Can Anyone Name A Social Problem Not Rooted in Liberalism?

[Cruella]

only a very small group of well to do biddies cared about slavery

I don't believe that only a very small group cared. I have ancestors who were active against slavery and they were not well to do.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't believe that only a very small group cared. I have ancestors who were active against slavery and they were not well to do.

and did they sign up immediately to go fight Mr Lincoln's War ?

Monied interests gain political attention. Sure there were odds and ends of regular folks who cared but thee notion that "the North" was anti slavery is just not supported by the history of the day.

Oddly enough "Gangs of New York" does a pretty credible job showing the sentiments of the opinion demonstrated. There were riots over conscription, thats not just hollywood fantasy.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

the south did not NEED to sell its products to the north, the north was out of business without the south.
did you know that Lincoln won without any southern electoral votes ?
only a very small group of well to do biddies cared about slavery, most union people couldn't care less until they started getting sent to die by the trainload. then they got very anti Lincoln and racist. (kind of funny given how racist Lincoln was.)

BINGO! That's the whole ball of wax.

Then--carpetbaggers and all sorts of horrific fiscal retribution separated the nation even further and all manner of condescension still seen today in every Hollywood movie set in the South. Every movie has to have twangy banjo music--and country music in the background.
The South was punished for over 100 years and the northern states got FAR more tax money--collected everywhere--and STILL DO!

 

[TheJPRD]

I'm convinced that the American Civil War could have been avoided and the Union preserved had the right people been in charge during 1850-1861. There were influential voices in the South who knew that slavery was doomed to eventual extinction; not only on moral grounds, but the costs of maintaining a slave population were becoming economically unviable. The Federal government could have addressed the issues of "slavery" and "States Rights" head-on. States Rights could have been protected, and slavery phased-out over time had the Federal government worked directly and individually with the Southern States to do so! I suspect that the phase-out would have been accomplished in no more than ten years. Instead, it was acomplished in five years, but with disastrous results that remain with us today. "Should'a, Would'a, Could'a"!

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I'm convinced that the American Civil War could have been avoided and the Union preserved had the right people been in charge during 1850-1861. There were influential voices in the South who knew that slavery was doomed to eventual extinction; not only on moral grounds, but the costs of maintaining a slave population were becoming economically unviable. The Federal government could have addressed the issues of "slavery" and "States Rights" head-on. States Rights could have been protected, and slavery phased-out over time had the Federal government worked directly and individually with the Southern States to do so! I suspect that the phase-out would have been accomplished in no more than ten years. Instead, it was acomplished in five years, but with disastrous results that remain with us today. "Should'a, Would'a, Could'a"!

Agree 100%.
Good students of history will find this same result--if they look.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm convinced that the American Civil War could have been avoided and the Union preserved had the right people been in charge during 1850-1861. There were influential voices in the South who knew that slavery was doomed to eventual extinction; not only on moral grounds, but the costs of maintaining a slave population were becoming economically unviable. The Federal government could have addressed the issues of "slavery" and "States Rights" head-on. States Rights could have been protected, and slavery phased-out over time had the Federal government worked directly and individually with the Southern States to do so! I suspect that the phase-out would have been accomplished in no more than ten years. Instead, it was acomplished in five years, but with disastrous results that remain with us today. "Should'a, Would'a, Could'a"!

need of massive labor was on the wan. only real problem was an accounting one. fepreciation to be specific. other lands solved this and so allowed slavery to go away. but not insignificant was the matter of states rights. still a problem today.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm convinced that the American Civil War could have been avoided and the Union preserved had the right people been in charge during 1850-1861. There were influential voices in the South who knew that slavery was doomed to eventual extinction; not only on moral grounds, but the costs of maintaining a slave population were becoming economically unviable. The Federal government could have addressed the issues of "slavery" and "States Rights" head-on. States Rights could have been protected, and slavery phased-out over time had the Federal government worked directly and individually with the Southern States to do so! I suspect that the phase-out would have been accomplished in no more than ten years. Instead, it was acomplished in five years, but with disastrous results that remain with us today. "Should'a, Would'a, Could'a"!

need of massive labor was on the wan. only real problem was an accounting one. fepreciation to be specific. other lands solved this and so allowed slavery to go away. but not insignificant was the matter of states rights. still a problem today.

 

[Gipper]

I'm convinced that the American Civil War could have been avoided and the Union preserved had the right people been in charge during 1850-1861. There were influential voices in the South who knew that slavery was doomed to eventual extinction; not only on moral grounds, but the costs of maintaining a slave population were becoming economically unviable. The Federal government could have addressed the issues of "slavery" and "States Rights" head-on. States Rights could have been protected, and slavery phased-out over time had the Federal government worked directly and individually with the Southern States to do so! I suspect that the phase-out would have been accomplished in no more than ten years. Instead, it was acomplished in five years, but with disastrous results that remain with us today. "Should'a, Would'a, Could'a"!

Agreed, but do not discount Lincoln's desire for war. Like many good progressives today, he knew war was an excellent method for centralizing power into his hands. He did all he could to push the South into armed conflict. He refused to compromise with the Southern states in any way. He set up the whole incident at Fort Sumter to get the party started.

And Lincoln did not care about slavery. He cared only about centralizing power in DC and the office of the presidency. In fact, he was a proponent of exporting all Blacks back to Africa.

He wanted to impose heavy tariffs on Southern goods and refused to accept anything but full acquiesce by the Southern states. This is what really lead to the war. Slavery was ancillary.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Agreed, but do not discount Lincoln's desire for war. Like many good progressives today, he knew war was an excellent method for centralizing power into his hands. He did all he could to push the South into armed conflict. He refused to compromise with the Southern states in any way. He set up the whole incident at Fort Sumter to get the party started.

And Lincoln did not care about slavery. He cared only about centralizing power in DC and the office of the presidency. In fact, he was a proponent of exporting all Blacks back to Africa.

He wanted to impose heavy tariffs on Southern goods and refused to accept anything but full acquiesce by the Southern states. This is what really lead to the war. Slavery was ancillary.

Check out the slavery situation in West Virginia--after the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[Robert Berger]

What a crock ! To blame liberalism for all of the evils in society is just plain idiotic . The term liberal
comes from the Latin word libertas, meaning freedom . Wanting to keep the government out of people's bedrroms
does not promote evil, in fact, it prevent it ! It's not liberals who want people to be denied rights just because they're
gay. It's not liberals who want to force pregnant women to bear children against their will even if they're too poor
to provide for them or a pregnancy would kill them or ruin their health.
It's not liberals who want religion to get too much power in America, which so many right-wingers want
It's not liberals who want to destroy the safety net for the poor or those not originally poor but down on
their luck and out of work through no fault of their own., or deny help to people struck by catastrophic illnesses
or permanently disabled in accidents . It's not liberals who want the government to censor and ban books,
magazines, movies and TV shows some people find sexually offensive.
It's not liberals who are insensitive to people who are down on their luck and blame them for their plight
and accuse them of "laziness".
Conservatives claim that they want "limited government." Bu tin fact, they want unlimited power for the
government to stick its nose into people's bedrooms and to try to control women's reproductive organs .
It's not liberals who don't give a you-know-what about the environment and think that pollution is OK
as long as it makes a profit .
With freedom like this, who needs tyranny? Think I'm a socialist,Marxist and communist? Well if you do,
you're dead wrong . I believe in capitalism and the free market. But I also believe in a FAIR market .
Conservatives claim that they want "equality of opportunity", not equality of outcome.
Yet they hypocritically vote for disastrous republican social and economic policies which DESTROY equality of outcome .
I have no problem with some people being rich , so I'm no communist . But I DO have a problem with a society
where it's too difficult for people to live secure lives , get a good education beyond high school, find good jobs
with good benefits and to be able to retire without sinking into poverty . That's the kind of America we have today,
and it's largely the fault of republican politicians in Washington .

 

[Cruella]

BS ^ Conservatives don't want ANY of what your talking about. We want limited government, personal freedom, and our citizens to be self reliant and responsible. Liberals today are synonymous with statists, and this current batch of liberals in government are verging on totalitarianism. If you read Marx, you'll find out that socialism (today's liberalism) is the path that eventually leads you to there.

 

[Gipper]

BS ^ Conservatives don't want ANY of what your talking about. We want limited government, personal freedom, and our citizens to be self reliant and responsible. Liberals today are synonymous with statists, and this current batch of liberals in government are verging on totalitarianism. If you read Marx, you'll find out that socialism (today's liberalism) is the path that eventually leads you to there.

Yep...total BS, but typical liberal opinion.

 

[TheJPRD]

^ Gipper & Cruella: The giveaway on good 'ole Robert's post was his quote,..... get ready for this one: "Yet they hypocritically vote for disastrous republican social and economic policies which DESTROY equality of outcome." Typical leftist! He doesn't ask for an equal opportunity to succeed on his own merits. He DEMANDS that he be GIVEN Success! Refer to my earlier post, "Defining The American Left". Robert fits in the "Loser" group!

 

[Cruella]

^ Gipper & Cruella: The giveaway on good 'ole Robert's post was his quote,..... get ready for this one: "Yet they hypocritically vote for disastrous republican social and economic policies which DESTROY equality of outcome." Typical leftist! He doesn't ask for an equal opportunity to succeed on his own merits. He DEMANDS that he be GIVEN Success! Refer to my earlier post, "Defining The American Left". Robert fits in the "Loser" group!

JP....you and I have delved into genealogy and have studied not just our ancestors, but we also learned about the people who built this country up from a wilderness on a personal level. It just sickens me what has happened to Americans. The people that worked so hard to make their own way with no help and make this a great country, would be appaled to see what has happened to today's Americcans.

 

[dogtowner]

What a crock ! To blame liberalism for all of the evils in society is just plain idiotic . The term liberal comes from the Latin word libertas, meaning freedom .

maybe one day liberals will live up to the moniker they coopted, until then hauling out Websters is sort of meaningless

Wanting to keep the government out of people's bedrroms does not promote evil, in fact, it prevent it ! It's not liberals who want people to be denied rights just because they're gay. It's not liberals who want to force pregnant women to bear children against their will even if they're too poor to provide for them or a pregnancy would kill them or ruin their health.

the issue is same sex marriage, not same sex mutual masturbation. if they dont want or shouldnt have children its easy enough tp prevent without violating the rights of the unborn.

It's not liberals who want religion to get too much power in America, which so many right-wingers want It's not liberals who want to destroy the safety net for the poor or those not originally poor but down on their luck and out of work through no fault of their own., or deny help to people struck by catastrophic illnesses or permanently disabled in accidents . It's not liberals who want the government to censor and ban books, magazines, movies and TV shows some people find sexually offensive. It's not liberals who are insensitive to people who are down on their luck and blame them for their plight and accuse them of "laziness".

religion has no power in America, remember the establishment clause ? but we do have freedom of religion which is one freedom you do not protect. want to show me safety net in the Constitution ? yes liberals do want to ban free speech try denying global warming, the Holocaust etc etc. liberals are insensative to anyone whio do not believe as they do.

Conservatives claim that they want "limited government." Bu tin fact, they want unlimited power for the government to stick its nose into people's bedrooms and to try to control women's reproductive organs . It's not liberals who don't give a you-know-what about the environment and think that pollution is OK s long as it makes a profit .

poppycock

With freedom like this, who needs tyranny? Think I'm a socialist,Marxist and communist? Well if you do, you're dead wrong . I believe in capitalism and the free market. But I also believe in a FAIR market .
Conservatives claim that they want "equality of opportunity", not equality of outcome.
Yet they hypocritically vote for disastrous republican social and economic policies which DESTROY equality of outcome . I have no problem with some people being rich , so I'm no communist . But I DO have a problem with a society where it's too difficult for people to live secure lives , get a good education beyond high school, find good jobs with good benefits and to be able to retire without sinking into poverty . That's the kind of America we have today, and it's largely the fault of republican politicians in Washington .

neither "party" wants equality, but conservatives do and liberals want to stack the deck as they wish.