How EEBIL is Liberalism anyway?
So EEBIL it finally got, after shaking off the institution of slavery like a case of fleas, the franchise to black people, non-property owners, women --- the actual people.
Lie #2 right there. Democrats launched an attack on the U.S. to keep black people in slavery. It was the small government Republican Party once again, that ended slavery. Sadly, to this day the left attempts to keep slavery alive and well through a multitude of different tactics. Everywhere that Democrats are in charge (Detroit, New Orleans, etc.) the African-American toils in misery (poverty, drugs, prostitution, crime, etc.).
Prevaricationist History Myth #863739. Seen it many times.
I know of no "attack on the US to keep black people in slavery" other than the Civil War, which was not waged by "Democrats" or by any other political party. It was in fact initiated by a rich, élite, lazy fat-**** Planter Aristocracy (there's your conservative hierarchy again) looking to keep itself in the status of rich fat-****, using, as always, the poorer working classes (such as the then-population here in Appalachia) who largely despised them and wanted no part of such a war, and where they could voted against it and where they were overruled often insurged against it.
Were these rich fat-**** aristocrat instigators "Democrats"? Some of them, surely. Others were Whigs or Know Nothings --- or had no party at all as none was needed to run a rich fat-**** plantation. In the crucial 1860 election, the Democratic Party candidate came in dead last in a field of four, and after Lincoln's triumph he worked on Lincoln's behalf to attempt to reconcile the sides and prevent secession -- and when that failed, Douglas advised Lincoln on how best to put the insurrection down. And once the Confederacy did break off --- it abolished
all political parties.
As for your self-delusionary Cherrypicking about cities (which happen to trend to Democrats everywhere -- the rich ones, the poor ones, the newer ones, the older ones, the sleek ones, the sleazy ones etc) -- you don't know the "toils of the African American" any more than I know the embroidery patterns of Sri Lanka but I do know New Orleans way better than you do particularly after you already admitted believing you could hurricane-evacuate in twenty minutes, and the countless African Americans I lived and worked with (and still work with to this day) would be not only alarmed but insulted by your patronizingly ignorant characterization of them into "poverty, drugs, prostitution, crime etc". Obviously they are not on this thread, so I am insulted for them, as I know them and you don't.
I guess the short way of expressing all that would be: "**** You".
----
**NONE** of which is the topic here anyway, since the post, and supposedly your own thread here, were supposed to be about "Liberals", which for lack of a being able to come up with a point you morphed here into "Democrats" at one point and into "the left" at another point (pity you can't even figure out what your target is).
That the distinction between a political party, and a political philosophy that predates it, sails blithely over your head is as unsurprising as it is pathetic.
As for your hallucinations of a "small government Republican Party", the direct opposite was the case in the mid-1800s. The RP drew its membership largely from the Whigs, at least the contingent of that dying party which favored Abolition, when that party was unable to come to a consensus on that issue, which broke its back.. The Whigs were already the party of doing big things with government, which they carried over into the new RP for the rest of the century, while the Democrats of the era were the party of "states' rights" and
decentralization. The Republicans as a whole were also the Liberals of the day, to the extent such could be represented by a political party, simply on the basis of pushing for Abolition, which is a directly and emphatically
Liberal idea*,
That's a generalized statement of course; Abolition was an ongoing divisive issue that had its champions and its detractors across many parties, and in some cases (as the Whigs) caused them to collapse for lack of direction. Meanwhile the Democratic Party had been organized
into being a party by another abolitionist, one Martin van Buren, who was defeated in a re-election bid by a Whig (and another in a succession of Southern slaveowners that dominated the first dozen Presidents). So while there was definitely a 'party of Abolition" once the RP took up the cause, there was no equivalent "party of slavery". The issue divided strictly along geographical-economic lines --- which is exactly why neither the RP's first POTUS candy John Frémont, nor its second Abraham Lincoln, ran for office at all ital in the South (matter of fact Lincoln didn't even appear on a ballot in his home state of Kentucky until 1864 and even then it was under banner of the "National Union Party" which was a fusion between the unionist Republican Lincoln and the unionist Democrat Johnson.
Bottom line here: Liberalism is neither "left" nor "right" nor "Democrat" nor "Republican". Political parties exist to facilitate the consolidation of political power, and not to represent an ideology. While they may originate with the latter purpose, ideologies change with the times and the political winds and the avenues of opportunity. The former motive NEVER changes.
* Again, "all men are created equal": egalitarian. Liberalism.
Hierarchy of the privileged Rulers over the Ruled --- authoritarian and conservative. You know, like the British Crown; like the fat-**** indolent planter aristocracy. That whole crowd.
Whelp -- the former... the Liberals... defeated the latter, the fat-*****. And good riddance.
"Democrats" through all this were on both sides (before the war) and exclusively in the Union once it began, including the Vice President by the time it ended.
History lesson, Buttsoiler. Learn it.
