[ExI] History of Slavery

[gts]

Lee Corbin wrote:

> Sounds to me that you may be confusing "liberal" as in 18th century
> opposition to Tories, which is what Hayek would call a "classical
> liberal", with what passes for "liberalism" today, with its decidedly
> left-leaning tilt.

I'm not confusing the two connotations of liberal, but yes I would agree  
if you think the word "liberalism" is ambiguous, and exactly for the  
reason you state above.

I'm well aware of the difference between classical liberalism (which in  
its modern form is probably best identified with libertarianism) and "what  
passes for 'liberalism' today" (which has socialist connotations). Even  
so, I think these supposedly disparate ideas of liberalism share some  
elements in common with respect to the slavery issue.

The points I was making were that 1) abolitionism is fundamentally a  
liberal idea in both senses of the word "liberal" (even despite Lincoln  
and the word's association in the US with the Republican party of the 19th  
century), and that 2) the Torys were not liberals in either sense of the  
word, at least with respect to slavery.

Wilberforce the conservative Tory deserves credit for his contribution to  
the cause of abolitionism in England, just as does Lincoln and the  
Republicans of mid 19th century USA. I don't wish to rob these people and  
institutions of credit in their historical context.

However, as words are used and understood in 2007, I find it difficult to  
justify the proposition that conservative politicians and conservative  
Christian Evangelicals have a legitimate claim that they freed the slaves.

If anyone deserves credit for freeing the slaves, I'd say it was the  
political liberals and the Quakers.

-gts