disHonest Abe
Posted on 08/06/2010 9:54:52 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Grand Old Partisan salutes John Bingham, principal author of the 14th Amendment and a great REPUBLICAN.
Writing yesterday in The Washington Monthly, Steve Benen accused the GOP of going "From the Party of Bush to the Party of Jefferson Davis." His point, it seems, is that questioning whether the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born in the USA of people here illegally is akin to advocating slavery. Such absurdity is not worth refuting. I will, however, point out a fact that Benen overlooks -- the Party of Jefferson Davis is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Indeed, the Democratic Party was the Party of Slavery, and Democrats were known as "Slave-ocrats" by the GOP. Yes, Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, as were all the Confederates. Not one Republican fought against the Union during the Civil War.
In yesterday's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne accused the GOP of shedding a birthright. Like Benen, he argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment -- all Republicans, by the way -- had in mind what Dionne and Benen and so many other Democrats say they intended back in the 1860s.
The Democrats opposed the 14th Amendment yet now assert that they know best what Rep. John Bingham (R-OH) meant when he wrote it.
By ignoring the heritage of our Grand Old Party, Republicans place themselves on the defensive and make themselves vulnerable to Democrat demagoguery, such as the latest from Benen and Dionne.
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Well, that last one didn’t come out quite right! Must be the operator:)
Should read:
....they deny Congress, of a Territorial Legislation,....
This is all that was needed. Sorry!
You said: “MZ - I posted this one so you can note that the party resolved to abide by the USSC on these questions of Constitutional Law”
Yet they didn’t abide by such decisions and continued a path of trying to deny equal representation under the law for all. This has been their history.
The KKK of the eprogressive era used to use all types of Constitutional type language as well to reach an agenda that was actually counter the Constitution. If you listen to FDR you might think you were listening to an orginalist the way he would speak but we all know he was not.
And of course the further you go back towards our founding the more you will always find wordings and positions couched in conservative terms. Even today you have conservative democrats, you have libertarians who claim to be more conservative then conservatives sand so on. Many claimed that Robert KKK Byrd was a conservative as well. Hogwash.
You want us to beleive that the same exact party of people who upheld denying people an equal right to representation suddenly switched parties and were fighting for this right. That is hogwash. The democrats you speak of fought to deny rights and then the progressive movement and the democrats that followed them did the same.
You also want us to believe that all of the people who fought to ensure an eqaul right to representation for all under the Constitution suddenly switched to joining up with the KKK and started to deny equal rights to representation for all.
Your logic is completely flawed.
TBI - I am one who supports democrats being unable to continue hiding their history. As a matter of fact, I would like to see it shoved in their faces @ every opportunity. However, that does not change republican history.
Yet they didn’t abide by such decisions and continued a path of trying to deny equal representation under the law for all.
Can you please provide an example of this? Remember, my original post is referencing the conservatives of Lincoln's time. Each of my posts make this point very clear. I am not aware of any USSC decisions the democrats refused to abide by.
The KKK of the eprogressive era used to use all types of Constitutional type language as well to reach an agenda that was actually counter the Constitution. If you listen to FDR you might think you were listening to an orginalist the way he would speak but we all know he was not.
I agree with this statement, however, it has nothing to do w/my original post with which you disagreed. I was, and still am, addressing the conservatives of Lincoln's time. That would be the democrats. What I have given you is accurate and true American history.
You want us to beleive that the same exact party of people who upheld denying people an equal right to representation suddenly switched parties and were fighting for this right. That is hogwash. The democrats you speak of fought to deny rights and then the progressive movement and the democrats that followed them did the same.
The democrats I speak of were conservatives and the republicans were not. I have posted it for your perusal. Do I want you to believe it? That is up to you. All I am doing is providing factual American history. If you choose to believe conservative history is hogwash, that is your choice.
Also, the republicans of Lincoln's time, including Lincoln, were not promoting equal rights, much less equal representation, for negroes. There was no overall republican movement to grant true liberty to negroes. True liberty involves more than being free from bondage. Republicans supported freeing the slaves, however, they did not support equal rights for them. IOW, the republicans of Lincoln's time were for denying Constitutional rights to the same third the democrats were. The democrats choice was to keep negroes in bondage and the republicans choice was to deny them liberty through equality. Both are Constitutional violations. Is one worse than the other? Sure, but that doesn't make the republicans of that time conservatives. They wanted the federal leviathan we have now and the democrats did not. The democrats supported abiding USSC decisions regarding slavery, the republicans did not.
You also want us to believe that all of the people who fought to ensure an eqaul right to representation for all under the Constitution suddenly switched to joining up with the KKK and started to deny equal rights to representation for all.
I believe you are confusing your history. All of the people fighting for the Union did not do so to free the slaves. All of the confederates fighting were not fighting to keep slavery. The Union position on the war was to preserve the Union not to free the slaves. Lincoln said so himself many times (hat tip WIJG, you made a long explanation short!). Also, several Confederate states seceded due to Lincoln's demand for troops, not to preserve slavery. There were those who were pro-slavery, anti-slavery, and ones that didn't care either way, on both sides of that conflict. There were also democrats and republicans in every state, both Union and Confederate.
Once again, the democrats of Lincoln's time were conservative and the republicans were not. The democrats wanted limited federal government and maximum states rights and the republicans supported limited states rights and a large federal government. Democrats supported following USSC decisions regarding slavery, the republicans did not.
Your logic is completely flawed
My logic is based in fact. In this case, American historical fact.
Perhaps the sole issue of slavery does not allow you to recognize conservative positions?
Keep it up. You have a lot more in common with the liberal left than you realize.
You still haven’t shown me at all how the democrats of that time were the more conservative party at all. You want to whitewash the fact that their party did fight to deny equal rights to representation for all by claiming it wasn’t the only reason. So what? That was there position though and you have never shown any period from that time when they have stopped doing such.
Just stating a party platform that uses generalize conservative language does not whitewash the fact that there agenda was much different. That agenda has never stopped right up until today. I even gave you examples of how the democrats still did that after Lincoln all the way up until today. FDR sounded like an originalist when he spoke though he was not. The progressive movement still love him even though him and Wilson made Bush look like a pussycat in pushing the Constitution.
The same democrat party that DID make an issue and fight to make the fact known that they did not want to give equal rights to representation for all has not stopped. they did the same after Linoln as they did before Lincoln. Both talked in conservative tones much of the time and both opposed equal rights to representation for all.
Hey there, tonka_truck! How have ya been?
You aren't much for complete or accurate American history are ya? And here I was thinking you'd get your head out of the sand one of these days:)
And of course the democrats today are still looking for ways to deny equal rights to representation for all. They look at ways even to still use race in order to re-distribute rights. they do the same with gender, sexuality, age, class, etc....
And at times they will try to play that their position is the real conservative position and that the conservatives are the radicals.
But the everyone switched parties argument is really a joke. The real radicals are still the real radicals.
Have you read the party platforms which I posted for you? Do you understand conservative principles? The Democratic Platform, from both 1856 and 1860, is one of conservative principles and the Republican Party Platform, from the same period, was not.
Once again, from the Republican Party Platform of 1860:
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture renumerative prices, to mechanics and manufactures an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
They wanted high tariffs, a centralized federal government to manipulate the monies received, federally funded infrastructure, and were pushing for "liberal wages". These are not conservative principles. They aren't hiding behind conservative rhetioric in their platform, yet you label them conservative. Funny.
You want to whitewash the fact that their party did fight to deny equal rights to representation for all by claiming it wasn’t the only reason.
Where exactly would I look to find this whitewashing? I posted historical text and provided links to complete text. It's right there in black and white. It is what is.
That was there position though and you have never shown any period from that time when they have stopped doing such.
One more time, as stated in my original post, this in in reference to conservatives during Lincoln's time and that would be the democrats. I wasn't discussing any other period. You brought the post Lincoln period in and I simply agreed with the truth.
Just stating a party platform that uses generalize conservative language does not whitewash the fact that there agenda was much different
Again, where exactly would I find the whitewashing? How exactly did their agenda differ from their platform?
That agenda has never stopped right up until today. I even gave you examples of how the democrats still did that after Lincoln all the way up until today. FDR sounded like an originalist when he spoke though he was not. The progressive movement still love him even though him and Wilson made Bush look like a pussycat in pushing the Constitution.
Please post examples of exactly how the democrat agenda differed from their platform during the time I am discussing. I agree with your assessment of the period AFTER that of which I speak.
The same democrat party that DID make an issue and fight to make the fact known that they did not want to give equal rights to representation for all has not stopped. they did the same after Linoln as they did before Lincoln. Both talked in conservative tones much of the time and both opposed equal rights to representation for all.
I'm not aware of any party, in the time frame I'm speaking of, which was fighting for equal rights. Not for negroes or women. There was no such party.
Sorry I dont agree with your view on the platforms at all. And to take also in context the actions of the deomcrats of that time it is evident that there stance on limited government was more similair to a libertarian view then the view of a conservative. Whereas they seeked to use the concept of limited government to limit the rights of the people.
And if you read the republican platform it states clearly how the democrat party of that day was using judicial activism, that they were seeking to deny the right to keep and bar arms, the democrats of that day were trying to deny due process, etc......
You can cite the fact that you like how the democrat party platform read to you but you still haven’t shown how at any time they lived up to conservative principles. They were seeking to deny equal rights to representation for all. They did before Lincoln and then still continued to do this after Lincoln.
And by show me how they were more conservative I do not mean show me a prepared platform speech of how they claim to really value the Constitution. I mean give me specific example of how they were fighting for conservative principles as they fought to deny equal rights to representation for all under our Constitution.
Their republican fathers had not abolished Slavery in all National Territory. This passage also states they deny Congress rights which the Constitution actually grants it!
The Northwest Ordinance did prohibit slavery in the territories. However, when North Carolina and Georgia ceded their western lands to the federal government, they stipulated that slavery be permitted in any territories made out of those lands. The Territorial or the Property Clause of the constitution gives Congress the final power over every territory but, Congress omitted any mention of slavery when it set up territorial governments in the Southwest.
My bad. This is what happens when I'm visiting and typing @ the same time! So, please ignore my posts @ 40 & 41.
Democrats of that period were the conservatives, fighting for states rights and against an all powerful, centralized, federal government. They were against federal funding for infrastructure, etc.
The Republicans of that period were fighting for an all powerful, centralized, federal government and against states rights. They were for federal funding of all infrastructure, etc.
From your post @ 49:
Sorry I dont agree with your view on the platforms at all. And to take also in context the actions of the deomcrats of that time it is evident that there stance on limited government was more similair to a libertarian view then the view of a conservative. Whereas they seeked to use the concept of limited government to limit the rights of the people.
Again, from the 1856 Democratic Party Platform:
1. That the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
2. That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements.
3. That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local and internal improvements, or other State purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.
4. That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of any other, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country; that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence or foreign aggression.
5. That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt.
6. That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution; and that we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution.
7. That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people; and that the results of Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties, their soundness, safety, and utility, in all business pursuits.
8. That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people
These are conservative positions on a limited federal government (which support state's rights) and are fiscally conservative. Period. I am not aware of any actions by the democrats, in the time period I am referencing, which is contrary to the above listed platform policies.
On the other hand the Republicans have this in their 1860 Platform:
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture renumerative prices, to mechanics and manufactures an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
As I've previously stated, this isn't conservative by any means. It is a statement of, "tax and spend", and "minimum wage laws" which necessarily equate a larger, and centralized federal government for the "exchanges" they wish to create. These are liberal policies. Government has no place setting private sector wages. Is this not using government policies to limit the individual's right to set the wage for their employees? Where are the state's rights protected in thier tax and spend policy?
There are other points, from both Platforms, I could get into, but will not for the sake of the length of this post. If you tie these points into my original statement, posted above for your convenience, you will find my statement is accurate.
I will respond to the rest of your post in a few.
Bloody Kansas and Utah are what they are referencing in all of these. Did President Buchanan have the authority to send federal troops into either of these territories? Well, He did have the authority to appoint Governors, etc. to both territories. He also had the authority to quash insurrection with the use of federal troops and to protect the citizens of the territories.
Both of these are complicated issues and I'll admit I am not well versed in either. I know basically what happened and Buchanan's response. I also know of his involvement in the LeCompton Constitution, but again, not well versed. I'll read up on these two and get back w/ya. I know he didn't have the authority to send federal troops into any state, absent insurrection, but these were territories.
You can cite the fact that you like how the democrat party platform read to you but you still haven’t shown how at any time they lived up to conservative principles.
Uhm, please see my last post. It is very clear. They didn't enlarge or centralize the government to the federal level (respecting the states rights to the powers retained under the constitution...those not specifically granted to the federal government), didn't raise tarrifs (taxes) to spend, and they didn't pay for states infrastructure.
They were seeking to deny equal rights to representation for all. They did before Lincoln and then still continued to do this after Lincoln.
Actually, this wasn't anything I addressed in my initial post on this thread. But, since it seems to be the only point you wish to focus on, I will get back to it in my next post.
disHonest Abe
The Great humanitarian, Abe Lincoln:
“Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over.
Who did the 80% of Southerners that did not own slaves whip?
Just to disclose. I didn’t see the second page of responses last night and I have to do some stuff during the day today. I’ll read and respond a little later. Enjoy your day!
I don't know how you can counter the argument that the parties have essentially switched without some really acrobatic reasoning and revisionism.
It you're familiar with American history you'll know that two democrat parties developed following the War of Northern Aggression. The northern version and the Southern Democrats who were always the conservative wing of the party.
The yankee New Deal liberalized the democrat party and some Southerners, being conservative as they always had been, splintered off into the 'Dixiecrats', eventually converting to Republicans largely due to Nixon's 'Southern Strategy'. And to this day the Southern states are the solid conservative voting block of the nation.
Now, you revisionists always try to counter with the slavery argument which is foolish. First of all, the Lincoln Republicans didn't care much for states rights or even the Constitution, for that matter. From one of your northern heros, WT Sherman, "A government resting on the caprice of the people is too unstable to last...[A]ll must obey. Government, that is, the executive, having no discretion but to execute the law must be to that extent despotic." Sherman's opinion of government was shared by the majority of yankees at the time who just happened to be Republicans which brings us back to slavery.
As you know, slavery was legal at the time. Slaves were property protected by the Constitution. The yankees didn't generally oppose slavery until it became unprofitable for them. The War of Northern Aggression was begun by the yankees to oppose States Rights and deny property rights. The yankees dubious victory turned our nation in the direction of statism. And that, Mr. Zak, is liberalism which was begun by the yankee Republicans under the despot Lincoln and has continued to this day under the yankee democrats.
“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.” Ronald Reagan, 1962
Reagan wasn't a liberal who suddenly had a change of heart and embraced conservatism. No, the conservative Democrat party which was mostly conservative Southerners was hijacked by the liberal yankees.
The very first law passed by the Confederate Congress was the U.S. tariff law, verbatim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.