Absolutely shocking facts about the GOP

My fellow Americans, what you are about to read is not taught in your history books, said on television, or even known by virtually any American. Until today it was not even known by me but after extensive research the facts are, to say the least; shocking. If you know me, as most on ATS do, I do try not to ‘pump things up’ beyond where they belong. So when I declare something to be shocking, unless you are a devout cynic or skeptic, this will shock you too.

I want to take you back to the 1850s, a time of tension just before the American Civil War. A new politics was spreading across the lands the likes of which few could comprehend. The result was the creation of a new political party in a small schoolhouse within a small Wisconsin town. This party was to be called the ‘Republican Party’. Assuming you already know all that perhaps it is best I just dive right into the subject at hand.

A man named Alvin Earl Bovay was in rural New York State, who went to Norwich University and admitted to the bar at Utica in July, 1846. A man dedicated to politics he became heavily involved in abolitionism and free soil, two popular movements at the time. He became the secretary of the National Reform Association which was a group dedicated to advancing the Homestead Act, free soil, abolitionism, and adding reverence to God into the US Constitution.

The NRA was chiefly concerned with the concentration of wealth, something they tied to the horrors of the old world. They felt there should not be a right to the unlimited accumulation of wealth in this country. The association soon turned towards what is described as “a spectrum the most revolutionary anarchist and socialist currents in American life”. This hostility towards concentrated wealth made them hostile to the South especially seeing as how it was governed largely by wealthy gentry using slavery in replace of paid labor, further amassing their wealth concentration and depriving laborers of good wages.

Some historians have tied the NRA’s most important members to being under the influence of Socialism, Trade Unionism, and of course Abolitionism. By the late 1840s they had taken up the issue of a new Homestead Act whereby land west of the Mississippi accounting for 160 or more undeveloped acres would be given to any occupant 21 years or older who lived there for five years and maintained the land. This was perhaps their most important cause which was the land – reform movement, which was tied into abolitionism.

In the late 1840s Bovay relocated his family from New York to the newly formed town of Ripon, Wisconsin. Just prior to its formation the area had been used by utopian socialists as a commune known as Ceresco after the Roman Goddess of agriculture. It was still a hotbed for political activity, of which I believe it is safe to assume Socialism was a major driving force.

Around 1852 Bovay had contacted newspaper editor Horace Greeley, a man who had been an adherent of the newly developing ideology of Socialism. His newspaper, the New York Tribune, was the most widely circulated paper in America and featured such contributors as Margaret Fuller (the first major Feminist), Henry James Sr. (utopian Socialist), Charles Dana (Abolitionist), and Karl Marx (founder of Communism). Marx was one of the main contributors to the Tribune and his work is available online. Another contributor to the paper Henry Jarvis Raymond went on to found the New York Times.

Bovay had contacted Greeley because he wanted to create a new political party based around an abolitionist platform. The name of this new political party he proposed would be the ‘Republican Party’, Greeley was excited about the name as he had already thought of it himself. Some 2 years later the Kansas – Nebraska Act was being considered in Congress, angry that it may pass Bovay organized a meeting at the local church declaring that should the Nebraska bill pass they would “throw old party organizations to the winds and organize a new party on the sole issue of slavery."

On March 20, just under a month after the meeting, Congress passed the bill and Bovay called another meeting this time at a small schoolhouse in Ripon. A new political party was officially formed by Bovay and 16 other attendees to fight against the expansion of slavery known as the ‘Republican Party’. The media arm of the party would be headed by Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune as they launched their first campaign for the Presidency in 1856 nominating John C. Fremont and rallying around the slogan ‘Free soil, free silver, free men, Fremont”.

Another important man was Warren Chase who became a Wisconsin Legislator and was one of the members at the Wisconsin Constitutional Convention. He was also the founder of the Wisconsin Phalanx which was a spiritualist community based on the doctrines of Francios Fourier in 1844. Later he went on to found another utopian socialist community, one built around his specific ideals, called Ceresco, where Ripon would later be established. He was also an attendant at the founding of the Republican Party.

In 1860 a paramilitary group of the Republican Party was formed called the Wide Awake Republicans, identifying themselves as ‘Wide Awakes’. One reported incident was on October 3, 1860 in Chicago when 10,000 Wide Awakes marched in a three – mile precession. By the end of 1860 the New York Tribune had estimated there to be over 400,000 drilled and uniformed Wide Awakes nationwide. [The New York Herald (Sept. 19, 1860)] The adopted unofficial mission statement of Wide Awake chapters was:

1st. To act as a political police.
2nd. To do escort duty to all prominent Republican speakers who visit our place to address our citizens.
3rd. To attend all public meetings in a body and see that order is kept and that the speaker and meeting is not disturbed.
4th. To attend the polls and see that justice is done to every legal voter.
5th. To conduct themselves in such a manner as to induce all Republicans to join them.
6th. To be a body joined together in large numbers to work for the good of the Republican Ticket.

The Wide Awake Republicans struck fear in the South, seeing their night time marches as a precursor of what was to come should Lincoln be elected President. An army of 400,000 men at the ready to storm the South is what they feared. ““One –half million of men uniformed and drilled, and the purpose of their organization to sweep the country in which I live with fire and sword.” [Louis T. Wigfall – December 6, 1860 (Great Debates in American History)] It only became worse just days before the election when Senator Seward of New York declared “a revolution has begun,” then referred to the Wide Awakes as “forces with which to recover back again all the fields…and to confound and overthrow, by one decisive blow, the betrayers of the constitution and freedom forever.” To defend themselves from the Wide Awakes the Southerners created the Minute Men.

What make the Wide Awake Republicans (WAR) more interesting were the symbols they carried. Usually with them was an insignia of crossed furled flags; one was the United States flag and the other was the Tricolor of Revolutionary France. In the center of these two flags was the ‘all seeing eye’ or the ‘Eye of Providence’.





Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election and South Caroline seceded, followed by the other Southern states. But Lincoln was not the ‘founder’ of the Republican Party he merely joined in as the Whig Party had collapsed with the Republicans rise. Lincoln had done many things which made the Republican founders happy such as the Homestead Act of 1862 and began the American Civil War but they became hostile towards him because of his more pragmatic approach to Reconstruction.

In 1864 the party was torn in two between the moderates, led by Lincoln, and the Radical Republicans who passed their own Reconstruction plan only to have it vetoed by Lincoln. The Radicals were made up of William Seward (the one who called for a revolution in 1860), Thaddeus Stevens, Horace Greeley, and Edwin Stanton who one August 8, 1862 issued an order to "arrest and imprison any person or persons who may be engaged, by act, speech or writing, in discouraging volunteer enlistments, or in any way giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or in any other disloyal practice against the United States."

The 1864 election was divided with the Radical Republicans endorsing John C. Fremont causing Abraham Lincoln to run on the National Union Party ticket. But before the election had come the two groups agreed on endorsing Lincoln and he won re – election that year. At the end of the Civil War the Radical Republicans began to call themselves Liberals in the North and Conservatives in the South. Their ideology had developed from that of the founding members of the Republican Party and the New York Tribune which had developed a new form of Liberalism which drew heavily from the Tribune’s advocacy of Democratic Socialism.

It comes as no surprise that in 1864 Karl Marx wrote a letter to the re – elected President Lincoln which stated in part:

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

The Republican Party was founded by Socialists, at the time Socialist rhetoric, worked through a Socialist newspaper, and marched as a half – million large militia bearing two revolutionary flags and the eye of providence. Yet Bovay was still not satisfied and by the 1870s he marched under a new banner, that of prohibition by founding the Prohibition Party. This was the new issue of which the radicals rallied around, then adopting it into the Republican Party during the 1880s.

Does it come as a surprise to anyone now why the Republican Party has constantly failed to live up to anything remotely ‘Conservative’? Do you understand why the Neoconservatives run the GOP? They are, as I elaborated upon before in my thread here, former Trotskyites and their ideas centered on New York City Zionists. The behind the scenes leaders of the party are true descendants of the original Liberal – Socialist party in America. A Ron Paul is absolutely despised by the party bosses because he represents true American Conservatism, something they deeply, deeply despise.

My initial reaction is that this makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for bringing this to attention. I'm going to look into this more, but I have a gut feeling that you hit the nail on the head, especially in your concluding paragraph .

About to go to bed but book marking this for reading in the morning looks very interesting.

Thanks for posting it .

The Republican Party was founded by Socialists, at the time Socialist rhetoric, worked through a Socialist newspaper, and marched as a half – million large militia bearing two revolutionary flags and the eye of providence. Yet Bovay was still not satisfied and by the 1870s he marched under a new banner, that of prohibition by founding the Prohibition Party. This was the new issue of which the radicals rallied around, then adopting it into the Republican Party during the 1880s.

Does it come as a surprise to anyone now why the Republican Party has constantly failed to live up to anything remotely ‘Conservative’? Do you understand why the Neoconservatives run the GOP? They are, as I elaborated upon before in my thread here, former Trotskyites and their ideas centered on New York City Zionists. The behind the scenes leaders of the party are true descendants of the original Liberal – Socialist party in America. A Ron Paul is absolutely despised by the party bosses because he represents true American Conservatism, something they deeply, deeply despise.

Always learn something when I read your threads.
Your above quote was what struck me the most and describes the dichotomy that is within the GOP.

Awesome thread. Should be interesting to see the remarks that'll follow.

reply to post by Misoir


Karl Marx' letter of support to President Lincoln was for his efforts in abolishing slavery. Marx of all people knew that Marxism means the ends justify the means, and that the communists use any means necessary to achieve their goals, including supporting an act of social justice.
Today, Obama supporters are suggesting that just because rev Wright endorses his long term church attendee, it doesn't mean Obama subscribes to Marxist Black Liberation theology.

Does this argument hold in both instances?


Today the Communist Party endorses President Obama. How did their choice of endorsements change so much over the years?


One of the goals of the communist party has been to take over one or both of the major political parties in the USA. Have they accomplished this goal?


Your wikipedia source says that a similar group to the Awakes also formed in the Democrat Party. What this says to me is that the socialists indeed intended to infiltrate one or both of the political parties, including newly formed ones. Hegelian Dialectic was adopted in the US after some Yalies brought it back to the University from Berlin.

In the 1850s, three members of The Order left Yale and working together, at times with other members along the way, made a revolution that changed the face, direction and purpose of American education. It was a rapid, quiet revolution, and eminently successful. The American people even today, in 1983, are not aware of a coup d'etat.
The revolutionary trio were:

Timothy Dwight ('49) Professor in the Yale Divinity School and then 12th President of Yale University.

Daniel Coit Gilman ('52), first President of the University of California, first President of the Johns Hopkins University and first President of the Carnegie Institution.

Andrew Dickson White ('53), first President of Cornell University and first President of the American Historical Association.

This notable trio were all initiated into The Order within a few years of each other (1849, 1852, 1853). They immediately set off for Europe. All three went to study philosophy at the University of Berlin, where post-Hegelian philosophy had a monopoly.

Dwight studied at the Universities of Berlin and Bonn between 1856 and 1858,
Gilman was at the University of Berlin between 1854 and 55 under Karl von Ritter and Friedrich Trendelenberg, both prominent "Right" Hegelians, and
White studied at the University of Berlin between 1856 and 1858.

Notably also at the University of Berlin in 1856 (at the Institute of Physiology) was none other than Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of experimental psychology in Germany and the later source of the dozens of American Ph.D.s who came back from Leipzig, Germany to start the modern American education movement.

www.sntp.net...


source : Skull & Bones Society: How The Order Controls Education
by Antony C. Sutton

reply to post by Misoir


My main question is, why has there always been only two damn parties to represent the American people? I feel like today we are only limited to either the Republican or Democratic parties. That's what bothers me the most.

Stanton was responsible for the assassination of Lincoln. The missing pages from Booths diary are proof enough. The radical wing of Republicans wanted to wipe out and replace the moderate wing, and blame the South at the same time.

Interesting that the original Republican militant were called the "wide awakes". Kinda the way conspiracy minded folk refer to themselves as awakened and the rest of the world as being asleep or "sheeple".

I wonder how much of this terminology originates from early Republican thinking. Are we all Republican shills for believing that we are more enlightened than the average Joe?

How much of conspiracy theorist terminology and manner of thinking is influenced by the so-called "conservative" party? It does seem that many conspiracy minded people end up on the conservative side of the spectrum because of the belief in a Communist conspiracy to undermine the country.

Are we being manipulated to support one of the false political options and, in effect, aiding in the schemes of TPTB?

Go independants! Woo . . .

Seraph

S & F

Another well researched thread as always.

Originally posted by Matt1951
Stanton was responsible for the assassination of Lincoln. The missing pages from Booths diary are proof enough. The radical wing of Republicans wanted to wipe out and replace the moderate wing, and blame the South at the same time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/adaf1414e327.jpg[/atsimg]

Southern Democrats have a history all of their own. I wouldn't be so quick.

reply to post by Misoir


What a nice thread to wake up to.


Its surprising to me how religions defined politics back then............

Religious lines were sharply drawn. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. While both parties cut across economic class structures, the Democrats were supported more heavily by its lower tiers.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools, became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of personal morality issues. Prohibition debates and referendums heated up politics in most states over a period of decades, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democrats and the dry GOP.

Religion: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats

Reducing social sins.............Check.

Something just occurred to me...

I've heard time and again from various people supporting movements to take down the government that the revolution of France is never far from key official's minds, and it's been cited time and again as something we should feel the spirit of...

However this party had the French Revolutionary flag as one of its symbols.

Sometimes I wonder..

It's a nice read on the origins of the Republican party, but it doesn't reflect on the current iteration of the GOP. Just as the social-political environment has drastically changed from the 1800's, so too have the political parties. The GOP of today bears very little in common with that of Lincoln, with perhaps the exception of the evangelical wing of social conservatives. One of the core constituencies of the GOP of today is from those former Southern Democrats (the "dixiecrats") who bolted from the Democratic party when democrats began cracking down on Jim Crow and passing anti-segregation laws. Of course these 'shocking facts' might make for an entertaining conversation with diehard GOP neo-cons who love to bash 'socialism' at every chance, when one points out the hypocritical origin of their party.

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by Misoir

 

My main question is, why has there always been only two damn parties to represent the American people? I feel like today we are only limited to either the Republican or Democratic parties. That's what bothers me the most.

What's not said is that the Democratic Party was FOR slavery and against the Civil Rights laws in the 50's-70's...
this is why Rev Perryman was suing Obama and the Democratic Party, since they have hidden their ties and tried to re-write history by saying they were FOR Civil Rights and helped to free slaves. That's BS!!!
To see Rev Perryman go off about it check out: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFOd7wb1Cpo"
What you have are 2 political parties who have hidden agendas, you have to choose the better of the 2 evils if we can't elect an Independant and from past failures it won't happen anytime soon.
In my opinion Independants only run to throw the vote askew, generally towards Democratic since every time there has been a strong IND it pulls votes away from Republicans and we get the Obama's & Clintons.

Given the choices most western democracies find ourselves in, is it any wonder that some refuse to chose between the 2 evils and not vote?
I say good luck to our Arab brothers seeking some semblance of true democracy but beware of the evil within . thanks for the history bit. I am not sure what we can do with it....peace

reply to post by Misoir


Quite an interesting thread...

It's sad to see that the Republicans have fallen from their Socialist roots and instead have embraced Capitalism/Fascism/Neo-conservatism/Neo-liberalism instead...

Guess that goes for both major parties more or less.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
S & F

Another well researched thread as always.

Originally posted by Matt1951
Stanton was responsible for the assassination of Lincoln. The missing pages from Booths diary are proof enough. The radical wing of Republicans wanted to wipe out and replace the moderate wing, and blame the South at the same time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/adaf1414e327.jpg[/atsimg]

Southern Democrats have a history all of their own. I wouldn't be so quick.

We must keep in mind, however, that the Southern Democrats, at that time in our history, were CONSERVATIVE:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by cetta
Something just occurred to me...

I've heard time and again from various people supporting movements to take down the government that the revolution of France is never far from key official's minds, and it's been cited time and again as something we should feel the spirit of...

However this party had the French Revolutionary flag as one of its symbols.

Sometimes I wonder..

The French Revolution (until it was killed off by Fascists), was actually a great experiment in successful revolutionary society for a brief time.

Please see the Paris Commune for more info:

en.wikipedia.org...


Another great example is the Spanish Revolution/Catalonia:

en.wikipedia.org...

and

en.wikipedia.org...


Socialist/Anarchist society has actually been tried with some very considerable success. The immediate danger wasn't failure but conquest by totalitarian/government elements, typically Fascists.