Why Do Users Here Believe Lincoln Would Be A Liberal Today?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Because he was one? It's true that the Republican Party was ardently capitalist, but it was also an economically egalitarian party that defended the value of labor and put "the man before the dollar." Are you familiar with the Homestead Act and the Morrill Land Grants?

Empty slogans are as ever.

While the Republicans certainly embraced land grants, the use of land sales to benefit education dates back to the Whig Platform (though this is a more direct application) and from my research the only deviation would be the co-opting of the Democratic position against the Whigs (favoring sales at lower prices, in this case free).

However, at the same time a lot of this land was given to the railroads, in many cases much more then they needed and this excess was then sold at extremely high prices to settlers. Furthermore, the settling out of this territory provided commerce to support the westward expansion of railroads and make the lines economically viable as such.

So while directly egalitarian and so forth, one cannot argue with the fact that this was all structured in such a way so as to line the pockets of wealthy benefactors.

Lastly, I am not aware of a single policy that Republicans enacted that benefited "labor" at the expense of the "Capitalist" class. It was all mutual benefit or mutual opposition to the slave holders. That is why I have routinely stressed the importance of placing such designation into context with appropriate appreciation for the level of selective application of bold sounding promises and statements. Basically, gets back to the point that the OP made about these policies being done with an eye towards benefiting business.

It's not an empty slogan though. Lincoln was drawing an explicit comparison between the Democrats, who valued property over liberty, and the Republicans, who did not. Here is the quote in context from the letter in which it was written:

Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago, two great political parties were first formed in this country, that Thomas Jefferson was the head of one of them, and Boston the head-quarters of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party opposed to Jefferson should now be celebrating his birthday in their own original seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.

Remembering too, that the Jefferson party were formed upon its supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior, and then assuming that the so-called democracy of to-day, are the Jefferson, and their opponents, the anti-Jefferson parties, it will be equally interesting to note how completely the two have changed hands as to the principle upon which they were originally supposed to be divided.

The democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man's right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar.

I remember once being much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engage in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long, and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat, and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have perfomed the same feat as the two drunken men.

#partyflip confirmed by Abe Lincoln himself.

You mustn’t forget, it wasn’t the Republicans who went around calling people mudsills.

Henry it is an empty slogan save for the one place where it mattered for Lincoln, with regards to the Planters. As Truman and myself have repeatedly beat ourselves against your brick wall of a skull here, the planters were not the only rich people in the country except in the delusions of some lost causers spouting of nonsense about the south paying 80% of the taxes. At no point do Republicans apply this concept in opposition to anyone except the planter class, hence why I have repeatedly stressed the importance of appreciating selective application of political statements in history. It applies now, it certainly applied then.

If you opt to examine the period of 1848-1874 as a party flip that is a horrendous way to analyze this. At the same time while Lincoln is saying they have changed coats, he still alluding that the Republicans are the heirs of the Federalists and the Democrats the heirs of Jefferson but one as embraced the legacy of their former rival while the other has gone astray of it.

There is a good reason why Republicans would be celebrating Jeffersonian legacy, because from the time of Jackson onwards, the baseline would be a tacit acceptance of basic Jeffersonian principles hence why you had near one party rule. And Jeffersonian Republicans made great efforts to eliminate the party system by incorporating ex-Federalists into the party, but in the end this only contributed to the rise of the divide between the Democratic-Republicans and the National Republicans in the 1820s with most of the Federalists bolstering the ranks of the National Republicans.

To reject Jefferson by this point is political suicide, just as how the "Tories" in early 1800s Britain had to state affirmatively that they were "whigs" because to say otherwise meant you had rejected decades of established order and liberty, not to mention implied disloyalty to the sitting Hanoverian dynasty. Most such Whigs were in fact so, saw themselves as such, and rejected any attachment to the 17th and early 18th century Tories for good reason. At the same time they did cling closer to George III then his son, opposed the policies of CJ Fox and later on came to oppose the French Revolution.

Henry Clay was certainly no Federalist. Indeed 80% of the country would probably be anti-Federalist by the 1820s much less the 1850s, hence why the Federalists collapsed into nothing and the new divide is between two groups of erstwhile Jeffersonian Republicans. Is that a party flip? No, its more of a baseline reset.

What happens in the 1850s is that Democrats deviate from that Jeffersonian baseline because of 1. Blind prejudice of their small farmer/artisan/immigrant base and 2. Capture by regional special interests. Much of its support remains the same, for instance Tammany Hall supported Jefferson, Jackson and the Copperheads in the Civil War. Corruption aside, this is a good barometer of immigrant support, which was a consistent base of support among all three groups.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Interesting to note that Karl Marx wrote a letter praising Lincoln and celebrating his re-election in 1864. Lincoln's response to the letter, if Charles Adams is to be believed, was generally positive.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

It is indeed interesting, but also easy to overstate its significance. Marx was sympathetic to the Union cause for reasons that should be obvious; Lincoln's reply (related through Adams, which is a significant fact in it of itself) goes out of its way to clarify that it is personal in nature and not an endorsement of Marx's political program. ("So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, [emphasis added] they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.") As far as I am aware they never corresponded before or after this.

That's correct. I don't think that this letter, or Marx's other writings on the American Civil War and Lincoln's handling of it, should be read into to indicate Lincoln's feelings towards Marx, but it is indicative of how Lincoln's presidency was perceived by the fledgling Marxist left.

Lincoln has become something of a truly controversial figure about fringe elements of the left today, some singing his praises as a force against the Southern slavocracy, and others damning him as another white settler imperialist. Marx's feelings on him at the least are very very clear.

Its why I take pause to come "left revisionism" because at some points, the left are better at appreciating and understanding various concepts that other groups don't often consider so quickly, namely class considerations as a basis for the embrace of policies as opposed to the policies themselves. This explains why one group's desires might differ over time and that is because their interests change with economic and societal shift. In a lot of mainstream historical analysis there is often the danger of things being portrayed as static and linear when in fact they are far more influx and complicated than is often portrayed.

Marx had a vested interest in the defeat of the Southern slaveocracy, and Lincoln had an interest both at home and abroad with currying favor with working classes be it with ex-German Revolutionaries, that were an important piece of the party in the Midwest, keeping the ever unsatisfied Horace Greeley at bey and of course manipulating the political seen in the British Isles as to make the Liberal Party Gov'ts fondness for the South a painful exercise to contemplate making a reality. Lincoln was masterful in managing the various people he needed and his ability to keep both Marxists and Industrialists under the same tent (necessary to win the war mind you) is worthy of greater study and understanding.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Interesting to note that Karl Marx wrote a letter praising Lincoln and celebrating his re-election in 1864. Lincoln's response to the letter, if Charles Adams is to be believed, was generally positive.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

It is indeed interesting, but also easy to overstate its significance. Marx was sympathetic to the Union cause for reasons that should be obvious; Lincoln's reply (related through Adams, which is a significant fact in it of itself) goes out of its way to clarify that it is personal in nature and not an endorsement of Marx's political program. ("So far as the sentiments expressed by it are personal, [emphasis added] they are accepted by him with a sincere and anxious desire that he may be able to prove himself not unworthy of the confidence which has been recently extended to him by his fellow citizens and by so many of the friends of humanity and progress throughout the world.") As far as I am aware they never corresponded before or after this.

That's correct. I don't think that this letter, or Marx's other writings on the American Civil War and Lincoln's handling of it, should be read into to indicate Lincoln's feelings towards Marx, but it is indicative of how Lincoln's presidency was perceived by the fledgling Marxist left.

Lincoln has become something of a truly controversial figure about fringe elements of the left today, some singing his praises as a force against the Southern slavocracy, and others damning him as another white settler imperialist. Marx's feelings on him at the least are very very clear.

Its why I take pause to come "left revisionism" because at some points, the left are better at appreciating and understanding various concepts that other groups don't often consider so quickly, namely class considerations as a basis for the embrace of policies as opposed to the policies themselves. This explains why one group's desires might differ over time and that is because their interests change with economic and societal shift. In a lot of mainstream historical analysis there is often the danger of things being portrayed as static and linear when in fact they are far more influx and complicated than is often portrayed.

Marx had a vested interest in the defeat of the Southern slaveocracy, and Lincoln had an interest both at home and abroad with currying favor with working classes be it with ex-German Revolutionaries, that were an important piece of the party in the Midwest, keeping the ever unsatisfied Horace Greeley at bey and of course manipulating the political seen in the British Isles as to make the Liberal Party Gov'ts fondness for the South a painful exercise to contemplate making a reality. Lincoln was masterful in managing the various people he needed and his ability to keep both Marxists and Industrialists under the same tent (necessary to win the war mind you) is worthy of greater study and understanding.

Perfect example of this is protectionism in the United States. Same basic policy and general view of the realities of international trade for over a century, but the groups supporting it have shifted and changed over time.