Comments by "King Orange" (@kingorange7739) on "OverSimplified" channel.

  1. How is this is relevant? How is he a democrat?
    6
  2. Not really, in spite of John Brown's good intentions, he was basically triggering a regional civil war in the process. And arguably added to the issues that led to the American Civil War. Freeing the slaves is one thing, getting them to deliberately try to target plantation owners at that point is not freedom but petty revenge.
    3
  3.  @onwardtowaffles  Not really since all John Brown would of done is plunge the entire south into chaos which would of led to a terrible amounts of deaths, many of which innocent
    3
  4. The Republicans were different back then compared to now, same goes for the Dems.
    3
  5. The color code for Dems and Republicans did not occur till 1996. He is only referring to ally vs enemy collar grading. Blue is usually associated with the protagonist force while red is usually associated with the antagonist force
    3
  6.  @WeaslyTwin  “Oh, so you just don't know what the definition of a liberal is. Got it.” - Liberalism Definition: Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom. Lincoln was not a free market advocate as he favor heavy protectionist policies. Lincoln did advocate degrees of civil liberties but that was only in promotion of specific agendas. Those liberties certainly did not count for much when he suspended the protections of citizens to promote anti war media, and conscripted northern citizens into the army who were against changing the nature of the war about slavery. “The basic of idea of liberalism is that individual liberty is best achieved through equality before the law. That pretty much requires a high degree of government power and oversight.” - According to who? Liberties can’t exactly be promoted if it is being highly circumvented by the central government at its convenience. Not to mention the basic fundamental of liberalism at least in the classic sense was to limit government power as much as humanly possible. That certainly would not align with Lincoln’s use of executive power to force his way. “If you don't what the 'social contract' is then you don't know what liberalism.” - I never said I didn’t know what the social contract was. But it is not a direct excuse to just get away with anything. And it still does not change the nature of government limitations. Lincoln did not limit central government power, he expanded it. Now to be fair, I am not necessarily saying he was in the wrong for this. But I think it is important not to frame his actions as something it wasn’t. “And racist or not, which he wasn't.” - Wanting to deport African Americans back to Africa to set up as an American colony would certainly say otherwise. And Lincoln has stated many times that the administrative jobs of the United States still belong to be operated by the white man. Now to be fair, some of this can be taken with a grain of salt given it was during some of his campaigns. But I don’t think it would be honest to slap all of it out of hand as a lie either. “He still most certainly believed in equality before the law.” - I mean sort of, as mentioned Lincoln did want people held to the same standard but it was still held in a concept of a central authority and while in principle he may had wanted to lead the US gradually into a more equal direction, he was not as unconditional about it as people try to give him credit for. And we have to account for a slippery slope logic, are we to say that not being a racist automatically makes one a liberal? That would certainly broaden the rather specific criterias. “John Locke, you know the Father of Liberalism, was pretty sexist. Still a liberal.” - I mean, perhaps in theory but not in action. You do make a point about Locke considering even the “Father of Liberalism” was pretty hypocritical of what he preached and wrote. I don’t believe that words or actions alone determine someone’s ideological stance. It is a bit of both. “And please list specific examples of individual freedoms he suppressed to achieve his war gains.” - I mean forced conscription, suspending the rights to publishing anti war press, the arrest of said people who made such press without a trial, there’s plenty. Now as I mentioned, I am not even saying this is abnormal as it was pretty typical for a wartime President to enact these policies. But I think it would be difficult to say you value individual liberties for self determination, when everything in your administration has proven the contrary. "Lincoln was a progressive constitutionalist and believed that the continuation of Slavery was contradictory to the promise of the US constitution." And none of that is contradictory to liberalist beliefs.” - But it does not automatically make it that either like you are essentially trying to claim. Being anti slavery does not automatically make one a liberal, they are two separate issues. Especially since the opposition of slavery had more reasons than just “The Black man is equal.” In fact many anti slaveries did not believe that at all and still promoted that the White man was superior. Many northerners opposed slavery because of its cruelty, the political divide it was causing, or the fact that it was viewed as an economically outdated policy. Now I am not saying that Lincoln automatically had those same stances. But the evidence makes clear that it wasn’t as Black and White of Lincoln viewed the Blacks the same. He didn’t, at least not for most of his life and most of the war. There is a possibility that Lincoln may have had a sincere change of heart by the war’s end, and hell much of the evidence even points to that. Sadly we won’t know for certain since his life was taken not long after. If Lincoln was a liberal, he was sure as hell a hypocritical one, and from my pov never proritized that stances over his nationalism, anti slavery stance, and moving the concept of American nationhood closer to what he felt it needed to be for the nation to live, and he showed he was willing to weaponize the government, economy, and politics in whatever direction to get what he wanted. And I am not saying all of it was bad mind you. The truth was he was right about most of his points. But the thing was history showed what his priorities were in the concept of America. If he was liberal at all, which I don’t conclude he was. He was a nationalist and constitutionalist first and a liberal second.
    2
  7.  @Crispr_CAS9  He wasn’t a northern liberal. Quit projecting misinformation good sir.
    2
  8. 13th Amendment.
    2
  9.  @Crispr_CAS9  wrong about everything? Says the one who couldn’t even counter the points in the last thread. Mr. “Lincoln is a liberal, because I think I know his stance better than him himself.” Despite the fact that Lincoln based all of his actions based on his anti slavery rhetoric, was in favor of government centralization, implemented tariffs, suppressed media outlets, and even stated the Republicans were still fundamentally conservative.
    2
  10. Hanging all the leaders would of Martyred the CSA cause, they wanted the south to be reintegrated as smoothly as possible, not see how much it could punish it. Doing insane harsh punishments would of made a second rebellion inevitable
    2
  11.  @Crispr_CAS9  your concept of liberalism is laughable. The Revolutionary war I’ll give if you view it in a classical sense. But it’s clear that you’re not since you’re trying to paint liberal and conservative as opposites, showing you are clearly promoting a left wing bias. However truth be told liberal and conservative concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. Lincoln wasn’t a liberal, at least not in practice. So the Civil War does not even concern liberalism since both sides viewed the conflict as one for liberty. Rather it was two competing concepts of American nationhood. WW1 - you are aware that it was old fashioned Empires against other old fashioned empires. Don’t see how you can call that a liberal win. Especially considering the ideologies that followed. WW2: Somewhat true but only on the western front. Eastern Europe did not receive any kind of win like that.
    2
  12. Your joking right? 😂
    2
  13.  @Crispr_CAS9  Lincoln was not a Northern Liberal bud. A progressive sure, but his institutions were still founded preserving the constitution in its basic form
    1
  14.  @Crispr_CAS9  did I say liberal means disliking the constitution? No. Secondly, Lincoln wasn’t an advocate of equal rights. He was an anti slavery but his stance still had racist rhetoric. Secondly define individual rights. Because the south clearly had a very different definition of individual rights. As for your point on conservatism, sure. But arguably the institution of the constitution is a traditional document considering how long it lasted. And here’s the thing, liberal and conservative were not mutually exclusive concepts. Especially when the individual liberties was the very thing trying to be conserved. Yes there were conservative liberals just as there were progressive Republicans. But as mentioned, Lincoln wasn’t a liberal. He was willing to make use of high government power to promote the social change he believed was needed which was the institution of slavery being prevented from being expanded. In that sense he was rather authoritarian in his rhetoric.
    1
  15.  @Crispr_CAS9  I stated that Lincoln still had status quoes he believed in. And was still a racist himself, in fact you are aware the reason Lincoln initially wanted slaves free was so they could be shipped back to Africa by force, hardly the beliefs of a liberal. He believed that the Black population would never be able to co exist with the white one peacefully and basically believed that segregation of the populations was the best way to move forward. Now yes some of these sentiments did change but his stance here is not that of a individual rights.
    1
  16. ​ @Crispr_CAS9  "Advocating towards equality in an environment of outright racism is the most that can be expected from a politician that needs the votes of racists to win. And Lincoln absolutely did advocate towards equality." - No he wasn't. Lincoln's sentiment throughout most of his career was that the administrative leadership of society fell under the white man. Lincoln still believed whites to be superior as a whole, the difference was he had more pity towards the blacks than oppression or hate. Hence why he wanted to do as mentioned above. Now yes, it can be argued he had a change of heart later on. But his beliefs was not rooted on some egalitarian desire. It was rooted in sympathy. "The Constitution had been in effect for ~72 years at the start of the war. Slavery had been around a bit longer. Guess which institution the conservatives of the day were more interested in maintaining?" - Time is hardly a factor in to this. Slavery was around longer but in the context of what Lincoln was hoping to preserve, his conservatism was rooted in defending and keeping the USA together and the constitution upheld. Being conservative on one issue does not make it the same as all. The south was willing to do what was convenient for their economic advantage, hence why their political positions kept flip flopping during the 19th century. "They're still not. Although it does require threading a philosophical needle. Not relevant to this conversation though, since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats of the time were liberal conservatives." - By what definition? The south believed they were just that, that is was conserving a liberty to own slaves free from government interference. You have to remember liberalism back then does not mean the same thing it means today. "The fact that you put 'Republican' across from 'liberal' in that sentence indicates a problem with your thinking. Do you need me to tell you what it is?" - I am using a general example, to be better specific, progressive authoritarians would be a better use. I'll admit my word choice was off, but I am using examples to make the point. "individual liberties, equality, and progress. Which is what liberalism is about." - No it isn't. Classic liberalism which was the used term back then meant advocating for more free markets, more individual liberties under the rule of law, and less government interference. As far as the plantation owner was concerned, their liberty was to own slaves. I am not saying it is agreeable, but to act as if Lincoln in any form was a liberal would be to ignore the racist rhetoric he himself had, the standing institutions he was trying to preserve, and the amount of times he was willing to use the government to achieve his goals even at the cost of individual liberties. Also no, progress =/= liberalism. Nice try. "You're having enough difficulty understanding the words were already using, I don't have the time to explain why Lincoln wasn't an authoritarian. Also, authoritarianism is not contrary to either conservatism or liberalism, so that's not even relevant." - Authoritarian is the opposite of liberalism bud, especially in the classical sense. You can't exactly be promoting individual liberties if the government is constantly circle venting that. Like it or not, Lincoln was not a liberal. He was anti slavery, progressive, constitutionalist, nationalist. The Civil War was primarily a pro vs anti slavery rhetoric, to the south it didn't matter if they had to use "progression" or "conservatism" to achieve that end. By the same token, Lincoln was willing to end slavery due to its existence violating the promise the constitution made. The fact you don't understand shows that your motive is to try to equate the modern left to Lincoln and the modern right to the Confederates, something that is not only intellectually dishonest, but considering how many times the Dems have been willing to flip flop their positions to maintain control, is frankly laughable.
    1
  17.  @Crispr_CAS9  "Which is irrelevant." - Not really. You can't call him a leftist liberal when his motive was still correlated with racism, using government powers to subvery individual liberties, and maintain a status quo in every form except slavery. "And was still a racist" Also irrelevant." - You can't be an egalitarian and still be a racist. "Of a modern liberal, no. Of a liberal of that time? Yes." - Liberal at the time was classical liberal that literally believed in as little government interference as possible and as much of a free market as possible. Neither of which he exercised, So no, he was not a liberal by those standards either. "There is no possible way you can frame any belief of Lincoln's wherein he is less supportive of individual rights than the side PROMOTING SLAVERY. Get it?" - I never said he did so less than the slavers. I am not a pro confederate and they have more than enough of their own baggage just through the institution of slavery alone. I am explaining Lincoln's position in it of itself. And no, he was more than willing to subvert individual rights if it meant achieving his anti slavery goals. Don't believe me? Look up the forced conscriptions he made after the Proclamation. Many Northerners did not want to turn the war into a slavery issue and did not want to fight for that reason, don't forget there were still many pro slavery northerners or those who did not want it to turn into that. Lincoln held little care for their views and were even willing to make arrests of anti war protestors without a right to trial. Bud, these are not the actions of a classic liberal.
    1
  18.  @Crispr_CAS9  "If you don't think Lincoln advocated toward equality, you're too clueless of history to be worth any more of my time." - Blind insults will get you nowhere. It is quite common knowledge of his statements and viewed that he did not through his pre war and most of his war time did not view Blacks as equal. And are you denying the forced shipment back to Africa he had believed in? Like I said before, it is possible and perhaps even likely he had a genuine change of heart during the war. Who is to say? But you are failing to understand that the moral grounds of opposing slavery did not automatically equal being anti racist. And most of the major politicians that existed at the time were in some form racist. So I am not even saying to demonize Lincoln, as it is understandable why he would have these views at the time. Grant was Anti Semitic, Sherman was anti Native, etc. Like that was just the standard that existed at the time. And Lincoln did help move things a step forward with the removal of slavery. But it is key to understand his actual positions for doing so, because I believe it is dishonest for both the left and right to try to weaponize Lincoln for their political use, the same way it is just as dishonest to weaponize the Confederates to demonize either side.
    1
  19.  @Crispr_CAS9  "Blind insults will get you nowhere" It's a statement of fact." - No, it really ain't. "knowledge of his statements " political statements are irrelevant. Only political action matters." - Going to apply that same logic to the CSA or the politicians of today? "You keep pointing to what he said to racists, I keep pointing to what he ACTUALLY DID. That's why everything you say is irrelevant." - Once again, it isn't. He freed the slaves, that is it. He didn't give them equal rights, that did not happen till after his death.
    1
  20.  @Crispr_CAS9  the north weren’t liberals bud. Nice try.
    1
  21.  @Crispr_CAS9  Lincoln had his assistant write to Karl Marx. Also this isn't really relevant to the context of liberalism. Since we have seen first hand Communism was not liberal in any sense of the word, considering most of their regimes in practice had resulted in complete totalitarian controlled governments with extremely repressive policies.
    1
  22.  @Crispr_CAS9  Now I will be fair, this was before the regimes were placed into practice and Marx was becoming a bit of an icon in Europe. But I doubt communications are the same as endorsements, especially if Lincoln had the benefit of knowing what Marxism actually was in practice.
    1
  23.  @Crispr_CAS9  "Lincoln didn't endorse Marx, but Marx did endorse Lincoln. I don't believe Marx was known to be fond of any conservatives." - By what standard? That is the point. The standard of conservative in one nation is not the same as another. And I am not claiming Lincoln was a conservative either. At least not beyond his desire to preserve the US constitution in its entirely. But just like there are Liberal Conservatives or Conservative Liberals. There are people that fall under neither. Such as Lincoln.
    1
  24.  @Crispr_CAS9  "He had his assistant translate. "Communism was not liberal" Communist countries are illiberal, communism as put forward by Marx is a leftist system. Lincolns letters to Marx suggest a traditional liberal view of formal communism, call it 'polite academic disagreement'." - Ok which still stands that Lincoln disagreed with Marx. Being respectful as an opposition does not mean they were on similar grounds. Many friends and family can disagree with just about everything, but I doubt that would make you see them as any less as people.
    1
  25.  @Crispr_CAS9  “By any standard under general acceptance, either now or at the time.” - Not really, again Lincoln would not match a classic liberal by any metric. And I am not listing the reasons a third time only for you to ignore them. “No, the policies of conservatives is different in different countries, because the dominant traditions they're prioritizing are different. Conservatism, the unifying core ideology, is the same.” - No it isn’t. Because the basis of saying conservatism in a broad term is trying to preserve traditions, cultures, or political status quoes is to ignore that those are fundamentally different depending both on the nation one exists within and what time frame that nation is in. Which is why conservative ideologies can and often have clashed. Given that what is trying to be preserved is entirely different. "At least not beyond his desire to preserve the US constitution in its entirely" “He had no such desire. He in fact wanted to amend the Constitution in various ways. And, you know, did. He wanted to preserve the Union. Not the same thing.” - Lincoln himself would say otherwise. “But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.” Lincoln’s desire for amendments were purely to achieve his anti slavery aims which as mentioned, he opposed because he believed its continue existence was not only a standing violation of the constitution’s base promise. But also because he knew that it was creating a political divide so fierce that it would eventually tear the nation apart. Something he was right about. "Such as Lincoln." Except he meets the definition of liberal you provided, so is a liberal by both my definition and yours.” - Once again no he didn’t, and you have not so much as addressed any of the counter I presented that have disproven the notion or at the very least present themselves as contrary to your claim good sir. You continuous dismiss the evidence I have provided that has proven counter to such notion, both through his words and actions.
    1
  26.  @Crispr_CAS9  "And his disagreements were that which a liberal has with a leftist. His objections were LIBERAL objections." - Such as and under what basis? Also as mentioned, it does not require to be a liberal to hold the same critiques as one when describing a rather extreme ideology that Marxist socialism was.
    1
  27. And risk more people being alienated and aligning with the CSA? Not a great plan.
    1
  28.  @WeaslyTwin  not really no. The basis has only been that the Republicans have mostly worked to preserve the powers of the constitution while the Dems constantly work to change or dismantle it
    1
  29.  @WeaslyTwin  if we went by the logic that any amendment to the constitution is automatically considered liberal. You would have to call literally everything in the US liberal and the very definition would loose it’s meaning. Also promoting change isn’t what liberal means. By definition
    1
  30.  @WeaslyTwin  and I’m explaining Lincoln wasn’t a liberal. In any sense of the word. A. He was perfectly ok with a high degree of government power and oversight. B. He was still a racist in spite of being Anti Slavery. C. He was more than willing to suppress individual freedoms in favor of his war aims. Lincoln was a progressive constitutionalist and believed that the continuation of Slavery was contradictory to the promise of the US constitution.
    1
  31.  @joshuawillis602  He made a critique. I doubt that is something worth your kind of reaction.
    1
  32. It didn’t completely switch. Bud conservatism is subject to change based on the stage of society. What is trying to be conserved now is not the same as what was a 100 years ago. Think about it this way, you want to change the country to get closer to the image you have for it. Once when you get to that image, why would you want to keep changing it, thus getting farther from the vision? The short answer is you wouldn’t. At least not in the realm of politics where being right has taken supreme
    1
  33.  @ken3243  yep. Because they didn’t switch. The democrats changed their values back then compared to now in many areas. The Republicans evolved over time, as simply the problems of the 19th century ain’t gonna be the same as the 21st.
    1
  34.  @ken3243  did you pay attention to nothing I just said? No they didn’t
    1
  35.  @ken3243  I literally just explained they didn't. What are you blind?
    1
  36.  @Crispr_CAS9  nope
    1
  37.  @joshuawillis602  The North weren't Liberals bud.
    1
  38.  @joshuawillis602  No they really were not. But for the sake of argument, I'll indulge you. Define liberal.
    1
  39.  @joshuawillis602  “definition liberal: Adjective 1. Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas Adjective 2. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. Noun 1. A supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.” - You are aware those two definitions contradict one another. So which are you going with? “The north were liberals because they industrialized and progressed themselves as well as give civil liberties to black people.” - Industrialization does not equal liberalism bud, what kind of logic is that? By that logic, the Nazis were liberal for their massive increase in industry. Also many northerners were opposed to giving Blacks equal rights. You tend to confuse that being anti slavery =/= pro equal rights and that was a major contention Lincoln himself had to face. Not even Lincoln was fully in support of equal rights to Blacks at least at first, with his initial reason for wanting to free them was to ship them back to Africa and establish a US colony there since he believed integration between the races was impossible. “The south were conservatives the exact opposite” - Firstly conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism. Authoritarianism is. The concepts of liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive. Even Lincoln himself has admitted that he and the Republicans are still founded in conservative roots. "The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to." The key difference was the North and South had different values in what was being conserved. Ironically the south viewed themselves as more liberal given that they (At least in theory) believed to be fighting for a more limited government, promoting more power to the states than federal government with greater individual liberties towards its citizens and less economic regulation. “and were ignorant people stuck in the past and using human beings as property.” - True, and you won’t see me argue with that. But the North also had past values being clinged to. Primarily related to the US Constitution. It was a different breed of conservative values that clashed, as well as different breeds of liberalism and progressivism. Where you see a war of Northern Liberalism vs Southern Conservatism, I see a fundamental competition of American Nationhood within politics, economics, and social values. And those concepts were rooted on both sides based on what was willing to be preserved vs what was willing to be sacrificed.
    1
  40. No it didn’t bud. Evolution in topic issues does not change political platforms
    1
  41.  @peaveyst7  not an argument. It never flipped. People just fail to grasp the political debates and oppositions that make today aren’t the same as 2 centuries ago.
    1
  42.  @ken3243  no they really weren’t
    1
  43.  @ken3243  that’s not an argument
    1
  44.  @ken3243  the parties didn’t switch bud. But here I will indulge you for the sake of argument, how exactly did they switch in ur eyes?
    1
  45.  @ken3243  and the south aren’t the same now as they were back then, just as the north are different. What kind of logic is that? So you’re basing the entire idea of a party switch on geographic? Bud that is so ridiculous it isn’t even funny
    1
  46.  @Crispr_CAS9  and here comes the lie provocateur himself. Still trying to equate the Southern Democrats to modern Republicans.
    1
  47.  @Crispr_CAS9  Objectively false. So you're denying that he centralized government power, exercised the use of tariffs, arrested people who made anti war media, and where he literally stated in quote that the Republican party was fundamentally conservative. So I guess he never said, “But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.” Or this, "The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."
    1
  48.  @Crispr_CAS9  once again not quite. Firstly preventing the capacity to engage in trade with even foreign commerce flies in the face of a free market. Outside influences or not. Also that’s kinda ironic considering even the modern Republicans are in favor of tariffs while the modern liberals oppose it. As for a centralized government, a form liberalism would be advocating less centralized power since central power can prevent agency within a regional society. Again flies in the face of liberalism concepts. And ur proving my point of ur false equivalence. Being anti slavery is not equal to being a liberal. 🤦‍♂️
    1
  49. ​ @Crispr_CAS9  "Firstly preventing the capacity to engage in trade with even foreign " “Tariffs don't prevent foreign trade.” - They create limits for it as protective tariffs basically penalize people that buy certain products in a foreign market “Free markets are understood to be markets that are free of undue influence.” - Who decides what is or isn’t undue? “If foreign governments are interfering with local markets, then free market principles require local government correction.” - Some would disagree hence why plenty of free market advocates are opposed to tariffs. “You just used Republican as an antonym of liberal, which someone even vaguely honest would be ashamed to have done.” - You literally did the same thing in another thread. I will give you I was wrong in my word choice there, but don’t be going high and mighty when you literally did the same comparison. “There are modern members of both parties and both ideologies that support tariffs, and members from both that oppose them. This is sensible, since tariffs are neither required nor prohibited by either system.” - Ok so by your own admission, Lincoln could still be a conservative and support tariffs. Correct? “Some forms of liberalism, perhaps. Not all. Certainly not liberalism as it existed in the Americas at the time.” - Literally liberalism in its most basic form advocates limited government. “Of course the two things aren't equal. I've never said they were 'equal'. Plenty of left-orientated ideologies are anti-slavery. Anarcho-communists are anti-slavery, but they aren't liberals. But liberals are inherently anti-slavery. And Lincoln was a liberal.” - Funny how you only mention left wing ideas rather than those on both sides, almost as if you have a certain agenda you are trying to promote. And according to who? As mentioned, classical liberals would take the stance that even if a stance was taken morally, that does not mean they would want the government to interfere. And as mentioned, Lincoln could still just as easily be an Anti Slavery conservative. Now contrary to what you may think, I don’t think Lincoln was exclusively a conservative either. He was a moderate constitutionalist who wanted to ensure that America lived up to its original promise highlighted in the constitution. If Lincoln was a Liberal in any way of the word, he was a conservative and moderate one. And his statements clearly stated where his stances were. The issue you are not getting is just like you claim there is more than one breed of liberalism, there can just as easily be more than one breed of conservative. The key divide within the North was between the Anti Slavery and Abolitionists. Which should be clear to explain that at the time, there was a key difference between Anti Slavery and a full abolitionist. People who were Anti Slavery, were against the practice of slavery, but they believed that the focus should be to contain it and let it get phased out on its own, even willing to provide fininaital compensation. People who were Abolitionists on the otherhand, wanted slavery gone immediately and that the more gradually phasing the anti slavery members were advocating was not good enough for them. Lincoln was an Anti Slavery member, not an abolitionist. At least not before the war. The South had similar divides both before and during the secession except for them it leaned more between the moderates and extreme pro slavery. This is the point, you are trying to paint it as a typical black and white idea of liberalism vs conservatism when the reality was both sides had elements of both. Especially since as mentioned, the concepts were not mutually exclusive at the time. Lincoln in the best since was socially liberal and politically conservative. In summary, he was a moderate. So the thing I will give you upon further research is you’re not entirely wrong. But I would argue that while your points do hold some merits, I think you are trying to rule out the idea that was also conservative in just as many fronts. I don’t know if that is out of ignorance or for the sake of an agenda. Only you can answer that one. Another factor I think you are ignoring when describing the north as a whole is much of the north disagreed with Lincoln. Lincoln was not necessarily the most popular president even among the northern states, as many believed that despite his moderate views on most fronts, he was too aggressive against slavery (Kinda ironic considering his stances weren’t far off from most anti slavery members, but my point stands) and in a sense caused the Civil War. He even came close to losing the 1864 election if it wasn’t for the victory Sherman amounted for him. The North had many internal divides, just like the south also did. For better or worse, the reality is aside from one side being pro slavery and the other anti slavery. No other stances were a black and white issue. For either Lincoln, or the north as a whole.
    1
  50.  @Crispr_CAS9  “Nope. They only disincentivize it. That's not a limit.” - Except it is, artificially taxing more on the grounds of protectionist policies is a limit. It may be a small limit, but a limit nonetheless. “And if it's to counter undue influence, it isn't a violation of free markets but a protection of them. This is just me repeating what I've already said. I'm not repeating it again, stop being wrong.” - As mentioned it isn’t wrong. It is a matter of perspective. As mentioned many liberals themselves have disagreed with Tariffs for this very reason. “That's shockingly irrelevant. If you believe the influence is undue, you act against the undue influence. You might be wrong, but that's entirely irrelevant to the conversation.” - If you give the government an overreaching power to combat undue influence, there would be concern if they themselves become an undue influence. “I'm sure 'some' would. The existence of an anti-tariff liberal position doesn't invalidate the existence of a pro-tariff liberal position.” - Nor would it invalidate a Pro Tariff Conservative one. “I'm fairly careful with my language. Just to be sure, I went back through the threads we've talked in. And while I did find another instance of YOU doing that, I can't find any examples where I did it. Perhaps you could quote it?” - I did not find the original comment due to Youtube’s deletion issues, but I did find your response to my criticism of when you did. I say, “since you’re trying to paint liberal and conservatives as opposites.” You respond with, “They’re not opposites per se, but most liberal ideologies are opposed to most results of most conservative ideologies, and vice versa. So while you ‘can’ have conservative liberals or liberal conservatives, it is rare.” So two points to cover with that. Firstly, you did strongly imply them to basically be opposite stances. Secondly, by your own admission in this response, something I agreed with Liberal Conservatives or Conservative Liberals wasn't impossible. So who is to say Lincoln couldn’t have been both as my earlier comment suggested? “If the only information we had about him was his position on tariffs, sure. You realize that the statement 'Lincoln wasn't a liberal because he supported tariffs' is wrong if liberals can support tariffs, regardless of whether or not conservatives can also support them, right? It's not probative here.” - I will retract that statement. But I would also argue, as mentioned, that along with most of his other stances did not rule him out from being a conservative either. “Limited government is not equivalent to decentralization. A limited federal government is more liberal than a series of authoritarian decentralized governments. So centralization of power is not probative either.” - Slavery alone would not make them authoritarian, as least not by the south’s pov at the time. “It is true that you previously wrongly said that classical liberals would support slavery. I don't know why repeating this hilariously absurd bit of claptrap would be a good idea.” - Alright, I will be fair here. I did confuse the statuses of classical liberals to libertarians. And I feel like many of my misconceptions were rooted into that. [Skipping some stuff I broadly agree with...] “No, Lincoln was an abolitionist. He literally abolished slavery.” - Post war, and that was only because there was a political climate to do so. However it was not an action that would have been done if the war had not occured. “Political actions are more important than political statements.” - In some cases true, but that point is made mute if you don’t consider the contrast in circumstances before the war vs after the war. And the fact that Lincoln, along with many other northerners did have their hearts harden as a result from the war. “Also, we have plenty of private correspondence where he indicates abolitionist preferences, and only public statements of containment.” - The thing is many anti slavery had abolitionist preferances, the thing was there is a difference between a desired preference and what lengths they were willing to go politically to achieve said goal. Abolitionists and Anti Slavery members had the same end, the same destination. They just differed in the method they were desiring to go in. Lincoln was an Anti Slavery through his stances. He was not willing to rip the country in half over the issue, he was willing to provide the south concessions as a condition for gradual emancipation, and even stated he would not abolish slavery if it meant doing so would tear up the union. “If he was publicly abolitionist before the war, he never would have been elected. Again, political statements are irrelevant.” - Except they aren’t, especially when again nothing at the time contradicted those statements. Now, if you are willing to provide quotes of Lincoln’s private statements, I will gladly read them out. And the thing is yes, an abolitionist would not had gotten elected, many of them got a bad name from failed slave revolts driven by abolishinists. Hence why Lincoln knew he could not be an abolitionist if he hoped for slavery to one day go without causing a civil war. Of course once when that war did happen, that political concern did not really matter anymore especially once the Union started winning. “ I agree that both the North and the South had both liberals and conservatives. I've never said otherwise. I have said that the North was predominantly governed by liberals, and the South predominantly by conservatives.” - As mentioned, I don’t agree that the north was predominantly liberals. Especially when as we covered earlier, the concepts weren’t mutually exclusive from one another. And if we are talking about it in the context of slavery, there were a lot more Anti Slavery members than abolishinits at least before the war. “Both had local opposition. I would even grant that there were anti-slavery elements in both conservative and liberal camps, although they reached the position from divergent reasoning.” - True. “Here I stress that I'm agreeing with your distinction between anti-slavery and abolitionist, because abolitionism is an inherently anti-conservative movement.” - The thing is I don’t agree with that though. Being an abolitionist did not automatically contradict conservative values. Now if it was to the lengths of starting a slave revolt, then sure. But the idea of getting rid of slavery was not contradictory to the aspect northern conservatives cared about, which was the constitution. Of course I will grant you that most northern conservatives did not take abolitionist stances. Many reasons for that, but the main one was they did not want to rock the boat too much and risk what occurred in the American Civil War. Lincoln in that sense was similar, though I will agree he was more hardcore in the anti slavery position than much of his peers. That position only came to become more radical during the war. The most that could be said is that Lincoln started as an Anti Slavery and became an abolishinist during the war. “Although not, of course, a necessarily liberal one.” - Agreed. “Just as being pro-slavery is an inherently anti-liberal position, but not necessarily a conservative one.” - After the research I conducted I can agree with that. I will grant you, I made the mistake of confusing liberalism with libertarianism. A very fool hardy’s mistake.
    1