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.

[Gianni]

The notion that those Republicans Radically opposed to slavery

Puh-leeeeeze. Have you found another phrase that you can twist and then purport that you're not doing so? The radicals got their name from opposition to slavery now? This harkens back to your rediculous "Hillbilly" posts of days gone by.

Flush your headgear... it's long overdue.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Precisely. The Radical Republicans named thmselves thus, actually, for being Republicans radically opposed to slavery before and during the Civil War and to the perpetuation of the slave system afterward.

[Gianni]

We are talking about the South, not CSA states

Partisan, to get your figures, you'd have to include everything South of the North Pole, and still exaggerate!

[justshutupandtakeit]

What started as a reasonably interesting exchange has gone off the rails into the swamp of hysterical hyperbole.

Hamilton's program included a Sinking Fund for the debt which is no longer the case. Although it can't be denied that even without it US debt is the highest rated, safest and most desirable investment in the World. We are by no stretch of the imagination "bankrupt," under no meaningful definition of the term are we bankrupt. Only by changing the meaning of the word could you make such a claim with a straight face.

Nor are we "selling out our citizens.... to hand over their property over to a pack of globalist thugs..." That is just silly ideological blather. Increased regulatory reach is a legitimate concern but linked with such a load of crap no serious person will get the point.

Of course it has survived, what was a small nation along the Atlantic coast now occupies most of the continent and dominates the world's views, economies and actions. Only by changing the meaning of the word "survives" could you claim otherwise.

I need no research to tell me that we neither have "corporate fascism" (Marxist-Leninists would agree with you, though) nor that the 14th amendment could bring it on. While it may have been used for unintended purposes and illegitimately in some cases, all it was designed to do was to put a stop to the Reign of Terror by the defeated Slavers and the political disenfranchisement of the newly freed slaves. It was aimed at enemies of the American ideal. How absurd to complain in the same breath of the lack of regard for unalienable rights while spreading falsehoods about the greatest attempt to expand those rights made since the constitution was ratified. Protection of those unalienable rights was exactly why the 14th was passed but apparently the "rights" of the Blacks are unimportant to you.

No one who passed the constitution believed it could protect the citizenry from people like Clinton. Hamilton repeatedly warned of the dangers of demagogues and those who pandered to the least common denominator like Jefferson and William Jefferson.

I am quite comfortable with a government actually taking steps to remove our enemies, disrupt their networks and destroy them. It must be done. Those who fight against the United States have never received protection from our government to do so. You'd better do a little more research as to our wartime history before making such ridiculous leaps of "logic."

I have no idea what you mean by saying I represent the "buyers" of national debt. But, at any rate, none of my opinions are based upon what is profitable to me personally.

You seem to have swallowed quite a load of leftist distortion if you claim that our armies are protecting oil for private companies. Maybe you could tell me of even one country were we have troops protecting American oil companies property?

Yes, he came within a hair's breath of being impeached for his governorship. But his philosophical understanding of economics and finance was even worse. He had none.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You have attempted to pass these distortions of Hamiltonianism before and this latest attempt is no more accurate. Hamilton understood the roll of an appropriate taxation policy, unlike his critics, nor was his tariff "protectionist". Protectionism did not come until after he was in the ground. Capitalism is impossible without a strong legal system and its development was perhaps Hamilton's principle goal and greatest achievement. Capitalism is also impossible without a money supply or capital which were created by the debt program.

There is no capitalist state without a nationalized money supply or control of the money supply by the government nor will there ever be again.

Hamilton is hated by the Left precisely because he help create the conditions for capitalist development and the industrial revolution in America. Why else do you think it has lied about him for over 220 years?

You obviously have no idea what mercantilism was though I have posted definitions from dictionaries for you in the past. As is typical you just ignore whatever doesn't fit your distorted view of the world, change meanings of words when inconvenient and make up words when ordinary ones don't fit. Leftist hated Hamilton, hate Hamilton and will always hate Hamilton. It pleases me to find his enemies today since it almost a certainty that their views of most historic, economic and politic issues are incorrect. To claim Leftists like Hamilton is an absurdity which even one so prone to distortion as you must gag on.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Enlistment is directly related to educational availability as your statement about the lack of enlistees is low in New England indicates. That is why, because levels of education are higher there. Though I would imagine that the enlistment ratios in Maine are higher than Mass. Thus, those lines on the graph are proxies for education levels in the regions.

Again I would imagine that the ratios of enlisted to non-enlisting per state would show strong correlation to educational levels in them. Not totally no doubt but high. I would have to see what was said about it in the report you reference. I doubt that any regression analysis was done to determine the influence of factors on the enlistment rates but don't doubt that you would also find stong correlations between new enlistments and fathers serving in the past as well as between new enlistments and income levels per state.

Southerners have always been a disproportionate percent of the armed forces. Its culture was strongly pro-military even around the time of the Slavers' Revolt. That was a primary reason the revolt was not put down sooner since the Union had to recruit a whole new officer corps after the Southerners left the army.

Thanks for posting those interesting graphs.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your comments about Hamilton not only indicate a collosal ignorance (but great familiarity with the LIES of his enemies) of the man but are a direct slap in the face to George Washington and every man who fought for our independence. You also need to look at the meaning of mercantilism before trying to use it in a sentence. Just because GOPcrapitalist says he was a mercantilist not only does not make it true but is almost a guarantee it is false.

Hamilton not only WAS a Founder but was without a peer which even his enemies admitted. His sacrifices to create Federalism are unsurpassed by anyone, especially his enemies.

Hamilton spent almost his entire life strengthening his and my nation so I am not surprised to find a unrepentant defender of traitors attacking him with another load of lies. When can we expect an attack on Washington, the man who brought him to significance and power and whose entire administration's program was Hamilton's doing. Was George Washington "worthless" too?

You cannot find one word of Hamilton's writings where he advocated a monarch of the United States and he wrote thousands and thousands of pages in his life. In fact, the greatest commentary on the constitution is largely his work.
Hamilton's "plan" = the Constitution of the United States.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Alexander Hamilton would be very proud of you!

[billbears]

You also need to look at the meaning of mercantilism before trying to use it in a sentence. Just because GOPcrapitalist says he was a mercantilist not only does not make it true but is almost a guarantee it is false.

First sonny, I don't even see where GOP said that Hamilton was a mercantilist. Unlike yourself I am able to think far beyond what I learned in 4th grade and quote more than just a set mantra. Second I know the meaning of the term

an economic system (Europe in 18th C) to increase a nation's wealth by government regulation of all of the nation's commercial interests

if that doesn't describe what he advocated I don't know what does. Internal improvements and a national bank would just be a start.

His sacrifices to create Federalism are unsurpassed by anyone, especially his enemies.

Do you even read what you type? His ideal was to subjugate the states to the national government, practically destroying the relationship of checks and balances that allow federalism to exist. He wanted to create it? LOL, yeah with an elected monarch and a higher house that once in place couldn't be removed. Some power the states would have had in that image....

[mac_truck]

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

[stainless] There are actually quite a few. Many younger blacks are showing conservative values - we have some excellent in-house folks on FR who can attest to this.

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

Gee fellas, which is it? are the younger southern blacks in the military showing conservative values or are they just liberal democrats? SB, is this is what you meant when you said some on FR can attest to what you were saying? (lol).

[Grand Old Partisan]

Worshipping the Confederate Lost Cause is a million miles away from being a conservative. True American conservatives are patriots, and revere the United States of America then and now.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Goldwaterism almost destroyed the GOP by turning it away from its historical roots to pandering to States' Righters. States' Rights was NEVER anything but the "right" to repress, oppress and deny Blacks of their constitutional rights. While I appreciate BG's anti-communism that was no different that the rest of the Republicans.

Neo-abolitionism is as meaningless a term as I have ever seen posted here. It has no relation to anything espoused in the book or by me or any other Republican.

Both Hamilton and Lincoln understood that Slavery was utterly incompatible with the constitution. What constitution can guarantee rights for some of its people while denying ANY rights for a large percentage of the rest?
Lincoln and Hamilton were concerned to spread True freedom to all not, like the Democrats, to just certain white aristocrats. How about freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to assemble, the right to a trial by their peers, the freedom from unwarranted searchs, the right agains self-incrimination little things like that. You know all those things which Democrat/Slaver tyranny prevented Blacks for having. Blacks' right to keep and bear arms was the one right most strenously resisted by the Democrats.

Those in the South who went on a murderous rampage of killing and violence against Blacks and Republicans in the South should have been punished. Maybe not as viciously or violently as, say, Andrew Jackson would have done but sufficient to make sure they never as a class controlled those states. I have no doubt that had Jackson been president then there would have been thousands of traitors executed and who could have blamed him?

No broad-based Republican party which panders to the protectors and defenders of the Slavers' Revolt would be worth having. It is precisely such aversion to the truth of history which destroys parties and nations. Certainly nothing which exposes the brutality of the Slavers' Reign of Terror undermines the constitution since THEY were the only ones who ever made a direct armed attack upon that constitution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What do you know you "neo-abolitionist" you?

[justshutupandtakeit]

No compliment from any other human would be more gratefully received.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Isn't that ridiculous?! Similarly, the Slavocrats of the 1850s would call Republicans "Black Republicans", as if mentioning our Party's respect for the rights of black people were some kind of insult.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Isn't that ridiculous?! Similarly, the Slavocrats of the 1850s would call Republicans "Black Republicans", as if mentioning our Party's respect for the rights of black people were some kind of insult.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Isn't that ridiculous?! Similarly, the Slavocrats of the 1850s would call Republicans "Black Republicans", as if mentioning our Party's respect for the rights of black people were some kind of insult.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sigh... so much ignorance so little time. Hamilton never proposed any such thing and even that is a poor definition which for accuracy's sake I will have to post- "the economy prevalent during the 16th and 17th centuries which sought to maintain, by various regulations, an excess of exports over imports and to collect the difference in the form of precious metals for use in increasing the power and prestige of the state." Dictionary of Economics.

Your truncated definition missed the entire point of the concept (big surprise) by not mentioning the goal of precious metals acquisition. There were NO national banks in the 16th century or until the last decade of the 17th century so obviously national banks have nothing to do with mercantilism nor do internal improvements.

Hamilton's views of the states changed from hostility because of their feckless and irresponsible behavior during the War to indifference at the time of ratification. While he never expected much of anything but nonsense from them he did feel it worthwhile to stir up that hornets' nest any further.

You can not show me one word written by Hamilton where he advocated a King plus the unremovable Senate claim is simply false. The best you can do is point to an allegation that the Senate should be allowed to serve "with good behavior" for life. But even that you cannot find to be supported by his writings. Why don't you read some of them rather than take the (almost always false) word of cranks and writers without credibility.

States' governments have been almost without exception MUCH worse that the federal. They are certain FAR more corrupt.

Have you ever actually READ anything by Hamilton or do you just grab whatever quote is convenient from Nutballs.com?

[justshutupandtakeit]

But oh, so typical of the D.S. brigade.

[billbears]

The basic outline for economic development, which was contained in the Consitution were fleshed out by Alexander Hamilton, who became the nation's first Secretary of the Treasury, under President George Washington. Several of his key initiatives were: *Hamilton's Report to the Nation on Manufactures *The establishment of a National Bank to finance infrastructure projects for internal improvement.

The American System

You can not show me one word written by Hamilton where he advocated a King plus the unremovable Senate claim is simply false

Hamilton had an unreasoning fear of popular institutions. They suggested to him the hybrid experiment of Rome, in which a pure democracy was adulterated with the despotism of mobs and torn by the strife of warring factions. He dwelt upon the fate of the Amphictyonic council; he drew lessons from the history of the German confederacy and the compact of the Swiss cantons. And after traversing the entire field of history he could not escape the conclusion that the United States must be governed by a constitutional monarch. This was his hobby. He bestrode it until his friends were wearied. Even Gouverneur Morris, his most intimate friend and eulogist, wrote: "More a theoretic than a practical man, he was not sufficiently convinced that a system may be good in itself and bad in relation to particular circumstances."

Well sunshine we've provided you with Madison's own statements of Hamilton's monarch for life and Senate for life. Here's even another source. Tell me, can you read or do you just skip over the parts that truthfully call you out?