Why do progressives attempt to paint the Confederates as rightwingers?

[Mad_Cabbie]

We can always point to the past and say - wow! Look at how backwards those bleepity-bleeps were!!!

All that means is that we've come a long way and we got much more to go.

Sorry dems, you have to own a huge share of the unsavoury truth in American history. Republicans too, but at least a republican president put an end to slavery.

My great grandfather AND my great, great, grandfather were both confederates. I am proud of who I am. I am proud of where I came from. Why? Because some young know-it-all is going to one day, point back at us folks alive right now and say "look at those idiots ... burning gasoline, messing up the earth ..."

... Or, whatever. Hey, we try our best to make it in this realm ... I'm not going to hold up to the scrutiny of the world unborn; I/we taught them to do better ... they learned, because of us ... because of our failings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do progressives attempt to paint the Confederates as rightwingers?

They were the conservatives, who were perverting the great traditions of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.

 

[paperview]

1856:The conservative south, itching for a fight, responds to nomination of James Buchanan -

LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE

"....the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."

Those were the Southern sentiments in 1856.

It's absurd and ridiculous to paint the South as progressive.
It has always been conservative, generally, and likely always will be.

 

[BlindBoo]

Andrew Jackson? Didn't he die about 15 years before the birth of the Confederacy?

 

[BlindBoo]

Still no rebuttals from the loony left.

Because there is nothing to rebut?

 

[paperview]

Andrew Jackson? Didn't he die about 15 years before the birth of the Confederacy?

Hey, you got an idiot referencing William Jennings Brian in regards to the CW, and he was all of one years old when the war began, so hey, history shmystery.

 

[Pheonixops]

To the OP, what about this Southern Democrat? Was he a Liberal progressive?


John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) was an American statesman and political theorist who first proclaimed the idea of minority rights; he had a significant impact on conservative political thought and is still studied.





John C. Calhoun: Selected Writings and Speeches (Conservative Leadership Series)

Southern Conservatives Revive Calhounism—Tyranny of the Minority


"After 1830, his views evolved and he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade; as he saw these means as the only way to preserve the Union. He is best known for his intense and original defense of slavery as something positive, his distrust of majoritarianism, and for pointing the South toward secession from the Union."



In point of fact, John Calhoun was one of the most cogently original and genuinely conservative theorists in the American political tradition; one whose ideas, though indeed employed by their author in defense of the slave interest, are intellectually independent from it. Though acquainted with The Tyranny of the Majority only by hearsay, I suspect that whatever is valuable in the book derives, either entirely or in large part, from the writings of the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, Senator John C. Calhoun (1782-1850).

 

[BlindBoo]

Why do progressives attempt to paint the Confederates as rightwingers?

Simple. They're desperate to claim Lincoln as one of their own.

But reality simply doesn't support that claim.

He's a site that compares and contrasts the two parties' platforms from their inception. You can plainly see the GOP has always championed civil rights; the Dems are Johnny-come-latelies.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/CivilRightsPlatforms.pdf

Further, look at this Democratic campaign poster:

"The two platforms" From a series of racist posters attacking Radical Republican exponents of black suffrage, issued during the 1866 Pennsylvania gubernatorial race. (See "The Constitutional Amendment," no. 1866-5.) The poster specifically characterizes Democratic candidate Hiester Clymer's platform as "for the White Man," represented here by the idealized head of a young man. (Clymer ran on a white-supremacy platform.) In contrast a stereotyped black head represents Clymer's opponent James White Geary's platform, "for the Negro." Below the portraits are the words, "Read the platforms. Congress says, The Negro must be allowed to vote, or the states be punished." Above is an explanation: "Every Radical in Congress Voted for Negro Suffrage. Every Radical in the Pennsylvania Senate Voted for Negro Suffrage. Stevens [Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens], Forney [John W. Forney, editor of the " Philadelphia Press":], and Cameron [Pennsylvania Republican boss Simon Cameron] are for Negro Suffrage; they are all Candidates for the United States Senate. No Radical Newspaper Opposes Negro Suffrage. "Geary" said in a Speech at Harrisburg, 11th of August, 1866--"There Can Be No Possible Objection to Negro Suffrage."​

File:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the left to claim Lincoln as their own is laughable.

The Civil Rights Bill was not a Democrat v Republican issue. It was a North\South Issue. Most votes in favor of it were from the Northern states. Most votes against were from the South.

Historically the Democratic party in the 1860 was the party of white men. But then again Lincoln was also racist. Trying to compare the parties of 2013 with the parties of the 1860's is just plain dumb.

 

[Flopper]

The South during this time period were the inheritors of the legacy of Andrew Jackson, a dictatorial President who greatly expanded the scope of the executive branch, so much so that the opposition party called itself "the whigs" to stand in stark contrast with the autocratic tendencies of Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson, the founder of the modern day democrat party, was first and foremost a populist who saw fit to discard the regular order of checks and balances when it disagreed with his interpretation, and that of the people. He painted himself as the tribune of the people, and claimed to represent the not well-off of people of his era, and despised the capitalist north. Andrew Jackson and the democrat party claimed to have been opposed to special interest, big banks, and capitalism. Does this ring any bells?

The Democrat party, during this time period was also one dominated by the wealthy planters, with all political influence being disproportionally concentrated in them (just like the progressive leftists). Their livelihoods, and lifestyle depended on the institution of slavery, and would use their whole political clout in order to keep it in place (just like the left is doing with obamacare). The democrat party, would in essence sustain slavery in order to live lives without responsibility, and on the backs of others, just like they do today. The progressives, in order to maintain their institution, knowing that much of their wealth would be deprived, and social mobility added (Social mobility was unheard of in the South during this time period due in large part to the slave system destroying any efforts to move up for various reasons), and the wage system's inevitable introduction, sought to secede in order to maintain their progressive state.

The democrat party, the party of mobocracy, and populism was and always has been "progressive" , and the Confederates embodied all of these traits.

If you characterize a rightwinger as opposing a large oppressive federal government government then confederates would certainly fit that description. It seem to me that the platforms of the two parties have switched. Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Southern Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

By end of WWII, the platforms of the parties had totally reversed. It was Democrats that were now expanding social programs and federal power and Republican opposition was growing. Democrats were now rejecting states rights and pushing integration opening the South to Republicans.

There has been much change between the parties but what has been consistent has been the South's rejection of the growth in federal power, which is a landmark of conservatives today.

 

[Flopper]

I want you to use your brain, examine the ideology of each party. The south was ANTI-CAPITALIST during the civil war, and HATED the North's system of labor (wage labor). The ideology of the current democrat party is as it always has been - ANTI CAPITALIST, ANTI FREEDOM, and ANTI LIBERTY.

Just look at William Jennings Bryan.

William Jennings was a politician long after the Civil War, are you high or just retarded?

Jennings was one of a long train of Progressive Democrats.

Bryan was a progressive in politics and a social and religious conservative.

 

[Pheonixops]

The South during this time period were the inheritors of the legacy of Andrew Jackson, a dictatorial President who greatly expanded the scope of the executive branch, so much so that the opposition party called itself "the whigs" to stand in stark contrast with the autocratic tendencies of Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson, the founder of the modern day democrat party, was first and foremost a populist who saw fit to discard the regular order of checks and balances when it disagreed with his interpretation, and that of the people. He painted himself as the tribune of the people, and claimed to represent the not well-off of people of his era, and despised the capitalist north. Andrew Jackson and the democrat party claimed to have been opposed to special interest, big banks, and capitalism. Does this ring any bells?

The Democrat party, during this time period was also one dominated by the wealthy planters, with all political influence being disproportionally concentrated in them (just like the progressive leftists). Their livelihoods, and lifestyle depended on the institution of slavery, and would use their whole political clout in order to keep it in place (just like the left is doing with obamacare). The democrat party, would in essence sustain slavery in order to live lives without responsibility, and on the backs of others, just like they do today. The progressives, in order to maintain their institution, knowing that much of their wealth would be deprived, and social mobility added (Social mobility was unheard of in the South during this time period due in large part to the slave system destroying any efforts to move up for various reasons), and the wage system's inevitable introduction, sought to secede in order to maintain their progressive state.

The democrat party, the party of mobocracy, and populism was and always has been "progressive" , and the Confederates embodied all of these traits.

If you characterize a rightwinger as opposing a large oppressive federal government government then confederates would certainly fit that description. It seem to me that the platforms of the two parties have switched. Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Southern Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

By end of WWII, the platforms of the parties had totally reversed. It was Democrats that were now expanding social programs and federal power and Republican opposition was growing. Democrats were now rejecting states rights and pushing integration opening the South to Republicans.

There has been much change between the parties but what has been consistent has been the South's rejection of the growth in federal power, which is a landmark of conservatives today.

This article comes to mind:
Tufts Magazine / fall 2013

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I described a clear link between the ideology of the Democrat Party in the past, and that of today. Instead of replying to what I said, you make an idiotic one sentence statement.

In the past, not today.

That’s why Southerners left the party in droves during the Civil Rights Era and after, and joined the republican party with promises of preserving ‘white Christian culture’ and ‘traditional values’; the GOP entered into a Faustian bargain with social conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, and the extreme fiscal right, all of whom fearful of, and hostile to, individual liberty, diversity, and dissent.

And it worked.

Until a few years ago, that is - when young, minority, and women voters began to reject the GOP’s message of hostility toward same-sex couples, gays, women, Hispanics, and African-Americans, they rejected the GOP’s message of division and hate.

Now the GOP finds itself in a civil war with the TPM and other factions of the radical right, the establishment is actually funding campaigns of moderates in the hope of staving off the TPM onslaught of unelectable extremist candidates.

Jeebus. So what you're saying is, the civil rights era came off the heels of the civil war.


You just can not make this shit up with "pragmatic progressives". They will lead you through a maze of false premises, throw at you a few logical fallaices and then dazzle you with hyperbole/semantics.

 

[bodecea]

As one who lived in the South, I can assure you that until the Civil Rights Act, the Southern Democratic Party was Conservative.

I'll call you on that. Meet you any time in the bullring to defend that statement. And trust me. I'll make you wished you died as a child.

I am so sick of this shit.

Truly I am. I have not a problem with debating or discussing true history. But lying about history...............

I get pissed off. Don't do it PJ.

Shrill...the South has been very conservative. What Political Junky says is true, no matter how much you don't like to hear it.

 

[manifold]

How many people who still fly the Confederate flag today do you think are registered Democrats versus registered Republicans?

 

[boilermaker55]

Seems you know less about history than you wish to accept.
Don't threaten me with your infantile remarks. How you interpret what was happening during this time of history in the USA seems to be prejudiced by propaganda.

As one who lived in the South, I can assure you that until the Civil Rights Act, the Southern Democratic Party was Conservative.

I'll call you on that. Meet you any time in the bullring to defend that statement. And trust me. I'll make you wished you died as a child.

I am so sick of this shit.

Truly I am. I have not a problem with debating or discussing true history. But lying about history...............

I get pissed off. Don't do it PJ.

 

[boilermaker55]

You might get a threat to be taken to a woodshed.

As one who lived in the South, I can assure you that until the Civil Rights Act, the Southern Democratic Party was Conservative.

I'll call you on that. Meet you any time in the bullring to defend that statement. And trust me. I'll make you wished you died as a child.

I am so sick of this shit.

Truly I am. I have not a problem with debating or discussing true history. But lying about history...............

I get pissed off. Don't do it PJ.

Shrill...the South has been very conservative. What Political Junky says is true, no matter how much you don't like to hear it.

 

[Iceman]

Because they were...they wanted the status quo...that is Conservativism.

You mean, the status quo of a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Yeah that is what Lincoln and the Republican party wanted to preserve. It is shameful the democrat party's role in slavery and the fact that they have yet to apologize. Or they have yet to apologize for what they have done to the black community since LBJ.

The Founders believed all land-owning White men were created equally(or at least this is who they first allowed to vote, some like Jefferson and Jackson thought all White men should vote). But to suggest the founders were radical racial egalitarians is just simply not in line with history.

Lincoln was a radical progressive, not in the sense of racial egalitarianism, he was in fact a white separatist who wanted to relocate blacks to Africa. He was a radical progressive in the sense he opposed the states' rights and federalism(and thus the right of voluntary secession the US was founded on). Not to mention how we suspended the Habeas Corpus and free speech. Abe Lincoln was a proto-marxist and in fact had the support of Karl Marx back in the day.
Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln, Penpals | Critical-Theory.com

Anyone that supports Abe Lincoln isn't a conservative at all. But that makes sense, since the Republican Party is not a conservative party.

 

[Iceman]

I want you to use your brain, examine the ideology of each party. The south was ANTI-CAPITALIST during the civil war, and HATED the North's system of labor (wage labor). The ideology of the current democrat party is as it always has been - ANTI CAPITALIST, ANTI FREEDOM, and ANTI LIBERTY.

Just look at William Jennings Bryan.

William Jennings was a politician long after the Civil War, are you high or just retarded?

Jennings was one of a long train of Progressive Democrats.

William Jennings Bryan had zip to do with the Confederacy. And by the way, you aren't Conservative, at all.

William Jennings Bryan is far more Conservative than you are.

 

[jasonnfree]

Still no rebuttals from the loony left.

It's always the looney right that disses blacks, whether its posts of obama with a watermelon, or complaints about lazy blacks driving detroit into ruins and buying ding dongs with food stamps. That being said, if we still had slavery today and there was a debate about ending slavery, and the billionaire class and corporations wanted to keep slavery, would it be democrats or republicans that sided with the ownership class to keep slavery? Also keeping in mind that it's the looney right that always rushes to the defense of the super rich.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The slavery of the day is serfdom. It has no racial, religious or socially charged stigma. It's for all of us in the form of a debt society. Yet people still claw there way around on the dirt as though they are part of the elite.