Posted on 10/08/2007 4:07:14 PM PDT by mdittmar
"Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States, in convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituent and our country, unite in the following declarations:
1. That the history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now more than ever before demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.Supplementary Resolution. Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native States and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions; and we hold the Democratic Party responsible for this gross violation of that clause of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved.
3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population; its surprising development of material resources; its rapid augmentation of wealth; its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may; and we congratulate the country that no republican member of congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people.
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the federal metropolis, show that an entire change of Administration is imperatively demanded.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
11. That Kansas should of right be immediately admitted as a state, under the constitution recently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted by the House of Representatives.
12. That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty, and we demand the passage by congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the house.
14. That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.
15. That appropriation by Congress for river and Harbor improvements of a National character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the constitution and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
16. That a railroad to the Pacific ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established.
17. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the coöperation of all citizens, however differing on other questions who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.
Yep.
Howdy mdittmar. Neat thread. Planks #2 and #4 seem to contradict each other if there was a conflict invoving inalienable rights. Or am I missing something?
Freegards
My opinion was it was more of an excuse to break up the Union. I do not see any covenant breaker in there except the secessionists ire at the fact that the North was going to finally press the precedent of the Northwest Ordinance that free soil was the natural state of the territories and Congress had the right to control slavery in them.
The other irritants such as tariffs were constitutional actions that could be moderated constitutionally in concert with northern Democrats.
The most mature minds of the South, men like Robert E. Lee, John Bell and even Alexander Stevens saw the folly of the secession mania.
I don’t disagree with you on that. Let’s look at this from a business standpoint....Would you want to be told that you couldn’t take YOUR property, that you paid a large investment to procure into new territories?
Of course you wouldn’t. Expansion is MONEY.
It was of course folly, as you say, but...tempers were high on both sides of the Mason-Dixon, and as I posted to Lex earlier, it was an economic thing. Southern Slaveowners wanted to take their property with them. Understandable.
He actually said that???! Sheeeesh....
You have it out, apparently, for Rudy, Romney, and Thompson.
Against those, we have hillary most likely.
Where do you stand on this?
And the majority of the population in the territories didn't want slavery; also understandable. Leaving aside the moral considerations of expanding slavery, they didn't want the economic competition of plantation-like operations after they had risked all to get some free soil in the unsettled West. Certainly the California miners didn't want imported slave labor.
Also interesting is the Dem proposal to acquire Cuba from Spain, and that both the Dems and the Republicans wanted the transcontinental railroad.
Actually, there is some evidence that some of the territories were equally divided in that sentiment. Kansas for example. I agree with you on California....
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Thanks
Say a state allows for the legal murder of all left handed people. Plank #2 says the ‘pubs adhere to the Declaration, and I assume that most ‘pubs would think that left handed folks in this state are having their inalienable rights violated. Plank #4 says that whatever a state does is it’s own affair, no matter what, so nothing can be done for left handed folks in this state. Unless an invasion to help left handed folks wouldn’t be lawless because it’s purpose is to stop rights from being infringed?
Freegards
“That platform and that party agitated people enough to try to break up the Union. There’s still people today who will support the 1860-61 southern secessions over that platform. We may even hear from some of them on this thread.”
Yes indeed. You should read some of the posts on this thread I started. “How Libertarians Ought To Think About The U.S. Civil War”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1898013/posts
Not an Andrew Johnson fan?
“Not likely if the candidate is Rudy!”
Hannity was saying the other day that if Rudy gets the nod that it will be more likely that a 3rd party candidate will pop up. Not so likely if Fred gets the nomination. And that if a 3rd party candidate is in the race, then no way will the republicans hold the white house in 08. He makes a good point. Reason enough to vote for Fred.
There was no invasion,or hint or invasion,in any of Lincolns speeches or comments that I can find.
I am loath to close,We are not enemies,but friends. We must not be enemies.Though passion may have strained,it must not break our bonds of affection.The mystic chords of memory,stretching from every battlefield,and patriot grave,to every living heart and hearthstone,all over this broad land,will yet swell the chorus of the Union,when again touched,as surely they will be,by the better angels of our nature.
A.Lincoln March 4,1861
And then the war came.
Now,substitute unborn children for left handed people and reread your post,do you think the U.S.Government would invade any state that allowed it?
It should be pointed out that the first “act of war” and invasion didn’t come from the republican party lead US but from the confederates when they bombarded and invaded Federal property at Fort Sumter April 12-13, 1861.
bump
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Amen.
I kinda did have the unborn in mind, but I didn’t wan’t to inject that topic into this cool thread... No, I don’t reckon the gubberment would invade if killing the unborn was only allowed in some states. It would stink to be an unborn person in those states, not having the right to life and all until birth.
I wasn’t thinking about Lincoln or the war. I was trying to see how plank #2 jives with plank #4 as a practical matter.
Freegards
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.