CSA vs. USA Constitution

[unionblue]

Hal,

I appreciate your honesty but fail to see that simply because I can read english and understand what the man said in his speech and that because I can read the Confederate Constitution in which it states slavery will be perpetual, that I should be categorized as an having an 'Epperson agenda.' Besides, I thought you had filed me under the 'forced unionist' category.

I am afraid that I have had my own agenda when it concerns the causes of the Civil War a lot longer than I have been aware of Mr. Epperson's site. My own personal agenda on the cause of the war was the issue of slavery. I am sure it comes as no shock to anyone who has read my posts or has known me through this board for the last four years.

I address your last two items as I have addressed the entire Constitution of the Confederacy. They do not matter as they do not address the central issue of the document, which was to make slavery secure, unchallenged, and perpetual. There is no doubt, no double-take, no other portion of the document that effects this one, central idea.

If you wish not to see the words or acknowledge them Hal, that is your choice and your decision. But they are still there and they subtract any goodness or decency or saving grace the rest of the document may strive for.

And no act of contrition is necessary from me Hal as I consider it no evil to read the words the document and the man state for themselves.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Neil: I can read the Confederate Constitution in which it states slavery will be perpetual...

It does?

Neil, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. I have addressed each of your claims and demonstrated that they are unfounded.

Your entire case of wicked CSA Constitution is limited to two provisions in it.

In one of your cited paragraphs, you submit that "territories" means States. But, of course, it does not.

In the other, your claim is based solely on the erroneous assumption that it pertains to the laws of the individual States, though, of course, it does not.

So, you are back to start.

Neil: I address your last two items as I have addressed the entire Constitution of the Confederacy. They do not matter as they do not address the central issue of the document, which was to make slavery secure, unchallenged, and perpetual. There is no doubt, no double-take, no other portion of the document that effects this one, central idea.

So, the accuracy of the only evidence you can offer up to support your claims, does not matter? And yet your claims are still supposed to be valid?

This reminds me of the CBS response to their forged document debacle -- "they are fraudulent, but still true."

Neil: If you wish not to see the words or acknowledge them Hal, that is your choice and your decision.

I acknowledge every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph in it. I just don't add words or twist them to mean something they don't actually say.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on October 11, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hal,

You have demonstrated to yourself that my claims are unfounded. You have addressed nothing that I consider relevant to the fact that slavery could not be changed or abolished in the Confederate Constitution.

As for those 'two' provisions I refered to, they are sufficient prove enough for my 'claims.' They are not fraudulent and they happen to be true. They are there for anyone to read. I twist nothing and I add nothing. The document and the words of Stephens do not lend themselves to such. All I have done is acknowledge what they say on the subject of slavery.

If you wish to make something of the document with it's glaring points on perpetual slavery, that is your right and your view. I have explained mine.

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 12, 2004)

[hawglips]

Neil: As for those 'two' provisions I refered to, they are sufficient prove enough for my 'claims.' They are not fraudulent and they happen to be true. They are there for anyone to read.

Regarding the words of the document, but not your claims regarding them -- yes, they are indeed factual and true. And they are clear for any objective reader to plainly see in the text of the document itself.

But Neil, I am beginning to fear that your objectivity has been safely cordoned off behind a moat of myth that is too deep and wide for even plain English to cross; with an incorrigible wall of thick obstinateness built up on the other side to ward off even the swiftest and sharpest arrow of fact.

If you were not such a likeable and sporting fellow, I'd be totally disgusted by now.

As is easily understood, and contrary to your claim, there is nothing in this (or any other) provision that prohibits a free state from joining the CSA:

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 the 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.

It doesn't even address the topic, at all, in any way.

But this does:

Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States;

And contrary to your claim, there is nothing that prevents any State from passing laws prohibiting slavery or laying taxes on the citizenry as they see fit -- though the CSA government placed the following prohibition and restriction on themselves:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

No matter how many times you make an inaccurate claim, it is still an inaccurate claim. A view and opinion is something we are all so wonderfully entitled to, but we are not entitled to our own set of "facts."

And, of course, the CSA Constitution could be amended. They made clarifications while giving the States more power to call a convention to consider such amendments (a nice improvement, I'd say):

Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several Conventions, the Congress shall summon a Convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said Convention--voting by States --and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, or by Conventions in two-thirds thereof--as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general Convention--they shall henceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

And here's another one of those factual improvements that I am fond of:

Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

I like this one too:

All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Those two would sure take the pork out of the political feeding trough!

And how about a self-sustaing post office (are our's self-sustaining today?):

To establish Post Offices and post [Roads] routes; but the expenses of the Postoffice Department, after the first day of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues;

Not only did the CSA government have to stay out of religion, but they pretty much had to stay out of business. The old internal improvement bugbear was buried too:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; but 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; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors, and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all such cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof;

Georgiana doesn't like that one, and I'm not sure how this would have worked. But in my modern mind with no frame of reference outside of heavy federal regulations on business, I must admit to being a bit blindered.

But there's no question about this one:

...but 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;

And the line item veto is great:

The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriation disapproved, and shall return a copy of such appropriation, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

As is the single six year term, in my view:

He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be re-eligible.

And I like their impeachment process for judges and federal officers:

...except that any judicial or other federal officer resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on October 12, 2004)

[georgiana]

Georgiana doesn't like the "no pork" clause either, Hal, as she would be without a job....

[unionblue]

Hal,

You now have my permission to be totally disgusted with me.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America absolutely prohibited any law "impairing the right of property in negro slaves." This sentence comes from the very website you give for viewing the Confederate Constitution.

But, according to you Hal, this absolute could be gotten around by the States voting to change it. All right, then obviously Section IX, paragraph one can be changed too by the same method, right? Where it states, "The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have the power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."

Again, according to the website you give states, 'On all other issues the Constitution created a thoroughly proslavery republic. The Constitution authorized Congress to limit the importation of slaves from other nations and states but did not prohibit it altogether as current federal law did.

So, which is it Hal? The states could change the law or not change the law? Or could they pick and choose which law to ignore and which to enforce?

Or, did they do what they said they would do per their Constitution, their laws and their written statements said they did? As I said Hal, it's not the tough to figure out if you can simply read English and take the word of the folks who did the writing.

Unionblue

[hawglips]

Neil: The Constitution of the Confederate States of America absolutely prohibited any law "impairing the right of property in negro slaves." This sentence comes from the very website you give for viewing the Confederate Constitution.

First of all, you keep referring to another page on a website that has the best CSA Constitution vs. USA Constitution page I've found. As I've said on another thread, when I post a link to a particular document, I am doing nothing more than providing easy access to that particular document. I provided that particular link to a copy that had all the changes clearly set out for easy comparison of the two constitutions. Nothing more. Period.

You cited the following as evidence that no law against slavery could be made, within any State of the CSA:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

I have pointed out that this is NOT a prohibition imposed on the legislatures of any individual State -- it solely prohibits the CSA government from passing any law impairing the right of property in negro slaves. But it does not prohibit any individual State from passing such a law within their own sovereign borders.

The CSA Constitution did not establish laws for the individual States on their own domestic issues. It's authors set out to protect slavery from any possible federal threat, and they accomplished that nicely. The provision you cite is one of the key prohibitions on the federal government concerning slavery. But it left the question of laws regarding slavery's existence within the borders of individual States wholly and entirely to those individual, sovereign and independent States.

For example, GA, TX and AL felt it desirable to protect slavery within their borders by including similar prohibitions on anti-slavery laws in their individual State constitutions. This was necessary if they wanted to protect slavery from any State legislative acts.

And to further demonstrate, I have pointed out that, if your view is taken, then the very next paragraph would prohibit any State from laying direct taxes other that as follows:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

But of course, this does NOT pertain to the laying of direct taxes by any individual State, just like the prohibition on any CSA law impairing slavery does not prohibit any individual State from impairing slavery as they saw fit and according to their own Constitution and laws.

Neil: So, which is it Hal? The states could change the law or not change the law? Or could they pick and choose which law to ignore and which to enforce?

Which is it?

It is none of the above.

The provision does not address their ability to pass any law they wish touching on slavery within their own sovereign and independent borders.

Hal

[hawglips]

double post

(Message edited by hawglips on October 13, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hal,

Thus neatly ignoring the Vice President's speech on how this problem of slavery was settled for any new state joining the Confederacy since no one could bring it up.

"One good and wise feature in our new or revised Constitution is, that we have put to rest the vexed question of slavery forever, so far as the Confederate legislative halls are concerned."

(Hal, did you notice the man refers to Confederate legislative halls in the plural? Like, more than one? Not just the central or federal legislative branch, but others? Now who do you suppose those other 'legislative halls' could be?)

A bit later on in the same speech, Mr. Stephen's states:

"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 <u>removing forever from our public or confederate councils</u> that question which gave rise to so much disturbance in the old government."

Now try telling me what 'that question' was Hal? Slavery, of course. Here, the Vice-President of the very government under which this Constitution is based, speaks out on what the document is putting to rest, 'that vexed question of slavery,' <u>forever</u>.

Then he states that no new State can be admitted into the Confederacy without first adopting the 'fundamental principles on which our social and domestic institutions rest' and then states clearly that this 'question', slavery if you missed the man's meaning in the other part of his speech, is removed <u>forever from our public or confederate councils</u>.

Sounds like the States could wish all they want, but it looks like their number two man in their new government thought he had it pretty clear. No more vexing questions about slavery, since it will be permanent and no one will be able to bring it up in 'public or confederate councils' using the plural again, I might add. Seems like he meant more than just the Confederate Federal government, doesn't it? Seems like it was already decided what the State governments, public or confederate, could do about the subject of slavery. NOTHING.

But again, I am only reading the document and the speech of the Confederacy's Vice-President, what he said in plain, everyday English.

Those pesky words, written down for all to see and read.

Sorry, Hal. I think the man and the document speak for themselves very clearly, without any spin or twisting of intent on my part.

And I believe them.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Neil, are you serious? "Confederate legislative halls" in a speech by Stephens as evidence that the individual States couldn't do to slavery as they wished?

I'm sure if I were to point out that there are two (plural) houses in the CSA legislature, thereby satisfying the plural requirement, then you will admit you are really getting desperate here?

Now, you can make assumptions about Stephens' words in a speech all you want, and try to insist on your step-by-step line of reasoning to come to a stretched conclusion based on those assumptions and stretches, but then we have left the realm of black and white fact and entered the slippery world of conjecture and surrealism.

Yes, as I've pointed out several times, the CSA made sure the Confederacy couldn't threaten slavery. They didn't want the same controversy over "that question which gave rise to so much disturbance in the old government" in their new one.

But the bottom line is, the CSA Constitution allows the States to do with slavery as they wish, within their own sovereign borders.

The whole document was based on the independence and sovereignty of the States, and decreasing federal power in relationship to those States; and there is nothing in that document that doesn't allow free States to join their union or make slavery illegal in States where slavery already exists.

Hal