Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jarhead983" data-source="post: 1311745" data-attributes="member: 7129">I agree that it depends on the issues, but, part of the problem that we are dealing with now is because we got away from the structure that this country was based on. The state was to be the powerful entity with a weaker federal gov&#039;t. We started away from this during the War between the States. When the South tried to do what they had every right to do, secceed, the Federal gov&#039;t grew more powerful. I would generally default to the State, all things being equal and knowing full well that the USA depends on this structure of cohesive states.You may notice that I used the term War between the States instead of the more common but incorrect label of Civil War. A civil war is between a common people fighting for power over everyone. Be it the gov&#039;t or ideology. The south had no desire to take over the federal gov&#039;t or the other states, therefore a civil war term is inaccurate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jarhead983, post: 1311745, member: 7129"] I agree that it depends on the issues, but, part of the problem that we are dealing with now is because we got away from the structure that this country was based on. The state was to be the powerful entity with a weaker federal gov't. We started away from this during the War between the States. When the South tried to do what they had every right to do, secceed, the Federal gov't grew more powerful. I would generally default to the State, all things being equal and knowing full well that the USA depends on this structure of cohesive states. You may notice that I used the term War between the States instead of the more common but incorrect label of Civil War. A civil war is between a common people fighting for power over everyone. Be it the gov't or ideology. The south had no desire to take over the federal gov't or the other states, therefore a civil war term is inaccurate. [/QUOTE]

Verification