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.
(yawn) I made it clear many many posts ago what I meant by the term, and what my useage of it was. Since you're ranting falsehoods have been disproven over and over, you now have nothing to fall back on except word games. Typical.
(hyperboles ad nauseum)...Hamilton even wrote "Washington's Farewell Address", a dire warning of the evils of secession.
BS. Another falsehood of Hamiltonian zealots. James Madison wrote the farewell address for Washington at the end of his first term, before he agreed to a second. After the second term ended, Washington asked Hamilton to look it over and update it (since by this time Madison had drifted apart somewhat from Washington due to Hamilton's game-playing). Hamilton did, after which Washington revised many of Hamilton's revisions. I bet you didn't even know that. Hamiltonian authors always leave out little "details" like that.
Only Lafayette compared with Hamilton in Washington's love, esteem and respect. Anyone who knows anything of either man knows that.
You mean anyone who has read the same slanted books as you knows that. James Madison was way ahead of Hamilton in the 'love' department until just the last few years.
In Hamilton's original idea of a consolidated national government the States would have been nothing more than administrative regions, not sovereign States that were members of a Federal compact. After 'nationalist' or 'consolidationist' plans like his were rejected, he supported the 'Federal' plan. But you already know this, it's been posted to you complete with hamilton's own explanations many times.
Madison NEVER considered the federal Union as "the States' agent" and carefully constructed the constitution to prevent that from ever happening...
LOL. With all due respect, you're becoming a caricature of your own caricature as you go in circles with your rant.
That is why state legislatures were not allowed to ratify the Constitution which WAS/IS the agent of the American People.
The legislatures were not to be the ratifiers because that would have made ratification a legislative decision. Here is what Madison said regarding the process of ratification:
"It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no other wise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves." - James Madison, Federalist Papers # 39
That's why conventions were called and delegates chosen for the purpose.
While the powers granted the Union are limited they are still vast and the constitution was designed to limit the powers of the STATES primarily by increasing the powers of the federal government.
The federal government ONLY had power in regards to the few powers that were granted to it in limited areas. It was not to act outside those areas.
WHY ELSE WOULD THE ANTIS OPPOSE IT?
If you'd bother to read the essays you wouldn't have to ask that question, nor would you repeatedly display such a shocking lack of knowledge regarding Constitutional principles and the Founding Fathers. To answer your question, some of them didn't really want a central government of any kind, and some of them were afraid that if even a small and limited one were created, deceitful and evil men would miscontrue it until it grew into a leviathon of empirical oppression.
Inability to understand negoitiating and compromising prevents you from understanding what happened at the convention.
LOL. I really don't think you should be the one to discuss anyone else's lack of understanding regarding the convention. This thread is a testimony to your ignorance.
Hopefully, you won't have to negoitiate anything with one knowledgeable in such things or you will be left standing saying "How did I lose my pants?"
I seem to have an extra pair here...I wonder who's they were...
LOL, you knew what I meant by the term, you just have no recourse now but to dance in circles with your word games, pants-less I might add.
Washington had little use for the author [Madison] after he and Jefferson went on a sabotage course against the Washington Administration.
LOL, I just love it when you snap and spew crap like that...
...I know you don't really care, but I will respond to the rest of your inane blathering in a few days. Right now I have to go catch a plane and will be 'out of pocket' until Monday.
ROTFLMAO! How true! (Although it could also be a testimony to our friend's willful, pig-headed, historical-revisionist blindness - as your 'Black Knight' post suggested... ;>)
I'm 3 for 3 ;o)
Hamilton was that brilliant everyone admitted it even those who hated his guts.
I'd agree with that part.
However, he was NOT a monarchist no matter who tells that LIE.
His words say otherwise. I guess he was the liar.
He did believe in a permanent National Interest and hoped that role would be served by the Senate.
I'll give you half credit. He advocated that the President serve for Life after election. Can you imagine X42 serving for another 50 years?
Plus, all debate at the convention was explicitly to be kept secret so ideas presented there could not be used against their expositors.
Which would mean that they could honestly state their opinion, not be a politician and speak with forked tongue.
He changed his mind about the utility of States though never wished them to be too strong.
"He played a surprisingly small part in the debates, apparently because he was frequently absent on legal business, his extreme nationalism put him at odds with most of the delegates, and he was frustrated by the conservative views of his two fellow delegates from New York [John Lansing, Jr and Robert Yates]", and "Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison." National Archives and Records Administration
And that is a load of nonsense. When the entirity of Washington's career is considered, the list of persons that was probably closest to comes down to those who were also essentially his "nextdoor" neighbors. This category would generally include other well known planters such as George Mason, but his friendship with the longest duration on good terms was probably that with his comparatively obscure neighbor Bryan Fairfax.
Fairfax and Washington remained friends for decades. This friendship held firm even under its strongest test - the revolution. Fairfax was a loyalist out of conscience when Washington was leader of the revolutionaries, yet even that did not stop Washington from using his influence to protect Fairfax from persecution by others on the American side. They remained close friends until Washington's death in 1799. Fairfax was by then a clergyman and it was in him that Washington regularly confided his most personal thoughts. A few months before his death he wrote this famous passage in a private letter to Fairfax:
"The favorable sentiments which others, you say, have been pleased to express respecting me, cannot but be pleasing to a mind who always walked on a straight line, and endeavored as far as human frailties, and perhaps strong passions, would enable him, to discharge the relative duties to his Maker and fellow-men, without seeking any indirect or left handed attempts to acquire popularity."
That too is a falsehood. In their own day Richard Henry Lee's Federal Farmer essays recieved a far wider circulation and following than any of their federalist counterparts. That fact is noted by no less a source than Forrest McDonald, who edited the modern edition of the Federal Farmer essays. Only after the debate did they ever fall into neglect if for no other reason than that they were on the side that was opposite of ratification.
Also among the most far-sighted convention-era writings were the anti-federalist letters entitled Genuine Information by Luther Martin. Martin was one of the most brilliant delegates at the constitutional convention, though also one the most eccentric and inflamatory. The Genuine Information letters are extremely far-sighted in scope - well beyond the Federalist Papers ever went. They include one of the strongest attacks upon slavery of any founding father and theorize about a trend of growth and centralization in the national government. They also foresee, in detail greater than any other writer at the time, the civil war and how it will be played out politically. Martin predicted that a time would come when the national government would become engaged in a great war with some of the member states, during which those states would draw recourse in the sword and the revolution. In one of his letters he proposed a means of mitigating this possibility in the constitution by establishing a legal mechanism by which any conflict would be conducted, then warned that its absence would be nothing less than a bloody mess. Unfortunately his words were not heeded and a bloody mess is exactly what the country got in 1861.
Yes. Exactly. The New York delegation was constantly divided in the convention and ratification. Hamilton penned several of the now famous federalist essays, but chief among his anti-federalist opponents was his fellow NY delegate Robert Yates, author of the Brutus papers. Yates and the other anti-federalists took a strong states position throughout that debate with Hamilton's significantly more nationalist position countering it.
Aside from the periods of his presidency when he was in Washington, there simply is not strong evidence to support that. Washington's most regular contacts were his frequent guests at Mount Vernon. Those were typically his next door neighbors. Up until around 1790 when they had a political fallout that included George Mason. But the longest and most continuous was, as I noted previously, Bryan Fairfax. Fairfax and Washington were close friends and confidants for practically 40 years. They corresponded regularly and visited each other from roughly 1760 to 1799, with the last being only a few days before Washington died. At various points well within this period Washington did have frequent contact and correspondence with Hamilton in a largely political capacity. But that friendship cannot be said to surpass the other in closeness, duration, or continuation under even the most strained loyalties.
I would doubt if Washington exchanged more letters with any man than Hamilton and vice versa.
This is doubtful. A quick search of the Washington papers reveals that the two corresponded regularly from the mid 1760's until Washington's death. The earliest is dated 1754 and the latest only a few days before Washington died. This also includes several dozen letters on average for the later years of his life and maxes out the LOC's search engine, which only pulls up to 100 documents. A search for Hamilton reveals a large number of letters between 1795 and 1799 with several dozen a year, but very little before the mid 1780's and absolutely nothing before a few military correspondences in the revolution. At that time Fairfax and Washington had been writing each other regularly for almost 20 years.
Well boo hoo hoo then. That still doesn't change Yates' prominent role as an anti-federalist author.
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.