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.
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.
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.
Absolutely meaningless. It could have been less, more or the same, and the point still stands that the slave owners saw it as breeding animals to be used for slave labor or sold for profit.
The Confederate Constitution was based on the US Constitution.
It was deliberately written to protect the institution of slavery. The US Constitution allowed it, although I'm not sure how, until 1865.
And this was different from the US Constitution at the time how?
Until the Republicans had the votes to abolish slavery, it wasn't.
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the states, and wouldn't have offered slavery any protections it didn't already have as you have admitted.
Repeats snipped.
So could the US government (abolish slavery). Yet they didn't do so.
They did as soon as they replaced enough of the Democrats, the party of JD who saw voting "no" as defending states' rights, with Republicans.
Oddly you don't hold them to that standard.
I've been clear on this. Everyone in the Union wasn't the good guys, and Lincoln had to deal with them as well as the impatient abolitionists.
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.
The Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution, which the Confederacy knew and which you have admitted. Besides that, the vast majority of the Union states rejected it. It was nothing.
I don't care what you mean anyway, because nine years after the Republicans released their platform saying "ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" in "all our National Territory", they voted overwhelmingly to abolish slavery in ALL states.
Of course you'll come back with "all our National Territory" doesn't actually mean "all our National Territory", but nine years later they abolished it in "all our National Territory".
BTW, it was orchestrated by Lincoln's predecessor, a Democrat, before he took office.
In response to my point that "Many states didn't join until after slavery had been abolished.", you replied "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.".
This does nothing to answer my point that many states joined after slavery was abolished.
But to your point, if you've read my other posts on human trafficking, you know I place the blame on the buyers anyway. I also see it that way that with men who pay human traffickers to get a warm wet spot to stick it into.
To sum it up Davis was speaking years before secession ever happened.
That's right. He said that if the abolitionist party got power and he was referring to the Republicans, then secession was the correct action for preserving their right to "slave labor", his words. Three years they acted on that.
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.
That was their real motivation. States' rights and taxes were the decoy to keep the attention off of slavery, which they could see even then was losing support in the Western world.
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.
Until the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition.
Black Southerners in Gray Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies John McGlone
More spam from an author whose only qualification that you care about is that he says what you want to hear. Here's what your author is saying those blacks were voluntarily defending.
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 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.
Do you mean this?
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
It was not the place of others to tell a state whom they could elect.
They had every right to prevent insurrectionists from taking office.
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.
Now ask me if I care that a bunch of insurrectionists who seceded to preserve slavery couldn't hold office.
The problem is they are heavily outnumbered.
Are you willing to write them off because you want to pretend the Confederate leaders were lying when they said secession was about slavery?