Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rockrr

Righto.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4

“(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

IOW, the CSA built into their constitution a prohibition of emancipation. Presumably this applied to the CSA Congress. I don’t think they prohibited a state from freeing its slaves.


61 posted on 03/20/2013 6:30:25 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

I’ll have to go back and look. As I recall, they wanted to avoid the whole fugitive slave act unpleasantness so they added language precluding any “state” from interfering between someone and his property.


62 posted on 03/20/2013 6:34:42 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
Try 2.2, the rights of Citizens:
1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the 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 said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Or 3.3, on new states and territories:
"3. 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 Sates; 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.
The notion that the Confederacy was some sort I states' rights paradise is historical revisionism. Slavery was required of all its member states, who didn't have the right to ever change their own internal policy in the future.

The CSA wasn't about states' rights. It was, unfortunately, much more about slavery. The several Articles if Succession, the words of the CSA's Vice President and its own Constitution make that painfully clear.
69 posted on 03/20/2013 7:29:09 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson