BROJOEK: So, as we get deeper into the historical weeds here, the first thing to understand is that there were actually two new CSA constitutions: Provisional Constitution, started February 5, 1861, adopted on February 8, 1861 -- three days to "copy and paste" a provisional constitution. Permanent Constitution, started on February 28, 1861, adopted on March 11, 1861 -- 12 days to add some minor changes to the provisional constitution. How did these two differ? Regarding slavery, there were more specific guarantees of slavery spelled out in the March 11 permanent constitution than had been in the February 8 provisional version. The key additions were: Mississippi Sen. Jefferson Davis: Had Republicans been willing to accept all three of Davis' February 1860 slavery proposals, according to Davis himself, Mississippi would have no need to secede in 1861.Yet Mississippi could have had all of them since a right of transit was the law in the US and the Corwin Amendment addressed the rest and yet Mississippi along with the other 6 original seceding states turned this offer down. Hmmm. That must not have been their big concern then.
Oh, and discussions that would culminate in the Corwin Amendment started in late 1860.
BroJoeK: To be clear, these "compromises" all involved slavery, none of them had anything to do with those other issues our Lost Causers love to point at -- especially tariffs, or Federal infrastructure spending, or "bounties" for "fishing smacks", or the depredations of "Indian Savages" and "Mexican banditti".
Correct! And the Corwin Amendment was rejected by the original 7 seceding states.
BroJoeK: I'm saying only what's obviously true -- that since 90% of the new CSA constitution was just a "copy and paste" of the 1787 US Constitution, it took only three days to write the first provisional constitution, then eight more days to convert that to the permanent CSA constitution adopted on March 11. There is no reason for us to think the delegates in Montgomery kept their proceedings secret or that their provisional and permanent constitutions were not fully known by others (i.e., northerners), at the time.
Just as there is no reason for us to think that Northerners kept their discussions which began in late 1860 and culminated in the Corwin Amendment secret and that they were not fully known by others (ie. Southerners) at the time.
BROJOEK: One difference is 1860 Confederates were unashamed of what our 1787 Founders considered shameful.
They were simply more honest.
BROJOEK: There were three other differences worth mentioning, only one of which was addressed by either Crittenden or Corwin: Kentucky Sen. Crittenden: The 1861 CSA constitution explicitly guarantees no "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." This is the key guaranteed proposed by Sen. Davis in February 1860 and addressed by both Crittenden in December 1860 and Corwin in March 1861. However, no such guarantee was even imagined by our Founders in 1787.
The Southern Slaveholders who wrote the 1787 Constitution did not think they would need any such provision and could not imagine that it would even be an issue. The sovereign states did not delegate any such power to the newly proposed federal government and they never thought anybody would even suggest the federal government could directly interfere in states like that.
BROJOEK: The 1861 CSA constitution explicitly guarantees slaveholders, "...the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." This is Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott ruling, and also Sen. Davis' February 1860 proposal, but it's nowhere to be found in our Founders' 1787 Constitution, and was rejected by Republicans in December 1860.
That was the law in the US at the time as per the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court. The US Constitution was silent on the issue though all of the 13 original states had slavery.
BROJOEK: The 1861 CSA constitution explicitly guarantees slavery in Confederate territories: "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." This also is Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott ruling, also in Sen. Davis' February 1860 proposals, also nowhere to be found in our Founders' 1787 US Constitution, and also rejected by Republicans in December 1860.
See above. This was the state of the law in the US as per the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court. The US Constitution is silent on the issue. Of course, ALL of the original 13 states had slavery when the US Constitution was written by the slave owning Southerners who wrote it. There is nothing about denying any citizen his property rights in any US territory.
BROJOEK: The CSA constitutional ban on slave importations was utterly meaningless if it did not include their biggest, indeed only, source of imported slaves, the USA.
Au Contraire. The African Slave Trade was strictly forbidden right from the start. Also forbidden was importing any of the millions of slaves from the Caribbean or Brazil. The ban on the foreign slave trade was quite meaningful and was something the US Constitution did not do.
BROJOEK: And yet.. and yet... that is precisely the issue addressed by Mississippi Sen. Davis in February 1860, by Crittenden in December 1860, by the new CSA constitution in February 1861 and by Corwin in March 1861. So, obviously, the matter was not as firmly settled as you'd like us all to believe today.
Seems pretty clear to me the matter was settled. Lincoln assured everyone the matter was settled. The Corwin Amendment was meant to explicitly codify that which pretty much everyone I've seen at the time considered settled. After all, there were very very few Abolitionists at the time and they were considered to be extremists by everyone else.
BROJOEK: Again, using Crazy Roger "logic", slaveholders were now constitutionally guaranteed an unlimited "right of sojourn" in any Confederate state, with their slaves, thus rendering any state abolition laws effectively mute.
That is a gross mischaracterization. They had a right of transit. They could not stay for any extended period of time with their slaves. They could not settle there with their slaves. They had a right to pass through. That is all that the majority of the US Supreme Court ruled they had and that is all they had under the Confederate Constitution.
BROJOEK: Sure, but the majority of Republicans opposed Corwin, while Democrats voted unanimously for it, and that is worth noticing, imho.
Its also worth noticing that Republicans introduced it, many Republicans voted for it, Lincoln supported it and used his influence to get it ratified in multiple Northern states.
BROJOEK: Right, the unanimous concurrences of five lunatic Southern Democrat justices, joined by two Doughfaced Northern Democrats and opposed by two Northern Republican justices. So there's no doubt that the other Democrats were just as crazy as Crazy Roger Taney. Democrats have always been crazy. Crazy is not a failure of Democrats, it's their basic feature.
All you've got here is namecalling. The majority of the US Supreme Court issued their ruling and as such it was the law of the land.
BROJOEK: I've said exactly what is factual -- that there's no evidence any 1787 Founder supported any of Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott rulings. And there are tons of evidence to the contrary, beginning with my quote from their 1776 Declaration of Independence, you the part about "all men are created equal".
On the contrary, there is no evidence to support the claim that they did not agree with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in regards to the Dred Scott ruling. All of the original 13 states had slavery in 1787. The Southerner who drafted much of the US Constitution owned slaves. The Declaration of Independence was written by a Southerner who owned slaves. The Father of his country George Washington was a Southerner who owned slaves. Hell, even the two leading anti Federalists, George Mason and Patrick Henry were Southerners who owned slaves.
Slavery and owning slaves weren't seen as being any big deal in 1787 and certainly not the moral issue people would see it as today. Given all these people were slave owners and all of the original 13 states had slavery its hardly a stretch to think they would have agreed that a US Citizen could go into any US territory with his property - that includes his slaves.
BROJOEK: Every Founder at some point expressed a desire for, or acquiescence in, efforts to restrict or abolish slavery, where that was possible. This strongly suggests they would have opposed Crazy Roger's lunatic Dred Scott opinions.
It was a hope in some vague murky future that slavery would wither away. As I've pointed out, pretty much all the key players owned slaves and even several who didn't were highly involved in slavery. For example, John Hancock was the largest slave trader in New England. Ben Franklin had owned a slave when he was younger. He disposed of his slave and developed a personal distaste for slavery in his later years but he was not at all averse to making money from slaveowners buying notices in his papers for bounties on their escaped slaves.
Even Massachusetts Lawyer John Adams who was not involved in the slave trade and who did not own any slaves quite vigorously pressed the British for the return of Americans' slaves who had run away and enlisted in the British Army during the war of secession from the British Empire. The British PM turned this demand down flat. The King sent the PM a note congratulating him on refusing this demand from Adams. Bet you don't see that embarrassing little episode in any text book in one of the government schools!
The point is slavery just wasn't seen as being a big deal in 1787. It was a matter that could be compromised on and which the Founding Fathers assumed would take care of itself in time.
FLT-bird:
"Oh, and discussions that would culminate in the Corwin Amendment started in late 1860."
Naw, the US had debated slavery related issues since 1776.
The specific proposal which eventually ended up as Corwin began with Mississippi's Democrat Sen. Jefferson Davis's February 2, 1860 proposals in Congress.
Some of Davis' proposals found their way into the 1860 Southern Democrat (Breckenridge) party platform, and then all of them reemerged in the December 1860 debates over Crittenden's Compromise proposals.
In the end, Sen. Davis's insistence -- that Congress had no authority to abolish slavery within states -- made its way into both the new CSA Constitution and the proposed US Corwin Amendment.
Davis's other proposals regarding slavery in territories and an alleged slaveholders' "right of soujourn" were rejected by Republicans in December 1860, hence secession of Mississippi (#2 to secede) and other Deep South states.
FLT-bird: "Correct! And the Corwin Amendment was rejected by the original 7 seceding states."
Naw... the Corwin Amendment was eagerly accepted and adopted by the Montgomery, Alabama Constitutional Convention into their new CSA constitution, along with Jefferson Davis's other proposals to Congress from February 2, 1860.
Confederates loved Corwin and copied and pasted it into their Montgomery constitution:
Article I Section 9(4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
FLT-bird regarding CSA constitution's use of words like "slave":
"They were simply more honest shameless." Fixed it.
FLT-bird: "The Southern Slaveholders who wrote the 1787 Constitution did not think they would need any such provision and could not imagine that it would even be an issue.
The sovereign states did not delegate any such power to the newly proposed federal government and they never thought anybody would even suggest the federal government could directly interfere in states like that."
So far as I can tell, that was exactly Abraham Lincoln's opinion in 1860.
Lincoln then saw no need for an amendment along lines of Sen. Davis's February 1860 proposal, eventually adopted in Corwin in March 1861.
As far as Lincoln was concerned, such an amendment was unnecessary, but, if it helped keep the Union together, he did not oppose it.
FLT-bird on alleged slaveholders' "right of sojourn": "That was the law in the US at the time as per the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court.
The US Constitution was silent on the issue though all of the 13 original states had slavery."
Just as the 1787 US Constitution granted no authority to Federal government to abolish slavery in states, it also granted Federal government no authority to limit states from restricting and abolishing slavery themselves -- suggestions to the contrary from Crazy Roger Taney's 1857 Dred Scott ruling notwithstanding.
FLT-bird: "The ban on the foreign slave trade was quite meaningful and was something the US Constitution did not do."
And yet... and yet... the fact remains that the Confederacy's largest source for imported slaves would be the USA, and those imports were not outlawed.
Therefore, the CSA's constitutional provision is meaningless eyewash.
FLT-bird: "That is a gross mischaracterization.
They had a right of transit.
They could not stay for any extended period of time with their slaves.
They could not settle there with their slaves.
They had a right to pass through.
That is all that the majority of the US Supreme Court ruled they had and that is all they had under the Confederate Constitution."
And yet... and yet... Crazy Roger placed no time limit on his new-found "slaveholders' right of sojourn".
Dred Scott himself had lived for many years in free states and territories, and yet... and yet... in Crazy Rogers' eyes that was not enough to make poor Dred Scott a free man, much less a full US citizen.
Why is that, you might ask?
Answer: because Crazy Roger was a raging Democrat lunatic, and for no other conceivable reason.
FLT-bird: "Its also worth noticing that Republicans introduced it, many Republicans voted for it, Lincoln supported it and used his influence to get it ratified in multiple Northern states."
Your constant references to alleged historian Doris Kerns Goodwin notwithstanding, there is no actual evidence for Lincoln's direct involvement with Corwin either in Congress or in states.
FLT-bird: "All you've got here is namecalling.
The majority unanimous ravings of Southern Democrat lunatics of the US Supreme Court issued their ruling and as such it was the highly disputed law of the land."
Fixed it.
You can easily credit Crazy Roger with electing Republican majorities to Congress and Lincoln as president, in response to Crazy's Dred Scott opinion.
Crazy Roger's insane SCOTUS:
FLT-bird: "Slavery and owning slaves weren't seen as being any big deal in 1787 and certainly not the moral issue people would see it as today.
Given all these people were slave owners and all of the original 13 states had slavery its hardly a stretch to think they would have agreed that a US Citizen could go into any US territory with his property - that includes his slaves."
Believe me, I do understand why you want to minimize Crazy Roger's raging insanities, and make him appear like any other normal human being, and therefore you ignore his worst lunacies and focus on just what might possibly be defended.
And the reasons are obvious -- in 1857 Crazy Roger was not alone in his opinions and they were shared widely by slaveholders and slavery defenders throughout the South.
They were all just as crazy as Roger was.
Do I need to list out for you all the craziness Democrats like Crazy Roger inflicted on the USA in 1857?
FLT-bird on 1787 Founders: "It was a hope in some vague murky future that slavery would wither away. "
Nooooo... it was far more than a "vague hope" because our Founders were willing to take legal actions to restrict and abolish slavery wherever possible, a prime example being abolition of slavery in the Old Northwest Territories in 1787.
In 1787 the Old Northwest Territories were an area 50% larger than the eventual borders of the six Southern States combined.
Further, by 1787, abolition was already the law in Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania -- a total of 65% of all Northern state area.
So, if we add the 65% of Northern States area plus the Northwest Territories, then we see that in 1787, almost exactly half of the entirety of US square miles were under laws abolishing slavery -- that was vastly more than a "vague hope".
Bottom line: in 1787 our Founders held abolition as far more than a "vague hope" for the future.
They had already acted to legally abolish slavery in half of all US land area.