Kalamata:
"You are stuck on stupid, Joey." Says our own "stuck on stupid" Danny-child.
Kalamata: "Let me help you out:"
By that you mean, "let me throw sand in your eyes, to make you as blind as I am".
Kalamata: "1. The Democrats of the pre-Civil War era were limited-government Jeffersonians who promoted a republican form of government.
The name “democrat” was just a meaningless name.
Modern-day conservative republicans are the same as Jeffersonian Democrats."
Every word of that is a lie, as usual.
In fact:
- Jeffersonian Democrats began in 1788 as the anti-Constitution, anti-Federalists, opposed to ratification of our new Constitution.
- After ratification, anti-Federalists became the anti-Administration faction, lead by Jefferson & opposed to President Washington's Federalist policies, specifically, Hamilton's proposals for paying off the US war debts, a national bank, and friendliness with Britain as opposed to now revolutionary France.
- By 1794 Jefferson's anti-Administration faction became what we call the Jeffersonian Democrat party.
Jeffersonian Democrats are recognizable by their behavior as modern Democrats, including:
- Out of power they opposed the 1791 First Bank of the United States.
In power they authorized the 1816 Second Bank of the United States.
- Out of power they opposed the 1796 Alien & Sedition Acts.
In power Jefferson used them to lock up his own political opponents.
- Out of power they opposed Federal spending on "infrastructure" projects.
In power Jefferson authorized the first National Road in western Maryland & Pennsylvania -- today's US-40.
- Out of power they called for "strict construction" of the Constitution.
In power Jefferson ignored "strict construction" in making the Louisiana Purchase for an amount ($15 million) that was triple Federal annual non-debt spending at the time.
- Out of power Jefferson concocted his "nullification" theory, and even seemingly suggested it might be OK for New England to secede.
In power Jefferson arrested secessionist Aaron Burr and tried him for treason.
In power Jefferson strictly enforced his Embargo Act against objecting New Englanders, no talk of "nullification" then!
- Out of power Jefferson criticized President Adams' Quazi-War against France, which was authorized by Congress.
In power Jefferson sent the US fleet to attack Barbary Pirates without Congressional authorization.
- In short, then as now, Democrats were rebellious and "strict construction" only when out-of-power, but authoritarian and expansive construction while in-power.
- Skipping forward to the 1850s we find Democrats like Secretary of War Jefferson Davis in full support of Federal spending for a transcontinental railroad, himself expecting to profit hugely from it, but only if it took a Southern route to California.
Davis' Gadsden Purchase for $10 million (only $5 million less than Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase) was then ~20% of total annual Federal spending.
- By 1860 Democrats were so commonly recognized as corrupt "crony capitalists" that one Republican Party platform plank referred to it directly:
"6.That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded."
By 1860
Democrats had for decades
systematically plundered the Federal treasury for the benefit of favored partisans. So, the Leopard doesn't change his spots, there is nothing new under the sun and
Democrats have always been
Democrats.
Kalamata: "2. The Republicans of the pre-Civil War era were the big-government, crony-capitalist Whigs (Hamiltonians.)
The name “republican” was just a meaningless name.
Modern-day crony-capitalist RINO’s and Democrats are the same as 19th-century Republicans."
Total lies.
Republicans began as the pro-Constitution Federalists, became the anti-corruption Whigs and then anti-slavery Republicans.
Republicans have always favored Founders' original intent as opposed to numerous Democrat efforts to corrupt & debauch it.
>>BroJoeK wrote: "By 1794 Jefferson's anti-Administration faction became what we call the Jeffersonian Democrat party."
Keep in mind that everything Joey writes is deceptive. As a promoter of pork-barrel-spending crony-capitalism, he has no choice but to deceive you, or admit his deception.
The party of Jefferson (and Madison to some extent) were the original Republicans, promoting a Representative Republic bound by the chains of the constitution, rather than a mobbish, majority-rule democracy. The name "Democrat party" was just a name in those days, and was the opposite in doctrine of the modern-day Democrat party – the crony party which is the true party and legacy of Lincoln. The Democrat Party of those days would be the equivalent of the modern-day Republican Party controlled by the doctrine of, say, Clarence Thomas, but without people "bound in service" to another. In other words, a conservative republican party would have similar doctrines to the Jeffersonian democrats of old, but without the slavery.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Jeffersonian Democrats are recognizable by their behavior as modern Democrats, including: Out of power they opposed the 1791 First Bank of the United States. In power they authorized the 1816 Second Bank of the United States:"
As usual, Joey oversimplified. He forgot to tell you that Thomas Jefferson continuously opposed a national bank, as did the strict constructionists. According to this article, Madison reluctantly supported a bank to alleviate the sad state of finances caused by the war with Britain:
"Secretary Campbell and the Madison administration came to the realization that it would be impossible to fill the $25,000,000 loan and reluctantly decided to throw their support to the bank movement… Within a week after Congressman Grundy had offered his motion, a new batch of rumors began reaching the United States that Great Britain was willing to make peace. The Madison administration, never very enthusiastic about the bank project, withdrew support… [however, and later,] a sharp turn for the worse in the economic and military situation of the United States made a national bank a burning issue." [Raymond Walters Jr., "The Origins of the Second Bank of the United States." Journal of Political Economy, Vol.53, No.2; June, 1945, pp.119-120]
These are Madison's own words a few weeks after signing the national bank into law:
"With respect to our own Country, we are threatened with no immediate collisions, unless one should grow out of the questions with Spain, which we are taking measures to bring, if practicable, to an amicable termination. In our internal affairs, our difficulties arise from the state in which our finances were left by the war. The measures provided for by Congress will, I hope, alleviate, and, with help of time, gradually remove them. The principal of these measures are the establishment of a National Bank, and a continuance of a large portion of the war taxes. You will see, also, that a very important provision has been made for fostering our manufactures. This will have the double effect of enlarging our revenue for a time, and, by lessening our future importations, aid in rescuing our Commerce from that unfavorable balance which embarrasses all our monied Institutions and financial operations." [Letter to William Eustis, May 12, 1816, in James Madison, "Letters and other writings of James Madison Vol III." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1867, p.4]
That said, a national bank was, and still is unconstitutional.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power they opposed the 1796 Alien & Sedition Acts. In power Jefferson used them to lock up his own political opponents."
I have never heard of such a statement as your second one. Please provide the details of how Jefferson used those laws to lock up his political opponents.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power they opposed Federal spending on "infrastructure" projects. In power Jefferson authorized the first National Road in western Maryland & Pennsylvania -- today's US-40."
Post roads are constitutional, Joey.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power they called for "strict construction" of the Constitution. In power Jefferson ignored "strict construction" in making the Louisiana Purchase for an amount ($15 million) that was triple Federal annual non-debt spending at the time."
That purchase was definitely unconstitutional, and Jefferson admitted that it was (he didn't try to hide it.)
Now, ask yourself the question, "did Jefferson personally benefit from it?" Did he benefit like the Hamiltonian crony-capitalists have benefitted with their so-called "internal improvement systems," which were as useful to the general welfare as Obama's $10 trillion 'infrastructure" spending. In those cases, the money mostly disappeared. But in Jefferson's case, the nation was doubled in size.
No matter, it was still unconstitutional.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power Jefferson concocted his "nullification" theory, and even seemingly suggested it might be OK for New England to secede."
Jefferson never wavered from the political concept of state sovereignty and the right to secede, that I am aware of.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "In power Jefferson arrested secessionist Aaron Burr and tried him for treason."
Aaron Burr was not a secessionist, but an insurrectionist. Only sovereign states are authorized by the Constitution to secede. People can stay or leave as they please (so far.)
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "In power Jefferson strictly enforced his Embargo Act against objecting New Englanders, no talk of "nullification" then!"
I believe the Embargo Act was in response, at least in part, to the British hijacking of American ships. Congress passed the Embargo Act in 1807, and Jefferson signed it in to law. All of the New England states, plus Delaware, nullified the Embargo Act by labeling it an unconstitutional usurpation of power.
During the War of 1812, the New England states again defied the federal government by refusing to comply with Madison's request for the militias to enter the forts, and to remain there, in case they were needed for the war. This is part of Connecticut's resolution:
"On the fullest deliberation, your committee are not able to discover that the constitution of the United States justifies this claim."
"The people of this state were among the first to adopt that constitution. They have been among the most prompt to satisfy all its lawful demands, and to give facility to its fair operations they have enjoyed the benefits resulting from the union of the states; they have loved, and still love, and cherish that union, and will deeply regret, if any events shall occur to alienate their affection from it. They have a deep interest in its preservation, and are still disposed to yield a willing and prompt obedience to all the legitimate requirements of the constitution of the United States."
"But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof as a sovereign, free and independent state," as he is "to support the constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed. The same constitution, which delegates powers to the general government, inhibits the exercise of powers, not delegated, and reserves those powers to the states respectively. The power to use the militia "to execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasions," is granted to the general government. All other power over them is reserved to the states. And to add to their security, on the all important subject of their militia, the power of appointing their officers is expressly reserved. If then the administration of the general government demand the militia, when neither of the exigencies provided for by the constitution have occurred, or to be used for purposes not contemplated by that instrument, it would be not only the height of injustice to the militia, to be ordered into the service of the United States, to do such duty, but a violation of the constitution and laws of this state, and of the United States. Once employed in the service of the United States, the militia would become subject to the articles of war, and exposed to be punished with death, if they should leave a service, which by the constitution of their country, they are not bound to perform."
[Report and Resolutions of Connecticut on the Militia Question, August 25, 1812 in Herman Vandenburg Ames, "State Documents on Federal Relations: the States and the United States." 1970, pp.16-18]
Did you notice the part where Connecticut considered itself to be a "free sovereign and independent state"? Did you read the part where the 10th Amendment was exercised? The statement reads as if Connecticut was controlled by strict constructionists, like me! It also appears to be a fact that the Southern States were not the only states that considered theirs to be "sovereign and independent states."
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power Jefferson criticized President Adams' Quazi-War against France, which was authorized by Congress. In power Jefferson sent the US fleet to attack Barbary Pirates without Congressional authorization.
How about some details on those two statements, Joey?
Mr. Kalamata