Posted on 10/25/2010 7:28:30 AM PDT by 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...
The Restored Government of Virginia, established by Unionists in convention in the city of Wheeling in June 1861 and which was recognized by Congress as the legitimate government of Virginia, voted to partition in May 1862.
Maybe George Lucas can make another trilogy where Vader's followers spend the next few centuries grumbling about how unfair it all was, how the Empire has been painted as a villain by revisionist historians, how Emperor Palpatine really stood for the original intentions of the Galactic Republic's founders, and how they're going to rise up any time now, just you wait.
No, Virginia was admitted to the Confederacy on May 11, 1861.
Again, can you please cite where it says this in the Constitution?
Check my reply 104.
I rechecked it. Still no prohibition against secession can be found. Again, can you please cite where it says this in the Constitution?
Two states cannot vote to combine without the OK of Congress. States cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Leaving the Union, by implication, requires the same.
That's quite an assumption you make there. Keep in mind that secession does not involve changing borders or combining with other states.
What you do not understand is that I agree with you that secession is permitted under the Constitution
btw, Virginia didn't join a 'rebellion'. Virginia opted out because the United States had violated its trust. And they did so based upon their original ratification:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
LMAO! Until the day he dies or FR ends, whichever comes first.
By the way, have you heard anything back about that five pages of my posts that you were sending to Jim Robinson?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:nonsequitur/index?more=1801068
CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2001, WHERE WAS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR. and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:nonsequitur/index?more=2291068
Hey Joe, after checking these links you provided and following some of the threads, I can say without equivication that you grossly misstate both the level of Non-seq's participation, and the tone of his comments.
In fact, newbies like you would be well advised to take note of the level of civility that existed amongst the opponents on those ACW threads back in the day, as well as the quality of the discourse.
You might learn something
Doesn't fraud always void a contract?
My error. But let me point out that May 11 is still before the May 23rd referendum. So much for vox populi.
I rechecked it. Still no prohibition against secession can be found. Again, can you please cite where it says this in the Constitution?
Hopefully you read on.
That's quite an assumption you make there. Keep in mind that secession does not involve changing borders or combining with other states.
No, but combining states does remove one state from the Union. Regardless, the point is that every other change in a state's status requires congressional approval. Why shouldn't leaving? They required approval to join, simple logic dictates they need the same to leave.
btw, Virginia didn't join a 'rebellion'. Virginia opted out because the United States had violated its trust.
Nope. Their acts of secession were illegal. It was a rebellion.
Appropriate, especially when you consider the Empire allowed slavery.
Ah the good old days. I'd forgotten that penguin joke, too. I'll have to thank mo-joe for pointing me to it again. Hopefully he's cut and pasted that one as well.
Pssst. Do you think we should tell him that in Thanksgiving was on November 22nd back in 2001, not the 29th?
"My opinion is, that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if any amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. ...
In their ratification document and after Hamilton had received that July 19(?), 1788 letter from Madison, New York listed statements that were consistent with what the Constitution meant. Hamilton and future Chief Justice Jay voted for those words. The words were not conditional. They were expressions of original intent about what the Constitution meant.
Perhaps in response to Madison's letter, NY delegates voted to take out the words "on condition" that amendments would be passed within a certain time period and replaced them with "in full confidence" that their proposed amendments would be considered. Their right to withdraw was not an amendment and not conditional. It was simply a statement of what the Constitution meant. It was the only way Hamilton and other Federalists could get the New York Ratification Convention to ratify the Constitution.
[you quoting Madison's letter]: The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started in Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection."
Perhaps Madison was talking here about ratification conditional on passing certain amendments. In the case of Virginia, Madison and future Chief Justice Marshall wrote the official June 26, 1788 Virginia ratification document along with three other Federalists. It stated that governance could be resumed "whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." If Madison felt otherwise, he got outvoted.
Seward to his credit though was far more reasonable than his Radical Reconstructionist brethren in that period after the war which shall live in infamy in southern hearts
isn't it funny as hell how now the descendants of those southerners you klowns here so despise are the bedrock of a new socially conservative GOP base and how Yankee conservatives have to depend on us time and again in national elections
that must hurt eh?
and the descendants of most of those good blue boys who died alone and far from home and their mommas ...right near where I type here south of Winstead Hill...are now mostly UAW type goons and other northern liberal trash who vote for Democrat handouts and have almost killed our culture their ancestors fought for
I hate that...don't you?
Can’t argue with the fact that Jefferson Davis was pretty accomplished prior to the war but proved to be a very poor President of the Confederacy.
Pollard’s Lost Cause...which I naturally have an early edition which has been in my family since forever...opens with some scathing hits on Davis.
This is where you jump the shark everytime...equating southerners with Nazis
not even “what culture war?” types like northern RINOs and NeoCons and even most Democrats for that matter use that smear.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I know for a fact everyone in Kansas is not so obnoxious NS.
Btw...just as point of fact...and for emphasis I think I will capitalize:
NS:
WHERE DURING WWII WERE MOST MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN NAZI PARTY AND THE GERMAN BUND TO BE FOUND?
AND LIKEWISE TODAY WHERE DO MOST MODERN DAY NEONAZIS LIKE WILLIAM PIERCE AND PETE PETERS LIVE AND PREACH AND ORGANIZE?
hint*
it ain’t Dixie sport...so quit throwing rocks on yer glass prairie...when it comes to embracing Nazis...you squareheads up north win hands down
The U.S Constitution begins, "We, the People , in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice," etc....
How can the argument possibly be made that the states had the right to unilaterally secede, when they had deliberately and perpetually forfeited their sovereignty?
And when central_va equated the Union cause with Nazis in reply 47, no outrage there? No high dudgeon for that? But when I respond in kind then all of a sudden I'm jumping sharks and being uncivil. Well, your disappointment is noted, wardaddy, but I'm sorry I won't apologize for it.
Even if I agreed with that, and I don't, if a state(s) wants to go, and their citizens vote in the affirmative, THERE OUTTA HERE. To try and stop them makes the other remaining states hypocrites of the n-th degree. A problem that a typical neo Yankees seem to handle with ease.
That is not accusing anyone of anything. I merely stated that if you wanted a visual, there is your example.
Maybe you don't, but the states (including the southern states) did, and pledged themselves to it.
if a state(s) wants to go, and their citizens vote in the affirmative, THERE OUTTA HERE.
So now it doesn't matter what the Constitution requires?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.