Was Slavery on the Way Out?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

True. Though keep in mind, those people live in Africa. As much as I'd like to see slavery stamped out of the world, I also don't agree with telling another country how to behave. All I can reasonably sanction is the laws of my own backyard and hopefully attempt to negotiate with those people to find other economic options. Tall order considering the economic status of those African countries that still do it though...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

True. Though keep in mind, those people live in Africa. As much as I'd like to see slavery stamped out of the world, I also don't agree with telling another country how to behave. All I can reasonably sanction is the laws of my own backyard and hopefully attempt to negotiate with those people to find other economic options. Tall order considering the economic status of those African countries that still do it though...

Its true. But...we can tell them how to behave if they want help from us. Something we don't do to most of our middle eastern friends.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't lie. The Democrats that opposed desegregation were CLEARLY conservative. It is only after the Civil Rights Act happened did they jump ship and turn the Republican party conservative. I really hate seeing that narrative pushed like it is some champion victory for equal rights from conservatives. Liberals were responsible for the Civil Rights Act just like Liberals are responsible for modern Civil Rights laws. It's ALWAYS conservatives who are fighting these laws, because THAT is what conservatives do. They resist change. It is what makes them conservative.

I think you are confused. Words meant different things back then. Liberalism used to be very conservative. John Locke and the enlightenment movement created the term. Look it up. The real definition is much more like a libertarian today. A progressive is not liberal by the old definition. Progressives were not always very progressive. Like Woodrow Wilson who didn't think women should vote or their tie to eugenics.

Conservatives (Republicans) without a doubt starting with Lincoln until JFK were the leaders in civil liberties.

Yes, the term 'liberalism' was appropriated in the 20th century such that it has become necessary to qualify it as 'classical liberalism'.

liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[9] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America.[10] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state.Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

True. Though keep in mind, those people live in Africa. As much as I'd like to see slavery stamped out of the world, I also don't agree with telling another country how to behave. All I can reasonably sanction is the laws of my own backyard and hopefully attempt to negotiate with those people to find other economic options. Tall order considering the economic status of those African countries that still do it though...

Its true. But...we can tell them how to behave if they want help from us. Something we don't do to most of our middle eastern friends.

Yea... I had a feeling someone would make a parallel to our meddling in the Middle East. Just for the record, I've been saying for months on these forums that we need to be out of the Middle East altogether.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

True. Though keep in mind, those people live in Africa. As much as I'd like to see slavery stamped out of the world, I also don't agree with telling another country how to behave. All I can reasonably sanction is the laws of my own backyard and hopefully attempt to negotiate with those people to find other economic options. Tall order considering the economic status of those African countries that still do it though...

Its true. But...we can tell them how to behave if they want help from us. Something we don't do to most of our middle eastern friends.

Yea... I had a feeling someone would make a parallel to our meddling in the Middle East. Just for the record, I've been saying for months on these forums that we need to be out of the Middle East altogether.

Totally agree.....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hey you may be right, but we'll never know. The point of the thread wasn't what slavery would have been like in the 1880's though. It was what the state of slavery actually WAS in the 1860's.

Also, keep in mind, there are many inventions from black inventors that may not have been made if slavery weren't abolished. It's also possible that the industrial revolution would be held off by a few years or go in a completely different direction.

The Industrial Revolution began in 1760, not the mid to late 1800's. In fact it was at it's peak between 1820-1840.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: greencmp

Actually, liberalism is really just the idea of being for something different. Liberalism changes definitions because eventually the ideals that made up old Liberalism become the establishment and thus the younger generations eventually see the flaws in the new establishment and push the ideals of Liberalism further left politically.

Keep in mind, conservatism follows the same patterns. As Liberal ideas become abandoned by Liberals because they are viewed as establishment, they are adopted by conservatives and become conservative positions. This is what happened to Libertarianism. Though there are still Libertarian issues that are still considered Liberal, but the majority of the political ideology has been pushed right.

But at the end of the day, Liberals have always been for change and conservatives are for keeping things the way they are.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hey you may be right, but we'll never know. The point of the thread wasn't what slavery would have been like in the 1880's though. It was what the state of slavery actually WAS in the 1860's.

Also, keep in mind, there are many inventions from black inventors that may not have been made if slavery weren't abolished. It's also possible that the industrial revolution would be held off by a few years or go in a completely different direction.

The Industrial Revolution began in 1760, not the mid to late 1800's. In fact it was at it's peak between 1820-1840.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok. Fair enough, but I was more talking about the industrial boom from 1880 to 1910 that carried us into the 20th century. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Actually, liberalism is really just the idea of being for something different. Liberalism changes definitions because eventually the ideals that made up old Liberalism become the establishment and thus the younger generations eventually see the flaws in the new establishment and push the ideals of Liberalism further left politically.

Keep in mind, conservatism follows the same patterns. As Liberal ideas become abandoned by Liberals because they are viewed as establishment, they are adopted by conservatives and become conservative positions.

But at the end of the day, Liberals have always been for change and conservatives are for keeping things the way they are.

That imo is not true at all. Liberalism is a definition that came from the enlightenment movement and was a philosophy. You can't just change the definition of philosophies. Empiricism doesn't mean something else. Just because society lost track of what these things mean doesn't mean the philosophy changed. Liberalism wasn't about change it was about personal liberty. The definition no where says you have to change it simply implies private property rights, personal liberty and all other things the liberal philosophy brought about by John Locke stand for. It has nothing to do with what you said. What people did was create philosophical theories into slang. The problem is people have poor educations and don't understand the words themselves and the meaning was lost.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hey you may be right, but we'll never know. The point of the thread wasn't what slavery would have been like in the 1880's though. It was what the state of slavery actually WAS in the 1860's.

Also, keep in mind, there are many inventions from black inventors that may not have been made if slavery weren't abolished. It's also possible that the industrial revolution would be held off by a few years or go in a completely different direction.

The Industrial Revolution began in 1760, not the mid to late 1800's. In fact it was at it's peak between 1820-1840.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok. Fair enough, but I was more talking about the industrial boom from 1880 to 1910 that carried us into the 20th century. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology.

:



Fair play to you.

In fact The Industrial Revolution began in Ironbridge Shropshire England, a few miles from where i live.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't lie. The Democrats that opposed desegregation were CLEARLY conservative. It is only after the Civil Rights Act happened did they jump ship and turn the Republican party conservative. I really hate seeing that narrative pushed like it is some champion victory for equal rights from conservatives. Liberals were responsible for the Civil Rights Act just like Liberals are responsible for modern Civil Rights laws. It's ALWAYS conservatives who are fighting these laws, because THAT is what conservatives do. They resist change. It is what makes them conservative.

I think you are confused. Words meant different things back then. Liberalism used to be very conservative. John Locke and the enlightenment movement created the term. Look it up. The real definition is much more like a libertarian today. A progressive is not liberal by the old definition. Progressives were not always very progressive. Like Woodrow Wilson who didn't think women should vote or their tie to eugenics.

Conservatives (Republicans) without a doubt starting with Lincoln until JFK were the leaders in civil liberties.

Yes, the term 'liberalism' was appropriated in the 20th century such that it has become necessary to qualify it as 'classical liberalism'.

liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[9] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America.[10] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state.Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world.

As a former student of philosophy I understand very well the history. Liberalism today is not a philosophy but rather a slang word who's meaning is vague and fluid.

a reply to: luthier

Sorry bud, but definitions of words change all the time. Word definitions aren't static. What the word was invented for and what it means today aren't the same thing.

Here is the modern definition of Liberalism:

1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

As you can see that isn't the same as what John Locke originally said. It's close but not the same.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Sorry bud, but definitions of words change all the time. Word definitions aren't static. What the word was invented for and what it means today aren't the same thing.

My point is liberalism is a philosophy. When you study philosophy we don't use the new definition of the word do we? Philosophy and meaning are different than slang words and vernacular.

While people may view the words definition as different it doesn't change the fact it means something else. Take some controversial words like the N word. Did it change when blacks themselves started using it differently? Not really. Words change sure but not science words.

My point is yes people use these words very differently today but, why? In this case it is a very specific philosophy not a noun.

My original point was liberalism like Republicanism. Republicans used to be liberal. Democrats used to be racist. By changing the words I believe there was a purposeful misleading of what the word means. Now a classical liberal is a libertarian. So he can't call himself a liberal which directly corresponds to an actual philosophy and leads to a meaningful deeply thought out philosophy where as liberal today is a vague vernacular slang.

a reply to: luthier

See that's the thing, this issue isn't about who is and isn't Liberal. Though, keep in mind, even using the classical definition of Liberal, anyone in favor of slavery, racism, or segregation automatically isn't a Liberal. This is about an issue that goes MUCH deeper and is MUCH older than random political divides. This issue is about North vs South. An issue that has been with us since the country was founded. In recent times, the issue went underground, but it has always still been there boiling under the surface. Ask a Southerner what a carpetbagger is for instance.

It's only recently that the great divide in this country has aligned itself by political parties. Though, I really see it as a just a shift in the way the North vs South divide is carried out. Now it is the Northeastern and Western coastal states (Democrat havens) vs the interior states (though it is largely without borders), but the divisions still exist. And many of the arguments and divides that separated the North and South are apparent in this new division.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

See that's the thing, this issue isn't about who is and isn't Liberal. Though, keep in mind, even using the classical definition of Liberal, anyone in favor of slavery, racism, or segregation automatically isn't a Liberal. This is about an issue that goes MUCH deeper and is MUCH older than random political divides. This issue is about North vs South. An issue that has been with us since the country was founded. In recent times, the issue went underground, but it has always still been there boiling under the surface. Ask a Southerner what a carpetbagger is for instance.

It's only recently that the great divide in this country has aligned itself by political parties. Though, I really see it as a just a shift in the way the North vs South divide is carried out. Now it is the Northeastern and Western coastal states (Democrat havens) vs the interior states (though it is largely without borders), but the divisions still exist. And many of the arguments and divides that separated the North and South are apparent in this new division.

I don't think that true politically. Imo there are very few liberal politicians that care at all about racism. If they did they would stop the war on drugs and deal with the criminal justice system as well as fight to have job training and educational equality rather than give hand outs that keep people locked into a lifestyle.

Like harry Reid fighting to change the redskins name. Meanwhile the real racism is the poverty that no one wants to talk about or come up with solutions (they don't vote in enough numbers).

The most libertarian/liberal candidate who is rand Paul actually has done this with public policy not just words and symbols.

Meanwhile Bill Clinton was fine having confederate flag pins made for his campaign in 92. Even if he didn't have them made he used never tried to disassociate himself from that theme. He even made mandatory drug sentencing and privatized welfare. Its easy to fool people with words when you don't know there real meaning or intention.

a reply to: luthier

You aren't going to catch me defending the Democrats. I'm not a Democrat. So I'm not going to excuse any Democrat's hypocritical behavior. They are just as responsible in their own ways for fueling the race war. The only different between them and the Republicans is that they aren't as overt about it. Republicans will be right in your face with their intolerance. Democrats just hide it by pretending like they are combating it.

Though that doesn't mean the Democrats don't bring up good points when they DO do this. They kind of have to to present a worthy distract for their constituents.

By the way, I currently define Libertarianism as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. So seeing Rand Paul champion Liberal values like he does isn't surprising to me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

You aren't going to catch me defending the Democrats. I'm not a Democrat. So I'm not going to excuse any Democrat's hypocritical behavior. They are just as responsible in their own ways for fueling the race war. The only different between them and the Republicans is that they aren't as overt about it. Republicans will be right in your face with their intolerance. Democrats just hide it by pretending like they are combating it.

Though that doesn't mean the Democrats don't bring up good points when they DO do this. They kind of have to to present a worthy distract for their constituents.

By the way, I currently define Libertarianism as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. So seeing Rand Paul champion Liberal values like he does isn't surprising to me.

Nice! We agree there. Its just that democrats are defined as liberal even though they are not in actual practice.

What you said is spot on though.

a reply to: luthier

It's probably a result of an "us vs them" mentality. Republicans have labeled themselves as conservative, so naturally anyone who isn't a Republican and therefore a conservative (Democrats since both major political parties have started to ignore the wants of the independents and moderates) is a Liberal Democrat.

This dualistic view of politics really annoys me and distracts from political conversations when I have to stop and explain that I'm not a democrat nor a liberal and am closer to a moderate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

It's probably a result of an "us vs them" mentality. Republicans have labeled themselves as conservative, so naturally anyone who isn't a Republican and therefore a conservative (Democrats since both major political parties have started to ignore the wants of the independents and moderates) is a Liberal Democrat.

This dualistic view of politics really annoys me and distracts from political conversations when I have to stop and explain that I'm not a democrat nor a liberal and am closer to a moderate.

I agree and sorry if I played into that.

I am a radical moderate. Meaning I have a very radical idea of what needs to be done with the environment and social structure as we enter into a fully automated world but, completely understand everyone has a right to express their views and come up with solutions in a moderate way.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So these southern conservatives were the ones to end the filibuster and push the Civil Rights Act through....not the progressives as everyone always gives credit.....the majority were against it. Both sides had opposition, but it was the Democratic party that lead the way in hindering rights for all....

You're too smart to be saying nonsense like this.

Here is Mark Levin speaking about it all...and every point is correct.

Why not say, "here is Mark Levin, conservative talk radio host, Edwin Meese's former chief of staff and member of the Reagan administration to back up this myth?"

Though the shift began somewhere in the mid-1870's, it really became apparent in 1896, after the People's Party merged into the Democratic Party and the renowned progressive orator William Jennings Bryan ("The Great Commoner") was chosen as the party's candidate in the 1896 (and then again in 1900 and also in 1908). This is despite the Democrats having won the presidency twice with "Bourbon Democrat" Grover Cleveland, the last wholly conservative leader of the Democratic Party, in two of the three past elections (1884 and 1892). Thought Bryan didn't win the presidency, he was highly regarded and extremely influential in his party (similar to Goldwater's influence over the GOP in the 1960's).

When the Democrats finally took back the White House (Woodrow Wilson) and also took a congressional majority, they passed a slew of progressive legislation based in large part on Bryan's platform.

Adamson Act - 8 hour work day and overtime pay for railroad workers
Federal Trade Commission Act
Clayton Antitrust Act
Keating-Owen Act - attempt to curtail child labor

etc etc..

Then we get to the 30's, FDR and the New Deal. Would you refer to the New Deal as conservative? Then in 1948, the schism among southern Democrats and the rest of the party over segregation became so severe that a group of southern Democrats jumped ship and formed the extremely short-lived States' Rights Democratic Party aka the "Dixiecrats."

Meanwhile, over at the GOP, there were also strongly opposing factions, chiefly those who supported the New Deal (mostly from the Northeast and led by Dewey, later to evolve into the "Rockefeller Republicans" and these days RINOs) and those who had not and did not (mostly in the Midwest and led by Taft aka "Mr. Republican") and fought to repeal portions of it in the 40's with the help of southern Democrats. Once the GOP controlled Congress, you start to see passage of undeniably conservative and anti-labor legislation such as the Taft-Hartley (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947) which:

prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns.

This is getting a bit long so I'm going to wrap it up with the breakdown of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by party and region (excerpt from Wikipedia)

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

As you can see, only 8 yeas from southern congressmen, period. Also note that such prominent conservatives as Goldwater and William F. Buckley, Jr. were against the act. Consider also what MLK had to say about the make up of the parties and their support of civil rights:

"Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights"

Finally, look at some of the changes in party affiliation of politicians following in the 60's and 70's such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms becoming Republicans and Byrd becoming an independent. Here's a list of party changes.