1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

What the Confederate States Constitution says about slavery

Discussion in 'Civil War History - Secession and Politics' started by Zeeboe, May 14, 2012.

  1. wilber6150

    wilber6150 Brev. Brig. Gen'l Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    19,232
    Location:
    deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
    Geeze how did Lousiana and Texas and Virginia let that slide with the protections their industries receivd...
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    The average rate of the Confederate tariff was a little over 13%. The average rate for the US 1857 tariff was around 15%. Frank Taussig and many on this board consider the US 1857 tariff rates as representative of free trade. Have you not argued that tariff rates were practically at free trade levels prior to the ACW?
     
  4. wilber6150

    wilber6150 Brev. Brig. Gen'l Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    19,232
    Location:
    deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
    They were at almost free market levels which isn't the point..The point is that the Confederate Constitution bans the protection that industries in these states and other border states received while part of the Union..And now that they would be in direct competition with the industrialized North, its odd that they wouldnt want the same protection under the Confederate Constitution...
     
  5. Sneathen

    Sneathen Sergeant

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    St. Louis
    But they did not outlaw domestic tariffs amongst the states in the C.S.A.
     
  6. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina


    They may have wanted that protection because several southern states did favor protective tariffs. From the wording in the CS Constitution it seems they were attempting to prevent the former corrupt tariff legislation that occured under the US Constitution.
     
    CSA Today likes this.
  7. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,959
    That is laughable. :rofl: It wasn't corrupt, it just didn't conform to what Southerners wanted. And we all know that everything MUST benefit the South at the expense of everyone else. If any nation has ever been so encumbered by such an egocentric region, I would like to know where it is?
     
    Diana9 likes this.
  8. unionblue

    unionblue Brev. Brig. Gen'l Member of the Year

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    24,841
    Location:
    Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
    The tariff was the same in Boston as it was in Charleston. If it was corrupt, it was an agreed upon corruption between all the states.

    Unionblue
     
  9. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Maybe in between your laughing fits you can explain the political logrolling(corruption) that gave birth to the 1828 Tariff. Since you see the South as an egocentric region, maybe you'd like to explain the benefits of that tariff enjoyed by the South.

    What expense did the South place upon everyone else?

    That egocentric region you're looking for probably rests between your ears. Saying the nation was encumbered by the South has got to be a joke. You're kidding, right? If not, back it up with facts or withdraw the remark.
     
    CSA Today likes this.
  10. Tin cup

    Tin cup 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,670
    Location:
    Texas
    What expense did the South place upon everyone else?

    A war?
    Kevin Dally
     
  11. 1SGDan

    1SGDan Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,415
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    In 1828 the South was the second largest voting block in the country and had plenty of say in passing or defeating legislation. They joined New England voting against the traiff. The other sections of the country did not side with the dissenters, including Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri passing the bill 105-94. Happens some times in a democracy.
     
  12. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    It was agreed upon by those that benefited from it. It was passed in spite of almost overwhelming opposition from the South, just like the 1824, 1832 and 1842 tariffs were opposed by the South but still passed.
     
  13. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Sometimes? 1816, 1824, 1828, 1832, and 1842. The Constitution wasn't working as designed.
     
  14. 1SGDan

    1SGDan Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,415
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Somebody was denied a vote during these years? Democracy doesn't guarantee that you will always get what you want only that you will get to vote on the options.
     
    Diana9 likes this.
  15. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Yet prior to the rebellion men like Toombs were making the protection of slavery the sole deciding factor between unity and rebellion, secession commissioners were promising Virginia that they could have tariffs set as high as they wanted them to be, and not 4 months after its founding the Confederate Congress was passing a tariff that had protectionist clauses.

    If tariffs were a factor in secession then the Confederate Founding Fathers certainly had an odd way of showing it.
     
    Diana9 likes this.
  16. KeyserSoze

    KeyserSoze Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Kansas City

    Well, greater protection for freedom for about 2/3rds of their population anyway.

    Never forget that the Confederate Constitution specifically protected slave imports while the U.S. Constitution did not.
     
  17. wilber6150

    wilber6150 Brev. Brig. Gen'l Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    19,232
    Location:
    deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
    Those tarriffs were changed or legislativly killed, so the Constitution was working exactly as it was supposed to.. If a law or tax or tarriff is passed that isn't popular then its changed eventually, which is exactly what happened...And why didn't S. Carolina get any support in nullification from the other Southern states in this matter if to them it was a Constitutional violation? Virginia and Maryland had a growing pig iron industry that was receiving protection from these tarriffs, Lousiana and Texas were the only states that had any sort of sugar industry and they weren't up in arms over them...Northern states get criticizsed for not bowing to what they saw as unConstitutional slave laws yet the South gets a pass for taxes?
     
    Diana9, DanF and Red Harvest like this.
  18. OpnCoronet

    OpnCoronet Major

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    8,947
    As in most of the important changes in the Confederate Constitution, the changes conceerning tariffs and imposts, were designed to keep the confederacy a slave based agrarian society, with a small population. But, whatever changes occurred over time, the FF of the Confederacy made slavery as sacrosanct as was humanly possible.
     
    Diana9 likes this.
  19. Tin cup

    Tin cup 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,670
    Location:
    Texas
    What expense did the South place upon everyone else?
    The expense of slavery.

    Boy, Grant said it best...
    "Slavery was an institution that required unusual guarantees for its security wherever it existed; and in a country like ours where the larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and well-to-do population, the people would naturally have but little sympathy with demands upon them for its protection. Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution. . . . They saw their power waning, and this led them to encroach upon the prerogatives and independence of the Northern States by enacting such laws as the Fugitive Slave Law. By this law every Northern man was obliged, when properly summoned, to turn out and help apprehend the runaway slave of a Southern man. Northern marshals became slave-catchers, and Northern courts had to contribute to the support and protection of the institution."


    Kevin Dally
     
    Diana9, wilber6150 and Red Harvest like this.
  20. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest 2nd Lieutenant Trivia Game Winner

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,959
    It is no joke and I won't be withdrawing the remark. :wink: As facts I present to you the past two centuries of U.S. history, enjoy.
     
  21. dvrmte

    dvrmte Major

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    9,944
    Location:
    South Carolina
    http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/democracys-road-to-tyranny/
    The second avenue toward totalitarian tyranny is “free elections.” It can happen that a totalitarian party with great popularity gains such momentum and so many votes that it becomes legally and democratically a country’s master. This happened in Germany in 1932 when no less than 60 per cent of the electorate voted for totalitarian despotism: for every two National Socialists there was one international socialist in the form of a Marxist Communist, and another one in the form of a somewhat less Marxist Social Democrat. Under these circum stances liberal democracy was doomed, since it had no longer a majority in the Reichstag. This development could have been halted only by a military dictatorship (as envisaged by General von Schleicher who was later murdered by the Nazis) or by a restoration of the Hohenzollerns (as planned by Bruning). Yet, within the democratic and constitutional framework, the National Socialists were bound to win.
     

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

Share This Page


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