For Whom Would You Have Voted in the 1860 Presidential Election?

[Jake Featherston]

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1860.png

Republican: Abraham Lincoln/Hannibal Hamlin, 39.65%, 180 Evs (303 total, 152 needed to win)
Southern Democrat: John Breckenridge/Joseph Lane, 18.2%, 72 EVs
Constitutional Unionist: John Bell/Edward Everett, 12.62%, 39 EVs
Northern Democrat: Stephen Douglas/Herschel Johnson, 29.52%, 12 EVs

[Macrobius]

My paternal ancestors were all in South Carolina that year, so far as I know, so it looks like I won't be voting that year. Apoliteia as usual, it would seem.

[Felix the Cat]

Did Douglas support slavery or oppose it?

[il ragno]

Nice to know America back then didn't want any part of a guy named "Herschel" being a heartbeat away.

[Keystone]

My people weren't here in 1860, but being of German descent, I'd have probably been a Lincoln supporter if they arrived before that. Except for Texas, most Germans lived above the Mason Dixon Line.

[Jake Featherston]

Did Douglas support slavery or oppose it?

Douglas was pro-slavery, but strongly opposed its extension into further western territories, and had some other differences with the more pro-slavery factions down south (I believe he opposed the Fugitive Slave Act, for example), so was judged by many as insufficiently pro-slavery. Bell (essentially a stand-in for the Southern Whigs, after the formal demise of the national Whig Party) was also pro-slavery, but willing to make essentially any compromise necessary to preserve the Union (I strongly considered voting for Bell, but I wanted to be realistic, and I suspect if I'd been alive in 1860, I'd have got caught up in the Southern nationalist fervor and voted for Breckenridge; a vote for Bell probably would have been more wise, however).

Lincoln was the only abolitionist candidate in 1860 (his predecessor as the Republican nominee in 1856, Sen. John Charles Fremont of California, was the only other person ever nominated by a major party for the Presidency who was anti-slavery; that position simply wasn't done back then. While Lincoln won an Electoral College majority, over 60% of the popular vote in 1860 went to pro-slavery candidates of one degree or another.

Here's some data on the outcome of the 1856 Presidential election (the first one in which the Republican Party fielded a candidate):

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1856.png

Sen. James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, Democrat: 45.29%, 174 EVs (out of 296 total, 149 needed to win)
Sen. John Charles Fremont of California, Republican: 33.09%, 114 EVs
ex-President Millard Fillmore of New York, Whig-American Party ("Know Nothing") fusionist: 21.54%, 8 EVs

NOTE: The reason South Carolina doesn't show up on this map is because it wasn't until after the Reconstruction period that South Carolina adopted a system of popular election for its Electoral College delegation. Prior to 1868, South Carolina's legislature determined whom its Electors would cast their ballots. I think we can safely infer from the data presented that South Carolina threw its lot in with James Buchanan.

[Kodos]

Lincoln did not run as an abolitionist and in fact was willing to offer an amendment (unamendable until a certain date) preserving slavery in the Southern states, he ran mainly as a free soiler and stand in for the Northern Whiggish part of the Republican party (opposite of Bell) favoring a higher protective tariff to subsidize more "internal improvements" ala Clay's American system.

[Barjag]

I am pro-slavery and deeply hostile to abolitionism. On the other hand, I oppose various other tendencies evident in the emerging Confederacy, such as republicanism. Fortunately, as I oppose the sham that is 'democracy', I would not have been inclined to cast a vote. However, out of this selection, Bell's positions may have been closest to my own overall.

[Kodos]

I am pro-slavery and deeply hostile to abolitionism.

So as a racist (I assume) you'd want more Africans imported?

[Barjag]

So as a racist (I assume) you'd want more Africans imported?Not necessarily, but I would on principle have defended the property rights of those who owned African slaves. I would seek to roll back and eliminate liberalism and expand slavery to include whites undeserving of citizenship and more useful as slaves. In fact, if that had been done sooner, there would have been no need to import so many blacks to begin with.

Even though this particular setup of slavery had problems, it should have been defended against abolitionists, that collection of fanatical liberals, progressives, and utopians which would later feed into other vile tendencies such as temperance, prohibition and women's suffrage (I am opposed to all suffrage). These vermin should have been decisively rooted out.

[Scryllak]

Hypothetical election polls like this make for interesting topics.

Sadly, I'm blissfully ignorant of 1860 election... my Civil War knowledge is limited to the war itself.

[Kodos]

Not necessarily, but I would on principle have defended the property rights of those who owned African slaves. I would seek to roll back and eliminate liberalism and expand slavery to include whites undeserving of citizenship and more useful as slaves. In fact, if that had been done sooner, there would have been no need to import so many blacks to begin with.

Slavery is a very inefficient economic system which leads to social and technological stagnation.

[Barjag]

Slavery is a very inefficient economic system which leads to social and technological stagnation.Sometimes this is true, sometimes not. For example, how is sex slavery inefficient? It is very profitable even on the black market with liberal states attempting to eliminate it. If legal, how would it lead to social and technological stagnation? To the contrary, I can envision some serious social benefits with the proper setup.

If slavery is necessarily so inefficient, if it were really that one-sided, the greatest empires ever would not have thrived for so long with it.

By the way, I already noted that there were problems with the particular setup in the South. However, that particular arrangement would have gradually receded without the Civil War, with no need to trample on planters' property rights. I am a militarist, but war in the name of humanity is sickening.

[Kodos]

Sometimes this is true, sometimes not. For example, how is sex slavery inefficient?

Whats wrong with the old honorable profession of prostitution...

If slavery is necessarily so inefficient, if it were really that one-sided, the greatest empires ever would not have thrived for so long with it.

It kept Rome from industrializing... Britain only allowed slaves in colonial commodity production.

By the way, I already noted that there were problems with the particular setup in the South. However, that particular arrangement would have gradually receded without the Civil War, with no need to trample on planters' property rights. I am a militarist, but war in the name of humanity is sickening.

It wasn't fought in the name of humanity though and the planters fucked themselves by starting a rebellion... Lincoln didn't originally plan to do anything to stop slavery where it already existed.

[Vissario]

It kept Rome from industrializing... Britain only allowed slaves in colonial commodity production.

That isn't true.

However, you are correct in your assertion that slavery hampered, not helped, Rome in the long run. The increase of slaves in the Empires core farming and manufacturing areas greatly decreased the value of labor and, consequently, made the commoner a much less valuable commodity. This situation gave rise to great, nobility owned operations which helped impoverish local citizens who had more expenses (and thus a higher required pay) than a slave who only need to be fed and guarded.

However, this was not what kept Rome from industrializing. It was the central hierarchy and government bureaucracy which led to the increased influx of slaves to wealthy plantation and latifundia owners. Simply stated, the government set up the conditions which led to mass slavery and, eventually, proto-feudalism, which in turn stifled an industrial revolution which could have occurred given the relative economic security Rome's empire enjoyed during the 50's - 150's A.D. It wasn' t slavery itself, it was the governing ideology.

As to slavery, I wouldn't have elected a President to abolish it on purely ideological grounds; it is not fair to deprive a citizen of his rights just so a non-citizen can have new rights not originally granted to him.

Two negatives don't make a right.

[Thermonuclear_Warrior]

Douglas.

For once, I see myself agreeing with the points offered by weikel. It is important not to engage in the common, modern practice of confusing Lincoln's actual beliefs with those held by crazy liberal northeastern Radical Republicans and Quakers. Lincoln, unfortunately, came to the view that freeing Southern slaves would aid in the Northern military cause by hampering the Southern war effort late in the game. Up until the very end, Lincoln was very conservative when it came to the reconstruction of Southern states and on how to deal with blacks following the war. His reasoning for preventing slavery's spread into the West was, let's say, "white nationalistic." He did not want these territories being populated by hordes of blacks, nor did he want slaves competing with white free labor. Part of the reason why the mid and southwest do not resemble rural Alabama is due to the defeat of wealthy and belligerent Southern planters.* Certainly Lincoln was slightly humanitarian and progressive, but his opposition to slavery was far more practical.

* - I recognize that this is a moot point now as the SW is a large Mexican colony, but we can't blame Lincoln for that.

[Thermonuclear_Warrior]

As to slavery, I wouldn't have elected a President to abolish it on purely ideological grounds; it is not fair to deprive a citizen of his rights just so a non-citizen can have new rights not originally granted to him.

Two negatives don't make a right.

Lincoln would have never been elected if his political position was to abolish slavery.

[Kodos]

Douglas.

For once, I see myself agreeing with the points offered by weikel.

They're ussually right you just don't like them most of the time :D.

Lincoln didn't like slavery but he did not run as an abolitionist, after the state's succeeded his position until very late was that the slaves should be freed and deported with compensation for their owners.

[Barjag]

Whats wrong with the old honorable profession of prostitution...Honorable? Would you want your own daughter to be a whore, if you loved and respected her?

There are many advantages to legalized sexual slavery over 'free market' prostitution, but here are a few:

Bimbo whores can thereby be put in their place, rather than held up as role models for the nation's daughters.

Wives are more threatened by whores who have legal rights like they do, for similar reasons that they are are more threatened by mistresses than streetwalkers. The way to properly address this problem is by revoking the legal rights of incorrigible bimbo whores who are not as useful to society for anything else. Thus, legal sex slavery will have maximum accessibility as a sexual outlet for husbands, addressing the imbalance in sexual needs between men and women, which do not go away upon tying the knot.

Legal sex slavery will also allow wives an outlet to take out their jealousy and resentment on sex slaves. They could not legally do so with citizens who work as prostitutes, because citizens have legal rights.

It is desirable to bury the delusion of 'democracy', be it expressed in the voting booth or lawyerly labyrinth of the court system. However, people vote in good part because they feel, however mistakenly, that it is an expression of power. Legal slave ownership will give real power to citizens far more viscerally fulfilling than a vote. Legal sex slavery will represent a more effective outlet for 'evil' urges than mere consensual prostitution. For example, it will be best suited to providing a legal outlet for sexual aggression and sadism, thus protecting the nation's decent women.

Just as it is proper to subordinate capital to the state rather than the reverse, whores should serve society rather than the other way around. The only way to end the thralldom of sexual usury is to legally enslave the bimbo whore - with the full force of the state backing up the arrangement.
It kept Rome from industrializing... Britain only allowed slaves in colonial commodity production.I do not quite agree, but can we at least agree that there is no reason to expect sex slavery to be economically inefficient?It wasn't fought in the name of humanity though and the planters fucked themselves by starting a rebellion... Lincoln didn't originally plan to do anything to stop slavery where it already existed.Have you read the Gettysburg Address? It is chock-full of humanist platitudes.

[WFHermans]

I would vote for the moderate Douglas to help prevent Lincoln from gaining a majority, in which case Congress would decide, I believe, which would have picked Douglas.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org is a useful site, thank you mr. Featherston.

[Boyd]

While for most purposes, slavery is 'economically inefficient' in the long run, it was extremely profitable for those who mattered politically and economically in the South. The cotton South had the highest per capita income in the U.S.; it just wasn't distributed much outside the 2,300 hundred high income families.

Slavery was indeed 'profitable' for Rome, too; it allowed them to create bigger legions from their 'free' population, and maintain even more legions after Octavian created the Empire, without having to rely on Senators. Most land in the Empire was public land, not private; farms and plantations were leased from the state. The Senators, of course, got very big discounts compared to the lower classes, much like politcally connected corporations these days in the U.S. get super cheap leases on public land. The Republic and later the Empire was very stingy in handing out land to retiring legionaries, I forget the exact number these days, it's been a while, but the average legionary was given very few iugera, not enough to support a family on, which kept them in debt to Senators and in the Reserves in whatever colony Rome wanted to establish at the time.

[Boyd]

Oh, yeah, I forgot to add I would have voted for Douglas or Breckenridge, probably Douglas.

Lots of Southerners wanted to end slavery by the 1850's, but were trapped, as there was no safe and humane way to free so many slaves without their suffering pretty badly; it was a real quandary at the time.

[MartinLindstedt]

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1860.png

Republican: Abraham Lincoln/Hannibal Hamlin, 39.65%, 180 Evs (303 total, 152 needed to win)
Southern Democrat: John Breckenridge/Joseph Lane, 18.2%, 72 EVs
Constitutional Unionist: John Bell/Edward Everett, 12.62%, 39 EVs
Northern Democrat: Stephen Douglas/Herschel Johnson, 29.52%, 12 EVs

Jake Featherston is the name of the CSA president in an alternate-history set of novels by Harry Turtledove. Thus the poster likes 'what if' scenarios.

I'd have voted for the Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, who came closest to defeating Lincoon and favored the popular decision of the territories to vote on whether or not to allow slavery. The South was at the limits of its expansion in Texas -- there was not enough water to support cotton and agricultural slavery and nigger slaves in the Western Territories. So the expansion of slavery would have been halted, and it allowed where it already was present. Lincoon won because the Democrat Party was split in two.

None of the Northern states wanted free niggers coming to their states. So they didn't want to abolish slavery and push the South into rebellion. In addition, the South thought that the Abolitionists supported miscegination and negro revolt as happened in Haiti. And the South was tired of paying tariffs and buying Northern manufactures.

There might well have been a struggle regardless. And it might have turned bloody. But no bloodier than the civil war started by Lincoon.

Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
www.whitenationalist.org

[Boleslaw]

That's pretty ironic, I was about to post a thread here asking if people were interested in discussions related to the American Civil War. How the fuck did I manage to miss this thread before?

As for the question, I'm undecided. Although I am leaning a bit towards Mr. Lincoln.

[MartinLindstedt]

That's pretty ironic, I was about to post a thread here asking if people were interested in discussions related to the American Civil War. How the fuck did I manage to miss this thread before?

As for the question, I'm undecided. Although I am leaning a bit towards Mr. Lincoln.

Well, here's your chance.

Explain your Lincoon vote. Do you actually think that what happened was necessary, much less acceptable? There are many who thought that he was the ArchCriminal of Amerikwan polytricks with his destruction of the delusion of the CONstipational Repubic.

--MLDL CJCC/AN

[Boleslaw]

Well, here's your chance.

Explain your Lincoon vote. Do you actually think that what happened was necessary, much less acceptable? There are many who thought that he was the ArchCriminal of Amerikwan polytricks with his destruction of the delusion of the CONstipational Repubic.

Yes of course Lincoln's actions were acceptable. Why? Why else? Cause I'm a pollock catlick Jew who despises white redneck trash.

[MartinLindstedt]

Yes of course Lincoln's actions were acceptable. Why? Why else? Cause I'm a pollock catlick Jew who despises white redneck trash.

As a pollock catlick jew who despises fellow pollock catlick jews, would you have voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932?

--MLDL CJCC/AN

[Boleslaw]

As a pollock catlick jew who despises fellow pollock catlick jews, would you have voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932?

--MLDL CJCC/AN
No of course I wouldn't.

[Boleslaw]

I guess to give a more serious explaination for my answer: I'd say that the South did act rather prematurely in seceding from the Union - and I say this as a staunch supporter of States' rights. It could even be argued that the South contributed to the destruction of the Democratic Party as an effective political force at this time.

This was discussed in another thread, but Lincoln did not win the popular vote and plenty of effective opposition could have been given to any of Lincoln's policies. Let's also not forget that Lincoln was very much in favor of seeking reasonable comprimises with the South to avoid a crisis - even promising to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act among other things. One of the few areas he would not budge was the issue of slavery within the territories.

To be continued.

[Jake Featherston]

The real issue behind secession was Southern dissatisfaction with Northern domination of the political process. The increased population of the North gave them control of the U.S. House of Representatives, and they used that same population advantage to elect a President with almost zero support in the American South. Additionally, there were 18 "free" states, and 15 "slave" states, giving the North the advantage, albeit a smaller one, in the Senate as well.

Among soon-to-be-Confederate states, Lincoln got the following results:

Virginia (which includes present-day West Virginia): 1.13% of the vote (4th place)

He didn't even appear on the ballot in any of the nine other CSA states which held popular elections for their Electoral College delegations (South Carolina retained the old system of selecting the Electoral College delegations through a vote of the state Legislature for decades longer than any other state).

Among the four Unionist Southern states, Lincoln got the following results:

Kentucky: 0.93% of the vote (4th place)
Maryland: 2.48% of the vote (4th place)
Missouri: 10.28% of the vote (4th place)
Delaware: 23.72% of the vote (3rd place)

The South felt as if they were in a country where they would simply be dictated to by a dominant Northern faction (and that the problem would be much worse as time went on; Lincoln's election was merely the tipping point of a problem that had been ongoing for decades). I think even today, if a President were elected with, say, just 3% of the popular vote from the six New England states, and that the New England states all sent Congressional representatives to Washington who represented a party likely to be permanently in the minority, there would be at least semi-serious talk of secession. People don't want to live under a political process where they are never presented with the option of voting for a candidate whom A) they like, B) can actually win, and C) will have enough like-minded fellows to be able to do something to advance their shared beliefs. As a person who often votes for candidates who fit the first criteria, but with no hope of ever voting for any candidate who fits B or C without having to give up A, I can personally testify to this being extremely irritating. For me, this country might as well be a dictatorship, since I will never have the option of voting for someone who fits those three criteria. If not only my neighbours felt that way, but so did our Governor, Legislature, both Senators, and our elected Congressmen, things could turn radical pretty damn quickly.

[Boleslaw]

Interesting Jake, I'll have to get back to you about much of that. For one thing, can you name a source for those figures?

I still maintain that the South did shoot itself in the foot in numerous areas, which among other things lead to the collaspe of an effective Democratic opposition to Lincoln.

Not only that, didn't the South still have considerable allies in the North - such as the Copperheads for example?

[Jake Featherston]

Interesting Jake, I'll have to get back to you about much of that. For one thing, can you name a source for those figures?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

It defaults to the election results for 2008; just select 1860.

Not only that, didn't the South still have considerable allies in the North - such as the Copperheads for example?

True, they probably could have used the democratic process to prevent Lincoln from causing them too many problems, but the trend was such that this was not likely to be the case for too many more years, so with the hand writing clearly on the wall, they chose to go their own way.

[Boleslaw]

Secession obviously didn't work either, in fact it probably did more long-term damage. Well actually I think the fact that the Confederates chose to attack Fort Sumpter before they were even fully prepared for war was the real killing point.

As Secretary of State Robert Toombs noted to President Davis:
"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."
--April 11, 1861


This after Lincolin specifically stated that he would not resort to war unless it was forced upon the Union. He even refused reinforcements to Fort Sumpter in order to avoid violence.

[Mailman]

Just reading old threads and had to comment on this one.

I've noticed some common perceptions about Lincoln that seem popular today. One is that he was concerned about the spread of negros in America and wanted them sent to Liberia. He made some statements to this effect and I believe had nominal membership in the Colonization Society. The problem that exists today is the failure of many who should know better to evaluate him by his actions instead of words spoken before elections. Southern leaders knew him for what he really was, which is why his election spurred them on to secession. Had he actually had a sincere desire to do the best thing for both North and South, they would have known that too, and he would have been on the ballot in the South, popular or not.

This after Lincolin specifically stated that he would not resort to war unless it was forced upon the Union. He even refused reinforcements to Fort Sumpter in order to avoid violence.

This is incorrect. What he promised to do was withdraw his forces from US forts in the South. He did this at all military installations in the South except Forts Pickens and Sumter. He then proceeded to re-supply Fort Sumter, which provoked the South Carolina attack. The first in a long line of Pearl Harbor tactics by Washington, if you will.

Lincoln's job was to bring the states under more direct control of his financial backers. Nothing more. This couldn't have been accomplished at the time without the use of force, and few wars are prosecuted in the name of money and power. Not publicly any way. Hence the agitation over slavery, followed by the old patriotard standard "they fired on your flag!".

[Monty]

I would support Lincoln because he said he wanted to ship the Negroes back to Africa.

That wasn't just Lincoln. Most people who wanted slavery ended felt that Blacks should be allowed to go home.

[Macrobius]

I wasn't there. My paternal ancestors in SC (why is it grey?) were anti-secession and argued that position publicly. They certainly didn't want to give up their slaves. All the sons fought the Union invaders without hesitation. History isn't so simple as black and white.

[Jake Featherston]

I wasn't there. My paternal ancestors in SC (why is it grey?)

The people who run that website denote South Carolina in that manner, on account of the fact in 1860, South Carolina was still awarding its Electoral College delegation to whomever the Legislature elected, rather than based on a popular vote of the White male citizenry, as in other states.

[Felix the Cat]

Lincoln's job was to bring the states under more direct control of his financial backers. Nothing more. This couldn't have been accomplished at the time without the use of force, and few wars are prosecuted in the name of money and power. Not publicly any way. Hence the agitation over slavery, followed by the old patriotard standard "they fired on your flag!".I think Lincoln believed that national unity and centralization were good things in and of themselves. This was a popular idea at the time. "Zeitgeist" would be the modern term for it.

1860 was also the year Garibaldi - the "Italian Lincoln" - forcibly united his own country in similar circumstances. This event was apparently well-received by people in the Northern States, who saw an obvious parallel with their own situation.

[Kodos]

Well, here's your chance.

Explain your Lincoon vote. Do you actually think that what happened was necessary, much less acceptable? There are many who thought that he was the ArchCriminal of Amerikwan polytricks with his destruction of the delusion of the CONstipational Repubic.

--MLDL CJCC/AN

No serious rightist thinker could argue Lincoln to be worse then Wilson.

[Mailman]

I think Lincoln believed that national unity and centralization were good things in and of themselves. This was a popular idea at the time. "Zeitgeist" would be the modern term for it.

1860 was also the year Garibaldi - the "Italian Lincoln" - forcibly united his own country in similar circumstances. This event was apparently well-received by people in the Northern States, who saw an obvious parallel with their own situation.

Yes, I've had endless debates with Americans who think that European wars of unification were terrible because of what happened in America. And I've had almost as many with people of the opposite persuasion who think that Lincoln was a great unifier because of the history of unifications in Europe. Too few on either side appreciate the drastically different circumstances of each. The difference in the amount of territory involved is only the first distinction to be made. There are obviously many more.

Too bad the Soviet Union is gone. I always enjoyed mentioning it to people who approached me with a worshipful tone toward Lincoln.

[WillieBrennan]

This is incorrect. What he promised to do was withdraw his forces from US forts in the South. He did this at all military installations in the South except Forts Pickens and Sumter. He then proceeded to re-supply Fort Sumter, which provoked the South Carolina attack.

Exactly. Reinforcing the fort was an act of war and the South could have legitimately begun hostilities right then if it desired.

The South was not the aggressor in bringing on the war; on the contrary, they did all that honorable men could do in the vain attempt to avert war. They did all that could be done without debasing the men and women of the South with conscious disgrace, and leaving to their children a heritage of shame. The Northern people with Abraham Lincoln at their head, brought on the war by provocation to war and by act of war; and that they were and are, therefore, directly responsible for all the multiplied woes which resulted from the war.

An armistice had been entered into between South Carolina's government and the United States government, December 6, 1860. A similar armistice had been entered into between Florida and the United States government, January 29, 1861. These armistices agreed that the forts, Sumter and Pickens, should neither be garrisoned nor provisioned so long as these armistices continued in force.

Papers to this effect had been filed in the United States Army and Navy Departments. Abraham Lincoln knew this armistice. Lincoln then began a series of secret orders. Major Robert Anderson, commander of the U.S. troops stationed at Charleston, South Carolina’s Fort Moultrie, took his men out of Fort Moultrie and into the island fort, Fort Sumter, under the cloak of darkness. This in itself was a provocation that could have brought on conflict. But cooler heads prevailed and the South awaited Major Anderson’s evacuation of Fort Sumter.

Before his inauguration, Lincoln had sent a confidential message to General Winfield Scott to be ready, when his inauguration, March 4, 1861, should take place, to hold or retake the forts. President Lincoln on March 12, directed Montgomery Blair, one of his Cabinet members, to telegraph Captain G. V. Fox, formerly of the Navy, to come to Washington to arrange for reinforcing Fort Sumter. G. V. Fox, on March 15, was sent to Fort Sumter, and arranged with Major Anderson for reinforcement. This alone was an act of espionage.

link (http://www.scv674.org/SH-7.htm)

[Jake Featherston]

No serious rightist thinker could argue Lincoln to be worse then Wilson.

I think its clear that many serious rightist thinkers have asserted precisely that. But more importantly, the two were scarcely comparable. They did such very different things, in such very different eras, that its like asking whether steam engine locomotives are "better" than eugenic asexual human reproduction.

[Mailman]

It's good to see Breckinridge way out in front and still climbing in your poll, almost four years after the thread was begun.

[Felix the Cat]

Yes, I've had endless debates with Americans who think that European wars of unification were terrible because of what happened in America. And I've had almost as many with people of the opposite persuasion who think that Lincoln was a great unifier because of the history of unifications in Europe. Too few on either side appreciate the drastically different circumstances of each. The difference in the amount of territory involved is only the first distinction to be made. There are obviously many more.

Too bad the Soviet Union is gone. I always enjoyed mentioning it to people who approached me with a worshipful tone toward Lincoln.
The British war against the Boers was also justified on these grounds.