Republican History Revealed

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.

Thanks for posting the words of Hamilton, they can never be put forward too often for the benefit of modern Americans. Hamilton was charged by Congress to create the magnificent REPORTS for it to use in devising ways of providing for the General Welfare of the United States. Not only did he do an incredible job but he provided almost every conceivable option and explained the effects of the policies. Congress was then enabled to select those options it felt would fit America best. Not all the options listed were FAVORED by Hamilton nor were ones he did favor intended to be used PERMANENTLY. His thinking was far too subtle and complex to be properly captured by the caricatures and cartoonish labels of those who hated him or did not understand his work. He was head and shoulders above any of his critics, of that day OR ours, in economic, and financial understanding. Watching the pygmies attempt to bring him down is, at the same time, comic and tragic.

Hamilton wanted to use government power to help develop the new nation there is no doubt of that. However, his infant industry tariff was not what is typically referred to today as "protectionism." Protectionism, as is generally known, uses the tariff to protect mature industries from competition, Hamilton never advocated that (except perhaps military supplies.)

Where did you get the idea that capitalism EVER arose and attained any significant size without close involvement with a government? Hint: NOWHERE. The issue is not whether government will be involved or not but HOW MUCH. Hamilton may have been more inclined to use government power to assist economic development than you but I suggest that is because Hamilton had a much greater understanding of what the situation was and what must be done to allow the US to become stong enough to remain free and independent. You have none of those concerns.

Nor apparently did you read what you posted since you apparently believe Hamilton was suggesting all those options when, in fact, he was LISTING them for the Congress to consider. Either you did NOT read the excerpt or you deliberately attempted to mislead.

Short definition of Mercantilism = government policies to maximize the quantity of precious metals in a nation. Maybe that will help clear up your misunderstanding of the term.

None of the things you list as "anti-capitalist" are so. Taxes certainly aren't. Nor are tariffs, having been used by EVERY capitalist country. Certainly centralized monetary policies aren't since they have been and are used by EVERY capitalist country. Clearly internal improvements aren't since they have been used by EVERY capitalist country.

Here is a short definition of capitalism which might clear up your confusion, Capitalism- "An economic system based upon the private ownership of all kinds of property and the freedom of the individual to contract with others and to engage in economic activities of his choice and for his own profit and well-being. Such government restrictions as are placed on private property and freedom of contract are designed for the protection of the public." Dictionary of Economics

Hamilton's policies (in sharp contrast to his enemies) were proposed to Maximize those economic activities for his fellow Americans.

Now he is a direct "heir" to mercantilists? You might note in your attempt to slander Hamilton with Keynes you ignore what Keynes actually said while accepting what those who use his name say he said. I doubt you have actually read Keynes great work, The General Theory of employment,interest and money or you would realize that Keynes never proposed the policies that his successors employ in his name. Much of that work is descriptive without much controversy. Other parts have stimulated enormous quantities of economic theorizing for the benefit of Economics.

People like Keynes and Roosevelt were desperate to save the capitalist system which in both their countries were under great pressure from the Socialists and Communists because of the inability to comprehend and deal with the economic collapse. Germany's answer to its crisis (created because the Peace after WWI ignored Keynes' warnings in The Economic Consequences of the Peace) was Hitler. America's answer was Roosevelt and Britain's was Keynes. Funny but I prefer the latter two to the first.

Nice attempt to change the subject and put words into my mouth, but it is fruitless. Hamilton and his friend, John Laurens of South CArolina, proposed to Congress that it recruit Black soldiers in order to keep South Carolina and Georgia from falling to the British. Their proposal, of course, was fought bitterly by the slavers and defeated. Rhode Island was the only state I am aware of which actually recruited Black units and rewarded their members with freedom. Why would you be so silly as to believe I don't know that Blacks fought in the Revolution?

Inspector Steiner's report would have to be read in its entirety in order to know what he really said since misquoting and misrepresentation of such material in SOP for the D.S. side. But, even the part you quote says nothing of any units of Black men fighting. No doubt some of the cooks, valets, boot blacks, orderly, ditch diggers etc. who were dragged along with their masters would have had some degree of arms maybe even a gun or three. And it is a fact that proposals of to arm Blacks in military units to fight for the Slavers was resisted to the very end of the war.

I am sorry but I have been burnt too often accepting statements from the D.S.s wrt anything about the Slavers' Revolt much less Black soldiers fighting for the Slavers'. Most were subsequently shown to be misinformation at best and outright deceptions at worst.

The best description of the financial program I have seen is Forrest MacDonald's biography Alexander Hamilton.

Essentially what happened is the assumption of the federal and state debt and exchanging it for the newly issued debt under Hamilton's program created a money supply since the debt became the equivalent of money. It was sold for specie and thus, that specie came into this country as new capital.
Bank stock became the basis for loans and created a new source of money.

Thus, based upon the word of the United States government capital flowed in from across the world and from within this nation. That is as close to the creation from thin air as I can imagine. Though you might want to argue that it was created from parchament since that is what the constitution was written on and what ultimately allowed it.

Since the old debt was not totally valueless you can modify the quantities by subtracting its value from 80 million to get a net increase. Maybe it was worth 10% of its face value as currency so I'll just say 70 million.

Anyway MacDonald's book is a great work by one of America's greatest experts on that era.

Bankrupt - one unable to pay his bills. And you think this describes the US? Apparently you believe potential bankruptcy is the same as bankruptcy?

Your not making as much sense as usual with the Nixon comment, no idea what you are talking about and doubt it is an accurate description of anything real.

No idea what provokes three unnamed university invitations or their intentions.

Corporations owned land long before the 14th amendment. I would suggest you not include that in your talks unless it is stand-up comedy for Clown College. You are not aware that some of the very first cases before the SC were involving corporations?

Any accurate valuation of the assets of the United States would show there is little or no real debt. What is the value of the Grand Canyon or the millions of acres of the lands it holds?

Yeah, I am sooo worried that US debt is not going to be desirable. All I hear is Gloom and Doom for the future not a real situation just predictions. Hell I can predict too- the Chicago Bears are going to the Super Bowl. That prediction is far more likely than yours.

Reign of Terror, Malthus, other ways to for the national government to end slavery, gee, I wish I could hear your talks. They would be entertaining if nothing else.

What crackpot did you get your version of the genesis of the 14th from, Lyndon LaRoach? Hilarious. Please file complaints, I am begging you.

Federalists had nothing to do with the New Deal or with the Great Society. That's a stretch which would break even the strongest of rubber bands. Did they invent tv too and the movies?

Article VI does not have a Clause 2. Though it does have a paragraph two. "The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." I can see where an enemy of the US wouldn't like that but too bad. That is what makes the constitution a constitution.

Madison did not believe a BoR to be necessary either. No man ever did more than Hamilton to fight for the freedom of the Press nor did he ever indicate he would have violated the other rights listed. So that is just a red herring and irrelevent to boot. Anyway, violations of those rights were far more egregious and widespread by the States not the fedgov. They were epidemic in the South far more than in the North.

Is there any Leftist Lie you don't swallow wholesale? Do you resist EVERY attempt to deal with our enemies? Or are they not YOUR enemies?

A "militia" couldn't find its ass with both hands much less terrorists. You whine about a non-existent intrusion yet, would willingly empower those who make the Keystone Cops look efficient? What a joke.

It was your strawman not mine. I didn't make the standard Leftist claim that the American armed forces are terrorizing the world to protect business. That little piece of crap was all yours. So I can expect you to withdraw it?

His thinking was far too subtle and complex to be properly captured by the caricatures and cartoonish labels of those who hated him or did not understand his work. He was head and shoulders above any of his critics, of that day OR ours, in economic, and financial understanding.

Isn't this getting a little bit out of hand? Your non-argument can be made of anything that is pronounced a stupid idea. "You'd be on board if you only understood it, but it's too complex for you, serf." Horse crap... this country ("The People" of the constitution) was not willing to grant Hamilton his wish of an American reflection of the British government.

However, his infant industry tariff was not what is typically referred to today as "protectionism." Protectionism, as is generally known, uses the tariff to protect mature industries from competition,

Nowhere in discussion of protectionism that I have found does a distinction exist between mature and infant industries. Such would seem impossible.

Where did you get the idea that capitalism EVER arose and attained any significant size without close involvement with a government?

Too easy: By watching the disastrous results of government intervention. I do not deny that government provides a role in generating a safe and (politically) stable environment in which the market can work, but that is its job - direct market intervention does not have to be.

Hamilton may have been more inclined to use government power to assist economic development than you but I suggest that is because Hamilton had a much greater understanding of what the situation was and what must be done to allow the US to become stong enough to remain free and independent.

Reduced to serf status (I'm sure as you and Hamilton would both have it), and as such, are incapable of comprehending his 'great understanding' and 'subtle thought' yadda yadda? Get over it. If I wrote a 60 page analysis of the equation "1 + 1 = 5" and then told you that you were an imbecile and needed to just accept it as fact regardless of the obvious flaws in my thinking, I'm guessing you would be properly outraged.

You have none of those concerns

It appears as though you are wrong about this one, unless people accept your axioms:

1. Wealth is created by government.
2. Protectionism is the best way to advance industry.
3. People are too stupid to understand basic economics.
4. People require coersion to be productive.
5. The intent of the founders was to create an all-powerful fedgov.
6. The constitution contains only Hamilton's blueprint and all that Jeffersonian nonsense was included to 'sell' the constitution and be immediately overturned by fedgov.
7... it goes on, but I'm already close to ralfing on the keyboard.

My, oh my! Yes, indeed you hate; but not enemies of these United States. It is their defenders that have you hissing out your venom.

Calling people with whom you disagree, "Traitors," when those people represent a sizeable body of political thinking, consistently maintained since the Founding of the Republics, is the mark of an absolute fanatic.

As for you reasoning powers? Only you and Clinton, could find this a reasonable argument:

The constitution did NOT provide for a fugitive slave law I suggest you reread Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 for a clearer understanding. Plus, it NEVER recognized slavery or used the word in the document.

You love to split hairs and mince words. What Article IV, Section 2, provides relevant to the subject, is as follows: "No person held to service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service Of Labour may be due."

Just what do you think that language relates to? No they did not use the popular term for "held to service or labour." That term has indeed changed in different eras. Such people were bondsmen in antiquity--as in the Bible-- serfs in the middle ages, and known under various other nomenclatures, before and since. The founders described the condition, as good legal drafting required. Describing what you mean is always more explicit than simply adopting a simplistic term.

That there was a Congressional role in proving the Manner in which such rights to have such persons delivered up on Claim, etc., should be proven, see Section 1 of Article IV.

Or take this bit of invective:

I support the constitution of the United States of America not structures, monolithic or otherwise. Apparently you know as little about the Nazis as American politics and history.

The Constitution creates an Agency for carrying out the purposes that the several States delegated to it. You want to change that limited Agency into a force that can dictate to the participants in all sorts of other areas. Basically you then hurl the insult of Traitor, against anyone who says "Whoa! your interpretation amounts to the usurpation of power by officeholders."

Just what do you think National Socialism was all about? Oh, I know it was an attempt to impose Leftwing Socialism on the German people; but how did it operate with respect to traditional political forms and structures? If you look a bit closer, you will see that Hitler did for the German Federation, what you would do for the American Federation--and treated dissenters, precisely as you would treat dissenters.

No my friend, you do not speak for American Conservatives. And the fact that you come here, and over and over again hurl vile insults at those who are dedicated to restoring the values of the Founding Fathers, tells more about yourself than you ought to want to parade in public.

One other thought. While many of us disagree very strongly with Alexander Hamilton on a number of issues; and with Andrew Jackson on some issues; neither deserves to be associated with your rant. Both at least participated in the debate among reasonable Americans, as to the course we should take. You violate every rule of that reasoned discussion, and stand pretty much alone, in the historic sense.

On the other hand, in President Clinton, who imposed your hatred of civilized men, on the poor people of Haiti, and in some of the militant groups on the far Left, you would find very congenial companions.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site >

I see no necessary correlation between lifetime appointments and big or small government.

Why should I back up an opinion contrary to an unsubtantiated remark. Why would there be a correlation between veto of state laws and the size of the fedgov? Perhaps you should back up YOUR claim.

I have no interest in your rhetorical speculations but must repeat that there is no hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton which speaks for itself other than his actual plan, the constitution of the United States. And that certainly does not speak for itself, if it did there would not be so many people so confused about its genesis and meaning. His eleven points is a mere outline of ideas which he never submitted as a "plan."

No error, your attempt to attribute something to me is not well disguised. Please indicate where I proposed or supported such appointments for a "central government bureaucracy" Not courts but a cgb. Otherwise, if you are honest, you will retract it.

Hamilton gave a FIVE HOUR speech at the CC. Are you suggesting that a few pages could convey all that was necessary to understand the complexity and depth of his proposals? They are useful for spreading false impressions, however. For example, H. no doubt had little use for state governments and wanted to reduce their sovereignty as Madison indicates but most of his enemies ignore the rest of M.'s remark "On the other hand he confessed he was much discouraged by the amazing extent of Country in expecting the desired blessings from any general sovereignty that could be substituted." Thus, it is FALSE that he proposed getting rid of states.

In posting his plan of government one must realize that much of it was actually adopted and that it never suggested a King or Monarch and that it was completely consistent with his view (and many others) of what a Republic was. On the whole, Madison's report indicates that H had a lot of uncertainty about the future course of action. There is no doubt that during the discussions public and private with M and others H's ideas were as influential as any expressed at the convention. Nor is there any doubt, except among those who hate him, that they were very close to M's as well as Washington and others.

I never said Madison's remarks "don't count" they are very useful but are just a short summary of H's comments. However, H's plan as stated there (it is accurate because M had H review the remarks regarding the "plan" for accuracy as far as they went) had elements which were actually incorporated in the Constitution. That became H's "plan."

You seem anxious to forget that at the time he spoke there were two other plans, elements of both which were also incorporated into the constitution. But I know the Hamilton-haters love beating this dead horse. Of course, in order to do this they have to ignore much of what M reported he said as well as virtually H's entire life and works. "Having made these observations he would read to the Committee a sketch of a plan which he shd. prefer to either of those under consideration. He was aware that it went beyond the ideas of most members....He did not mean to offer the paper he has sketched as a proposition to the Committee. IT WAS MEANT ONLY TO GIVE A MORE CORRECT VIEW OF HIS IDEAS, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R in the proper stages of its future discussion."

My "friends" knowledge of American history I will take over yours anyday.

H's comments on the English government lend themselves to misrepresentation and distortion by the enemies of constitutional government, it is true. However, it is a simple matter for those with a regard to the truth to put them in context. H's regard for the English constitution and govt. was entirely because of his belief that it was "the only govt. in the world 'which unites public strength with idividual security.'" You might recall that our revolution was not against the English constitution but precisely because the colonists were denied the protection of that constitution. What he said was ENTIRELY TRUE at that time.

The constitution did not create a confederacy but a Union. Madison's papers in the Federalist do not indicate anything different and, in fact, he never stated anything other than after states joined the new government they lost forever their right to unilaterally leave. You might want to review his letters to H at the time of the NY CC wherein he told H not to accept conditional ratification for precisely that reason. NONE OF THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN A RIGHT OF SECESSION.

H's discussion points wrt his "plan" are hardly discussed at length and I have never denied that he wanted appointments to be in effect for as long as the recipients lived or desired them OR WITH GOOD BEHAVIOR. Anyone stating he wanted life time appointments with no ability to recall is a Liar.
H's ultimate "plan" was the Constitution of the United States of America. That same plan which the Traitors you defend would destroy.

[nc 242 quoting from B2B] "Trouble is, though our Republican Party definitely is dynamic and compassionate and progressive, conservative it is not."

[GOP 256] Cute, but your're taking this sentence completely out of contect, which is precisely the opposite of you you suggest. Neo-Confederates , for example, define conservative as veneration for Confederate traitors.

Is this enough context to keep you happy?

Back to the Basics, pp. 226-228
To keep us on the right path and reach journey's end, we Republicans must bear in midn the train-blazing careers of Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. Stevens knew that for the emancipated slave, acquiring land of his own was a "sine qua non," meaning "without which, nothing." If Stevens had succeeded in implementing his proposal to provide each slave family with "40 acres and a mule," countless economic problems would never have arisen. If after the war Sumner's agendy for rigorous protection of constitutional rights had been enacted and enforced, the Democrats' political degradation of black Americans might have been prevented. Not taking these crucial first steps cost our nation a century of socialism and suffering.
The free market is voluntary cooperation, with self-interest the goal and societal advancement the result. Ronald Reagan was acutely aware that to preserve the free market society, the drift toward socialism has to be stopped. To seize and hold the policy initiative, we Republicans must charge right at the Democratic Party in a battle of ideas, our best weapon a clear vision of the free market society we are fighting for.
No distinction can be drawn between a free society and a free economy. Consider the numerous civilizations of the past which flowered when central government was unable to tighten its grip on the economy. For evidence of how socialism impedes progress, consider the cultural decline in Communist nations or the relative cultural stagnation of many European countries today.
And now consider the United States -- for Reagan a "shining city on a hill" -- at its most vibrant in areas least controlled by government. No one planned one of our country's greatest contributions to the world, the Internet, or anticipated that it would be responsible for the most magnificent outpouring of prosperity in history. By no accident did the Internet arise here, where government is strong enough to safeguard constitutional rights and foster economic infrastructure yet still weak enough to permit a free people to freely create such an enterprise so spontaneously. As Bill Gates once testified to Congress: "The incredible success of [the high-tech industry] in the United States owes a lot to the light hand of government in the technology area, the fact that people can take incredible risks and if thy're successful they can have incredible rewards... Overall, I'd say the light hand is working very well."
A century ago, economic transformation produced monopolies and other market failures for which the Progressive movement sought to compensate. Government action, particularly during the Theodore Roosevelt and Taft presidencies, was intended to promote the free market society, and o was progressive. But now, a century later, as the economy undergoes another transformation, decentralizing power and increasing the leverage of consumers at the expense of producers, regulation and other government intervention tend to impexde the free market. Now, for government to get out of the way of this progress is truly progressive. What is not progressive at all is the modern-day drive to extend the reach of government power over the individual. There is nothing democratic or progressive about socialism. Socialists chafe at restrictions imposed by the rule of law lest their planning be disrupted by predetermined rules which apply to everyone. Socialism is an attempt to fend off the future.
Innovation, by definition unforeseen, is a threat to the plans of the self-proclaimed enlightened, and so is the suppressed. Based on what Friedrich Hayek called "a naive and childlike...view of the world," central planning is "a fraud doomed to failure because no planner can possess all the knowledge needed to run a modern economy." Centralization of power in a bureaucracy led by those who profess to know more and care more than anyone else is in fact the old, lamentably commonplace way nations have been governed since civilization began. It is government for the sake of the individual which is new.
We Republicans place ourselves at another disadvantage in the battle of ideas by ripping from socialists a label which describes them so well. Opponents of progress are those who want to conserve the age-old rule of the few over the many and the cultural stagnation this entails. Socialists are the true conservatives. Republicans try without success to affix this conservative label properly to our Party, using as adhesive such adjectives as "dynamic" or "compassionate" or "progressive." Trouble is, though our Republican Party definitely is dynamic and compassionate and progressive, conservative it is not.

No it isn't getting out of hand when I have had to correct statement after statement which are based on incomplete statements of H, statements either distorted or entirely false. I have no problem discussing mistakes or failures in his programs or ideas but it is annoying to have the Classics Comics versions thrown up time after time by those who know they are false. And it is a waste of my time. Honest criticism after actually reading what the man said or what experts on H (pro or anti) say. Not some warmed over Jeffersonian lies. The form of the American government is very much like the English so he wasn't too far off.

You have never read of "infant industry protection?" Read more.

Perhaps you are unaware that H's program and call for government intervention was specifically to repair an economy deliberately distorted by the Crown's colonial policies which did not allow the growth of industry. He had no wish for government intervention after that distortion was corrected.

Since H's program lead directly to the dynamic and explosive growth of the modern American economy I would suggest that your 1+1=5 analogy is entirely inappropriate. Although if Lincoln disagreed I am sure GOPcrapitalist would be there to provide reams of illogical, distorted and false support for your argument.

Stick to my comments and don't try and saddle me with your caricatures and false statements.
1 Government can certainly assist the creation of wealth and has;
2 I suggest reading any of my posts and show me where I have supported protectionism rather than argue against tariffs. What is it that provokes you and the others to LIE about what I have said when all can see it is false?
3 Don't confuse my opinion of the D.S. brigade with "people" in general. While some D.S.s appear to be too stupid to understand much of anything others are just mendacious cranks who try and distort, or lie about things.
4 "People require coersion to be productive." ? Rave on son it is getting funnier by the minute. That was the SLAVERS view of labor not the Ur-capitalist, Alexander Hamilton, or mine.
5 None of the founders, including the H-man, wanted "an all powerful fedgov." Cartoonish distortions and grotesque caricatures don't make it true.
6 There was nothing Jeffersonian in the Constitution. How did you come up with THAT howler. He was in Paris and Madison was as Federalist as Hamilton at that time.

"Ralfing" on the keyboard would be an improvement over what you are currently typing.

THE CONSTITUTION ON SLAVERY

Article 1, Section 2. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1, Section. 9, Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article 5. ... Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Now the traitors who tried to destroy the United States are actually "defenders" of IT. Ludicrously laughable stuff.

I only call traitors those who meet the constitutional definition of Traitor - those who are "levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid, and comfort." I have never called any of the D.S.'s around here traitors. "Thinking" is irrelevent to Treason, only the definition of the constitution is relevent.

The constitution never provided for a fugitive slave law and none were enacted for half a century or more that I recall. The section you reference does not speak only of slaves at any rate and is a reaffirmation of the requirements that states provide for extradiction and respect the laws and judicial proceedings of the other states as you mentioned.

Nope, traitors are only those who take up arms against the US. Not people who just flap their gums emitting nonsense by the bale.

Dissenters are welcome to flap their gums about any subject they wish where do you come up with the idea I would put them in concentration camps or kill them? Except from your fevered mind?

In order to restore the beliefs of the Founding Fathers you have to understand them, the D.S. have consistently and repeatedly shown they do not. Twisting those beliefs to attempt to justify the destruction of the Union is a futile, sick and absurd attempt to besmirch those ideals. NOT ONE OF THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN A STATE RIGHT TO SECEDE no matter what you pretend.

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.