Who were the Leftists and who were the Right Wing? Please explain your answer. It would also help us understand your position if you can tell us where on the left/right spectrum you see yourself.
I know what I believe, and I will explain after I get a few answers from the modern American Left and Right.
Little more complicated than that given it actually started over taxation, but the Confederacy was "right" and fighting to resist big government control.
Union was "left" overstepping boundaries and (as they are today) using "laws" to take whatever they wanted and dictate to the entire planet country.
Grey= Freedom Fighters
Blue= Oppressors.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-19-2022).]
The Confederacy staged an insurrection, the real thing, not a costume party. They tried to violently overthrow the US government. They were slave owners. They believed in a stratified society and did not respect basic human rights. They were the rebels, the Left.
The Union sought to conserve the Republic and the Constitution. They believed that all men were created equal and were endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. They were the conservatives, the Right.
Before you open your mouth, make sure you know what happened in 1789.
I am a conservative. I am loyal to the Republic and the Constitution. Those things place me firmly on the Right. I do not support the Leftist occupation of my government. It is an abomination, an usurpation of all that made America the greatest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known.
The attack on Ft Sumpter was April 1861. Declaration of Emancipation was Jan of 1863. Almost 2 years after the war started.
It was a result of the war, not the cause of it. Dont forget too, it did not apply to the Union states, only the Confederacy.
<Edit, edit >
Yup, I am an "Insurrectionist". On the modern political scale/labeling system it would be libertarian individualist, who mostly get lumped in with the opposite of whoever we are talking to simply because we got no real use for either side, but mostly no use for government interference in individual lives.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-20-2022).]
Originally posted by Wichita: The left would call them freedom fascist, as they do today.
I see a phrase that looks somewhat common... "anti-freedom fascist". But I don't see "freedom fascist" being used as an epithet or category descriptor.
Google search.
Edited to add: Looks like an instance of "freedom fascist" being used as an epithet or category descriptor on TikTok.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-20-2022).]
I see a phrase that looks somewhat common... "anti-freedom fascist". But I don't see "freedom fascist" being used as an epithet or category descriptor.
Google search.
Edited to add: Looks like an instance of "freedom fascist" being used as an epithet or category descriptor on TikTok.
Have you an opinion on the question posed by the O/P?
Who were the Leftists and who were the Right Wing? Please explain your answer. It would also help us understand your position if you can tell us where on the left/right spectrum you see yourself.
I know what I believe, and I will explain after I get a few answers from the modern American Left and Right.
Without reading the other comments, I will say that there were both good and bad people on both sides. As they say Trump apparently said.
The North, which was mostly Republican, were not necessarily angels themselves. If we're basing it entirely on slavery, the north created the concept of indentured servitude, which they did against the Chinese and Irish that fled to the United States, particularly after the potato famine. They were basically slaves in the exact same way that Qatar and Abu Dhabi enslave people from Bangladesh, etc... though perhaps they're treated a bit better than the Irish and Chinese were since they forced their children to work as well, and parents were often killed, and they were also mistreated as well in stores that were meant for only Americans.
Anyway, the South had a few reasons for the civil war, one of which was they were against high Federal taxation and what they felt was exploitation against them by the other states... in effect, they didn't like that they were being forced to pay with their taxes, Federal bills that provided funding to projects in the north. The slavery issue, while the north had mostly abolished slavery (mostly in principle), they didn't really make it a thing until it was specifically advantageous to them... e.g., when Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation. I want to believe, as a proud Republican, that Lincoln was 100% anti-slavery and he wanted this all along... and I do absolutely believe he was anti-slavery, in part because of his close colleague, friend, and advisor... Frederick Douglass... but to some extent, I also recognize that this was very much the same as King Philip did with the prisoners during the Crusades... you're pardoned if you fight for the cause. The Emancipation Proclamation, among other things, was to let slaves in the South know they had freedom in the north, which was advantageous to the fight.
My family throughout their entire history has been Republican. Yeah, I voted Democrat when I was an adult teen, but Bill Clinton is pretty much like Trump is today. I know that ideologies can change, and things can shift... but I disagree strongly that Republicans were the "racists" or the nonsense narrative we always here... "the parties switched."
Here are the facts that I know...
- Prescott Bush voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore's father, voted against it. - Senator Byrd of West Virginia, was a Democrat, and former KKK grand master, and continued to be a Democrat Senator until just 8 years ago. - Margaret Sanger was a Democrat, created the concept of Eugenics, which meant sterilizing surgery on black men and women, and forcing abortions on black women. - Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, and they intentionally put Planned Parenthood facilities in majority black neighborhoods. - This process continues, and the overwhelming vast majority of babies that are aborted are black. - Japanese Internment Camps - Trail of Tears - Jim Crow (was a Democrat last I remember) - Jim Jones (also a Democrat since we're going through the Jims) - Only two nuclear bombs ever used in wartime in the world... both authorized by a Democrat... 380k Japanese killed in an instant.
... I could go on, but I guess I need to focus on civil war.
There's no more "perfect" example of the idealistic liberal, than Franklin D. Roosevelt. He served 4 presidential terms... literally the only president to serve more than two terms. When Democrats always talk about dictatorships, etc... he's the only one that sought to serve longer than the unspoken rule of 2 terms. They literally had to pass a law after that to eliminate anyone else doing this in the future.
Anyway, the reason I bring up FDR is because the Democrats always say that in the 60s, the Republicans switched parties, and really, the Republicans back then were the Democrats, and the Democrats were the Republicans. This makes no sense to me... because are we saying then that from the 30s through the mid-1940s... FDR was really a Republican? Because FDR is the ideological Democrat... literally the basis that everyone uses for what the Democrat party should be today. Then are we saying that Eisenhower was a Democrat? When he aligned completely with the Republican party... and even forced desegregation, against the Democrats whom all wanted it?
It's just not possible in any context that the Democrats and Republicans made such a quick transition... changing from Republican to Democrat every few years.. so that it neatly aligned that the Democrats can say all the bad things they did were actually done by Republicans. Because here's the facts... literally every travesty thus far in American history, was conducted basically under a Democrat president... this is a fact.
Another strong piece of information that's more recent... when I moved to Florida in 1996, it was a HEAVY blue state. It was SOLIDLY Democrat... I mean... I can't tell you. Before 1999, we'd only had one or two Republican Governors in the past 140+ year history of Florida prior to 1999, and I think in both cases, it was because the Democrat governor had a scandal that resulted in them leaving office and a Republican winning. In any event, Florida was a solidly blue state. Nearly all our congressmen and women were Democrat, and senators ... ? **** .. they've all been Democrat since the Civil War prior to 2000 with the exception of one which was appointed by the then-Republican governor who won because of a Democrat governor scandal.
SINCE 1996... I've seen a slow and progressive shift towards Florida becoming Republican. When I got here, the state was as **** -hole. There was a ton of crime (see Miami Vice), lots of gangs, organized crime, and the KKK had their Southern Headquarters here in Davie, Florida. SINCE 1996... all of that is now gone. Florida is one of the most prosperous states in the entire union potentially soon to become THE most prosperous state in the union after CA and NY's budget failures this year, and Florida's unemployment rate which if I'm not mistaken, is the lowest in the country right now... 2.6%?
Florida is the most ethnically and culturally diverse state in all of the United States. I know California likes to say they are, but saying that you are 50% Hispanic (of Mexican heritage) and 30% Asian (of Chinese heritage) does not make you ethnically diverse. Florida has significant representation from all over the world, with a Hispanic population that is made up of Cubans, Venezuelans, Argentines, Brazilians, Panamanians, etc. Not to mention it's a haven for Europeans of every country, both Eastern and Western Europe, as well as a diverse Thai and Vietnamese cultures. Florida is everything that Democrat governors strive to be, but loath Florida for becoming it. We were also one of the first states to legalize gay marriage, while states like California were passing laws such as Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage.
So... unironically, I've come to learn that basically anything Democrats say is just complete bull **** . It gets worse and worse every year... and I've also come to learn that if Democrats are claiming Republicans are doing something wrong, it LITERALLY means the Democrats have actually just done the very thing they're claiming Republicans are doing.
Sorry if this didn't answer your question... but this **** gets me going.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 12-20-2022).]
I didn’t start this thread to renegotiate the Civil War.
I started this thread to encourage people to reexamine their concept of the Left/Right political paradigm from a unique perspective.
Oh, I say we won the civil war, because I am an American. But I am also a Southerner by birth and heritage. I am from the New South. My grandfather, after whom I was named, was from Alabama and named his print shop "The New South Press". Some will understand.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-21-2022).]
I didn’t start this thread to renegotiate the Civil War.
I started this thread to encourage people to reexamine their concept of the Left/Right political paradigm from a unique perspective.
Oh, I say we won the civil war, because I am an American. But I am also a Southerner by birth and heritage. I am from the New South. My grandfather, after whom I was named, was from Alabama and named his print shop "The New South Press". Some will understand.
I get it.
But as for modern the Left/Right political paradigm, too much has merged, swapped sides, crossed lines and crossed back.
It's all as clear as mud when broken down into 2 simple sides.
I was gonna blame you for it, but these days it seems more fashionable to blame Canada.
The South did not have the right to secede from the rest of the states.
Currently, no state has the right to secede.
See Texas v White
YES, we do have the right to succed. All humans do.
Thats why wars start...
Ya were told to eff off. (politically-speaking)
I dont have the right to leave ?.....me and my gun will just see about that.
I have the right to leave (succeed) whenever I damn-well please....Being held hostage just pisses me off, and is probablt going to result in me peein in your rice krispies. (if yu had rice krispies. And if this wasnt the internet )
Ya can step aside on yer own, or I can go through you. (not you personally, it politics)...but when I say "leaving", we can do this the nice way or the hard way.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 12-21-2022).]
The South did not have the right to secede from the rest of the states.
Currently, no state has the right to secede.
See Texas v White
Secession may not be legal, but I believe it is a right. The US was born of just such an act. This is a personal opinion. I don't expect anyone to agree.
Secession may not be legal, but I believe it is a right. The US was born of just such an act. This is a personal opinion. I don't expect anyone to agree.
Originally posted by olejoedad: The War was started by the secession of the State of South Carolina, and the firing on Fort Sumter by rebel troops.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat: olejoedad had it right.
Somewhere, at some time, you both lost sight of the US Constitution.
Specifically guarantying our God given inalianable right to assembly. I contend that this gives us the right of freedom to disassemble.
Also, when those people plead the 5th Amendment, I would plead the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech also means freedom not to speak.
The South did not have the right to secede from the rest of the states.
Currently, no state has the right to secede.
See Texas v White
I recommend you investigate Texas v White. That case addressed the legal legitimacy of Confederate money Texas wanted to use to pay ... whatever it was.
Do you think that joining the United States is like entering a hog trap ?
"Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede. US Treasury bond sales by Confederate Texas during the war, originally owned by pre-war Texas, were invalid, and the bonds were therefore still owned by the post-war state."
Originally posted by cliffw: 1st, why not ? Who says so ?
2nd, it was not a unilateral secession.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: Perhaps you should investigate the answers to your very astute questions.
What would be the point ? I am from Texas. This is not a subject that I have not spent much time investigating, discussing, and debating.
Again, I ask you, who says a State can not unilaterally secede ? That was not argued before the US Supreme Court.
Where in the US Constitution is secession mentioned ? Where in the US Constitution does it allow US Supreme Court Justices, to "make law", rights ? See Roe vs Wade.
The case is an interesting one.
The Constitution does have an admissions clause. The Admission to the Union Clause does forbid the creation of new states from parts of existing states without the consent of all of the affected states and that of Congress. Again, another interesting discussion.
The United States of America celebrates when others choose their own destiny, when it happens, elsewhere. We now allow divorce, without fault. We allow Union thugs to stop what they signed up to do. By strike, if necessary.
When the Federal Government we joined does not protect us from an invasion of illegal aliens, when they attract the invasion of illegal aliens, and then want us to pay for that cost, ...
When the Federal Government we joined does not protect us from an invasion of illegal aliens, when they attract the invasion of illegal aliens, and then want us to pay for that cost, ...
"Yes, that's him. He's visited me every night this month, whenever I sleep. It's a nightmare! But one of those upper teeth in the very center of his mouth is a gold one."
"Yes, that's him. He's visited me every night this month, whenever I sleep. It's a nightmare! But one of those upper teeth in the very center of his mouth is a gold one."
I think this leads rather directly to another question; to wit:
Should Kemal Atatürk (1881—1938) be regarded as "Left" or "Right"..?
quote
I’ve read up on and studied Attaturk, as well as visited Istanbul and Turkey following my studies. In my opinion Attaturk does not fit with our traditional views of right vs left. He was for restructuring of society, which is not a conservative viewpoint. He was against the elites of his Nation, who were the monarchy, which is very progressive as well. His choices to revolutionize the gateway between the west and east took shape in language, education, social structure, politics, war and the military, and every aspect of society and governance.
Because of his forward thinking many people would want to call him “progressive” and left leaning, but that was not his mindset. What we can [call] “left” today would not be his political standpoint.
He is [was] a reformist, which means he sought to redefine the reality of his time, so it would be inappropriate to call him either.
Charles Galloway claims a B.A. in Global Affairs, with a concentration on the Middle East and North Africa. He is (or has been) the CEO of the business communications and consulting firm Eager Lion.
Should Kemal Atatürk (1881—1938) be regarded as "Left" or "Right"..?
He was a leftist and a nationalist. He was not, however, a liberal or a progressive. Some tend to conflate those distinct terms.
This is a good question, because it highlights the folly of rejecting the "left" label, out of hand.
It is a busy day, but I didn't want to leave this unanswered. I can elaborate in a few days, but this is more the direction I wanted this thread to go.
He was a leftist and a nationalist. He was not, however, a liberal or a progressive. Some tend to conflate those distinct terms.
This is a good question, because it highlights the folly of rejecting the "left" label, out of hand.
It is a busy day, but I didn't want to leave this unanswered. I can elaborate in a few days, but this is more the direction I wanted this thread to go.
The problem these days, is all of those different labels and definitions have been so over-used, twisted and cross-applied that they are pretty much meaningless anymore.
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: The problem these days, is all of those different labels and definitions have been so over-used, twisted and cross-applied that they are pretty much meaningless anymore.
That hasn't stopped you, has it? Wouldn't you agree that you seldom let a day go by without posting some antagonism on your part towards "leftists"—or "libs", which I think is equivalent terminology.
He was a leftist and a nationalist. He was not, however, a liberal or a progressive. Some tend to conflate those distinct terms.
This is a good question, because it highlights the folly of rejecting the "left" label, out of hand.
It is a busy day, but I didn't want to leave this unanswered. I can elaborate in a few days, but this is more the direction I wanted this thread to go.
Fantastic. I can't wait to read (or view?) your "segment" on Kemal Atatürk. Will you be following it up with an episode on Josef Stalin? I think there's real debate to be had on whether Stalin should be regarded as "Left" or "Right", when the analysis is framed within the realities of the Soviet Union during his time.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-25-2022).]
That hasn't stopped you, has it? Wouldn't you agree that you seldom let a day go by without posting some antagonism on your part towards "leftists"—or "libs", which I think is equivalent terminology.
True....
But the proper descriptor is just too damn long to type.
And vats of boiling oil arent as common as they once were.
Fantastic. I can't wait to read (or view?) your "segment" on Kemal Atatürk. Will you be following it up with an episode on Josef Stalin? I think there's real debate to be had on whether Stalin should be regarded as "Left" or "Right", when the analysis is framed within the realities of the Soviet Union during his time.
Stalin and Ataturk were both leftists in the original sense. They were revolutionaries who were opposed to the government in the form of a monarchy. Where they differ is in how they reformed their societies. Ataturk created a more free Turkish republic, where Stalin essentially enslaved the Soviet people.
Stalin was not a nationalist. Unlike Ataturk, who was a Turkish patriot, Stalin replaced the Russian, Ukrainian and Georgian identity with the Soviet identity. He was, ironically, an imperialist.
As a Communist, a self described Marxist-Leninist, Stalin was a liberal. I think of Communism and Liberalism primarily in terms of social and economic policy.
Progressivism was not really “a thing” during the Russian revolution; and during Stalin’s reign, it became obvious that he didn’t give a rat’s rear about social reform.
In summation, like all Communist revolutionaries, Stalin settled quickly and comfortably into his roll as a murderous dictator.
>
