(07-23-2015 01:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:10 PM)jph12 Wrote:  Importation of slaves from Africa was banned in the United States in 1808. There's nothing really noble about it--it helps prop up the value of the existing slave stock.

Who said it was noble? Is that what you said about it when the US did it? That they were only propping up the existing stock?

Well, I certainly wasn't around in 1808 when the US did it, so you sure got me there.

But yes, part of the reason the southern states were okay with including a constitutional provision allowing the US to ban slavery was because it helped maintain the value of the slaves already here. A restriction on supply leads to higher prices, that's just basic economics, and many slaveholders were money poor but slave rich.

Quote:

Quote:And the CAS Constitution said a lot more about slavery than that. [Brackets are deletions from the Federal Constitution, but the italics showing additions didn't transfer.]

Quote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this [Union] Confederacy, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all [other Persons] slaves.

whom do you think the Constitution meant by 'other persons'?.

Um, I already addressed this below. I refer you to the writings of Lysander Spooner, Fredrick Douglas, and other constitutional abolitionists for other possible readings. And what does that have to do with anything? I made no claim that there was no reference to slavery in the original Constitution.

Quote:

Quote:[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.] 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. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

This looks a lot like the various bills passed in the US with regard to the same issue. The act of 1807, the 1794 laws....
Here is the question... Why did these states join AFTER these laws were passed, only to secede later? It seems patently obvious that they were perfectly fine with the rules as they were, and they are essentially reflected in the single document of the CSA.
I find it intellectually ludicrous that so many of you all point out what is in the CSA documents, and ignore that while they may not be in the documents of similar names w/r/t the establishment of the USA, that almost identical laws existed in the USA.

Because they knew that laws could be changed? What is intellectually ludicrous is your inability to tell the difference between a law and a constitutional provision. And the fact that you apparently don't recognize that the southern states had a lot to do with the passage of those laws. But other than that, great point.

Quote:

Quote:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

So slaves were never bought and sold as property in the USA?

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Or perhaps simple ignorance. I guess you will have to let us know.

This clause of the Confederate Constitution specifically prohibits Confederate states from outlawing slavery. There was nothing similar in the Federal Constitution or any of its laws. And that is some super-strong protection of state's rights there. Oh wait, it isn't. Once again, it's the protection of slavery at the expense of state's rights.

At this point, I'm not sure it's worth continuing, but I'm a nice guy so I will.

Quote:

Quote:The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 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 such slaves shall not be impaired.

Looks like every other property right in the country. I understand we know better today, but to act as if slaves weren't treated as property in the US at the time is just silly.

So where are all the other property rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution? Oh, that's right, they're not there. Only that one special little "right" to own another human being.

What's silly is your continued efforts to whitewash the Confederate Constitution. At least the writers of the Federal Constitution, if they included anything related to slavery, had the decency to be ashamed of themselves. The Confederates, though, they were proud.

If slaves were just property, how did the underground railroad develop? Why was jury nullification such a problem that the fugitive slave act was repealed? Why were people like John Brown willing to fight to free the slaves? Why was the Republican party formed, if slaves were just property?

Quote:

Quote:No slave or Person held to Service or Labour in [one State] any State or Territory of the Confederate Slates under the Laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
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.

Quote:

So the Confederacy, that supposed great defender of state's rights, included provisions in its Constitution banning states from passing laws outlawing slavery. In its own Constitution, state's rights yielded to slavery.

That's a nice attempt at spin, but that isn't what this says. This essentially says that you don't lose your 'property' simply because you take it (or it takes itself) across state lines. Gays recently pointed out the 'full faith and credit' clause in the US Constitution, and things like that would apply here. The laws of one state must be respected by the others. If you are free in one state, you aren't a slave in another... and vice versa.

And yet Confederates had no problems with kidnapping free blacks and turning them into slaves.

Your analysis of the full faith and credit clause is as lacking as your reading comprehension. There is a reason the full faith and credit clause was never used to attack DOMA. States are not forced to recognize public acts of other states that violate their fundamental public policies. And Congress may proscribe the Effect of such recognition. But I do find it hilarious when defender's of "state's rights" say that a state can't outlaw slavery because some other state legalized it. Once again, slavery trumps state's rights.

Finally, the only spin is your attempt to take my comments, which clearly applied to all of the provisions, and pretend that they applied only to the last couple. But given the quality of your arguments, I understand your need for make believe so you can feel like you are winning.

Quote:

Quote:I am heartened to see they were forced to alter the text to explicitly refer to slavery instead of maintaining the original Constitution. That could suggest the power of the constitutional abolitionist arguments. Or it could just suggest that they were really, really proud of slavery.

yawn...

I know, cognative dissonance makes you sleepy. Thinking is hard work.

Quote:I suspect if we wrote a new constitution in 1920, it would have said 'all men and women' are created equal rather than just re-write 'all men' and have people 'trust' that they meant women as well... and if we'd written it in 1965, it would have probably said 'all people'. in 2065, maybe it would say 'all humans' and 2165, perhaps 'all earthlings'. In 1865, the issue was the 'status' of slaves.

Finally, something interesting. You are absolutely correct. "[T]he issue was the 'status' of slaves," not state's rights. I'm glad that, after all that, we both agree.

(07-23-2015 01:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  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 tranquillity, 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.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice the difference.. Now the CSA Constitution does cover slavery, but it stated that no more importation of African slaves were to take place, but slaves from slave holding states would be allowed. Didn't specifically call out "Slave holding states and territories in the CSA".. It said any slave holding state. That could've meant both the CSA and the Union.

Also, just because a state was a "free state", several had laws that stated they could keep the children of their slaves and call them "apprentices for life"...

Are you trying to defend slavery because that is what it looks like you are arguing.

No Robert.. Dmac came in saying the whole reason was slavery.. In the Pre-Amble to the CSA Constitution, which is an introduction as to what they want to accomplish, it clearly states: Each state is independent, meaning they are establishing their rights.. You know state's rights.. Which is what several of us have said..

I'm not defending it. It was not a good practice.. Not when black men did it to Jewish men during the building of the pyramids, not when white men sold other white men into "indentured servitude", and definitely not when this country did it.

Quote:How is that revisionist history? All you're saying is that they were being practical, continuing what the US had done.

It seems the one engaging in revisionist history is the one projecting what European navies would have done. Maybe that was why the US did it 'as soon as they could' as well.

I kinda doubt it though.... 'policing' the high seas in 1860 wasn't an easy thing to do. We can't even reliably police land borders for similar human trafficking in 2015. They might have targeted harbors in Africa, but they couldn't target the receiving ports.

Don't any of you claim I'm arguing that they were 'right' or anything like that. I'm merely putting the proper perspective on it.

If we can't stop millions of illegal aliens from crossing a land border in 2015, it's ludicrous to claim that 'Europe' would have been able to stop ships crossing the open seas in 1865 to such a degree that a country intent on having slaves would have written it into their Constitution that they couldn't import them.

The honest answer is probably more like while the south needed the slaves for the cotton to sell to places like Europe, Europe wanted, but didn't need the cotton. This was a reasonable compromise.

I think it's clear you don't have much knowledge of history...or common sense. The British Navy wasn't enforcing this policy for just British ships, they were enforcing it for ships of a very wide variety of flags. You are just guessing here which is what makes this so disturbing.

The British were very effective at enforcing the slave trade ban and by the 1860s it was considered practically dead. It seems to be a habit of yours to just assume things. You could A) do a google search but instead you say "it can't be because it simply doesn't make sense to me." Only to insert as factual what makes most sense to you. Your critical thinking thought process is one of the most disturbing that I have ever seen on here.

The slave trade was a sore point for most European countries back then and it would have been the tipping point for them to hand over any CSA ships they intercepted to the US. A lot of countries were not going to be favorable to a rebel ship simply because it was from an unrecognized country. A ship from a country still participating in the slave trade? It isn't revisionist history to realize just how that would turn out.

That's not revisionist history. What is revisionist history is to take that CSA text to claim that the CSA wanted to curb slavery or was taking a liberalized attitude. A lot of the confederate apologists including a bunch on here use that line all the time.

Are you saying that CSA vessels imported slaves into North America? If so, please continue .....

This discussion has gone exactly as I would have guessed.

The word slavery is loaded. Are we saying the war was about slavery in a moral sense? That is most certainly not accurate. Was it about slavery as a legal right? That isn't completely accurate but certainly much closer to accurate than the first statement.

As I've said before, you can't sum up the cause of any other war in three possible words, the same is true of our Civil War. Trying to slap two terms, in three words total, on it as the ultimate cause is an exercise in stupidity.

(07-23-2015 02:22 PM)jph12 Wrote:  Well, I certainly wasn't around in 1808 when the US did it, so you sure got me there.

You're the one who implied that someone thought they were being noble.

This isn't a 'you got me', it is simply an attempt to have you put the same 'looking glass' on the CSA that you would have put on the USA at the time... not in 2015, but in 1860.

The CSA passed laws in this regard functionally identical to the ones in place in the USA at the time. It wasn't a question of nobility, but of practicality.

Quote:But yes, part of the reason the southern states were okay with including a constitutional provision allowing the US to ban slavery was because it helped maintain the value of the slaves already here. A restriction on supply leads to higher prices, that's just basic economics, and many slaveholders were money poor but slave rich.

This doesn't even make rational sense. The US was a different country at the time... and the CSA COULDN'T pass any laws impacting the USA. As for the rest of it, that was the case anyway in the US dating back to 1808. Nothing was different in that regard in 1860 from 1808.

Quote: And what does that have to do with anything? I made no claim that there was no reference to slavery in the original Constitution.

No, but you're implying that the rules of the CSA and their intentions were functionally different from those of the USA, and they weren't, until the northern started talking about freeing the slaves not in their own states, but in OTHER states.

Quote:

Quote:
Here is the question... Why did these states join AFTER these laws were passed, only to secede later? It seems patently obvious that they were perfectly fine with the rules as they were, and they are essentially reflected in the single document of the CSA.
I find it intellectually ludicrous that so many of you all point out what is in the CSA documents, and ignore that while they may not be in the documents of similar names w/r/t the establishment of the USA, that almost identical laws existed in the USA.

Because they knew that laws could be changed? What is intellectually ludicrous is your inability to tell the difference between a law and a constitutional provision. And the fact that you apparently don't recognize that the southern states had a lot to do with the passage of those laws. But other than that, great point.

Yes, because the Constitution can't be changed, right?

I'd point out that the freeing of the slaves ITSELF was an amendment to the Constitution of the US, and not merely a law. It took a Constitutional Amendment to free the slaves in the US, and it would have taken a similar Constitutional amendment to do so in the CSA.

I know the difference very clearly. With regard to slavery, what was the difference between the CSA in 1863 and the USA in 1860?

Quote:

Quote:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.

So slaves were never bought and sold as property in the USA?

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Or perhaps simple ignorance. I guess you will have to let us know.

This clause of the Confederate Constitution specifically prohibits Confederate states from outlawing slavery. There was nothing similar in the Federal Constitution or any of its laws. And that is some super-strong protection of state's rights there. Oh wait, it isn't. Once again, it's the protection of slavery at the expense of state's rights.[/quote]

The Constitution of the United States similarly prohibited states from outlawing slavery, which is why the Constitution had to be amended. That doesn't mean they had to practice it either.

You don't seem to understand the difference between not doing something, and making doing that thing illegal. You can't pass a law making it illegal to own a gun either, but nobody has to own one. If you want to change that, it takes the same Constitutional amendment as this did.

At this point, I'm not sure it's worth continuing, but I'm a nice guy so I will.

Quote:So where are all the other property rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution? Oh, that's right, they're not there. Only that one special little "right" to own another human being.

This is just silly semantics tied with revisionist history. There are all sorts of rights enshrined in the US Constitution that aren't articulated either. The one special little 'right' to own another human being was one of them.

As I said, in 1920, we would have specifically included women's right to vote if we were writing a new Constitution... and the opposition would have specifically excluded them from voting. The fact is that though it doesn't specifically say so, from 1776 to 1920 women were excluded from voting by our Constitution and it took a Constitutional amendment to change that.

Quote: At least the writers of the Federal Constitution, if they included anything related to slavery, had the decency to be ashamed of themselves. The Confederates, though, they were proud.

Once again you insert your own personal belief as if you know... and as if this matters at all.

'I'm going to allow people to 'own' you and beat you to death if they choose, but I'm really conflicted about it if that makes you feel any better.'

Quote:If slaves were just property, how did the underground railroad develop? Why was jury nullification such a problem that the fugitive slave act was repealed? Why were people like John Brown willing to fight to free the slaves? Why was the Republican party formed, if slaves were just property?

What does this have to do with anything I said? Once again with you arguing with things I didn't say... and immaterial things at that.

Do you deny that they were bought and sold like property in the USA? Not that they were ALL property or ONLY property, but that it happened in the USA?

Of course you don't... which is why you go off on this tangent.

Quote:And yet Confederates had no problems with kidnapping free blacks and turning them into slaves.

Once again, arguing with something never said by anyone at any time. Slavery is illegal today, but Americans have no problem kidnapping free women (among others) and turning them into slaves.

Quote:Your analysis of the full faith and credit clause is as lacking as your reading comprehension. There is a reason the full faith and credit clause was never used to attack DOMA. States are not forced to recognize public acts of other states that violate their fundamental public policies. And Congress may proscribe the Effect of such recognition.

Again, did I say that? Or did I say that Gays argued it? There are links on here if you'd like to fo a 'full faith and credit' search.

If you're going to question my reading comprehension, I suggest you be more circumspect in your own.

Quote:But I do find it hilarious when defender's of "state's rights" say that a state can't outlaw slavery because some other state legalized it. Once again, slavery trumps state's rights.

Example #20 or so of arguing with something I never said. A state can outlaw slavery within its own borders, but that doesn't make a citizen of another state 'free' merely by crossing a border. That is EXACTLY a state's rights argument... not that I agree with it, but that is exactly the argument.

Quote:Finally, the only spin is your attempt to take my comments, which clearly applied to all of the provisions, and pretend that they applied only to the last couple. But given the quality of your arguments, I understand your need for make believe so you can feel like you are winning.

Okay, I'm laughing at you now.

If I misconstrued your drivel, please feel free to point it out. Repeatedly arguing with things I never said so you can feel like YOU are winning, much less the fact that you see 'truth' as a competition says a lot about you.

btw, if you're going to engage in this sort of foolishness, you might want to check the AUP for this site... just a heads up.

Quote:I suspect if we wrote a new constitution in 1920, it would have said 'all men and women' are created equal rather than just re-write 'all men' and have people 'trust' that they meant women as well... and if we'd written it in 1965, it would have probably said 'all people'. in 2065, maybe it would say 'all humans' and 2165, perhaps 'all earthlings'. In 1865, the issue was the 'status' of slaves.

Finally, something interesting. You are absolutely correct. "[T]he issue was the 'status' of slaves," not state's rights. I'm glad that, after all that, we both agree.
[/quote]

Doubling down on the poor reading comprehension I see.

Hambone10 Wrote:

jph12 Wrote:

(07-23-2015 01:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:10 PM)jph12 Wrote:  Importation of slaves from Africa was banned in the United States in 1808. There's nothing really noble about it--it helps prop up the value of the existing slave stock.

Who said it was noble? Is that what you said about it when the US did it? That they were only propping up the existing stock?

Well, I certainly wasn't around in 1808 when the US did it, so you sure got me there.
But yes, part of the reason the southern states were okay with including a constitutional provision allowing the US to ban slavery was because it helped maintain the value of the slaves already here. A restriction on supply leads to higher prices, that's just basic economics, and many slaveholders were money poor but slave rich.

This doesn't even make rational sense. The US was a different country at the time... and the CSA COULDN'T pass any laws impacting the USA. As for the rest of it, that was the case anyway in the US dating back to 1808. Nothing was different in that regard in 1860 from 1808.

Seriously?

You ask what I though about the US's decision to ban the slave trade in 1808 (or really when the Constitution was adopted) then come back with some nonsense about the CSA not being able to pass any laws affecting the US. Ponder, if you will, the reason I chose southern states instead of confederate states in my response.

And I'm really confused about why you think I said something changed between 1808 and 1860 when my entire response was about how the southern states had the same reason to support ending the slave trade in 1808 that they did in 1860.

I hope the rest of your "responses" are a little better.

I'll add you to the list of people I feel sorry for, John.

I'm sorry that the written word is so hard for some of you to follow, especially with all of the apparent voices in your heads telling you what other people mean by what they say.

I'm certainly not an expert in military, especially naval history, but I also know for a fact that you aren't either. I am pretty close to some people who are... I'll take their information over yours, thank you.

The truly stupid thing about your argument is that the south didn't want to do this, but they were worried about the British. If this is what the south was upset about, why did half of them join the US in the first place AFTER that was the law? That's just silly.

I was merely being polite by 'guessing'. I think it pretty well established that the cotton trade to Europe was a major economic factor for the south, and it is certainly well established that Jefferson Davis bought into the 'Cotton is King' mantra. It's also well established that the south had operated successfully under those rules for 50 years by that time. You're wildly speculating about it despite those facts, and I'm merely drawing a logical conclusion from them.

Have a nice day

(07-23-2015 04:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll add you to the list of people I feel sorry for, John.

I'm sorry that the written word is so hard for some of you to follow, especially with all of the apparent voices in your heads telling you what other people mean by what they say.

I'm certainly not an expert in military, especially naval history, but I also know for a fact that you aren't either. I am pretty close to some people who are... I'll take their information over yours, thank you.

The truly stupid thing about your argument is that the south didn't want to do this, but they were worried about the British. If this is what the south was upset about, why did half of them join the US in the first place AFTER that was the law? That's just silly.

I was merely being polite by 'guessing'. I think it pretty well established that the cotton trade to Europe was a major economic factor for the south, and it is certainly well established that Jefferson Davis bought into the 'Cotton is King' mantra. It's also well established that the south had operated successfully under those rules for 50 years by that time. You're wildly speculating about it despite those facts, and I'm merely drawing a logical conclusion from them.

Have a nice day

Difference between you and I is that I based my statements on what historians have to say, you based it on "redneck logic."

Quote:The truly stupid thing about your argument is that the south didn't want to do this, but they were worried about the British. If this is what the south was upset about, why did half of them join the US in the first place AFTER that was the law? That's just silly.

LOL so the guy complaining about "the written word being hard to follow" is claiming I made an argument that I never made.

Learn to freaking read every once in a while hammy.

(07-23-2015 04:27 PM)jph12 Wrote:  

Hambone10 Wrote:

jph12 Wrote:

(07-23-2015 01:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 12:10 PM)jph12 Wrote:  Importation of slaves from Africa was banned in the United States in 1808. There's nothing really noble about it--it helps prop up the value of the existing slave stock.

Who said it was noble? Is that what you said about it when the US did it? That they were only propping up the existing stock?

Well, I certainly wasn't around in 1808 when the US did it, so you sure got me there.
But yes, part of the reason the southern states were okay with including a constitutional provision allowing the US to ban slavery was because it helped maintain the value of the slaves already here. A restriction on supply leads to higher prices, that's just basic economics, and many slaveholders were money poor but slave rich.

This doesn't even make rational sense. The US was a different country at the time... and the CSA COULDN'T pass any laws impacting the USA. As for the rest of it, that was the case anyway in the US dating back to 1808. Nothing was different in that regard in 1860 from 1808.

Seriously?

You ask what I though about the US's decision to ban the slave trade in 1808 (or really when the Constitution was adopted) then come back with some nonsense about the CSA not being able to pass any laws affecting the US. Ponder, if you will, the reason I chose southern states instead of confederate states in my response.

And I'm really confused about why you think I said something changed between 1808 and 1860 when my entire response was about how the southern states had the same reason to support ending the slave trade in 1808 that they did in 1860.

I hope the rest of your "responses" are a little better.

Wow. Your reading comprehension really sucks. You're talking about the CSA not being 'noble' when it passed the law it passed in 1860 that had been the law in the US since 1808. Nobody said they were noble.... and in 1860, they CERTAINLY weren't passing a law they intended to enforce on the north. I repeat my question. Was the US merely being noble and defending it's property values when it passed the law in 1808? The 4 southern states that were part of the confederacy certainly didn't force the entire country to pass that law.

You realize that in 1808, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida and Texas weren't part of the union, right? As I said, it was a different country.

As to your pedantic comment that the southern states had the same reason to support ending the slave trade in 1808 as 1860, it seems that you didn't notice that the slave trade WAS ended in 1808, meaning there was no additional benefit to 'ending it again' in 1860... so why bother with it? Especially in that the north wouldn't be re-introducing slavery to somehow 'dilute' their existing market? That just doesn't make sense.

7 of the 11 Confederate states, and I suspect a significant portion of the slave owners joined the Union AFTER it passed the laws we're talking about.

I'm beyond hoping that YOUR responses make any sense.

They weren't. So this is the last one.

Hambone10 Wrote:

jph12 Wrote:This clause of the Confederate Constitution specifically prohibits Confederate states from outlawing slavery. There was nothing similar in the Federal Constitution or any of its laws. And that is some super-strong protection of state's rights there. Oh wait, it isn't. Once again, it's the protection of slavery at the expense of state's rights.

The Constitution of the United States similarly prohibited states from outlawing slavery, which is why the Constitution had to be amended. That doesn't mean they had to practice it either.

No, it did not. The fact that you think it did is why these kinds of discussions need to keep happening. Ignorance cannot be allowed to flourish.

States were always free to abolish slavery, and several did. The Thirteenth Amendment affirmatively abolished slavery nationwide and gave the federal government the power to enforce the prohibition, even intruding on purely private conduct. Of course, that wasn't enough so we had add the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as well. And that still wasn't enough, and the federal government got tired, so we got 80 years of Jim Crow.

(07-23-2015 04:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow. Your reading comprehension really sucks. You're talking about the CSA not being 'noble' when it passed the law it passed in 1860 that had been the law in the US since 1808.

I'm not talking about the CSA passing any law. Once again, you have failed to distinguish between a law and a constitutional provision and missed the entire point of my original reply, which listed all of the places that slaves or slavery were mentioned in the Confederate Constitution in response to a post that only mentioned their decision not to restart the slave trade.

Quote:Nobody said they were noble.... and in 1860, they CERTAINLY weren't passing a law they intended to enforce on the north.

Who on earth has ever suggested that the CSA intended its constitutional provision to apply to the Union?

Quote:I repeat my question. Was the US merely being noble and defending it's property values when it passed the law in 1808?

No, many in the north were genuinely motivated by revulsion to the slave trade. Some so much so that they were will to forgo the economic benefits. Not sure how this is helping the Confederate's cause here.

And I'm really confused as to why you are conflating being noble with defending the property values of the existing slave stock. My point was that is not a noble motivation.

Quote:The 4 southern states that were part of the confederacy certainly didn't force the entire country to pass that law.

No, they certainly didn't, and I certainly never suggested that they did. But that was a good law, so again, not helping.

Quote:You realize that in 1808, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida and Texas weren't part of the union, right? As I said, it was a different country.

Of course. I'm not the one that has demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of our nation's history.

And when the Confederate Constitution was ratified they weren't part of the Union either. Again, I'm not sure what this proves.

Quote:As to your pedantic comment that the southern states had the same reason to support ending the slave trade in 1808 as 1860, it seems that you didn't notice that the slave trade WAS ended in 1808, meaning there was no additional benefit to 'ending it again' in 1860... so why bother with it? Especially in that the north wouldn't be re-introducing slavery to somehow 'dilute' their existing market? That just doesn't make sense.

Um, there was this little thing that happened around then. A bunch of states decided that slavery was so important that they had to secede and form their own country. That meant they were no longer bound by the law prohibiting the slave trade. Although, technically you are correct, I should have made it more clear that I was referring to the Confederate's decision not to restart the slave trade in 1861. I thought that was pretty clear from the entire context of the discussion.

Quote:7 of the 11 Confederate states, and I suspect a significant portion of the slave owners joined the Union AFTER it passed the laws we're talking about.

And?

Quote:I'm beyond hoping that YOUR responses make any sense.

I will type slower next time.

You do realize that the conflict began after about two decades of issues regarding the Tariffs of Abomination , not to mention the fact that once Lincoln Invaded the South the other states, like Virginia seceded as well.

So it was not about Slavery, if so, there would be a document, record, declaration or Congressional Amendment from the United States (Union) stating such.

(07-23-2015 09:25 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  You do realize that the conflict began after about two decades of issues regarding the Tariffs of Abomination , not to mention the fact that once Lincoln Invaded the South the other states, like Virginia seceded as well.

So it was not about Slavery, if so, there would be a document, record, declaration or Congressional Amendment from the United States (Union) stating such.

The south seceded, explicitly stating why they did so. They didn't mention two decades of tariffs they mentioned the right to own slaves. If tariffs were the primary grievance, they would have been emphasized over the right to own slaves.

How much clearer does it get?

Don't confuse them with facts LMFAO

Just trying to educate you since you are not a history buff. States rights from an oppressive Fed Govt was the reason. Then once Lincoln invaded then it was clearly about protecting their sovereignty, land, homes and family.

(07-24-2015 12:46 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Just trying to educate you since you are not a history buff. States rights from an oppressive Fed Govt was the reason. Then once Lincoln invaded then it was clearly about protecting their sovereignty, land, homes and family.

Where's your stated proof regarding Lincoln fighting and shedding innocent blood over Slavery. ?

Whoa are you arguing with yourself?

(07-24-2015 12:47 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 12:46 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Just trying to educate you since you are not a history buff. States rights from an oppressive Fed Govt was the reason. Then once Lincoln invaded then it was clearly about protecting their sovereignty, land, homes and family.

Where's your stated proof regarding Lincoln fighting and shedding innocent blood over Slavery. ?

Who fired first?