As for Garrison, he might have opposed Douglas for his views on the Constitution. Some abolitionists believed the Constitution was inherently racist. Some, like Douglas, believed their hopes lie in the proper fulfillment of it.

Regarding the Republicans and the Native Americans: this was absolutely the worst time to be a Native American – the plains indians were basically just slaughtered under mostly Republican administrations.

But yes, the freedmen did enjoy a brief period of rights after the civil war. But if Lincoln was so in favor of helping them why did he continually support policies that strengthened the institution? Slavery could have died out mostly peacefully had Lincoln and others before him simply abandoned support for the Fugitive Slave Act. It was already dying out in many other states for its economic drain. What could have killed it off years before would have been the abandonment of the Fugitive Slave Act (and perhaps a guerrilla war to free the few slaves still remaining on plantations who had been unable to escape north).

Yes, he was a racist, but so was William Lloyd Garrison. (You’d be hard put to find a 19th century white who was not a racist; Lincoln was less racist than most.) Garrison famously feuded with Frederick Douglass, mostly because Douglass was a black man who was not properly deferential to Garrison. Garrison also lost all interest in the welfare of African Americans once slavery had ended and stood silently by while blacks were terrorized and slaughtered by white mobs during Reconstrction.

Regarding what the Republican Party did to the Native Americans — as president, Ulysses Grant (who sent troops to the South to destroy the Ku Klus Klan, btw) appointed an Indian (Ely Parker) to be head of the Indian bureau, which shocked the socks off of “proper” people of the day. He also attempted an Indian policy that would have been compassionate had it been carried out. But whites, including many of Grant’s subordinates, weren’t ready for it and undermined it. So, yes, it failed.

Back to Reconstruction — the Radical Republicans in Congress actually attempted to obtain full civil rights for the freedmen, supported their voting rights, and supported their election to public office. The Democratic party of the time was utterly opposed equal rights for blacks, including voting. So I’m not sure why you are picking on Republicans here.

As for the notion that Bush critics commit some sacrilege by invoking Lincoln, because “he belongs to all of us,” this Bush voter says “gag me with a spoon.”

But patience, pilgrim. In a few months the shit is going to hit the fan. Karl will be indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury. That will be the beginning of a collapse of the Republican empire that will rival Rome’s.

An interesting historical sidelight. The beginning of Rome’s fall was when Constantine converted, and made Christianity the official religion. Bible thumpers beware. The end is NEAR.

Very interesting – I think you should understand though that you cannot argue with some conservatives on these points, because they are not really conservatives, but are what I term Opcons.

Opcons believe everyone on an oil painting or an old photo, for that matter, is basically a Reaganite.

So even though Jefferson and Adams were not Christian and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are Christian, the Opcon will argue the reverse because it makes for a convienient contemporary operating premise.

Opcon – is short for oil painting conservative, But I guess you can be ‘liberal’ and include deguerritypes, etc.

Here is our take on the Bush – Lincoln comparison:

Click on the url – provided above for my blog and it will take you directly to our post.

I imagine you would agree with much of what is said. We shall see. Would be interested to know your thoughts.

Anyway very interesting Maha.