Posted on 04/28/2008 11:37:55 AM PDT by bmweezer
Grand Old Partisan salutes Ulysses Grant, the second Republican to serve as President of the United States. He was born in Point Pleasant, OH on April 27, 1822. Sometimes overlooked are President Grant's exemplary efforts to protect African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors.
In 1870 and 1871, President Grant signed into law three laws known as the Enforcement Acts, one of which banned the Ku Klux Klan and other Democrat terrorist organizations. Grant then...
[see http://grandpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2008/04/ulysses-grant-r.html]
Each day, Grand Old Partisan celebrates 154 years of Republican heroes and heroics.
Don’t confuse us with facts. Everyone knows that Republicans are evil, racist, and by definition could never do anything for minorities. Everyone knows that Democrats celebrate diversity in all its forms.
sarcasm now off.
I wonder why the article does not mention Grant’s General Order No. 11?
Here is part of the text of General Order No. 11:
“The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the “Department of the Tennessee,” an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/grant.html
***In 1870 and 1871, President Grant signed into law three laws known as the Enforcement Acts, one of which banned the Ku Klux Klan and other Democrat terrorist organizations.***
Violation of the First Amendment.
Glad that settled that. Otherwise the Klan might have had decades of success producing senile U.S. Senators.
Oh, wait...
“Enforcement Acts, one of which banned the Ku Klux Klan and other Democrat terrorist organizations. “
Thanks, should be interesting reading how he managed to shut them down...first amendment??
BS.
I’m confused, I thought that Jefferson was the first Republican. Maybe they mean after the official Republican party was formed.
Not really. Section 6 of the May 1870 act says, "And be it further enacted, That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned..."
The acts themselves did not outlaw the Klan or any other organization. But it made the Klan's activities of discouraging the black population from exercising their rights illegal. It had the same effect.
Jefferson was a Democrat-Republican (they called themselves Republicans, but they weren’t our Republicans as we think of them today). The D-R party along with the Federalists (the opposition) desolved in the early 1820s. The D-R’s became Jacksonians and officially Democrats in the 1830s, which they’ve been ever since.
The Federalists then became the (John Quincy) Adams Supporters, then Anti-Jacksonians, then Whigs, and after the Whigs dissolved in the mid 1850s, the Conscience wing of the Whigs (mostly Northern) became Republicans (the Southern Cotton Whigs became Democrats).
Yet in the winding, twisting paths of American political history, Jefferson and Jackson were philosophically much closer that their Federalist opponents to what we know as Reagan/Goldwater conservatism!
Jefferson and the D-R's (later Jacksonians) stood for limited government, tiny taxes, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and broad states' rights vs. Federal power.
Federalists (later Whigs, and eventually the GOP) were actually the party of Big Government, higher tariffs, loose reading of the Constitution, and centralized power over states.
I wasn’t addressing ideology so much as I was the party geneology from the 1790s to the 1860s. Of course, even the “big gov’t” types of the period would be well to the right of even your smallest gov’t advocates today. Many of the early 20th century Communist goals have been achieved. The Founding Fathers would be singularly horrified at where we are today with overarching gov’t: local, state, and federal.
Can’t write laws based on what somebody may do. That’s what Liberals like to do.
Forgot to add, too, that for all the Jeffersonian principles being better in practice, it still wrapped itself around the profound immorality of slavery. The hypocrisy of freedom and opportunity for some and not for all is why the Democrat party to this day is still stained with original sin that the Federalist/Republicans are not.
According the John Adams biography, the Federalists denounced John Quincy when he sided with Jefferson on and embargo.
I gotta get through that book one of these days...
Gotcha. And yes, on that point you were quite correct! Also...
» Of course, even the “big gov’t” types of the period would be well to the right of even your smallest gov’t advocates today...The Founding Fathers would be singularly horrified at where we are today with overarching gov’t: local, state, and federal.
A big, disgusted AMEN to that! It's completely appalling.
Hmmm...well I follow, but not sure that I 100% agree. The way I see it, the War Between the States was primarily fought over size/scope/structure of gov't (balance of power, states vs. Federal) issues to which slavery was secondary.
Unfortunately, the Big Government side won :( But at least we got rid of slavery.
...Then 100 years later the Dems (now the Big Gov't party) found a way to revive it in the form of a massive welfare state!
So yeah, there's no dispute that today's Dems are at fault. Just how far back the Party's culpability goes, I think that's debatable.
It still was basically about slavery. The South knew what the election of Lincoln meant (”that radical abolitionist !”) and why they were going to have to get out to preserve “their” way of life (the fact that we had held it together as long as we did was remarkable, we could’ve had dissolution under Jackson, were it not for the fact he was an unapologetic Unionist). Remember that Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in a single Southern state in 1860 (aside from the border states of Missouri and Delaware). In Texas and Florida, even the ostensibly Unionist Democrat Douglas was kept off the ballot (where the contest were strictly between Southern Dem Breckinridge and ex-Whig Unionist Bell).
I always considered the Dems complicit in keeping pre-Civil War values in place. The lengths to which they went in Reconstruction to recapturing control could not be overstated in terms of being evil. They deliberately kept Blacks in little better than slavelike conditions for a century afterwards (shifting slightly to where it is today, a different, but no less destructive form of slavery) and rather than work towards integrating them fully into society, would ultimately push them towards radicalization.
I highly recommend it. You won’t find a better, more precise description of events, surrounding the founding of our country, than the one taken directly from Adams’ correspondence with his wife and associates. They have over a thousand letters, plus his journal and a partial autobiography that he started, base it on. It’s just fascinating.
Probably because it was a one time deal, not indicative of his overall life.
You’re talking about the McCullough book, right ? I own it, I just haven’t gotten around to reading it completely through, yet.
Yeah, I really enjoyed it. It’s not exactly bed time reading, though, so I can understand why you haven’t finished it.
It was fought over the preservation of the Union, and it's worth noting that some of the states that remained in the Union were slave states.
Unfortunately, the Big Government side won
Fortunately, the Union was preserved, and those on the right side of history won.
Oh, I see, So Grant only expelled all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi just one time, so therefore, it is not a big deal?
Would it have been worse if he had expelled Jews from five or ten states as opposed to just three states?
The order was quickly rescinded when Washington found out, and the mistake was never repeated.
How can you look at the policies of Jeff Davis and his administration and say 'the Big Government side won"? Davis intruded into the lives of his people and ignored is constitution in ways never dreamed of by Lincoln.
Nope, but you don’t have to put up with what some people do do.
The Klan, The Weatherman, and Al Quida have proven track records. Waste them.
I bought a book on the Lincoln/Douglas debates. It was fascinating to read about the political tightrope the newly-founded Republicans walked. Apparently, the swing group in Illinois that Lincoln and Douglas were courting were Whigs who hadn’t jumped ship for the Republicans, who didn’t like slavery but didn’t favor “full rights” for blacks. Needless to say, the Democrats tried to pin Lincoln as a “radical abolitionist” in the hopes of scaring off Whig voters.
I still have a lot more of the book to read, so I’m sure there are juicier tidbits to come.
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.