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.
That is false though. The Confederate Constitution was written in very much the same way the US Constitution was. Where it differed was overwhelmingly in the areas of expressly recognizing state sovereignty and in placing restrictions on the ability of the federal government to spend money.
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.
Your argument was that there were factory like breeding programs for slaves. There were not. Their population growth rate was the same as everyone else at the time.
The Confederacy's Constitution was ratified in March, 1861, so no, they weren't working with what already existed.
The Confederate Constitution was based on the US Constitution. It was mostly the same. They were inheritors of the same thought/tradition handed down by the Founding Fathers most of whom were Southerners. The most significant differences were once again express recognition of state sovereignty and limitations on the ability of the federal government to spend money.
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.
And this was different from the US Constitution at the time how? Dred Scot said slaveowners could bring their slaves to transit. Likewise they could not be excluded from the territory of the US.
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.
The Corwin Amendment offered express protection of slavery effectively forever. That it was freely offered by the Republicans/North and that it was turned down flat by the original 7 seceding states is extremely inconvenient for you.
Particularly, the sovereign right of the states to have slaves, and limiting the Federal government powers to abolish it. '
False. See above.
Because that's nonsense. The Confederacy could have abolished slavery at any time, if that had been their intention.
So could the US government. Yet they didn't do so. Oddly you don't hold them to that standard.
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.
It gave them EXPRESS protection of slavery effectively forever.
If you mean the majority of Republicans voting against the Corbomite Maneuver or for abolition in 1864, those are facts, not "if only".
I mean the Corwin Amendment was named after Ohio Republican Thomas Corwin. It was sponsored in the House by another Republican. It was orchestrated by Republican Abe Lincoln.
Racism, yes, slavery no. Many states didn't join until after slavery had been abolished.
All original 13 colonies had slavery. The North maintained it for a long time. In addition when they abolished it they did so slowly and in a way that ensured their citizens would suffer no financial loss. They were also THE hub of the slave trade industry for the entire Western Hemisphere - a status they held for about 100 years including many years after it was barred by the US Constitution.
repeats snipped
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).
To sum it up Davis was speaking years before secession ever happened. The 3 of the 4 declarations of secession listed several reasons for secession including economic causes even though this was not unconstitutional and the Northern states' violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution was unconstitutional. The Confederate Constitution was modeled on the US Constitution and its main differences are in expressly recognizing state sovereignty and limiting the ability of the federal government to spend money - not in protecting slavery. The US Constitution did that too.
You mean after the slave holding states started losing the means to stop them from leaving.
No, I mean after hunger started to become widespread.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
Black Southerners in Gray Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies John McGlone
Forgotten Confederates An anthology about Black Southerners Charles Kelly Barron, J.H. Segars and R.B. Rosenburg
Black Southerners in Confederate Armies A collection of Historical Accounts J.H. Segars and Charles Kelly Barrow
In his book, Black Confederates and AfroYankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin I. Jordan, a black historian, says that in June 1861 Tennessee became the first Confederate State to authorize the use of black soldiers. These soldiers were to be paid $18 a month and be provided with the same rations and clothing as white soldiers. Two regiments, he says, of blacks had appeared by September.
Here's a sample (14th Amendment) blah blah blah
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".
The 14th amendment was a massive federal power grab and was designed to expressly infringe on the sovereignty of the states. Section 3 of the 14th amendment also barred Confederate Officers from holding public office. It was not the place of others to tell a state whom they could elect. Furthermore this was expressly designed to exclude just about all prominent men in the South since they had served just as almost all the prominent men in the North served in their state units. You conveniently ignore all of that.
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?
Of course I do. Most of the Midwest (which is technically the North) is on the Patriot anti communist side. Additionally there are plenty of Conservative refugees from the Northeast who fled those declining chitholes and no doubt some still stuck there. The problem is they are heavily outnumbered.