Yeah that’s about as close as you are going to get. Historically Aristocracy vs Commoners is the most fundamental part of the “left” vs “right” political spectrum (in fact going back to long before the terms “left” and “right” were coined).
And the confederacy were explicitly self-identified with the aristocratic (“right” wing) part of the that spectrum.
On edit – but we agree that the Confederacy was a right wing institution, right?
The march of liberalism wasn’t of the aristocracy or the “commoners”. It was of the upper middle class. Both sides called on commoners for manpower on different occasions. Commoners don’t make political movements.
In the sense that it was concerned with the maintenance of a sociopolitical order, yes. But what it is the point of doing so when the Union was right wing as well?
Well, it’s kind of like someone sitting on a diving board and asking a passer-by if water is wet; and getting a response that focuses on the dampness of slugs. Affirming that water is wet is the issue at hand for the person on the diving board. Maybe someday we will talk about the nature of slugs.
For now, we can answer the question that had been posed.
BTW, I think you meant that you inferred something from my comments in the other thread.
Mao’s China and Stalin’s Russia are both pretty obviously leftist authoritarian regimes. Neither of them was particularly liberal, though (liberal does not correspond perfectly with leftist, just as conservative does not correspond perfectly with rightist). Nazi Germany was pretty clearly a far right authoritarian government. The Confederate States of America were a far right democracy* while the Union was a more centrist democracy.
*The Confederacy didn’t last long enough for us to see how democratic they actually would have been in the long run. Had the south successfully seceded, they may have become more authoritarian in their quest to protect slavery as an institution.
Saying that this isn’t true because the South was full of Democrats is silly. Back then, the democrats were to the right of the republicans. That’s like saying that the Czar was Russian and Russians are communist, ergo the Czar was on the left.
Well everyone is who isn’t an aristocrat is part of “the commons”. In different times and places over the centuries countless political movements with all sorts agendas claimed to be working on behalf of the “common people”. But the fact remains if you are going to go back a couple of centuries and try and place a political movement on the on a “left” vs “right” political spectrum analogous to the modern US one, “aristocracy” vs “commoners” is the closest you are going to get. And the confederacy was clearly on the “aristocracy” side of that spectrum.
Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you were saying Lincoln was a lefty who went to war to starve people. Feel free to argue the point, but I think it was pretty clear that you raised “right wing = eating; left wing = starving enemies to death.”
As for Lincoln, if he was so right-wing, why did he say:
Lincoln was no Socialist, but the Republican Party of the time was the worker’s party, and it acted like it.
nm
Because besides being a right winger who went to war to preserve a sociolpolitical order, he was also an economic illiterate?
The third party system was not characterized by a dichotomy between labor and capital. I have never heard such a theory put forth. The split was regional and ethno-religious.
Lincoln was never more than a lawyer for crony corporate railroad interests before he retreated to politics.
I find it interesting that you muster such revulsion for Abraham Lincoln. I would have a lot more faith in the future of our shared nation if the subjects of your revulsion were the people who thought it was ok to own other human beings as property.
Just to speculate, I figure a number of states would have inevitably seceded from the Confederacy itself when industrialization made the whole slave-economy thing unviable. Individually, the states would have varied in how desperately and reality-avoidingly they clung to slavery and at least a few of them would go crawling back to the Union for its protection when they start to turn on each other.
I definitely agree – slavery was no longer economically viable (ironic that WillFarnaby accuses Lincoln of being the one who didn’t understand economics) and was already on the decline even in the deepest South. That’s why I brought up authoritarianism, though-- with a strong government you can force a flawed economic system to keep chugging along.
I find it interesting your faith in our shared nation rests on ignoring facts about Lincoln so we can virtue signal about slavery in 2019.
Yes. That is one reason Lincoln threatened “blood” in his first inaugural address in order to collect duties and imposts. His politics were “short and sweet like the fat man’s dance”, he favored high protective tariffs, a national bank, and an American System of “internal improvements”. IOW he was a runof the mill mid-19th century corporate crony who was going to build railroads for his buddies. This required tariffs such as those collected at Ft Sumter. This is what authoritarianism looks like.
There is never a shortage of destructive ideologies that will claim Lincoln as a prototype. Look at the purveyors of the Iraq War who claim him. Look at historians like Eric Foner who wished Gorbachev would have pulled a Lincoln and slaughtered millions.
There remains a Greek temple dedicated to worshipping him. The CSA is largely viewed as comic book villains comparable only to Hitler. Yes, Lincoln needs more allies.
checks forum
Alright, you do you.
whistles innocently
In all seriousness. Lincoln had serious flaws. He was a racist, for one. But his zealousness in opposing the south is to be commended, it’s not one of his flaws.
But that’s irrelevant to anything Lincoln actually did. Take anyone who is generally admired - just name them - and odds are that someone has twisted their legacy to serve an objectionable agenda.
Without making any comparisons to Hitler, yes, Confederates ARE real life comic book villains. Not sure why you would argue differently.
We can all either respond to Will’s unique worldview, in which Lincoln was an economic illiterate; or we can carry on the conversation we were previously having. I’m not sure both are feasible.