Sec. 2. (I) 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.
Sec. 2. (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 be 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.0
This wasn't fiction. You were largely correct on this point.
As previously discussed at length, these were restrictions on the central Confederate government. There was no provision that prevented a state that had banned slavery from joining - a motion to do so was voted down in the constitutional convention. Also, any state that still allowed slavery could choose to ban it - there was nothing on the Confederate constitution which prevented it. As for the right of transit, that's what the Dred Scot decision had established in the US already.
Absolute nonsense. We all know the slave holders saw the children born to their slaves as their property to be used or sold for profit. That's probably why the Confederacy's Constitution barred importing slaves from foreign countries, as a disgusting form of protectionism.
Again, your ignorance is showing. Look at the natural population growth rate in the 18th and 19th centuries. People were mostly farmers. There was no contraception and children were of economic benefit on the farm anyway. So massive armies of kids were the norm.
There is a big difference, in that Lincoln and the Republicans had to work within the system they inherited, and that was created before the party was even formed, until the Republicans had enough votes to pass abolition. Lincoln and the Republicans attempted to pass abolition in 1864 but were blocked by the party of JD.
OTOH the Confederacy wrote their Constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
The CSA was not a tabula rasa as you would like to claim. They too had to work with what already existed. And they hardly wrote their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery. The CSA constitution was not really different from the US constitution on the issue of slavery. Where it differed was in placing more explicit limitations on the power of the central government and more clearly recognizing the sovereignty of the states.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the Confederacy over this? This was a corner the Democrat run Confederacy painted itself into. The Union was in the same situation until the Republicans won enough votes to abolish slavery.
You laud Republicans/Lincoln for the EP and for later passing the 13th amendment after the war yet refuse to give any credit to the willingness of the Confederate government to abolish slavery in 1864. Gosh, I wonder why.
The push is 1864 does matter because it would have passed if only the Republicans had voted on it, but the party of JD wanted to preserve states' rights, their words. The Corwin Amendment would not have passed if only Republicans had voted on it, and those who voted for it were more concerned about preserving the Union than in giving slavery protections it already had.
The Corwin Amendment was sponsored by Republicans in both houses of Congress and was orchestrated by none other than Lincoln. It would have very likely been ratified in enough states to become a constitutional amendment if only the original 7 seceding states had indicated they were willing to accept it. They rejected it instead. That is the reason why it failed.
What you think might have happened doesn't prove anything.
Kinda like what you think would have happened "if only"
Our country is no worse than any other and has contributed a lot to the human race, but I won't pretend we don't have anything to apologize for.
Well of course we do. The attempt to cast off slavery or even racism as a Southern problem was a ridiculous lie right from the start. These problems were always national.
They said before, during, and after that it was about slavery, and the Corwin Amendment gave slavery no protections it didn't already have.,/p>
They said before during and after that it was not "about" slavery. The Corwin Amendment would have explicitly protected slavery effectively forever.
If opposition to it did not exist, then it must have been ratified. I'm checking now and, well look at that, it was never ratified. How strange that a bill that had no opposition was never ratified.
It was pointless after the original 7 seceding states rejected it. That's when efforts to get it ratified by more states ceased.
If that was true, they would have stayed with the Confederacy since the Confederacy was getting the better of it early on thanks to the incompetence of the Union military leadership.
When do you think a lot more came over? Hint: it was only after things started deteriorating on for the CSA with hunger being a significant problem in the latter stages of the war.
They chose to fight against the nation that enslaved them.
Well since both did, that works for the Blacks on both sides.
Details? I'm not sure how the 14th Amendment makes your point.
Here's a sample
As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V’s requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article’s provision that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: “the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet.”
President Andrew Johnson saw the Reconstruction Act as “absolute despotism,” a “bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people.” In his veto message, he stated that “such a power ha[d] not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years.” Johnson asked, “Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this?” and answered, “Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes.”
The rump Republican Congress overrode Johnson’s veto and enacted statutes that shrank both the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction and the Court itself – just in case the judicial branch got any funny ideas of its own about constitutionalism. Jackboot on its neck, the South ratified, but not before New Jersey and Ohio, aghast at Republican tyranny, rescinded their previous ratifications of the amendment. Even with the fictional consent of the Southern states, the republicans needed New Jersey and Ohio to put the amendment over the top. No matter; by joint resolution, Congress declared the amendment valid. Thus it – you’ll excuse the phrasing– “passed into law.”
So they forced states that did not consent to pass it via military occupation. They even chose to ignore that two Northern states rescinded their ratifications of it. There was also the fraudulent counting of Oregon's ratification too which they did not go into here. The bottom line is that the 14th amendment never lawfully passed. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/gene-healy/the-squalid-14th-amendment/
An even better telling....a much better one really...going into the sham "ratification" of the 14th amendment can be found at this link http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-the-14th-amend-was-not-ratified/
So you you're willing to write off millions of people who would agree with you on other issues because their politics are dominated by the metropolitan areas? Does that include FR, which resides in California?
I said those regions are dominated by such types. So they are. That doesn't mean I disagree with every single last person from that entire area. I said basically that the bad guys are in control there.
Now I know you're a Democrat plant. If you weren't you wouldn't be writing Northern Conservatives off like that.
Now I know you're an idiot trying to make a lame strawman argument.
Their own economic policies included preserving slave labor and protecting them from foreign competition when it came to selling humans for slavery. Their own Constitution said so.
Their constitution did no differ in that regard from the US Constitution.
And as I have already said, you were correct that these protections for slavery were at the federal level.
That doesn't change the fact that the Confederate Constitution was deliberately written from the ground up to protect slavery by the current leaders of the Confederacy.
Again, your ignorance is showing. Look at the natural population growth rate in the 18th and 19th centuries. People were mostly farmers. There was no contraception and children were of economic benefit on the farm anyway. So massive armies of kids were the norm.
That does nothing to refute my statement, which was that we all know the slave holders saw the children born to their slaves as their property to be used or sold for profit. Pointing out that it was in keeping with normal population growth does nothing to refute that.
The CSA was not a tabula rasa as you would like to claim. They too had to work with what already existed.
The Confederacy's Constitution was ratified in March, 1861, so no, they weren't working with what already existed.
And they hardly wrote their constitution from the ground up to protect slavery.
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.
Sec. 2. (I) 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.
Sec. 2. (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 be 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 CSA constitution was not really different from the US constitution on the issue of slavery.
And you just admitted that the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer the slave holding states anything they didn't already have in the US Constitution. I agree. It was nothing.
Repeat snipped.
Where it differed was in placing more explicit limitations on the power of the central government and more clearly recognizing the sovereignty of the states.
Particularly, the sovereign right of the states to have slaves, and limiting the Federal government powers to abolish it.
You laud Republicans/Lincoln for the EP and for later passing the 13th amendment after the war yet refuse to give any credit to the willingness of the Confederate government to abolish slavery in 1864. Gosh, I wonder why.
Because that's nonsense. The Confederacy could have abolished slavery at any time, if that had been their intention.
The Corwin Amendment was blah, blah, blah...
As you have just admitted the Corwin Amendment didn't give the slave holding states anything they didn't already have, I don't see any need to waste FR bandwidth discussing it.
Repeat snipped.
Kinda like what you think would have happened "if only"
If you mean the majority of Republicans voting against the Corbomite Maneuver or for abolition in 1864, those are facts, not "if only".
Well of course we do. The attempt to cast off slavery or even racism as a Southern problem was a ridiculous lie right from the start. These problems were always national.
Racism, yes, slavery no. Many states didn't join until after slavery had been abolished.
They said before during and after that it was not "about" slavery.
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).
When do you think a lot more came over? Hint: it was only after things started deteriorating on for the CSA with hunger being a significant problem in the latter stages of the war.
You mean after the slave holding states started losing the means to stop them from leaving.
Well since both did, that works for the Blacks on both sides.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
Here's a sample (14th Amendment)
It starts out "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Does the fact that many millions of former slaves were born here have anything to do with why "it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states".
I said those regions are dominated by such types. So they are. That doesn't mean I disagree with every single last person from that entire area. I said basically that the bad guys are in control there.
In response to my point that many in the North may be on your side if secession occurs, you replied "the Northeast is dominated by Leftist elites who seek to centralize all power, dominate that central government and line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. That has not changed in over 150 years."
Do you accept that many regions in the North aren't with the elites, or don't you?
Now I know you're an idiot trying to make a lame strawman argument.
Then give me a yes or no to the question above and remove all doubt about where you stand.