• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The U.S. Civil War - Liberals vs Conservatives?

 
 
 
T

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
11,400
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
With all the recent twitching about statues it seems to me that the Civil War was between a liberal north and a conservative south, something I never considered before.

Does this seem accurate?
 
There is an inherent danger in applying political labels to the past. It was the Republican Party which elected Lincoln,emancipated the slaves, and then administered government through out Reconstruction. This left the Republicans distinctly unpopular in the south, and the Democratic Party held sway for the next century. While the southern Democrats were quite progressive on some issues, they were nearly paleolithic on most social issue, especially racial equality.

When the Democratic Party became the party of racial equality, southern Democrats fought tooth and nail, but eventually, most of them surrendered and became Republicans.

The labels conservative and liberal did not have the same meaning we understand today. The division was mainly over economics. A pre-Civil War Liberal was likely to be in favor of Federal government tax revenues being spent on infrastructure such as canals, roads, and bridges, while a conservative was likely to oppose use of Federal funds, on the grounds that anything which couldn't be built by private investors, did not need to be built.

The social issues which divide today's liberals and conservatives, gay rights, abortion, prayer in school, etc, simply did not exist at that time.
 
For the first 80 years of the US, the chief divide was between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians. Neither could be said to be conservative or liberal by today's standards, although there is a common thread linking the Hamiltonians to the modern Republicans. Liberals as we know them today started up after the Civil War, and only really became established under Wilson and FDR.
 
Bronzeage said:
There is an inherent danger in applying political labels to the past. It was the Republican Party which elected Lincoln,emancipated the slaves, and then administered government through out Reconstruction. This left the Republicans distinctly unpopular in the south, and the Democratic Party held sway for the next century. While the southern Democrats were quite progressive on some issues, they were nearly paleolithic on most social issue, especially racial equality.

When the Democratic Party became the party of racial equality, southern Democrats fought tooth and nail, but eventually, most of them surrendered and became Republicans.

The labels conservative and liberal did not have the same meaning we understand today. The division was mainly over economics. A pre-Civil War Liberal was likely to be in favor of Federal government tax revenues being spent on infrastructure such as canals, roads, and bridges, while a conservative was likely to oppose use of Federal funds, on the grounds that anything which couldn't be built by private investors, did not need to be built.

The social issues which divide today's liberals and conservatives, gay rights, abortion, prayer in school, etc, simply did not exist at that time.
Click to expand...

I realize there is a bit of anachronizing but considering human history and the progression from monarchial society to democratic society, the flow from states rights to individual liberties, and seeing this continuing today, it seems an accurate observation about the Civil War. I don't think party affiliation is relative.
 
Bronzeage said:
There is an inherent danger in applying political labels to the past. It was the Republican Party which elected Lincoln,emancipated the slaves, and then administered government through out Reconstruction. This left the Republicans distinctly unpopular in the south, and the Democratic Party held sway for the next century. While the southern Democrats were quite progressive on some issues, they were nearly paleolithic on most social issue, especially racial equality.

When the Democratic Party became the party of racial equality, southern Democrats fought tooth and nail, but eventually, most of them surrendered and became Republicans.

The labels conservative and liberal did not have the same meaning we understand today. The division was mainly over economics. A pre-Civil War Liberal was likely to be in favor of Federal government tax revenues being spent on infrastructure such as canals, roads, and bridges, while a conservative was likely to oppose use of Federal funds, on the grounds that anything which couldn't be built by private investors, did not need to be built.

The social issues which divide today's liberals and conservatives, gay rights, abortion, prayer in school, etc, simply did not exist at that time.
Click to expand...

And yet the more things change the more they stay the same. Wether we call them conservatives or democrats doesn't matter, this country has a long history of being ideologically divided along class lines. This makes sense, as the suburbanites and urbanites are usually the first to adopt a new way of thinking and the percolation of new ideas into rural society is usually slow. I suspect you would see similar divides between city and country in other nations too. Where America is different is that we have a very pronounced rural segment of society that you don't necessarily see in small industrialized nations like those in the EU.
 
joedad said:
With all the recent twitching about statues it seems to me that the Civil War was between a liberal north and a conservative south, something I never considered before.

Does this seem accurate?
Click to expand...
I think it was more rebels attacking Federal Troops and the Feds fighting back. The South tried to secede to keep the institution of slavey intact for the long term. The North fought back to keep the South in the nation.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
For the first 80 years of the US, the chief divide was between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians. Neither could be said to be conservative or liberal by today's standards, although there is a common thread linking the Hamiltonians to the modern Republicans. Liberals as we know them today started up after the Civil War, and only really became established under Wilson and FDR.
Click to expand...

Anti-slavery in the western world was always a liberal (individual human rights) or radical position, not generally a conservative position. If conservatives took a position on slavery in the 1700s and 1800s , it was likely to be pro-slavery.
 
jab said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
For the first 80 years of the US, the chief divide was between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians. Neither could be said to be conservative or liberal by today's standards, although there is a common thread linking the Hamiltonians to the modern Republicans. Liberals as we know them today started up after the Civil War, and only really became established under Wilson and FDR.
Click to expand...

Anti-slavery in the western world was always a liberal (individual human rights) or radical position, not generally a conservative position. If conservatives took a position on slavery in the 1700s and 1800s , it was likely to be pro-slavery.
Click to expand...

If liberal means individual human rights, then the modern American liberal is not a liberal, which goes far to show that neither side in the civil war fits the modern definition of liberal or conservative.

The political thinker of that time who best fits that particular definition of liberal is Lysander Spooner. He wasn't a fit to either of the parties of his time.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
jab said:
Anti-slavery in the western world was always a liberal (individual human rights) or radical position, not generally a conservative position. If conservatives took a position on slavery in the 1700s and 1800s , it was likely to be pro-slavery.
Click to expand...

If liberal means individual human rights, then the modern American liberal is not a liberal, which goes far to show that neither side in the civil war fits the modern definition of liberal or conservative.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The Civil War was about Democracy (The US) and Anti-Democracy (Rebels). The Rebels thought that just because they lost an election they could ignore it and split off and become their own country. They didn't give a flip about the will of the people.

Meanwhile Lincoln wanted to keep the nation together, instead of let the rebels rip it in half. He felt that winning the election gave him the mandate to refuse secession.
 
The North were libertarians. The South were conservolibertarians. John Brown was a militant leftist who was right.
 
Back to back grammar Nazis?

Jebus Christ! They are both past tense for hang. The English language blows!
 
joedad said:
With all the recent twitching about statues it seems to me that the Civil War was between a liberal north and a conservative south, something I never considered before.

Does this seem accurate?
Click to expand...
Yes*

*except for that "was" part. You all talk about the Civil War as if it's over (or a thing of the past). Where do y'all gets yall's information, Wikipedia?

Scholarly works all spew the same ole nonsense. Get a bunch of edgumacated libruls together and you think the War is over. Hogwash!

[/Whiskey]
 
Lincoln at the time described it as a war between the people and aristocracy. The South was ruled by a class of people who definitely felt they were superior to others and that theirs were the only votes that counted. I have no doubt that if the Confederacy had survived, eventually the ruling class would have gone further into cementing their own status above the ordinary folk. It should come as no surprise that modern day oligarchs use much the same language as the Confederate leaders did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom