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.
Actually the general belief is that Souter was pulled to the hard left through his companionship with Brennan. So perhaps that would be a more specifically applicable analogy, but the point it conveys is still the same.
Marshall and Hamilton were the greatest legal minds of their day and likely any other.
Not really. They were good but not the greatest ever. They are both dwarfed by Blackstone, among others. They are also surpassed when one considers law through areas of legal specification. The legendary courtroom greats like Felix Grundy and Luther Martin come to mind in that realm. The philosophical lawyers like Lysander Spooner and to some extent St. George Tucker classify as the greats in another realm, and so forth
Luther Martin left the Convention before it ended and did not help write the constitution.
Martin was present throughout most of the major debates and is generally credited with ensuring that the Senate had equal representation for each state - a provision he inserted into the committee compromises that led to the design of the senate. He departed late from the convention in protest to prepare to fight it in Maryland. Throughout the summer he was one of the most frequent speakers in the general session per Madison's notes.
LOL, I addressed EVERYTHING in my truths about Madison's draft. Read 'The Papers of George Washington'.
It was rejected and re-written by Hamilton.
LOL, Washington had instructed Hamilton that whatever Hamilton wrote must be, and I quote, "predicated upon the Sentiments" contained in the draft he supplied him with, the document that was primarily Madison's.
There is no credible historian who claims otherwise. Who are these "revisionist historians" the DS brigade are always babbling about? Any one with a degree from a major university?
LOL, based on your nonsensical rantings and circular anti-logic predicated upon the preposterous, I'd say you had quite a familiarity with revisionist historians. They have been quite successful in making people believe such foolishness as you profess regarding Washington's farewell address. Amazing, considering the fact that a simple review of Washington's papers demonstrate the truth. Too many people study historians, and not history.
Hamilton's policy was NOT pro-British, that is a LIE, he was TOTALLY pro-American and that dictated ALL his policies.
LOL, you're losing it. Even his allies admit his pro-British stance in regards to foreign policy. His economic policies were founded on a pro-British policy, and he was more than willing to start a war with France to maintain a pro-British position. That's hardly 'neutral'. You're just spouting nonsense again.
...Hamilton desperately struggled to avoid war with either party even when many Federalists were clamoring for war with the French...
Oh BS. He un-necessarily created a great deal of the animosity that almost led to war with France by convincing Washington to sign that asinine 'Jay Treaty'. Jay took his direction from 'you know who' for that surrender. That mob in New York should have used larger stones when they gave him what he deserved.
It is foolish to think that Hamilton would be warning (through Washington) against himself.
LOL, Remember now, Washington finally wrote his own draft based on the original draft by Madison and the draft he had Hamilton work up "predicated upon the Sentiments" in the one where he (GW) had added some material to Madison's original.
It is still a fact that Washington regarded no man higher than Alexander Hamilton, like it or not.
GW did think highly of Hamilton's abilities, but your statement is false.
Care to list any such manipulations? I am not going to be holding my breath waiting for THAT nonsense.
LOL, Hamilton's manipultive behavior was notorious and was the source of most of his problems. In regards to GW, here's one: Convincing GW to support the idea of a National Bank. Although Washington did like certain points, he positively declared such a venture as unconstitutional and refused to support it. Hamilton, knowing Washington's love and respect of Madison, went back through a bunch of Madison's writings about the Constitution and then edited and carefully arranged them in such a way as to convince Ol' George that it was Constitutional after all, "based on Madison's writings". It was only by manipulating Madison's words and Washington's love of Madison that he was able to bring the Ol' Man to his side on the issue. Madison was none too pleased with this little game of Hamilton's when he found out what happened later. Of course, years later he too would eventually support the idea of the bank, for other reasons, but he didn't at the time, as you know.
Those who know him say that he came to the court as an undecided middle of the roader - probably in the O'Conner mold or something like that. He is known to have become very close to William Brennan and his politics have taken a hard turn to the left ever since.
Few know anything about Hamilton's legal work
And that alone is evidence that you severely overstate his importance.
Martin wound up being a good Federalist.
Actually he became a states-rights federalist. In a sense he was probably the foremost of a very small rebellious faction within that party.
That is false. Most decent law programs have courses in Blackstone, Hale, Marshall, Coke, and one or two of the later Americans (typically a prominent justice) or combinations thereof, yet virtually none has a course in Hamilton. On the courtroom side of the law, historians often teach of the Felix Grundys and Clarence Darrows, but never Hamilton. That is not to say that Hamilton wasn't a good lawyer - simply that he wasn't as great or as prominent as you hype him up to be.
Once again, NOBODY disputes that Hamilton was a skilled and generally well regarded lawyer. I do dispute your near-worshipful fawning over him though in which you try to pass him off as the greatest lawyer of all time or something very close to that. The fact is he simply was not. I have already given you easily half a dozen or more names of other lawyers who were by far more distinguished and famous AS LAWYERS than Hamilton, distinguished as he was, ever became in either his own lifetime or after it.
Coke, and Hale are rarely studied in Law Schools and almost none have courses devoted to them.
Oh really? A semester of English-American legal history is commonplace in law programs. Coke and Hale are standard in practically all of these courses.
And I say he was good but not the greatest. The greats of that era were all defined in their respective areas of practice. In legal scholarship it was St. George Tucker, aka America's Blackstone. In courtroom ability it was Felix Grundy, who came about a decade after Hamilton. In judicial stature it was Marshall, who needs no introduction.
A course which mentions those names in passing
It's no matter of passive mention for them. A course entitled "British Legal History" or "British-American Legal History" will undoubtedly focus one or more lectures on Coke, Hale, and Blackstone plus a lecture on the Americans as a group (which will probably go over Tucker, Story, and maybe Rawls). Marshall will probably get a day as well. Hamilton, by comparison, will be a passively mentioned historical footnote as an accomplished lawyer but little more.
Blackstone is a different matter because of his role in actually providing a teaching tool that has been used by the generations after him.
Blackstone's contribution is no mere teaching tool, but rather his legal scholarship on the common law. Coke, Hale, and Tucker all provided similar legal scholarship, which is their respective contribution. Hamilton, on the other hand, is simply not known on par with the others as a legal scholar. He is known as a lawyer and a skilled one at that. But not in the sense of a Blackstone or Coke or any other of their category.
I am simply reigning in your sillyness with a dose of reality - a reality that concedes Hamilton was a good and skilled lawyer yet does not accept his assignment into the realm of a platonic form. For most people this would be a perfectly agreeable thing. It is perfectly okay and admirable to be good and recognized yet to also fall short of the elusive "greatest ever" status. As far as all star American lawyers go, he was a Carlton Fiske or a Joe Morgan or maybe even a Yogi Berra. But he was no Babe Ruth.
Tucker's legal and patriotic credentials are beyond dispute - and I've always found it worth noting that his 1803 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries acknowledges the right of State secession. How times have changed...
;>)
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.