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".
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.
That is simply flat out false. I have already posted this but clearly you need a refresher
"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)
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.
What? Where did this piece of fiction come from? It is certainly not anything I ever said.
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."
It was clear from the Confederacy's Constitution that they were not. There was nothing in the Confederate Constitution that would prevent a state from abolishing slavery or a state that had abolished slavery from joining. The provision you cited was for the national government only......ie it could not be forced on any confederate state. Again, I have already provided the quotes and the citations for this.
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.
They weren't "being held hostage" any more than the US was holding slaves hostage. Davis offered to abolish slavery in 1864. It was only the slowness of the Confederate Congress that prevented him from doing so even earlier.
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?
Again, the people living in 1861 did not take the slaves. Slavery was a system they inherited and had to try to figure out how to get rid of.
OBTH, abolishing slavery would have been unconstitutional according to the Constitution the Confederacy had just ratified anyway.
No, no it would not have.
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.
Nor did the US. Is the CSA solely to blame for that? Countries generally aren't willing to impose drastic change potentially upsetting their economy during wars of national survival.
IOW, they knew they were on the wrong side of history, yet they held on to their slaves until forced to release them.
They could see the West was moving in that direction and offered to abolish slavery in exchange for military aid. Every criticism you would like to make exclusively of the CSA could have been made about the US at the time....or the Founding Fathers.....
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.
If they thought it was so threatened, why not accept an ironclad constitutional guarantee of slavery forever?
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.
Once again you refuse to acknowledge why the Corwin amendment was not ratified and pretend it was owing to some fictional Northern opposition to it that simply did not exist.
Like you're denials about the importance of the Corwin Amendment, it's fiction.
FIFY
You mean like the Democrats forming the Confederacy to preserve their right to slave labor?
No. Firstly that did not happen. Nobody was worried about the continued existence of slavery in 1861. Also you have the sides reversed. It was the Northerners and the Republicans at the time who wanted centralized power. The Southerners and Democrats at the time did not.
I agree, but a lot of Northern states are part of that.
The Midwest for the most part is.....notice how the Northeast is diametrically opposed again.
the same old quote which you've posted at least 100 times and which does not address what happened years later snipped along with the declarations of causes 3 of 4 of which go on at length about the economic causes of secession.
Agree the context was the "Congress of the Confederate States".
Good. So you finally see that no state in the CSA was prohibited from abolishing slavery nor was any state which already had prohibited from joining. The only constitutional prohibition was against the central government from dictating to the (confederate) states.