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.
[takeit]: I don't know if it was since there is no power delegated to Congress which would indicate it was constitutional.
Lincoln considered it constitutional. I knew that from an 1860 Sam Houston letter I posted on another thread. However, I've just this afternoon discovered on the web two different versions of Lincoln's words proclaiming it constitutional.
The difference concerns the use of the n word. One version might be a PC version cleaned up by Lincoln supporters -- or perhaps the n word was stuck in the other version by hackers.
From Bartleby.com's Great Books On Line (n word version) here is a piece from the October 15th, 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates (Alton, IL):
I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law,—that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge’s language, it is a “barren right” which needs legislation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it,—and that not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for running and catching ni****s,—at least, I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it.
Essentially the same words but with "ni****s" replaced with "negroes" can be found at this Lincoln Library site: negro version
I suspect the latter is correct since Lincoln uses the word "negroes" throughout the speech except for the spot quoted above.
Actually they are, when considered in the proper context in which the statement was made. That statement was made by an individual State referring to the fact that the people of the individual States could reassume the powers the individual States ceded to the Union. It was pointing out that the Union was only binding in terms of the voluntary participation of the people of each State. Context, context, context. I also see you are attempting to distort the issue by ignoring the "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." clauses listed by multiple States as part of their ratifications.
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"
Wrong again. The fact that Congress accepted those conditions as part of the 'yes' means that they were an understood and recognised part of the bargain, otherwise it would have been a fraudulent contract, and non-binding to begin with.
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.
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act" - James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
Then why was Robert Lee saying as late as January 1865 how he would have preferred to fight with a white army? Especially if his command had been integrated for some time.
His 1791 Report on Manufactures was a list of policy advocacy and proposals that he believed the country should adopt. No ammount of equivocation will get you around that fact.
They weren't proposals or wish lists but objective analysis rarely reached in Western economic thought.
From the Report on Manufactures:
"A full view having now been taken of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the United States, accompanied with an examination of the principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition, it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification of the objects, which, in the present state of things, appear the most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures which it may be advisable to adopt, in respect to each. In order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those which have been employed with success in other countries. The principal of these are:
1. Protecting duties -- or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged...
2. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to prohibitions...
3. Prohibitions of the exportation of the Materials of Manufactures...
4. Pecuniary bounties...
5. Premiums...
6. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty...
7. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures...
8. The encouragement of new intentions and discoveries at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly, those which relate to machinery...
9. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities...
10. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place...
11. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities...
...In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals; but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry? All which is humbly submitted. ALEXANDER HAMILTON"
Looks like both a proposal AND a wish list to me!
Your claim of the protectionist nature of H.'s tariff is not supported by the evidence which clearly demonstrates they were Revenue tariffs.
"1. Protecting duties:
Protecting duties--or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones, intended to be encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics since by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt upon; as it is not only a clear result from the numerous topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has the additional recommendation of being a resource of reevenue. Indeed all the duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in contemplation, and except where they fall on raw materials wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufactures of the country." - Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, 1791
Looks protectionist to me. In fact, Hamilton himself even calls them that.
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.
Wrong. It only became a problem when governments intervened to try and manage it for political purposes other than the free market. Besides, you neglect the true issue at hand which is not the gold standard but rather the use of intrinsically valued currencies, among which gold is a well known one, as a medium of exchange.
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.
Not so. Many of the countries you describe are for all practical purposes welfare states with some existant but by no means dominant capitalist inclinations.
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?
Considering that man's inability to flap his arms and fly derives from the limitations of that same man's physical characteristics and abilities rather than the numerical list of failures that merely evidence those limitations, yes. Your argument is not logically sound. It arrives at a correct conclusion as can indeed happen from time to time even with logically flawed argumentative constructs. But the reasoning you used to get there is not in itself a causal agent of why man cannot flap his arms and fly.
There is no way to "prove" a prediction.
Correct you are, and for that reason you should take care to identify your predictions as predictions rather than as facts.
So you don't believe in dictionaries
I don't believe that an anonymous and alleged dictionary can provide, in a mere sentence, an explanation of a complex economic theory or ideology against which all else may be weighed. The fact that the defining doctrines of every term you purport to explain with a single dictionary sentence consume volumes upon volumes of complex texts is evidence that I hold this view with reason.
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.
A quick text search of your posting history from today back through July 16th indicates only one use of the term "Barnes and Noble" or any variation thereof. That use is in this post to which I am currently responding. Therefore you could not have stated that it was from the "Barnes and Noble Dictionary of Economics" in any previous post unless it predates July 16th and, in doing so, predates this discussion. Further, a search of Amazon.com's book database reveals zero hits for the title "Barnes and Noble Dictionary of Economics" and variations thereof ("Barnes and Noble's Dictionary of Economics," "Barnes & Noble Dictionary of Economics," "Barnes & Noble's Dictionary of Economics" etc.), nor does that title appear in any of the said forms by way of search on google. Thus I may safely conclude that you either experienced a lapse in memory with regards to a failure in your previous intention to post the source, or you are fibbing.
Those definitions which I posted, except for the short one for mercantilism, are direct quotes from that dictionary.
No book of that title appears anywhere on either amazon or google. Thus your argument is not only a fallacious appeal to authority but an unsourced one at that.
Disagree with them, I don't really care, but they support my statements totally.
Persons who appeal to authority as a substitute for their arguments seldom choose one that does anything other than support their arguments. That is in part indicative of why doing so is considered a fallacy.
As I have indicated previously, I don't know if he ever went into a yankee POW death cam...er...prison. What I do know is that he was among the crew that surrendered off the Shenandoah.
I don't recall ever citing Lerone Bennett's book for anything, nor have I even read the thing. If others have done so take it up with them.
As for why one leftist would trash Lincoln while another defends him, it is indicative of the infighting that emerges periodically within that movement from time to time.
As to which side of the two represents the true heart of lefism, I suppose that is a matter of debate. But for the time being I'll simply note that if any one man in the history of the world deserves the title of great granddaddy of all things leftist in modern political thought it is Karl Marx. No other left wing thinker even comes close to him in influence or stature in the mind of the leftists. And we all know exactly what Karl Marx thought of the man he so affectionately called a fallen martyr and hero of the proletariats, Abe Lincoln.
Hmmm, and back in reply 354 when Grand Old Partisan had asked you for evidence of just one black Confederate POW you went and said that you just had. Oh wait...I forgot...you hadn't specified a black confederate POW held by the UNION. Black confederate POWs held by the British are still black confederate POWs. Son of a gun, got me again didn't you?
Pretty much. And considering that his prisoner status is only incidental to the real issue at hand - the existence of black confederates, which is what Partisan denies - I may further conclude that the entire purpose of your semantics game entails a diversionary ploy away from that issue.
Interesting discovery. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, published in the mid 20th century, includes the n-word version. According to the bibliography in that volume the version they printed is based upon a copy of the speech in Lincoln's papers that had Lincoln's own notes and corrections on it. He did not alter the use of the n-word so it is probably authentic.
" There is no longer any difficult question of jurisdiction in the Federal courts; they have jurisdiction in all possible cases, except such as might redound to the benefit of a ``nigger'' in some way. Seriously, I wish you to prepare, on the question jurisdiction as well as you can; for I fear the later decisions are against us. I understand they have some new Admiralty Books here, but I have not examined them. Yours truly A. LINCOLN" - Lincoln, letter to GP Strong, May 25, 1857
" When my friend, Judge Douglas, came to Chicago, on the 9th of July, this speech having been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an harangue there, in which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing that he had carefully read it; and while he paid no attention to this matter at all, but complimented me as being a ``kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman,'' notwithstanding I had said this; he goes on and eliminates, or draws out, from my speech this tendency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white people to marrying together.... I ask the attention of the people here assembled and elsewhere, to the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. Not going back to the records but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before and makes constantly all over the country---I ask your attention to them. In the first place what is necessary to make the institution national? Not war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder their muskets and with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet march into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our going over there and making war upon them." - Lincoln, first debate w/ Douglas
"Our opinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have the colored population in a State by themselves [In this I agree with him]; but if within the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they should have the right to have their Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to vote for President. With us ``worth makes the man, and want of it the fellow.'' We have seen many a nigger that we thought more of than some white men." - Lincoln, third debate w/ Douglas
"Our opinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have the colored population in a State by themselves [In this I agree with him]; but if within the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they should have the right to have their Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to vote for President. With us ``worth makes the man, and want of it the fellow.'' We have seen many a ``nigger'' that we thought more of than some white men... I think I would go for enslaving the black man, in preference to being enslaved myself. As the learned Judge of a certain Court is said to have decided---``When a ship is wrecked at sea, and two men seize upon one plank which is capable of sustaining but one of them, either of them can rightfully push the other off!'' There is, however, no such controversy here. They say that between the nigger and the crocodile they go for the nigger. The proportion, therefore, is, that as the crocodile to the nigger so is the nigger to the white man." - Lincoln, speech at Hartford, March 5, 1860
...looks as if old Abe was quite fond of the n-word.
No, unlike you Dims, I vote for conservatives. My Presidential vote was for Bush, and before that Dole, Bush I, Reagan etc. You must have mistaken me for Walt or someone else on your side. Interestingly enough, the former impeached-disbarred exPOTUS #42 owns a copy of Lincoln's Cooper Union speech. His hero.
What falsehoods, what distortions? Or do you mean all YOUR distortions - especiall where Hamilton advocates a monarchy, but you insist he really doesn't mean a monarchy?
Conclude what ever the hell you want. I just love watching you explain things away.
No I pointed out that factually, out of the millions of Southerners only at most 300K sided with the Lincoln, while almost half the union states (accounting for close to 10 million), and 97% population of of the Southern states sided with the Confederacy. MILLIONS are far more than hundreds of thousands, unless Hamiltonian math has led you to believe otherwise.
ZZZZttttt!! Wrong. You're no lawyer or student of Constitutional history.
From the Ratification of New York state:
Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration,--We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents [Bouvier 1856 Law Dictionary: [t]his word signifies the writing then actually made and spoken of; as, these presents; know all men by these presents, to all to whom these presents shall come] , assent to and ratify the said Constitution.Rhode Island & Providence Plantations wrote it thusly:
Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned will receive an early and mature consideration, and, conformably to the fifth article of said Constitution, speedily become a part thereof,--We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution
Perhaps those millions who supported peaceful separation were re-issued at 10% of their initial value.
What are you talking about??? This entire thread is a cheerleading episode for seomeone who denegrates those men on a daily basis on FR. He regularly calls anyone opposed to ultimate federal authority in all matters traitors, and I have heard little evidence from this thread that the book is considerably different.
Reagan is a hero of mine
Partisan makes the same claim. Unfortunately, I don't see how Reagan was a big government man.
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
It is telling that you see 'growing our government' as the reason for the defeat of the Soviets. I'm not sure I even want to open that can of worms, although I'm sure you'd be happy to expound on how Roe v. Wade directly led to the fall of the Soviet empire. Heck, with the new dept of Homeland Security and the Texas Homo case, Red China is probably teetering on the brink of collapse now as well.
The discrepency with Jefferson is a non-sequitur. Reagan wasn't trying to rule a post-colonial people who feared big government; probably to the extent we grew up in fear of the soviet menace.
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.
Which sounds like a reversal of your initial statement, wherein the Hamilton plan began, "We the people..."
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.