Dateline December 18, 1865
From the editorial board of the New York Times
Word has just reached New York that the controversial Secretary of State William Henry Seward (pictured above) has announced the ratification of the 13th amendment to the constitution, outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime.
While not entering into the merits of said amendment we have to ask the Republican Secretary of State why he favors the enactment.
Does the Republican Secretary not know that the ending of slavery will overwhelmingly affect the black minority?
Does the Republican Secretary not know that this amendment, combined with the demobilization following the late conflict between the states will further lead to unemployment and misery for the masses, straining the already overwhelmed social services of our country?
Indeed this is the latest act in the Republican Secretary’s controversial political career. From his beginnings in the anti-masonic party to his controversial support for Catholics during his controversial and unsuccessful term as governor of New York the current Secretary has made a habit of controversially stretching the limits of our sacred constitution.
The Republican Secretary has stated that he believes the constitution is a “living, breathing document” and that this “living, breathing document” gives elected representatives implied power that the fathers of that document did not intend.
We here at the New York Times believe this approach to the constitution is wrong.
We here at the New York Times believe that the constitution granted the government limited powers and that this revered document must be interpreted strictly, as the founders wanted, and not loosely like the controversial Republican Secretary wants. And this belief of the New York Times will never change!
Indeed if Mr. Secretary’s interpretation of the constitution were to become dominant in the land we feel that there would be no end of mischief. We believe that the government would then find the justification for reducing our freedoms.
For instance many nowadays are worried about man-made climate change. Under the controversial Republican Secretary’s interpretation of our constitution what is to stop him from raising the price of coal to European levels to force people to go back to horse and buggies instead of using faster, more efficient trains?
This is but one example of the damage the Republican party may do whenever they happen to be in power.
In the meantime we ask all newly-freed blacks to look to the Democratic party for their salvation.
We do make these criticisms of Seward and the other radical Republicans out of any partisan consideration but only because we believe it is in the best interest of our country.
The Editorial Board
New York Times
December 18, 1865 *
(378)
* MI Explanatory note: While writing this I was nervous. After writing it I became even more nervous. I don’t want anyone who reads it to think that I approved of slavery or was making light of the conditions of blacks under slavery. My intention was to parody the partisanship of the New York Times.
As always a little humility is in order. It is possible that I am not as brilliant a satirist as I think I am and that this post was sufficiently opaque as to allow misinterpretation.
Nothing wrong with your satire, mate. I was wondering why blacks don’t trust Republicans. Now I know thanks to you.
“And this belief of the New York Times will never change!”
Punch Sulzberger could not be reached for comment.
Those crazy Republicans. What will they think of next?
Oh, and by the way, why do you favor slavery?
“….what is to stop him from raising the price of coal to European levels to force people to go back to horse and buggies instead of using faster, more efficient trains?”
They’ve never gotten over their fascination with trains have they, if they were fast, clean and cheap we wouldn’t mind so much, but more often these blasted things end up looking like the one made by the commies of old. Slow, dirty and expensive.