CSA vs. USA Constitution - Page 11

unionblue · #**101** 10-19-2004, 07:22 AM

Bill,

Thank you for the kind words and your patience with me. I would never want you to feel that I was giving you anything less than a straight answer.

But Bill, I do not feel the facts are against me concerning the Confederate Constitution. I feel that Article V, Section 1 of said Constitution if being taken out of context here. Yes, it reads that future amendments can be made to the Constitution.

But here is where I feel that it has no power and makes no difference to those sections of the Constitution that refer to the permanence of slavery. The language is just too simple and too strong concerning the importance of slavery to the Confederacy and the intent of that language too clear to read otherwise.

And again, the idea that slavery was going to be amended in ANY form that was going to result in it diminishing or being limited was not going to happen. The other statements in the Constitution make it clear along with Stephen's comments make it plain that was not going to happen under any circumstances. Slavery was meant to stay, not change. You have stated time and again that you consider the issue of slavery the short-term reason for war and that the South needed the institution for social and domestic control over blacks. In spite of Article V, Section 1, do you or Hal see any chance of that institution being amended in any form?

Tommy, why is not Stephen's word not good enough at this time when he explains the Constitution to the Virginia legislature? I agree that other times during his term as Vice-President he was at odds with Davis and others in the Confederate government. But do you see anyone in that government up in arms over what he said concerning the Constitution and how it would operate?

I believe Stephen's to be one of the most tragic of figures during the Civil War. The man knew what was in store if the country split and that secession would bring nothing but war and destruction to his section of the country, but he stayed with the people whom he represented. Brave and loyal in my book. And I feel that he was not considered such a pariah until much water has passed under the bridge between him and Davis.

He was involved with the convention that wrote the Confederate Constitution. He was given the task of explaining this document to an important a State as Virginia. I consider him an able representative of the government he was doing all in his power to assist.

YMOS,
Unionblue

#**102** 10-19-2004, 10:58 AM

Talk about slippery
"I feel that Article V, Section 1 of said Constitution if being taken out of context here."

hawglips · #**103** 10-19-2004, 11:49 AM

Bill: 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?

Neil: I feel that Article V, Section 1 of said Constitution if being taken out of context here. Yes, it reads that future amendments can be made to the Constitution.

But here is where I feel that it has no power and makes no difference to those sections of the Constitution that refer to the permanence of slavery.

So, yes it can be amended, but no, it can't be amended?

I have been slimed.

In spite of Article V, Section 1, do you or Hal see any chance of that institution being amended in any form?

Yes. Three States had stronger pro-slavery clauses in their Constitutions, which were later amended.

And since slavery in the sovereign and independent States was left up to those individual sovereign and independent States, the future of slavery hung in the balance there, not within the federal government.

Hal

unionblue · #**104** 10-20-2004, 12:00 AM

Gentlemen,

It is not my fault that you feel the slimy tentacles of Confederate politics when debating the Confederate Constitution. It is indeed filled with what I consider a base and slimy texture that you all seem to glory in ignoring.

Hal, who created the Confederate Constitution? You say the States are sovereign yet these are the very same States who provided delegates to the Constitutional Convention and those who came together to write. These very same State representatives are the ones who included the sections concerning no law could be made, then or in the future, that would effect in any way that cherished institution. And then you ask me to believe that these very same States, who did their damdest to insure no change to slavery and to make sure of its protection in ANY State or territory, old or new, were going to enact Article V, Section 1 and amend that institution in any form or allow that section to be used by any State applying for admission and deny the institution within its borders? Now who is being slippery?

Are you guys getting enough sleep? Eyes tired perhaps? I'm sure with all this effort to overlook and minimize the sections of the Constitution that are a bit upsetting or hard to explain away must be making you boys a bit weary. I'm slippery? You boys are trying to climb a greased flag pole and can't even get off the ground if you cannot see the reason behind this entire document. Sure, Article V, Section 1 allows for amendments, to anything ELSE but slavery. Maybe a bigger Navy, maybe construction of a canal across Mexico when it becomes Confederate territory, but amend slavery? Those States? Those men? Those self same men who the greater majority were committed slave owners? Those self same men who filled positions in the Confederate government and Congress who offered their, in Bill's words, 'own personal opinion' on how the document was going to prevent any other trouble with the issue of slavery? And I am considered 'slippery?' Let's review a bit, shall we?

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or imparing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory...In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."

And those States you were talking about, the ones who under Article V, Section 1, could possibly change or amend the institution of slavery?

From the Georgia Consitution of 1861: "The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for emancipation of slaves."

From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country."

From the Texas constitution of 1861: "The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves."

From the Florida constitution of 1861: "The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves."

From the Mississippi constitution of 1832: "The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, ..."

From the Virginia constitution of 1861: "The General Assembly shall not emancipate any slave, or the descendant of any slave, either before or after the birth of such descendant."

Hal & Bill, I'm confused, which states are going to amend the Confederate constitution in regards to slavery by using Article V, Section 1? Call me slow, but I see a definate pattern here, one for the States and one for that Confederate Federal government, kinda like ol' Stephens said about 'confederate and public,' eh?

I will check the other State constitutions concerning their take on slavery, but I get the impression I am not going to be very much surprised. As a matter-of-fact, in each State constitution above, I also found sections in each that said you could not restrict folks bringing their slaves into the State also. Hmmm... Seems like the same thing is in the Confederate constitution too! (Surprise!)

In the meantime, you might find the following site an interesting read. When you click on it, scroll down to the part concerning the Confederate Constitution.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/AnastaploSection2.html

Gentlemen, I am reminded of an old, biblical saying, "Wash the slime from thine own selves before attempting to remove the splinter from thy Brother's eye, why don't 'ya?"

From the Book of Hamilton, Chapter 1, verse 1.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Hal, Which three States? When did they amend their State constitutions on slavery? Before or after the ratification of the Confederate Constitution. In what way were they changed in regard to slavery?

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 20, 2004)

bill_torrens · #**105** 10-20-2004, 05:16 AM

Neil,

All becomes clear.

You have got two completely different discussions confused and entangled in that noddle of yours.

One concerns Article V and what it made provision for. Here we are dealing with verifiable fact.

The other concerns the likelihood of Article V ever being invoked to pass an amendment injurious to slavery. Here we enter the field of mere speculation.

If you can disentangle these two quite different topics we should have the basis for an interesting conversation.

Bill

unionblue · #**106** 10-20-2004, 06:05 AM

Bill,

The two are linked and cannot be separated, not by me, not by the men who wrote the State constitutions and the Confederate constitution. It is obvious to me that the States when writing the Confederate constitution wanted to make sure slavery remained intact, unchangeable and indestructible for all time. Even the State constitutions reflect this determination and the Confederate constitution is their vehicle to insure the institution reflects their thinking and desires on the subject. Why is this so hard to accept or understand?

I admit, it would be more noble, more defendable perhaps if the Confederate constitution was some noble experiment in alternative democracy, but it is too tainted with selfish, sectional interests when it comes to the subject of slavery. I find it totally revealing that the Articles and Sections on slavery are simple, direct and to the point. We want it. We're keeping it. And nobody, to include present and future States, can ever change that.

And Bill, I have answered your question concerning Article V, Section 1, to my best and honest ability, now return the favor. How do you explain the sections of the Confederate constitution that concerns itself with making no laws "impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" ( Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4) and the idea that States in the Confederacy must "be recognized and protected by Congress..." (Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3)?

In your own opinion, why were these sections included? Why use such language if the sections had little or no meaning or could be changed down the road by amendment?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

bill_torrens · #**107** 10-20-2004, 08:03 AM

Neil,

I’m no lawyer, but when I was a civil servant I clocked up several years experience in interpreting legislation. To say that there is no distinction between (a) determining what a legal document allows/prevents and (b) speculating about how it might be used is simply wrong.

Why use such language if the sections had little or no meaning or could be changed down the road by amendment?

Nobody has suggested that anything in the C.S. Constitution had “little or no meaning”. Are the various sections of the United States Constitution meaningless because there is provision for their amendment?

I get the feeling that you believe I’m trying to play down the significance of slavery in the Confederate States. But as a matter of fact I haven’t uttered a word on that subject on this thread. I am perfectly happy to discuss the likelihood of any subsequent changes to the C.S. Constitution, but not before we have reached an agreement over the entirely unambiguous and transparent wording of Article V. Can we not, just for the moment, put our respective theories about the underlying causes of the war to one side, and try to apply some forensic precision to an analysis of the wording of Article V? Because this is one subject on which there really isn’t room for a legitimate difference of opinion.

Please look again at Article V and tell me which words convey to you the belief that some sections of the Constitution could not be amended. If such words exist they must – by definition – be contained within that Article.

Bill

(Message edited by Bill_torrens on October 20, 2004)

unionblue · #**108** 10-20-2004, 11:27 PM

Bill,

In all truth, I cannot look at Article V, Section 1, as a separate issue because of the entire document it resides in. It would be like trying to decide what kind of person you are from a fragment of thumbnail.

And Bill, I understand that you are NOT trying to play down the significance of slavery in the Confederate States. But it does trouble me that you have not uttered one word on that particular subject on this thread, as I consider this document the base on which the Confederacy was built and that the bedrock was slavery. It is an inescapable historical fact when reading this constitution. Now I just have to convince you of that fact and why Article V, Section 1 has no meaning when discussing the issue of slavery as it relates to this consitution.

What I do not understand is why, when trying to prove a point on how wonderful the Confederate constitution is, that we are trying to concentrate on a few points, when taken by themselves, would NOT give the true flavor of the entire document and ignore those parts which portray it in a less than favorable light.

This is almost as fantastic as trying to explain the good of the Nuremberg Laws on anti-Semitism by focusing on one, positive section of that law, such as no spitting on the sidewalks, and ignoring the tremendous wrongs committed elsewhere in these laws. And yes Bill, the sections in the Confederate constitution concerning the perpetual nature of slavery and the inability to change that nature is just as monstrous to me as the use of the Nuremberg Laws against the Jews.

And I do not agree that only Article V must contain the words that state that slavery cannot be amended in the Confederacy. Research on many Southern State constitutions of the period have shown me that Articles on slavery are often separate from other sections and yet carry the same meaning. NO emancipation, NO restrictions on anyone bringing slaves into the state, etc. Hence, I have no problem with the idea that Articles concerning slavery are given their own space in other areas of the constitution and that their meanings are clear to those who put them there.

I take it you have taken the time to read the FindLaw article/link above concerning the Confederate constitution and its take on slavery. This site concerns itself with the law and they seem to have no problem with the idea that the Confederate constitution was making slavery a permanent part of the system and that it would be unable to change or effect it in the future.

I also inclue the following from the book Look Away, by William C. Davis. In Chapter 4, The Struggle for a Confederate Democracy, page 97, in describing the actions of the framing committee for a permanent Confederate constitution, this section in part reads:

"In the end Rhett's (the head of the committee) only significant changes that were retained were his six-year presidential term limit and the guarantee of slavery in the territories, though the committee provided this only during the territorial state and thus left the door open to possible free states being formed. They also accepted his prohibition against the reappointment of rejected prsidential appointees, a small victory at best. A few matters they ignored, leaving them to the floor debates.

For the moment the committee settled on a clause merely protecting slavery everywhere in their nation, regardless of state legislation. Significantly, in a movement that all declared to be predicated on the sovereignty of the states, the one area in which now and again in the future they would deny state sovereignty would be slavery. To the old Union they had said that Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not state rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all. States had the right to embrace slavery but not to reject it once embraced. And as if further evidence were needed, after much discussion they also decided not to include any specific provision recognizing explicitly the right of a state to secede. None of their number should have the right to do to them what they had just done to the Union."

On page 102 of the same chapter, during the debate in which the draft of the constitution was debated before Southern delegates, it states:

"In another shot at reform, they agreed on an iron-clad fugitive slave law, and adopted the clause guaranteeing any citizen the right to take his slaves with him to any part of the Confederacy.

Finally they had to face the issue that many dreaded most of all, and that Stephens would dub the "Great Debate." How should they admit new states, and just what sort of states should be welcomed into their Confederacy?....William Porcher Miles commenced the debate with a motion that only slave states ought to be admitted, which would protect slavery indefinitely, revealing yet again the black bedrock on which they were building their new temple. The debate continued into the next day, March 8, and so did the rising blood of partisans on both sides. South Carolina stood immovable on a free state ban, and Florida dutifully followed that lead, while four other states defeated them at every turn. Georgia deadlocked in a tie vote, infuriating Tom Cobb, who favored the free state prohibition. But it was much closer than that. In fact, despite the vote by states, a shift of just one vote each in Texas and Georgia would have sided them with South Carolina and Florida and the ban would have passed. After what Stephens thought to be the most tense and potentially dangerous debates of the whole business, they finally left the wording on admission to be settled later.

March 9 would be the last day of debate...Rhett still had an amendment in play to expel any state that should abolish slavery. Stephens tried to kill it by tabling but lost on a close vote that revealed scant backing for the measure itself, only to have William Barry of Mississippi introduce yet another version. Clearly the Rhett forces had this campaign well organized, but Stephens demanded the question which resulted in an immediated vote, and 'Little Aleck' had counted head well. Three states voted for and three against, and Louisiana was split, making a tie, and defeat.

The only victory that the Rhett camp could get on the free state issue came when they finally settled the admission question. Since this was intended as a vehicle for admitting states already formed and a part of the old Union, they dispensed with provisions for territorial status which were moot in this instance. Instead, they settled on a means by which a state would need a vote of two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senate, though in the Senate the balloting would be one state, one vote. The required concurrence in the Senate was the guarantee. Even if all the existing fifteen slave states eventually became a part of the Confederacy, as few as six in opposition could kill statehood in the Senate, and the Deep South states could be expected to stand firm on admitting only slave states. The important point to Stephens and others in defeating an outright ban on free states was essentially one of public posture. Already the more thoughtful were sensitive about their movement being perceived by the world at large as exclusively driven by slavery, and a ban would have reinforced that idea. But having accomplished this, they then went right on to provide in another clause that all territory that should be aquired in the future by the new nation, and any new states formed from that territory, should include slavery, not by the choice of the inhabitants, but by constitutional mandate. There would be no popular sovereignty to allow territorial governments to choose to become free states. Here as throughout, preservation of slavery was the driving force behind most of the variations from the Constitution of the United States.

...for they made their most vital issue, slavery, a part of their constitutional fabric and thus untouchable, while otherwise providing some protection from majority will even on their own floor. Indeed, while the United States Constitution had merely recognized slavery as an existing institution, their new charter entrenched it as a fundamental right, one of those "blessings of liberty" spoken of in their preamble. On this issue alone, they knowingly violated all the arguments about state rights that their section had been making for generations, for they set slavery above state sovereignty: inviolate, untouchable. Their fugitive slave law was ironclad. No Supreme Court could touch it. In all practicality, no free state really stood a chance for admission."

I submit the above as further evidence that the Confederate constitution could NOT be amended in regard to slavery.

You cannot pick and choose which part of the beef is good after it has been infected. The whole animal is tainted. I'm sorry I cannot bring myself to pick and choose which of the document is fine and which is not. To me, to do so, would be to dodge the real issue of the document.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 21, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 21, 2004)

#**109** 10-21-2004, 07:05 AM

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now I’m not sure what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ the various governments do not understand but it is clearly ignored. According to Ronald Reagan "There are today more than 20,000 gun control laws in effect -- federal, state and local -- in the United States.”

Now I’m not going into what I personal thought of the former president but I will note others have disagreed with his statement.
The Brookings Institution Center study on Urban and Metropolitan Policy says the are just 300 "relevant federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns." Of course the word relevant does kind of slant their opinion as well.

But the first part of my point is. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear. Infringe has the definition ‘encroach’...you look up encroach and you get the definition “To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily.” Be it 300 relevant or 20,000 various encroachments, you still have them in abundance regardless of how plain the meaning of Shall Not Be Infringed.

My point I think should be clear by now. I’m not an expert on the CSA’s constitution. But I have studied enough US constitutional law to know just how little declarations forever forbidding intrusions by any part of the government, be it city, county, state, commonwealth, territory, occupied sovereign nations or the nation, mean.

I see no evidence that would indicate in the CSA it would have been any different. If a state did not want slavery then they could have forbidden it. They could not have forbidden slaves entering or traveling through though.

YMOS
tommy

unionblue · #**110** 10-21-2004, 07:14 AM

Tommy,

You have evidence. It's called 'history.'

The actions already taken and recorded concerning the Confederate governments actions in regard to slavery are there for anyone to see. This government's actions during the formation and debate over its constitution and then its actions during the war make it pretty clear it was simply carrying out the express wishes of its member states on the issue of slavery.

Unionblue