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.
So Washington supported partisan politics, neo-mercantilist protectionism, and government spending handouts? Curious.
False. The draft Washington gave Hamilton to work with was the Madison draft that Washington had made additions to. Hamilton made an outline of the ideas it contained (mostly MADISON's), and then worked up his own draft based on those (mostly MADISON's) ideas. Washington had instructed Hamilton that whatever Hamilton wrote must be "predicated upon the Sentiments" contained in the draft he supplied him with, the document that was primarily Madison's. Washington did NOT just go with the Hamilton draft, like many revisionist historians would have you believe. Instead, he took Madison's draft and Hamilton's draft and made his own out of them both. What the Hamiltonian revisionist zealots don't want anyone to know is that the very ideas that Washington restricted Hamilton to working with were MADISON's. Hamilton's draft was limited to Madison's and Washington's ideas. Madison at the first, Madison in the middle, and Madison at the end. Who contributed more to the address? Madison by far. Madison and Washington contributed the ideas, and Hamilton's job was to make it sound pretty.
All experts on the matter (something foreign to you no doubt) agree that the Address is the work of Hamilton with a little tinkering by George.
No, they don't. See above. I would also suggest that you study history, and not historians. A simple review of 'The Papers of George Washington' should correct your mistaken ideas on this subject.
Of course, I am well aware of all the expert discussion of the address's origins and the passing back and forth between H and W.
Yes, there was much passing back and forth between Washington and Hamilton regarding H's draft based on Madison's ideas. Washington amended H's draft over and over and over again before just writing his own based on Madison's original draft and the heavily amended Hamilton draft based on Madison's key ideas.
The entire thrust of the document was changed from Madison's and the warnings against foreign entanglements are directed pointed at the Madison/Jefferson alignment with France.
LOL, that's just BS, see above. BTW, why don't you think the warnings are directed at Hamilton's alignment with Britain, and his desire for the US to declare war on France?
They are also TOTALLY in accord with Hamilton's views of foreign policy.
LOL, you mean like all his clamoring for the US to side with Britain and declare war on France?
The only "apartness" between the two was that H had left the government.
They were not as close at the end as they had been earlier. Hamilton's endless antics and troublemaking fueled the fires of party politics, something anathema to Washington. Hamilton's obviously hateful opinion of the common man was something else Washington was put off by, even more at the end. I'm not saying they weren't still friends, or that Washington stopped dealing with him. I'm only pointing out that they weren't as close at the end as they were earlier. Washington had great faith in H's abilities, but he was more sensitive of Hamilton's many negative attributes later on than he was earlier. After H resigned his post in Washington's administration, he only increased in his destructive activities, until someone shut him up, that is.
Do you just make up stuff out of thin air or is there some deluded quack you depend on for it?
The fact that you consider untwisted and unrevised history to be so devised is the greatest validation my position could ever receive.
Hamilton's preferred ideas regarding an empirical central government are and were no secret. Your revisionist attempts to make it seem otherwise cannot erase history. After realising that no such plan would ever, ever succeed at the convention, he supported the proposed federal form of government. Suffice it to say that James Madison addressed the issue of his initial support quite nicely when, remembering Hamilton in 1831, he said the following:
"If his theory of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candor to avow it, and the greater merit of cooperating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice."
It is no secret why the State legislatures were NOT allowed to ratify the Constitution. They would have been had the idea been that the new federal Union was merely a creature of the states.
Abel Upshur put it best:
'The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it - the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution." - Abel Upshur, 'The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character' 1868
Of course, the constitutional supremacy of the federal government in conflicts with the states amply proves states were not even equals with the federal government much less superior.
Only in regards to those few and limited powers specifically granted to the Constitution. In ALL other things, the States were to be supreme.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison, Federalist Essay # 45
But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States." (emphasis his)- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Essay # 32
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - Constitution of the United States, 10th Amendment
Yes, that is what I have been saying the authority was "from the People themselves." Glad you admit it.
The "people themselves" that Madison refers to were the people of each STATE, representing each STATE, and acting as STATES. The "People" did not ratify the Constitution, STATES did. As he clearly stated:
"That it will be a federal and not a national act...is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the union, nor from that of a majority of the states. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several states that are parties to it...were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority... Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, not a national constitution." James Madison, Federalist Essay # 39
However, Hamilton explained what was constitutional and what not in his essay discussing the constitutionality of the National Bank. After that there is little to be said and Marshall properly used it as the basis for major rulings which drove Jefferson nuts.
After the Constitutional union was established, the supra-nationalists with Hamilton at the head, began their dirty work of undoing the intended framework established at the conventions. The reason that Hamilton and some others had supported the Federal Constitution soon became obvious: They knew they could use deceitful legalism to pervert its language and achieve their original nationalist/consolidationist goals. As Jefferson wisely observed in 1820:
"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet..." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820
That is exactly what has happened, and what is happening still. The Constitutional government established by the Founding Fathers, and the one which the States agreed to, was erased by judicial action long, long ago.
LOL, Oh, please. I have already addressed your nonsense about Madison's contributions to Washington's farewell address in post # 810. If you would just read it, you'll see that the address applies just as much to the pro-British policies of Hamilton, a fact your revisionist Hamiltonian "historians" have conveniently failed to mention.
It is simply a FACT that Washington regarded no man higher than Hamilton. Upon his death Hamilton lamented that Washington had been an "aegis" for him. A shield, a protection.
LOL, he was bemoaning the fact that he couldn't use Washington anymore to further his personal political ambitions and partisan back-stabbing. He was on his own.
Even as early as 1780 there were those claiming Washington was a captive of his aides (meaning Hamilton.)
Hamilton's selfish manipulations were obvious to many.
No it isn't. Washington's regard for Bryan Fairfax was both on a closer, more personal level and of longer duration than anything involving Hamilton.
Nonsense. That is akin to saying "David Souter arrived on the court as a conservative but was so astounded to find that his ideology was not able to stand against John Paul Stevens' legal reasoning." The real issue is that justices do not always turn out like they were anticipated to behave. It was as true then as it is today.
As for Marshall, he had both his strokes of brilliance and his faults. He gave some good decisions and some bad ones including those that defied all basic common sense before him.
Marbury v. Maryland is a classic case of the latter. Arguing Marbury's side of what the constitution's enumerated powers were intended to mean was a young lawyer named Daniel Webster who, though reasonably intelligent, was not a participant in that document's drafting and possessed virtually no first hand knowledge to its intentions and meanings from the convention. Arguing Maryland's side was Luther Martin, who also happened to have been there in 1787 and actually helped to draft the very same words that were being disputed. He was also one of the convention's most active debators and knew the document it produced inside and out. So who does Marshall listen to and side with? Certainly not the guy who was there and could credibly tell you what the words he himself helped to write meant. No, instead he went for the loose constructionist interpretation offered by Webster.
Playing fast and loose with the words again, eh fake-it? First it was washington had no greater friend than Hamilton..but that didn't work for you because he did - Bryan Fairfax. Next it was Washington held nobody in higher regard than Hamilton...but that didn't work for you either because he did - again Bryan Fairfax. Now you're back to the best friends line and once again I will simply point out the fact that Washington's friendship with Bryan Fairfax was of significantly longer duration and far greater personal depth than anything with Hamilton. That would make him a closer friend than Hamilton.
Certainly not when one is repeatedly turned to for political advice over the decades.
Hamilton was professionally tasked to give Washington political advice and in his years as a cabinet member had that very item as his central job description.
That was certainly not the case with Fairfax.
Yes it was. They discussed their personal beliefs on root political matters at length. They even ended up on opposite sides in the revolution and discussed it with each other, yet remained close friends throughout.
You don't think much about what is said because you are just so anxious to dispute my comments.
No. I simply take notice of your increasingly absurd word games then take you to task over them.
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.