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?
Yes, as I said the Confederate Constitution's primary differences with the US Constitution were in expressly recognizing state sovereignty and in limiting the ability of the federal government to spend money.
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 question wasn't how they saw it. The question was whether there were factory breeding conditions or a breeding program for slaves. There were not.
It was deliberately written to protect the institution of slavery. The US Constitution allowed it, although I'm not sure how, until 1865.
The US constitution protected slavery too. Hello fugitive slave clause?
Until the Republicans had the votes to abolish slavery, it wasn't.
Glad we finally cleared that up. The Confederate Constitution's protections of slavery were not materially different from the US Constitution in that regard. The key differences lay elsewhere - namely in recognizing state sovereignty much more explicitly and in limiting the ability of the federal government to spend taxpayer money.
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.
The Corwin Amendment was rejected by the Southern States. That's why the drive to get more states to ratify it suddenly halted.
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.
The US did not abolish slavery during the war which you claimed as some kind of indictment of the Confederate government. Well the same applied to the US Government. Make all the excuses you want.
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.
The Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery expressly effectively forever. The Northern states didn't reject it. The Southern states did. That's when the drive to get more Northern states to ratify it stopped.
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.
You clearly don't get that the first was a party plank to ban slavery in the western territories. I've posted plenty of quotes to show they wanted these territories for themselves - and they wanted to weaken opposition to ever higher tariffs. Duh. They were not abolitionists.
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".
Territory. Not States. Try reading.
BTW, it was orchestrated by Lincoln's predecessor, a Democrat, before he took office.
BTW, no it was not. It was orchestrated by Lincoln. Read that nauseating hagiography by admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Godwin. "Team of rivals". She can't stop gushing about how "brilliant" it was to orchestrate the Corwin Amendment.
This does nothing to answer my point that many states joined after slavery was abolished.
No, but it backs up my point about the North's culpability for slavery right from the very start.
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.
New Englanders were the Traffickers. The slave trade itself was if anything more brutal than slavery itself. That was a point the Founding Fathers all agreed about.
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.
This was years before secession happened and the original 7 seceding states did not secede over slavery. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.
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.
You have it exactly backwards. The vast majority of people did not own slaves. States' rights and especially being able to set their own economic and trade policy were issues that touched every Southerner's wallet.
Until the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition.<'/P>
Once again, the Confederate Constitution did not materially differ from the US Constitution in protection of slavery. Where it differed was in expressly recognizing state sovereignty in several areas and in limiting the federal government's ability to spend money.
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.
repeats snipped.
LOL! Somebody sure is pissy I could cite multiple sources all backing up the large number of Blacks who fought in the Confederate Army.
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."
Yep
They had every right to prevent insurrectionists from taking office.
They had no right to dictate to the citizens of any state whom they can choose to elect.
Now ask me if I care that a bunch of insurrectionists who seceded to preserve slavery couldn't hold office.
Ask me if I think it the place of representatives of some states to dictate to citizens of other states whom they can elect.
Are you willing to write them off because you want to pretend the Confederate leaders were lying when they said secession was about slavery?
The large majority of Confederate leaders did not say secession was "about" slavery.