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.
Looks like a pretty convincing win to me.
What to you make of this quote from Dr. Steiner's report?
"The fact was patent, and rather, interesting when considered in connection with the horror the rebels expressed at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the National defense."
It's not hard to find, it is actually the second sentence following your quote. So if blacks were respected members of the confederate combat arms, if they were fully integrated in the confederate army then why would southern soldiers react with horror at the thought of facing black soldiers in the Union army? One would think that if they were fighting shoulder to shoulder with blacks in their own army then they would consider black Union troops as nothing special. Yet, according to Dr. Steiner, they didn't. Why is that, do you think?
!!!!!!!!!!! HUH!??? From Mr. Z's own hand - an admission that the venerated Republican Party is not "conservative"? </fainting>
Don't forget:
[6] A monarch isn't always a monarch.
[7] Protectionism isn't protectionism... sometimes.
[8] Capitalism is government economic intervention.
Is that what happened? If I can get confirmation of that, I'll call the bank tomorrow about renegotiating my mortgage - then we'll find out what kind of economic genious H was.
Paleoconservatives define conservative as veneration for the Constitution, which the Confederates were abiding by. It was the neo-reconstructionists that abdicated that responsiblity.
BWAHAHAHahahahahaha!!!
It also demonstrates that the heart of Bush country is much further west and further north than some folks around here would like to admit.
"The fact was patent, and rather, interesting when considered in connection with the horror the rebels expressed at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the National defense."
"The fact" that he refers to is that the Confederate Army contained numerous black soldiers "promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde" as he described it in the sentence right before your excerpt. That fact was "patent and rather interesting" because he didn't understand the Confederate's objection to the North using black troops when they were so obviously using them themselves.
One would think that if they were fighting shoulder to shoulder with blacks in their own army then they would consider black Union troops as nothing special. Yet, according to Dr. Steiner, they didn't. Why is that, do you think?
Because it was common perception (mostly due to newspaper accounts) that blacks fighting for the Union were mostly runaway slaves. A contemporary analogy might be the outrage a businessman feels when he finds out the competitor attempting to steal his contract is a disgruntled former employee. The contest becomes personal, and emotions are introduced into the equation. Not a great analogy, but it conveys a semblance of the ideas involved. Black Confederates also felt very strongly about the issue. They also considered runaway slaves that would take up arms against them to be not just enemy soldiers, but traitors to country, home, and family. Consider an event observed and recorded by Arthur Freemantle following the battle of Manassas: A Southern slave with the Army had run off to the union side immediately prior to the battle, and was recaptured following the Confederate victory. Two other black servants were so outraged by his action that they insistently demanded that he be shot or hanged as a traitor. This was before the North's use of black troops. If loyal slaves perceived his action as traitorous because he would offer his labor to the enemy, imagine how they would have felt if he could have taken up arms against them.
Or would a more accurate explanation be that those blacks seen with the confederate army were only there in a supporting role? That they were servants and teamsters and laborers, roles that they traditionally played in southern society? And that that the idea of facing armed black men in combat, as equals, was totally foreign to the average confederate soldier and that was what they found horrifying?
Oh, and by the way. Arthur Fremantle arrived in the confederacy in April 1863 and left in July. He couldn't have witnessed anything before, during, or after either of the Bull Run battles.
[7] Protectionism isn't protectionism... sometimes.
[8] Capitalism is government economic intervention.
Just when my headache was starting to subside.
... the free market society we Republicans won the civil War to preserve...
B2B page 18
Millions would fight, hundreds of thousands would die to settle the question of whether our country was a pact among states (the predominant Democrat view) or a perpetual union created by "We, the people of the United States" (the Republican position).
B2B, page 40
Ha! Right! That's exactly what all these types who praise Hamilton and praise his economics don't understand. They see all the benefit and all the gain to themselves of manipulating money on credit, but none of the costs to anybody else, now and future. A wise man once observed that a public debt is nothing more than a promise by the government that it will rob and plunder other persons at some undisclosed future time for the immediate gain of today.
That's also why states like inflation in the long run - they're perpetual debtors and accordingly seek alleviation from this situation by slowly destroying the value that is intrinsic to what they owe. As a result they can pay back less than what they stole in the first place, even though the numerical ammounts remain the same. Of course they tell us that interest etc. makes up for it to the investor, and indeed it can in the short run. But look long term. In the early 1800's gold was minted into $20 face value coins containing about .95 ounces each and tradeable similarly. The dollar is still the same but try checking an ounce of gold, which retains its value intrinsically over time unlike paper.
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.
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.