A Response

Ryan, is it not possible to be a liberal politician and a realist also? I think you make a good point about Lincoln being a pragmatist who did what he needed to in order to preserve the Union. I would also add to that his political savvy in holding together a fractious cabinet, unruly military high command, fickle population, and navigate a quagmire of politics at home. Naturally he had to make compromises for the greater good of the nation. But Lincoln still had a liberal vision.

The Civil War provided the opportunity to remake American society. Fueled by his moral, liberal outlook Lincoln set out to make changes that would finish the work left undone by the Founders. Those changes stuck because they also happened to be war measures, applied at the correct times and places to achieve maximum effects to support the war effort. But I think smart people at the time knew that once enacted those changes could never be reversed.

Ironically I think the South could have done more to oppose him had it unified politically and not seceded. Among other things, secession gave Republicans and their allies outright control of both houses. Through the crisis Lincoln was able to push through changes to the Constitution itself that would have been incredibly difficult with a split legislature. Instead the South generated a polarizing crisis that would eventually smash it and everything it was fighting for.

Still, even if there had been no Civil War I believe that President Lincoln still would have worked to set the nation on the course he envisioned. Without the war I doubt it could have happened for a few generations, and would have suffered many fits and starts. But he would have been guided by his moral compass. The course it led him on was considered liberal, outside the box thinking at the time, and by today’s standards would make President Lincoln a Liberal.

Remember — Liberal ≠ Democrat, and Conservative ≠ Republican