.@Greg651 @bbenamati In Britain there'd been two: "Court party" and "Whigs," or "country party." All the Founders were whigs.
. @ThePeoplesBacon @Greg651 @bbenamati Odd, then that we had single-party rule from 1789-1828 or thereabouts. Those darned Founders!
-
-
@Profepps odd? How? Brand new nation. We didn't really have "parties" so much as interests. Puritans?@Greg651@bbenamati -
@ThePeoplesBacon@Greg651@bbenamati Read Bailyn and Wood. Nation wasn't "brand new," it was an offshoot of England--complete with parties. -
@Profepps@ThePeoplesBacon@Greg651@bbenamati If it was an offshoot-complete with parties-how do you say they never envisioned parties? -
@FishUnderTheSea it's a logic circle.@Profepps@Greg651@bbenamati
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@bonhomme36@ThePeoplesBacon@Greg651@bbenamati Federalists ran government 1789-1801, . Dem-Reps ran govt 1801-25 at least, not divided. -
@Profepps Jefferson himself was not a Federalist. http://www.ushistory.org/us/20a.asp This discussion is just silly.@bonhomme36@Greg651@bbenamati -
Tweet unavailable
-
@bonhomme36 Yep. But@Profepps assertion that division was unknown to the founders is just unfathomable.@Greg651@bbenamati -
Tweet unavailable
-
@bonhomme36 Yep.There simply is no case to be made that our nation was founded on an assumption of concordance@Profepps@Greg651@bbenamati
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting you keep cutting me out of the convo.
@Profepps@ThePeoplesBacon@Greg651@bbenamati - End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.