>>"... virtue and vigilance are not hallmarks of society today."
>
>??? Care to elaborate? Especially compared to 1861?

Well, 1861 had no internet, television, or radio. There were two ways to learn the candidates views: read a newspaper account often days after the fact, or attend a debate / rally / convention and actually hear the candidate speak. The whole process of discussion was glacially slow compared to today's sound-bite world, and I suspect that the voters were better informed. There was no lack of slander and lies in the campaign 'literature', but I suspect the candidates themselves had fewer aspirations to political 'power'.

Decades of watching local, state, and national politics have jaded me. Regardless of the party of the politition, the outcome is generally (but not always) taking care of ours, and obvious corruption. I've now seen it in Chicago (where I grew up), Springfield, and Washington: both D and R disappoint at best and disgust at worst. Virtue in public office? A rare occurence.

Surveys indicate an lack of knowledge or interest in government among large segments of the public who would be qualified to vote, and particularly younger people. Vigilance is not likely when you don't know or care who's in charge or what they're in charge of.