[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: The Republican Party Has NO Conservative Roots The Republican Party Has NO Conservative Roots Al Benson Jr. There has been quite a fuss in Sodom on the Potomac of late due to the revelations of a certain Mr. Abramoff and the money he so promiscuously passed around in his lobbying activities to people who should have known better than to take it--both Republicans and Democrats. One of those tainted by this situation, Tom DeLay, is stepping down as Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, which opens up somewhat of a race for his spot. So far there seem to be three people vying for that spot. One e-mail message I received from a conservative activist tells everyone to voice their support for John Shadegg from Arizona, as opposed to the other two. Supposedly Mr. Shadegg is the "real deal" when it comes to being conservative. In comparison to the other two he may be somewhat more conservative. I noted on the John Birch Society's recent "Conservative Index" that Mr. Shadegg received a rating of 60 out of a possible 100 points for his conservative votes. Passable, but not great, when you consider that Ron Paul from Texas received 100 out of a possible 100. I realize the sincerity of the conservative activist who sent this e-mail, but here again, is a prime example of someone who has not been taught true history. The title of his e-mail was "Move the GOP Back to its Conservative Roots." The writer laments how many Republican members of Congress seem to have moved to the left as they have spent time in Washington (it seems to have that effect on most people) and he exhorts them to return to their "conservative roots." Again, I appreciate his sincerity and intent, but I surely can not agree with him that the Republican Party has any "conservative roots." In fact, quite the opposite is true if you look at a little of the history of the beginnings of the GOP. When the Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, back in 1856, Fremont had the open backing of several men who were socialist refugees from the failed socialist revolts in Europe in 1848. One of the most well-known of these was Friedrich Hassaurek, an Austrian socialist, who stumped the Midwest in Fremont's behalf. It did no good, though, at that point, and Fremont was beaten. However, it is worth noting that when the War of Northern Aggression broke out in 1861, General Fremont ended up with a goodly number of these socialist and communist Forty-Eighters on his military staff while the war was in progress. The Forty-Eighters seem to have flocked to Fremont. What did they know about him that our "history" books have not bothered to inform us of? Although Fremont was beaten in 1856, the socialists and communists were nothing if not patient. In 1860 they found another candidate they could and did support--Abraham Lincoln. So Hassaurek, Carl Schurz, and a whole host of other Forty-Eighter socialists were all involved in the presidential campaign of 1860 supporting Mr. Lincoln. Carl Wittke, author of "Refugees of Revolution" has noted that: "Lincoln was fully aware of the political influence of the Forty-Eighters in the campaign of 1860, in presuading many of their countrymen to desert the Democratic alliegiance for the Republicans..." It would appear that the Forty-Eighters had quite a bit of influence in the Republican convention in 1860--even to helping to write parts of the party's platform. Court historian James McPherson informed us in his book "Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution" that Mr. Lincoln had championed the cause of the socialists and communists in Europe in 1848, so why would he not embrace their unstinting support during his own presidential asperations in 1860? One might almost label this "the Red roots of the Republican Party." If socialists and communists supported both Fremont in 1856 and Lincoln in 1860 and 1864, we can hardly label the beginnings of the Republican Party as "conservative." The roots of the Republican Party were anything but conservative--deep pink maybe, but not conservative! Our decent patriotic folks in this country should be aware of this so they will not be guilty of trying to take us back to Republican "conservative" roots that never really existed. It is true that the Republicans had taken a more conservative turn in the late 1940s and 50s, and even through the early 60s, but that was out of political necessity and it hardly reflects the real foundation and origin of the GOP. It is interesting that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives and the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals. People today should know the difference. The fact that many don't reveals the sad fact that most of us were "educated" in government schools where our real history was never taught to us and what we received in most cases was decidedly leftist propaganda paraded by us as "history." Sadly, nothing has changed and our people still perish from lack of knowledge.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
What were called Fourty-Eighters in 1860 are called Neo-Conservatives in 2006.
Interesting history lesson: it demonstrates the fascist roots of the Republican Party. Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists, and Nazis called themselves national socialists.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
John shaddegg used to be a conservative, or he appeared to be. He's sold out though. I appreciate the early history above of the republican party. they are not a conservative party at all. they are revolutionaries, always have been.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||