Posted on 07/23/2003 10:03:09 AM PDT by 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.
LOL! (One question: how many more coups de grace do you think his revisionist argument can absorb before it appears as a special two-hour episode on CSI? ;>)
Why don't you read HIS OWN WORDS and stop making a fool of yourself. Even though he was a supra-nationalist, he admitted the truth about the limited powers of the Constitution, and that it was MEANT to be that way:
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States." (emphasis his)- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Essay 32
The objectors do not advert to the natural strength and resources of state governments, which will ever give them an important superiority over the general government...Whenever, therefore, Congress shall mediate any infringement of the state constitutions, the great body of the people will naturally take part with their domestic representatives. Can the general government withstand such a united opposition? Will the people suffer themselves to be stripped of their privileges? Will they suffer their legislatures to be reduced to a shadow and a name? The idea is shocking to common sense." ... "The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate." - Alexander Hamilton, New York Constitutional Convention, 1787
"The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Essay 83
"The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the object to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer." (Emphasis HIS) - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Essay 38 (Notice how he makes it explicitly clear that the term 'UNITED STATES' does not refer to a singular group of people within a geographical area, but to the STATES as a plural collective.)
"The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation." - Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788
LOL, he'll still be denying it's dead long after the autopsy, funeral, cremation, and final flushing of the ashes. I hate to steal one of Wlat's lines, but in this case it truly fits. "fakeit" is like the Black Knight from Monty Python's 'Search for the Holy Grail'. I can still hear him trying to debate with GOPcapitalist about Hamilton's economic ideas...
I hear what you are saying, I'm USN, Ret. Please allow me to thank you for your service to our country.
About the only way to learn what is in the book is to read it. Knowledge is power, and it enables me to better argue relevant points, or to create something such as the translation table. Buying a book as source material does not necessarily connote approval or sponsorship of its author.
Why it is Mr. Z feels the need to redefine everything is beyond me.
Well, let's look at a few things.
On issues, it seems GOP is generally in lock-step agreement with what is known as the Wlat Brigade. We all know Wlat is an avowed Clintonian liberal.
One may question whether GOP earns his living from that book.
Is he a philanthropist who donates his time to FR in a charitable effort to educate the misled masses?
Assume arguendo that you come to a conservative site such as FR as an independent seeking to see if the Republican party is for you. You encounter GOP. You seek out and read what he has to say. Would that make you more likely or less likely to be attracted to his Republican Party?
Assume arguendo you are a Democrat. Considering your answers to the above, would you support the Democratic Party paying GOP to keep up the good work?
Actually, it has everything to do with what you said. Your statements about "when Hamilton was in the government" implied slavery was just Southern, which is false.
Your innumerable false statements about the nature of the Constitutional union.
Your use of the word is extremely suspect, and I have no doubt that you mean something different by it than most. Hamilton was a nationalist, yes. Madison was earlier, but then was not, because hearing people like Hamilton talk about it scared the crap out of him. Whatever nationalist ideas Washington had were satisfied by the limited federal government established under the Constitution, he said so. Jefferson a nationalist? Oh, please...you should be ashamed for saying such a thing.
I don't think you know what the word "nationalist" even means. Just as I suspected, and mentioned in post # 749.
He and Madison split from Hamilton and Washington because of their inability to understand economics and finance more than disagreements about the federal Union.
Actually, those differences arose primarily between Hamilton and Washington. But don't let actual history stop you, you never have before. "Jefferson the Nationalist" - really, now. lol.
LOL. Sorry, man. Even the most dimwitted dolt reading through this thread will see that your inane proclamations have repeatedly been ripped asunder and disproven. Even Hamilton, who did prefer such a government as you have previously described, freely admitted that the one formed by the Constitution was not nationalistic. His quotes describing the nature of the Constitutional compact have repeatedly been provided to disprove your falsehoods and misunderstandings regarding that union. As have the descriptions and clarifications of many others. You be wrong, man.
The convention did not approve the Randolph plan on the 19th - they rejected the New Jersey plan, resuming debate on the Virgina plan. Which still needed the 'Great Compromise' of the Convention to be acceptable to the smaller states.
But what insight! A win/win situation for you - Hamilton arguing for a plan that was adopted would mean he supported it. Hamilton arguing for a different plan means he really supported the other. Either way Hamilton wins, or does he? Hamilton chanced being forever remembered as a monarchist to force an acceptance of something less? Hamilton was the ONLY person advocating a monarchy:
Dr. JOHNSON. On a comparison of the two plans which had been proposed from Virginia and New Jersey, it appeared that the peculiarity which characterized the latter was its being calculated to preserve the individuality of the states. The plan from Virginia did not profess to destroy this individuality altogether, but was charged with such a tendency. One gentleman alone, (Col. Hamilton,) in his animadversions on the plan of New Jersey, boldly and decisively contended for an abolition of the state governments.Now who voted for what?
Elliot's Debates Vol. V, p. 220.HAMILTON: "Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life or at least during good behaviour. Let the Executive also be for life."
The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison, 18 Jun 1787, Vol. I, p. 288.
Good thing you are not negoitiating with such a genius or you would be wondering where your pants went.
You might not be a genius, but I am - a member of Mensa. Touche.
Only because their proposals for eliminating and consolidating the States were quickly struck down. Your use of the word "nationalist" has varied from post to post, and no doubt you're engaging in some word play here to set up some more twisting, which is about all you ever do. Chubby Checker will sue you yet.
Madison described the government as BOTH federal and National and that was Hamilton's view as well.
As far as Madison is concerned, the "national" aspect ONLY referred to the very few limited powers granted under the Constitution to the Federal governent, the States' agent, for dealing specifically with affairs that concerned them all as a group. All the other powers, dealing with the day to day life of the State's citizens, which were MANY, were retained by the States, who were sovereign and superior to the national government in regards to those powers. That was Hamilton's view as well. Not his origninal desire, but his admission of what type of government was being created. I have already provided you with his quotes describing this.
Why would you believe that a nationalist could not be a federalist when it was obvious that the most nationalist of the founders were the Federalists?
Ah, there's your twisting, and the reason for your earlier word-play. The Federalists were NOT the most "nationalist" of the Founders. The "consolidationists" also called "nationalists" were. As has already been pointed out more times than I can remember, they advocated the elimination of the States and their consolidation into a single nation. The Federalists were minimalists in terms of "nationalism" (as you are currently using the term, which as I have already mentioned, has varied from post to post. At least you're not using it as a synonym for abolitionism anymore).
The term "nationalist" as I have used it, has consistently been used to describe those who were also referred to as "consolidationists". You already knew that, I made that clear hundreds of posts ago. Your use of the word has varied from one end of the spectrum to the other and has even stretched so far as to include abolitionism.
Washington was Hamilton's greatest advocate in EVERY area, including economics and finance. He treated Hamilton with all the indulgence he would have shown his son. What lamebrained idea did you stumble over that claims anything else?
Actually, I found it in the same place most of your information seems to come from, a monkey's butt. I just posted it to aggravate you, because I don't believe for a second you believe half of what you've posted. No one is that schizo/stupid. As I said a long time ago, I think you post crap just to try and get a rise out of people. As to your main point above, Washington did agree with Hamilton to a degree on very many issues, but not always, as Hamiltonian zealots would have us think.
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.