TexasCHLforum.com

I'm sorry, but the Democrat party of then is not the same as today. Same for the Republican party.

Racism is regional, not political.

For an excellent treatise of how we developed as a nation, I highly recommend American Nations by Colin Woodard.

The political parties switched. If you are a republican now, in 1860 you would be a democrat.

JakeTheSnake wrote:The political parties switched. If you are a republican now, in 1860 you would be a democrat.

Hmmmm, not quite that simple, but generally speaking correct. I wouldn't say it would hold true across the board.

I should have said slavery was regional, not political.

OlBill wrote:I'm sorry, but the Democrat party of then is not the same as today. Same for the Republican party.

Racism is regional, not political.

Well, I can see the broad brush, but I think the real regions where racism sometimes take root are the heart and the mind.

OlBill wrote:I should have said slavery was regional, not political.

I hit "submit" too quickly!

JakeTheSnake wrote:The political parties switched. If you are a republican now, in 1860 you would be a democrat.

Or a Whig. The republican party formed in the wake of the Whig party's self-immolation.

treadlightly wrote:

OlBill wrote:I should have said slavery was regional, not political.

I hit "submit" too quickly!

No sir, point taken. American Nations explains it far better than I ever could.

I'd like to know what their plan is when thei are done eliminating the monuments!

sbrawley wrote:

bmwrdr wrote:I'd like to know what their plan is when thei are done eliminating the monuments!

Rewrite the history books?

That would bring up a question for the version of history one wants to study

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:The political parties switched. If you are a republican now, in 1860 you would be a democrat.

Or a Whig. The republican party formed in the wake of the Whig party's self-immolation.

I wonder what they'll form themselves in to now...

pbwalker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:The political parties switched. If you are a republican now, in 1860 you would be a democrat.

Or a Whig. The republican party formed in the wake of the Whig party's self-immolation.

I wonder what they'll form themselves in to now...

Hard to say, but it’s worth noting that for what I believe is the first time in our history, the number of registered independents nationally almost outnumbers registered democrats and republicans combined. It used to be that the two main parties aimed their advertising at independents, because that was where they could pick up votes. They could count on their party members to vote the party line, so they spent their money on convincing the unaffiliated for why they should vote for one or the other major parties. I don’t know if this would actually work out or not, but it seems like there are so many independent voters, that independent politicians could run in larger numbers and begin to capture more seats in Congress. Then they could caucus with whomever they most closely comfortable ideologically, OR........even caucus together as independents, owing nothing to either major party.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

pbwalker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:The political parties switched. If you are a republican now, in 1860 you would be a democrat.

Or a Whig. The republican party formed in the wake of the Whig party's self-immolation.

I wonder what they'll form themselves in to now...

Hard to say, but it’s worth noting that for what I believe is the first time in our history, the number of registered independents nationally almost outnumbers registered democrats and republicans combined. It used to be that the two main parties aimed their advertising at independents, because that was where they could pick up votes. They could count on their party members to vote the party line, so they spent their money on convincing the unaffiliated for why they should vote for one or the other major parties. I don’t know if this would actually work out or not, but it seems like there are so many independent voters, that independent politicians could run in larger numbers and begin to capture more seats in Congress. Then they could caucus with whomever they most closely comfortable ideologically, OR........even caucus together as independents, owing nothing to either major party.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

pbwalker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:The political parties switched. If you are a republican now, in 1860 you would be a democrat.

Or a Whig. The republican party formed in the wake of the Whig party's self-immolation.

I wonder what they'll form themselves in to now...

Hard to say, but it’s worth noting that for what I believe is the first time in our history, the number of registered independents nationally almost outnumbers registered democrats and republicans combined. It used to be that the two main parties aimed their advertising at independents, because that was where they could pick up votes. They could count on their party members to vote the party line, so they spent their money on convincing the unaffiliated for why they should vote for one or the other major parties. I don’t know if this would actually work out or not, but it seems like there are so many independent voters, that independent politicians could run in larger numbers and begin to capture more seats in Congress. Then they could caucus with whomever they most closely comfortable ideologically, OR........even caucus together as independents, owing nothing to either major party.

I really hope this plays out that way. It may not be in the immediate, but anything we can do to dismantle to two existing parties is good in my book.