Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
You will note that there was nothing in there regarding slavery that the US government had not established by law, judicial ruling or amendment. (See the thread Unionblue mentions above.)
----------------
No, this is not accurate. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3, for example, states, "The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
As the Northwest Ordinance clearly shows, the United States allowed Congress to restrict slavery from territories. The confederate constitution mandated slavery in territories.
The basic difference is that the United States Constitution tolerated the existence of slavery. The confederate constitution required the existence of slavery.
"The basic difference is that the United States Constitution tolerated the existence of slavery. The confederate constitution required the existence of slavery." I think you're basically correct, but the optimist in me requires that I quibble. The Confederate constitution does not "require" slavery; it requires only that the opportunity to own slaves be afforded. I do believe that the morality of slavery was evolving in the mid nineteenth century, faster in the north because their socio-economics weren't tied to slavery. The optimist in me says that the south would have eventually come around on this as well. It would have taken more time, and perhaps more agricultural mechanization.
"The basic difference is that the United States Constitution tolerated the existence of slavery. The confederate constitution required the existence of slavery." I think you're basically correct, but the optimist in me requires that I quibble. The Confederate constitution does not "require" slavery; it requires only that the opportunity to own slaves be afforded.
-----------------------
It requires the legality of slavery in the territories, and it requires that each state recognize the legality of anyone owning slaves traveling through their jurisdiction, something else the US Constitution didn't require. Right of sojourn was a state matter, and if a state did not recognize a right of sojourn then it did not exist within that state. The confederate constitution requires it throughout the confederacy.
I do believe that the morality of slavery was evolving in the mid nineteenth century, faster in the north because their socio-economics weren't tied to slavery.
------------------------
Actually, if you study the history of the US from the Revolution to the Civil War, you see that the southern states went from regarding slavery as a necessary evil around the time of the Revolution and shortly thereafter to regarding it as being a positive good around 1830. So they were in fact regressing. In the North, there was a much weaker tie to slavery due to the fact that they didn't as many large planter operations as existed in the south, but also the Spirit of the Revolution infused the movement for abolition of slavery. After the Revolution state after state either abolished slavery outright or passed laws providing for gradual emancipation of slaves, ending at Delaware [Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri being southern states], which was the only Northern state that did not abolish slavery.
The optimist in me says that the south would have eventually come around on this as well. It would have taken more time, and perhaps more agricultural mechanization.
----------------------
You're talking at least the mid-Twentieth Century before mechanization of cotton growing was developed enough to begin to reduce the labor demand on cotton plantations. The southern attachment to slavery was entrenched, and there's no evidence that it would ever have given way.
"The southern attachment to slavery was entrenched, and there's no evidence that it would ever have given way." When or what do you think would have ended slavery in the south?
Who insisted on the 3/5's rule? What was the reason that the word 'slavery' or 'slave' was NOT mentioned in the US Constitution? What region of the country was intent on institutionalizing slavery into the system of government?
As for the rest of your suggestions, I have been down that road with you before and have not changed my mind since.
Enjoy your search, Pvt. Guass.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
"The southern attachment to slavery was entrenched, and there's no evidence that it would ever have given way." When or what do you think would have ended slavery in the south?
--------
A war or some other event that put it outside their control. As long as they had control they would never give it up.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
