, until Obama, no one WAS elected spouting it. Wilson was a liberal but not a Marxist. FDR was a liberal but not a Marxist. LBJ was a liberal but not a Marxist.

 

[paperview]

Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.

We've changed the Constitution many times, there is a process called Amendment ratification for that. Dummycrats don't bother with that effort, they just have the SCOTUS "interpret" it into the Constitution and move on.

Don't tell me to fuck off when you asked me a question and I answered you. In 1860, you people would have been run out of this country if we didn't kill you first. You espouse the utter nonsense of Karl Marx and in 1860, no one in the North or South held those views.

Um...

The conservative Southerns were quite vocal in saying the Northerns were socialists and communists even before 1860....in the previous presidential election, they railed about it, and said a Republican being elected would result in a "carnival of blood."

You'll have to show me some historical documentation of this. (Socialist/Commie part)

As I said, virtually everyone in the country was conservative. There weren't any radical liberals. The closest thing to a "radical lib" you would have found would be the Quaker ministers who were preaching abolition. Isn't that ironic... the radical liberals were the bible thumpers!

Marxism didn't become widely debated as a political ideology until well after the Civil War. It was still in it's infancy at the time and would have been dismissed as kooky. No one could have been elected spouting that nonsense... hell, until Obama, no one WAS elected spouting it. Wilson was a liberal but not a Marxist. FDR was a liberal but not a Marxist. LBJ was a liberal but not a Marxist.

No. The South castigated the North for being socialistic, communist, and licentious.

OCT 1856, -- The New York Times, quoting a Richmond, VA paper, describing the Southern sentiments -- years before Lincoln took office, entitled:
LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

"Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..

It goes on:",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery."

Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion

 

[paperview]

Those were the Southern sentiments well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Union ships in January of 1861. They continue:

"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...

Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com

1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.

 

[Boss]

Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.

We've changed the Constitution many times, there is a process called Amendment ratification for that. Dummycrats don't bother with that effort, they just have the SCOTUS "interpret" it into the Constitution and move on.

Don't tell me to fuck off when you asked me a question and I answered you. In 1860, you people would have been run out of this country if we didn't kill you first. You espouse the utter nonsense of Karl Marx and in 1860, no one in the North or South held those views.

Um...

The conservative Southerns were quite vocal in saying the Northerns were socialists and communists even before 1860....in the previous presidential election, they railed about it, and said a Republican being elected would result in a "carnival of blood."

You'll have to show me some historical documentation of this. (Socialist/Commie part)

As I said, virtually everyone in the country was conservative. There weren't any radical liberals. The closest thing to a "radical lib" you would have found would be the Quaker ministers who were preaching abolition. Isn't that ironic... the radical liberals were the bible thumpers!

Marxism didn't become widely debated as a political ideology until well after the Civil War. It was still in it's infancy at the time and would have been dismissed as kooky. No one could have been elected spouting that nonsense... hell, until Obama, no one WAS elected spouting it. Wilson was a liberal but not a Marxist. FDR was a liberal but not a Marxist. LBJ was a liberal but not a Marxist.

No. The South castigated the North for being socialistic, communist, and licentious.

OCT 1856, -- The New York Times, quoting a Richmond, VA paper, describing the Southern sentiments -- years before Lincoln took office, entitled:
LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

"Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..

It goes on:",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery."

Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion

A single editorial in a single newspaper is not an entire political party or the views of their candidate. This is one faction hurling rhetoric at another... that's not someone running for office on the platform of Socialism.

But things like this are used all the time to try and draw a false perception of the past. This is a militant liberal attempt to rewrite history and make Conservatives out to be the bad guys. Most intelligent people recognize it as propaganda. Kool-aid drinkers who want to believe in Liberal Utopia are easily fooled and misled.

 

[regent]

As I remember history Karl Marx sent a letter congratulating Lincoln on his reelection.

 

[paperview]

Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.

We've changed the Constitution many times, there is a process called Amendment ratification for that. Dummycrats don't bother with that effort, they just have the SCOTUS "interpret" it into the Constitution and move on.

Don't tell me to fuck off when you asked me a question and I answered you. In 1860, you people would have been run out of this country if we didn't kill you first. You espouse the utter nonsense of Karl Marx and in 1860, no one in the North or South held those views.

Um...

The conservative Southerns were quite vocal in saying the Northerns were socialists and communists even before 1860....in the previous presidential election, they railed about it, and said a Republican being elected would result in a "carnival of blood."

You'll have to show me some historical documentation of this. (Socialist/Commie part)

As I said, virtually everyone in the country was conservative. There weren't any radical liberals. The closest thing to a "radical lib" you would have found would be the Quaker ministers who were preaching abolition. Isn't that ironic... the radical liberals were the bible thumpers!

Marxism didn't become widely debated as a political ideology until well after the Civil War. It was still in it's infancy at the time and would have been dismissed as kooky. No one could have been elected spouting that nonsense... hell, until Obama, no one WAS elected spouting it. Wilson was a liberal but not a Marxist. FDR was a liberal but not a Marxist. LBJ was a liberal but not a Marxist.

No. The South castigated the North for being socialistic, communist, and licentious.

OCT 1856, -- The New York Times, quoting a Richmond, VA paper, describing the Southern sentiments -- years before Lincoln took office, entitled:
LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

"Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..

It goes on:",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery."

Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion

A single editorial in a single newspaper is not an entire political party or the views of their candidate. This is one faction hurling rhetoric at another... that's not someone running for office on the platform of Socialism.

But things like this are used all the time to try and draw a false perception of the past. This is a militant liberal attempt to rewrite history and make Conservatives out to be the bad guys. Most intelligent people recognize it as propaganda. Kool-aid drinkers who want to believe in Liberal Utopia are easily fooled and misled.

I'm not about to drag all the speeches from the Southerners saying similar things, nor would you read them. That was the sentiment of much of the South.

They absolutely hated the Northerners for their liberalness, "debauchery," and socialistic attitudes, as they saw it. In many ways as they see it today.

 

[paperview]

As I remember history Karl Marx sent a letter congratulating Lincoln on his reelection.

True.

Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln


Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary."

 

[regent]

I have talked with some southern business leaders and they seem anxious to change the image of the South. They pointed how few lynchings there have been in the last ten years and other signs of change. I almost felt sorry for them as they seemed sincere in their desire to change their section of the nation.