If Democrats were the liberals back during that Civil War

[BS Filter]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

Yep, it was the conservatives who believed that then too. The ones who wanted to conserve slavery. Obviously the Liberals were in the Republican fold, simply by virtue of Abolition.

Buzz about secession was buzzing around as far back as 1828 over what they called the "Tariff of Abominations". That buzz was recorded in South Carolina, where the Civil War began a third of a century later.

The abolitionists were Christians. The Bible to a Democrat is like sunlight to a vampire.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The answers so far are really interesting. Most on the right are basically responding with "Secession good, it's moral, it's right, it's freedom!"

OK, cool story. I won't argue, I'll accept your premise at face value. But it still doesn't answer the question. This is about the alleged liberal/conservative alignment of the two big parties, using positions on secession as an indicator. So all that really matter is whether supporting a unilateral power to secede is a liberal position, or a conservative position. If it's a liberal position, why do modern day conservatives support it? If it's a conservative position, why were the allegedly liberal Democrats of the mid 19th century supporting it?

 

[theHawk]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

Yep, it was the conservatives who believed that then too. The ones who wanted to conserve slavery. Obviously the Liberals were in the Republican fold, simply by virtue of Abolition.

Buzz about secession was buzzing around as far back as 1828 over what they called the "Tariff of Abominations". That buzz was recorded in South Carolina, where the Civil War began a third of a century later.

Today the Democrats want to “conserve” the use of Chinese slavery. Why would they be any different in the 1800’s with African slaves?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

You're asking why you feel conservatives believe in freedom when you apparently don't?

That is not even close to an answer. I've seen better red herrings at the dog park.

It's precisely what you asked.

 

[Pogo]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

Yep, it was the conservatives who believed that then too. The ones who wanted to conserve slavery. Obviously the Liberals were in the Republican fold, simply by virtue of Abolition.

Buzz about secession was buzzing around as far back as 1828 over what they called the "Tariff of Abominations". That buzz was recorded in South Carolina, where the Civil War began a third of a century later.

Today the Democrats want to “conserve” the use of Chinese slavery. Why would they be any different in the 1800’s with African slaves?

See if your teacher can translate this into some form of English.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

You're asking why you feel conservatives believe in freedom when you apparently don't?

That is not even close to an answer. I've seen better red herrings at the dog park.

It's precisely what you asked.

You may fool some others with this, but I know you're smarter than this. You're just too discomforted with the consequences implied by this dilemma.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

Yep, it was the conservatives who believed that then too. The ones who wanted to conserve slavery. Obviously the Liberals were in the Republican fold, simply by virtue of Abolition.

Buzz about secession was buzzing around as far back as 1828 over what they called the "Tariff of Abominations". That buzz was recorded in South Carolina, where the Civil War began a third of a century later.

Today the Democrats want to “conserve” the use of Chinese slavery. Why would they be any different in the 1800’s with African slaves?

See if your teacher can translate this into some form of English.

Why the fuck can you understand a rap song but not comprehend what he wrote?


.

 

[Pogo]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

Yep, it was the conservatives who believed that then too. The ones who wanted to conserve slavery. Obviously the Liberals were in the Republican fold, simply by virtue of Abolition.

Buzz about secession was buzzing around as far back as 1828 over what they called the "Tariff of Abominations". That buzz was recorded in South Carolina, where the Civil War began a third of a century later.

Today the Democrats want to “conserve” the use of Chinese slavery. Why would they be any different in the 1800’s with African slaves?

See if your teacher can translate this into some form of English.

Why the fuck can you understand a rap song but not comprehend what he wrote?

Where did I ever say I "understood a rap song"?
Where did I ever characterize rap as "music" in the first place?

Do you ever wear pants? Because there's an awful lot you pull out of your ass. No I have no idea what he's yammering about, and apparently you don't either. Now shut the fuck up and go back to your bottle.

 

[Pogo]

The answers so far are really interesting. Most on the right are basically responding with "Secession good, it's moral, it's right, it's freedom!"

OK, cool story. I won't argue, I'll accept your premise at face value. But it still doesn't answer the question. This is about the alleged liberal/conservative alignment of the two big parties, using positions on secession as an indicator. So all that really matter is whether supporting a unilateral power to secede is a liberal position, or a conservative position. If it's a liberal position, why do modern day conservatives support it? If it's a conservative position, why were the allegedly liberal Democrats of the mid 19th century supporting it?

I'm not seeing the concept of secession as a "liberal" or "conservative" position per se. In the instant case of the Civil War, it was used as an avenue to sustain the conservative position, that of the preservation of Slavery and the plantation economy. Perhaps in that instance the dynamic could be called radical conservatism, as secession is a radical step.

It would presumably be plausible if, say, that conservative Slavery system had won the day in 1860, amassed all the political power and was steering the whole country and its territories in that direction, that the Liberal North could have decided "this won't work" and seceded itself, to protect its own Liberal values. So the act of secession, by itself, seems like a neutral.

 

[theHawk]

The answers so far are really interesting. Most on the right are basically responding with "Secession good, it's moral, it's right, it's freedom!"

OK, cool story. I won't argue, I'll accept your premise at face value. But it still doesn't answer the question. This is about the alleged liberal/conservative alignment of the two big parties, using positions on secession as an indicator. So all that really matter is whether supporting a unilateral power to secede is a liberal position, or a conservative position. If it's a liberal position, why do modern day conservatives support it? If it's a conservative position, why were the allegedly liberal Democrats of the mid 19th century supporting it?

I'm not seeing the concept of secession as a "liberal" or "conservative" position per se. In the instant case of the Civil War, it was used as an avenue to sustain the conservative position, that of the preservation of Slavery and the plantation economy. Perhaps in that instance the dynamic could be called radical conservatism, as secession is a radical step.

It would presumably be plausible if, say, that conservative Slavery system had won the day in 1860, amassed all the political power and was steering the whole country and its territories in that direction, that the Liberal North could have decided "this won't work" and seceded itself, to protect its own Liberal values. So the act of secession, by itself, seems like a neutral.

Your definition of conservative is mind boggling. We don’t want to “conserve” or “sustain” things just for the sake of keeping things the same. Conservative refers to keeping traditional values, namely Christian values.

You wanting to keep abortion legal doesn’t make you a “conservative” any more than southerners who wanted to keep slavery legal.

 

[Pogo]

The answers so far are really interesting. Most on the right are basically responding with "Secession good, it's moral, it's right, it's freedom!"

OK, cool story. I won't argue, I'll accept your premise at face value. But it still doesn't answer the question. This is about the alleged liberal/conservative alignment of the two big parties, using positions on secession as an indicator. So all that really matter is whether supporting a unilateral power to secede is a liberal position, or a conservative position. If it's a liberal position, why do modern day conservatives support it? If it's a conservative position, why were the allegedly liberal Democrats of the mid 19th century supporting it?

I'm not seeing the concept of secession as a "liberal" or "conservative" position per se. In the instant case of the Civil War, it was used as an avenue to sustain the conservative position, that of the preservation of Slavery and the plantation economy. Perhaps in that instance the dynamic could be called radical conservatism, as secession is a radical step.

It would presumably be plausible if, say, that conservative Slavery system had won the day in 1860, amassed all the political power and was steering the whole country and its territories in that direction, that the Liberal North could have decided "this won't work" and seceded itself, to protect its own Liberal values. So the act of secession, by itself, seems like a neutral.

Your definition of conservative is mind boggling. We don’t want to “conserve” or “sustain” things just for the sake of keeping things the same.

The Confederales certainly did, didn't they. That's what the whole conflict was about, and what this thread's about. They (the indolent planter aristocracy) were scared shitless they'd lose their easy greedy life of getting rich off the backs of slaves and that their political power would fade off into the sunset -- most of the world had abolished it by then -- so they tried to create their own country where they could sustain the status quo. You don't get a much more direct definition of conservatism than 'sustain the status quo". Even after they lost the war they still tried to keep the flame of the Old South alive. Jim Crow laws. Cult of the Lost Cause. Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind. Any of these ring a bell?

Conservative refers to keeping traditional values, namely Christian values.

Bullshit. Conservatism as a political term has nothing to do with religions unless you're in a theocracy. Are you in a theocracy? I ain't. In fact let me show you Number One on the Bill of Rights in my Constitution....

It does mean keeping traditional values, as I just articulated above. So you agree with that.

You wanting to keep abortion legal doesn’t make you a “conservative” any more than southerners who wanted to keep slavery legal.

Now you're pulling shit out of your ass that I never brought up. It demonstrates your dearth of argument. Again.

Moreover I don't claim to be "conservative" in anything except linguistics.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Why is it always conservatives nowadays who believe the stupid idea that a state can secede at the drop of a dime?

What's going on inside your head?