CSA vs. USA Constitution

[tamaroa]

Hi Neil,

Just like the U.S. Constitution could be amended to preclude a second term for the presidency and extend it to 6 years so could the C.S. constitution be amended to preclude slavery if they so desired, could, it not?

[hawglips]

The changes to slavery seem to be emphasized and overstated in an effort to discredit the entire constitution and the evil CSA itself.

There were four changes regarding slavery:

1) prohibited the importation of slaves into the CSA

This change is no different than what existed under USA laws.

2) prohibited the CSA gov't from making any laws against the right to own slaves

This one left the question of slavery up to the individual States -- exactly the situation in the USA up till Lincoln.

3) protected slave owners rights to carry their slaves with them to other CSA states where slavery might be illegal.

This one wasn't really very different, just clearer, than what existed under the USA.

4) slavery was allowed in any CSA new territories.

This was the big change.

But none of these were as big as these two:

Article I, Sec. VIII, Paragraph 1:
"...no bounties shall be granted from the treasury, nor shall any duties, or taxes, or importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry;"

Article I, Sec. VIII, Paragraph 3:
"...neither this, nor any other clause contained in this Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce..."

Another one of the bigger ones was the total omission of "promote the general welfare." Huge.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

Take a gun, load it with five blanks and one live round. Call the one live round 'slavery,' and the five blanks everything good about your proposed good areas of the Confederate Constitution. Now spin the chamber, put the gun to your head, and tell yourself again just how many things are right with the Confederate Constitution. Then pull the trigger.

Or would you rather leave out the one live round labeled slavery and repeat the process?

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 27, 2004)

[hawglips]

Neil, it seems to me that you are not attacking what the CSA did with slavery, but are attacking some mythological creature created by the force-unionist apologists angling for justification.

Even change #4, which I have perhaps overstated as a "big change" was in reality exactly what the USA's highest court had so recently ruled with the Dred Scott decision. So, actually, it was not a change at all - but a clarification that would remove any chance for future sectional contention on the issue of slavery and common territory.

The slavery bullet you refer to was already loaded in the USA gun as well. And the USA gun still had other bullets in it that were carefully removed by the CSA government. So, one's chances of survival would be better with the CSA gun, it seems to me.

I'm with the evil, racist, "Cornerstone" Stephens. The CSA constitution was not perfect by any stretch, and was comparatively deficient in a few respects. But all in all, it was arguably an improvement over the old one.

It would have been nice to see how it would have played out had they been allowed to exist in peace. I think it may have been difficult for many USA States to remain in the old Union when a better one was operating to their south.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

You are entitled to your opinion of course, the one where it might have been 'nice' to see how it would have played out if they had been allowed to exist in peace.

I just still wonder how 'nice' it would have been for those 4,000,000 souls who had no representation in it and how their descendants, who would have been forever locked into the institution of slavery, would have liked all those improvements.

It's just hard for me to let this little thing slip from my mind.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Neil, you forget... to the men Hal is defending those 4 million weren't people; they were at best property... therefore their opinions and lives didn't matter. Slavery... those who would defend it by any means... I weep for the species.

Put simply the CSA Constitution was a copy of the US Constitution w/ changes that profitted the Land Owners and few others... it certainly didn't profit or benefit the men who actually worked for a living.

"2) prohibited the CSA gov't from making any laws against the right to own slaves

This one left the question of slavery up to the individual States -- exactly the situation in the USA up till Lincoln."

I disagree, Lincoln wasn't even in office long enough to change anything before a rebellion tore apart the country. The CSA instituted a draft and forcible conscription, a passport system, suspension of habeus corpus... The immediete and unconditional return to slavery of any black man found in Uniform. Summary execution of any white man found in command of black soldiers, regardless of his status because he would be considered inciting a servile insurection (kind of the pot calling the kettle black). The CSA was indeed a freer more enlightened, more honorable society... really it was. The more I read, the more I realize how few people actually got the Rebellion started rolling... a few thousand slave holders (note how many in CSA politics didn't own slaves) got several hundred thousand men to fight and die for them. Ironic that those that started the war failed to maintain the courage of their convictions. The South was truly a rich mans war paid for by poor mans blood. The individual soldier fighting for the CSA gave herculean service... a pity their leaders failed to do them justice.

I suppose the CSA would have been a great country; as long as you weren't black, a poor white farmer or laborer etc.

My eyes are starting to hurt from all of the chaff and the smoke screen.

Good Christ I'm getting cynical...

[unionblue]

Shane,

Tut tut! Getting cynical is not a healthy thing, especially when in the cause of defending, explaining or researching history. Have heart, old friend and be of good cheer.

Hal, no, sorry, the other bullets you refer to as being in the US gun are not what I consider fatal. Remember, I referred to them as blanks. Blanks cause a loud noise and might leave a burn, but they won't kill you and there's a good chance of recovery.

And I must point out that the one bullet, when fired through the brain/soul of the Confederacy is the one that killed it. And I also believe that particular bullet was removed from the US gun.

YMOS,
Unionblue

Neil,
Tell that to Jon-Eric Hexum. Well, you could tell him but I doubt he'd listen.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Why should he be any different than others espousing the purity of the Southern cause in the face of history? Plus, my blanks are definately non-leathel.

(Good come-back, by-the-way.)

See you tomorrow,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on September 29, 2004)

Neil,
Well, he'd be different in that he is dead. Killed by playing russian roulette with a blank while filming a movie. Unless it is your contention we are dead too.


Have a good day,
YMOS

tommy