Centerfield

That's an interesting way of looking at things. You're right that the coalitions certainly change.

I always thought of the Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans as being in the same barrel because of the big business vs little people connection. But in the South, the Democrats were on the side of the aristocrats. Not exactly pro-business, but definitely not so much the little guy. And, like you say, the anti-slavery were Republicans.

Now, some things are the same. I'm afraid Lincoln was no small-gov't Republican - he ran up a serious debt, and he temporarily expanded Washington considerably to defend it. And although he was against slavery, he wasn't big on civil rights or constitutional limits - he suspended habeas corpus quasi-constitutionally and authorized a huge army of militia without Congress around.

Having read lots more history, I still agree with what they told me in grade school about Lincoln: he was our greatest President. Various Founders who became Presidents were as thoughtful, and more influential, but none faced the kind of sustained contest and horror that Lincoln did, requiring such thoughtfulness, steadfastness, and delicacy. None. Maybe worst: back in the Founders' days, there weren't so many Americans available to die under his watch. And Lincoln was the last to face real existential danger to the, er, Union.

Jon,

"I always thought of the Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans as being in the same barrel because of the big business vs little people.."

Yes and no. Hamilton's Federalists believed in much of the platform of the GOP but not totally. This could have something to do with the times as well.

Hamilton's Federalism believed in Centralized power so the government could spur growth thru a strong central bank, high protective tariffs and subsidies to business. The idea of protectionism and quasi-isolationism is a key component. This was the foundation for Whig Henry Clay's "American System which strove to make America completely commerically self sufficient. Lincoln took this as his platform. The North ate this up since they had all the industry. Most workers and merchants supported this with the idea of protecting jobs, wages and growth. The GOP was all about high tariffs well into the 20th century.

On the other hand, Jeffersonian ideals about small government, low tariffs and free trade was the philosophy of the Dems of the day. The cotton farmers needed low tariffs to export cotton and didn't care about heavy industry. As tariffs rose, their obsession with slave labor strenghtened. It's notable that Jefferson in his later years took Hamilton's and Adam's side on this.

In modern times, these economic philosophies are mixed up and recombined in the today's platforms...though there is considerable debate within the parties. I see the paleoconservatives like Buchanan and Dobbs as the closest, economically speaking, to the Federalists since they're want to defend american industry and jobs against globaization...even if it means tariffs and other protectionist measures Many on the populsit Left also co-opt some of these ideas.

But the status quo of both parties are generally a mix of Hamilton and Jefferson in varying degrees. Neither is a pure bred desendent of that era. I'm sure Kudlow/Greenspan and Buchanan/Dobbs would have much to argue about as would Clinton and Co. with many populist, labor Leftists like Bernie Sanders and Thom Hartmann.

But socially is where we see a virtually complete swap. The religious, traditionalist conservatives, based in the South and Midwest are now the GOP base whereas they were solidly Democrat til the mid-20th century. Northern, more moderate Republicans are not unlike old northern Dems who, along with the Whigs and the Free Soil Party, joined to form the GOP.

Yep. The parties re-invent themselves periodically, and what they were a century or half-century ago is not what they are today.

Lincoln adopted a very Jacksonian attitude towards the Constitution during the Civil War. He was quite explicit that he'd rather be hung for doing what he could to keep the Union together, than be faithful to the letter of the Constitution and watch the Union fall apart on his watch. To Lincoln, without the Union the Constitution was pointless.

Yep, preservation of the Union came first.

Funny, I just look at the basic platforms of Lincoln's time and I wonder how it would work today:

GOP: Strong proactive government, civil rights, social equality, business subsidies, strong central bank, big investments internal "public" works infratcture projects, high tariffs, cautious trade, isolationism, economic protectionism, liberal interpretation of the constitution.

Dems: very small govenrment, massive states' rights advocates, free trade, low taxes, fiscal conservatism, strict debt control and strict constitutionsl interpretation.

Third party anyone? Here's two strange hybrids to choose from that once had support. ha.