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.

[billbears]

Yep you're right. It's the meaning of what 'monarch' really is.....I'm sure there was a Democrat a few years back that parsed words like that...

I know this is going to come as a shock to you sunshine, but if you elect someone for life, what's going to happen? Sooner or later they start playing fast and loose with the document that binds them. Or are you suggesting that some of the landmark decisions that have come from the judicial system as of late really good for us? Inherited or elected, you put someone there for life the only types of people that are going to be drawn to the job are money and power hungry fools. Of course since the destruction of the Republic, the same could be said about a majority of the people that sit in Washington on both sides of the aisle

[GOPcapitalist]

In fact, 200,000 southern blacks

FALSE. There were not even 200,000 black troops in the ENTIRE yankee military, much less from the south. There were about 180,000 black troops in the union ranks. Roughly 50% of them came from the confederacy.

and 100,000 southern whites fought for the United States of America

FALSE. Excluding the border states like Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland that provided large ammounts of troops to both sides, the number of union troops from the south was virtually negligable. Few CSA states had more than a couple thousand and some had barely a dozen.

[GOPcapitalist]

The best contribution by southerners in the 1860s was service by 300,000 of them in the United States Army and Navy to defend the country against rebels.

Unsubstantiated statistic. Try again.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I said nothing about the "meaning" of the term monarch. What words did I parse, I merely asked you some questions about the quotation which you didn't answer.

I know not what country you are part of but the United States of America is still a republic. Hysterical hyperbole to the contrary.

At any rate, the thinking of many of the founders was that a life time appointment removed those appointed from the temptations to do what you fear. They may have been wrong but that is what they thought. Where did I say that I wanted such an appointment or election. I was merely trying to clarify what Hamilton and others thought about it. They also thought that the Court would be ABOVE politics.

Hamilton, of course, feared the rise of the Jeffersonian democrats and THEY are the reason we have court decisions many of us don't agree with. Not that any reasonable man would believe he would agree with every decision of any court. Or that you could predict what a judge would decide on a given case. Of course, that is exactly what the RATS demand from their judges but those who care about integrity and such old fashioned things would never make such a demand.

[GOPcapitalist]

Conservatives who do not firmly support Republican candidates thereby contribute to Democrat victories, and so are the real RINOs.

And exactly what is the difference between electing a Republican and a Democrat if the Republican is a Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Jim Kolbe or other such disreputable individual? They are one in the same with your average Democrat as they are all liberals.

[mac_truck]

Last time I checked, Spector and Kolbe were not fillibustering GWBs judicial nominations, UNLIKE Mary Landrieu.

Thanks Dixie!

[Carry_Okie]

You can not point to one word of a Hamilton argument for a monarch.

Perhaps not a hereditary monarchy, but he did propose presidency for life, although some argue that it was a strawman.

[Who is John Galt?]

Hamilton never argued for a BIG government centralized or no. He did want a government capable of national defense and national development. You can not point to one word of a Hamilton argument for a monarch. Discussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention don't count. Show me where Hamilton argued for a monarch.

Mr. Hamilton’s ‘plan of government’ speaks for itself:

A Federal judiciary, serving for life;

A Federal executive, serving for life;

A Federal senate, serving for life;

And an absolute Federal veto over every State law.

It’s really quite amusing: what could have been Mr. Hamilton’s greatest contribution to the republic, a ‘plan of government,’ is something the ‘Hamilton groupies’ tend to avoid like the plague. Given the nature of his proposal - and its absolute and utter rejection by the constitutional convention - that’s certainly not a big surprise...

Love of fantasies overrides concern with the truth.

That would seem to describe your apparent preference for a central government bureaucracy ‘serving for life’...

Hamilton pushed for a strong government and one of the ways he achieved it was to propose one even stronger than what he knew would be acceptable. Like a negoitiator asking for a pay raise far higher than he knew he could get.

Care to provide a few quotes from Mr. Hamilton that might substantiate your claims? “Discussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention don't count”...

Government land to citizens and even non citizens was older than the Republican party.

Absolutely correct: in an effort to promote a Federal union, the State of Virginia donated land (that extended as far as the future State of Minnesota) to the common Federal government, on the condition that the land be granted to veterans of the War of Secession from Britain...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

Hamilton, of course, feared the rise of the Jeffersonian democrats and THEY are the reason we have court decisions many of us don't agree with

"Court decisions" like those enforcing the Alien & Sedition Acts?

;>)

By the way, Mr. Jefferson and his philosophical brothers referred to themselves as "republicans"...

;>)

[thatdewd]

...and the opportunity to make any necessary corrections to the factual inaccuracies it may contain.

Doing so would no doubt double its length...

[Who is John Galt?]

The treasonous tendencies within the Democratic Party did not begin recently but go back to the Civil War, making neo-Confederates calling themselves Republicans and patriots such a joke.

Certainly you are aware of the simple fact that the parties have changed ‘just a bit’ over the course of the last century and a half? Hmm? As for “treasonous tendencies,” perhaps you would care to quote the specific clause of the Constitution that prohibits secession. When you can’t locate that clause, perhaps you can find time to read the Tenth Amendment.

People who ignore the Constitution, but insist on “calling themselves Republicans and patriots [are] such a joke”...

The best contribution by southerners in the 1860s was service by 300,000 of them in the United States Army and Navy to defend the country against rebels. I honor all Americans who fought for the United States of America and criticize all Americans who fought against it.

I thought those who served in the “Army and Navy” swore oaths to defend the Constitution, not “the country.” Am I incorrect? I “honor all Americans who fought for” their Constitutional rights...

;>)

Every Confederate rebel was a Democrat.

I invite you to prove it. Have fun – we certainly will, while watching you!

;>)

Republicans veneratiing Democrat-rebels of the Confederacy causes immense harm to the Grand Old Party.

In fact, “Republicans veneratiing” the ideals of Confederate constitutionalists are one of the only forces preventing the Republican Party from becoming an exact duplicate of our current Democrat party. As one non-revisionist author recently noted:

"...(I)t is misleading to date the tradition of American liberty from the late 1780s, since the Constitution of the United States was in fact only the culmination of generations of practical self-government on the part of Americans. At the time of the framing of the Constitution and the formation of an allegedly "more perfect union," the colonists had precedents for challenging the powers of a confederation, as in the case of the Confederation of New England, for rejecting a confederation, as in the case of the Albany Plan of Union, and for bringing down a confederation by force, as in the case of the Dominion of New England. It can hardly be surprising, therefore, to learn that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, three states [Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island] in acceding to the new confederation, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union at such time as it should become oppressive. In so doing they were only exercising the vigilance and libertarian principle that had animated the American experience during the colonial period.

"Thus when a union of polities becomes an end in itself, as it has in the minds of some since the days of Daniel Webster but certainly since Abraham Lincoln's revolution, the repudiation and indeed perversion of the colonial ideal is complete. Yet today, even self-proclaimed conservatives, whom one might expect to be engaged in preserving their country's tradition of liberty, cavalierly decry attachment to the principles embodied in the Confederate flag as "treason," even though the value of self-government vindicated by the South had been insisted upon since colonial times. The real traitors, however, are not the Confederates, but those who betray the real American tradition of independence and self-government in favor of the principle of unlimited submission to central authority. This is what the colonial period has to teach us."

;>)

[mac_truck]

People who ignore the Constitution, but insist on “calling themselves Republicans and patriots [are] such a joke”...

Southerners who ignore their centurys old Democrat heritage and insist on calling themselves the loyal base of the Republican party are pretty funny also...

[Grand Old Partisan]

Exactly! The Democrat/Conferates of the 1860s have their apologists in the neo-Confederates disguising themselves as Republicans.

[Grand Old Partisan]

You claim to be an expert on precisely how many black troops were in the United States Army and Navy during the Civil War yet give credence to absurdities such as black rebel soldiers. Further, while you count white rebels from the non-CSA states in the Confederate ranks as southerners, you do not count blacks from non-CSA southerner states in the Unions ranks.

To gain some credibility on this subject, read Lincoln's Loyalists by Richard N. Current.

[Grand Old Partisan]

There were 40,000 white Tenneseans in the U.S. Army during the Civil War -- hardly a negigible number.

[Who is John Galt?]

Southerners who ignore their centurys old Democrat heritage and insist on calling themselves the loyal base of the Republican party are pretty funny also...

LOL!

1) I'm not a "Southerner."

2) "(C)enturys old Democrat heritage?" Do you honestly believe the parties have not changed in the last century and a half?

3) By all means tell us - who would be in the White House right now, if not for "Southerners" loyally voting "Republican?"

In other words, to quote John McLaughlin, you're "wrong, wrong, wrong!"
Congratulations!

;>)

[Grand Old Partisan]

Were it not for the votes of moderate Republicans such as Specter and Chafee, Bill Frist would not be Majority Leader.

Your hatred for the Republican Party blinds to reality.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The posts in your post are unworthy of response. You too are blinded to reality by your hatred of the Republican Party -- and the United States of America.

[Who is John Galt?]

The posts in your post are unworthy of response. You too are blinded to reality by your hatred of the Republican Party -- and the United States of America.

LOL! You respond to historical fact the way a vampire reacts to holy water...

;>)

[Grand Old Partisan]

Your contending that your statements are holy water is sick.