Skip to comments.Introducing the Lincoln-Reagan Freedom Foundation
Posted on 03/17/2005 8:14:05 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
The Lincoln-Reagan Freedom Foundation is dedicated to promoting greater appreciation for the heritage of the Republican Party, founded as a civil rights movement in 1854. This "Grand Old Party" has an extraordinary, though overlooked, record of achievement in advancing civil rights in the United States and around the world.
Celebrating a Century and a Half of Civil Rights Achievement by the Republican Party
For the past century and a half, the Republican Party has proven to be the most effective political organization ever to champion equality and human rights in the United States and around the world. From President Lincoln's victory in the Civil War to President Reagan's victory in the Cold War, the GOP shares credit for the ability of hundreds of millions of people to live in freedom.
To increase our appreciation for this heritage, the Lincoln-Reagan Freedom Foundation brings together Republican officeholders, activists and staff, academics, and the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at lincolnreaganfoundation.org ...
Todays Republican Party places itself at an immense disadvantage. Republicans are too often on the defensive because most do not know the truth about our Grand Old Party.
Under the chairmanship of Rep. Christopher Cox, Michael Zak wrote the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar while a Policy Analyst at the House Policy Committee. In the words of Rep.Cox, the calendar was produced "to put some of the many important Republican achievements in advancing civil rights before today's students, families, and citizens from all walks of life who wish to be better informed about our national heritage." The calendar is on the Internet at
Calling all Lincoln haters... Calling all Lincoln haters...
The 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar is at http://www.cox.house.gov/2005_calendar/view.cfm
Don the romex, dude. The Abophobes will be here soon.
...and the soreloserman war of northern aggressionites.
Words worth repeating!
I could bever fathom how some people think that hating the first Republican President makes one a good Republican. I'd rather this not become another neo-Confederate hate-fest. Better we focus on the positive achievements of our Grand Old Party.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Will be interesting to see if this 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar sees the light of day inside a public school in this country. Not if the Teachers' Union has anything to do with it.
What say you, Teacher 317?
If I could find one, I'd put it up in my room.
Would you have lots of opposition from fellow teachers? Parents? Are your fellow teachers conservative or liberal, on the whole?
The trouble is, as I say in my speeches to GOP groups around the country, that we cannot expect public schools to inform students about Republican Party heritage when the Republican leadership does not care much about it.
Well, then, we should change this. We should educate.
It was just this past summer that I learned that the original Republican Party was against slavery and pro-civil rights. This because I have an email pal from Iran who was questioning our party system.
This calendar is a good thing. By the way, the link didn't work for me. How do I get the calendar?
The calendar can be downloaded, and information about the book on which it is based is on the website. Cheers,
Unfortunately, whether because of dependence on Goldwaterite Dixiecrat converts for whatever other reson, the Republican party really doesn't seem to proud of its history (nor does the Democratic party seem ashamed of its).
I'm curious. Where were you educated? And how old are you? I'm not trying to be personal, and you can answer in decades -- not specifics. Teens, 20s, 30s, etc.
embarrased to say I'm 50. hated American history, was an Arts major. The only political bone in my body was festered when i was 13 and Dad ran for Congress.
So I'm makign up for lost time....
It is possible to support abolition of slavery and oppose the destruction of originally intended federalism by Lincoln.
Sure why not?
The Abophiles were here from the very beginning.
"Buy some Calendars" ping!
"We dont do Lincoln Day Dinners in South Carolina." - Senator Lindsay Graham
Interesting, but Ronald Reagan spoke at lots of Lincoln Day dinners. It's his example I'd rather follow. Cheers,
The calendar is not for sale, so best not to suggest that people buy it. Rep. Cox did give away 20,000 copies at the Republican National Convention, where they were a big hit.
By that same measure, I've also attended lots of Lincoln Day dinners. That didn't make me any more of a Lincoln fan though, nor did it stop me from changing ours to Reagan Day at the first opportunity we got.
And, like you TonyRo, I do not support many of Abe's big government programs. But they beat the Dems' state institutionalization of slavery.
Good point, LS. It's hard to think of a bigger Big Government program than slavery.
Thanks for that link. That'll come in handy. :)
Mark Thornton (no conservative) makes clear in his study of Southern slavery that it ONLY survived because of government subsidies and support: slave-catching "possees" could dragoon any non-slave-holding southerner into action; courts were "stacked" so as to discount slave testimony (couldn't be offered) or rule against free men of color. Postmasters used state power to censor mails from the north, especially anything deemed "abolitionist." So slavery was deeply intertwined with government power.
To give Andrew Jackson his due, he did say to the nullifiers from South Carolina, his home state:
"If one drop of blood be shed in defiance of the United States Government, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find."
And still, neo-Confederates complain about Abraham Lincoln!
But the tariff was NOT the issue that concerned southerners---oh, it was a pain in the rectum, but nothing serious enough to fight over. But SLAVERY . . . well, that was different. The "Tariff of Abominations" shows clearly that the tariff was NOT the issue that cause the South to secede.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Anger over the Tariff of Abominations extended throughout the south even if the other states did not take the step South Carolina did with nullification. It is silly to complain that it was "not enough to secede" over when in fact South Carolina pushed the issue to the verge of secession before the tariff supporters in Congress caved and agreed to the 1833 Compromise tariff.
The "Tariff of Abominations" shows clearly that the tariff was NOT the issue that cause the South to secede.
That's absurd. Excepting of the Civil War itself, the nullification crisis was the closest any state had ever come to seceding! And they probably would have had the tariff supporters in Congress not caved.
It was clearly a relatively insignificant issue compared to slavery. Slavery dominated every thought, every deed, every writing of the southerners, slaveholder and non alike. It underlay every law, and even the tariff was viewed in the context of slavery. Again, see Thornton.
[GOPcapitalist] That's absurd. Excepting of the Civil War itself, the nullification crisis was the closest any state had ever come to seceding! And they probably would have had the tariff supporters in Congress not caved.
Concurring bump. If anyone could have made the federal government's writ run in 1833, it was "King Andrew", but the correlation of forces, as the Soviets used to like to call it, was much more favorable to the South in 1833 than in 1863, and it would have been a near-run thing whose outcome would have been dependent on South Carolina's ability to attract support from the other tariff-chump (as opposed to tariff-beneficiary) States.
Nullification had a constitutional-law problem in that it wasn't sustainable by argument. Madison backed away from the Nullifiers, even though they showed that they understood very well what Madison himself had written in response to the Federalists' police-state Alien and Sedition Acts at the turn of the century, before the Democratic Republicans gained national office, defusing that first crisis.
Jefferson Davis, in his inaugural as president of the provisional Confederate government, explained the Nullifiers' problem succinctly, that their theory flew in the face of the Supremacy Clause, which the Peoples of all the States had ratified with the rest of the Constitution, and that it wasn't possible to remain in the Union while insisting that one's sovereignty allowed one to change both the terms of Union and the laws of the federal government unilaterally, which would break the compact of the Constitution.
Actually, that isn't quite true. See the call of Robert Rhett to the other Slaveholding States, as he called them, posted above. There were several outstanding issues. The reason the slavery issue was so important was because the Abolitionist agitation allowed the Industrial Interest (to whom Lincoln had to reach out in order to achieve the nomination in 1860) to develop, in slavery, a wedge issue with which to beat the South as a region.
The Southern States were the leaders of the agrarian interests, the farmers -- the majority -- against the conniving and cartelization of the merchant and banking class, just as in the 1940's Southern Congressional "mossbacks", committee chairmen who wielded great power, were a huge roadblock to the liberals' plans to lead us all into the sunny highlands of State Socialism. And suddenly, the civil rights movement broke out, with liberal NGO apparatchiks appearing in the South as intervenors in school-integration discussions, launching Saul Alinsky-inspired direct political action, bringing lawsuits, and generally stirring the mud, while liberal senators and congressmen rose in the well of the Senate and House to denounce Jim Crow. The South was an obstacle to socialism, but the South was also vulnerable because of Jim Crow. So guess what we got? As Gomer Pyle would say, "Sur-prahz, sur-prahz, sur-prahz!! Gawl Lee!!"
The Yankee Industrial, Merchant, and Banking Interest has been playing this game for 150 years now -- first the Tariff, then Nullification, then Abolition and the Civil War, then the civil rights movement, and now the Confederate-flag controversy. When are our interlocutors going to begin to see the pattern here and realize that they're tools?
You are not answering my critique, LS. Whatever the relative status of tariffs to slavery (and why this need to view everything through the lens of slavery anyway?), it cannot be denied that the nullification crisis was a significant event in our history.
Slavery dominated every thought, every deed, every writing of the southerners, slaveholder and non alike. It underlay every law, and even the tariff was viewed in the context of slavery. Again, see Thornton.
Slavery Exploitation of the laborer dominated every thought, every deed, every writing of the southerners bourgeoise, slaveholder factory owner and non alike. It underlay every law, and even the tariff was viewed in the context of slavery exploitation. Again, see Thornton."
Tis interesting how these single-issue reductionist theories of history pan out, is it not?
It was all about slavery. Even Rhett's own letters, (not his public pronoucements when he was trying to hide slavery as an issue), along with the letters of virtually all the other secess leaders, emphasize slavery over and over again. You don't even get to the tariff as an issue really without slavery.
Oh, by the way, it's interesting that the two leading advocates of the "southern way of life," and slavery, John Calhoun and George Fizhugh, were died in the wool socialists. BOth believed in the labor theory of value. Fizhugh wanted to socialize everyone---he flat called socialism slavery, and said slavery (as in the SOuth) was the best way to implement socialism.
Everything is viewed through the lens of slavery because that is how the SOUTH viewed everything. Have you no interest whatsoever in the MULTITUDES of studies of southern laws, local communities, etc., that overwhelmingly place slavery at the core of their being? No, of course not because that would mean Lincoln was right . . . as he was.
Davis also said several times emphasized the sigularity of slavery in the Confederacy. It's all about the slaves, and he knew it. As do you.
I only asked because you said that you never had heard before that the original Republican Party was founded on an anti-slave and civil rights platform. I'm in my 60s and we were always taught that in school.
I don't know when they started changed the way American History was taught -- or whether it was a regional thing - but my children in their mid 40s did not get the same lessons I did. I had to teach them myself! LOL.
I know that by the time my oldest child was in elementary school, the teachers were hard at work tearing down any vestige of patriotism or honor for our forefathers. But we lived in Berkeley at the time, so it was to be expected.
Correct me, but iirc Fitzhugh was the slavery-theorist who reasoned that poor whites might make good candidates for enslavement. He was widely read, but not widely credited. People in the South were willing to put up with African slavery, because of their belief in essential racial differences. But white slavery wasn't going anywhere.
That's not true. You got to the Nullification Crisis without slavery, and that was over two things: the Tariff and States' rights under the Constitution.
Slavery was a wedge issue. Because it was the prop of the latifundist planter economy and the huge cotton market, of course attacking it meant attacking the entire Southern economy; and so of course people like Rhett got excited about that (who wants to be impoverished by a political movement?) -- but the point of the wedge issue, as Rhett explains in his address (if you bothered to read it), was to "consolidate" political opinion in the North for a concerted assault on Southern resistance to an industrial policy, the Morrill Tariff (which was more than just a tariff), and infrastructure improvements in and exclusively for the Northern interests but paid for largely by Southern and Western tax revenues.
The Civil War was about Northern businesses punking everybody else and making the rest of society their chumps. It worked, as shown by the manifest abuses of the Gilded Age.
And no, this is not a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc; the Civil War really did enable, and Lincoln intended it to enable (he was a Whig, after all), the industrialization of American society that followed the Civil War.
That includes the proletarization of American labor, rampant wage-breaking, time-clocks and other forms of industrial tyranny, urban political machines, factory towns, and of course the protective Tariff.
It's all about the slaves, and he knew it.
No it wasn't, and no he didn't. You're being an ideological troll.
As do you.
Now you sneeringly accuse me of disingenuousness, of lying on the boards. This is where you get off. Get lost.
They deserve to live in a state of perpetual terrification, just because of the way they are. Being afraid of you civilizes a Frenchman. The English always knew that and acted accordingly.
He was the worst of "big government" types because he lacked any true principles or values for doing what he did, except to wield power, unlike Lincoln.
Even in real percapita $$, the government grew under AJ, and by giving the EXECUTIVE (as you rightly point out) so many more powers, you cannot say he didn't give that the FEDS, because once you excercise the muscle, it has grown nonetheless.