Plymouth or Jamestown?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

You’re right, he didn’t directly say it, but it was sort of implied that they were more so than the Puritans. The fact that they weren’t the only ones to initially own slaves doesn’t the change the fact that they held a deeply, uniquely (for America) reactionary worldview.

Of course. They could hardly help it, having fought on the wrong side of the English Civil War. I'm not so ready to let the Puritans off the hook for their own uniquely reactionary worldview, however, especially when it comes to profiting off the slave trade, my earlier-expressed preference for them notwithstanding.

[Alcibiades]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

You’re right, he didn’t directly say it, but it was sort of implied that they were more so than the Puritans. The fact that they weren’t the only ones to initially own slaves doesn’t the change the fact that they held a deeply, uniquely (for America) reactionary worldview.

Of course. They could hardly help it, having fought on the wrong side of the English Civil War. I'm not so ready to let the Puritans off the hook for their own uniquely reactionary worldview, however, especially when it comes to profiting off the slave trade, my earlier-expressed preference for them notwithstanding.

No question the Puritans held some abhorrent beliefs, but I don’t think it’s controversial to state that many parts of their worldview were at the very least proto-democratic and -egalitarian.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

You’re right, he didn’t directly say it, but it was sort of implied that they were more so than the Puritans. The fact that they weren’t the only ones to initially own slaves doesn’t the change the fact that they held a deeply, uniquely (for America) reactionary worldview.

Of course. They could hardly help it, having fought on the wrong side of the English Civil War. I'm not so ready to let the Puritans off the hook for their own uniquely reactionary worldview, however, especially when it comes to profiting off the slave trade, my earlier-expressed preference for them notwithstanding.

No question the Puritans held some abhorrent beliefs, but I don’t think it’s controversial to state that many parts of their worldview were at the very least proto-democratic and -egalitarian.

Oh, sure, the key word (prefix) being "proto-." We can see the beginnings of democracy in early New England, and compared to England or the Southern colonies anyways Puritan social hierarchy was relatively flat; where <ahem> some people run into trouble is glossing over some of the nastier bits that complicate the overarching narrative.

[Joe Haydn]

I guess we're just going to ignore that Rhode Island exists, then. How could it, when the Puritans of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay were so tolerant of Protestant dissenters?

In 1658, Plymouth Court ordered that any boat carrying Quakers to Sandwich be seized to prevent the religious heretics from landing. A year earlier, Quakers in Sandwich had established the first Friends‘ Meeting in the New World. Magistrates in both Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were alarmed by Quaker teachings that individuals could receive direct personal revelations from God. To protect orthodox Puritanism, the courts passed a series of laws forbidding residents from housing Quakers. Quakers themselves were threatened with whipping, arrest, imprisonment, banishment, or death. But driven by conscience, some Quakers repeatedly returned to Massachusetts to preach; four of them, including Mary Dyer, went to the gallows before a shocked King Charles ordered an end to the hanging of Quakers in 1661.

Not so different from how Quakers were treated anywhere else in the New World —but then, that is the point.

I'm aware of this, but the treatment of the Quakers was actually an exception to the general Puritan rule of religious toleration, at least in England, and things only got worse after the Restoration. The Quaker Act of 1662 passed by the Cavalier Parliament was only one of many new obstacles to the free practice of their faith, as George Fox and William Penn certainly knew from their extended stays in prison.

Starting in 1662, the English Parliament began passing a series of laws whose sole purpose was to silence the Quakers. The first of these laws was “An Act for preventing mischiefs and dangers that may arise by certain persons called Quakers and others refusing to take lawful oaths,” commonly known as “The Quaker Act of 1662”. This act made it illegal for Quakers to worship together. Many members of the Religious Society of Friends reacted to these laws by holding meetings for worship in secret, but others continued to meet openly and faced the ongoing persecution. Quaker meetings organized to support their members who were imprisoned or fined for their beliefs and actions, and they often cared for the children of those who were in jail. The Quaker Act also made it illegal for people to refuse to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the Church of England.

Two years after the Quaker Act was passed, the English Parliament passed the Conventicle Act, which restated that no other religious meetings could take place except those carried out by the Official Church of England. Parliament passed another Conventicle Act in 1670. These three Acts resulted in the arrests, punishments, and imprisonments of thousands of Friends in England. Parliament passed the Five Mile Act in 1665, which prevented Quakers from forming their own townships. Parliament was not only targeting Quakers, but also others in the Nonconformist Movement.

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

You’re right, he didn’t directly say it, but it was sort of implied that they were more so than the Puritans. The fact that they weren’t the only ones to initially own slaves doesn’t the change the fact that they held a deeply, uniquely (for America) reactionary worldview.

Of course. They could hardly help it, having fought on the wrong side of the English Civil War. I'm not so ready to let the Puritans off the hook for their own uniquely reactionary worldview, however, especially when it comes to profiting off the slave trade, my earlier-expressed preference for them notwithstanding.

What was so reactionary about their worldview? Radical Christian utopianism, or whatever you want to call it, though it hearkened back to the very early days of the Church, brought together all sorts of levellers and sectaries, even more radical in their Protestantism than the Puritans, who sought to completely break down the existing hierarchies of society and replace it with something more equal and just (and yes, godly). I would hardly call such a movement reactionary, even if the Puritan end of the spectrum was more moderate compared to the litany of radical groups (like the Quakers) that emerged in the 1640s, because relatively speaking they were on the left when their main opponents were Anglican Royalists.

Also, I'm very much aware of the Puritans' involvement in the slave trade, but I think it is unfair to hold this against them as evidence of their "uniquely reactionary worldview" when the Southern Cavaliers were much more dependent upon slavery, and when the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who you have been known to praise, was himself a huge owner of slaves. It is true, though, that the Puritans of the 17th century were not ideologically opposed to slavery, less so than even Jefferson, who after all abolished the slave trade, but that is because the ideas of the Enlightenment were crucial to the anti-slavery movement. For their time, the Puritans were far from the worst American slave traders, while Jefferson was one of the worst slave owners of his day.

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

You’re right, he didn’t directly say it, but it was sort of implied that they were more so than the Puritans. The fact that they weren’t the only ones to initially own slaves doesn’t the change the fact that they held a deeply, uniquely (for America) reactionary worldview.

Of course. They could hardly help it, having fought on the wrong side of the English Civil War. I'm not so ready to let the Puritans off the hook for their own uniquely reactionary worldview, however, especially when it comes to profiting off the slave trade, my earlier-expressed preference for them notwithstanding.

No question the Puritans held some abhorrent beliefs, but I don’t think it’s controversial to state that many parts of their worldview were at the very least proto-democratic and -egalitarian.

Oh, sure, the key word (prefix) being "proto-." We can see the beginnings of democracy in early New England, and compared to England or the Southern colonies anyways Puritan social hierarchy was relatively flat; where <ahem> some people run into trouble is glossing over some of the nastier bits that complicate the overarching narrative.

I'm not sure why you're so insistent on it being "proto-"democracy rather than just democracy. Yes, they lived a long time ago and were religious fundamentalists, but why should that mean they can't have a "real" democracy? John Lilburne and the Levellers developed sophisticated, modern ideas of freeborn rights and eloquently argued their principles at the Putney Debates, which included the establishment of universal manhood suffrage. While the Levellers were fighting to establish democracy in England, their fellow Englishmen in New England already had one; I don't see anything "proto-" about it.

I have nowhere claimed that the Puritans were perfect. The article about the Quakers I linked to details the brutal treatment of James Nayler at the hands of the English Puritan government, and Oliver Cromwell absolutely committed unspeakable crimes during his conquest of Ireland. Still, the English Puritans granted toleration to the majority of Protestant Dissenters, which was quickly undone by the Restoration regime. This cannot be overlooked. I would agree, though, that the American Puritans were much less tolerant than their English co-religionists, and the existence of Rhode Island is proof of this. Their treatment of the Antinomians and the Quakers, among other dissenters, was indicative of a vicious persecutory tendency. I actually recall reading that Henry Vane, the former governor of Massachusetts Bay, sent a letter to the colonial authorities of Massachusetts in the 1650s exhorting them to follow the more tolerant example of their English masters. Additionally, the port of Boston was a major slave trading port well into the 18th century, as has been alluded to.

But despite all this, the Puritans were, for their time, liberals. They believed in a radical upheaval of church and state, fought for freedom against tyrannical Kings, and established some of the modern world's first democracies. As is always the case with such movements, they met bitter and violent resistance from reactionaries, who were horrified by the idea of resistance to divine authority. Anything that you can criticize the Puritans for, the Anglican Royalists were even worse on. The New England Puritans were involved in the slave trade? Yes, but the Southern Cavaliers were much more so. The Puritans were religious fanatics? Yes, but so were the Tories, who clung to their belief in a semi-sacred King who it was blasphemous to resist and screamed about the "Church in Danger". The Puritans persecuted Quakers? Yes, but the Church of England persecuted divers more Protestant Dissenters. The Puritans were not perfect, by any means, but they were the liberals, or else radicals and democrats, of their day.

[Diabolical Materialism]

I created this thread specifically to get HenryWallaceVP and Truman to argue

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Write in: Philadelphia.


And to Orser67's point in the other thread:  American Nations is an excellent read and has pretty objective takes on all of the different cultures.  Including the Puritans... intolerance towards outsiders and what we modern Americans define as "Liberty" and personal freedom.

I guess that's why the Puritans in England allowed the Jews to return to the country after 400 years of being banned under the Catholic turned Anglican monarchy.

"While other colonies welcomed all comers, the Puritains forbade anyone to settle in their colony who failed to pass a test of religious conformity.  Dissenters were banished.  Quakers were disfigured for easy identification, their nostrils slit, their ears cut off, or their faces brandished with the letter "H".  Puritans doled out death sentances for infractions such as adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy and even teenage rebellion. They fined farmers who tended to their crops, raked hay or hunted birds on the Sabbath.  Boston magistrates put Captain Thomas Kemble in the stocks in 1656 for kissing his wife on his doorstep after a 3 year absense-"lewd and unseemly behavior" in the eyes of the court.  Early Yankeedom was less tolerant of moral or religious deviance than the England it's settlers left behind."

American Nations pg. 58, Colin Woodward.

This is to say nothing of their abysmal relations with the Native Americans.  In fairness, the values of self-governance and democratic norms that the Puritains introduced are nothing short of astonishing.

But this narrative as Puritan New England being some progressive, open minded utopia where everyone gets along is part of a sanitized and idealized version of 4th grade US history and the American story, whereas the truth is far more complex and gray.  Plus, at least part of this has partisan motivations-the Democrats want to align with N.E. to portray the Republicans of representing the slave-society south.  

There is a great thread from 5-6 years ago (which I'm sure NC-Y remembers) that goes into far more detail on this.  It's called "the inconvenient US history thread " or something like that, I bookmarked it in 2019.


Edit: said thread https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=184903.0

[darklordoftech]

Just as there being a continuinity between the Federalist Party and people like Elizabeth Warren is questionable besides them being strong in the same region, I’m also not so sure if there’s much continuity between the Puritans and the Federalist Party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Never once claimed that. There is a difference between a "libertine" lifestyle and social liberalism.

You seem to be catching whatever Henry has and starting to misread what I say.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In fact Cavalier when used in the context of say sex life or other lifestyle choices carries a connotation of free wheeling or lacking in self control.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jamestown was fiscally conservative, Plymouth was socially conservative.

Jamestown being "cavalier" as such would indeed be more permissive of "various" behaviors provided you had the money to make people look the other way. Much less so in Plymouth with its "our way or to hell with you (literally)" approach taken by the Puritans.

So the Ukraine meme kind of applies here.

Claiming that the Cavaliers were more “socially liberal” than the Puritans is certainly quite the take. I didn’t realise you could own slaves and spit at peasants, but so long as look the other way with regards to drunkenness and partying, you’re socially liberally. Are David Cameron and Boris Johnson lefties because of the entitled debauchery of their younger years?

Did I miss where Yankee said the Cavaliers were "socially liberal" somewhere? In any case, let's not pretend slavery was unique to the Southern colonies in this period; it very much was not.

You’re right, he didn’t directly say it, but it was sort of implied that they were more so than the Puritans. The fact that they weren’t the only ones to initially own slaves doesn’t the change the fact that they held a deeply, uniquely (for America) reactionary worldview.

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is a great thread from 5-6 years ago (which I'm sure NC-Y remembers) that goes into far more detail on this.  It's called "the inconvenient US history thread " or something like that, I bookmarked it in 2019.

Edit: said thread https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=184903.0

I linked it recently in a PM conversation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just as there being a continuinity between the Federalist Party and people like Elizabeth Warren is questionable besides them being strong in the same region, I’m also not so sure if there’s much continuity between the Puritans and the Federalist Party.

Continuity of most everything is at best a partial consideration. However, the Federalist Party did have substantial overlap with that group obviously.

[Alcibiades]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

Its not, in fact they go hand in hand in some circumstances.

[Alcibiades]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

Its not, in fact they go hand in hand in some circumstances.

OK, good to clear up that miscommunication. My point was more that their libertine social life does not negate their reactionary political views.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

Its not, in fact they go hand in hand in some circumstances.

OK, good to clear up that miscommunication. My point was more that their libertine social life does not negate their reactionary political views.

Is support for wine, women and song versus opposition to such not a political view itself?

[Alcibiades]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

Its not, in fact they go hand in hand in some circumstances.

OK, good to clear up that miscommunication. My point was more that their libertine social life does not negate their reactionary political views.

Is support for wine, women and song versus opposition to such not a political view itself?

Supporting the good life for the elite while keeping everyone else in abysmal poverty is a pretty right-wing philosophy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread has... taken a turn. Anyway, if you want to find modern liberal attitudes towards religious pluralism in the 17th century you're wasting your time. You can find the origins of it, though, at the radical end of Protestantism (i.e. the diverse groups termed as 'Puritans' in English), but 'origins' must be stressed as the concept was never extended to religious groups regarded as being political enemies. No one was really in favour of that at the time.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

Its not, in fact they go hand in hand in some circumstances.

OK, good to clear up that miscommunication. My point was more that their libertine social life does not negate their reactionary political views.

Is support for wine, women and song versus opposition to such not a political view itself?

Supporting the good life for the elite while keeping everyone else in abysmal poverty is a pretty right-wing philosophy.

The issue is that their political opponents of the day were also members of the social elite, who instead of seeking to reduce social inequality decided to clamp down on drinking and smiling on Sundays.

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

This thread has... taken a turn. Anyway, if you want to find modern liberal attitudes towards religious pluralism in the 17th century you're wasting your time. You can find the origins of it, though, at the radical end of Protestantism (i.e. the diverse groups termed as 'Puritans' in English), but 'origins' must be stressed as the concept was never extended to religious groups regarded as being political enemies. No one was really in favour of that at the time.

Nah this exact argument was the one I was hoping to start

[Alcibiades]

The issue is that their political opponents of the day were also members of the social elite, who instead of seeking to reduce social inequality decided to clamp down on drinking and smiling on Sundays.

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

I mean, I think it’s pretty clear that the Puritans and later New England WASP elites (I’m not sure which exactly you’re referring to here) showed a greater interest in social inequality (even if for the latter group, it was motivated by moralistic paternalism) than the Southern elite, who actually actively sought to maintain maximum inequality, ever did.

[Diabolical Materialism]

The issue is that their political opponents of the day were also members of the social elite, who instead of seeking to reduce social inequality decided to clamp down on drinking and smiling on Sundays.

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

I mean, I think it’s pretty clear that the Puritans and later New England WASP elites (I’m not sure which exactly you’re referring to here) showed a greater interest in social inequality (even if for the latter group, it was motivated by moralistic paternalism) than the Southern elite, who actually actively sought to maintain maximum inequality, ever did.

I should've made the timeline I was referring to a little more explicit, that's my mistake. I was referring to the early Puritans. Who for the longest time had little issue with owning slaves, and later directly profiting from the slave trade.

New Englanders descended from the Puritan tradition did tend to be more considered with general social welfare than their counterparts in the South. But during the colonial period neither society was particularly interested in shaking up the established social order. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why are you people incapable of considering anything without drawing some kind of arbitrary line and trying to place them as such?

Charles II upon his restoration, basically drank and bedded his way into the good graces of the elites.

I’m not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything I said, and I don’t know what the first is even referring to.

Cavaliers were far more libertine, self-indulgent and restrained then their opponents. That is why in my head the first thing that occurs to me when I hear the term is not reactionary slave driver, but a self indulgent rich guy, sleeping with everything that moves.

Yes? And how is that in any way incompatible with also being reactionary slave drivers?

Its not, in fact they go hand in hand in some circumstances.

OK, good to clear up that miscommunication. My point was more that their libertine social life does not negate their reactionary political views.

Is support for wine, women and song versus opposition to such not a political view itself?

Supporting the good life for the elite while keeping everyone else in abysmal poverty is a pretty right-wing philosophy.

Two points though, in isolation though from who is supporting it, such certainly would stand in opposition to more restrained and restrictive views on personal behavior as such.

Second of all, some of what would come to be termed as "liberalism" derived their origins from the self interested motives of elites at various points.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

Its like at various points people forget such obvious realities of the period in question and latch onto a groups elite status as an x-factor to refute an argument. Bonus points if such elites were involved in slavery.

[Diabolical Materialism]

It's important to remember that in these days the "political sphere" of society by and large began and ended with the elite.

Its like at various points people forget such obvious realities of the period in question and latch onto a groups elite status as an x-factor to refute an argument. Bonus points if such elites were involved in slavery.

The thing is I get why. It's difficult to imagine a political structure and scope of ideology contained within such a small group of people with a shared material class. It's tempting to project modern ideological definitions that were constructed in a time of mass suffrage and political engagement to the past.