(07-22-2015 03:17 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 11:41 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  On the other hand, taxes are mentioned once, in this context:

Quote:The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

And in almost every case that rights are mentioned, it's in the context of encroaching the right to hold slaves. Why is it that taxes and tariffs are a commonly cited reason for the the south's succession?

Now, I'm not a Civil War buff and am trying to educate myself on the subject. Can someone please explain to me how slavery wasn't the root cause of the Civil War? As far as I can tell, the Confederacy existed because of slavery. The north went to war to keep the nation together, but the nation split in the first place because the south wanted to keep their slaves.

Taxes and tariffs? No. State's rights. The soldiers that fought in the Civil War didn't write the Declarations of Secession.

Bingo. Are we talking the causes of secession or the causes of war because they are not the same?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(07-22-2015 04:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:48 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  It will keep coming back as long as the Confederate supporters have their heads in their ass about what the war was actually about.

Lol, small timers.

Pop quiz: Was Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist?

Probably.

By far. His emancipation wasn't just to free slaves, but to get them out of here and if they were to stay, he wanted them to be the inferior race because he thought there should be one superior race in America. He also had black soldiers killed or imprisoned if they asked for equal pay to white men. Lincoln was an ass hole, plain and simple and never fought to free slaves from bondage in the beginning. The EP that he signed on Jan 1, 1863 was done only to pull the Confederates' focus off of the Union in a desperate attempt to get a hand up on the South. Sure it has nothing to do with your question, but nipping the whole race thing in the bud before it gets out of hand in this thread is key.

Having said that, the Confederates had far more than something they cared nothing about to fight for in the Civil War. They didn't have slaves to keep. Most farmed their own land and fought to be free of the federal government.

I would assume that in another 150 years, the story line will play out similarly over the passing of gay marriage. Obama will be the hero that once opposed it - until there was a political benefit to gain - and the others that simply didn't agree with it will be called homophobes and racists and everything else to portray them as horrible people that just wanted to abuse and kill gays. Something like that. I mean, we're already portrayed in that light by the progressives.

There's a big difference between racism and slavery.

You're wrong, ask any liberal here.

(07-22-2015 03:53 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:48 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 03:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Lol, small timers.

Pop quiz: Was Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist?

Probably.

By far. His emancipation wasn't just to free slaves, but to get them out of here and if they were to stay, he wanted them to be the inferior race because he thought there should be one superior race in America. He also had black soldiers killed or imprisoned if they asked for equal pay to white men. Lincoln was an ass hole, plain and simple and never fought to free slaves from bondage in the beginning. The EP that he signed on Jan 1, 1863 was done only to pull the Confederates' focus off of the Union in a desperate attempt to get a hand up on the South. Sure it has nothing to do with your question, but nipping the whole race thing in the bud before it gets out of hand in this thread is key.

Having said that, the Confederates had far more than something they cared nothing about to fight for in the Civil War. They didn't have slaves to keep. Most farmed their own land and fought to be free of the federal government.

I would assume that in another 150 years, the story line will play out similarly over the passing of gay marriage. Obama will be the hero that once opposed it - until there was a political benefit to gain - and the others that simply didn't agree with it will be called homophobes and racists and everything else to portray them as horrible people that just wanted to abuse and kill gays. Something like that. I mean, we're already portrayed in that light by the progressives.

Welcome back homie.

Thanks brother... Just hanging out for a bit before I go home.

dammit boy....it's a ghost!

(07-22-2015 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Don't upset them with facts. Let them believe that the war wasn't about slavery.

So with bacon being a staple of American cuisine... if due to an increasing global population of Muslims and others with religious objections to it, plus people with no taste buds... or as part of a global effort to reduce methane emissions, the United Nations decided that all nations should stop eating bacon tomorrow, and we, having taste buds, decided that 'wasn't for us' and dropped our membership, opting for a new alliance where bacon was freely allowed... and the UN didn't like that and tried to force us to remain in the UN, using actual military force...

would that war be about bacon? Or would it be about 'control'? I suppose it depends on your perspective. The UN would say it was about bacon. I suspect we would say it was about control. Not everyone in this country HAS to eat bacon.

(07-23-2015 09:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Don't upset them with facts. Let them believe that the war wasn't about slavery.

So with bacon being a staple of American cuisine... if due to an increasing global population of Muslims and others with religious objections to it, plus people with no taste buds... or as part of a global effort to reduce methane emissions, the United Nations decided that all nations should stop eating bacon tomorrow, and we, having taste buds, decided that 'wasn't for us' and dropped our membership, opting for a new alliance where bacon was freely allowed... and the UN didn't like that and tried to force us to remain in the UN, using actual military force...

would that war be about bacon? Or would it be about 'control'? I suppose it depends on your perspective. The UN would say it was about bacon. I suspect we would say it was about control. Not everyone in this country HAS to eat bacon.

Don't use logic to try and support an argument.. That confuses people.

(07-23-2015 09:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Don't upset them with facts. Let them believe that the war wasn't about slavery.

So with bacon being a staple of American cuisine... if due to an increasing global population of Muslims and others with religious objections to it, plus people with no taste buds... or as part of a global effort to reduce methane emissions, the United Nations decided that all nations should stop eating bacon tomorrow, and we, having taste buds, decided that 'wasn't for us' and dropped our membership, opting for a new alliance where bacon was freely allowed... and the UN didn't like that and tried to force us to remain in the UN, using actual military force...

would that war be about bacon? Or would it be about 'control'? I suppose it depends on your perspective. The UN would say it was about bacon. I suspect we would say it was about control. Not everyone in this country HAS to eat bacon.

No, but nobody in this country can own somebody else. I mean we're talking about slavery here.

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"...

(07-22-2015 11:46 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 11:44 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ok.

Why did you even bother replying?

That how I respond to trolling posts.

(07-22-2015 11:41 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  On the other hand, taxes are mentioned once, in this context:

Quote:The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

And in almost every case that rights are mentioned, it's in the context of encroaching the right to hold slaves. Why is it that taxes and tariffs are a commonly cited reason for the the south's succession?

Now, I'm not a Civil War buff and am trying to educate myself on the subject. Can someone please explain to me how slavery wasn't the root cause of the Civil War? As far as I can tell, the Confederacy existed because of slavery. The north went to war to keep the nation together, but the nation split in the first place because the south wanted to keep their slaves.

In an effort at discourse, I'll take your comments about your intentions as you state them. Please know that others have said similar things, but meant something entirely different.

The 3/5ths clause of the confederacy is not dramatically different from the Constitution of the US article 1 section 2.

Quote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, 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.

In general it seems that
a) the document was written almost 100 years later and thus the language was different. Slaves weren't mentioned at all in the Constitution, but 'free men' are, which obviously implies that others are NOT free (in addition to those bound to service for a number of years). By 'all others' they clearly mean slaves... though they don't call them such.
and
b) they seemed to combine multiple documents into a single one.... the articles and the constitution... In any event, it's clear that slavery as described in the Articles of Confederacy was essentially the practice in this country at the time and had been for a long time.

As to it 'being about slavery', it is important to note that the CHANGE was coming from the north, not the south... yet it would have a far greater impact economically on the south than the north.

It's a bit like the northern states deciding to ban air conditioning because of the greenhouse gasses emitted... or the south banning the burning of heating oil. Obviously the repercussions of such a decision are far beyond simple choices... and if there were no viable alternatives, one could see some states deciding that they didn't want to go along with this. Of course in a 2015 perspective with our large and complicate government and having been bound to each other for more than 100 years, we can't easily imagine secession, but with a very small central government at the time and most of the southern states having been added within 50 years of the war, and Texas and Florida within just 20... the idea of not being part of the US wasn't that far fetched at the time.

The disagreement was over slavery. That is true. The north wanted to change things and the south wanted to keep things as they were.... not just each making their own decisions, but with the central government making a decision that had a significant impact on certain states. Was this about slavery? Or States Rights? I'd say it was about both. To the north, it was about slavery. To the south, it was about states rights.... yes, with one of those rights to continue to do what had been done for 100+ years here, and since the dawn of time elsewhere.

I suspect that had the south won, they wouldn't have insisted that other states practice slavery... but since the north did, they DID insist that other states NOT practice it. Further, the south would have been happy to be a separate country. They didn't go to war to keep the states in the north from banning slaves in the north. That's clearly not JUST about slavery, but about control.

I think most would admit it was OVER slavery, rather than ABOUT slavery.... just as a fight over a ban on heating oil or air conditioning would be OVER greenhouse gasses, but ABOUT the economic and living conditions impact.

(07-23-2015 09:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Don't upset them with facts. Let them believe that the war wasn't about slavery.

So with bacon being a staple of American cuisine... if due to an increasing global population of Muslims and others with religious objections to it, plus people with no taste buds... or as part of a global effort to reduce methane emissions, the United Nations decided that all nations should stop eating bacon tomorrow, and we, having taste buds, decided that 'wasn't for us' and dropped our membership, opting for a new alliance where bacon was freely allowed... and the UN didn't like that and tried to force us to remain in the UN, using actual military force...
would that war be about bacon? Or would it be about 'control'? I suppose it depends on your perspective. The UN would say it was about bacon. I suspect we would say it was about control. Not everyone in this country HAS to eat bacon.

What if we had spent the previous 80 years whining to the UN for help whenever one of our pigs escaped to a country where pigs were protected and couldn't be turned into bacon? Would anyone take our claims that it was all about control seriously then?

An what if our new alliance was even more controlling than the UN? For an easy comparison, see http://civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm.

(07-23-2015 10:42 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 09:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Don't upset them with facts. Let them believe that the war wasn't about slavery.

So with bacon being a staple of American cuisine... if due to an increasing global population of Muslims and others with religious objections to it, plus people with no taste buds... or as part of a global effort to reduce methane emissions, the United Nations decided that all nations should stop eating bacon tomorrow, and we, having taste buds, decided that 'wasn't for us' and dropped our membership, opting for a new alliance where bacon was freely allowed... and the UN didn't like that and tried to force us to remain in the UN, using actual military force...

would that war be about bacon? Or would it be about 'control'? I suppose it depends on your perspective. The UN would say it was about bacon. I suspect we would say it was about control. Not everyone in this country HAS to eat bacon.

No, but nobody in this country can own somebody else. I mean we're talking about slavery here.

"if you're better you become worse" would be their mantra......

(07-23-2015 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

http://civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

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.

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.

The CSA banning the slave trade meaning something is revisionist history. The US (and most of Europe) banned it by 1808 and we only waited that long because their was a clause in the constitution that prevented us from doing it for 20 years. Congress banned it the first year they had the authority to do so. The CSA having a ban in their constitution was nothing special nor a signal that they were against slavery. Had they not included that line then European navies would be targeting their ships.

(07-23-2015 11:51 AM)jph12 Wrote:  What if we had spent the previous 80 years whining to the UN for help whenever one of our pigs escaped to a country where pigs were protected and couldn't be turned into bacon? Would anyone take our claims that it was all about control seriously then?

An what if our new alliance was even more controlling than the UN? For an easy comparison, see http://civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm.

Do you think pig owners don't take their ownership of pigs seriously?

As to your other comment, 'control' is a matter of perspective. Most people are more than willing to give up control that they don't value or doesn't bring them value.

(07-23-2015 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:51 AM)jph12 Wrote:  What if we had spent the previous 80 years whining to the UN for help whenever one of our pigs escaped to a country where pigs were protected and couldn't be turned into bacon? Would anyone take our claims that it was all about control seriously then?
An what if our new alliance was even more controlling than the UN? For an easy comparison, see http://civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm.

Do you think pig owners don't take their ownership of pigs seriously?

No, I think the pig owners took their ownership of pigs very seriously. In fact, I think they took it much more seriously than their "concerns" about control. That was kind of the point.

Quote:As to your other comment, 'control' is a matter of perspective. Most people are more than willing to give up control that they don't value or doesn't bring them value.

Exactly. Control, like state's rights, means nothing in the abstract. It wasn't state's rights in the abstract that the Confederacy valued, it was primarily the dual "rights" of being allowed to maintain slavery and to force other states to help out. And one of those "rights" isn't exactly a shining beacon of consistency for state's rights advocates.

(07-23-2015 11:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 11:41 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  On the other hand, taxes are mentioned once, in this context:

Quote:The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

And in almost every case that rights are mentioned, it's in the context of encroaching the right to hold slaves. Why is it that taxes and tariffs are a commonly cited reason for the the south's succession?

Now, I'm not a Civil War buff and am trying to educate myself on the subject. Can someone please explain to me how slavery wasn't the root cause of the Civil War? As far as I can tell, the Confederacy existed because of slavery. The north went to war to keep the nation together, but the nation split in the first place because the south wanted to keep their slaves.

In an effort at discourse, I'll take your comments about your intentions as you state them. Please know that others have said similar things, but meant something entirely different.

The 3/5ths clause of the confederacy is not dramatically different from the Constitution of the US article 1 section 2.

Quote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, 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.

In general it seems that
a) the document was written almost 100 years later and thus the language was different. Slaves weren't mentioned at all in the Constitution, but 'free men' are, which obviously implies that others are NOT free (in addition to those bound to service for a number of years). By 'all others' they clearly mean slaves... though they don't call them such.
and
b) they seemed to combine multiple documents into a single one.... the articles and the constitution... In any event, it's clear that slavery as described in the Articles of Confederacy was essentially the practice in this country at the time and had been for a long time.

As to it 'being about slavery', it is important to note that the CHANGE was coming from the north, not the south... yet it would have a far greater impact economically on the south than the north.

It's a bit like the northern states deciding to ban air conditioning because of the greenhouse gasses emitted... or the south banning the burning of heating oil. Obviously the repercussions of such a decision are far beyond simple choices... and if there were no viable alternatives, one could see some states deciding that they didn't want to go along with this. Of course in a 2015 perspective with our large and complicate government and having been bound to each other for more than 100 years, we can't easily imagine secession, but with a very small central government at the time and most of the southern states having been added within 50 years of the war, and Texas and Florida within just 20... the idea of not being part of the US wasn't that far fetched at the time.

The disagreement was over slavery. That is true. The north wanted to change things and the south wanted to keep things as they were.... not just each making their own decisions, but with the central government making a decision that had a significant impact on certain states. Was this about slavery? Or States Rights? I'd say it was about both. To the north, it was about slavery. To the south, it was about states rights.... yes, with one of those rights to continue to do what had been done for 100+ years here, and since the dawn of time elsewhere.

I suspect that had the south won, they wouldn't have insisted that other states practice slavery... but since the north did, they DID insist that other states NOT practice it. Further, the south would have been happy to be a separate country. They didn't go to war to keep the states in the north from banning slaves in the north. That's clearly not JUST about slavery, but about control.

I think most would admit it was OVER slavery, rather than ABOUT slavery.... just as a fight over a ban on heating oil or air conditioning would be OVER greenhouse gasses, but ABOUT the economic and living conditions impact.

There were a whole host of factors setting up the split beyond slavery. South Carolina threatened to secede over tariffs in the 1830s.
The Dred Scott decision meant slaveholders could take their slaves into free states. The John Y. Brown raid on Harper's Ferry that resulted in John Brown being a hero in the north was viewed by the south as an effort to support terrorism. He was hailed for trying to arm slaves to kill white southerners. Both sides murdered members of the opposite side in the Missouri-Kansas border war. Then the north had enough votes to elect a president who wasn't even on the ballot in the south. That meant that the south's views on anything could be ignored, whether it be slavery, tariffs, funding of infrastructure or states rights.

(07-23-2015 12:10 PM)jph12 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

http://civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

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.

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.

The slave trade was far worse than slavery. Thousands died on those ships in horrible conditions. That's why it got banned long before slavery did.

(07-23-2015 10:42 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  No, but nobody in this country can own somebody else. I mean we're talking about slavery here.

That wasn't the case in the US in 1860, and wasn't the case in most of the world not too long before then. This is precisely why you can't put 2015 sensibilities on 1860's issues. In 2115, we probably can't imagine a fight over internal combustion engines.

(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?

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'?. better asked, how were slaves treated in 1790 in the US?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The 1700's documents also frequently reference 'the crown' and 'England', which wasn't as much of an issue in 1865.

(07-23-2015 12:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The CSA banning the slave trade meaning something is revisionist history. The US (and most of Europe) banned it by 1808 and we only waited that long because their was a clause in the constitution that prevented us from doing it for 20 years. Congress banned it the first year they had the authority to do so. The CSA having a ban in their constitution was nothing special nor a signal that they were against slavery. Had they not included that line then European navies would be targeting their ships.

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.

Hell, according to the Lincoln, slavery wasn't even a reason for the war until nearly two years AFTER the war even started.

(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.