Is it true the conservative party in the 19th century were Democrats and the liberal party was Republican?
It didn’t start out the opposite. It started out with each party having their respective left and right wings of their party, then essentially each trading half of their coalition with the other party. Conservative Democrats of the south switched to the Republican party because northern Democrats didn’t respect their “states rights” to segregate and terrorize black Americans. The Republican party has always been the party of big business. They lost a lot of the middle-class professionals to the Democratic party. The northeast used to often vote pretty solidly for Republicans. The south was solidly democratic for a long time. Basically the left wing of the Republican party went to the Democrats and the right wing of the Democratic party went to the Republicans. Both parties have shifted to the right in the last 40 years. We now have a center-right party in the Democrats and a reactionary party in the Republicans. Democrats are only the “Left” in that they’re to the left of the Republican party. Rick Tracy’s answer is 100% wrong. You need only to look at the regional breakdown of who voted for the civil rights act. Northern congressman/senators mostly voted for it regardless of party. Southern congressman/senators mostly voted against it regardless of party. You have to remember that in a two party system you have broad coalitions that often don’t really make sense. A union oil worker and an environmentalist both voting Democrat is a great example. Union workers tend to vote Democrat. Environmentalists tend to vote Democrat. Yet in that example it’s probably not exactly in either of their best interests to be supporting the same party. At best it’s the least bad option.
Americans: Does the Confederate flag represent slavery and sedition?
Yes, it represents both. One is a condition of toil and misery and the other is a behavior or language against authority. Since the "something else" can not negate the first two representations, (as you suggest it could),--- it represents man's inhumanity to other men. If you need more, it represents ( I could be wrong, especially if you are a Black person) possibly our ancestor's immoral greed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/confederate_States_of_America http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=47 http://www.thedish.org/flag.html Crossing alone the nighted ferry With the one coin for fee, Whom, on the wharf of Letthe waiting, Count you to find? Not me. The brisk fond lackey to fetch and carry, The true, sick-hearted slave, Expect him not in the just city And free land of the grave. (1) In giving freedom to the slave, we assume freedom to the free,---honourable alike in what we give and what we preserve. (2) Justice is the only worship. Love is the only priest. Ignorance is the only slavery. Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now, The place to be happy is here, The way to be happy is to make others, so. (3) [ The Civil War ] created in this country what had never existed before--- a national consciousness. It was not the salvation of the Union; it was the rebirth of the Union. (4) From hence, let fierce contending nations know / What dire effects from civil discord flow. (5) Not a TC.
If conservatism is all about small government, why don't they support non-interventionism?
I think they’d say they do—except where American interests are directly involved. They differ greatly as to what that means, however, Isolationists think we still live in the 1790s when our foreign trade was rudimentary at best, 90% of Americans lived on farms and were largely self-sufficient, and America was far, far from the wars and tumult of the Old World. Isolationism was a genuine option then.Other Republicans recognize how enmeshed in the world’s affairs America is, and how much American prosperity depends on a peaceful world order policed by America (because if not us, who?), making international trade practical and cost-effective, which, overall, benefits America greatly—but also involves us in the dealings of the world.The average Republican voter doesn’t have a passport, has never traveled abroad, speaks only English (after a fashion), and has little sense of how much America needs that world order.But even Republicans who are interventionist believe in less involvement in less tangible benefits like spreading democracy, even where there is not direct mercantile benefit. And Republicans certainly want other rich nations to share the burden more than many now do. Democrats say beware of what you wish for, via the Law of Unintended Consequences.We can have a productive deb ate between different strains of non-interventionism. Isolationism…not so much. Trump’s dedication to erasing and reversing every single accomplishment of President Obama has destabilized the network of international cooperation that makes for a remarkably peaceful world.Along with Trump’s rejection of the very idea of multilateral agreements, which has been a godsend to China, which has been busily isolating and dominating its neighboring nations, exploiting the power vacuum left by Trump’s peremptory dumping of the TPP, as his suspicions expressed about NATO and the EU and Brexit have played right into Russia’s hands, since it has been trying to break NATO and the EU for many years.Virtually every Republican foreign policy expert has been appalled by Trump’s isolationism, regardless of whether they want our global involvement to be more narrowly or more broadly conceived. But the ignorant yahoos who comprise his base are delighted.Conservatism isn’t isolationist. Know-Nothingism is.
What's the difference between a constitutional monarchy, a republic system, and a parliamentary democracy?
In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is a rather powerless, symbolic role, with an elected government usually having the real power, but ruling in the monarch's name. Constitutional-monarchies are usually parliamentary-democracies too. A Parliamentary-Democracy is a state where the real power rests with the elected parliament and government. A Republic is a state that does not have a king/queen, and may be a democracy or a dictatorship.
Do the states have the right to secede from the Union?
I don't know about the Constitution giving them the right to do so. But I would argue that the Founding Fathers separated themselves from the government they were under, and laid out their reasons for doing so in the Declaration of Independence. And essentially they said they did it because the government was not handling it's job, and handling their issues in a way they should have been. So they said they had the right to leave, and started the Revolution. So I would say the South is right in theory based on the Declaration of Independence. But they wanted to leave because they believed that Lincoln would take away their slaves by giving their slaves rights as full citizens. Incidentally, the Constitution did give black people rights as full citizens, but the Constitution was being ignored. While it is uncertain whether Lincoln would have freed the slaves (he was against it spreading, but was not clear if he wanted to get rid of it in states that already had slavery), freeing the slaves was mandated by the Constitution. Which means the South left because they believed the Constitution was about to be followed (though they did not see it that way). So while in theory they were right that a state has the right to leave if rights are being violated; they did not have the right to leave because their reason for leaving went against the Constitution. So for your question, I would say Abraham Lincoln was right then; but nowadays each state has the right to secede, as long as it's reasons for leaving do fit in with the Constitution and it being violated.