Replies

FLT-bird: "The 1861 Constitution flat out banned the slave trade.
The 1787 Constitution allowed for it to continue for 20 more years."

The 1861 Confederate constitution specified an exception which is not present in the 1787 US Constitution.

FLT-bird: "The Corwin Amendment which was introduced in each house of Congress by a Republican was - as Doris Kearns-Goodwin goes to great trouble to lay out - orchestrated by incoming Republican Abe Lincoln.
Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland and Lincoln's Illinois ratified it."

Corwin helped keep Border Slave States in the Union:

Your word "orchestrated" can apply to NY Sen. Seward, but not to Lincoln.
And the fact remains, all your handwaving notwithstanding, that Corwin was supported by 100% of Democrats, while opposed by a majority of Republicans, and was even signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan.

Further, Corwin simply matched language already found in the new Confederate constitution, and so could have no effect whatever on any already seceded states.
It did have a strong effect on keeping Border Slave States in the Union.

FLT-bird: "As NYs Seward said, NY would have ratified it too had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it.
They did not."

What is your source for this claim about Sen. Seward?

FLT-bird on SCOTUS' Dred Scott: "How do you know that? "

I know that no Founder ever agreed with Crazy Roger Taney's insane Dred Scott rulings because there are no quotes from any of them which remotely resemble Crazy Roger's alleged "logic".

FLT-bird: "You like to hurl epithets at Chief Justice Taney as if he alone were responsible but the fact is a majority of the SCOTUS agreed with him and ruled that way."

100% of those who concurred in Crazy Roger's Dred Scott insane rulings were Democrats and of those seven, five were Southern Democrats while the other two were Northern Doughface Democrats.

The two justices who dissented from Crazy Roger were both Republicans -- Curtis from Massachusetts and McLean from Ohio.

FLT-bird: "The 1861 Confederate Constitution was no different from what the law was in the US prior to 1861."

Nooooo... but obviously, the Southern slavocracy was deliriously happy with Crazy Roger's insane opinions, and so repeated them in their new 1861 Confederate constitution.

In the North, the reaction was quite different:

"The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was 'greeted with unmitigated wrath from every segment of the United States except the slave holding states.'[40]
The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described:
The tempest of malediction that burst over the judges seems to have stunned them; far from extinguishing the slavery controversy, they had fanned its flames and had, moreover, deeply endangered the security of the judicial arm of government.
No such vilification as this had been heard even in the wrathful days following the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Taney’s opinion was assailed by the Northern press as a wicked 'stump speech' and was shamefully misquoted and distorted.
'If the people obey this decision,' said one newspaper, 'they disobey God.'[45]"

Perhaps the most important judgment on Crazy Roger's opinions came from lawyer out of Springfield, Illinois:

"Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.
And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of 'care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up', shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.
Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.
Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty [Democrats!!!] shall be met and overthrown.
We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.
To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.
This is what we have to do."
A. Lincoln, June 16, 1858, "House Divided Speech"

FLT-bird: "The Confederate Constitution other than mentioning the word "slavery" explicitly didn't protect it any more than or provide additional rights to slaveowners that they did not have in the US at the time."

Our FRiend, jeffersondem, loves the word "enshrined" regarding slavery in the US Constitution.
In reality, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" several important ideas that were not even hinted at in the 1787 US Constitution, but only very recently imposed on it through the insanities of Crazy Roger and against the strong objections of Northern Republicans.

FLT-bird: "Yes the Confederate Constitution was more honest in explicitly using the word slave while the US Constitution didn't specifically use that word even while doing exactly the same thing."

With the one curious exception of the Fugitive Slave clause, in which Confederates repeated the 1787 Constitution's euphemistic language, word for word.
In fact, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" many protections for slavery which were in no way spelled out in the 1787 US Constitution, Crazy Roger's lunacies notwithstanding.

FLT-bird: "Bottom line the protections of slavery and the rights of slaveowners were the same in the Confederate Constitution as they had been under the US Constitution.
The only difference was that the Confederate Constitution is more honest in explicitly saying the word slavery."

Sorry, but that is a lie which you can only maintain by claiming that somehow Crazy Roger's insane opinions had anything to do with our 1787 Founding Fathers' Original Intentions.

They didn't, and in your heart of hearts, I think you well know that, as do your pro-Confederate FRiends here.

1787 Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia:

The 1861 Confederate constitution specified an exception which is not present in the 1787 US Constitution.

Which was?

Corwin helped keep Border Slave States in the Union:

The North was willing to protect slavery explicitly in the constitution and effectively forever.

Your word "orchestrated" can apply to NY Sen. Seward, but not to Lincoln.

No. It applies to Lincoln. He was the de facto party leader, not Seward.

And the fact remains, all your handwaving notwithstanding, that Corwin was supported by 100% of Democrats, while opposed by a majority of Republicans, and was even signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan.

The fact also remains despite all your handwaving that it was introduced in each house of Congress by a Republican, was supported publicly by the Republican president elect and that same president elect got it passed in multiple Northern states. Seward guaranteed its passage in New York if the Southern states agreed to it.

Further, Corwin simply matched language already found in the new Confederate constitution, and so could have no effect whatever on any already seceded states.

The fact remains that the Southern states could have had explicit protections of slavery effectively forever in the US. So there was no need to insist on independence which was fraught with risk had the continuance of slavery been their real concern.

Oh, and you have the timing wrong. The Corwin Amendment came BEFORE and not after the Confederate Constitution.

It did have a strong effect on keeping Border Slave States in the Union.

It was the North making it clear to one and all that they were perfectly prepared to explicitly protect slavery in the Constitution effectively forever. There was no need to secede over any concerns about the continuance of slavery or to keep to the path of independence over any concerns about the continuance of slavery. They were quite prepared to concede that point.

What is your source for this claim about Sen. Seward?

It was in Team of Rivals though I don't recall the page number offhand. Is that so difficult to believe? William Seward is the one who introduced the Corwin Amendment to the Senate. He was the most influential politician from New York after all.

I know that no Founder ever agreed with Crazy Roger Taney's insane Dred Scott rulings because there are no quotes from any of them which remotely resemble Crazy Roger's alleged "logic".

You can hurl epithets at chief justice Taney all you like. The fact remains that this was the majority opinion of the SCOTUS.

100% of those who concurred in Crazy Roger's Dred Scott insane rulings were Democrats and of those seven, five were Southern Democrats while the other two were Northern Doughface Democrats.

This was the opinion of the majority of the SCOTUS. Did you know that the majority of justices on the SCOTUS at the time of Texas V White were appointed by Lincoln? So by your logic, that would invalidate that opinion too since those justices were also partisan actors. They all voted for Texas V White by the way while the justices not appointed by Lincoln voted against it. Two can play at this game.

Nooooo... but obviously, the Southern slavocracy was deliriously happy with Crazy Roger's insane opinions, and so repeated them in their new 1861 Confederate constitution.

Yessssssssssssssss....there is simply no denying it. The protections of slavery were no more in the Confederate Constitution than existed in the US Constitution at the time of secession. The only differences were that they explicitly used the word "slavery" and they had a provision which said the Confederate government could not force a state to abolish slavery....but then again, that too was the same under the US constitution.

In the North, the reaction was quite different: blah blah blah

The right of transit in the Confederate Constitution was no different from the situation in the US after Dred Scott.

Our FRiend, jeffersondem, loves the word "enshrined" regarding slavery in the US Constitution. In reality, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" several important ideas that were not even hinted at in the 1787 US Constitution, but only very recently imposed on it through the insanities of Crazy Roger and against the strong objections of Northern Republicans.

No matter how much you try to hysterically screech TANEY TANEY TANEY!!!!! The fact remains that this was the majority opinion of the SCOTUS and the Confederate Constitution did not provide additional protections of slavery or rights to slave owners that were different from those that existed in the US prior to secession.

With the one curious exception of the Fugitive Slave clause, in which Confederates repeated the 1787 Constitution's euphemistic language, word for word. In fact, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" many protections for slavery which were in no way spelled out in the 1787 US Constitution, Crazy Roger's lunacies notwithstanding.

What protections did the Confederate constitution provide that were not provided after the majority SCOTUS decision in Dred Scott - specifically?

Sorry, but that is a lie which you can only maintain by claiming that somehow Crazy Roger's insane opinions had anything to do with our 1787 Founding Fathers' Original Intentions. They didn't, and in your heart of hearts, I think you well know that, as do your pro-Confederate FRiends here.

Sorry but my statement was accurate. There were no protections provided for slavery nor rights to slave owners in the Confederate Constitution than existed in the US after the majority SCOTUS opinion in Dred Scott. You know this is true. If you want to say otherwise you will have to name those protections and rights specifically to prove your case.