Republican History Revealed

[justshutupandtakeit]

In Back to Basics for the Republican Party author Michael Zak (FR's distinguished patriot, Grand Old Partisian) undertakes the heroic and herculean task of clearing the name of the Republican Party from the thicket of lies, distortions and misrepresentations which has been cultivated by the Democrat/media alliance. Since any partisian argument in today's America must begin with the refutation of chronic and consistent lies told about the GOP, Zak's book provides the necessary ammunition to do just that.

This well-written, interesting and enjoyable tour of GOP history can be of use to any patriot who wants to know the truth about the histories of the two major parties. It traces the origins of the GOP to the proto-Republican, Alexander Hamilton, and the Federalists and that of the Democrat Party to its ancestors Jefferson, Clinton and Burr. A brief survery of Federalist and Whig antecedents and policies is sketched to give historic context to events. Since the GOP was created and grew in opposition to the policies and failures of the Democrat Party to extend the benefits of the Constitution to all Americans, that party's history is also examined.

And a sorry history it is. A story of treachery, short-sightedness, racism and economic ignorance unfolds as we see the Democrats consistently for 170+ years fight against allowing the Blacks a chance to achieve full freedom and economic success. Opposition to that fight has defined the best of the GOP's actions. Every advance in Civil Rights for Blacks has come from GOP initiatives and against Democrat opposition. Every setback for Blacks achieving constitutional protection has come from Democrat intitiatives and against GOP opposition. Racists have led the Democrats during most of their history, in sharp contrast to Republicans. All the evils visited against Black are of Democrat design. Democrats created and maintained the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Black Codes, it was Democrats lynching Blacks, beating Blacks, exploiting Blacks and perpetrating murderous riots which killed Blacks in

Zak rescues the reputation of the party from the slanders thrown against it during the Civil War and Reconstruction, many of which are popular around FR. He also clearly shows the mistaken disavowal of GOP principles which brought the modern party to its lowest state and allowed the demagogues of Democrats to paint the party as "racist." This was because of the disastrous turn to States' Rights which grew from the Goldwater campaign. It was the final straw in the process which transformed the share of the Black vote from 90-95% GOP to 90% democrat. A modern tragedy of immense proportions.

This is a book which should be studied carefully by Republicans in order to counter the barrage of Lies trumpeted daily by the RAT/media. While it is a work of a partisian, Back to Basics does not hesitate to point to GOP mistakes, failures and incompetence in carrying out its mission nor does it neglect to give Democrats credit when credit is due for actions which are productive of good for our nation as a whole. Unfortunately, those are far too few.

In order to effectively plan for the future we must be fully aware of the past, Zak helps us achieve that awareness.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"You want to bring back the Republican Party of the Radical Reconstructionists--the hate crazed zealots, who sought to punish the South for the War."

The notion that those Republicans Radically opposed to slavery were hate-crazed zealots is a fiction by created by Confederate-apologist historians of the late-19th and early 2-centuries and perpetuated by their PC successors in academia today -- all with the goal of discrediting the very best of the Republican Party. The Republican Party, Radical or otherwsie, had little influence over the post-Civil War South until the Republican Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of March 1867 -- two years after Appomattox -- over the veto of the Democrat President, who until then was nearly unfettered in his collaboration with other southern Democrats to re-impose white Democrat elites over the South.
.

[Roscoe]

Now I am. :)

[GOPcapitalist]

So why bring him up then?

Cause he's a RINO.

Your specious argument is that a so-called RINO is no different than a Democrat. Thats false on any number of levels, starting with who holds majority status in Congress.

Majorities are irrelevant if they cannot muster the votes to do anything.

That Mary Landrieu is a cute little filibuster aint she?

No, she's a butt ugly dyed hair hag.

What happened to the loyal southern Republican base in Louisiana on Dec 7th 2002?

The blacks voted solidly Dem in New Orleans, thus turning the state for Landrieu against the majority of voters elsewhere.

[Grand Old Partisan]

When Democrats tried to block the first black Senator, a Republican of course, from being sworn in, Senator Roscoe Conkling shoved them aside.

[GOPcapitalist]

Hamilton was the principle architect of the modern capitalist economy of the US

Hamilton liked taxes, protectionist tariffs, "improvements" expenditures, and a federalized interventionist monetary policy. Not one of those things is even remotely true to capitalism. Nice try but Hamilton was no capitalist. He was by definition an interventionist with a flare for mercantilism and the forerunner of the Keynesian leftists of today.

[Carry_Okie]

Success in the material world for this nation means it is strong, independent and wealthy. All those flowed from Hamilton's program. Those are my metrics, are yours different?

If those are the metrics, it failed.

We are bankrupt. We are selling out our citizens by using the unconstitutional regulatory power of government to hand their property over to a pack of globalist thugs with no respect for our rights.

Survived? Not intact. You'd better do a little more research as to how the 14th Amendment brought in the corporate fascism we that threatens us today with a Global Governance that offers NO guarantees for unalienable rights.

My guess is that you no problem with the Orwellian phrase, "compelling state interest."

Paranoid fantasies about Hillary and the Patriot Act are irrelevent to this discussion.

That's a hand wave so lame that if you try it again I won't bother to respond. The whole purpose of Constitutionally limited government is to prevent the kind of damage that Clinton did. You are quite apparently comfortable with the idea of a police state with no knock entry, trial without jury or counsel, and cancelation of habeas corpus.

Jefferson never understood the Hamilton program nor banking nor anything about modern economics.

Oh, so you like national bankruptcy! I guess that's because you think you represent the buyers.

Nor do standing armies have anything to do with protection of investments today.

Oil.

Jefferson and others' hysterical fear of them just seems quaint or delusionary.

Another lame handwave.

Anyone taking much of what Jefferson said on almost any subject is skating on thin ice. He is one of the most over-rated presidents in our history with one major achievement which resulted from pure blind luck.

I didn't say he was an effective administrator. He was feckless and cowardly as governor of Virginia.

[southern cross forever]

Sticks and stones baby, sticks and stones ,whatever. All i was saying was that as long as negros have had voting rights not all but most of them have voted for the party that would give them a handout. True they may have stuck with the Republican party in the early years which is understandable because the Republican party was responsible for securing their freedom "in their eyes". But after the democrats became the socialist welfare party the negros were more that happy to jump ship and go their way. which is sad because the Republican party has had a much better record on civil rights than the democrats, and they must have forgot about all the terrible things that the democrats had done to them in the past . About that you were correct without a doubt. And i will concede that my original statement was a silly generalization which i should have expounded on.

[Gianni]

I'm still trying to figure out what this thread is all about - was the original just a vanity post?

I'm in good company with conservative Americans.

Why someone is allowed to use FR to urge the Republicans to abandon conservatism and "return to its roots" is beyond me. Can't they read the little mission statement on the front page?

[GOPcapitalist]

Again, see Lincoln's Loyalists, by Richard N. Current. There were, for examle, 35 regiments of white soldoiers with southern designations (e.g. 1oth U.S. Tennessee Infantry, 4th U.S. Arkansas Infantry, 2nd Florida Cavalry) and tens of thousands in other regiments).

Since you are obviously impervious to facts, here are the official numbers of the US Government for you, Partisan.

Alabama 4,969
Arkansas 5,526
Colorado Terr 95
Connecticut 1,764
DC 3,269
Delaware 954
Florida 1,044
Georgia 3,486
Illinois 1,811
Indiana 1,537
Iowa 440
Kansas 2,080
Kentucky 23,703
Louisiana 24,052
Maine 104
Maryland 8,718
Massachusetts 3,966
Michigan 1,387
Minnesota 104
Mississippi 17,869
Missouri 8,344
New Hampshire 125
New Jersey 1,185
New York 4,125
North Carolina 5,035
Ohio 5,092
Pennsylvania 8612
Rhode Island 1,837
South Carolina 5,462
Tennessee 20,133
Texas 47
unknown 5,896
Vermont 120
Virginia 5,919
Wisconsin 165
TOTAL BLACK UNION TROOPS: 178975

TOTAL FROM UNCONTESTED CSA STATES: 93,542 Those are the official US government records of black troops. I'll look up the southern unionist numbers and post them by state as well when I have time this evening.

[Ohioan]

Republican Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of March 1867 -- two years after Appomattox -- over the veto of the Democrat President, who until then was nearly unfettered in his collaboration with other southern Democrats to re-impose white Democrat elites over the South.

What you are referring to as "white Democrat elites" were the traditional leadership of the South--the Southern gentry class, to which Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Lee, etc., belonged. The class from which had come many of our greatest statesmen, war heroes and political thinkers. What the Reconstructionists preferred, since they disenfranchised many of such leaders, was an illiterate or semi-literate, low level electorate, composed of ex-field hands and people often referred to as "white trash."

You cannot with a straight face, suggest any noble reason for the new policy. It is the same as what Clinton did to Haiti, a few years ago. It is almost a form of foaming at the mouth egalitarianism. If it is not motivated by hatred of the old patrician class, just what motivates it?

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[GOPcapitalist]

There were at least 180,000 blacks in the U.S. Army and another 30,000 at least in the U.S. Navy

Official records say 178,935 blacks served in the army. The US National Archives estimates that at most 18,000 served in some capacity in the navy.

and nearly all were from the South.

Absolutely false. 80,000+ of them in the army came from union states. I don't have a state by state breakdown for the navy, but it is likely similar.

[stainlessbanner]

I'm still trying to figure out what this thread is all about

It's all about selling books, Gianni.

Good point on checking out the FR About Page - the FR conservative values and mission are clearly defined there. Curiously selling goods on FR didn't make the list.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Remember what our discussion is about. We are talking about the South, not CSA states. Your attempt at misdirection is obvious.

Once again, an authority on this subject is Lincoln's Loyalists, by Richard M. Current.

[wardaddy]

Hats Off!

[GOPcapitalist]

Ya mean like they did in Louisiana?

Last I checked Louisiana voted for Bush. The same cannot be said of any new england state save New Hampshire.

[GOPcapitalist]

I strongly doubt that any of the black southerners feel as strongly about your lost cause issues.

I'm glad to see that you concern yourself so deeply with catering to the opinions of liberal Democrats.

[GOPcapitalist]

Remember what our discussion is about. We are talking about the South, not CSA states.

No Partisan. We are talking about the civil war. You have alleged that the confederacy had heavily divided loyalties with strong unionist portions in their population. Yet to reach these numbers, you insist on including states that were either disputed or not at all in the confederacy. You can't have it both ways, Partisan.

Once again, an authority on this subject is Lincoln's Loyalists, by Richard M. Current.

And once again, a stronger authority on this subject is the official records of the US government. Those records say that there were not even 200,000 blacks in the entire yankee forces, let alone from the south. Those records also say that at least 80,000 of those blacks came from union states and at least 50,000 of them were from the deep north, as in places like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and New York. Live with it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is a tragedy to see what has happened to the Black vote but it originally went to the GOP because that party was geniunely committed to the expansion of constitutional rights not handouts.

Blacks freed from slavery had a proper claim for reparations from those who had enslaved them. Of course, the claims today are just the pandering of the poverty pimps linked to the Democrats. We need to remind them of why the initial program of 40 acres and a mule was never implemented- Democrat opposition. How much would a couple of hundred bucks invested in 1865 be worth today? A nice little chunk of change I would suspect.

[Grand Old Partisan]

First off, there was no such thing as "yankee forces" -- they were the United States Army and United States Navy. Disparagement of the U.S. military is what enemies of our country do.

In discussing whether blacks in rebellious states were loyal to the United States Government or to the Confederacy, the relevant number is that of blacks from CSA states who fought for the United States Government versus the pathetic handful (if that) of southern blacks stupid enough to have fought for their slavemasters. And slave and conscripted "free" blacks working as ditch diggers and teamsters do not count. In discussing the loyalty of the overall southern populace, then the relevant number is that of the blacks from all southern states who fought for the United States Government. And so on.

[Gianni]

My second statement I have expounded on over and over on FR, and I'm not going to do so again for you (and the next guy and the next guy, etc. who comes along).

As far as I can remember, I was one of the first guys who called on you to support this claim (which was easily refuted with counterexamples, btw); yet you still have yet to provide me with any support of it.