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...
From the records of the first Congress, August 22, 1789 [Link]:
The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent:
... "As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
Also from that first Congress before North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution:
And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.
Virginia's statehood predated the Constitution if you will recall. And under the Constitution they had no more rights and privileges as any other state. Seven of the eleven rebel states were admitted with the approval of the other states. Leaving should require nothing more or less that was required to join.
That's ridiculous. They changed their form of government. The United States predates the Constitution. It did not go away only to reappear after the Constitution was adopted. What you would have us believe is that all the state seceded from the United States and formed....the United States. Where is the logic in that?
So are you saying that those 4 states had been expelled from the United States? That they were free and independent countries, on their own in the world community? Or were they still part of the United States?
I am saying that the other 9 States left the Confederation in order to form a new national Federation of States. The old Confederation was virtually dissolved.
That they were free and independent countries, on their own in the world community?
The other nine certainly thought so. See post 181.
But by the end of the war he was not sorry that they did it.
I don't think praising men like Seward and Lincoln is the same as alienating Southerners.
Zak started this thread with a quote Seward made prior to the war in which he's blasting the democrat party for being the party of slavery. Anybody that knows the history of the country knows that the South was largely democrat in 1859. It's obvious that Zak is trying to promote today's Republican party by painting today's democrat party as the party of slavery and who were the slaveholders? White Southern racists, of course. How can that not alienate a white Southerner?
If Zak's intent is to encourage blacks to embrace the Republican Party, why not use positive Republican principles and contrast them to the modern democrat party? It's my opinion that Zak's methodolgy is totally negative. For instance, if you ask a black what he thinks about when you say the word 'slave', what do you think he/she is going to say?
He's not calling Southern soldiers and civilians evil racists.
The implication is definitely there.
If you have a strong stomach and low blood pressure, I'd suggest a trip to "Democratic Underground" to see some real South bashing.
I don't go to sites like that. It's enough to know that there are plenty of conservatives that hate Southerners without going to a site filled with the unhinged.
According to Francis Harrison Pierpont, provisional governor of Virginia and later governor of the "restored" state of virginia, Lincoln viewed West Virginia statehood as political, not constitutional:
"On the receipt of that telegram I said to myself, this is not a constitutional question, it is a political question. The government [Restored Government of Virginia] has been struggling for its existence for nearly two years, the friends of this measure think it will strengthen its friends and weaken its enemy, it is a step towards the suppression of the rebellion and I will take it."
Link: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/west_virginia_history/v001/1.1ridderbusch.html
Thaddeus Stevens voted for it as a war measure and did not see it as constitutional either:
"I shall vote for this bill upon that theory and upon that alone; for I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the constitution for this processing."
Thaddeus Stevens: Nineteenth-century egalitarian by Hans Louis Trefousse pp. 129-130
What is it w/me and these links!
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/west_virginia_history/v001/1.1ridderbusch.html
Hoodat - I failed to include you in post 187.
But the country remained. The form of government may have changed but the country itself did not disappear or disband. The last four states were not readmitted as states under the new Constitution, as one would expect they would have to do if they had been drummed out of the country.
They did not. They referred to North Carolina and Rhode Island as 'states' and not as countries. They did not talk of them as if they were anything but part of the U.S. that were temporarily not participating in the government. And as for the states themselves, Rhode Island certainly did not view itself as a foreign country or as anything but a state within the United States. Link
And no, the country did not remain after the Articles of Confederation were dissolved. A new country was born under the Constitution of the US. It was the free choice of the 13 States involved to join that union, and three of those did so on the predication that exit was not only possible, but eminent when the new federal government faltered on it's commitments to the States.
Again, it was by choice. Thus if North Carolina had chosen not to join the new Union, it would have been treated as a separate country.
And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.
The Supreme Court gave tacit recognition of the constitutionality of West Virginia’s creation when it ruled on the case of Virginia v. West Virginia in 1871.
And if Rhode Island or North Carolina were indeed considered foreign countries by the rest of the U.S. then why the need for the law? Their goods would have been taxed automatically, as if they were from France or Spain. However, under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution Congressional approval was needed to place tariffs on imports from other states. Hence the need for the law.
Per your standard, Virginia had rights denied states other than the original 13. That's ridiculous.
And no, the country did not remain after the Articles of Confederation were dissolved. A new country was born under the Constitution of the US.
Absolute nonsense. When Spain made the political transformation from Franco fascism to constitutional monarchy did old Spain disappear and a new Spain appear? When France went through it's political gyrations or when Germany went from monarchy to Hitler to democracy did the countries cease to exist at any time? No, the country continues. It's the political system that changes. Likewise with the United Staes. We date our founding to 1776 and not 1789. The conversion from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution didn't change that.
Again, it was by choice. Thus if North Carolina had chosen not to join the new Union, it would have been treated as a separate country.
But they did choose to join. And in the interim they were considered a part of the U.S. and a sister state, not a foreign political entity.
Thank you for acknowledging is was but tacit recognition since the constitutionality of West Virginia's creation was never brought before the court.
Now about all the court stacking that went on......
Yes, it went on prior to Lincoln and after him. Nuts I tell ya, just nuts!
The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to begin with was de facto recognition of West Virginia as a state on par with Virginia. And the fact that in its brief Virginia admitted the legality of West Virginia's partition didn't hurt either.
Now about all the court stacking that went on......
Yes, the ever popular "court packing" excuse...
Well tell your daughter that when that first shot rings out be sure and let us know.
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.