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...
my advice is to stay off such threads in the future.
__________________
Oh really? I didn’t know you owned FR. I suggest you stay off. IF JR tells me to stay off then I will. UNLIKE some(NS) I don’t spend all my time on FR on these threads.
ditto.
Are they still trying to figure out why the ground is so yellow around and over Sherman’s grave?
With respect to the question of the status of the union prior to May 1790 (when the last of the orignal states ratified the Constitution:)
Did North Carolina consider itself no longer part of the United States prior to ratifying the US Constitution? No, and certainly Virginia and New York did not. The 12 states that ratified relatively quickly (by 1789) did, admittedly, use hardball to induce Rhode Island to ratify, primarily by moving ahead with actions to make Vermont a state. Vermont was not bound by by the Articles of Perpetual Union, and was already minting its own coins (with Vermont Republic in Latin!)
Nevertheless, none of the states ever considered themselves separate from the Union; the continued to fly the 13 star flag; they recognized the federal authority, imposed no duties on each other (although they did come close) and, despite hard bargaining and negotiating, accepted the reality of the perpetual union. No state enetertained any entreaties of consuls or embassies from any foreign nations; the Union itself has remained perpetual.
I would like to add that this is strictly from the point of view of common law.
With respect to the motivations of common soldiers on both sides, form the first exchange of gunfire, the average grunt was of course fighting to kill the enemy because the enemy was trying to kill him; he was risking his life not for slavery or the union or abolition or state's rights; he was risking his life for his buddies,who were doing the same for him.
I remain profoundly disgusted and disappointed in Ole Miss for kowtowing to PC pressure and changing their mascot.
These hills sure got the best of me during this last episode :)
Did North Carolina consider itself no longer part of the United States prior to ratifying the US Constitution? No, and certainly Virginia and New York did not. The 12 states that ratified relatively quickly (by 1789) did, admittedly, use hardball to induce Rhode Island to ratify, primarily by moving ahead with actions to make Vermont a state. Vermont was not bound by by the Articles of Perpetual Union, and was already minting its own coins (with Vermont Republic in Latin!)
Their Sovereignty was never questioned, even when they were members of the Articles of Perpetual Union. Prior to this, they acted independently in winning their independence from Great Britain. During that war for America's Independence some if not all of the colonies issued their own war bonds, etc. Some even separately declared their own Independence.
This issue of Sovereignty was never questioned, not even by King George III who listed them by name and proclaimed: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
Every document in regards to this Country's founding is in plurality. Article I, Section II, of the Articles of Confederation which reads:
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.
Is basically the same as the Tenth Amendment of our current Federal Constitution, which 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.
Note: Nothing prohibited Secession from the Articles of Perpetual Union. See Federalist No.43
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?
The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.
With respect to the motivations of common soldiers on both sides, form the first exchange of gunfire, the average grunt was of course fighting to kill the enemy because the enemy was trying to kill him; he was risking his life not for slavery or the union or abolition or state's rights; he was risking his life for his buddies,who were doing the same for him.
I think most Northerners thought they were fighting to preserve the Union. I'd also say that most Southerners were fighting (during the beginning,) to prevent the agent (the federal government) from coercing a State.
What is truly sad and hypocritical about all this is that many Northern States were nullifying Federal law and "talking the talk" in regards to State Rights'. To deny their Southern counterparts of that same right is deceitful. So much for principle.
This issue of Sovereignty was never questioned, not even by King George III who listed them by name and proclaimed:
Don't know.
Thank you for the prayer link. I didn’t know.
This is why I don’t understand why blacks are Democrats and praise Lincoln a Republican president. It is obvious that the Dems have never released the massa slave relationship with their welfare policies.
You are welcome.
Wars are not started to provide food.
The story about starvation was propaganda released by the Lincoln administration and served up by the press in New York and Philadelphia.
President Davis, General Beauregard, and Gov. Pickens were courageous to resist the power of the Federal government that was in the process of fighting its way into their home harbor.
That is the most logical, concise, and unbiased argument I have seen.
Thank you.
The garrison had every right to stay at Sumter, so the offer was irrelevant. I wouldn’t so much say courageous as I would provocative and confrontational.
davis wanted confrontation and he got it.
Me too. He added a unique color to the discussions. I got to where I signed on looking forward to his unique verbal assaults. Hope he is well and happy. And we need to pray and wish the best to BnBlFlag and his family.
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.
I think I know the reason that our friend, and Free Republic's resident history professor, rustbucket is fond of John Taylor. I know, I've followed suit. The word "delegate" can only be accomplished by a superior delegating authority to an inferior. It cannot be done in reverse. Just that one fact proves that Sovereignty was never relinquished when the Several States formed the Constitution and likewise created the Federal Government to be their agent. How could they have relinquished their Sovereignty and consequently their Superiority if they had to be both in order to "delegate" authority to their agent, the Federal Government, in the first place. Lets rehash John Taylor:
The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions.
There will be blood.
great read IB thanks for the “ping”
Civics and political science self-taught I take it.
How nice of them. Give me your house and I'll provide you free transportation to the state of your choice. Deal?
The story about starvation was propaganda released by the Lincoln administration and served up by the press in New York and Philadelphia.
It is fact backed up by the OR and other sources. The garrison was running out of provisions and without resupply would have had to surrender within a matter of days.
President Davis, General Beauregard, and Gov. Pickens were courageous to resist the power of the Federal government that was in the process of fighting its way into their home harbor.
Davis, Beauregard, and Pickens got the war they wanted. Too bad for you they so badly mismanaged it.
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.