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.
The triumph of the mob is just as evil a thing as the triumph of the plutocracy, and to have escaped one danger avails nothing whatever if we succumb to the other. In the end the honest man, whether rich or poor, who earns his own living and tries to deal justly by his fellows, has as much to fear from the insincere and unworthy demagog, promising much and performing nothing, or else performing nothing but evil, who would set on the mob to plunder the rich, as from the crafty corruptionist, who, for his own ends, would permit the common people to be exploited by the very wealthy. If we ever let this Government fall into the hands of men of either of these two classes, we shall show ourselves false to America's past. Moreover, the demagog and the corruptionist often work hand in hand. There are at this moment wealthy reactionaries of such obtuse morality that they regard the public servant who prosecutes them when they violate the law, or who seeks to make them bear their proper share of the public burdens, as being even more objectionable than the violent agitator who hounds on the mob to plunder the rich. There is nothing to choose between such a reactionary and such an agitator; fundamentally they are alike in their selfish disregard of the rights of others; and it is natural that they should join in opposition to any movement of which the aim is fearlessly to do exact and even justice to all.
~ Theodore Roosevelt, 6th Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1906
The orders to them are part of the public record from the war, Partisan. I've posted them for you previously and told you exactly where you may find them. Are you seriously trying to argue that they never happened?
Thank you, kind sir. I'll fly it proudly.
Don't tell Thaddeus Stevens. He screamed that they did.
Historical documentation says otherwise:
"The Governor and the Commander-In-Chief relying implicitly upon the free colored population of the city and State, for the protection of their homes, their property and for southern rights, from the pollution of a ruthless invader, and believing that the military organization which existed prior to February 15, 1862, and elicited praise and respect for the patriotic motives which prompted it, should exist for and during the war, calls upon them to maintain their organization and hold themselves prepared for such orders as may be transmitted to them." - Order #426 from Louisiana Adjutant General's Office, headquarters of the Louisiana Militia, to the black Louisiana Native Guards unit, March 24, 1862
Obviously, you are completely unaware of one of the most elementary aspects of representative politics. If you have one vote, and the electorate consists of you and only four other voters, you possess 20% of the voting ‘power.’ (Congratulations! ;>) Unless you are telling us that there are more voters in your State than there are in this federal union, by definition you possess a more powerful voice at the State level than at the federal. Now, if you wish to believe that a federal veto of the expression of your political will at the State level somehow constitutes small government, you are welcome to your delusions.
: ...there is no hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton which speaks for itself other than his actual plan, the constitution of the United States.
LOL! The Constitution that was adopted established a government that bears little semblance to the form of government proposed by Mr. Hamilton. To suggest that our Constitution is Hamilton’s “actual plan” amounts to blatant historical revisionism.
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."
Actually, it is you who are confused. Let’s skip ahead a few lines and see how YOU refer to “[h]is eleven points:”
”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...”
Looks like your “error” – again.
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"
Allow me to refresh your memory:
”THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context...”
You may believe that an executive branch serving for life, a judicial branch serving for life, and half of a legislative branch serving for life, with veto power over all State laws, will not constitute a “central government bureaucracy,” but most rational adults will disagree with you. Alternatively, you are free to suggest that Mr. Hamilton suggested no such form of government.
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.
LOL! I am the one citing the existing records from the convention. You cite nothing but your opinion – which insofar as it contradicts those records is most certainly “useful for spreading false impressions”...
;>)
Thus, it is FALSE that he proposed getting rid of states.
And, where, precisely, did I suggest that Mr. Hamilton “proposed getting rid of states?” Hmm?
In posting his plan of government [thank you for proving my point!] one must realize that much of it was actually adopted...
Actually, little of Hamilton’s plan was adopted. The Constitution established a new federal – not national – government. And only the judiciary serves for life – in case you had not noticed.
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.
That, of course, is why they rejected his plan nearly in toto.
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.
Oh, you betcha...
;>)
...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."
So now you are saying “H” had two plans? How nice. (Oh, and thanks for proving my point yet again... ;>)
My "friends" knowledge of American history I will take over yours anyday.
Of course – your “friends” so called “knowledge” more closely complies with your revisionist viewpoint.
The constitution did not create a confederacy but a Union.
Strange – Mr. Washington referred to the new government, in writing, as a confederacy.
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.
Revisionist hogwash. You are obviously unfamiliar with Mr. Madison’s Virginia Resolutions and Report on the Virginia Resolutions. And his private correspondence indicates that he believed the individual States were free to retire from the union in the face of federal oppression: unless you are suggesting that only the federal government may determine when it is oppressing the States (are you? ;>), that amounts to ‘unilateral’ secession.
NONE OF THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN A RIGHT OF SECESSION.
ROTFLMAO!!! You revisionists are certainly entertaining! Read the Articles of Confederation sometime, my friend: they state, in writing, that unanimous agreement was required to change those articles. Now read the Constitution: it was established between the ratifying States upon the ratification of the ninth – not thirteenth – State. Simply put, the Constitution was established by the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called “perpetual union” established under the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, when the States ratified the Constitution, several explicitly reserved the right of secession. And following the ratification of the Constitution, the most respected legal references of the day (including Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1803) recognized the right of State secession. Jefferson and Madison certainly recognized the right of the individual States to make such determinations. Shall I quote Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of 1825? Either you are ignorant, or you are a complete bullsh!t artist.
Anyone stating he wanted life time appointments with no ability to recall is a Liar.
How nice: a ‘strawman’ argument. I never suggested that his plan included “no ability to recall”...
H's ultimate "plan" was the Constitution of the United States of America.
Really? Let’s see some real documentation: remember, “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention” don’t count...
That same plan which the Traitors you defend would destroy.
LOL! Which specific clause of the Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm? Please be specific. While you are looking, please feel free to explain to us all why the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply.
(One thing I’ve noticed about historical revisionists: they’re amazingly ignorant of the Constitution, and mighty free with the term ‘traitor’... ;>)
Sorry, sport. The President is not elected by the counties - presidential electors are selected by State. Run down to your local library and read the Constitution sometime...
;>)
"Attention volunteers: Resolved by the Committee of Safety that C. Deloach, D.R. Cook and William B. Greenlaw be authorized to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic free men of color, of the city of Memphis, for the service of our common defense. All who have not enrolled their names will call at the office of W.B. Greenlaw and Co."
You mean like those thousands of heroic black Americans that fought in the Revolutionary War under that "slaver" George Washington?
Sadly that is typical for a junk historian like McPherson. A few years ago he published an article on what he said were the "causes" of the civil war. In it he presented a picture suggesting that the north was dominated by abolitionists who sought to end slavery from the get go. While writing about the abolitionists and in the midst of commentaries on what he explicitly identifies by name as abolitionism he begins quoting Lincoln as if they were one in the same then reverts to further commentary on abolitionism. From what I have seen and read this is characteristic of many of his books.
Whatever Bennett's flaws may be, for McPherson to accuse another of selectivity in reviewing evidence is an outrageous hypocrisy. If you want to see a textbook example of an historian employing intentionally selective evidence look no further than McPherson's so-called analysis of the southern economy in Battle Cry of Freedom.
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.