What James Madison (1793 Founder of Republican Party and author of Constitution) said about how lib

[Moonglow]

Also Eddie boy the party was aptly named The Democratic-Republican party..Why you chose to edit the names of political parties I have no 411..

The other party was the Federalist...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Once AGAIN for those intimidated by history, the "Democratic-Republican Party", which Jefferson and Madison did start, is no more related to the actual contemporary "Republican Party" founded in 1854 (out of a portion of the Whigs) in Ripon Wisconsin as already posted here and elsewhere, than the American Republican Party of

Once AGAIN for those intimidated by history, the "Democratic-Republican Party", which Jefferson and Madison did start, is no more related to the actual contemporary "Republican Party" founded in 1854 (out of a portion of the Whigs) in Ripon Wisconsin as already posted here and elsewhere, than the American Republican Party of 1843 (commonly called the Know Nothings) was. Nor for that matter is it related to the National Republican Party founded by Henry Clay, originally loosely known as "anti-Jacksonians" and later known as "Whigs".

Members of the "Democratic-Republican Party" were commonly conversationally called "Republicans" as a shorthand (they were also for a time called the "anti-Administration Party"), but only an idiot would fail to discern the difference between two different things using the same term -- probably the same kind of idiot that would think the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" was any of those things excepting "of Korea", or that the Nazi Party were "socialists", or that Post Grape-Nuts contains either grapes or nuts, or that the "Pennsylvania Dutch" have roots in Holland.

Bottom line remains ----- if Jefferson and Madison founded the modern Republican Party, then what the hell was going on in Ripon Wisconsin in 1854? How can you "found" something that already exists?

That'll be $10,000. Again.

1843 (commonly called the Know Nothings) was. Nor for that matter is it related to the National Republican Party founded by Henry Clay, originally loosely known as "anti-Jacksonians" and later known as "Whigs".

Members of the "Democratic-Republican Party" were commonly conversationally called "Republicans" as a shorthand (they were also for a time called the "anti-Administration Party"), but only an idiot would fail to discern the difference between two different things using the same term -- probably the same kind of idiot that would think the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" was any of those things excepting "of Korea", or that the Nazi Party were "socialists", or that Post Grape-Nuts contains either grapes or nuts, or that the "Pennsylvania Dutch" have roots in Holland.

Bottom line remains ----- if Jefferson and Madison founded the modern Republican Party, then what the hell was going on in Ripon Wisconsin in 1854? How can you "found" something that already exists?

That'll be $10,000. Again.

1)you have Primary sources showing you that Madison and Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1793 to stand for very limited government exactly like modern Republicans and no primary sources showing that they founded the Democratic Republican Party.

2) Republican Party in 1854 may share same name with modern Republican Party but did not stand for limited government or against liberalism the way Jefferson and Madison did so has nothing significant in common with the Republican party of our founding fathers. Are you still confused?

 

[Pogo]

Special Ed returns. For those who joined in the last year or so the reason we call him "Special Ed" will make itself readily apparent.

Now on to the refutation. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin. James Madison was already dead for eighteen years. These are simple historical facts. This is however a tiny bit closer to Special Ed's previous claim where he had Jefferson founding the Party --- 28 years after his own death.

"Liberals" were Madison himself and the rest of the crew that wrote the Constitution. Liberalism was its driving force. "Federalists" were a political party that organized after that was done. Madison was a member (and founder) of the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no direct connection to either of the modern parties by those names.

As far as Madison's "regrets" I couldn't say what his "greatest" one was but he did call for a Constitutional Amendment that would have made the insane "winner take all" system the Electoral College uses, illegal.

I think the most hilariousest part of the OP is his trying to sell the idea that Madison wanted to make himself illegal.

Dear Pogo and rightwinger
The best explanation and distinction I've seen clarifying Liberals and Conservatives beliefs
came from Allen West's book "Guardian of the Republic":

* today's Liberals came from the Radical Liberal approach made famous by Rousseau
This approach is using Govt to establish the collective will of the people

* today's Conservatives came from the Classical Liberal approach by John Locke
This is where the tradition came from that the Constitution LIMITS and CHECKS the powers of govt (where people do NOT rely on Govt for natural rights that come from Nature or God,
so the PEOPLE have the power and authority of Govt, not the other way around)

So the two groups use govt in different ways.
One (the Liberals) believe in RELYING on Govt as the Central Authority for establishing laws for everyone.
And usually the emphasis is on "promoting the general welfare" so this is proactive toward social programs and benefits
based on what Liberals push for TODAY.

The Other (the Conservatives believe in LIMITING Govt so that the authority of decisions remains vested in the people.

So this is where the pushing and shoving comes from, where one side appears to want to expand govt to "control"
all the services and decisions FOR the people; while the other appears to want to get rid of govt and excess legislation.
The problem being that Corporations already have collective power and influence similar to Govt but have no
regulatory means to prevent abuses of power, as the Constitution serves to check official govt but not corporations.

Because of the disproportionate influence of corporations and media in the democratic process of govt and parties,
this is why Liberals push for more dependence on Govt for protections from this source of abusive oppression
that the Constitution doesn't check against. While Conservatives continue to argue for "free market" solutions
against the massive monopolies of corporate interests that bypass checks and balances.

Pogo and rightwinger Regardless where Madison or Jefferson, or Mason or other past leaders
stood on federalism anti-federalism,
do you agree with West's explanation that the
* Liberals depend on Govt as the central authority for establishing laws for the public and/or promoting general welfare
* Conservatives only agree to grant CERTAIN powers to Govt as defined in the Constitution,
believe in Limited Govt and push for enforcing Constitutional limits, check and balances, and separation of power to prevent too much control of people's choices and resources from being vested in the hands of a few officials running govt (instead of the PEOPLE being the authority that govt has the duty to represent and reflect the consent of).

Is that a fair delineation between the two camps?

According to West, even the Black leadership was split between these two ideologies,
where DuBois believed in relying on the political process through GOVT to "establish political rights and equality"
while Booker T. Washington believed that equality and true empowerment would be gained by
teaching INDEPENDENCE of govt, and for Blacks especially to own their own property and businesses in order to be equal.

This stems from the "difference in beliefs" where
Conservatives tend to believe that the natural rights of man come from Natural Laws (not from govt)
while Liberals don't believe in God given rights or laws (which is faith based or just plain "made up" as a religious cult following for class control)
and believe that people depend on GOVT to establish protections of rights.

So that's the summary of political beliefs from left and right.
Does this seem accurate to you?
Or what would you clarify? Thanks!

There's really no question here of "what Liberal means" or who influenced who. This is a basic matter of simple Linear Time --- which is not negotiable.

GIVEN that the (modern) Republican Party was founded in 1854;

and GIVEN that Thomas Jefferson died in 1826 and James Madison in 1836;

and GIVEN that both death dates PRECEDE the date of 1854;

NOW THEREFORE it is impossible for either Thomas Jefferson or James Madison to have founded a political party decades after their own deaths.

If that sounds like a stupid premise to knock down ----------------------------- it is. But it's the basis of Special Ed's historical revisionary bullshit, and has been for as long as I've been on this site, and presumably before. That's the retarded mentality we're dealing with here. A simple matter of State the Obvious.

REGARDLESS what Locke or Rousseau or Allen Freaking West thinks about anything, "1854" DOES NOT and CAN NOT occur before 1826 or 1836.

Simple as that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Special Ed returns. For those who joined in the last year or so the reason we call him "Special Ed" will make itself readily apparent.

Now on to the refutation. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin. James Madison was already dead for eighteen years. These are simple historical facts. This is however a tiny bit closer to Special Ed's previous claim where he had Jefferson founding the Party --- 28 years after his own death.

"Liberals" were Madison himself and the rest of the crew that wrote the Constitution. Liberalism was its driving force. "Federalists" were a political party that organized after that was done. Madison was a member (and founder) of the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no direct connection to either of the modern parties by those names.

As far as Madison's "regrets" I couldn't say what his "greatest" one was but he did call for a Constitutional Amendment that would have made the insane "winner take all" system the Electoral College uses, illegal.

I think the most hilariousest part of the OP is his trying to sell the idea that Madison wanted to make himself illegal.

Dear Pogo and rightwinger
The best explanation and distinction I've seen clarifying Liberals and Conservatives beliefs
came from Allen West's book "Guardian of the Republic":

* today's Liberals came from the Radical Liberal approach made famous by Rousseau
This approach is using Govt to establish the collective will of the people

* today's Conservatives came from the Classical Liberal approach by John Locke
This is where the tradition came from that the Constitution LIMITS and CHECKS the powers of govt (where people do NOT rely on Govt for natural rights that come from Nature or God,
so the PEOPLE have the power and authority of Govt, not the other way around)

So the two groups use govt in different ways.
One (the Liberals) believe in RELYING on Govt as the Central Authority for establishing laws for everyone.
And usually the emphasis is on "promoting the general welfare" so this is proactive toward social programs and benefits
based on what Liberals push for TODAY.

The Other (the Conservatives believe in LIMITING Govt so that the authority of decisions remains vested in the people.

So this is where the pushing and shoving comes from, where one side appears to want to expand govt to "control"
all the services and decisions FOR the people; while the other appears to want to get rid of govt and excess legislation.
The problem being that Corporations already have collective power and influence similar to Govt but have no
regulatory means to prevent abuses of power, as the Constitution serves to check official govt but not corporations.

Because of the disproportionate influence of corporations and media in the democratic process of govt and parties,
this is why Liberals push for more dependence on Govt for protections from this source of abusive oppression
that the Constitution doesn't check against. While Conservatives continue to argue for "free market" solutions
against the massive monopolies of corporate interests that bypass checks and balances.

Pogo and rightwinger Regardless where Madison or Jefferson, or Mason or other past leaders
stood on federalism anti-federalism,
do you agree with West's explanation that the
* Liberals depend on Govt as the central authority for establishing laws for the public and/or promoting general welfare
* Conservatives only agree to grant CERTAIN powers to Govt as defined in the Constitution,
believe in Limited Govt and push for enforcing Constitutional limits, check and balances, and separation of power to prevent too much control of people's choices and resources from being vested in the hands of a few officials running govt (instead of the PEOPLE being the authority that govt has the duty to represent and reflect the consent of).

Is that a fair delineation between the two camps?

According to West, even the Black leadership was split between these two ideologies,
where DuBois believed in relying on the political process through GOVT to "establish political rights and equality"
while Booker T. Washington believed that equality and true empowerment would be gained by
teaching INDEPENDENCE of govt, and for Blacks especially to own their own property and businesses in order to be equal.

This stems from the "difference in beliefs" where
Conservatives tend to believe that the natural rights of man come from Natural Laws (not from govt)
while Liberals don't believe in God given rights or laws (which is faith based or just plain "made up" as a religious cult following for class control)
and believe that people depend on GOVT to establish protections of rights.

So that's the summary of political beliefs from left and right.
Does this seem accurate to you?
Or what would you clarify? Thanks!

There's really no question here of "what Liberal means" or who influenced who. This is a basic matter of simple Linear Time --- which is not negotiable.

GIVEN that the (modern) Republican Party was founded in 1854;

and GIVEN that Thomas Jefferson died in 1826 and James Madison in 1836;

and GIVEN that both death dates PRECEDE the date of 1854

THEREFORE it is impossible for either Thomas Jefferson or James Madison to have founded a political party decades after their own deaths.

If that sounds like a stupid premise to knock down ----------------------------- it is. But it's the basis of Special Ed's historical revisionary bullshit, and has been for as long as I've been on this site, and presumably before.

REGARDLESS what Locke or Rousseau or Allen Freaking West thinks about anything, "1854" DOES NOT and CAN NOT occur before 1826 or 1836.

Simple as that.

we have many primary sources, speeches newspaper articles letters inaugural addres none of which have any reason whatsoever to lie about the name of the party showing that Jefferson and Madison formed the Republican Party not the Democratic Republic and party in 1793. Only the worlds greatest fool what argue with several different unrelated primary sources none of which have any reason whatsoever to lie about the name of the party Or its purpose to fight for conservative principles very limited government.

 

[Pogo]

2) Republican Party in 1854 may share same name with modern Republican Party but did not stand for limited government or against liberalism

This is correct; when the Republican Party was founded --- again that word is founded, meaning 'created for the first time' -- in 1854, it did not stand for limited government. It stood for the opposite, the concept of doing big things with government, a legacy of the Whigs who did the same thing. And it stood for Abolition of slavery, which the Whigs as a whole did not support, and which is a completely Liberal tenet, so it certainly didn't 'stand against' Liberalism, but rather for it.

But this is all moving your own goalposts --- the question ---- AGAIN --- is not "what a party stood for" at some date; it's WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED, which you have directly lied about here. Moreover in this goalpost-moving you have just (a) admitted that the Republican Party was indeed founded in 1854, and (b) admitted that political parties are not some fixed ideological point, but rather shift with the political winds as time goes on.

So at this point you owe me THIRTY thousand dollars. Pay up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2) Republican Party in 1854 may share same name with modern Republican Party but did not stand for limited government or against liberalism

This is correct; when the Republican Party was founded --- again that word is founded, meaning 'created for the first time' -- in 1854, it did not stand for limited government. It stood for the opposite, the concept of doing big things with government, a legacy of the Whigs who did the same thing. And it stood for Abolition of slavery, which the Whigs as a whole did not support, and which is a completely Liberal tenet, so it certainly didn't 'stand against' Liberalism, but rather for it.

But this is all moving your own goalposts --- the question ---- AGAIN --- is not "what a party stood for" at some date; it's WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED, which you have directly lied about here. Moreover in this goalpost-moving you have just (a) admitted that the Republican Party was indeed founded in 1854, and (b) admitted that political parties are not some fixed ideological point, but rather shift with the political winds as time goes on.

So at this point you owe me THIRTY thousand dollars. Pay up.

The Republican Party stands for freedom from big liberal government was founded by Jefferson and Madison in 1792. The one that stands for gibberish was founded in 1854 but since freedom from Liberal government Is the very essence of America the 1792 Republican Party is the most significant founding by far. Still confused?

 

[Pogo]

2) Republican Party in 1854 may share same name with modern Republican Party but did not stand for limited government or against liberalism

This is correct; when the Republican Party was founded --- again that word is founded, meaning 'created for the first time' -- in 1854, it did not stand for limited government. It stood for the opposite, the concept of doing big things with government, a legacy of the Whigs who did the same thing. And it stood for Abolition of slavery, which the Whigs as a whole did not support, and which is a completely Liberal tenet, so it certainly didn't 'stand against' Liberalism, but rather for it.

But this is all moving your own goalposts --- the question ---- AGAIN --- is not "what a party stood for" at some date; it's WHEN IT WAS FOUNDED, which you have directly lied about here. Moreover in this goalpost-moving you have just (a) admitted that the Republican Party was indeed founded in 1854, and (b) admitted that political parties are not some fixed ideological point, but rather shift with the political winds as time goes on.

So at this point you owe me THIRTY thousand dollars. Pay up.

The Republican Party stands for freedom from big liberal government was founded by Jefferson and Madison in 1792. The one that stands for gibberish was founded in 1854 but since freedom from Liberal government Is the very essence of America the 1792 Republican Party is the most significant founding by far. Still confused?

So now you're going to claim there are TWO Republican Parties existing in parallel universes?


Linkie?

"Big liberal government" is an oxymoron. Go buy a history book. Feel free to deduct it from that $30k you owe me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So now you're going to claim there are TWO Republican Parties existing in parallel universes?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Youve seen numerous primary sources, unrelated primary sources with no reason to lie or obfuscate and yet you are totally befuddled by Jefferson and Madison’s founding of the Republican Party in 1793 to stand for freedom from big Liberal government. Do you feel the little treasonous to be a liberal? Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin and elected Obama and Bernie Sanders?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So now you're going to claim there are TWO Republican Parties existing in parallel universes?
.

Jefferson's Republican Party was long gone by the time of Lincoln. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Big liberal government" is an oxymoron.

if true why is the liberal so afraid to tell us why? What do you learn from your fear?