CSA vs. USA Constitution

[unionblue]

Hal,

Are you sure you are not side-stepping just a tad here? What about Stephen's and his words, "public or confederate councils?" What did the man mean when he said that?

You and I both know he means that neither the State governments or the Confederate Federal government could have the issue of slavery changed or brought up for discussion or even a vote on an amendment. The issue was CLOSED. It would no longer trouble those 'public or confederate councils.'

And again, why would Stephen's insist to the Virginia convention he was addressing that when it came to new States being admitted to the Confederacy, "...none can be admitted who does not first adopt the fundamental principles on which our social and domestic institutions rest..." Come on Hal! The man wasn't talking about how to dance at a ball or how to make a mint julep. No matter how you try and point in another direction, those social and domestic institutions directly concerned slavery and the negroes place in those two 'institutions'.

Hal, honestly, I am not making any assumptions here, the Vice-President himself is explaining the purpose of the Constitution of the Confederacy and how it will operate concerning the issue of slavery. Shouldn't he know what the heck he is talking about? Why would he say these things if he did not mean them?

Are you just refusing to believe the man?

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 14, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

1. Alexander Stephens’s speech is evidence of that individual’s opinions at the time, but nothing he said on that occasion had force of law.

2. Hal has asserted that there is nothing in the Constitution of the Confederate States which “doesn't allow free States to join their union or make slavery illegal in States where slavery already exists.”

3. So the onus is now on Neil to point us towards the part or parts of the C.S. Constitution which, in his opinion, do prevent those scenarios ever unfolding.


Have I missed something, or is it actually that straightforward?

[hawglips]

"Public or confederate councils?"

Is your stretched interpretation of a vague generalization all you are left with? What happened to the actual Constitution?

Your thoroughly biased and stretched interpretation of Stephens' words are a far, far cry from refuting the CSA Constitution's leading declaration that the States were sovereign, independent States. It's a far, far cry from showing how the right to slave property would be treated within each of those sovereign and independent States.

Neil, it is true that the CSA Constitution set out to protect slavery from any federal threat. Yes, that volatile issue was indeed CLOSED (at least until the States chose to amend the Constitution at some future date). There was absolutely no chance of a fight between States over slavery in the territories. There was absolutely no chance of individual States nullifying federal fugitive slave laws. There was absolutely no chance of States declaring the slave property of sojourning slave-owners to be free men. No States could be admitted who did not accept that Constitution and those fundamental principles of liberty, self-government and the Declaration of Independence held up in all the documents of secession. No States could be admitted without accepting the principle that the fate of that peculiar institution of the seceders was up to those seceders and not a federal power. All the troubles concerning slavery which were experienced under the old government were put to rest "forever." The controversy was squelched.

And the Constitution, as has been demonstrated, allowed free States to join their confederacy. It also allowed all States to do to slavery as they wished within their own free, independent and sovereign borders.

Hal

[unionblue]

Bill,

1. Alexander Stephen's speech is evidence of that of the Vice-President of the Confederate States, supposedly the second most powerful man in that ill-concived government. That this man, who figured very much in that Constitution's creation, could be drawing wrong, biased or stretched interpretations, is a bit hard to swallow. If it was 'just his opinion' it was one of the leading ones concerning the document under discussion.

I think also it should be noted that when Stephen's gave his 'Cornerstone Speech' on March 21, 1861, the Confederate Constitution had already been adopted by the Montgomery convention and had been ratified by Alabama (March 12), Georgia (March 16), and Louisiana (March 21). Only two more States were required to ratify the document which happened when Texas (March 23) and Mississippi (March 26) completed the process putting the Confederate Constitution in force.

When Stephen's spoke he began talking about all the 'improvements' this new constitution contained. He was still talking about those improvements the document had when he stated, "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea (the assumption of the equality of races); its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

A bit later in this same speech, Stephen's states; "Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government that that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle." I take this to mean that if you join us, you had better get used to the idea of slavery, its protection and its right to be in your state when you join.

2. The Confederate Constitution states in Article IV, Section III, paragraph two states; "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof."

Article IV, Section III, paragraph three 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 States, 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 <u>as it now exists in the Confederate States</u> shall be recognized and protected by 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 <u>any</u> of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

Hal makes much of the fact that the leading declaration states 'We, the People of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character...' somehow cancels out the language of the very Constitution they all happen to agree on which stated that it absolutely prohibited ANY law "impairing the right of property in negro slaves."

He also seems to be ignoring the Southern States rejection of Northern States decisions that had freed the slaves of visitors, Article IV guaranteed that the citizens of each Confederate State "shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." The Confederate Constitution's fugitive slave clause reiterated this right. Finally, this Constitution affirmed the proslavery holding of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, by declaring slavery could never be prohibited from any Confederate territory. At the same time, the authors of the Confederate constitution got rid of Taney's implausible argument that the national government could not regulate the territories. This territory clause accomplished two proslavery goals. It guaranteed both slavery in the territories and the ability of the Confederate Congress to counter any antislavery movement that might arise in the Confederate hinterlands.

In my own way of speaking, the Constitution permits any slaveholder to bring his slaves into any State and stay there as long as he likes, no matter what the local State laws or wishes of the people of that State concerning the issue of slavery. That slaveholder is protected by the Constitution which states there can be no law "impairing the right of property in negro slaves." The State can cry, whine, object, complain and try to bring action against having slavery in its own State borders, but so what? The law of the land says you cannot impair the right of property in negro slaves. You cannot interfere with the transit of slaves through your State. You cannot object if a slaveholder decides to stop and stay a while in your State with his slave property. And the real bell-ringer in this State of affairs is the one little clause that reads in our Confederate Constitution is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed."

And try as I might, when I read the Confederate Constitution, I see nowhere in that document, that any State or combination of States, can challenge, override, change or amend that portion of the Constitution, no matter what the leading declaration of the document states concerning that the States were 'sovereign.'

Let's face facts, shall we? All those 'sovereign' States bought this constitution, lock, stock and barrel, agreeing to it's terms, it's limits and it's restrictions.

3. After I read the thing and Vice President Stephen's words, I can only come to one conclusion. It just isn't Hal's conclusion.

Onus is in your court.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 16, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Hello Neil,

I should have known better than to stick my nose in where you clever chaps are picking over the minutiae of the Constitution. I’m a bear of very little brain, and what I do have has been pickled by too much warm beer, so forgive me if my approach is simplistic.

And try as I might, when I read the Confederate Constitution, I see nowhere in that document, that any State or combination of States, can challenge, override, change or amend that portion of the Constitution, no matter what the leading declaration of the document states concerning that the States were 'sovereign.'

Hal has previously pointed you towards Article V, Section 1, and I have to say that I agree with him. Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting… I don’t really see how this could be expressed more clearly.

As far as taking slaves into any other C.S. State is concerned, I have to agree with Hal that the phrase “the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired” is dominated by the word “such”.That word is redundant unless it is intended to distinguish between the slaves belonging to the visitor and slaves who were indigenous to that State.

And I’m afraid I also have to agree with Hal that the prohibition on interference with slavery relates to Federal rather than State law. You may remember that he argued that:

Such a law cannot be passed by whom? The States? Or the feds? If States, then the very next paragraph, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken," means that the individual State governments could lay no taxes without those same qualifications either. But of course, that wasn't the case.

I find this argument completely compelling. I’m not saying that just because it’s pro-Southern Hal: I simply cannot fault his logic.

As far as Stephens’s speech is concerned I have a sneaking feeling that, if we were discussing some aspect of the U.S. Constitution and I started quoting a speech by Dick Cheney, you would sternly point me back to the text of the document itself. And you would be right to do so. (Incidentally, I had to look up the name of your VP on the web - which just about says it all when it comes to that rather redundant political office, doesn’t it?)

Bill





(Message edited by Bill_torrens on October 16, 2004)

[unionblue]

Bill,

I have quite a sneaking feeling of another kind. Again, both you and Hal make much of the idea of the Confederate States making use of Article V, Section, where three or more States can ask for an assembly of States and propose amendments, etc.

Then WHY the passages concerning no laws changing the status of slavery within the Confederacy?"

Could you please explain to me what you think their meanings are and what effect, if any, they had on the Confederate States? You may refer to my post above dated October 15th, 2004 - 11:45pm.

I am curious on why if you and Hal feel that the Constitution could be so easily amended, then why these passages inclusion in the document? What purpose were they to serve if they could be rendered meaningless so easily?

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 17, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

What we need to focus on is the wording of Article V, Section 1. Don’t let’s get sidetracked by anything else. There are only three logical alternatives: either it makes provision for amendments to any part of the C.S. Constitution, or it makes provision for amendments to some parts but not others, or it makes provision for something else altogether.

To me it is as plain as a pikestaff that it makes provision for amendments to any part of the document. If you feel otherwise, could you please point me to the wording in Article V – not elsewhere in the Constitution – which leads you to that conclusion?

Then WHY the passages concerning no laws changing the status of slavery within the Confederacy?

Because the framers of the Constitution intended to prevent Federal interference with slavery.

I am curious on why if you and Hal feel that the Constitution could be so easily amended, then why these passages inclusion in the document? What purpose were they to serve if they could be rendered meaningless so easily?

First of all, I don’t agree that amendment of the Constitution would be easy. An amendment required, firstly, the agreement of the majority of the States in convention and, secondly, the ratification of two thirds of the States.

There is absolutely no contradiction between the framers’ firm resolution in 1861 to prevent Federal interference with slavery and their provision for the possible amendment of that (or any other) aspect of the Constitution at some future date. The latter merely provides for what we all know to be true: times change, and it is quite impossible for the framers of a Constitution to anticipate the political necessities of a future age.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

By Federal interference, I assume you mean Confederate Federal/Central government interference?

And Bill, we are NOT getting sidetracked if we wander a bit off the idea that the States were ever going to contemplate amending their Constitution concerning slavery being forever fixed as an institution in their Constitution, their society and domestic institutions.

It seems as though you and Hal are trying very hard to call attention away from the fact that slavery was not going to be changed, amended or in any way brought to some kind of ending by Article V, Section I or the Great Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy.

I find it even more troubling that you can take the statements of such a major figure in the Confederate government who is purposefully sent to the Virginia legislature to explain the workings of the government and its constitution and simply label them 'his personal opinions.' Isn't that a bit of saying Tony Blair speaking in front of Parliament doesn't know what the heck he is talking about concerning British politics or parliamentary procedure?

The Statements written into the Confederate Constitution concerning the desire of the South to keep slavery forever as a perpetual institution, with no interference from future amendments or changes from the State or Federal level, as inferred by Stephens, are perfectly clear for anyone to see.

But, if I go along with your idea, that any future State that wanted to join the Confederacy, but prohibit slavery from itself or within its borders, I give that State a snowball's chance in hell at reaching that objective before it is allowed to join the Confederacy. Stephen's statements prove that.

And the idea that ANY Southern State or combination of Southern States was going to join together then in the 1860's or 100 years in the future to amend slavery from the law of the land, is at best wistful thinking and at worst intentional blindness to the framer's true intentions. 'Confederate and public councils' makes it VERY clear that the issue would never be brought up. The Vice President of the Confederacy knew this to be true.

I'll side with him on this one.

Sincerely,
Unionblue.
PS Bill, you knew that there was an immediate attempt to amend the Constitution in order to reopen the Slave Trade and to count the slaves as fully one vote instead of the 3/5ths as before. If you and Hal are correct in your idea that the Constitution could be amended, dosen't the above send signals that slavery as an issue and an institution were merely going to be reinforced and not done away with in that happy, distant future one keeps hoping for?

Neil,
I have one question. Why do you put so much importance on Stephens? on't get me wrong. I kinda of like the guy. But: Everything I know of the man shows that despite his contributions he was in constant disagreement with his associates. To the point he was in reality a pariah. So the value you put on him seems out of place to me. Hence my curiosity and my question.

YMOS
tommy

(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 19, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

You are a scholar and a gentleman, a prince amongst men, one of the good guys….but when the facts are against you, you are as slippery as a barrel full of fish.

We are talking about Article V, Section 1 of the Confederate Constitution. Did it, or did it not, provide for future amendments to any part of the same? Yes or no? Is there any chance of a straight answer?

Bill