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.
All reasonable evidence indicates that he was. He was indisputably born in anglo-saxon society, which means either North America or in the British empire. In his early life he was either the slave or servant of an Englishman by birth and his North Carolinian wife and at the time of his joining the Shenandoah's crew he was working for that same Englishman, who was by then a confederate soldier. That would make him in the employment of a confederate as of 1864 and thus in all likelihood a confederate himself prior to his service on a CSA warship.
As for your claims, no evidence whatsoever exists to support your earlier speculation that he was African or Jamaican. As a matter of fact, the Liverpool Mercury reported that almost all of the ship's crew contained self-identified southerners. The next largest ethnic group they reported, at least by accent, was Scottish.
It seems that you choose to persist in your own purposeful misunderstanding regarding Hamilton alleged call for a Monarchy. This quotation was taken from your posting.
How freakish you are to keep insisting the the Federal government is "the people" but the state governments are "government." Both are "government," get over it.
The state gov'ts of the South did not institute slavery, Grand Old "Historian"
There you have the difference between a ranting fanatic and the rest of us. I prefer a word that conveys more dignity, you prefer the term that is more demeaning. More evidence, indeed, that you are not interested in promoting understanding. While "slave" has indeed been the most used word, over the past two centuries, many kindly folks have used the term servant--and indeed, in the Constitutional sense--with reference to the document that you pretend to revere, the terminology was "held to service or labour."
The term "servant" does not define the compensation or social status of the person providing service, it focuses on the function that the person performs. It has dignity, because serving has dignity. You seek to remind others of something else. But do not pretend that "slave" is the essential term for someone held to service. There have been various terms throughout the ages. And applying one that was taken from the forced bondage of slavic peasants, is not particularly applicable to the Old South--however popular its usage.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
And it seems that you chose to persist in your absolute disregard for what Madison stated.
From Madison's notes: "It will be objected probably, that [an Executive for life] will be an elective Monarch, and will give birth to the tumults which characterize that form of Gov[ernmen]t. He w[oul]d reply that Monarch is an indefinite term. It marks not either the degree or duration of power. If the Executive Magistrate wd. be a monarch for life--the other prop[ose]d by the Report . . . wd. be a Monarch for seven years."
Hamilton responded that he had been misunderstood, and explained that he did not advocate a complete abolition of the states, only a diminution of their status as political entities to ensure the preponderance of the federal government.
Tell me, what happens when a politician is called on the carpet for something that he may have said. First argument is always 'well I didn't really mean it that way' when the very reading of Madison and the records of the speech show he meant exactly that. You could probably call Hamilton the first true Democrat of today. 'is' doesn't really mean is and the national government can take care of you better than you can...
It should be a crime to have these names in the same sentence.
The dims continue to denigrate their memories, while we honour ALL who served.
While I consider Madison to be brilliant as affirmed by many historical accounts, I leave it open to the possibility that perhaps he did actually mis-understand Hamilton.
All this reference to Clintonism, and "is," has no historical basis in fact in the context of Hamilton that I am aware of. Can you cite examples of questionable examples of integrity in the context of Hamilton that would have you so glibly, if not carelessly, lump him in with an example of one of the lowest forms of politician in recent American politics?
While I consider Madison to be brilliant as affirmed by many historical accounts, I leave it open to the possibility that perhaps he did actually mis-understand Hamilton.
I don't. From his own notes
The supreme executive authority of the United States to be vested in a governor, to be elected to serve during good behaviour. His election to be made by electors, chosen by electors, chosen by the people, in the election districts aforesaid. His authorities and functions to be as follows-To have a negative upon all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed; to have the entire direction of war, when authorized, or begun; to have, with the advice and approbation of the senate, the power of making all treaties; to have the sole appointment of the heads or chief officers of the departments of finance, war, and foreign affairs; to have the nomination of all other officers, (ambassadors to foreign nations included,) subject to the approbation or rejection of the senate; to have the power of pardoning all offenses, except treason, which he shall not pardon, without the approbation of the senate.
10. All laws of the particular States, contrary to the constitution or laws of the United States, to be utterly void. And the better to prevent such laws being passed, the governor or president of each State shall be appointed by the general government, and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is governor, or president.
Never mind Senators for life (which stinks quite much like the House of Lords) and a Supreme Court for life, this was to be a 'governor' for life as well. So every part of the national government would be for life except for the House of Representatives. On top of that, we have state governors appointed by the national government. This man didn't want a federal system and his own notes portray that fact. He wanted a limited monarchy and this plan along with his speech from June 18, while accepting a true monarchy could never exist, argued for such a government. Hamilton wanted a king and his political grandson, the 16th President, practically gave it to him
Hamilton was no friend of a Republic.
This gentleman's own party, country, and would-be supporters even disagree with his position.
Yessir, we sure do! Dewd, I put together some links from related stories on FR since you seem interested in the subject. One of the more current links (and one of my favorites) is the story about the former slave named Chris Columbus who fought for the Confederacy. More and more stories are coming to light as black Americans research their heritage and find their forefathers fought for the South.
We honor all who served.
Blacks, Jews Fight on Side of the South
Did free blacks support the Confederacy during the Civil War? Novel on blacks in Confederate South
DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT BLACK SLAVEOWNERS
Digs unearth slave plantations in North
Former Slave's Family Sees Him Honored At Last (Chris Columbus in Florida)
Taking up ebonics, eh non-seq? You sure snookered me, what with me assuming you meant surrendering to the U.S. and all this time you meant surrendering to the Brits.
Not really. You claimed that they did not surrender to anybody, british or american. As I noted in the original post, I was recounting the events of the ship from memory. When you inquired further and denied that they surrendered to anybody I simply looked up the records of it and posted what I found.
I just can't compete with you, no how, no way.
So long as you persist in ignoring factual evidence and throwing whiny little fits such as this one when it is employed against you, no. You can't compete.
I suppose you could could say that you are correct because Grand Old Partaisan didn't specify that it had to be captured by the Union. On the other hand, Grand Old Partaisan did say confederate soldier captured and you produced a confederate sailor.
You'll have to ask him on that one. After all, a few posts back he did throw a fit about the inclusion of black sailors from the north in the grand total of black soldiers that, interestingly enough, is still less than the number he claims from the south alone.
The FR forum facilitates adequate exchange, thank you.
The memories of threads long gone....
That too is true. Such "mainstream" civil war historians as William Davis even acknowledge the existence of black confederates.
On the other hand, some historians and wannabe historians such as Jim McPherson deny their existence despite evidence ranging from photographs to tombstones to eyewitness accounts to newspapers to pension records to even the official records of the United States Government. It is extremely difficult to believe that these persons are unaware of that evidence, thus their denial can only be attributed to an agenda of some sort. In the case of McPherson it is a leftist agenda. In the case of others its range includes everything from political correctness to south hatred to state worship and beyond.
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.