Replies

Yes they knew why they were leaving. Economics.

Specifically protecting slave imports was not something the U.S. Constitution had.

The only imports that were protected were those from where they had previously been allowed to be traded across state lines. The African slave trade was still banned.

and for some strange reason you left out Article I section 2

“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.”

in which they reserved the power to ban importation from US states for the Confederate Congress.

How? The Confederate Constitution makes that impossible. Perhaps you can explain the process that would result in that?

Nope! As I showed, a proposal to make their admission impossible was voted down.

What you refer to as “the fugitive slave clause” said that people charged “in any state with treason, felony, or other crime” would be extradited. It covers far more than slavery so your description is not at all valid. The 3/5ths compromise does not specifically refer to slavery in the U.S Constitution. It does in the Confederate Constitution. I wonder why?

OF COURSE my description is valid. You really are trying to spin here if you’re claiming that Article IV section 2 clause 3 a “person held to service or labor” was not a fugitive slave clause. Everybody called it exactly that. Because it was. The 3/5ths clause of the US Constitution does not specifically say “slave” but everybody knows that’s exactly what it meant. Really poor attempt at spin on your part here.

Except that the Corwin Amendment protected slavery where it existed and offered no guarantees on allowing its expansion. The Confederate Constitution guaranteed expansion in every corner of the country.

No it didn’t. It allowed for non slaveholding states to be admitted.

That would be the same central government which guaranteed that people could go into any state with their slaves, which prohibited any laws “denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves” could be passed, which guaranteed no new states would be non-slave, or that the states could ever get an amendment doing away with slavery added to the Constitution? Doesn’t look like a lot of leeway was allowed to me.

Firstly, the provision against bills of attainder does not necessarily mean a confederate state could not choose to abolish slavery within its borders. Secondly, any state could of course leave the CSA at any time.

You left out a much more strict interpretation of the general welfare clause as well as expressly limiting tariffs to 10%...

There is no such limitation. All the Confederate Constitution says is that tariffs must be uniform and could not be protective. They could not be imposed on states in violation of treaties. They could be applied to fund lighthouses and such.

Yes there is. It says only revenue tariffs and not protective tariffs are allowed. A revenue tariff does not allow for higher than a 10% rate.

...as very tight restrictions on the ability of the central government to spend money such as a line item veto, a ban on riders being attached to bills, term limits etc.

It’s very debatable on how restrictive those were. The term limits applied to the president only. The constitution did allow for riders or amendments. The line item veto did exist in it.

Its not very debatable how restrictive those were. The constitution said a bill could only be about one thing and that must be expressed in the title. ie no riders.

The objections didn’t go far beyond slavery, if they went beyond it at all.

Their objections went way beyond slavery.

The only imports that were protected were those from where they had previously been allowed to be traded across state lines. The African slave trade was still banned.

Did it specifically protect slave imports or didn't it?

and for some strange reason you left out Article I section 2

“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.”

I didn't leave it out. Since the Confederate Congress never prohibited it then it really didn't come in to play.

Nope! As I showed, a proposal to make their admission impossible was voted down.

LOL! Well if you can't answer the question then you can't answer the question.

I'm trying to spin here? You take a clause that applies to any fugitive fleeing for any crime and relabel it to apply to a single situation.

No it didn’t. It allowed for non slaveholding states to be admitted.

You really need to read the Confederate Constitution some time. Under that no Confederate state could prohibit slavery within its borders. So non-slave states were a legal impossibility.

Firstly, the provision against bills of attainder does not necessarily mean a confederate state could not choose to abolish slavery within its borders.

Which has what to do with this discussion?

Secondly, any state could of course leave the CSA at any time.

Of course they could.

Yes there is. It says only revenue tariffs and not protective tariffs are allowed. A revenue tariff does not allow for higher than a 10% rate.

Leaving aside for a moment your claim that the Confederate Constitution specifically prohibited rates above 10 percent, if your latest claim is correct then how could the Confederate Congress pass a tariff law with rates as high as 25%? Can you explain that?

Tariff of the Confederate States of America Approved by Congress, May 21, 1861

The constitution said a bill could only be about one thing and that must be expressed in the title. ie no riders.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1: " All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills."

Their objections went way beyond slavery.

Of course they did.