Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
I really don't understand what you mean when you say that your "understanding" of liberal and conservative implies that slavery is conservative and emancipation is liberal. Are you working from some kind of established definitions of liberal and conservative? If so, what are they and how do they show slavery to be "conservative"?
|
Wikipedia quote: (on Civil War)
While conservatives and many moderates were content merely to call for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise or a prohibition of slavery extension, radicals advocated repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws and rapid abolition in existing states. The term "radical" has also been applied to those who objected to the Compromise of 1850, which extended slavery in the territories.
So yeah, I'm somewhat off on this. I unforuntatley am not as well read on history books concerning the Civil war, so I can't offer quotes from other sourches as I have for other arguments. So, I guess I would like to equate radical wiht liberal, but you woudl not. I won't do it unless I find a better source, so I'll go ahead and say that since the conservatives were on one side that wanted to prevent Civil War by allowing less stringent measures for the abolition of slavery, "radicals" (or hopefully since we have liberals vs. conservatives, I can call this liberals later with proof) were more for the immediate abolition of slavery.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Again, what definition of liberal are you using here? It seems to be heavily related to people's self-perception and self-application of the label, which would make your assertions somewhat trivial.
|
I'm sorry, I'm not a liberal from the 1930s so I'm not applying said label to myself. And most historians who label the New Deal as a liberal program are proabably not referring to themselves either, and the 20s are referred to as a period of conservatism. I provided with you with a quote of how supporting the New Deal was liberalism.
I'm using the defintion found in most history texts and analysis of the 1920s' up to WWII. If you don't like the definition, feel free to rewrite it. I'm gonna stick to the one that most historians use.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
How is it even possible for "liberals" to win "through out (sic) American History" if "liberal" means something completely different from what it meant towards the beginning of American history?
|
[/QUOTE]
Because when we look back in retrospect, while studying history, we apply the labels conservative and liberal to different sides of a debate/movement/event. My contention is that the sides that have been given the liberal tag, not by me, but by most historians have come out generally with the upper hand. Therefore society has moved in a generally liberal current. (although this means that it has changed directions) I mentioned in an earlier post that obviously today's conservatives woudl be looked upon as liberals in other days, and perhaps the 1930s liberals would be considered today's moderates. So yes, today's liberals have won nothing. And today's conservatives have lost nothing. THat is because, 50 years from now historians will look back and attach identifiers to the different groups because they have hindsight. And if I am still alive, I will look back, try to understand the groups, add it to my theory, or I will bury my theory because it failed.