William Seward criticizes the pro-slavery policies of the Democratic Party

Grand Old Partisan ^ | October 25, 2010 | Michael Zak

[Michael Zak]

On this day in 1859, Senator William Seward (R-NY) said:

"The Democratic party is inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders... The history of the Democratic Party commits it to the policy of slavery. It has been the Democratic Party, and no other agency, which has carried that policy up to its present alarming culmination... Such is the Democratic Party... The government of the United States, under the conduct of the Democratic Party, has been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after another to slavery."

The more things change...

[jessduntno]

“Still a legend in your own mind, I see.”

Hey, you’re the stalker and keep following me around, Granny. Great Granny? Doofus? Hahahahaha. Stay warm out in the bushes.

[fortheDeclaration]

I missed the part in the Constitution where it said a State could leave the Union.

[jessduntno]

"I missed the part in the Constitution where it said a State could leave the Union."

Should it?

It doesn't anything about it being OK to rain on Sunday either. There's a lot of shit that ain't in there.

The only question that matters is, how is prohibited.

A third grader just walked by and looked over my shoulder and said, "Isn't that covered something about powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?" Shook his head and muttered something nasty, mentioned the tenth amendment and walked out.

Here's a High School primer:

http://pmc.princeton.edu/powersofcongress.php

In the two centuries since the Constitution was ratified, the national government has grown much more powerful than the Framers could ever have imagined. Nonetheless, the Civil War was fought over the question of states' rights versus centralized power, and the debate over how strong the central government should be rages on still today in our courts and on the floor of Congress. Those who would interpret the Constitution to empower a strong, broad central government cite the "necessary and proper" clause found in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18. Those who argue for a smaller central government with more power and freedom for the states cite the Tenth Amendment.

So you see, there are divergent opinions about the Great War.

Personally, I wonder how Third Manassas will turn out.

[central_va]

I missed the part in the Constitution where it said a State could leave the Union.

The US Constitution is silent on the issue.

FYI: In 1861, the US Senate put a bill up for a vote making secession illegal. It was voted down.

[Non-Sequitur]

Personally, I wonder how Third Manassas will turn out.

We'll never find out. In order for that to happen you and your buddies would have to actually DO something.

[Non-Sequitur]

FYI: In 1861, the US Senate put a bill up for a vote making secession illegal. It was voted down.

Because it was unnecessary. Secession as practiced by the Southern states is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that.

[Hoodat]

Secession as practiced by the Southern states is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that . . .

. . . even though the actual Constitution says no such thing.

[Non-Sequitur]

. . . even though the actual Constitution says no such thing.

It doesn't say that secession is legal, either. And before you get into that whole 10th Amendment argument, the power to admit states and approve changes in their status once allowed into the Union is a power clearly reserved to Congress by Article I and Article IV. Implied in that is the power to approve their leaving entirely. So yes, states can leave the Union. But no, they cannot do it without the consent of the other states.

[Hoodat]

The other states gave their consent when they allowed Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island to join the Union on the condition that they could later withdraw. If that condition was not allowed, then their ratifications are deemed null and void.

Here's what James Madison said in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

To repeat: Those [powers] which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

And as for Articles I and IV, they do not trump Amdendment X. It is very specific. It reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Can you please show me where the Constitution delegates to the United States the explicit power to prevent a State from leaving the Union?

[Hoodat]

Personally, I wonder how Third Manassas will turn out.

We'll never find out. In order for that to happen you and your buddies would have to actually DO something.

That's funny. Both Manassas battles occurred because Union troops had invaded the Commonwealth of Virginia. Without the Union "doing something", we wouldn't have had First & Second Manassas.

[Idabilly]

The Supreme Court ruled that.

Here is the bedrock of inalienable rights, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Shall we talk about the several high Court case's that destroyed these principles? Life wasn't declared inalienable, was it? Roe v. Wade..

Furthermore, you British loyalist had your own UN court rule that Kosovo's unilateral secession from Serbia was legal. Your so-called Supreme Court has become a Co-Conspirator against the people. Why have any Checks and Balances with the invention of the feral rubber stamp.

[Idabilly]

We'll never find out. In order for that to happen you and your buddies would have to actually DO something.

Non-Sequitur can't even make one honest statement. He needs a little encouragement - "I would invade the southland, but there are no battery charging stations for my eco-friendly car in Dixie"> :)

That there is the truth of it...

[mac_truck]

It was not rebels, it was not even adults, it was three kids 16 and 17 years of age, out past curfew from the citadel.

That is an interesting tidbit of history.

The citadel has an award called 'The Star of The West'. The student who is awarded it is destined for great things.

Actually their external affairs page says 'The Star of the West' is a cmmencement week competition award for the 'best drilled' cadet.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Wade Hampton Saber?

[mstar]

Here is the bedrock of inalienable rights, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Shall we talk about the several high Court case's that destroyed these principles? Life wasn't declared inalienable, was it? Roe v. Wade..

You are diff speaking some hard truth here Idabilly, but an unborn baby doesn't vote.

It is much more profitable to blame shift, lie, and rob while gleefully promoting a bankrupt giveaway circus.

So another day of south bashing while it's business as usual at the neighborhood slaughter houses. . . always there to "serve" the needs of potential black voters. /s

[Colonel Kangaroo]

One that isn't embarrassed by the Confederate flag or that doesn't insist that our ancestors are all traitors

The traitors are Davis and the secessionists. I suspect the majority of reb soldiers would have been quite happy with staying in the Union in 1860. I cannot understand why Southerners lower themselves to defend the political half wits who engineered secession and the Confederacy. I'll take Seward, Sumner, Stevens and Lincoln over that gang of thieves any day.

[Non-Sequitur]

The other states gave their consent when they allowed Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island to join the Union on the condition that they could later withdraw. If that condition was not allowed, then their ratifications are deemed null and void.

You've got that backwards. The other states did not consent to Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia but rather New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia agreed that the Constitution as adopted by the convention was binding upon them. So regardless of what their ratification documents said, if an act is not allowed by the Constitution then they cannot perform it. And secession without the consent of the other states is not allowed by the Constitution.

Here's what James Madison said in Federalist 45...

Here's what James Madison said in a letter to Alexander Rives:

"But the ability and the motives disclosed in the Essays induce me to say in compliance with the wish expressed, that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."

Can you please show me where the Constitution delegates to the United States the explicit power to prevent a State from leaving the Union?

Can you please show me where the Constitution uses the term 'explicit'?

[cowboyway]

I missed the part in the Constitution where it said a State could leave the Union.

Perhaps you can show us the part where it says that a state can't leave the union.

[Non-Sequitur]

That's funny. Both Manassas battles occurred because Union troops had invaded the Commonwealth of Virginia. Without the Union "doing something", we wouldn't have had First & Second Manassas.

That's like saying Okinawa occured because the U.S. invaded Japan. Legally that may be true, but had Japan not started the war to begin with then the U.S. troops would have had no reason to invade Okinawa or anywhere else. Likewise with Bull Run. Had the confederacy not launched a war then the Union troops would have had no reason to be there.

[Non-Sequitur]

Non-Sequitur can't even make one honest statement. He needs a little encouragement...

It is a completely honest statement, and shows how convinced I am that you and your buddies are all talk and no action. So why bother worrying about something that will never, ever happen? Not if it depends on you and yours.

[cowboyway]

I suspect the majority of reb soldiers would have been quite happy with staying in the Union in 1860.

I don't think so. If that had been the case, there never would have been secession and the Confederate Army would have been terribly undermanned. You seem to have forgotten that Southerners were quite anxious to fill the ranks of the army for a chance to shoot some yankees even to the point of outfitting themselves.

I cannot understand why Southerners lower themselves to defend the political half wits who engineered secession and the Confederacy.

You have your opinion, as wrong as it may be, colonel.

I'll take Seward, Sumner, Stevens and Lincoln over that gang of thieves any day.

We've hoed this row too many times and I'm not interested in a recap. You know where I stand and I know where you stand. I believe we can leave it at that.

But, perhaps you'd like to address the point that I made to Zak, who seems to have pulled another disappearing act. Whether you like it or not, there are a large number of Southerners that are proud of our heritage. What does it benefit the Republican Party to alienate the redest voters in the redest section of the country?