Those "Republicans In Name Only" who do not hold fiscally conservative, "constitutional/libertarian" values and tenets, and who have infiltrated our Party.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't lost hope! Stay the course, and let's take our Party, as well > as our Nation back!! > > > > Take it back from whom? > > Regard$, > --MJ > > *The Origins of the GOP > *by Thomas J. DiLorenzo > > Some very silly books have been written about the history of the Republican > Party (and the Democrat Party). They tend to read like The Story of Moses, > with Christ-like figures overcoming tremendous roadblocks to achieve > greatness and sanctify not only themselves, but the entire nation. They are > usually written by political hacks and funded rather surreptitiously by > various business and other special-interest groups that are associated with > the Party. Such books, of course, are pure baloney: "GOP" should really > stand for "*G*ang *O*f *P*lunderers." > > *The Party of Plunder > > *As soon as the newly-created GOP gained enough power in the late 1850s, > the first thing it did was to get the U.S. House of Representatives to pass > the protectionist Morrill Tariff during the 185960 session, before > Lincoln's election and before any southern state had seceded. The Party then > vigorously defended southern slavery. Two days before Lincoln's > inauguration, after the seven states of the lower South had seceded and > taken their fourteen senators with them, the Republican-controlled U.S. > Senate passed a constitutional amendment (that had already passed the House) > that would have forbidden the federal government from ever interfering with > southern slavery. Two days later, Lincoln would pledge his support for this > amendment in his first inaugural address, saying he preferred that the > defense of slavery in the Constitution be made "express and irrevocable." He > also promised in that same address a federal invasion of any state that > failed to collect the newly-doubled U.S. tariff rate. > > The GOP opposed the *extension *of slavery to the new territories, not > southern slavery, and it did so for the basest of reasons. Reason number one > was the desire to keep all blacks slave or free from the territories, > which the Party wanted to be an all-white preserve. To the GOP "free soil" > meant soil that was free of black people, not freedom per se. That's why > states like Illinois, "Land of Lincoln," had previously amended their > constitutions to make it illegal for black people to move into them. The few > blacks who did reside in these areas had virtually no citizenship rights and > were grossly discriminated against in all aspects of their lives. > > The second reason for opposing the extension of slavery to the new > territories was to limit congressional representation of the Democratic > Party, which would have been increased due to the Three-Fifths Clause of the > U.S. Constitution, which allowed for every five slaves to be counted as > three persons for purposes of determining the number of congressional > representatives in each state. Thus, pork-barrel politics and white > supremacy were the reasons the "Grand Old Party" gave for opposing the > extension of slavery in 1860. > > As for politics, the purpose of the GOP's quest for political domination > was so that it could finally adopt the old mercantilist economic agenda of > the Whigs, who were mostly transformed into Republicans when the Whig Party > fell apart in the early 1850s. Once the south seceded, and the Southern > Democrats left Congress, the GOP immediately pushed through the entire Whig > economic agenda. > > > *Lincoln's "New Deal" > > *Incapable of ever doing anything but praising the early GOP, most > contemporary historians, who are largely ignorant of economics, praise this > "achievement" to the treetops. A good example of this appears in the October > 2004 issue of *The Smithsonian* magazine, in an essay by Lincoln > biographer David Donald entitled "1860: The Road Not Taken." The essay is > part of a "what if" symposium that poses the question of what America would > look like had the outcomes of the presidential elections of 1860, 1912, > 1932, and 1980 been different. > > Donald zeroes in on the Lincoln administration's "social legislation." Had > Lincoln not been elected, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer writes, a > sizeable Democratic minority in Congress > > Would have blocked the important economic and social legislation enacted > by the Republicans during the Civil War. Thus, there would likely have been > no high tariff laws that protected the iron industry, so essential in > postwar economic development, no Homestead Act giving 160 acres to settlers > willing to occupy and till land out West, no transcontinental railroad > legislation, no land-grant colleges, no national currency or national > banking system, no Department of Agriculture to offer expert guidance on > better seeds and improved tillage. Without such legislation, the economic > takeoff that made the United States a major industrial power by the end of > the century would have been prevented . . . > > Like most Lincoln scholars who comment on economic issues, Donald is mostly > ignorant of the subject he is speaking of. Protectionist tariffs made the > U.S. steel industry lazy and inefficient by isolating it from the rigors of > international competition. Consequently, it became a perpetual whiner and > complainer about the "unfairness" of competition the spoiled brat of the > American economy. For decades, it has lobbied for protectionism that has > plundered the American consumer, made the industry even lazier and more > inefficient, allowing it to pander to its unions and their grossly > inefficient featherbedding rules, and generally made it far less competitive > that it would have been under a free trade regime. Despite a century of > "protection," the steel industry has all but disappeared from my home state > of Pennsylvania, for example. > > Furthermore, the higher steel prices caused by protectionist tariffs have > always been harmful to American steel-using industries, which includes > virtually all of American manufacturing. Thus, GOP protectionism was a > serious drag on American industrial success during the late nineteenth > century, contrary to Donald's assertions. American industry grew despite > these foolish and counterproductive policies, not because of them. > > Late nineteenth-century tariff protection was especially harmful to > American agriculture. American farmers have always sold a large portion of > their output on foreign markets. Tariffs that reduce the volume of > international trade end up reducing the amount of money that our foreign > trading partners have with which to purchase American goods, especially > American agricultural output. That's why the farmers of the Midwest were > vociferous proponents of free trade during the late nineteenth century. GOP > protectionism did far more harm to American farmers than any conceivable > good that David Donald's beloved U.S. Department of Agriculture bureaucracy > could ever have done. Not to mention the fact that our trading partners > often retaliated with protectionist policies of their own that blocked the > sale of American goods in their countries. > > As for the Homestead Act, the majority of the land given away under the > Act, as historian Ludwell Johnson has shown, went to timber and mining > companies, most assuredly in return for political campaign contributions > from those same companies. And the giving away of the land, as opposed to > selling it, was a political impetus to keep tariff rates high and > economically destructive during this pre-income tax era when the majority > of federal revenues came from the tariff. > > The government-subsidized transcontinental railroads were arguably the > worst examples in all of American history of the corruption and inefficiency > that is always associated with government "public works" projects (See > Burton Folsom, The Myth of the Robber > Barons<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963020315/lewrockwell/>). > They resulted in the Credit Mobilier scandal of the Grant administration, > and fueled the arguments of the "progressive movement" to have government > regulate and control American business. By contrast, James J. Hill built his > highly successful transcontinental railroad, the Great Northern, without a > dime of government subsidy. > > Land-grant colleges opened the door to the politicization of higher > education that plagues virtually every American college and university > today, and is the inevitable result of the politicization of education. The > Department of Agriculture was never necessary to educate farmers about the > latest seeds; the free market can handle such tasks much more efficiently. > Instead, the Department of Agriculture has always been, first and foremost, > an enforcer of the agricultural cartel operated by federal politicians on > behalf of a very important political bloc, farmers. It is the U.S.D.A. that > paid farmers for not raising crops and livestock during the Great > Depression, when thousands were starving or suffering from malnutrition. Its > programs of paying farmers for not farming have always been simply > special-interest politics designed to allow federal politicians to buy votes > (with taxpayers' money) from farm communities by plundering American > consumers with the higher food prices that are caused by these policies. > > The Lincoln administration's banking legislation, which Donald also > praises, was a precursor to the inflationary-spiral and > depression-generating policies of the Fed. They replaced what economic > historian Jeffrey Hummel described as the most stable banking system in > American history, the so-called free-banking system that existed in the two > decades prior to the war, and opened the door to a tremendous centralization > of governmental power. That of course is exactly what the Republican Party, > comprised of the political descendants of the Federalists and the Whigs, > always wanted. > > As economists Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, Jr., note in their book, > Tariffs, > Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil > War<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842029605/lewrockwell/>(p. > 99): > > The flurry of new laws, regulations, and bureaucracies created by > President Lincoln and the Republican Party is reminiscent of Franklin > Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, for the volume, scope, and questionable > constitutionality of its legislative output. . . . [I]t should not be too > surprising to learn that the term "New Deal" was actually coined in March > 1865 by a newspaper editor in Raleigh to characterize Lincoln and the > Republicans and persuade North Carolina voters to rejoin the Union. The > massive expansion of the federal government into the economy led [historian] > Daniel Elazar to claim that "one could easily call Lincoln's presidency the > New Deal of the 1860s." > > The historian Daniel Elazar who is cited by Thornton and Ekelund put > together the following table to characterize "Lincoln's New Deal": > > > *Lincoln's New Deal* > > - Morrill Tariff (1861) > - First Income Tax (1861) > - Expanded Postal Service (1861) > - Homestead Act (1862) > - Morrill Land-Grant College Act (1862) > - Department of Agriculture (1862) > - Bureau of Printing and Engraving (1862) > - Transcontinental Railroad Grants (1862, 1863, 1864) > - National Banking Acts (1863, 1864, 1865, 1866) > - Comptroller of the Currency (1863) > - National Academy of Sciences (1863) > - "Free" Urban Mail Delivery (1863) > - Yosemite Nature Reserve Land Grant (1864) > - Contract Labor Act (1864) > - Office of Immigration (1864) > - Railway Mail Service (1864) > - Money Order System (1864) > - Source: Daniel Elazar, "Comment," in D. Gilchrest and W. Lewis, eds. > Economic Change in the Civil War Era (1965), pp. 9899. > > > More importantly than this legislation, the GOP orchestrated the abolition > of the voluntary union of the founding fathers and in its place put a > non-voluntary, consolidated empire, waging total war on fellow citizens for > four long years in order to succeed. Their stated motives were never to > abolish southern slavery, as mentioned above, but they skillfully used the > slaves as pawns in their imperialistic scheme, causing the U.S. to become > the only nation on earth in the nineteenth century to associate the violence > of war with the abolition of slavery. The GOP continued to use the ex-slaves > as political pawns during "Reconstruction," a twelve-year plundering > expedition throughout the South. When the military occupation ended in 1877, > the hapless ex-slaves were then left to fend for themselves against a > vengeful population. The Gang of Plunderers did nothing to help them, for > Reconstruction was over and they voted overwhelmingly Republican anyway. > > Having declared that it possessed "a treasury of virtue" for having "saved > the union" and freed the slaves, the GOP then enjoyed a monopoly of > political power for decades. Such "virtue" was immediately used to wage a > campaign of ethnic genocide against the Plains Indians to make way for the > government-subsidized railroads, announced General Sherman, who was the > commanding general of the campaign for many years. The South and the rest > of the country as well was plundered by protectionist tariffs for the next > fifty years by the "virtuous" GOP, primarily for the benefit of the Party's > big-business supporters. > > To this day politicians -- especially Republican Politicians -- use the > fake history of the origins of the GOP as the Party of Saints during the > Lincoln era to "justify" any and all manner of interventions, from an > expanded welfare state, to the nationalization of the education system, to > the current regime's attempt at imperialistic conquest in the Middle East. > But in reality it's the same old Gang of Plunderers. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
