CSA vs. USA Constitution

If you are going to use a government's actions against the rights of it's civilians while engaged in a war as proof of the mere assumption that it would be the same in peacetime then it would not comfort me right now I can that much. As to history, there was no peacetime for the CSA.

If I was to judge the US constitution only upon it's opinions, actions and 'expess wishes' during wartime, would that be a fair way to assess it in my preparation to making comparable judgements that you are making towards the CSA’s? If you like I can. It ain’’t pretty either.





(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 21, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

And yet one can still buy a gun in this country if one really wants to, can't they?

As for the idea the Confederate Constitution can not some how be fairly assessed due to wartime conditions, take heart! It can. Simply because of the recorded records and documents of the time bear out the idea that on issues of slavery and emancipation, the Southern states and the Confederate government did their dead-level best to follow those Sections or their state and Confederate constitutions to the letter.

On October 17, 1864, the governors of North and South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama met in Augusta, Georgia, to discuss the crisis in Confederate affairs and compose recommendations to their states and the national government. One of the several resolutions they adopted was a call for the use of slaves in the military, with the government compensating their masters for them somehow, actually arming them as soldiers and promising them freedom after the war if they served well. Governor Thomas Watts of Alabama demurred from endorsing that notion. The governors' Augusta proposal was "utterly indefensible in principle and policy." He stated, "To permit the Confederate government to acquire property in them (slaves), and ultimately, to emancipate such as faithfully perform service, would be as unconstitutional, as it would be destructive to the interests of the States," he went on. Alabama, for one, actually had a state constitution that prohibited emancipation. {Annual Message, November 1864 , Thomas Watt Papers, ADAH)

The proposal of arming slaves as soldiers and sending them into the armies arose early in the war, and reappeared from time to time, but never met with a welcome response. As Robert Toombs himself said, if a black man could be given a gun and made into a soldier, then that put him on a footing of equality with the white man, which would mean that their whole system was mistaken. Major General Patrick Cleburne proposed the actual enlistment of slaves as soldiers in return for their freedom. The proposal died after a arousing a storm of indignation, and Cleburne himself had his further advancement stunted for the suggestion.

By the fall of 1864 the proposal made its way to the floor of the Confederate Congress. President Davis presented an annual message in which he argued that "the general levy and arming of the slaves for the duty of soldiers," as was increasingly suggested, would be "inexpedient." Bringing the subject into the public forum sparked a debate across the Confederacy. Mississippi Congressman Ethelbert Barksdale asked for instruction from his governor noting that the idea of placing negro in the field as soldiers, would "involve(s) consideration of the gravest import in its moral & political aspects, and in its bearing upon the great producing interests of the country." Robert Hilton, congressman from Florida and Henry Foote of Tennessee introduced resolutions for the dismissal of the plan. Both agreed only to risk such an act if they reached such a pass that their choices were black enlistment or defeat. Even at that, Davis still outraged some with a proposal that the government should purchase some slaves from planters for employment in noncombatant roles, with the promise of freedom at a later date. It was considered a form of compensated gradual emancipation that clearly conflicted with several state laws prohibiting manumission of slaves.

That it was not a policy that necessarily had to lead to general emancipation did not matter, for the mere fact that the president could broach the subject of such a violation of state sovereignty and Confederate social and political ideology was shock enough. It sparked new resolutions not only to oppose it, but also to close the door on what seemed the next logical step. "There is no purpose on the part of this House to introduce negro troops into our Army," declared Virginian Thomas Gholson on December 28, 1864.

Finally it was Barksdale, having cleared himself with his governor, who on February 10, 1865, after several days of debate on the general subject, introduced a new bill "to increase the military force of the Confederate States." It proposed accepting the offer of slaves by their masters for military service, but said nothing about emancipation in return, nor of compensation to the owners. Indeed, even a resolution to ask the judiciary committee to look into the constitutionality of offering emancipation was tabled, and it was perhaps only the public support of General Lee for the idea, that kept emancipation alive. The logic was simple enough. Why should a slave fight and risk his life if there was nothing in it for him?

The bill reached the Senate, and by February 21, 1865, seemed held up, but finally on March 13, 1865, it passed. On April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered his army.

Even when faced with the death of their nation, the Confederate and state governments felt they could take no action to change, amend, nulify or ignore their articles, laws and constitutions on the subject of negro slavery. It took the enemy being at the very gates before any changes were even considered.

I further submit the following websites that detail the debate on The Negro Soldier Question following the introduction of a bill to increase the military forces of the Confederate States. The reasons against the idea are very telling.

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=Confederate+Negro+Soldier+Bill&csz=Col umbu s%2C+OH&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle+1&ei =UTF-8&u=www.mdgorman.com/negro_soldier.ht m&w=confederate+negro+soldier+bill&d=812B7 A6248&icp=1&.intl=us

Another interesting site on the question of arming the slaves:

http://www.dinsdoc.com/stephenson-1.htm

And a site for 'A Bill to provide for raising 200,000 Negro troops':

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_officaildocs/35.htm

Why list all these sites?

One, to prove to Tommy with original Southern documents and sources that the South did indeed stand by their Constitution, even though it was wartime, a consistent (and stubborn) people if ever there was one.

Two, to show that at no time, during the entire debate, even leading up to the passage of the Negro Soldier Bill in March 13, 1865, did any of the debates or passed legislation ever change the status of the slaves in the Confederacy by offering them confirmed emancipation even if they risked their lives for the Confederacy.

Again, I end on the belief that the Confederate constitution could not be amended or changed when it came to the issue of slavery, just as its writers stated and that in no way could the States change it by amendment. The attitudes and customs of the times simply would not allow it and the written articles in both the Confederate and state constitutions prevented it. Based on the source documents and writings of the time.

Or what we call history.

Sincerely,
Unionblue


(Message edited by Unionblue on October 22, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

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.

I think you’re trying to use the techniques of general historical debate as a means of determining what a very specific piece of legislation provides for. It doesn’t work like that. Imagine that you are in court facing a criminal charge, and your defence attorney says “Our client has not committed an offence under Section 1.4 of the Prohibition of Hamiltons Act because, well, if you look at the Statute as a whole and consider what the legislators must have had in mind when they drafted it, and also read what this couple of authors have to say on the subject…well, it seems to us that Section 1.4 is pretty much an irrelevance.” We’d all be visiting you in chokey, wouldn’t we?

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…

Neil, I’m not interested in arguing that the C.S. Constitution was wonderful. I’m not interested in arguing that the founders of the Confederacy ever actively considered the possibility of abolishing slavery. On this particular thread I bring absolutely no ideological baggage and I’m not trying to score any kind of point for the Confederate cause. You are busy firing all your batteries to repel a frontal assault which I have not launched and have no intention of launching. It simply vexes me when someone denies the meaning of a passage of perfectly explicit English. Legal English has a precision which some of us find rather beautiful; not a word is wasted and every single word is there for a reason.

And I do not agree that only Article V must contain the words that state that slavery cannot be amended in the Confederacy.

Article V provides for future amendments to the Constitution. Any limitation of the power to amend would have to be set out quite explicitly somewhere within the same document. All you have to do to carry your point is to tell us where it is.

Bill

[unionblue]

Dear Bill,

I now realize that you are not knowingly trying to score any kind of point for the Confederate cause.

I now also realize that you are 'vexed' over me denying the meaning of a passage of perfectly explicit English and that legal English has a precision which you find rather beautiful. That you may even consider the idea of Article V not having a word wasted and every single word there is there for a reason.

I find that line of thought Bill, almost magical, in its prose, its meaning and its intended effect.

I suggest you seek help, Bill, the sooner the better.

May I offer something for your viewing pleasure that I may, in some small way, benefit from from your analyisis of perfectly explicit English?

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2, No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

How does this meet with the idea you have that any limitation of the power to amend would have to be set out quite explicitly somewhere within the same document. This passage does not qualify?

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 22, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 22, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

I suggest you seek help, Bill, the sooner the better.

Uncalled for, sirrah!

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2, No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

How does this meet with the idea you have that any limitation of the power to amend would have to be set out quite explicitly somewhere within the same document. This passage does not qualify?

Doesn’t come close. This passage prohibits Federal (ie Confederate Federal) interference with slavery but is itself as open to amendment as anything else in the Constitution.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

You are at work, aren't you?

As for the seek help thing, I worry about you sometimes.

Now Bill, you are saying EVERYTHING in the Confederate constitution was open to amendment? You sure about that?

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Nope. Never work Fridays. Do a 11 hour day on Thursdays and work every other Saturday, but never on Fridays.

As for the seek help thing, I worry about you sometimes.

Now see here, my colonial chum, if you carry on with this sort of thing I just might start retaliating. I might have a few choice comments to make about people who wear golfing trousers in the street; who think baseball is a sport and that McDonalds actually sell food; who can get drunk on the lemonade which they, for some reason, call beer; who think it advisable to wear skimpy clothing when they weigh 280 pounds; and who keep Oprah Winfrey in gainful employment. I could make such comments, but of course I won’t.

I’m no constitutional expert. But Article V provides for amendment to the Constitution and doesn’t appear to place any restrictions on the same.

Bill

[unionblue]

My Dear P.E.V.F.ed,
(Percise English & Vexed Friend)

McDonalds does NOT serve food?!! Those are FIGHTING words, you Imperial, Britannia Rules The Waves, fish & chips, warm beer-drinking, Nationalized Medicine, Camilia & Prince Charles, House of Windsor, B-girl, Subject of the Crown, friend of mine!

As for the other comments, you were kind enough not to go into detail about, 'ya' got me there' as us colonials like to say.

Bill, my dear friend at your computer keyboard across the ocean, I really do see your point and what you are driving at. And I appreciate your point of view based on how you perceive it. I am reminded of the biblical phrase, "Almost, you persuade me to be a Christian." The key word here is, almost.

I once heard a line from John Wayne in the movie, Commoncharos, which the actor spoke when he was explaining as a Texas Ranger why he could not let a man go, even when he was falsely accused of a crime. He said he had taken an oath. The other man replied scornfully, "Words!" John Wayne looked surprised and perplexed and then firmly replied, "Words are what men live by, Monsuer."

Herein lies my problem with fully agreeing with your 'precise English' found in Article V of the Confederate constitution. If we all lived in the world that John Wayne inhabited in his movie above, then no problem and you and I could agree on the idea that Article V of the Confederate constitution would be in full effect and that even the clauses concerning slavery could be amended at some time in the future.

But if that were true and men could truly write what they mean in precise, beautiful and concise English, read and follow those same words in the precise way that they were written, we wouldn't need lawyers, would we?

I know I vex you Bill on this point, but I honestly feel I cannot give ground on the idea that Article V or the Confederate constitution somehow would trump Article I, Section 9, at the time it was written, at a point later in the life of the Confederacy or even far in the future if the Confederate States of America had survived into this century. I fully concede the idea that Article V is written in a precise and clear manner and taken by itself its purpose and meaning is clear.

I also fully concede the fact that Article I, Section 9 is just as clear and precise and further state it is written in social, political and domestic stone. I further contend that what is sometimes written and placed into law is not always enforced or followed precisely or even intended to do so.

Why do I believe that Article V had no real meaning or impact on the Confederate constitution in regards to amending or changing slavery? Because of the words of its framer's and their intentions when they wrote the document. From their background and their agenda and their actions leading up to the creation of the document in question.

This is were its gets somewhat personal for me, Bill. To agree with you that technically you are right in your assessment of Article V simply does not convey the true intent of the Confederate constitution. It provides an easy out for many who wish for that out and who do not want to confront the flaws of the document itself. It gives them an excuse to fly in the face of the men who created it and the words they wrote and spoke with clear intent on what they were trying to do. It permits the decreasing of the wrong of slavery, its planned permanence, its justification and the fight to keep it, to something like an equivalent of a 'mere' technicality. Almost in the same vein of a soldier claiming that he committed criminal acts because he was 'under orders.'

To me and others, the intent of the Confederate constitution and all the state constitutions of the time were perfectly clear in regards to slavery, and their intent to keep it a permanent part of their constitutions and way of life. I have heard from a few on this board the theory that slavery was dying out and that soon, former master and slave were going to be equals, working side-by-side in the same cotton fields, that manumission was becoming easier and that masters were becoming more inclined to give their slaves freedom.

I wish to thank all on this thread who have contributed to it and debated on it as it forced me to scramble and research to come up with answers in reply. And in doing so have proven to me that such ideas and hopes and perceptions were simply not true. In doing research on Southern state constitutions it has been shown to me that it was illegal to free slaves and that it was illegal to even pass any laws to such effect. That I have read the debates and speeches on the Confederate constitution and the Negro Soldier Bill and found that even when the Confederacy was at death's door as a nation, it still could not bring itself to think of its slaves as any more than property undeserving of freedom even if those self same slaves would die to keep their nation in existence.

Sorry, Bill, I just can cross over the river with you on this one on just proper and precise English without taking into account the intentions and desires and goals of the men who placed those clauses on slavery in the document in question.

I hope you understand where I am coming from. It is important to me that you do. You don't have to agree and I don't expect you to. But I really do hope you understand.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 22, 2004)

Neil,
I am curious. When you listed Southern state’s constitutions you omitted a few states. Was there a reason? I do not recall Tennessee’s constitutions solidifying the permanence of slavery. And if I recall there were US states that had anti-black clauses in theirs. Oregon had a Lash Law before it became a state and after had severe anti-black laws as I recall. All under the US constitution, yes? This thread was a ‘VS’ thread. A comparison thread rather than the let’s bash the CSA’s constitution only. Which is what it immediately became. I have noticed every thread becomes bash the South thread. No matter what the thread is about. I see lots of words used all over the boards. Traitors, incompetent, immoral, aristocrats, etc. All harsh words. Far worse and far more frequent than the Y word used to describe Southerners. All used as if the words themselves can be used as proof of the South’s guilt over slavery, the war and all of the US’s ills of from the start of the nation til it’s demise in 1860. You speak of desires they had. What of the US constitution’s framer’s desires VS what they wrote? Their intent doesn't matter much except as a mental exercise. As with ant contract it is what you write and don't write. Not what your intent or goal is. My point here and in my other posts here is one of comparison. It hasn’t been done. Everyone is too busy lamenting how evil the South was for having slavery. Going that extra step to pin perpetual slavery on the CSA’s constitution even if the words don’t literally say it. And if a person does not see it written that slavery must be perpetual, then they need help? If they do not agree that no future generation could not have amended it if they had the intent. Just food for thought.
YMOS
tommy





(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 23, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I could not find copies on the net of a few of the Southern States so I posted what I had. I also expected Hal to give me the names of the three states he stated had changed or amended their constitutions to be more liberal on the slavery issue.

Tommy, I really don't think 'everyone' is really lamenting how evil the South was on this board.

What I stated to Bill when I made the comment that he needed help was purely in jest concerning his idea of precise English and the beauty of it and such, not his views on the Confederate constitution. My meaning was that Bill should get out more (again, in a joking manner) instead of curled up with a beautiful book admiring concise words and such. I'm sure he caught were I was coming from.

I am sorry that you think that every thread becomes a bash the South thread. I feel that I am presenting another point of view which I expect some to agree with and others not to. My use of words on the thread are the best I can think of to convey my feelings and opinions on the subject of a particular thread and if they offend, I apologize, but I write them and take responsibility for them as they are mine.

I am afraid that again you do not see what I am driving at. The Confederate constitution does contain the words that indicate perpetual slavery. Hal and Bill, as far as I can ascertain, are simply saying that it also contains words that might someday amend those words into something else.

But I was not telling Bill if he could not see my point then he needed help. I was stating I thought he was reading way too much as a life style and involved to much with the beautiful English precise language. That he needed help in a funny sense.

Catch where I'm coming from?
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 23, 2004)