Replies

I will admit that I was rather extreme, but the Jacksonian RATs greased the slippery slope. I think that we are the first nation in history to fight a civil war over the relation of the components to the central, Roman History included.

I don't care about the two party system, I have been a Republican all my life and we have at least six parties.

203 posted on 08/21/2007 5:50:46 PM PDT by Little Bill (Welcome to the Newly Socialist State of New Hampshire)

207 posted on 08/21/2007 6:03:34 PM PDT by Bob J (Rightalk.com...a conservative alternative to NPR! Check out nat synd "Rightalk with Terri and Lynn")

LOL. I'm with you on the "two-party" thing. The only purpose for Democrats is to show where you can end up if you aren't a Republican.

And with due respect, we did not fight a Civil War over federalism. It was about slavery, pure and simple. In any scenario, once you take slavery out of the question, all other issues (the tarrif, whatever) just disappear as "reasons" to fight. Slavery as CAPITAL accounted for more than all the RRs and textile mills in the north combined; slavery as capital constituted the single biggest "product" (not counting labor) in the nation in 1860. The five "richest" states, counting slaves as capital, were all slave; and 11 of the top 14 were slaves. That is the most basic pocketbook issue of all time.

214 posted on 08/21/2007 6:19:45 PM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794