Posted on 06/21/2015 6:07:40 PM PDT by PROCON
Edited on 06/21/2015 6:29:18 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Protesters in South Carolina have begun burning Confederate flags and defacing monuments as the debate as to whether or not the flag should fly over the state's capital intensifies in the wake of Wednesday's brutal massacre that saw nine people murdered because they were black.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Thanks, we’ll said.
Sorry, gonna have to disagree with you that the Confederacy wasn’t a conservative movement. It was, in fact, so conservative that what it was attempting to conserve, or more accurately bring back to life, was the pre-American aristocratic POV that some were born booted and spurred to ride others who were born saddled and bridled.
IOW, as some of them were honest enough to admit, that all men are NOT created equal.
This was mitigated to some extent by the large number of those who considered themselves members of the master race, and by a general idea that one white man was as good as another. But you can already see the idea developing that some white men were born to rule over others.
The conservatism of the South then and during Jim Crow days was a pre- or anti-American conservatism. To my mind, anyway, since everything specifically American for me flows from “All men are created equal.” Deny that and you aren’t really American, IMO.
YMMV
Emptying the cities was just the beginning of the Khmer Rouge’s brutal attempt to dismantle virtually every element of traditional Cambodian society. The regime launched a massive assault on centuries-old traditions and heritage, denouncing them as a hindrance to the establishment of the utopian classless society. Buddhist monks were labeled as parasites, their temples seized and converted to other uses. Works of art were destroyed.
Funny, Slaves lived under the Confederate Battle Flag for only two Years, but they all lived under Old Glory.
The Confederate Battle Flag wasn’t Adopted until 1863.
Ban the American Flag, now!
Careful there, FRiend, you're touching on a subject that's extraordinarily important we conservatives are never, ever confused about.
Yes, the media, academia, leftist politicians (but I repeat myself) all want to confuse us, and themselves, but we must remain clear-minded about it.
American conservatives in no way, shape or form resemble traditional conservatives from Europe or anywhere else.
In virtually every other country, the word "conservative" refers to those who support the Old Order -- monarchy, aristocracy, ecclesiastical authority, divine rights, big government, oppression of serfs & "commoners", etc., etc.
In the US, "conservative" refers to none of that, just the opposite.
In the US "conservative" means dedicated to our Founders' original vision, from "all men are created equal" to a very small, highly limited government, performing only those tasks that no one else can do, i.e, national defense.
So, if I understand, your argument is that Confederates wished to return to a more European vision of "conservative", with a white aristocracy divinely appointed to rule over its slaves, certainly, and to paternally guide the more benighted white underclass (aka "white trash").
Fine, I agree, but under no circumstances will I agree that is "conservative" in the American sense of the word.
In today's language usage, the old paternalistic European aristocracy equates to today's liberalism, or progressivism, where our liberal elites occupy exalted positions of power and influence, to rule over and guide us benighted common people, for our own good of course, just as the old slave-masters paternally protected their subjects while extracting from them all the wages & profits of their labor.
Especially in this particular discussion, where the subject raised by "the OlLine Rebel" is the state of Maryland, notice the two maps I posted in #155 & #157.
Here we see there is nearly 100% correlation between the conservative Unionists of 1861 and today's conservative Republicans, while those slave-power strong-holds in 1861 are now liberal-progressive Democrats.
How could it get much clearer?
If you still doubt me on this, then ask yourself this question: does the liberal-progressive vision of our future more resemble the republic of our Founders' documents, or does it more resemble a Marxist nirvana, with them ruling from the masa's big house?
That's why I say: in 1861 unionists were "conservative", slave-power secessionists were equivalent to today's "liberal-progressives".
I agree entirely that American conservatism has little or nothing to do with European and elsewhere conservatism, other than a common antagonism for leftism. I thought I’d made that fairly clear.
Where we part company is in your equation of the prewar planters with today’s liberals. I fail to see how their concentrations in 1860 have anything to do with those of today.
Yes, they’ve got in common that an elite will dominate and rule over everybody else. But that’s true of every political tradition there is other than American conservatism, also known as classical liberalism, which is based on the most radical notion in the history of the world. We don’t need an elite to dominate and control everybody else. We’ll control our own lives, thank you.
The major difference in this regard between everybody else is who the dominating elite are and how they are chosen.
But I absolutely agree there is no connection between the American Right and the European Right. Which is why I dislike the word “Right” as applied in America. Right has a definite meaning for conservatives of the ancien regime type.
This is also why I tick off some American conservatives when I point out the Nazism, while incorporating much leftist ideology, was also heavily influenced by the old Euro Right, just morphed from a Church and Crown focus to one on blood and soil.
So Fascism and Nazism were indeed (partly) movements of the Right. It just wasn’t the American version of conservatism.
Now I know you are crazy. To all others this note: the German Conservative party put up the only interference in the 1930's against the Nazi Party and Hitler. the Conservatives and Nazis were enemies.
As usual, you’re confused. There was no “German Conservative Party” during this period.
Presumably you’re thinking of the German National People’s Party. Which cooperated with the Nazis from 1928 or so on, and played a major role in their coming to power. Even entering a coalition government as a junior partner to the Nazis. The party joined in voting for the Enabling Act, which made Hitler a dictator.
Unless there’s some other conservative party you’re talking about?
Ever notice how when you talk about the Nazi’s and the Nationalist Socialist Party those on the Left usually describe it as The Extreme Right? The reality is it’s the extreme Left.
The Christian churches were the main resistance while not a “party” per say they spoke for the German conservatives. There were conservative newspapers that spoke out until they were shut down.
Obviously, neither 1861 Confederates nor Unionists were "big government" types in today's sense, despite what our pro-Confederates sometimes claim.
None had a vision of overbearing socialistic rule that remotely resembles today's liberal-progressivism.
But within the context of the time, the slave-power, like today's liberal-progressives sought to preserve laws which entitled them to receive the legally extracted wages of others.
For slave-owners those "others" meant their slaves.
For liberal-progressives, "others" means everyone who pays taxes to support socialistic redistribution schemes.
In both cases it's a legal institution enforced by the state, to transfer wealth from one group of people to another.
That's why I say the slave-power of 1861 equates to today's liberal-progressives.
And it seems to me those political maps of Maryland should illustrate my case pretty well.
Naturally, liberals themselves would never agree to this -- it would drive them apoplectic to even consider it.
They are far too long accustomed to equating us conservatives with Nazis, forgetting that Nazis were first & foremost big government socialists, just like themselves.
My point here is to maintain a clear distinction between what we consider "conservative", based on our Founding documents, versus "conservative" or "right wing" anywhere else in the world.
Do you disagree?
Thanks!
You are correct that there was a Catholic political party, which did oppose the Nazis, and any discussion of which leads us into the subject of Cardinal Pacelli's 1933 Concordat with Hitler.
And no, no, we just don't want to go there...
How do you explain overall maps of the US of 1860 vs maps of today, then?
Do you claim New Englanders as well as Southerners somehow wholesale changed?
Nope, they realized the parties had changed.
A little late to be protesting the civil war. The punks think their generation is the most important.
Actually your map doesn’t correspond very well. I forgot you were using slave vs votes today.
The only rock solid Dem areas in MD are Baltimore (basically no slaves, but LOTS of southern sympathy and riots) and Montgomery and Prince George’s Co. These last 2 are HEAVILY today because of limo-lib federalis living outside their DC haven and spreading their poison. Many of them are “foreigners”, not native for generations. They came here for fed make-work.
Charles Co. Has only recently, the last 10 to 15 years, turned Dem. My life it was another southern MD conservative hold, but the poison of welfare PG Co is now spreading down Rte 301.
Eastern MD is well known as slave-owning and DEFINITELY conservative. Only some more recent change thanks again to a bunch of libs from central MD going down deh oshin.
My own native Howard somehow manages to keep showing as slightly conservative. I guess the old farmers (they just got gerrymandered out of Western MD district with Roscoe Bartlett) still hold some sway over my native commie Kolumbia - BTW, also populated largely by people tied much more to DC than Balto which is only 15 min away.
Don’t challenge me on the nature of MD. I’m quite familiar with it through and through!
From the time of Thomas Jefferson until roughly 1964, the political party of the Solid South was called Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans until 1825 and afterwards Jacksonian Democrats.
In our terms, it was not a "conservative" party, just the opposite -- before 1865 it was totally dedicated to using the legal enforcement powers of the state to redistribute wealth from an oppressed class (slaves) to a favored class (owners).
It also used the Constitution's 3/5 rule to favor white southern voters over northern voters
After the Civil War Democrats continued using the legal enforcement powers of the state to maintain Jim Crow laws ensuring that whites benefitted from poorly paid black workers.
And when the Progressive Era came along, beginning circa 1915, Southern Democrats found ever new ways of redistributing northern wealth to benefit their white voters.
So there was nothing ever, what we consider "limited government conservative" about Southern Democrats.
From the beginning of the Republic, they used the power of the state to redistribute wealth to those who were politically favored.
Just as Liberal-Progressive Democrats do today, though admittedly on a vastly larger scale.
By comparison to today's Big Government Liberals, the old Southern Democrats were all cheap pikers, but their principles were the same: use political powers to benefit your voters economically.
Beginning circa 1964, there was a political phase-change, when Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson adopted the Civil Rights cause against southern whites.
Now suddenly the Solid South discovered real conservatism, in the form of Republican Barry Goldwater and his book, "The Conscience of a Conservative".
Now suddenly the South discovered that wealth redistribution was not such a good idea, and not just because they themselves were not the prime beneficiaries, but because, really, it's morally, economically, socially and in other ways, counter-productive.
And so, the Solid South did the impossible, truly a miracle from God, imho, they became conservative Republicans.
But the alliance has always been uneasy, because, first on the list: is that matter of Lost Causer mythology.
For many Southerners, it's just impossible to be a Republican unless people like Abraham Lincoln are mythologically turned into crypto-Liberal Democrats.
And that's what we see, thread after thread, year after year, here on Free Republic.
And, "OlLine Rebel", your mention that many western Marylanders today identify more with the Confederate cause than they do with the Union side their ancestors actually fought for tells us the Lost Causer Myth has had some effect in unexpected places.
Today we see the Left using this political fault line amongst Republicans to spark a race war -- no, not between blacks and whites, that would benefit nobody.
The "race war" the Left hopes to ignite is between Southern Republicans who revere their old Confederate Battle Flag, and Northern Republicans who don't care enough about it to defend it against the Left's demagoguery.
For the Left it's a big win-win -- with one great war-hoop they stir up their own black voters against "white supremacy" and split Republicans between northern and southern, making each mad enough to stay home from voting -- or better yet, start a third party.
Then Hillary can win the same way Bill did -- with a modern day Ross Perot splitting the anti-Democrat voters.
Does that answer your question, FRiend?
the OlLine Rebel: "Do you claim New Englanders as well as Southerners somehow wholesale changed?"
After the Civil War, the North including New England was mostly Republican, except when they joined the South in electing Democrat presidents, i.e. Cleveland, Wilson, FDR.
So, the political alliance of Southern Democrats and Northern Big City immigrant Democrats was strong enough to occasionally elect a president, especially when Republicans split, as they did for example, in 1912, electing Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.
But in the great political realignment of 1964, Democrats lost white southerners and needed to replace them with... yes, a flood of new Democrat voting immigrants, and so Teddy Kennedy's law opened up the gates.
And that's been the story ever since.
Does that answer your question?
Obviously, sir, nevertheless the maps don't lie.
If you look at which counties were secessionist, Confederate supporters in 1861, those are mostly now big Liberal-Progressive Democrat counties.
And if you look at which counties were Unionists in 1861, those are now more conservative Republicans.
Yes, I agree there are many other things going on -- people moving in, good jobs moving out, etc., etc.
Still, it's a fact that when people move, they almost always move into neighborhoods where they themselves feel comfortable, with people of their own liking, neighborhoods and jobs they want, etc.
And so we should, possibly, not be so surprised to learn that even 150 years later, those counties who depended on government to redistribute wealth (from slaves) back then, still want it redistributed (from "the rich") today.
First of all, just FYI, I’m a ma’am, not sir.
Second, how are you judging “unionist” by a slave map? Your info is very interesting but I don’t know that the interpretation is correct.
It shows % of slaves in pop. Not “unionist” per se. What is the cut-off for you? Because the Eastern Shore was most definitely “slave-owning” and I guess, by your def, “rebel”. Thus, should correspond to “Dem” today - but it most certainly does not.
Bottom line is, New Englanders changed parties because they saw things changed.
Eventually, stubborn Southerners likewise changed. We still have a problem where southerners would not stop voting Dem JUST BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR (foolishness, stubborn loyalty to outdated meanings). Alot of that happens in Montgomery Co. today - but any change that might have happened was snuffed by the influx of Federali job-takers, by definition Dems. Southerners didn’t just suddenly change from welfare-supporting commies to freedom-loving anti-regulators overnight. They finally realized their true identity and left the Lincoln-hatred behind (as far as labels were concerned).
As far as comments on my relatives and friends in Western MD, no, their ancestors did not all fight for the North. That was the point - many people around Cumberland and Keyser, VA (WV) were THEN southern sympathizers. I have been to their gravesites (as an avid member of graveyard society; BTW which also includes honoring US Colored Troops in Cumberland). Just because it may have been mostly unionist (as was what would be SECESSIONIST “West Virginia”) does not mean there were no good number of sympathizers. This applies to my whole state - commonly called “blue commie” by outsiders on this site, but much more red than they realize thanks to 3 (now 4, only recently) puny but predictable locales (urban settings).
I’m done!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.