@wmwcjr,
I may have missed a post or two but it seems that you only actually identified one individual who meets your definition of a neo-Confederate. (I admit though that I am not certain of what that definition actually is)
Endorsing a return to a period when African-Americans were enslaved would be an extremely
bold position to take by any public figure in this nation, let alone someone who can be legitimately associated with the GOP. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone not demented would do so, and I feel similarly about the possibility that public figures are openly expressing the comparatively less insane but equally noxious position that the country would somehow be much better off if we returned to the conditions of the Jim Crow era. I'm not suggesting that there aren't people in this country who would welcome a return to a time when African-American's were second-class citizens, and I've no doubt that there are even some cretins who fantasize about a return to the days when humans were bought and sold, but such people are cranks, kooks, and extremely base individuals (with many more than likely being very capable of criminal activity) but the suggestion that there is a group of such
neo-Confederates in prominence and associated closely with the GOP or conservatism, in general, is extremely difficult for me to even consider, and I don't mind saying that I won't unless and until you are able to provide me with a lot more specifics in terms of individuals and their words and deeds.
As for reviling Lincoln, it would be very odd if there were any group of public figures who expressed an opinion of Lincoln that amounted to revilement, and even more so if they could be legitimately associated with the Republican Party. Having said this, Lincoln was not a god and as subject to legitimate criticism as any president or man. You yourself suggested that Lincoln would likely have been a segregationist if he had lived well beyond that night at the Ford Theater.
There is little doubt that Lincoln personally abhorred slavery but his words and deeds as president were not consistent with any notion of him as The
Abolitionist-in-Chief. Obviously, he was also a product of his time and while he may have been more enlightened on issues of race than many of his fellow Americans there are things he has written and said that would be considered racist in our time. As you're probably aware, he at one point expressed the opinion that the white and black races were much too different to live side by side in America and was in favor of transporting the slaves he intended to see free to Africa to establish their own lands.
Now I know you are not suggesting that these
neo-Confederates and men like Strom Thurmond are or were critical of Lincoln because of what certainly appears from today's perspective to be racist views, but certainly, any criticism of Lincoln by any Republican is not verboten simply because of the man's position in the history of the nation and his party. Again, he was a man, not a demi-god.
As for your certainty that men like Thurmond and Helms didn't hold Lincoln in high regard, I would ask why you are so sure? Have you read or heard words from any of the Dems who switched to the GOP that indicate they did not hold Lincoln in high esteem? Or are you assuming they did not based on your own prejudice? It's quite possible that you are absolutely correct about this, and if you tell me you have read or heard their words which prove it, that's good enough for me. I don't need cites, I'll take your word. I just think there is too much assuming of thoughts and intent going on in this nation and at this time and such assumptions are not always correct, no matter how reasonable they seem to be. People should be judged on their own actual words and deeds and not what we assume them obe.
