Republican "history"

Yesterday I came across the website for the Cobb County Republican Women and their newsletter "Elephant Tatter". Glancing through the site I noticed that there was a section written by Michael Zak who has penned a book on the "history" of the GOP. The first edition that I looked at posed the question "Where does the idea of separation of church and state come from?" "The Constitution doesn't say anything about it." The article goes on to quote the preambles of the 50 state constitutions all making some reference to God. I am assuming that this must infer that there is no separation of church and state. There is one thing to say to these women and Mr Zak...The FIRST AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States!!!! The Establishment Clause clearly states that Congress shall pass NO law respecting an establishment of religion. The intent was not to have the same situation that existed in England with a state church, the Church of England. The idea of separation of Church and State was embedded in the mindset of colonial America. Roger Williams left Massachusetts Bay and founded Rhode Island because he was very much opposed to the theocratic nature of the Bay Colony. Thomas Jefferson was determined that there was to be a separation and Madison wrote it into the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld this doctrine and it exists! Iran has no separation of church and state.

I went on to read another edition of the "Elephant Tatter " and became even more disturbed. The article was lauding the Republican Women's participation in the Juneteenth celebration in Cobb County. It was noted that the history of the real Republican Party was much in favor of supporting Blacks and that Lincoln's program of reconstruction after the Civil War was dashed upon his death by the DEMOCRAT Andrew Johnson. Zak contends that history books almost always ignore the fact that Johnson was a Democrat and blamed the entire era of "Jim Crow" on Johnson and Democrats. First, there are no credible history books that ignore the fact that Lincoln selected a Tennessee Democrat who had not seceded with his state as vice president. This was an attempt to bring the country together and gain votes in the 1864 election. The early Republican Party that formed in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act was nothing like the party today. The Republican Platform in 1860 called for things like NATIONAL banking reform, a National transcontinental railroad, rights of all immigrants acknowledged, and though it disparaged slavery it did not call for its abolition. The actual abolition of slavery and enfranchisement of freedmen was pushed by a group of "Radical Republicans" who had disdain for state governments. They favored taking All land away from those who had supported the Confederacy and REDISTRIBUTING it (OMG) to the freedmen. Gee I bet that would go over real well with all the Southern Republicans today. Johnson was an inept President and became powerless after his impeachment. He was not removed by one vote, a Republican from Nebraska. (should we blame all ills of the world on this one Republican because he caused Johnson to remain in office?) When Reconstruction was over the Republican presidents, Grant, Hayes, Arthur, Harrison, Garfield, McKinley, T Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made sure the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were ignored and not enforced. Now a real historian would point out that both political parties and American society in general, were responsible for "Jim Crow" and segregation. Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson certainly did nothing to prevent segregation.

The 1964 Republican Platform and the candidate Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and every other piece of legislation that attempted to bring an end to segregation. The "Southern Democrats" in the 1950's and 1960's were the children and grandchildren of the Confederacy and began to filter into the Republican Party as the national Democrats advocated and pushed civil rights legislation. During the 1948 Democratic Convention a group of young Democrats led by Hubert Humphrey included in the party platform a provision calling for the passage of civil rights legislation. This did not go over well with many Southern Democrats so they left, formed the Dixiecrats, held their own convention , and nominated Strom Thurmond to run as their presidential candidate. Thurmond and most of his followers then became Republicans. Zak makes a big deal about the Democrats nominating Senator Sparkman from Alabama as Vice President on their 1952 ticket, and it is true that the Dems were trying to hold on to and appease the votes of Southern Democrats. This was not right but it is a lot like the current Republican Party placating their far right wing's xenophobic rantings and threats to keep the votes. By 1980 the South was a Republican stronghold.

There is very little resemblance between the Republicans today and those before and after the Civil War who advocated the strength of the national government and using the power of the national government to affect dramatic societal change. As a matter of fact, the current Republicans look alot like the pre-Civil War Democrats. History is almost always complex and never simple. Mr Zak, and Republicans in general, have decided that isolating bits of history that "prove" their points, taking them out of context to blame the other side, and never looking at the entire picture makes them right.

It is very dangerous when people change history to validate their agenda. I believe that is what happened in Nazi Germany, Mao's China, and the USSR, wasn't it?