CSA vs. USA Constitution

[hawglips]

Neil: Article I, Section IX, paragraph two of the Confederate Constitution states;
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed....
...The Constitution absolutely prohibited any law "impairing the right of property in negro slaves."

The term 'Bill of Attainder' translates to ANY legislative act. The term 'ex post facto' is Latin for 'after the fact' which refers to laws adopted after an act or law is committed or adopted.

Such a law cannot be passed by whom? The States? Or the feds?

If States, then the very next paragraph, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken," means that the individual State governments could lay no taxes without those same qualifications either.

But of course, that wasn't the case. Neither is it the case that the States couldn't prohibit slavery within their own borders if they chose to do so. The States could do with slavery as they pleased, but the feds could not.

Above all else, the CSA constitution strengthened the States against the encroachments of the central government, not the other way around.

Neil: It reads pretty plain that this part of the Confederate Constitution could not be changed or amended, PERIOD.

"This part?" Why just "this part" when it pertained to the entire document, just like the USA's?

Of course, both constitutions could be amended, according to the specific requirements specified in each one.

Neil: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.

"Such slaves" are what? Why say "such" slaves? Why not just say, "slaves?" Because it is talking about the specific slaves just described, i.e., those accompanying their owners to free States.

Speaking of this provision, I wonder why there would be this need for Constitutional protection allowing slave owners to take their slaves with them to free States, if no free States could join or exist in the CSA? The answer is obvious.

Neil: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States... is found in both Constitutions. In neither of them does it mean that just because the people of certain States could own slaves, that the people of ALL the States could own them.

The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. 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 by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

I'm not sure what your point is here. This prohibits the central government from disallowing slave ownership in any territories it may acquire.

You are right. Slavery was to be allowed in the territories. See the Dred Scott decision for comparison with the USA.

It's interesting that Stephens, one of those who helped formulate the CSA's constitution, thought it probable that the free States of the north west would one day join the CSA.

Stephens: Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them...

Neil: The Confederate Constitution affirmed the proslavery holding of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, by declaring that slavery could never be prohibited from any Confederate territory.

At the same time, however, the Confederate authors jettisoned Taneys implausible argument that the national government could not regulate the territories.

You are mixing constitutions here.

Under the USA's constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories. Under the CSA, it was put in there in a specific statement, avoiding a need for a ruling by the highest court. There was no jettisoning of anything. Like the other slavery provisions, it was put in there prevent any possible use of slavery as a weapon in the competition for advantage in the common government, as had occurred in the old union.

Neil: As for your assertion that the US laws and Constitution pretty much did everything the CSA's did regarding that particular institution, I disagree. The US Constitution does not mention the word 'slave' but instead substitutes such phrases as other persons, such persons, and persons owing service for the word slave. Part of the reason for this language was in deference in 1787 to some of the Northern delegates who might have opposed the Constitution if the word 'slave' appeared but also with the idea that the institution would eventually die out and not expand outside to new territories. There was that faint hope at the time.

Mentioning the word or not is really meaningless, don't you think? Enshrining it into the constitution with the 3/5 rule was substantive enough.

And Lincoln and congress were happy to see an amendment passed that would guarantee slavery would forever be protected against any threats from the central government, just like the CSA constitution.

The USA's government ruled that slavery could not be prohibited in the territories, just like the CSA constitution.

It seems the USA's constitution and laws in reality did virtually the same things you are lambasting the CSA for doing.

Yes, the CSA's founders were bold in using the term openly, and clarifying the three points that we've been talking about.

But some things were VERY different, particularly as it concerned revenue and expenditures.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on October 04, 2004)

[hawglips]

David: A 13th Ammendment gauranteeing slavery to slave states was on the floor of congress before Sumter. It went nowhere.

It passed congress, and Lincoln supported it. I'd say that is somewhere, wouldn't you?

David: It was an 11th hour peace offering, which as you say was too little too late. The Confederacy insisted that the United States must be a slave state and suppress abolition in order to satisfy slaveholding interests.

It was barking up the wrong tree altogether.

I'd love to see such insistence by the CSA, as you describe. Please share it with me if you will.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

Timing is everything, is it not? The proposed 13th amendment DID not pass and fell by the wayside. It did not become law nor did it become another act of appeasement to mollify the South in it's quest to forever keep and expand the institution. Although you might be right that the Congress and President Lincoln might have even been satisfied with the passage of the proposed 13th amendment, again, the historical fact of the matter is, the South did not wait and seemingly, did not care in it's rush to secede. Timing IS everything.

And again, the arguments that I list come from the site you yourself give that shows the Confederate Constitution. I am not mixing constitutions, the South was, picking and choosing from the US one and adding their own refinements and articles to keep slavery.

The fact of the matter is, the Confederate government, such as it was, made certain that slavery would never be an issue as it would never be brought up for change under the terms of it's Constitution. The language makes it clear for anyone who wants to read it. To say that Free States might have one day joined the Confederacy would have doomed their Free State status, per the Confederate constitution. As to why they felt compelled to have a section that allowed them free passage with their slaves and property, the phrase 'State's Rights' come to my mind, but then I guess it really depends on which side of the issue you are on, doesn't it? One day, it's your State's Rights being violated, the next day, I want my slaves protected no matter what the State or it's people want. Fish or cut bait, Hal, fish or cut bait. One or the other, or just admit you want it all at the expense of other peoples State's Rights. At least it would be more honest.

I frankly do not care if everything else in this document made one a card-carrying saint with automatic admission into heaven, the price was too high and the idea that human beings could be kept as slaves makes the entire document utterly worthless. Again, given the attitude in which the rest of the world was calling on the abolition of slavery, England, France, etc., the South was swiming against the stream of history and was too stubborn to admit it. The Confederate Constitution shows that all too clearly.

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 04, 2004)

[mobile_96]

Actually the proposed 13th amendment Did pass congress. It did not become law, only because it was not submitted to the states for ratifacation. And reason being, that the southern states began their secession. Even after the Southen senators and congressmen left Washington, there was still a chance to turn the proposed amendment over to the states for ratifacation. Until Sumpter, that is.
Chuck in Il.

[unionblue]

Charles,

Thank you for the correction concerning the proposed 13th amendment. What I should have said is that it did not pass and become law and clarified that the states needs to ratify it in order to make it the law. Timing STILL is everything, isn't it?

I found an interesting statement concerning the Confederate Constitution via the two web sites you provided on the new slavery thread.

From the speech of the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861. Near the end of this speech, Mr. Stephen's makes the following statement;

"In our Constitution, provision is made for the admission of other States into the confederacy; but none can be admitted without first adopting our Constitution, and, consequently, none can be admitted who does not first adopt the fundamental principles on which our social and domestic institutions rest--thereby removing forever from our public or confederate councils that question which gave rise to so much disturbance in the old government."

This constitution did one thing VERY differently and it had nothing to do with taxes, tariffs, revenues or expenditures. The reference to 'our social and domestic institutions' does not take a genius to figure out which institution the man is talking about, or does it?

The sentiment of the men who wrote this document, to include it's Vice President above, make it very clear that this subject, slavery, was NOT open to debate, discussion, change or vote, by either the States or the central government, to include any Free State that might consider joining.

Let the document and the men of that time speak for themselves. They have made 'the' point very clear.

Unionblue

[hawglips]

Neil: To say that Free States might have one day joined the Confederacy would have doomed their Free State status, per the Confederate constitution

This is not the case, at all. Please show where it says this.

Stephens: In our Constitution, provision is made for the admission of other States into the confederacy; but none can be admitted without first adopting our Constitution, and, consequently, none can be admitted who does not first adopt the fundamental principles on which our social and domestic institutions rest--thereby removing forever from our public or confederate councils that question which gave rise to so much disturbance in the old government."

Neil: This constitution did one thing VERY differently and it had nothing to do with taxes, tariffs, revenues or expenditures. The reference to 'our social and domestic institutions' does not take a genius to figure out which institution the man is talking about, or does it?

What, in Stephens' view is to be accepted -- the domestic institutions, or the fundamental principles they rest on? What fundamental principles are these?

Even if one was to accept that the social "institutions" as well as the domestic "institutions" referred to by Stephens are just one common, singular thing, i.e., slavery, it does not follow that Stephens is saying those "institutions" must be accepted by new States.

I know that the prevailing myth always tries to make the unaware think that any mention of "institutions" by a Southerner is always just one thing, i.e., slavery. Even the pompous McPherson is guilty of this sin when it furthers his agenda. In his book For Cause and Comrades, he translates "institutions" to mean "slavery" when a Southerner says he's fighting for his side's "institutions", but when a Northerner says he's fighting for his side's "institutions", well, it somehow means such noble things as liberty, democracy, the constitution etc.

And after you finish commenting on Stephens' subjective commentary, switch gears and refer back to the document itself. What does it say?

I believe any objective reader of the CSA Constitution would agree that above all else, the principles of the CSA constitution strengthen the States vis a vis the feds.

The preamble to our Constitution lays out the principles upon which the rest is founded on, and the goals of the document.

How does the CSA Constitution begin?

"WE, the People of the Confederated States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character..."

It's unavoidable. And the rest of the document supports that description of the States.

Neil: I frankly do not care if everything else in this document made one a card-carrying saint with automatic admission into heaven, the price was too high and the idea that human beings could be kept as slaves makes the entire document utterly worthless.

This sounds like you consider the USA Constitution "utterly worthless." The idea that human beings could be kept as slaves was such an integral part of our constitutional union.

It appears you have two separate moral standards for slavery -- one wink, wink, turn a blind eye standard for USA, and another throw the first stone, pot calling the kettle black standard for the CSA.

The positions of the CSA constitution on prohibiting the importation of slaves, the right of the central government to prohibit slavery within the States, and the protection of slave ownership even when the slave was in a free state, were firmly in place in the USA' laws and constitution, up to and including Lincoln. So we can't pretend the CSA made any big change in those areas.

Let's just review Lincoln's own words on those points as he took the oath to uphold the slavery protecting Constitution of the USA: "...that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution -- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

His predecessor said the same thing, i.e., the central government or other States cannot constitutionally interfere with slavery in the States: All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for slavery existing among them. For this the people of the North are not more responsible and have no more right to interfere than with similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil.

And let us not forget the 3/5 rule which established slavery as an integral part of our representative system. Just because the didn't say the "S" word, hardly means they didn't commit the "S" sin.

Though it was passed by Congress and signed by the Great Emancipator, the 13th amendment in question obviously wasn't even necessary. Even without the 13th amendment that Congress passed and Lincoln voiced support for in his inaugural, the US government was indeed founded on the right of men to own slaves.

That is sad, but true.

In summary, the CSA constitution outlawed importation of slaves. The USA did too. The CSA constitution says that the common territory must allow slaves. So did the USA constitution by ruling of the Supreme Court. The CSA constitution says the feds cannot threaten slavery in the individual States. So did the USA one, per Lincoln and everyone before him. The CSA constitution says slaves that happen to be in free states are still slaves. So did the USA constitution.

However, some things were VERY different. But we can't talk about them, because it might tarnish the glory hallelujah myth of the force-unionists.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

The first part of your post is simply a form of verbal tap-dancing in which you hope the reader will be so blinded by the speed of such we will not notice the song. It does not change what the Confederate Constitution did concerning the issue of slavery or how Stephens confirmed that issue and how it could not be changed, brought up or discussed. Nor does it change the fact that slavery could not be denied by a new State joining the Confederacy, whether it was a Free State or Not.

For the rest of your post, I have no argument to give on the overall gist, that Lincoln was more concerned with Union than with slavery, that he supported the 13th amendment and considered slavery where it was none of the governments concern. Nor that the 3/5's rule was a compromise with slavery and the South in the formation of this nation or that it was a part of the US Constitution.

However, I will differ with you on my own 'winking' at one Constitution in favor of another. Yes, the US Constitution had flaws in it and compromises that I find, at that time, objectionable and offensive. The 3/5's rule is one, the Fugitive Slave Law and others. But I believe one offered hope in the US one as it had the chance and flexibility of change in it concerning slavery, that it did not expressly state that the institution was a permanent part of it. The CSA Constitution did not even consider the idea of change concerning slavery, but wished to snuff the idea that it could be changed or even considered out forever.

You have been very good Hal, at posting the words of Lincoln and his predecessor and you have proved your point. Why can you not read the speech of Stephens and the provisions of the Constitution of the Confederacy and see it for what it says on the subject of slavery?

Unionblue

[hawglips]

I have (several times now) listed everything the CSA Constitution said regarding slavery, and have compared that with the laws and Constitution of the USA.

You have cited Art. IV Sec. III as evidence that no free state could be part of the CSA. But this provision doesn't even address the question. What it does is guarantee that slavery will be allowed in any new common territories. (See Dred Scott for comparison.)

You have cited Art. I, Sec. IX, Par. 2 as evidence that the individual States within the Confederacy could pass no laws prohibiting slavery.

But of course, this prohibition pertains to the CSA's ability to make such laws, not the individual States.

Your objections on these two points have been demonstrated to be unfounded.

In summary, the CSA constitution did indeed strive to protect slavery from any chance of a threat from the central government. But what it actually did, was little different from the reality that existed in the USA.

Slavery was protected under both.

The CSA constitution outlawed importation of slaves. The USA did too.

The CSA constitution says that the common territory must allow slaves. So did the USA constitution by ruling of the Supreme Court.

The CSA constitution says the feds cannot threaten slavery in the individual States. So did the USA one, as echoed and emphasized by Lincoln and Buchanan, and everyone before them.

The CSA constitution says slaves that happen to be in free states are still slaves. So did the USA constitution.

Neil: "...I believe one offered hope in the US one as it had the chance and flexibility of change in it concerning slavery, that it did not expressly state that the institution was a permanent part of it. The CSA Constitution did not even consider the idea of change concerning slavery, but wished to snuff the idea that it could be changed or even considered out forever.

Slavery was no more a permanent part of the CSA Constitution than the 3/5 provision was in the USA's -- expressly stating the "S" word, or not.

And of course, both Constitutions could be amended, with or without their common Bill of Attainder ex post facto provision.

The CSA constitution did indeed strive to protect slavery from any chance of a threat from the central government. But as easily demonstrated, what it actually did concerning slavery, was little different from the reality that existed in the USA.

However, in other areas, the changes were much more substantive.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

The words of the Vice President of the Confederate States of America are simple, plain and there for all to see. It leaves no doubt of what he expected the Constitution of his supposed nation to do in regards to slavery.

I do not read into it, I do not interpret, I simply acknowledge what is there and what this man said was there. It is my own conclusion, of course, but I tend to believe him and what he said.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Neil: I do not read into it, I do not interpret, I simply acknowledge what is there and what this man [Stephens] said was there.

That is a very curious statement. I have the utmost respect for your broad knowledge of the WBTS and your research skills. You have always demonstrated a gentlemanly approach to our discussions. But may I be frank here? I would say that, contrary to your above statement, you do NOT acknowledge what is in the CSA Constitution, but read into it and interpret with the same agenda Epperson pushes on his "Selected Quotes" page.

And if you are not reading into or interpreting Stephens' words, I am not sure why you would find it necessary to make this interpretation: "The reference to 'our social and domestic institutions' does not take a genius to figure out which institution the man is talking about, or does it?"

I'd like to throw a last gasp hail Mary in the hopes of a response from you before I give in to the nagging voice in my head telling me you are not interested in what the CSA Constitution actually says:

You have cited Art. IV Sec. III as evidence that no free state could be part of the CSA. But this provision doesn't even address the question. What it does is guarantee that slavery will be allowed in any new common territories. (See Dred Scott for comparison.)

You have cited Art. I, Sec. IX, Par. 2 as evidence that the individual States within the Confederacy could pass no laws prohibiting slavery.

But of course, this prohibition pertains to the CSA's ability to make such laws, not the individual States.

Your objections on these two points have been demonstrated to be unfounded.

Awaiting your response to these two points...

Hal