CSA vs. USA Constitution

[unionblue]

elektratig,

Thank you for posting the site as it made for an interesting view. It helped me to see the side-by-side comparison. It was especially an eye-opener to see just how many State's rights were lost as to the number gained.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

elektratig,

Thank you for posting the site as it made for an interesting view. It helped me to see the side-by-side comparison. It was especially an eye-opener to see just how many State's rights were lost as to the number gained.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil,
Just out of curiosity, which State rights do you believe were lost in the Confederate Constitution (when compared to the US Constitution)?
For the record, I agree with you that there were some individuals that did want to re-open the slave trade. That was a logical conclusion of Calhoun's idea that slavery was apositive good. If it's a positive good, can it be wrong to extend the "benefits" of the system?
Respectfully,
JT

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Forgive the long wait to your question above, "which States rights do you feel were lost in the Confederate Constitution?"

Article I, Section 2, voting rights. Where under the US Constitution, the States could decided on who had the power to vote or not, the Confederacy makes certain only CSA citizens can vote in elections. So much for 'States Rights.'

Article I, Section 9, whereas the US Constitution says "No tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from andy State." the CSA Constitution states, "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses." This gives the Confederate Congress the power to meddle in the free-trading between the states by imposing those terrible tariffs they despised so much on certain states' exported goods.

Article IV, Section 3, any new States that wish to join the CSA lose the power to control if they want slavery or not in their particular state. This section basically demands that any new state that joins the Confederacy must be recognized as a "slave state." In the US, a State's citizens had the right to decide if they wanted to be a "free" or "slave" State.

As the web site provided by elektratig states, it is very debatable as to whether the CSA constitution is significantly more pro "states rights" in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicity taken away - the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of the states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.

And as for the four different clauses that entrench the legality of slavery withing the Confederate Constitution, four million human beings lost any hope at having their status change, or gaining anything close to "states rights", within their lifetimes and they were scattered all over the eleven states of the Confederacy.

The document is no bargain, nor does any of its more interesting ideas concerning government (a single, six-year term for President, a line-item veto, etc.) excuse its primary purpose, to ensure the protection and continuation of the institution of slavery. If this is what it would cost to have the President have a line-item veto for six years, you can keep it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Can a scholar of the CS Constitution point out to me where a right of Seccession exists in the CS Constitution?