We could probably establish that conservatism means wanting system to stay as it is and liberals, progressive, what to change things and implement new rules regardless of what they are. So in the 19 hundreds there are no marriage laws in place for at least the first couple decades when States begin to implement their own laws.

Anyone could purchase a firearm. There was no talk of a background check. Or registration. Or limiting the size of the magazine.

Marihuana wasn't illegal and you can buy opiates over the counter at the drugstore.

I will check and see when income tax was established so that would be a liberal landmark.

Everyone was allowed to drink alcohol. The Liberals gave us prohibition.

Private employers hired on the basis of who they wanted to hire and there is no federal mandate forcing them to avoid people of a certain race, we call that affirmative action.

It wasn't until well into the second decade of the 1900s that the 16th amendment allowed for income tax.

Women and blacks already had the right to vote whether or not you think that's been a positive step.

you asked regarding that time....

but you were going by your own "definition" of the term akin to what it is today.

IOW's, you don't know enough to ask a legit question. You still haven't defined your terms,

but you want to emotionally knee jerk into some kind of weird "victory" that you feel.

Think. Define. Then, you might ask an intelligent, valid question.

@logicisforsquares said:

He is. He can't admit he would be a liberal/social progressive even in a hypothetical situation like this.

I've made my point. I'm done.

per the definitions of the phrases back then.

woody asked in the beginning, if I would have been a social progressive if I were put

back in time to the 1900's... the question was invalid.

per the definitions, favoring women voting wouldn't have been the majority I suppose,

but the label doesn't match the question.

Iff you'd ask if I thought slavery should be abolished, and blacks and women should vote,

and be equal as citizens, of course it would be unpopular with many - the majority, maybe,

back in the 1900's. But it's dumb to say all of one group completely favored keeping blacks

and women in their place is nonsense.

But that doesn't mean "social conservative

@mld-woody said:

I believe Cal is being deliberately obtuse so he doesn't have to admit that maybe he could have been wrong about a random topic on a football forum.

Cal, if you think it is o.k. for your wife to vote then you would have been ahead of the times for 1900.

"The progressives came from a long tradition of middle-class elites possessing a strong sense of social duty to the poor. The social hierarchy wherein blue-blooded, native stock was at the top and the poor along with the "darker-skinned" were at the bottom, was accepted by the elite. But inherent in their role as privileged members of society was a certain degree of responsibility for the less fortunate. Growing up in this social class, Eleanor Roosevelt remarked, "In that society you were kind to the poor, you did not neglect your philanthropic duties, you assisted the hospitals and did something for the needy."

Yes or no?

Clarify your question validly, and I can answerr.

Define your terms for once. As in, the first darn time ever.

all social conservative or social liberal...

baloney.

@oldbrownsfan said:

http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

Some more background and how each party's stance was affected.

This same argument will be made 80 years from now on some social conservative of that time. He/She will be perfectly fine with gay marriage, like you with blacks and whites hanging out together, and the cycle will repeat.

You can try to imagine certain definitions and anything else in an attempt to avoid answering (which I thought only liberals did?) but we all already know the answer.

******************************

"sigh". So, where would I end up with your pip pip cheerio time machine?

Alabama? Ohio? In Ohio, probably ? Why is it that liberals always get to paint entire classes of

people with a gigantic broad brush... but they are the first to get po'd and complain if a conservative does it?

Mobile, Alabama, all conservatives felt about race...how?

Wherever it is I go back then, am I around Quakers? They were very, very conservative - they also were primary

in the development of the underground railroad in several states.

Ask invalid questions, get no valid answers, Chris. I think acceptability of slavery, especially in the south,

defied poltical opinions - it was an economically driven disgrace.

@oldbrownsfan said:

I'm not buying that somehow all the racists in democrat party with the KKK and Jim Crow laws somehow all flipped and became republicans. I think the democrats would like to make people think that but it is not true. It was not all that long ago the democrats used to have a majority leader in the senate who at one time was a member of the KKK. He was a lifelong democrat and I never saw him switch parties.

I saw a documentary once of how black people were treated in the north in the 20's and the racism was disgusting and this was not coming from the deep south but cities like Chicago. A black friend of mine has told me many times he never saw as much racism in the south growing up like he did when he moved north.

No it is the same republican party that stood against slavery that is the same party today and that goes for the democrats.

I saw a documentary once of how black people were treated in the north in the 20's and the racism was disgusting and this was not coming from the deep south but cities like Chicago. A black friend of mine has told me many times he never saw as much racism in the south growing up like he did when he moved north.

No it is the same republican party that stood against slavery that is the same party today and that goes for the democrats.

Bless you?

WSS

the term today is not what it means back then. I showed that.

So, if I were put back in those times, your term is not valid as it

is used today, and you are using in terms of what it means today.

But back then, it certainly meant something different.

So, how the heck am I supposed to answer that?

READ, and see that the term "liberalism actually applies to the Tea Party and

libertarian ideals today.

Therefore, you are asking an invalid question.

There have always been all sorts of folks who never thought

it wasn't okay for "blacks and whites to hang out and eat at the same restaurant?",

all the way back to the Underground Railroad.

The term "socially liberal/conservative" doesn't apply to the times, the definition of the terms

as I linked to, are not valid.

Go back to my link, and READ.

"Sometime in the late nineteenth century, liberalism began to divide into two different streams. One stream, which came to be called ‘classical liberalism’, confined liberalism’s ambitions to establishing a robust framework to protect individuals from a rapacious and power-hungry state. It aimed to control the size of the state, especially its military expenditure, and to promote international free trade, both for its own sake and as a way to encourage peace. Its ideal was a state that left us alone to get on with our lives. It valued political freedoms – especially of speech and of belief – but also tended to see property rights in themselves as an important bulwark against oppression.

Some classical liberals shaded into what ought to be called libertarianism rather than liberalism. They came to view property rights as natural rights existing outside the framework of the state, so that the state may not even redefine property rights without committing a wrong.

The other stream, which has come to be called ‘social liberalism’ (but which might better be called ‘social justice liberalism’¹ ), also valued political freedom, also thought that the state should as far as possible leave us alone to make our own decisions on how to live our lives, also opposed militarism and also believed that international free trade was a way to preserve peace, but it believed in addition that liberalism required a commitment to a fair distribution of wealth and power, which in turn led to support for redistributive taxation and public services as ways of fairly distributing wealth and for democracy as a way of fairly distributing power."

WSS