CSA vs. USA Constitution

Neil,
Fair enough. Although I do indeed see what you are driving at. I get it and I’m not arguing with it. I will ask you though to consider the point I was trying to make earlier. The 2nd Amendment contains words too. You stated you can still buy guns in response, I believe. Thereby establishing you must have missed my point or just rather not admit that you did get it because it’d weaken your case. Much the same way you refuse to admit the CSA ‘could’ have amended theirs. Because if you admit it you somehow ...lose? But anyway, look at the 2nd Amendment. Humor me. Forget intent. Yes, you can still buy guns. In theory. In some places under some conditions. Yet not all citizens with the right to vote ca exercise equal rights in this. Yes, you can still bear arms. In Vermont only, unless you pay for the privilege. Again, not all citizens with the right to vote get this privilege. Think of the word privilege. Means private law. 20,000 laws restricting that equal right. Infringing upon it. Restricting it to privilege. Contrary to the words shall not be infringed. You can debate intent, goals, purposes. But the fact remain that right has been infringed upon. To me that is a very simple clear cut fact. Even though the wording forbid it. Given the CSA’a constitution NOT containing words specifically forbidding repeal amendments I see a comparison. One that shows even if very specific wording is included it can be overcome. And without it you presume it can’t? That was my point. Make any sense?

Tommy

BTW IIRC Tennessee’s secession declaration mentioned nothing of slavery and I could be wrong but I think it maintained the same state constitution as before. Although I could be mistaken.

(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 23, 2004)

[unionblue]

Tommy,

When it comes down to it, I'll go to the woodshed and take my beating. If I feel that I have been proved wrong, I will admit it, but we both know, it's going to take a lot of doing!

I understand what you are trying to say when you bring up the argument of infringement and the Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I hate to be a pain, but I am somewhat aware of the debate that goes on concerning the timeliness of this amendment. You are more than likely aware that some contend that this was written at a time when you could expect an English soldier at your door or an Indian. There are some that also suggest that by the inclusion of the first part of the sentence with the phrase, "A well regulated Militia," is the real intent of the amendment, that it was intended solely that the people have a well-armed force of protectors, not that every house hold was to have arms.

Myself, I think that's stretching it a bit, but it is part of the debate that the amendment has not kept pace with the realities of today in this time. And I made the comment that people could still buy a gun because that is a true fact, no matter how many of those 20,000 laws restricting gun ownership in this nation are enforced. If you want one, you can get one, and you don't even have to register it. I have three in my house alone, not on anyone's sheet or records. Infringed? Yeah, I see it Tommy, but I can see the argument that says that was not the intent. Don't agree with it, but I see it.

As for your observation that the Confederate constitution contains an Article that permits amending it, I feel that we are offering similar arguments from different sides of the fence. In the US Constitution, the Second Amendment seems clear, precise and to the point, especially concerning "...shall not be infringed."

And we have Article V which states in clear precise language that there are provisions for amendment the constitution. In one case, we cannot understand why such a clear, concise amendment is infringed. In the other, I cannot bring myself to believe it would ever be used to amend slavery based on attitudes and statements of the time and the clause of Article 1, Section 9.

In both cases men with their own agendas and histories will do what they think is best to either change or ignore or simply not apply those words when it is not in their best interests.

That is the only thing I am sure about. Men will do what they is in their best interests. From those who crafted the Confederate constitution and those who think they know what's best for us concerning the current gun laws.

I don't know if the above made any sense or helped you to understand where I am coming from, but I honestly tried to be honest with it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

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.

Ah, Neil, there’s no such thing as “social, political and domestic stone”. The tide of human change is unstoppable and no politician, no puny law, can stand in its way. That is not to say that emancipation of slaves in the C.S.A. was inevitable; but change of various sorts within that society – if it had had the chance to continue its existence – was.

One of the problems we have with the hypothetical future development of the C.S.A. is that, because it only actually existed for four years, our images of it are inexorably linked to the 1860s. If you think of U.S. politicians a thousand images come to mind; if you think of C.S. politicians you can only see men in frock coats and stovepipe hats. Compare the two nations and you have to be very careful not to find your imagination pitting Jefferson Davis against, say, John F. Kennedy.

This kind of unconscious comparison is wholly unfair. We have to try to imagine Confederate citizens visiting speakeasies and listening to jazz; Confederate automobiles; Confederate aeroplanes; Confederate rock & roll; Confederate television. Only then can we begin to make meaningful hypotheses about race relations and slavery in an evolving Confederacy.

We clearly disagree about whether the C.S. Constitution prohibited any future interference with slavery at either Federal or state level. But let’s suppose for a moment that you are correct, and that there was no constitutional means for the C.S.A., or any of its states, to abolish slavery at any point in the future. What would this matter if public opinion came to favour the idea? In a free society laws depend entirely on public acquiescence for their power. Once public opinion rejects them they are mere scraps of paper. Statutes, constitutions…just a waste of paper and ink unless the people find them palatable. If the people of the C.S.A. had ever determined on emancipation these scraps of paper would have been no barrier.

Bill

[georgiana]

Bill –

American jazz originated on Congo Square in New Orleans and predates the Confederacy, so I’m not sure about that particular “unconscious” comparison, but I will freely admit that pitting Jefferson Davis against John F. Kennedy is something that has never crossed my mind, consciously or unconsciously, though it would make for a very interesting comparison!

I do agree with you - in the sense that I do not see the Confederate government or its constitution as having the requisite power to do much of anything. It seems to me that if a state within the Confederacy wanted to abolish slavery and was unable to garner support from within the confederation, they could simply secede…no questions asked. Given that a state had the ability to secede at will from the Confederacy, there would seem to be absolutely nothing within the confederate constitution that could prohibit a state from doing anything – including, but certainly not limited to the abolition of slavery within its borders.

A seceded state could, for example, establish any form of government they desired. They would no longer be bound to provide a “republican form of government”, but would be free to set-up for themselves a monarchy, a dictatorship, or any other form of government that might suit their purposes.

Given the power of a state to secede at will, it seems somewhat pointless, IMO, to debate the particulars of what the confederate constitution does or does not permit. With unfettered state sovereignty, a state could do just about anything.

Georgiana,
You have a source to back up that Jazz originated prior to the CW? All I have ever heard or read indicates it was late 19th century before the music existing had evolved into American Jazz. Even if one doesn't believe Buddy Bolden as the first, 1870 still seems the earliest that the musical syncretism occurred that created what we know as Jazz.
Just curious, it is not on topic so no need to respond.

[georgiana]

Dr. Billy Taylor’s “<u>Jazz Piano: History and Development</u>” is my source, but about once a year or so, PBS broadcasts his four-part lecture from the Kennedy Center in which he also discusses the history of jazz and it’s roots in African-American slavery.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I do not find it at all difficult to “imagine Confederate citizens visiting speakeasies and listening to jazz”. Confederates were listening to jazz long before the Yankees were.

Since we're on the subject (and off the topic), when was the birth of Dixieland jazz?

Georgiaa,
Good question. I am not a music expert by any means (not anymore anyway) whatsoever but I'd say Dixieland Jazz would have been the birth of jazz itself. Since Jazz was pretty much a Southern creation. As to a general acceptance, I know that it was quite popular during the 20's. As to Confederates listening to Jazz. Aw Shucks, we will listen to most any music. I'd imagine our forbears would have loved it. A very musical people. Bluegrass and Jazz are very similar. Both spiral.

[bill_torrens]

Hello Georgiana,

With unfettered state sovereignty, a state could do just about anything.

Precisely. It’s called “liberty”. Can be scary, but generally held to be better than the alternatives.

A seceded state could, for example, establish any form of government they desired. They would no longer be bound to provide a “republican form of government”, but would be free to set-up for themselves a monarchy, a dictatorship, or any other form of government that might suit their purposes.

Do I detect a patrician element to this “republican” argument? The people? Simply ghastly, my dear. Who knows what kind of government they’d plump for if we ever let them have the choice.

What you seem to be saying is that Americans enjoy total freedom….to continue buying Brand America for all eternity. And presumably some people are getting very rich indeed out of selling Brand America. And presumably that was always the point of the exercise.

Bill

(Message edited by Bill_torrens on October 26, 2004)

[hawglips]

Neil,

William Davis also said that most of the changes in the CSA Constitution defended slavery.

That is obviously false, as we have shown.

I wouldn't rely too much on the comments of Davis when even a cursory study of the document refutes his claims.

Davis refers to the Constitutional provision allowing slavery in all new territory, and pretends it means no State could join without allowing slavery.

I hope you didn't actually spend your hard earned money on this fellow's book.

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."

You still have NOT answered my response to this silliness.

What a slippery fellow you are...

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.

Neil, is this the best you can do? You are saying that the CSA Constitution did NOT mean what it so plainly says, because the "agenda" and "actions" and "words" prior to that Constitution somehow invalidate the words in that document? Your personal, deeply prejudiced view of some presumed "agenda," and your pet interpretation of their "actions," and your biased understanding of their "background" invalidate the words in their Constitution?

Do you realize how this sounds?

As we so plainly see, you cannot show that the CSA Constitution disallowed free States from joining their union, nor can you show that the document made slavery a permanent fixture in the CSA.

You have failed at this, because the document does not do that.

But it does do some other things, like prohibiting protective tariffs and internal improvements...

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

http://www.civilwar.vt.edu/wcd/davis.html

I consider the money I have spent on Mr. Davis's books well spent.

I also consider that Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4, is included in the Confederate constitution for one reason only. Do you realize how IT sounds?

And no, when you read the document, Stephen's words and all the other State constitutions with regard to the total assurance that slavery would NEVER be abolished, changed, gotten rid of, either at the State of Federal level, that ANY state, free or slave, would have to conform to the idea of slavery, it does not matter if there were no protective tariffs or internal improvements.

The fact of the matter is Hal, the document proves what was important to those States who left in rebellion, slavery, by its continual importance to the men who created the document, who passed it and expected that it would never bring up the idea of slave freedom then or in the future.

I have more than responded with my silliness and will continue to do so at every opportunity.

Bill, you claim there is nothing like 'social, political and domestic stone.' That the tide of human change is unstoppable and no politician, no puny law, can stand in its way. I claim that unless there are those who are willing to sacrifice for that change, it comes slowly, with jerks and sudden stops along the way.

I believe there was change on the way, and the Confederacy, with its constitution as an example, was doing its dead-level best to resist it. I say the one thing people say they want the most and desire the least is CHANGE. I am sure you can detect signs of this in your everyday work and life.

I also say the Confederacy lasted more than four years and gave clear examples of how it would be if it had lasted officially, hence the Civil Rights Movement of the '50's and '60's, where blacks were still held from voting, holding jobs, advancing socially and economically, that they should 'know their place if they knew what was good for them.'

I see attitudes and custom and history, Bill, and those attitudes and customs are changing, slowly, but they do change, only when forced, when confronted, when required for survival. It has been my experience that change will come, but few ever greet it with any kind of love or enthusiasm.

Until that time,
Unionblue