Legislation passed during Civil War and other issues than slavery causing war


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,021
Location
SF Bay Area
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/...-united-states-and-confederate-constitutions/

The CSA Constitution is not “a virtual duplicate” of the 1787 Constitution. It is a document of greater clarity and stricter understanding. There’s no fabulating. Here’s a list of four (4) major changes:​
1. Eliminated ‘dual sovereignty’. No powers were granted to the Central government. Specific powers were delegated.​
2. Created a Defined and Unmistakable Federal government.​
3. Mandated a solitary 6 year term for the President; gave the President a line item veto; required a mere majority vote in Congress for fiscal spending initiated by the President, but a 2/3’s majority if initiated by Congress.​
4. Placed Constitutional amendment conventions entirely in the hands of the States. The Central government had no role but the mandate to issue a call for a convention when 3 of the 7 States had already proposed amendments.​
------------------------------​
The ultimate governmental question is sovereignty: where is it, who wields it, where is it from? This is precisely where the 1787 Founders failed. Ask the kind of government they created and the answers bewilder us. Before the ink was dry the Founders could not agree among themselves. The confusion lies embedded in a befuddled notion of sovereignty.​



https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/...-united-states-and-confederate-constitutions/

Preambles are not law. They only introduce the law that follows. They neither delegate nor grant power. Folks who argue that secession was unlawful because the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation claims “a perpetual Union” and the 1787 Preamble claims “a more perfect Union” have misled themselves into believing they are arguing law. They are not. They are arguing what binds no one.​
The CSA deleted 4 phrases from the US Preamble:​
1) “We, the People of the United States…” Albert Taylor Bledsoe, once a law partner with Lincoln, called these the most fractious and disputed words in the 1787 Constitution. The original 1787 draft listed the people of each State with the clear meaning that the people in each State separately held their own sovereignty. The change to the fabulating phrase “We, the People …” was made by the Style Committee (all Nationalists) with no authority to change substance.​
Before the 1787 Convention the Nationalists who pushed for the Convention had decided that addressing the new Constitution to ‘the People of the United States …’ rather than to ‘the People of the States of ….’ was the best way to circumvent every people of every State. Since the phrases sound so poetically similar, the new phrasing could jumpstart the process of consolidating State governments into the new central government. The ambiguity was deliberate.​
2) “… a more perfect Union” means only that a ‘Union’ is being formed. It doesn’t denote or explain what kind. ‘Union’ is not a legal term of art. It is a common word taking meaning from the type of ‘union’ described in the same document. But the 1787 Constitution never describes its ‘type of union’ because it never describes the political character of the government it creates. Words like Democracy, Republic, Federal or National are never used. Even the word ‘government’ is never used. Failing to describe its kind of government, the US Constitution becomes a war for identity and definition, an open battleground to harness power. Given human nature, a killing war becomes almost inevitable.​
3) “… to provide for the common defense” was deleted because there is no need for it. Article 1.8.1 delegates this power to the legislature.​
4) “… to promote the General Welfare…” a phrase from the Articles of Confederation and a long line of same or similar British legal phrases meaning for the betterment of the commonweal. But it is slippery language, mutable as a platitude lending a legitimizing aura for the expansion of taxes and expenses. Money lays the tracks to new fields of power, especially the centralizing proclivities of political parties. This phrase is also deleted from Article 1.8.1 because while a Preamble neither delegates nor grants any power, an Article does.​
The CSA added 3 new phrases:​
1) “We, the People of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character,” … An accurate, strictly defined locus of sovereignty. No more fabulating on the most fundamental, foundational issue of government.​
2) “… in Order to form a permanent federal government” … No one can misunderstand this declaration. The Central government is to be permanently federal. Neither national nor consolidated government.​
3) “… invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God” … The CSA​
Founders acknowledge their peoples constitute a religious country. It is a human prayer for help. They are invoking, as they know their peoples do, their Creator’s guidance in the work of government. They are not establishing a religion. Nor is there any intent to exclude the presence or absence of religion of any sort.​
The final CSA Preamble reads: “We, the People of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in Order to form a permanent federal government, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity – invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God – do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”
Yup, after their divorce they bought a harley and a sports car.

Lets also remember that the Confederate Constitution never had to stand the test of time since the CSA didn't itself stand the test of the war. It's easy to declare how much clearer this permutation of the US Constitution is, but even during the war they CSA was far from a unified group with unified ideas on many (if not most) of these things. The South had its great divisions and once it had to stand on its own two legs without a war those divisions would have grown into disagreement and infighting, how so and compared to the US Constitution we will never know.

Personally I'll stick with the US Constitution, I think theirs is mostly a cheap knock off too transparent in its selfish sectional agenda.
 

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,021
Location
SF Bay Area
Dixie may mention "the land of cotton", but at its heart, as adopted by southerners, it's about a love of our home. It's not about slavery at all. Really, if you read the lyrics, they're a lot of silliness, meant to make people laugh or smile. :smile:

But if you want to drive 'way sorrow
Come and hear this song tomorrow
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land
I think this is where the people of the South in 1860 are completely different culturally than the people of the South now.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,534
Location
South Carolina
Yup, after their divorce they bought a harley and a sports car.

Lets also remember that the Confederate Constitution never had to stand the test of time since the CSA didn't itself stand the test of the war. It's easy to declare how much clearer this permutation of the US Constitution is, but even during the war they CSA was far from a unified group with unified ideas on many (if not most) of these things. The South had its great divisions and once it had to stand on its own two legs without a war those divisions would have grown into disagreement and infighting, how so and compared to the US Constitution we will never know.

Personally I'll stick with the US Constitution, I think theirs is mostly a cheap knock off too transparent in its selfish sectional agenda.
It would be interesting to see how it would work in peacetime, something that obviously never happened. In particular, I like the single six year term for a President, with a line item veto, and I really like the clause that would essentially forbid some massive omnibus spending bill from Congress. There are some good ideas in the Confederate constitution.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,100
Location
Midwest
Some of the other reasons for secession unrelated to slavery that were contained in the secession documents were:
1. States' rights issues - the sovereignty of the states was violated by the federal government
2. The federal tariff system - the tariff system was benefiting the North at the expense of the South
3. Inadequate federal military protection - the federal government was not protecting citizens on the frontier
4. Economic Exploitation - Unfair federal legislation that promoted protectionism and subsidies for northern
business interests

The issue of slavery was an important contributing factor that led to the secession of the southern states. However, there were additional factors contained in the secession documents other than slavery which are often overlooked. These other factors were significant enough for the southern states to include in their articles of secession.
In other words, merely issues that some Northern states and territories also had with the Federal government. Let's break it down:

1. "states rights" issues: Wasn't only the Southern states that had them. The free Northern states were totally usurped of their states' rights by Federal Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which actually required their entire populations to assist slave-catchers or face penalties of fine and jail. With that, State agencies were expected to enforce it, to no benefit of their residents whatsoever! Talk about an extreme violation of a state's right.

2. "Federal tariff" issues. No state liked paying tariffs, and every state having to do so felt their tariffs unfair. It kept lobbyists in Washington busy then as now, an ongoing campaign with no short cuts. So we'll just neuter that complaint right out of the box; nothing unique to the Southerns there.

3. "Inadequate military protections" issue. Same complaints from Minnesota and the territories as well, meh. But to note that those areas had enough common wisdom to realize that if you want Federal military protection in your state you don't attack and abscond with the Federal forts there. Shoot self in foot then complain about it.

4. "Economic Exploitation" issue. Nobody likes having to pay off debts either. It was Northern investors -- not the U.S. Government -- that financed Southern growers (among other things to buy slaves, so yet a slavery issue) and industrialists in the South. Northern investors expected a return for their investment, North and South, and some profited handsomely for it. The South's wealth was tied up in land, so for working capital the South had to turn to investors in the North and in England. The realities of finance (i.e. "there's no crying in Finance!" :yellowcarded:) The equally-predatory English investors however avoided the "Snidely Whiplash" calls of the "victim" South because a new secession nation would need England's recognition and markets to survive.

Also, there was in secession the motive that perhaps Northern debt could be voided or canceled under a new nation's legal umbrella ...hmmm.
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,509
Location
Georgia
Thanks for your post Edited. Some of the posters on this board believed that the only issue involved in the secession of the southern states was slavery. My intention was to demonstrate that there were other issues involved which are actually contained in the Articles of Secession. If these issues were not important, then the southern states would not have included them in their secession documents.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Yup, after their divorce they bought a harley and a sports car.

Lets also remember that the Confederate Constitution never had to stand the test of time since the CSA didn't itself stand the test of the war. It's easy to declare how much clearer this permutation of the US Constitution is, but even during the war they CSA was far from a unified group with unified ideas on many (if not most) of these things. The South had its great divisions and once it had to stand on its own two legs without a war those divisions would have grown into disagreement and infighting, how so and compared to the US Constitution we will never know.

Personally I'll stick with the US Constitution, I think theirs is mostly a cheap knock off too transparent in its selfish sectional agenda.
There is the issue of how close they adhered to the document.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Edited. Some of the posters on this board believed that the only issue involved in the secession of the southern states was slavery. My intention was to demonstrate that there were other issues involved which are actually contained in the Articles of Secession. If these issues were not important, then the southern states would not have included them in their secession documents.
Good Info, but I am left with the impression we have slavery as a topic and these items as a subtopic of slavery rather than like the line item veto items which are totally independent.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,945
Location
los angeles ca
Edited.



"Why don't we take their word for it...." Only applies when those words declare, slavery, slavery, slavery. Most everybody acknowledges slavery as a factor. Some refuse to acknowledge anything, & everything, except slavery. Like most conflicts, there's usually more to the story.....

Nice find, in their own words !
What exact imported goods were so vital to Southerners that their economic well being was affected even though they were paying a historically low tariff?
What item would cause a Southern parent so much grief that they would willingly risk their son's lives to pay maybe ten percent less for an imported item?
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
"Dixie" was written by Daniel Emmett, a showman from central Ohio.
In addition
Lyrics
Countless lyrical variants of "Dixie" exist, but the version attributed to Dan Emmett and its variations are the most popular.[6] Emmett's lyrics as they were originally intended reflect the mood of the United States in the late 1850s toward growing abolitionist sentiment. The song presented the point of view, common to minstrelsy at the time, that slavery was overall a positive institution. The pining slave had been used in minstrel tunes since the early 1850s, including Emmett's "I Ain't Got Time to Tarry" and "Johnny Roach". The fact that "Dixie" and its precursors are dance tunes only further made light of the subject.[15] In short, "Dixie" made the case, more strongly than any previous minstrel tune had, that slaves belonged in bondage.[16] This was accomplished through the song's protagonist, who, in comic black dialect, implies that despite his freedom, he is homesick for the plantation of his birth.[17]
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
NC
Edited. Some of the posters on this board believed that the only issue involved in the secession of the southern states was slavery.
Edited.

The very topic of this thread shows there was more involved. Why was all this legislation passed, yet the Republicans did not seem to be in a hurry to pass legislation against slavery in the Union North, the so-called reason for the War. I'm sure there is a long list of bellyaching reasons why.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,945
Location
los angeles ca
Edited.

The very topic of this thread shows there was more involved. Why was all this legislation passed, yet the Republicans did not seem to be in a hurry to pass legislation against slavery in the Union North, the so-called reason for the War. I'm sure there is a long list of bellyaching reasons why.
Slavery was legal per the US Constitution. If the South would not secede v then a Constitutional Amendment could not pass.
Leftyhunter
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,509
Location
Georgia
Which State Sovereignty was violated? There were none other than enforcement of the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts/Laws which violated the State Sovereignty of the Northern States.
Tarriffs were related to slavery because the tariffs benefited all States with factories. Many Southern States did not industrialize because slaveowners did not want to.
Remember those tariffs the Southern Slaveowners did not want-those tariffs paid for military protection. Minimum tariffs means no money for military protection.
Federal legislation gave the same benefits to all States. However if the local slaveowners did not want public works like canals or harbor improvements, then there were no benefits.
The reasons that I listed are really separate from the issue of slavery. In regards to states' rights, I refer in particular to the secession of the states of the Upper South. These states believed that the attempt by the federal government to coerce the other southern states to remain in the Union was a violation of the rights of the states and the Constitution. After Lincoln's call for troops, the states of the Upper South such as North Carolina protested vehemently and then decided to secede. Furthermore, the Article of Secession of North Carolina doesn't even mention slavery but it does mention state sovereignty.

In regards to tariffs, there had been arguments between the North and South over this issue decades before the Civil War even began. Tariff policy before the Civil War was a product of the need for a federal income source and foreign trade protection and not as a result of slavery. Furthermore, the tariffs that were collected in the Southern states before the Civil War were still being used for the military but the amount of protection was considered inadequate on the frontier. The economic exploitation that I was referring to was in regards to unfair federal subsidies that were provided for industries that were dominated by the Northern states such as the shipping industry. This type of federal protectionism benefited northern commerce at the expense of the southern states. All of these issues are contained in the Articles of Secession of the southern states and are independent from the issue of slavery.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top