Restricted Debate Analyzing the Confederate Constitution


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Mortari

Corporal
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
Actually, it is you who should take time for a refresher on the Confederate Constitution, as it clearly does not do what you say that it does.

Since they were not fighting to maintain slavery where it already existed, I don't think that they'd have fought to expand it where it did not.
Interesting... So in the Confederate Constitution, Sec 1, Article 9, part 4 says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." That was at the federal level, and of course they had the same supremacy clause saying that federal law overruled state laws.

And when leading secessionists like Albert Gallatin Brown, former governor and current (at secession) Mississippi senator who led their secession convention said "I want Cuba. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery."

You get out of that they didn't want to expand slavery where it didn't exist?

Also Art 4 of the Confederate Constitution says "The Confederate States may acquire new territory... In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be 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.


But how do you get that they didn't want to expand slavery where it didn't exist when they mandated slavery must expand in any new territory they acquire and felt that was so important they wrote it into their Constitution?
 

JonnyReb_In_MI

Corporal
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
324
Location
Southeast Michigan
Interesting... So in the Confederate Constitution, Sec 1, Article 9, part 4 says "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." That was at the federal level, and of course they had the same supremacy clause saying that federal law overruled state laws.
Also Art 4 of the Confederate Constitution says "The Confederate States may acquire new territory... In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be 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.

But how do you get that they didn't want to expand slavery where it didn't exist when they mandated slavery must expand in any new territory they acquire and felt that was so important they wrote it into their Constitution?
Article 9, Part 4 is clearly in the section that states what the Confederate Congress can and cannot do, and obviously has no bearing on what the states can & cannot do. Confederate States were not denied the right to abolish slavery within their own boundaries and there was no provision one way or the other concerning the acceptance of free States into the nation. Article 4 simply makes clear that the right of persons to carry their chattels into any part of the Confederacy was guaranteed.

And when leading secessionists like Albert Gallatin Brown, former governor and current (at secession) Mississippi senator who led their secession convention said "I want Cuba. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery."

You get out of that they didn't want to expand slavery where it didn't exist?
From that I get that Albert Gallatin Brown wanted to see slavery expanded.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
Edited. I just went to read the Confederate Constitution which is free online at Yale.edu. Just Google Confederate Constitution and the Yale link is on the first page. Article 4 is pretty clear that slaves cannot be banned from any Territory or State of the Confederacy.
Edited.
Leftyhunter
 

JonnyReb_In_MI

Corporal
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
324
Location
Southeast Michigan
Edited. I just went to read the Confederate Constitution which is free online at Yale.edu. Just Google Confederate Constitution and the Yale link is on the first page. Article 4 is pretty clear that slaves cannot be banned from any Territory or State of the Confederacy.
Edited.
Leftyhunter
You, up to this point, have not actually provided a single "quote" from the Confederate Constitution throughout this conversation; you have simply been providing mischaracterizations regarding what it actually says and doesn't say.

I have been consulting the digital version from Yale throughout this conversation. Article 9, Part 4 is clearly in the section that states what the Confederate Congress can and cannot do, and obviously has no bearing on what the states can & cannot do. Confederate States were not denied the right to abolish slavery within their own boundaries and there was no provision one way or the other concerning the acceptance of free States into the nation. Article 4 simply makes clear that the right of persons to carry their chattels into any part of the Confederacy was guaranteed.

Edited.

The various Ordinances of Secession don't actually make plain what you say that they do unless you cherry pick them out of context. The ordinances of some of the states make it very plain that many of their reasons for secession were constitutional/legal/political/economic issues through which slavery was intertwined and deeply infused. Several other states, however, seceded because Lincoln was calling up troops to invade the South. With that said, the reasons for secession & war are not one and the same. The North fought to keep the land and money of the South, while the South fought to defend against an invading foreign military.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,210
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
You, up to this point, have not actually provided a single "quote" from the Confederate Constitution throughout this conversation; you have simply been providing mischaracterizations regarding what it actually says and doesn't say.
A side by side comparison of the U.S. vs. the C.S. constitutions may be found at the link.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
What was changed? And why?

http://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
You, up to this point, have not actually provided a single "quote" from the Confederate Constitution throughout this conversation; you have simply been providing mischaracterizations regarding what it actually says and doesn't say.

I have been consulting the digital version from Yale throughout this conversation. Article 9, Part 4 is clearly in the section that states what the Confederate Congress can and cannot do, and obviously has no bearing on what the states can & cannot do. Confederate States were not denied the right to abolish slavery within their own boundaries and there was no provision one way or the other concerning the acceptance of free States into the nation. Article 4 simply makes clear that the right of persons to carry their chattels into any part of the Confederacy was guaranteed.

Edited.

The various Ordinances of Secession don't actually make plain what you say that they do unless you cherry pick them out of context. The ordinances of some of the states make it very plain that many of their reasons for secession were constitutional/legal/political/economic issues through which slavery was intertwined and deeply infused. Several other states, however, seceded because Lincoln was calling up troops to invade the South. With that said, the reasons for secession & war are not one and the same. The North fought to keep the land and money of the South, while the South fought to defend against an invading foreign military.
My friend where exactly are you getting this "Article 9 Section 4?
I can't find it on any online article of the Confederate Constitution.
What I can find is Article 4 Section 3
Subsection 3
" 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 any slave's,lawfully held by them in any of the states or Territories of the Confederate State's.
If anyone wants to read the full passage and the Confederate Constitution
Goggle www.libs.uga.edu/hagrett/selections/Confederate/trans.html
Please show exactly where the Confederate Constitution explicitly states that newly admitted states to the Confederacy can ban slavery.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
You, up to this point, have not actually provided a single "quote" from the Confederate Constitution throughout this conversation; you have simply been providing mischaracterizations regarding what it actually says and doesn't say.

I have been consulting the digital version from Yale throughout this conversation. Article 9, Part 4 is clearly in the section that states what the Confederate Congress can and cannot do, and obviously has no bearing on what the states can & cannot do. Confederate States were not denied the right to abolish slavery within their own boundaries and there was no provision one way or the other concerning the acceptance of free States into the nation. Article 4 simply makes clear that the right of persons to carry their chattels into any part of the Confederacy was guaranteed.

Edited.

The various Ordinances of Secession don't actually make plain what you say that they do unless you cherry pick them out of context. The ordinances of some of the states make it very plain that many of their reasons for secession were constitutional/legal/political/economic issues through which slavery was intertwined and deeply infused. Several other states, however, seceded because Lincoln was calling up troops to invade the South. With that said, the reasons for secession & war are not one and the same. The North fought to keep the land and money of the South, while the South fought to defend against an invading foreign military.
Anyone who wants can easily goggle each states Ordinances if Secession. They very much mention slavery . One or two mentions tariffs but tariffs were historically very low priority to the Civil War.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
Hi @jgoodguy ,
Is there really such a thing as an Article 9 Section 4 of the Confederate Constitution?
Not saying it doesn't exist just saying online I can only find seven separate articles of the Confederate Constitution.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
 

Mortari

Corporal
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
Hi @jgoodguy ,
Is there really such a thing as an Article 9 Section 4 of the Confederate Constitution?
Not saying it doesn't exist just saying online I can only find seven separate articles of the Confederate Constitution.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
I think he's talking article 1 section 9, part 4. Not article 9 section 4.

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And of course Article 4 Sec. 2. says

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Which when you combine with Article 6 which says "This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



Which combined obviously shows that the right of property in slaves being Constitutionally protected means States are bound by that supreme law of the land.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
I think he's talking article 1 section 9, part 4. Not article 9 section 4.

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And of course Article 4 Sec. 2. says

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Which when you combine with Article 6 which says "This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



Which combined obviously shows that the right of property in slaves being Constitutionally protected means States are bound by that supreme law of the land.
Which means we are going to have to ask our good friend @JonnyReb_In_MI how exactly he comes up with the interpretation of how the Confederate Constitution allows individual states to ban slavery. Maybe U missed that article but I certainly didn't see it.
Leftyhunter
 

JonnyReb_In_MI

Corporal
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
324
Location
Southeast Michigan
Which part are you saying you are right and the Confederate Constitution needs to be ignored? Just curious what part we have to cross out to use your interpretation instead. Because it clearly says no anti-slavery laws, slaves can be used anywhere, and federal law has supremacy over state law. Which parts do we need to delete from history?


And as cute as saying "no" sounds, luckily we wrote down our history and can see time and again the Confederacy and it's states specifically saying it split over protecting and expanding slavery.
No, sir, to get the interpretation of the Confederate Constitution that I present to you, you merely have to take the words on the page for what they say. The only thing you have to cross out or delete is the things that you insert that are not there.

My friend where exactly are you getting this "Article 9 Section 4?
I can't find it on any online article of the Confederate Constitution.
What I can find is Article 4 Section 3
Subsection 3
" 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 any slave's,lawfully held by them in any of the states or Territories of the Confederate State's.
If anyone wants to read the full passage and the Confederate Constitution
Goggle www.libs.uga.edu/hagrett/selections/Confederate/trans.html
Please show exactly where the Confederate Constitution explicitly states that newly admitted states to the Confederacy can ban slavery.
Thanks
Leftyhunter

I think he's talking article 1 section 9, part 4. Not article 9 section 4.

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And of course Article 4 Sec. 2. says

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Which when you combine with Article 6 which says "This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Which combined obviously shows that the right of property in slaves being Constitutionally protected means States are bound by that supreme law of the land.
Which means we are going to have to ask our good friend @JonnyReb_In_MI how exactly he comes up with the interpretation of how the Confederate Constitution allows individual states to ban slavery. Maybe U missed that article but I certainly didn't see it.
Leftyhunter
My friends... despite the best efforts of some to make it appear otherwise, this is really not difficult to understand.

Just like in the United States Constitution, Art. 1-Sec. 1 of the Confederate States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the Confederate gov't and the subsequent sections & clauses of said article outline the composition of the legislative branch and how it shall operate. For the purpose of this conversation, we will focus on Article 1, Sections 8-10

Art. 1-Sec. 8 & 9 outline the Powers of Congress, or what Congress has the authority to do by legislation and does not have the authority to do by legislation. So when it says, in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed", it is clearly saying that the legislative branch of the Confederate gov't has no authority to make such a law.

Art. 1-Sec. 10 of both Constitutions directly speak to the authority of the states regarding he passage of certain legislation. Similar to limitations placed on the legislative branch in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4, Art.1-Sec.10-Clause 1 states, "No State shall... pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law..." It does not, however, deny the states the right to pass a "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves."

Now moving on to Art.4-Sec.2-Clause 1, which states, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

The reason for this clause is straightforward: there can be no sense of unity where a citizen of one State, acquiring or producing property in his own State, is at risk of losing that same property when he travels with it to a State with different property laws.

In no way does Art.6-Sec.1-Clause 3 make what is clearly a restriction upon the legislative branch in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4 and turn it into a restriction upon the states.

If the Confederacy had survived, I'm sure that there would have been arguments arise over these issues, but as it is written the Confederate Constitution in no way says that existing or future states are restricted from banning slavery.

Retired lawyer Vito Mussomeli says it well when he states:
"This [Confederate] Constitution does not camouflage slavery under a pretentious rubric of civility and liberty. At the same time, and also true of the 1787 [U.S.] Constitution, there is no Article, Section or Clause establishing slavery nor to disestablish slavery. The meaning is clear: slavery does not run with the land. Slavery was never a Constitutional mandate either in the 1787 or the Confederate Constitution. The issue abides solely in the independent and sovereign States. Every President from Washington through Lincoln agreed.

"A constitution is not a penumbra of feelings for changeable use to accommodate changeable agendas. Law is to be read as clear text. We are not sensing our way through a spray of verbal mist as in a novel or poem, essay or oration. We are reading what is on paper, front and center, before our eyes. Both the 1787 and 1861 Constitutions provide an overall security net for slavery. Neither mandate slavery. Neither have the power to establish or disestablish slavery anywhere. The founding States of both countries conveyed no such powers."
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
No, sir, to get the interpretation of the Confederate Constitution that I present to you, you merely have to take the words on the page for what they say. The only thing you have to cross out or delete is the things that you insert that are not there.








My friends... despite the best efforts of some to make it appear otherwise, this is really not difficult to understand.

Just like in the United States Constitution, Art. 1-Sec. 1 of the Confederate States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the Confederate gov't and the subsequent sections & clauses of said article outline the composition of the legislative branch and how it shall operate. For the purpose of this conversation, we will focus on Article 1, Sections 8-10

Art. 1-Sec. 8 & 9 outline the Powers of Congress, or what Congress has the authority to do by legislation and does not have the authority to do by legislation. So when it says, in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed", it is clearly saying that the legislative branch of the Confederate gov't has no authority to make such a law.

Art. 1-Sec. 10 of both Constitutions directly speak to the authority of the states regarding he passage of certain legislation. Similar to limitations placed on the legislative branch in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4, Art.1-Sec.10-Clause 1 states, "No State shall... pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law..." It does not, however, deny the states the right to pass a "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves."

Now moving on to Art.4-Sec.2-Clause 1, which states, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

The reason for this clause is straightforward: there can be no sense of unity where a citizen of one State, acquiring or producing property in his own State, is at risk of losing that same property when he travels with it to a State with different property laws.

In no way does Art.6-Sec.1-Clause 3 make what is clearly a restriction upon the legislative branch in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4 and turn it into a restriction upon the states.

If the Confederacy had survived, I'm sure that there would have been arguments arise over these issues, but as it is written the Confederate Constitution in no way says that existing or future states are restricted from banning slavery.

Retired lawyer Vito Mussomeli says it well when he states:
"This [Confederate] Constitution does not camouflage slavery under a pretentious rubric of civility and liberty. At the same time, and also true of the 1787 [U.S.] Constitution, there is no Article, Section or Clause establishing slavery nor to disestablish slavery. The meaning is clear: slavery does not run with the land. Slavery was never a Constitutional mandate either in the 1787 or the Confederate Constitution. The issue abides solely in the independent and sovereign States. Every President from Washington through Lincoln agreed.

"A constitution is not a penumbra of feelings for changeable use to accommodate changeable agendas. Law is to be read as clear text. We are not sensing our way through a spray of verbal mist as in a novel or poem, essay or oration. We are reading what is on paper, front and center, before our eyes. Both the 1787 and 1861 Constitutions provide an overall security net for slavery. Neither mandate slavery. Neither have the power to establish or disestablish slavery anywhere. The founding States of both countries conveyed no such powers."
@jgoodguy what is your opinion about the above interpretation of the Confederate Constitution?
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
You seem to be the one mentioning tariffs...

The ordinances of some do very much mention slavery because slavery coursed through constitutional/legal/political/economic issues that they had with the Northern states / federal gov't. Yes, they are on Google, and I encourage every one to read them, but it's important to read and understand the history that leads up to the secession of each state. No one who says "it was all about slavery" is fit to trust as an authority on the matter.
The reason that the Civil War was all about slavery was that unlike other secessionist movements there was no serious effort to separate from the U.S. either through peaceful or violent means.
Other nations have recurring struggle's over Secession. Once the slaves were emancipated no serious political movements arose to attempt Secession by either legal or illegal means.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,806
Location
los angeles ca
No, sir, to get the interpretation of the Confederate Constitution that I present to you, you merely have to take the words on the page for what they say. The only thing you have to cross out or delete is the things that you insert that are not there.








My friends... despite the best efforts of some to make it appear otherwise, this is really not difficult to understand.

Just like in the United States Constitution, Art. 1-Sec. 1 of the Confederate States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the Confederate gov't and the subsequent sections & clauses of said article outline the composition of the legislative branch and how it shall operate. For the purpose of this conversation, we will focus on Article 1, Sections 8-10

Art. 1-Sec. 8 & 9 outline the Powers of Congress, or what Congress has the authority to do by legislation and does not have the authority to do by legislation. So when it says, in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed", it is clearly saying that the legislative branch of the Confederate gov't has no authority to make such a law.

Art. 1-Sec. 10 of both Constitutions directly speak to the authority of the states regarding he passage of certain legislation. Similar to limitations placed on the legislative branch in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4, Art.1-Sec.10-Clause 1 states, "No State shall... pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law..." It does not, however, deny the states the right to pass a "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves."

Now moving on to Art.4-Sec.2-Clause 1, which states, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

The reason for this clause is straightforward: there can be no sense of unity where a citizen of one State, acquiring or producing property in his own State, is at risk of losing that same property when he travels with it to a State with different property laws.

In no way does Art.6-Sec.1-Clause 3 make what is clearly a restriction upon the legislative branch in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4 and turn it into a restriction upon the states.

If the Confederacy had survived, I'm sure that there would have been arguments arise over these issues, but as it is written the Confederate Constitution in no way says that existing or future states are restricted from banning slavery.

Retired lawyer Vito Mussomeli says it well when he states:
"This [Confederate] Constitution does not camouflage slavery under a pretentious rubric of civility and liberty. At the same time, and also true of the 1787 [U.S.] Constitution, there is no Article, Section or Clause establishing slavery nor to disestablish slavery. The meaning is clear: slavery does not run with the land. Slavery was never a Constitutional mandate either in the 1787 or the Confederate Constitution. The issue abides solely in the independent and sovereign States. Every President from Washington through Lincoln agreed.

"A constitution is not a penumbra of feelings for changeable use to accommodate changeable agendas. Law is to be read as clear text. We are not sensing our way through a spray of verbal mist as in a novel or poem, essay or oration. We are reading what is on paper, front and center, before our eyes. Both the 1787 and 1861 Constitutions provide an overall security net for slavery. Neither mandate slavery. Neither have the power to establish or disestablish slavery anywhere. The founding States of both countries conveyed no such powers."
You might want to reread Article 9 subsection 4. In no way does the Confederate Constitution mention that a new state can restrict slavery.
Leftyhunter
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-46.pdf?#
See page 599. The enslaved population was growing at about the rate of 24% per ten years. The free white population of the United States in the same period grew at the rate of 37.29%.
One of the reasons that slave prices remained bouyant was that the supply was not growing in pace with the country as a whole.
Slave ownership in the United States was becoming a special interest.
 

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Denver, CO
Virginia had grown at the rate of 17% and the slave population of Virginia had grown at the rate of 3.8% per ten years.
The secessionists wanted to create a new country in which Virginia would once again be politically dominant.
For us the facts come from the census data. But for the people of the time the facts in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Brooklyn and Boston were apparent.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
@leftyhunter
Art. 1-Sec. 10 of both Constitutions directly speak to the authority of the states regarding he passage of certain legislation. Similar to limitations placed on the legislative branch in Art.1-Sec.9-Clause 4, Art.1-Sec.10-Clause 1 states, "No State shall... pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law..." It does not, however, deny the states the right to pass a "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves."
Pretty good interpretation overall in the post, however, this has significant problems, just not obvious.

Look at.

Now moving on to Art.4-Sec.2-Clause 1, which states, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."
There is no way that these passages are compatible. In order to comply with Art.4-Sec.2-Clause 1, a State cannot 'pass a "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves."' because citizens of other States have the right '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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."' In theory, a CSA State could outlaw slavery for its citizens but not for the other CSA States citizens and therefore must leave in place the Slave Codes and laws and all the attributes of slavery in order to protect those citizens' CSA Constitutional Rights while in that State.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
My friend where exactly are you getting this "Article 9 Section 4?
I can't find it on any online article of the Confederate Constitution.
What I can find is Article 4 Section 3
Subsection 3
" 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 any slave's,lawfully held by them in any of the states or Territories of the Confederate State's.
If anyone wants to read the full passage and the Confederate Constitution
Goggle www.libs.uga.edu/hagrett/selections/Confederate/trans.html
Please show exactly where the Confederate Constitution explicitly states that newly admitted states to the Confederacy can ban slavery.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
The CSA Constitution explicitly put Dred Scott and Lemmon v New York into the CSA Constitution.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The North fought to keep the land and money of the South, while the South fought to defend against an invading foreign military.
The South started the fight by attacking Fort Sumter. After that, they fought for the right to take federal property and keep it, the ideal of autocracy, slave labor, making debts owed to US debtors now owed to the CSA government and their independence to keep the land money of the South. That is not any different from any rebellion which seeks to take property formally of another sovereign and convert it to theirs.

The US fought to matain the ideal of democracy, free labor, and sovereignty over the South including land and money just like any soverignity suppressing a rebellion.
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top