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...

[central_va]

Freedom requires no Constitution.

During the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, a number of New England states threatened secession over the issue of the Louisiana Purchase. His response? “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern.” Jan. 29, 1804. And “God bless them both, & keep them in Union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” August 12, 1803.

[Castlebar]

Central_va, when you thought the Constitution backed your argument, you said,

Tell which article and section of the Constitution makes state secession unconstitutional/illegal? I missed that part...

When you were shown differently, your line changed to:

Freedom requires no Constitution.

This is not a particularly respectable position.

[Non-Sequitur]

That is not accusing anyone of anything. I merely stated that if you wanted a visual, there is your example.

Of course. Sooooo innocent. Any comparisons between Nazis and the Union were purely unintentional. </sarcasm>

[central_va]

This:

Tell which article and section of the Constitution makes state secession unconstitutional/illegal? I missed that part...

And this:

Freedom requires no Constitution.

It is nice to codify my God given rights, but it isn't necessary. A state(s) citizens can decide when it is in their best interest to protect their freedom. It is very disturbing how little is thought of states rights today. In 1787 it was the opposite, the states were dominant in every way. You neo Yankee statist, Loncoln lovers, are really sad pathetic creatures. Bereft of any understanding of the founding of our country and what it means to live in a republic. I am afraid a new lesson in states rights is coming.

[Non-Sequitur]

“God bless them both, & keep them in Union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

Doesn't that sound like the decision to partition was a mutual one?

[Hoodat]

When you were shown differently . . .

When did that happen? Again, there is no prohibition against secession to be found in the US Constitution. It simply does not exist. Heck, even N-S admits that.

[Hoodat]

Your contention that secession by the Commonwealth of Virginia required a vote of Congress (per Article 4) is quite baffling considering that their admission into the Union did not also require a vote of Congress.

[rockrr]

Good point.

See my #136: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2614015/posts?page=136#136

[Castlebar]

Prohibition against secession was sealed in the Articles of PERPETUAL Union and Confederation. The Constitution reaffirmed this when it stated in its first eleven words that its purpose was to form a MORE PERFECT UNION.

[Hoodat]

Prohibition against secession was sealed in the Articles of PERPETUAL Union and Confederation.

This ought to be entertaining. Where, praytell can I find this prohibition against secession in the Articles of Confederation? Article II specifically states: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

If secession was not allowed, then why are there no states remaining in that Confederation? As each State adopted the new Constitution, each effectively seceded from the Confederation.

The Constitution reaffirmed this when it stated in its first eleven words that its purpose was to form a MORE PERFECT UNION.

The term 'More Perfect Union' is not synonymous with 'States prohibited from seceding'. Try reading the first three words of the Preamble again. But if you really want to get technical, the term 'insure domestic tranquility' was certainly not being applied by the Federal government in 1861.

[Castlebar]

Where, praytell can I find this prohibition against secession in the Articles of Confederation?

In the words "Perpetual Union", which mean the same thing then as now.

That expressly delegates to the United States, in Congress assembled, the freedom and independence of nationhood. If you can find an original copy that is titled "Articles of Conditional Union", you would have an argument.

[Castlebar]

Where, praytell can I find this prohibition against secession in the Articles of Confederation?

In the words "Perpetual Union", which mean the same thing then as now.

That expressly delegates to the United States, in Congress assembled, the freedom and independence of nationhood. If you can find an original copy that is titled "Articles of Conditional Union", you would have an argument.

[Hoodat]

Article XIII conflicts with Article III. And an adjective describing a union has no legal teeth, so to speak. For example, let's say it called for a ‘joyful’ union. Kind of difficult to enforce, don't you think? And as for the eternal union of the original confederation, a short decade does not quite describe perpetuity. Again, if the union were truly perpetual in all its legality, it would still exist.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

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.

Once it started, a lot of Southerners decided that the best course was to fight for the rebs. The most notable fighting anti-secessionist was Robert E. Lee who was appalled by secession.

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?

I don't think praising men like Seward and Lincoln is the same as alienating Southerners. He's not calling Southern soldiers and civilians evil racists. If you have a strong stomach and low blood pressure, I'd suggest a trip to "Democratic Underground" to see some real South bashing.

[rockrr]

I'd suggest a trip to "Democratic Underground" to see some real South bashing.

I can't imagine it being any worse than pokie's routine drip-spittle rages against those "DamnYankee's"...

[Castlebar]

And an adjective describing a union has no legal teeth, so to speak. For example, let's say it called for a ‘joyful’ union. Kind of difficult to enforce, don't you think?

"Joyful" is indeed, a nebulous legal adjective. "Perpetual" is not; and it is rather simple to enforce for any who respect the rule of law and the outcome of free and lawful elections.

And as for the eternal union of the original confederation, a short decade does not quite describe perpetuity. Again, if the union were truly perpetual in all its legality, it would still exist.

The Union still exists. It has lasted for over two centuries.

[Hoodat]

Not under the perpetual confederation as previously defined.

[Castlebar]

The United States adopted a stronger (”More Perfect Union”)governing document in 1791. They neved disbanded or dissolved their union.

[Hoodat]

The point at which the ninth state adopted the new Constitution, a new union had been formed which at the time did not include the remaining four states.

btw, did you ever consider the term 'more perfect'? I wonder if that is legally binding as well.

[Castlebar]

So in order to believe that the secession of the Confederate States was not unconstitutional, you must believe that as of June 21st, 1788, Virginia, North Carolina, Rhode Island and New York were no longer part of the United States?