Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

On Nov 8, 2004, at 7:03 AM, Michael Czeiszperger wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2004, at 11:17 PM, James Dasher wrote:
>
> > It was actually a bunch of right-wing religious Republicans who were 
> > the big advocates for ending slavery.
>
> I've read several histories of Lincoln's time, and our current notions 
> of conservative and liberal can't be applied to a totally different 
> period.  Suffice it to say that people who were advocating getting rid 
> of slavery were considered radical and unelectable.  Lincoln himself 
> never advocated outlawing slavery, which is one of the reasons he was 
> able to get elected.

That's true.  But those unelectable people were very religious, and 
very Republican.  And the "better a war than two nations with slavery" 
faction is ... well, they might not have called it "right-wing" back 
then, but we'd be calling them war-mongering right-wingers today.

Just as an "outlaw abortion" candidate couldn't win the presidency 
today, but a "limit the expanse of abortion" candidate can.

Alternatively, you could argue that the "let the states decide" people 
(Democrats in 1860 and Republicans today) were right, and that the 
"this is a federal issue" people (reversed) were wrong.  But that's an 
argument about the approach to the problem, and not support for one 
side or the other in resolving the problem.

N.B.: I'm not equating abortion and slavery with this point.  I'm just 
clarifying how religiously motivated issue-voters interact with the 
broader electorate on certain issues, and how they get described 
differently today than we describe their historical counterparts.

--
James Dasher
misterdasher dot com
IM misterdasher