Your Modern Day Republican Party

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17464.htm

 

What are your thoughts on the article?

 

I think it's an interesting analysis on a topic that should be dear to all of us, yet gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media. I hope it's an issue that is near the front of 08 election issues. sadly soical/religious issues will take the reigns right behind the Iraq War.

 

From your article: "What kind of American isn't just instinctively repulsed by the notion that the President has the power to imprison Americans with no charges?"

I presume President Lincoln was your least favorite president in history.

"I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution" -- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269.

...and yet he, along with numerous other Founding Fathers, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts during a "Quasi War" with France in the late 1790s. Jefferson, when he took over, allowed the laws to continue.

I didn't bother to read the rest of the article. Clearly it's just more of the same. And clearly, the author, you and TVBrain don't know very much about American history and winning wars.

 

Jefferson, Madison, and nearly all the democratic-republicans opposed the act. It was largely seen as unconstitutional. During the 1800 election it was one of the most important issues. the Act expired when Adams term ended, and Jefferson took over. Jefferson never had the opportunity to allow the laws to continue. Although the Alien Enemies Act portion remains intact to this day, as it was the only portion of the act that did not expire at the end of Adams term.

Anyways, more of the same from you. Can't finish reading a short 1 page article because you disagree with it. That's a fine way to approach things.

Comparing decisions Lincoln had to make during our own Civil War to decisions this president has made in the war on terror/iraq is pathetic.

 

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalists, a party formed around the issue of ratifying the Constitution: John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall -- all principal Founding Fathers

You are correct in noting that Madison and Jefferson both did oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts, but Jefferson never repealed them when he took office. He simply let them expire in 1802 (after being elected in the “Revolution of 1800”)

Furthermore, and this is something that you won’t find in history textbooks, but a significant reason, in my opinion, for their discontent with the Alien and Sedition Acts is that it was aimed towards helping the U.S. in a “quasi-war” against France, a country that the Republicans, by defition, supported. No one can say with certainty, but my guess is that if the Alien and Sedition Acts were aimed at the British, you would’ve heard the grumblings from the Federalists, not the Democratic Republicans. The Founding Fathers were, after all, politicians.

Lincoln expanded executive power more than any president: issued blockade, spent without federal funding, suspended habeas corpus, rounded up dissenters and threw them in jail in Canada without trials, ex parte miligan, Clement Vallandigham, etc.

Wilson passed the Espionage Act (1917) and Sedition Act (1918).

Socialist's hero, FDR rounded up an entire race of people and threw them in internment camps.

What the "Modern Day Republican Party" has done is not only appropriate in the context of American history, but mild compared to what these other wartime presidents have done.

It was just spewing the same garbage over and over again, making the same fallacious claims without any historical backing.

Why is it pathetic. I'm a historian. I try to apply parallels from history to modern day politics. If you're not going to try to learn from the lessons offered through history, then what is the point of even teaching it? Of course, Iraq and the Civil War are different, but I do believe there are many strong correlations, between the Presidents, the wars, and the reconstruction efforts.

 

i believe the Acts expired in 1801, as soon as the Adam's Presidency ended.

I agree with you

I don't believe the Civil War era of politics can be fairly compared to the present in any way.

Wilson was one of the worst president's in history.

political precedent does not make something right.

I couldn't disagree more.

Just because similar actions were taken at previous times in history does not mean that similar actions are correct today.

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking, we were at when we created them" - Albert Einstein

 

Take an intellectually honest look:

(1) President Lincoln was, by all accounts, the most unpopular president during his term.
-- President Bush (and Truman) are the only ones that even approach the level of hatred spewed by opponents

(2) Lincoln enacted legislation and policies that "curbed" civil liberties for the benefit of a nation during war time: suspension of habeas corpus, Clement Vallandigham, etc.
-- Bush’s Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, Military Commissions Act

(3) Much of the pre-war intelligence was wrong for both wars in terms of the military capabilities of the weaker defense force.

(4) The civilian defense chief was resented as "brusque, domineering and unbearably unpleasant to work with.”

(5) Embittered Democrats, prematurely claiming the war had been an utter failure, demanded that the administration bring the troops home.
-- …striking

(6) Secretary of State William Seward, Lincoln's closest advisor, predicted the war would be over in 60 days
-- “greeted as liberators”

(7) Lincoln imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. Nearly all of his actions, although vehemently denounced by the Copperheads, were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts.
-- Guantanamo Bay to a lesser extent, but certainly similar

(8) Neither president was afraid to assert the war powers delegated to a Commander in Chief: military tribunals

(9) During the war he issued a new justification for fighting the war, changing the purpose of fighting from preserving the Union to ending slavery.
-- WMDs -> AQI/terrorism

(10) He worked to free an entire people from oppression despite virtually half of the country vehemently opposing it: the slaves
-- bringing liberty to Iraqis previously under a brutal dictatorship

(11) Lincoln, like Bush, was criticized by former generals (McClellan)

(12) Lincoln was often called "King Abe" by his detractors.
-- Tell me I've never heard anyone use the phrase "King George".

I’m sure there are other similarities that I am leaving out, but you get the point. Two great men with strong convictions and a backbone who didn't cave in to public or Congressional pressure. What this shows us is that with Bush, like Lincoln, everyone depends on the outcome. And secondly, that history, not polls, are what really determine the success of a president.

Everyone on these boards should hope that history will be as kind to President Bush as it has to President Lincoln.

 

When I hear people like Barbara Boxer claiming that the Iraqis aren't suited for democracy or that they were given freedom and simply couldn't handle it. Or when I hear liberals claim that when the power and freedom of democracy, a system designed to allow the masses to rule, is instituted, the Iraqis just caused chaos. They used this as an argument for putting Saddam, a ruthless, but effective dictator back in power, for they claim that only he knows how to restore order.

These assertions are exactly the same arguments that were made by the Redeemers (anti-black Southerners) during the American Reconstruction (1863-1877) following the end of the Civil War (1865) when the 1867 Military Reconstruction Act was passed (divided Confederacy into five military districts and enforced black suffrage) and the 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified. They said that blacks were given a taste of freedom and democracy, and they couldn't handle it - they didn't know what to do with it. To anyone who watched Barbara Boxer's speech a few months ago, this sounds eerily familiar. m

And so what happened? There was the informal "Compromise of 1877" when the Republicans agreed to a number of Democrat demands which lead to the restoration of Democratic rule in the South. Once in control, the Democrats immediately rolled back the rights of these freedmen (former slaves) to the point where everything about slavery existed but it's name. These rights were not gained back until the 1960s.

I fear that we may be entering 1877 all over again, this time, in Iraq.

 

I'm fairly certain it was 1802. I'll check and get back to you.

So then, by proxy, you agree with my premise that the Founding Fathers supported the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Why?

Of course not. But it supports my statement that "what the "Modern Day Republican Party" has done is not only appropriate in the context of American history, but mild compared to what these other wartime presidents have done."

If you get a chance, I would like to see you elaborate one what specifically you disagree with.

I am aware.

I don't really see the relevance. Were the outcomes of the Civil War, WW1, and WW2 not to our favor?

 

1. War President's are always umpopular. I can see the similarities between the Civil War and the Iraq War already. You're blowing me away.

2. We've already gone over this. Historical Precedent does not make it the correct course.

3. You'd think our Intelligence would be a little better 160 years later

4. I don't recall who the civilian defense chief was during the civil war, but great comparison. I mean since Rumsfeld was ridiculed and this defense chief were ridiculed, wow, it's like seeing the same war all over again.

5. you've found it! the historical precedent for victory in Iraq!!!

6. a century and a half later and morons are still being given advisory roles in the white house?

7. terrible comparison.

8. it is a common misconception that the president, as Commander-in-Chief, is the sole arbiter of what is "APPROPRIATE" and "NECESSARY," once a war (or police action) begins

9. Lincoln was fighting to preserve the union, he used "slavery" to win the war. Bush used WMD to lie a nation into war. Big difference

10. Lincoln freed the slaves. 600,000 Iraqi's have died in this war. Their country is in shambles and we are rewriting their laws so that american inudstrialists can dominant their economy. freedom?

11. weak

12. These are really your similarities between 2 completely different wars?

intellectually honest would be admitting that the American Civil War and the War on Terror are as completely different as any 2 wars in modern history. drawing parrallels by pointing out similarities in criticisms and successes doesn't cut it.

If you were just flexing you history buff, i understand.

 

200 years ago? yes. They supported slavery back then too.

2 main reasons - Federal Reserve and 14 points

 

I've found sources that support both 1801 and 1802 so I'll have to retract my contention. At any rate, my argument still stands.

 

it certainly wasn't both. The Act expired with the Adams presidency.

 

Good debate guys. Just one comment.

Look at your last sentence. Why do you think "we" may be entering 1877 all over again.
We are not Iraqis.
Civil wars are for the people of that country to fight.