A Chicago University honors "Abraham Lincoln Democrat.�

[Benko]

“According to building archives, the word democrat was used because Lincoln was an advocate for democracy—the political or social equality of all people,”? campus officials stated in a press release. “The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.

[Pointedstick]

That's funny, my dictionary says that Democracy is:

"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives"

or

"control of an organization or group by the majority of its members"

There's nothing about political or social equality of all people. Oh well, I guess my dictionary must be wrong.

[Jan Van]

Didn't the "republicans" and "democrats" kind of do a switcheroo? So though Lincoln was a republican, wouldn't the republican party back have been more aligned with the democrats now? Like they say here: Mike Pride: From Lincoln Republicans to Obama Democrats?

[Benko]

Didn't the "republicans" and "democrats" kind of do a switcheroo?

And if the values they believed in did "switch" it is OK to use Lincoln being a democrat for propaganda purposes?

[Jan Van]

If the values did switch, it might make it more clear to the casual observer as to where he stood politically.

[Xan]

If the values did switch, it might make it more clear to the casual observer as to where he stood politically.

Declaring that the parties "switched" is an unprovable statement, and certainly would never reach the level of being able to factually state that Lincoln was a Democrat.  Especially since, factually, he wasn't.

[Pointedstick]

"espoused policies that today would be more at home in the Democratic party " =/= "a democrat"

There's a difference. Words have meaning.

[Benko]

If the values did switch, it might make it more clear to the casual observer as to where he stood politically. 

If one wishes to know where Lincoln stood on various issues, it is probably best to read about his life and what he actually did/said, rather than deciding which pigeonhole he fit into and how those labels may mean different things now than they did then.  All of that is however irrelevant to the statement:

"Lincoln was a democrat"

which is either true, or false. 

[Jan Van]

Obviously. But things change, meanings change. Would it be considered off putting if I said, "that Xan, he's one gay fellow!"? Would it still be if I turned out to be a 100 year old British dude, stuck in the past? So maybe some context can be helpful at times.

Anyhoo, how much truth would the peoples here say is there to that, the dem-gop switcheroo?

[Gumby]

Found this one explanation for the "switch" with a quick Google search...

LiveScience: Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe?...

...So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.

Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

Source: LiveScience: Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

[moda0306]

If the values did switch, it might make it more clear to the casual observer as to where he stood politically. 

If one wishes to know where Lincoln stood on various issues, it is probably best to read about his life and what he actually did/said, rather than deciding which pigeonhole he fit into and how those labels may mean different things now than they did then.  All of that is however irrelevant to the statement:

"Lincoln was a democrat"

which is either true, or false. 

I agree.  I think a few things are clear:

- Lincoln was a Federalist.

- Lincoln opposed slavery enough to incite Secession by Southern states, but not enough to overtly call for the abolition until it was more convenient (though not all-that politically convenient).

- Lincoln was pretty comfortable with war... though so was the South.

There's probably more there, but standing up for the political equality of a "lower" class, even if it was done only after there was a crippled economy in no position to oppose it, kind of trumps a lot of the other political arguments at the time.  It certainly was "liberal" thought, not "conservative." 

[Pointedstick]

I don't think it's that controversial that the Democrats and the Republicans switched positions on a lot of issues. What should be controversial is labeling a Republican a Democrat because his policies might line up better with the Democrats today, as opposed to when he actually lived his life.

I mean, are we going to label most of the founding fathers as Libertarians? Historical figures need to be evaluated in the context of the times they lived in. Trying to paint them with a modern brush is an exercise in futility.

[moda0306]

Found this one explanation for the "switch" with a quick Google search...

LiveScience: Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe?...

...So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance.

Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

Source: LiveScience: Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Awesome summary... Could be complete hogwash... but this is a subject I've often wondered about, and felt like I'd never gotten a straight answer.

[Benko]

1. Saying Lincoln is a democrat is not factually correct, but was put forward presumably because someone thought it would be helpful to the democrats.  Propaganda is all.

2. If you like it you can keep your policy.  Period.

That one is not factually correct either, but is evolving as well.

3.  Any explanations about Lincoln, his politics, etc are just distractions (they may be interesting distractions--thanks for the info Gumby) from the lie which was put forward for political purposes.  This is how I and others see the left as operating i.e. you come across like a leftist if you feel the need to clarify i.e. distract from the factually incorrect statement which starts this thread.  And there is no shortage of examples of this in real life the last 5 years.

Neither PS nor MR nor the people who are conservatives would ever behave this way. 
And I should probably re-read this thread in case it was obvious that one or more of the posts was just informational and not comoflage, but I dont' have the time now.

[Pointedstick]

I think it's an "INTJ/Rational on MBTI tests vs everyone else" issue more than liberal vs conservative one. Those of us for whom a search for truth is paramount will take issue with the blatant factual inaccuracy, while those of us who see the world through the lens of interesting stories and human dramas will naturally be more interested in the story and context behind why this silly decision was made than the silly decision itself.

It's a judging vs perceiving issue, to put it in Meyers-Briggs terminology. You and Xan and I judge the event as wrong; Gumby, Moda, and Jan perceive the interesting story behind it.

[Jan Van]

There's nothing about political or social equality of all people. Oh well, I guess my dictionary must be wrong.

This is the definition on m-w: democrat

dem·o·crat noun \?de-m?-?krat\
: a person who believes in or supports democracy

Democrat : a member of the Democratic Party of the U.S.

Full Definition of DEMOCRAT

1
a :  an adherent of democracy
b :  one who practices social equality
2
capitalized :  a member of the Democratic party of the United States

[Gumby]

Easy Benko... It's not like someone made the plaque a few years ago to piss you, and modern-day conservatives, off. The plaque is 108-years-old!

Installed in the building for its opening in 1905, the plaque includes an inscription of the word "democrat" following Abraham Lincoln's name. According to building archives, the word democrat was used because Lincoln was an advocate for democracy—the political or social equality of all people. The word was not chosen to reflect a political affiliation.

Source: http://www.neiu.edu/About%20NEIU/NEIU%2 ... ement.html

You conveniently left out that little tidbit of information.

[Gumby]

Well, I figured out the mystery of the tablet...

The building was initially designed by Frank Lloyd Wright for his uncle, the Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones. Jones and Wright disagreed about the building design, which was handed off in 1902 to Dwight Perkins, who made several changes to Wright's original design.

The building was designed to house a comprehensive social service agency called the Abraham Lincoln Center. According to documents by Frank Lloyd Wright's son, John Lloyd Wright, the building was named for his father's hero.

Source: http://www.neiu.edu/About%20NEIU/NEIU%2 ... ement.html

If we look up works by Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, about President Lincoln, in Google Books we find this in the 1909 Quarterly Southern Methodist Review...


[align=center][/align]


and this...


[align=center][/align]


Note the use of the word "democrat" to describe Lincoln in those two quotes from Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones (the guy who dedicated the building to Lincoln).

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkin_Lloyd_Jones

[Pointedstick]

Gumby, your research skills are pretty astonishing.

[Jan Van]

It's a judging vs perceiving issue, to put it in Meyers-Briggs terminology. You and Xan and I judge the event as wrong; Gumby, Moda, and Jan perceive the interesting story behind it.

You do have a way with words. I like the way you put that. 

[Gumby]

3.  Any explanations about Lincoln, his politics, etc are just distractions (they may be interesting distractions--thanks for the info Gumby) from the lie which was put forward for political purposes.  This is how I and others see the left as operating i.e. you come across like a leftist if you feel the need to clarify i.e. distract from the factually incorrect statement which starts this thread.  And there is no shortage of examples of this in real life the last 5 years.

I'm curious, Benko, but did you happen to hear about this tablet on a Conservative website (i.e. Drudge) that failed to investigate the history behind Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones and the 108-year-old tablet? If so, it would seem that your sources are trying to distract you for political purposes.

[Libertarian666]

Of course, Lincoln was actually a fascist, before that term was invented.
But he has a great PR department.

[Pointedstick]

It's a judging vs perceiving issue, to put it in Meyers-Briggs terminology. You and Xan and I judge the event as wrong; Gumby, Moda, and Jan perceive the interesting story behind it.

You do have a way with words. I like the way you put that. 

Thank you Jan!

[Pointedstick]

I'm curious, Benko, but did you happen to hear about this tablet on a Conservative website (i.e. Drudge) that failed to mention the history behind Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones and the 108-year-old tablet? If so, it would seem that your sources are trying to distract you for political purposes.

I suspect that Benko's answer, as well as the answer of the article writer, if you were to ask them, would be something along the lines of, "that context is all very interesting, but labeling Lincoln as a democrat is  still wrong."

Judging vs perceiving.

[moda0306]

Of course, Lincoln was actually a fascist, before that term was invented.
But he has a great PR department.

How was he a fascist any more than most other leaders or even a lot of the business-class in the South then?

The states of the South, or more specifically their overlords, enforced slavery over 30%-40% of the human population of their territories, usurping their individual sovereignty, they enacted a draft as well, and most leaders were actively pushing forward with their "Manifest Destiny" plan of occupying the West.  The governments and economic interests of the South actually wanted to expand slavery into new regions.

Slavery and genocide are probably the most brutal intrusions into individual sovereignty that there are.  You can't avoid it... all you can either do is work or die, depending on your master's preference.  Even in war, people can simply "get out of dodge," and have some flexibility.  Less possible when you've got an entire industrial complex enforced by government trying to keep you on the cotton fields.

Abraham Lincoln did some f'ed up stuff, but most of it was in the context of the alternative being watching the Union collapse.  This may seem like no big deal to states-rightists, but the implications that states can just come and go as they please leads us to the more legitimate yet much more uncomfortable question of whether individual counties, cities, and individuals (along with their property), could simply dissect themselves from the sovereignty of the states.

Let's not forget he was fighting against a rebellion based almost solely on them trying to protect slavery (read the reasons for Secession as the states themselves submitted and you'll find very few mentions of taxes or regulation, and the word "slave" mentioned about 85 times).  However, while "liberal" on slavery for his time, he was not an abolitionist, so to preserve the Union, Lincoln likely would have either had to make huge concessions to protecting, enforcing and expanding slavery, or simply fight the war that the Southern fascists were obviously willing to enslave even more of their population to fight as well.