And? He was a president of a democracy, not a king. His power was limited.
You answered that yourself, the Constitution.
OK. Then the same answer applies for Davis.
The difference was that the Union inherited the Constitution with its protections for slavery, while the Confederacy drafted their Constitution from the ground up, deliberately adding protections for slavery.
About the Confederate Constitution....
". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .
". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
The Republicans in the North attempted to pass the 13th Amendment in 1864, but were stopped by the Democrats over "states' rights".
Yeah and Davis offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid from Britain and France in 1864.
But they could see it, or they wouldn't have offered to abolish it in return for military aid.
They could see it would help them diplomatically with Britain and France. They could also see that slavery was gradually dying out in the Western world.
The Corbomite Maneuver and the Corwin Amendment were similar, in that they had no impact on anything.
The Corwin Amendment had no impact because the original 7 seceding states were not seceding over slavery. Thus express protections offered for it did not address their real concerns.
Well that's not entirely true. The Corbomite Maneuver made money for those who made it up, while the Corwin Amendment went no where and did nothing.
The only reference I found was to an original star trek episode. I have no idea what else the Corbomite Maneuver was....if anything.....
Your idea of concrete evidence is policies that were never ratified or implemented, while mine are policies that were implemented. My concrete evidence includes the conditions protecting slavery in the newly minted Confederate Constitution, and the abolition of slavery after the CW and the attempt made before the end of the CW that was blocked by Democrats.
You refuse to acknowledge WHY the Corwin Amendment was not ratified. Here's a hint: It was not due to Northern political opposition. It was entirely because the original 7 seceding states turned the offer down. What they actually wanted was independence from imperial Washington - Independence to set their own economic policies and to be taxed solely for their own rather than for others' benefit.
They never chose anything over slavery. Defeat was the only thing that made them give up slavery.
Sure they did. They could have had slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and they turned it down. They chose Independence rather than express irrevocable protections of slavery.
True, but the newly created Constitution ratified by the newly created Confederacy in 1861 preserved slavery, when they could have abolished it. In fact, the Constitution explicitly forbid member states and territories from passing laws that would make slavery illegal. This was in contrast to the North where the states could abolish slavery at the state level. So much for states rights in the Confederacy.
The Confederate Constitution allowed for states that had abolished slavery to join. In 1861 the US made no move to abolish slavery....yet you want to castigate solely the Confederacy for not willing to at that time either.
Another policy that was never implemented that you think proves something.
They offered it. Of course that proves something. That proves they were willing to abolish slavery to help gain their independence. That is entirely consistent with their earlier choice to reject express irrevocable protection of slavery in favor of Independence. What they wanted was......duh....Independence. Slavery they were willing to get rid of.
I know. I want others to see it.
Cool. Let 'em see it. Same for same.
repeats snipped.
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
Precious few textbooks mention the fact that by 1864 key Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were prepared to abolish slavery. As early as 1862 some Confederate leaders supported various forms of emancipation. In 1864 Jefferson Davis officially recommended that slaves who performed faithful service in non-combat positions in the Confederate army should be freed. Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate generals favored emancipating slaves who served in the Confederate army. In fact, Lee had long favored the abolition of slavery and had called the institution a "moral and political evil" years before the war (Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003, reprint, pp. 231-232). By late 1864, Davis was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy. Duncan Kenner, one of the biggest slaveholders in the South and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Confederate House of Representatives, strongly supported this proposal. So did the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin. Davis informed congressional leaders of his intentions, and then sent Kenner to Europe to make the proposal. Davis even made Kenner a minister plenipotentiary so as to ensure he could make the proposal to the British and French governments and that it would be taken seriously.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
"Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,"…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power." Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
"The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
Both the federal governments and the states abolished slavery, so I don't see how you came up with this.
What do Leftists ALWAYS want? Centralized power. First they centralize all the power. Then they remove all the checks and balances on that power. Leftists are Totalitarians.
Well someone has to take the blame for what the modern Conservative movement has become.
The modern conservative movement is MAGA. It is not the Republican Party Establishment.
Yes it was, but you can't see that Lincoln and the Republicans had to change that to get abolition ratified, which they did.
Of course I can see that.
The Confederacy's Constitution as well as the declarations of secession clearly state it was about slavery.
The Confederate Constitution says no such thing. We've been over the declarations. There were only 4. 3 of 4 addressed the economic causes even though these were not unconstitutional. The Declarations of Causes followed the same pattern as the Declaration of Independence - specifically the "Train of Abuses" section. They merely provided the legal grounds to say the other side broke the deal - which they had. They were not what was actually motivating the Southern states to secede.
Confederacy propaganda that can be refuted by the Confederacy's own Constitution snipped.
See above about the Confederate Constitution. Try reading it. Maybe then you'll stop spewing lies about it.
I was asking about Southerners today, as I figured you were referring to them when you said "Ask Southerners.....", since I can't ask the Southerners from 1861. I'll restate my question. How many Southerners from today would support the Confederacy Constitution as it was written in 1861?
A tiny tiny fraction. How many Americans today would support all the provisions in the US Constitution of 1861? The "Ask Southerners" was a reference to yet another group of people who suffered oppression at the hands of the US Federal government like slaves and like Japanese Americans and like Native Americans. The Federal government is NOT - contrary to Leftist propaganda - always the good guys. Sometimes its the federal government which is oppressive.
The Confederacy's Constitution made abolition unconstitutional.
False.
1.9.4 (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”
This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.
While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.
So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.
The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.
Ignoring the fact that this democracy was just formed, the Confederate Constitution was written the way he said it should be in his speech here:
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
And before you say "This doesn't have anything to do with slavery, it was about their birthright, so I'm going to spam you will all of JD's comments saying secession wasn't about slavery", the only birthright he mentioned the right to own slaves, as the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written to protect.
About the Confederate Constitution....". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . ."
Nice try, but as you have already pointed out the Confederacy was already breeding their own slaves like animals anyway. This was their own disgusting form of protectionism.
"it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia."
It was clear from the Confederacy's Constitution they were.
Sec. 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."
Yeah and Davis offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid from Britain and France in 1864.
Statements like this are what make me suspect you're a leftist plant trying to make Conservatives look bad. You can't possibly think holding human beings hostage in return for military aid makes the Confederacy look like the good guys.
But let's change the players. Let's say Middle East terrorists took Christians as slaves, and threatened to hold them as slaves if they didn't get military aid. Would you still be defending them?
OBTH, abolishing slavery would have been unconstitutional according to the Constitution the Confederacy had just ratified anyway.
They could see it would help them diplomatically with Britain and France.
They didn't see it clearly enough to go through with it, as a demonstration of their good will. Oh, I forgot, they were products of their time, so they couldn't see the evils of slavery even though they could see that other nations saw the evil in it.
They could also see that slavery was gradually dying out in the Western world.
IOW, they knew they were on the wrong side of history, yet they held on to their slaves until forced to release them.
The Corwin Amendment had no impact because the original 7 seceding states were not seceding over slavery. Thus express protections offered for it did not address their real concerns.
They made it clear they thought slavery was theatened, and they knew the Corwin Amendment didn't give slavery any protections it didn't already have.
And once again, you rely on policies that failed to come close to ratification to make your point while ignoring the one policy that became law.
Repeats snipped.
The only reference I found was to an original star trek episode. I have no idea what else the Corbomite Maneuver was....if anything.....
Like you're arguments about the importance of the Corwin Amendment, it's fiction.
Democrat propaganda snipped.
What do Leftists ALWAYS want? Centralized power. First they centralize all the power. Then they remove all the checks and balances on that power. Leftists are Totalitarians.
You mean like the Democrats forming the Confederacy to preserve their right to slave labor?
The modern conservative movement is MAGA. It is not the Republican Party Establishment.
I agree, but a lot of Northern states are part of that.
The Confederate Constitution says no such thing. We've been over the declarations. There were only 4. 3 of 4 addressed the economic causes even though these were not unconstitutional. The Declarations of Causes followed the same pattern as the Declaration of Independence - specifically the "Train of Abuses" section. They merely provided the legal grounds to say the other side broke the deal - which they had. They were not what was actually motivating the Southern states to secede.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
To sum it up, Davis said secession was justified if abolitionists were elected, the declarations of secession clearly stated abolition as a reason for seceding, and the Confederate Constitution clearly protects the "right" to own "negro slaves" (its wording).
So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.
Agree the context was the "Congress of the Confederate States".