Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
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.
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.
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.
“Regarding the north, initially the response of the north to secession was to avoid striking at slavery on the hopes that a terrible war could be avoided. The Republicans barely held onto the House in the midterm elections of 1862, and this was without the representatives of the Southern states. Lincoln was desperate for a cause with which to rally the north to a long and very costly war of attrition with the South. “Preserving the union” was not a sufficient cause. So, following a claim of victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves of the areas in rebellion, and offering the enlistment bonus to owners of slaves in the areas loyal to the union, if the men among those slaves joined the union army.”
Classic northern explanation. You were born about 1950.
How far off is my estimate of your date of birth?
I will answer that question when you say what was or were the causes of Florida seceding and provide references if possible.
did it protect slave imports or didn’t it?
It kept the status quo ante. The African slave trade as well as slave trading with the nearby Caribbean was still banned.
It was part of the Constitution. Of course it was relevant to the topic.
Oh I answered it. I even provided a source. You just claimed that it would have been impossible without support.
YES! You’re trying to spin here. Everybody then and still now calls it a fugitive slave clause because that’s exactly what it was. Who do you think the vast majority of such “fugitives” from labor were? and Oh by the way...its not just fugitives from crime. Its also fugitives from labor.
I’ve read it and disagree with your conclusion. I also note that any state could secede from the CSA at any time. There was absolutely no dispute about a state’s right to do so as indeed there wasn’t in the US until Lincoln.
Yes. That along with several other things were emergency war measures. They also seized all sorts of property for national defense purposes. Revenue Tariff means maximum 10%
“Another important limitation on the legislative power appearing in the Confederate Constitution was the single subject rule a requirement that each bill relate to only one subject which should be expressed in the bill’s title.
The rule was proposed by a Louisiana delegate Duncan Kenner, but it had numerous antecedents in state constitutions. Its main object was to prevent legislative logrolling, but the single subject rule also operated to strengthen the executive by preventing Congress from adding rider amendments to appropriations bills and other important measures for the purpose of defeating the presidential veto power (a common practice in the present-day United
States}.”
The Confederate Congress could with a 2/3rds super majority vote to add an appropriation to a bill. But of course the President also had a line item veto. They also added the 2/3rds super majority requirement for departmental spending and added much tougher audit requirements for government spending.
So it protected slave imports. Now that we've established that we can move on.
I didn’t leave it out. Since the Confederate Congress never prohibited it then it really didn’t come in to play.
It was part of the Constitution. Of course it was relevant to the topic.
But throughout it's short lifespan the Confederacy allowed slave imports from the U.S., both slave and non-slave states as it happens.
YES! You’re trying to spin here. Everybody then and still now calls it a fugitive slave clause because that’s exactly what it was. Who do you think the vast majority of such “fugitives” from labor were? and Oh by the way...its not just fugitives from crime. Its also fugitives from labor.
I've never seen it referred to as the fugitive slave clause.
I’ve read it and disagree with your conclusion.
Article II, Section 2: "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."
So tell me again how a Confederate state could outlaw slavery within its borders.
Yes. That along with several other things were emergency war measures. They also seized all sorts of property for national defense purposes. Revenue Tariff means maximum 10%
OK, so your contention is that the Confederate government and Confederate Congress ignored their Constitution at will? Well we already knew that but you're the first rebel supporter to admit it so blatantly.
“Another important limitation on the legislative power appearing in the Confederate Constitution was the single subject rule a requirement that each bill relate to only one subject which should be expressed in the bill’s title.
Can you please identify the clause in the Confederate Constitution that mandates that?
“I will answer that question when you say what was or were the causes of Florida seceding and provide references if possible.”
I’m not sure what one has to do with the other. It does seem the goal posts are moving.
You earlier asked if I could provide a citation of the Florida ordinance of secession. I did.
Now you want me to explain the causes of Florida seceding.
O.K. In simple terms, it was the northern love of money and associated evils.
Thanks, my views exactly.
Old Democrats loved the Lost Cause myth because it tied them to Southern whites, no matter if true or not, still useful.
Republicans, not so much.
“I’ve never seen it referred to as the fugitive slave clause.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause
So what do they call it today, what with slavery being gone and all and it still in use?
Redmen4ever: ***”This was not a moral invasion.
At a later time (that is, with the Emancipation Proclamation), the war became a war to end slavery.
Only then was the invasion moral.”***
I disagree that Lincoln’s response to the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was anything other than moral.
What US President would fail to respond to an attack on US troops in a US fort any other way?
What made total invasion and destruction of the Confederacy moral was not slavery, important as that was, but rather the Confederates’ formal declaration of War against the United States.
They attacked us, then declared war against us, so “morality” was not at issue.
Redmen4ever: ***”As it is, we, the U.S., are almost alone as the defender of peace and human rights in the world, and there is a limit to what we can do.
Pretending to be the world’s policeman in this effed up arrangement is a formula for bankruptcy.”***
True enough, but plenty of others are doing more than you might expect, if by nothing else, at least by behaving themselves.
When large countries follow normal laws, then the defense burden on the U.S. is less.
Not saying they shouldn’t do more, that would be nice, but it matters even more when they don’t oppose us militarily.
Redmen4ever: ***”The good news is that Donald Trump isn’t the only advocate of nationalism in conjunction with peace through strength.
We are being joined by others throughout the democratic world.”
Very interesting to watch, let’s hope it leads to a more rational world!
“So what do they call it today, what with slavery being gone and all and it still in use?”
It can be called “Article IV, Section 2.” Today it contains two active clauses.
The first is referred to as the (first) Privileges and Immunities Clause.
The second is referred to as the Extradition Clause.
See the links and read them again. For the first time.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/privileges-immunities-clause-definition-examples.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Clause
So it protected slave imports. Now that we’ve established that we can move on.
It kept the status quo ante. Now we can move on.
In other words, it kept the status quo ante.
Then you haven’t looked. That’s what it is practically universally referred to as.
So tell me again how a Confederate state could outlaw slavery within its borders.
That ensures a right of transit only for citizens of other confederate states. It says nothing about abolishing slavery for their own citizens.
They enacted emergency war measures. Lots of governments do that during wars....like for example the US government.
No, I provided you the quote and the source and the link to it. Feel free to look it up for yourself.
Yes, we seem to have gone astray. This thread is about fixing a misstatement on a plaque in Texas concerning why that state seceded. You are the person who brought in Florida. I said Texas stated itself that the reason it seceded was slavery. I said others states did so as well, and yet other states were not explicit. Then, you brought up Florida, conceding the point about Texas as well as some other states.
I see you consider yourself to the arbiter of Florida’s history. I can read. I did read the source that you referred to me of Florida. It did not give a reason. So, you stated the reason.
According to your source (you), the reason Florida seceded was the evil Yankee system of finance. This aligns with Slave mentality, no different from the socialists and progressives of the past. The north (and England), capitalism and the Jewish system was based on “wage-slavery.” Slavery treated inferior people humanely because they would be hopeless if left on their own. If the wage slaves of the north had any sense, they’d make their way to the south so they could become happy slaves. Indeed, Woodrow Wilson was a Southerner, a eugenicist, a racist and a progressive, sympathetic to the Klan and to the Lost Cause. In contrast to blacks, Jews were hated, as best as I can tell, not because they were inferior, but because they were superior. Today, things are flipped. The racists of today hate whites while condemning the capitalist system. Of course, they still hate the Jews and, I suspect, will soon start hating the Asians. People like you are left isolated.
Yes, I am a baby boomer and from the north. My grandparents were immigrants. My father and my uncles fought for this country and what it stands for, and against the countries of their ancestry. I, in my generation, and my son in his have joined in the defense of this great nation. I have relatives drawn from all the inhabited continents save Australia, and two cousins who have moved there.
When I was a child, I was put-off by the line “land where my fathers died,” in America the Beautiful. I had no fathers who died here. Today, that line resonates with me. Although there is a logic to what this country stands for, the emotional tie that accrues over the passing of generations should not be overlooked. One can be wary about immigration without being racist. We are a nation and a democracy, and for these things to work, we must have a shared vision and the vast majority of us must be in the middle class. Slavery, segregation and excessive numbers of poor and unassimilated immigrants are antithetical to us being a country of freedom and equality. Today, the progressive left threaten our country, or maybe I should say my country. Hopefully, when I am as old as you I won’t have to think of my vision of America as a Lost Cause.
“Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves of the areas in rebellion, and offering the enlistment bonus to owners of slaves in the areas loyal to the union, if the men among those slaves joined the union army.”
The Emancipation proclamation makes absolutely no such offer of enlistment bonus to owners of slaves in the areas loyal to the union. If you would take five minutes to actually read the Emancipation Proclamation you would see that is the case.
History is sometimes better learned reading the original documents instead of SCV pamphlets.
“The Emancipation proclamation makes absolutely no such offer of enlistment bonus to owners of slaves in the areas loyal to the union. If you would take five minutes to actually read the Emancipation Proclamation you would see that is the case.”
In my post 162 I posted a quote someone else had made. I think your anguish is misdirected.
thanks
It wasn't called Article IV, Section 2 prior to 1863?
Except that the status quo had changed. Before it was from one state to another. Now it was from one country to another. Imports. Protected by the constitution.
That ensures a right of transit only for citizens of other confederate states. It says nothing about abolishing slavery for their own citizens.
But if citizens can come from other states and live in the state then how can the state force them to dispose of them?
They enacted emergency war measures. Lots of governments do that during wars....like for example the US government.
Emergency war measures can ignore the Constitution? Well considering the Confederates never established a Supreme Court then who was there to tell Davis and the Congress to stop doing that?
No, I provided you the quote and the source and the link to it. Feel free to look it up for yourself.
I have looked and unless I'm missing something it isn't there. How about taking a look yourself and letting me know where it is?
Thanks BroJoeK
Firing on Fort Sumter was a mistake. I am not aware when or how the Confederate States of American declared war on the United States of America. As the Confederate constitution only allowed a large army during time of war, I supposed they had to declare war.
Immediately after the firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln proclaimed the states then in secession to be an insurrection, giving himself certain powers. At the time, there were eight states in secession. Lincoln called for a great expansion of the union army, and this lead to additional states seceding, including Virginia, and also to alliances with certain Indian nations. Each of these steps leading to war, other than the firing on Fort Sumter, could be criticized, but there are arguments for as well as against.
Now we come to the initial invasion. If it had been successful in quickly ending the rebellion, who would criticize Lincoln? The status quo antebellum would have been restored. There would have been more arrivals of free whites to the north, and more free states admitted to the union. The population, wealth and power in Washington of the free states would have only increased. Plus, Kentucky was inching its way to gradual emancipation.
At some point, some form of emancipation would have looked good to the border states, but I don’t know what could ever have been done in the deep south were the slave system was so much a part of the plantation system. Emancipation ruined the economies of the British sugar islands for many generations. The culture of slavery is antithetical to work. Culture is not genetic-based, but it is deeply ingrained. So, ending slavery was always going to be a problem in the deep south, even if the first invasion had been successful.
But, the first invasion was repulsed and once it became clear that suppressing the rebellion would involve a long and very costly commitment, a moral justification beyond “preserving the union” became required.
Except that the status quo had changed. Before it was from one state to another. Now it was from one country to another. Imports. Protected by the constitution.
The exact same region as before. Only the political boundary had changed. Status quo ante.
If they come to that state to live then they establish residency there and that is not covered by their transit rights.
The US government has certainly done that. Oh they’ll try to claim they didn’t like claiming for example that people thrown into concentration camps due to their ancestry was not a denial of due process, was not a loss of liberty and their property rights....but of course it was. Funny how you want to hold the Confederate government which was forced into a major war to preserve its independence from the start to a standard you don’t seem keen to hold the US government to.
Nah. We’re not playing this game. I provided you the quote the source and the link. Feel free to do your own searching.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.