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.

[thatdewd]

Horace Greeley and Frederick Douglass were misinformed. Show me one instance, among the tens of thousands of rebel prisoners in Union camps, of a black rebel POW.

"...among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers..." - New York Herald, July 11, 1863

[thatdewd]

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.

I made the post from memory, and have no doubt erred in either the specific battle or the name of the observer. As soon as I get a couple of my books back from a friend, I shall correct whichever mistake I have made.

[thatdewd]

They are not interested in the truth, they must blindly refuse to acknowledge the facts that blacks served inthe armies and navies of the states and CSA.

Their own heroes testify to that fact, and yet they still deny it. It seems they will do anything to deny the historical contributions of black Americans which do not serve their idolatrous purposes or fit their revisionist agenda.

[thatdewd]

An excellent series of articles, and I thank you for the links!

[billbears]

Speaking of the Constitutional monarchy, Hamilton was correct that that was at the time the best model for government, but as he made clear, he did not intend for a monarchy per se here in the US

And exactly why couldn't he? Could it be perhaps the people of the respective states may have been a little gunshy of the term considering they had just fought for independence less than two decades before from a monarchy? Much better to name the king a 'governor' and establish the exact same sort of government Britain had eh? But heck read the notes of the speech again from Madison. It's quite evident he felt that a federal republic was wrong and that some form of a monarchy must be established. And if Hamilton did not truly want this type of government why then did he leave the Convention as a scolded child? Only to return later still upset because his fellow New Yorkers continually outvoted him?

I know more about exactly what type of malcontent you actually must be. Dumping on Hamilton AND Lincoln?

Well I know it's an easy target. Considering neither could care about the bounds of the Constitution and instead chose to push for implementation of what they 'thought' was best for this nation of separate and sovereign states

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[4CJ]

thatdewd,

He I put you in the list, and I was replying to you. DOH! I left of lentulusgracchus, who kicks the dims butt regularly. A most eloquent defender that the dims have failed to refute.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I posted the definition from an economics dictionary but, like most objective definitions, it does not fit with your subjective and distorted view so you ignore it. The short definition (of my devising) is the essence of the theory and is sufficient to show that your claim about Hamilton's policy is false.

There is no "pure and defined form" of capitalism. I also posted the definition for that term which, of course, you also ignore as you do all other inconvenient facts. You can't quite grasp the fact that economics is always controlled by politics. Always was and always will be. It is unavoidable.

There is no "capitalist state" the two elements of that term are incompatible. Now it is obviously true that a government can impact an economy negatively as well as positively. Hamilton knew how to do it positively and his policies were directly responsible for the nation's explosive growth. Capitalism's greatest economy grew with his assistance only to find the deceitful, and mendacious attacking him for being insufficiently capitalist. What a joke.

Revenue tariffs were exactly what Hamilton proposed.

"Capitalist-leaning" states are all we have. It will be a cold day in hell before I pretend that reality is best disposed of and we should follow the obscure theories of GOPcrapitalist who devotes and inordinate amount of time supported the greatest attack on capitalism ever to be launched prior to 1917.

Facts are not fallacies.

Uh, definitions are by nature short. And I will not accept nay-sayers nebulous, non-definitions versus the actual experience of capitalist societies.

Hamilton's tariffs were, in the main, revenue tariffs not protective. It is also false to claim his Reports were proposals. He outlined options and the results of the various options for Congress to consider. Such realities are, of course, ignored by you in your mendacious attempt to distort but are still true. Much like your pretense he called for a King at the CC when even Madison's notes show that such a statement is a Lie.

Keynes was pretty such a classical economist attempting to explain failures in the theory brought to light by the Depression. While it is certainly hard to go wrong admiring what you loathe, I have no affinity to Keynes other than admiring his literary style. He was a great writer. Unlike most of his critics on FR I have ACTUALLY READ some of his works, including his landmark book. But I would never suggest you weigh down your collection of lies, distortions and misinformation with actual knowledge, you are much too valuable as a bad example.

Keynes, like all world-class economists, did a lot of work for governments (do you condemn Ricardo, Mill, Fisher, and Marshall for similiar activity?) some of which were accepted and some of which, such as that wrt to the WWI Peace, were ignored much to the detriment of the world. It is too bad the governments did not listen to his advice given in The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Millions of lives may well have been saved. His other advice was not new and had been implemented many times prior to his stating it.

LIke most of your comments those about FDR are caricatures with little real relation to reality. I would be stunned if they were otherwise.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't know if it was since there is no power delegated to Congress which would indicate it was constitutional. However, I have not done much thinking about that one

It is certainly hard to conclude it was using the logic which opposes most of the expansion of federal power. There was no consitutional means of upholding it with federal power that I see.

[x]

"All the world is becoming commercial. Was it practicable to keep our new empire separated from them we might indulge ourselves in speculating whether commerce contributes to the happiness of mankind. But we cannot separate ourselves from them." -- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784.

"I am persuaded no Constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1809.

"A Republic, not an Empire" is a 20th century slogan. A confusion about the meanings of "empire" is involved. On the one hand, an empire is a monarchy -- or even perhaps a tyranny -- under the rule of an emperor. On the other hand, a large realm of extended territories or agglomerated peoples is an empire, though it might have a republican form of government. Athens had an empire when it was a democracy. Rome became an empire when it was still a Republic.

The Founders were more honest -- or at least better informed about the meaning of the word "empire" -- than we are. They certainly prefered republics to monarchies or empires, and even fought an empire, but they grew up under it. They knew an empire when they saw one, and a vast country stretching from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, the Rockies or the Pacific was an empire. It was hard to avoid that fact. From the beginning, we were to be a republic, but in so far as our country extended to the Mississippi and was larger than any European state, save Russia, we were an empire -- or we had an empire west of Appalachians to settle and make our own.

Later generations had been brought up on the idea that because we fought an empire we couldn't be one. The idea of empire had also changed, too. It came to mean "overseas possessions," or "global involvements," rather than "extensive territory" or "aggregate of peoples and territories."

[justshutupandtakeit]

Such a belief would be lost in the hurricane of falsehood and distortion which surrounds most of your comments. Once again it would prove that "the exception proves the rule."

[justshutupandtakeit]

So you are still smarting because Gore is not president?

I pray that Bush will receive such a tiny victory as Lincoln did.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I understood the controversy well enough to understand that you tried to distort the point by pointing to Copperheads and other near-traitors as somehow being comparable to the hundreds of thousands of Southerners who did not join the Traitors attempting to destroy the Union.

Who would try to deny that there were large numbers of DemocRAT quasi-Traitors in the North. Like in the Revolution only a minority was on the side of Righteousness.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Rhode Island was the only state which formed a Black regiment in the Revolution but don't let that statement keep you from using the D.S. distortion method. Each such distortion, when it is clear that what I said was different, just points out that obvious fact that the D.S. arsenal is limited to Lies, distortions and misinformation. Only a devotee of D.S. distortion would equate specifying a actual regiment with meaning "blacks only fought for Rhode Island..."

Why don't we have Greeley and Douglas (if they actually spoke those words at all )argue with the leaders of the Confederate government over the issue of Black troops since they persistently refused such aid even as late as 1864?

If they really did say such things, I imagine they were attempting to push Lincoln into recruiting Black soldiers for the United States and know neither their source of information nor their motivation in making such comments. It is clear that the vast majority of Blacks within the Slavers' armies were not soldiers and that any real soldiers were tiny in numbers compared to the 100,000s who really fought for the United States.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Uh, "People of the United States" are NOT states. Only one in love with distortion would pretend that they are. Not that your quote matters anyway since no conditions were accepted by Congress. There WERE NO CONDITIONAL RATIFICATIONS. Conventions had one question to answer with Yes or No. No "Maybe", no "Yes, but" Only "yes" or "no"

Uh, Madison's quote merely recognized that the states were not going to be FORCED into the new government as R.I. and N.C. were not. It is in no way an acceptance of Secession from the newly created Union. Only one wishing to distort the reality of the issue would pretend otherwise.

Madison NEVER stated that any state had the right to withdraw after joining the new government and everything in the constitution argues against such a claim.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Was there something you disagreed with?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton's Reports were a series of writings listing options for Congress to consider. They weren't proposals or wish lists but objective analysis rarely reached in Western economic thought. Masterpieces in fact.

Your claim of the protectionist nature of H.'s tariff is not supported by the evidence which clearly demonstrates they were Revenue tariffs.

The key to a legal system is comprehensive effect which the constitution attempted to lay the basis for. Foreign investment for example was viable after that since the investors understood that they would no longer be subject to state confiscation and seizure of their assets/investments to please the mob.

The history of the gold standard is more a study of exception than of a consistent application. It never worked very well after economies began to rise above poverty level. No country was able to stay on one for very long because of its limitations on economic growth and financing wars. Nor did it ever function in real capitalism when GS existed in its purest form, under mercantilism when the economies could best be described as petty capitalism in a feudal world. Certainly the only states which could be considered "capitalistic" in any modern understanding of the word would be England, Holland and the Italian city's to some extent.

As soon as any capitalist elements came into being the gold standard was shown to be incapable of financing the modernizing economies. Capitalism is impossible without credit instruments. They are, in fact, the creations of capitalism. Economies without credit are backward, poor and inefficient as even a slight glance at economic history would have shown you. But the primative and incoherent view of finance illustrated by the Jeffersonians/slavers and their modern day apologists is at least consistent.

So you claim that an argument that men can't fly by flapping their arms because no one has ever seen one doing so is inappropriate? Ad Popularum, my ssa.

There is no way to "prove" a prediction. The growth of a monetary medium (and its debt component) has been evolutionary and organic driven by the growth of capitalism itself. It will never go the other way because it CANNOT go the other way without a collapse of capitalism itself since the monetary policies and mechanisms underlie capitalism itself. Debt creates capital. Capital creates capitalism.

So you don't believe in dictionaries, so what, but the claim the one I quoted was anonymous is false, I said it was Barnes and Noble Dictionary of Economics in an earlier post knowing I would get this sort of dumbass quibble from you. Those definitions which I posted, except for the short one for mercantilism, are direct quotes from that dictionary. Disagree with them, I don't really care, but they support my statements totally. Find another dictionary I only had the one available. One part of your quibble is correct, though, I " have demonstrated no absence of knowledge as to the nature of mercantilism..."

Never have I claimed the Union is anything but the 50 states (or the appropriate contemporaneous number) which compose it. In 1804 the newly acquired Louisiana territory was not IN the Union it was OWNED by the Union. The rest of the comment is too uninteresting for me to consider further.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Well, FDR didn't intern the Chinese did he? So he liked some Asians.

Just showed the limited choices available from the DemocRATic Party.

LBJ's actions spoke louder than his words just like Jefferson Davis whom I doubt ever called Black folks "nig**rs."

[thatdewd]

Rhode Island was the only state which formed a Black regiment in the Revolution but don't let that statement keep you from using the D.S. distortion method.

LOL, it was you who distorted the issue. The issue was blacks who fought in the Revolution, and you distorted that to be limited to segregated-only units, thus denying the integrated participation that was far more common. You tried to erase the honor and glory of thousands of black Americans just so you could make a point. They fought for the Colonies, they fought for the Original Principles, and they refused British offers of immediate emancipation to do so.

Why don't we have Greeley and Douglas (if they actually spoke those words at all) argue with the leaders of the Confederate government over the issue of Black troops since they persistently refused such aid even as late as 1864?

They did indeed speak those words, it is an undisputed (except by you) and well documented fact of history. The disputes in regards to Confederate legislation to which you refer were over the raising of segregated units at a national level, in lieu of the integrated participation which had previously occurred under individual State Ordinances, such as that of Tennessee (see post 235 ) and individual commander's discretion. Once again you can only conceive of the issue in terms of segregated units. That is very telling. The integrated participation of blacks in the Confederate Army is testified to by Northern Republicans and Union Army veterans. No one is saying it wasn't a racist society, this was America in the 19th century. America, North and South, was racist. Some northern states (such as Lincoln's Illinois) had such strict black laws that it was almost impossible for a black to live there, let alone merely pass through, something that is ignored by propagandists and revisionists.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those points were extensively discussed by the Founders. I have little to add to that discussion. Dilemna is a part of reality.

I have said little of TJ, JM and have SOME sympathy for both but certainly prefer both of them prior to 1790 than after. Their roles before that break point were totally positive (well maybe not Jefferson) and after that mostly negative. Lee I have not discussed at all. Reagan is a hero of mine and fortunately (unlike J) did not allow anti-"Big Gov) ideology to prevent him from growing that government big enough to destroy America's greatest enemy.

If you actually read the 11 points of his "plan" you would note that much of it was incorporated into the constitution. In fact, much of his other writings from as early as 1780 had elements which wound up in the constitution. Virginia's plan was compromised with other elements including some shared by Hamilton's.