 |
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:36
|
|
Impaler:
quote: The US became a 2 party political system very rapidly (like the 3rd 4th presidential election basicaly). |
actually, this isn't true. Adams' election and Jefferson's election were hotly contested between the then vague (there was no real political organization) factions of federalists and democratic republicans. After Jefferson's victory, however, the dem. republicans dominated national politics and most local politics except in New England where the federalists remained influential up until the 1810's and the plotted New England Seccession which completely destroyed the federalist party though the dem. repubs. had won every presidential election since jefferson by great majorities.
Thus, by the Quincy Adams vs. Jackson election, you had two dem. repub. candidates running against each other with no federalists in sight. The controversy over that election (and the fact that america was a one-party system at that time would be bound to lead to some division eventually) caused Jackson and a whole arm of the dem. repubs. to shed the repub. title and become Democrats while Quincy Adams briefly wore the mantle of Jefferson's party before the formation of the Whigs.
if anything, up until the 1820's, America was a one-party system.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:36
|
|
quote: The newest topic is that of Gays and their rights, this has in the last decade gone from an almost unspeakable topic to something near the tipping point, in a hundread years the current liberal position with be universaly accepted and people holding what is currently the "moderate" view will be the equivilant of Douglas (Lincons Democratic oponent who took the "moderate" view that slavery was bad but would naturaly go away on its own and was a states right anyway so the federal goverment shouldn't get involved). |
you're trying to equate the gay rights issue with slavery? you do realize there is a major difference in magnitude, right?
similiarly, off of where chegitz was probably thinking, that is like saying that republicans today opposing affirmitive action would mean they would have been pro-slavery... there is a difference in magnitude. just because slavery was an incredible wrong that needed to be ended doesn't mean that affirmitive action should also be supported by an abolitionist, the Freed Man's Bureau aside
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:36
|
|
you're wrong, jaguar boy
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|