Restricted Analyzing the Confederate Constitution

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
I wonder by what process could a majority of a confederate state's citizens vote their State a 'Free' State, when the Federal gov't, representing all the citizens of entire confederacy, guarantees every citizen a right to own slaves anywhere in the confederacy under the authority of its Constitution ?
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
I wonder by what process could a majority of a confederate state's citizens vote their State a 'Free' State, when the Federal gov't, representing all the citizens of entire confederacy, guarantees every citizen a right to own slaves anywhere in the confederacy under the authority of its Constitution ?

My understanding is that the Richmond government could not restrict slave ownership in any way. It says nothing about individual states.

Also, there is a right of transit, ala Dredd Scott. So effectively the Confederacy's slave owners had right of transit in other states. Even if said other states abolish slavery on their own.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the CSA Constitution reads as follows:

"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."

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the USA Constitution reads as follows:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person"

So the Confederate States Constitution explicitly and emphatically outlawed the hideous and barbaric practice of international slave-trafficking, whereas the US Constitution explicitly and emphatically protected that monstrous commerce. Worse still, the US Constitution used the protection of this grisly endeavor to generate tax revenue. And given the aggressive slave-trading enterprises of the New Yorkers and New Englanders, they generated quite a bit of money. So it's an interesting analysis.
So your not aware that since 1804 the importation of slavery was illegal and that President Lincoln refused to grant a pardon to a convicted slave runner who was hanged. Are you aware that the Lincoln Adminstration ran joint naval patrols with the Royal British Navy to intercept slave runners?
Leftyhunter
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
the Confederate States Constitution explicitly and emphatically outlawed the hideous and barbaric practice of international slave-trafficking, whereas the US Constitution explicitly and emphatically protected that monstrous commerce.
No, the difference is a function of time. Our Constitution was written in 1787 and included compromise language delaying the ban of the international slave trade until after 1807.
The rebel 'constitution' was merely an upgrade of that, banning the reopening of the trade. The provision was intended, in part, to induce Virginia- the largest 'producer' of slaves still in the Union- to join the rebels.
 

Unforgiven

Private
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Location
Caught Somewhere in Time
This does not appear to be true, according the CSA Constitution:

ARTICLE IV
Sec. 2. (I) 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.

- Alan

I'm unclear as to what has been found to be not true since my statement was predicated on Article IV from the CSA Constitution. Asserting the CSA would admit a free state is specious since, once admitted, the free state status is solely determined by the sojourner whims of the slave owner.

I'm of the mindset that the CSA would not have admitted a free state (for that would be antithetical to its creation), but even it would, said free state becomes a slave state by the very presence of a slave owner within its boundaries as a direct result of Article IV. The back and forth switch from free state to slave state would occur notwithstanding state legislation to the contrary, so states rights at the putative core of the CSA founding is a mythological being.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I'm unclear as to what has been found to be not true since my statement was predicated on Article IV from the CSA Constitution. Asserting the CSA would admit a free state is specious since, once admitted, the free state status is solely determined by the sojourner whims of the slave owner.

I'm of the mindset that the CSA would not have admitted a free state (for that would be antithetical to its creation), but even it would, said free state becomes a slave state by the very presence of a slave owner within its boundaries as a direct result of Article IV. The back and forth switch from free state to slave state would occur notwithstanding state legislation to the contrary, so states rights at the putative core of the CSA founding is a mythological being.

@Unforgiven ,

I believe your point above is clearly shown in @O' Be Joyful 's side-by-side USA/CSA comparison website he gave in his post# 6 of this thread.

The website is here:

http://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm

Reading the comments that follow the two documents and the sections pertaining within the two, seems to bear out your conclusions on the matter.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
My understanding is that the Richmond government could not restrict slave ownership in any way. It says nothing about individual states.
Also, there is a right of transit, ala Dredd Scott. So effectively the Confederacy's slave owners had right of transit in other states. Even if said other states abolish slavery on their own.





I have read that interpretation also, but, I am not so sure that is exactly what the Constitution says or means.

As I read it, the right of all confederate citizen to own slaves cannot be retracted, nor abridged, under federal law, not state.

Like the United States Constitution, the confederate is short, but, its expressed powers and privileges are Supreme, no matter state constitutions or laws.



P.S. there was also the right of slaveowners and their slaves of Sojourning, which according to Taney, could be unlimited.
 
Top