Yes, I have a life outside of this board. Responding to you is not my highest priority.
Sigh! No, just more of the same.
As if you've ever offered anything different.
Yes, when the Republicans got the votes they needed to pass abolition and send it to the states for ratification. How many times do I have to say this before you stop posting it as if I was making the opposite point?
The Republicans weren't interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war. Its not as if they were trying to abolish it earlier.
repeats snipped.
As usual, you have no answer.
So what? Women can only have so many babies, and the women who made up the "slave labor" were also needed to do all of their other work.,/P>
There was not a "breeding program" as you claimed. You were wrong.
They were still in a closed environment and their babies were still sold as property. That in itself is the definition of a breeding program, and the fact that they didn't fill out enough paperwork to meet your legal requirements doesn't change that.
There was no "breeding program".
And how many times are you going to keep repeating something we both agree on?,/P>
As many times as you repeat the lie that it was constructed to support slavery.
It was different in one way, in that its protections for slavery were written generations before the Republican party was even formed and were inherited by the Republicans. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up by the current leaders of the Confederacy to protect slavery.
Slavery was inherited by the Confederate states just as surely as it was inherited by the 13 colonies.
OBTW, thanks for admitting the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have. Now that we've cleared that up, I'm sure you won't waste any more bandwidth on it.
Just as I'm sure now that you've acknowledged that the Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment, its rejection by the original 7 seceding states conclusively proves secession was not "all about" slavery.
I never absolved the Union. As I have said several times, Lincoln had to work with all of them including those factions that still supported slavery. Frederick Douglas said it. I've said it. Once again you can't answer any of my points so you resort to strawmen.
Lincoln and the Republicans still supported slavery until late in the war.
Repeats snipped. I have the truth. What else do I need?
Good! Then you know both Lincoln and the Republicans still supported slavery until very late in the war.
repeats snipped
YAWN. You really don't have anything else.
The left is attacking all Conservatives, not just Southern Conservatives. Trying to stick us with their, the Democrats', history of slavery is their way of doing it. You've done nothing but help them.
Us? No. They've been trying to blame the South exclusively for slavery even though there is plenty of blame for everyone in that. They've especially targeted the South. You are furthering their false propaganda.
If you think the Republicans who passed abolition are the enemies, then yes. As far as I'm concerned, the enemies are the Democrats who want to stick us with their history.
The enemies are those who falsely try to discredit state's rights and decentralized power as well as the South by claiming it was "all about" slavery when it plainly was not.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022
Yes, they were willing to impose that rapid change on their society if it meant gaining their independence. It was always about independence for them - not slavery. The original 7 seceding states made the same choice of independence over slavery when they rejected the Corwin Amendment.
Repeats snipped
As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets. You have no answer to that.
You mean like balancing the budget to pay for fighting a war to do what? Take it away Confederate Generals... Repeats snipped
You know as well as I that I can post even more quotes from Southerners saying the exact opposite...that includes President Jefferson Davis, Sec of State Judah Benjamin, Highest ranking soldier Robert E Lee, etc etc. But of course slavery has nothing to do with balanced budgets. You have to be really unhinged by the leftist dogma to think otherwise.
You just proved my point for me. Five states ratified it. That proves the rest had the time to ratify it if they had ever intended to, and didn't. Besides, as you have already admitted, the Corbomite Maneuver didn't offer slavery any protections that weren't already there.
A state not ratifying an amendment quickly does not mean they would not ratify it ever. You simply falsely ASSUME that because it suits your pitiful attempts at argument. Besides, as you admit the Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. The original 7 seceding states rejected it.
I don't damn the South in any way shape or form. I only post what the Democrats themselves said, which is that preserving slavery was at least one of their reasons to secession, and that many of their other grievances were about their perceived right to own slaves. I don't associate the modern South with the Confederacy any more than I associate modern Germany and Japan with their past regimes. The only thing that ties you to the Confederacy is that you choose to be. That's assuming you are what you say you are, and not just a leftist plant trying to pin the Confederacy on Conservatives by pretending to be one and accepting it.
Yet a great many Southerners said it was NOT about slavery and of course the original 7 seceding states turned down the Corwin Amendment and the Upper South only seceded after Lincoln chose to wage an unconstitutional war of aggression. In order to back up the false "all about slavery" Leftist Revisionism, you go miles out of your way to trash several principles of Conservatism the South has always stood for like limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. If anybody is a Leftist plant here it is you.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022,/P>
Yes they were willing to do so if doing so meant Independence. Thank you for proving that you agree Independence and not the preservation of slavery was what the Southern states were fighting for.
repeats snipped
Its funny how often you fall back on the same quotes which don't even address the point made - like a toddler clinging to his binky you can always be counted on to regurgitate the same 3 quotes.
Repeats snipped
LOL! And again.
In that speech he said secession was the correct action to take if abolitionists took over. Besides that and the fact that this is exactly what they did, how much more do I need?
They seceded years later. That does not prove it was "about" slavery. That was merely the trigger to get out which they had wanted for a long time. Jefferson Davis himself said so several times in the US Senate, as Confederate President to the Confederate Congress, in meeting with Union representatives during the war and in his memoirs after the war. The Southern states wanted out because they were being economically exploited by the Northern states for their benefit. This was exactly what led the 13 colonies to secede from the British Empire.
Yes and? Sending an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to abolish slavery in exchange for Independence supports my argument, not yours.
How dare they? Who did they think they were, abolitionists?
It was a violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution - irrefutable proof that they and not the Southern states had broken the compact between the states.
Now that's funny. You point out that the Confederacy couldn't have abolished slavery overnight, but the fact that slave states didn't secede and join the Confederacy overnight is proof that it wasn't about slavery.
I didn't say they couldn't abolish slavery immediately. I said its understandable they did not choose to take on that major task when faced with getting a new country up and running and oh yeah, fighting a war of national survival. If it was "all about" slavery then why didn't all the states that still allowed slavery secede?
Repeats snipped
LOL! Again. Same 3 quotes that don't answer the question.
Yes. Having cheap slave labor gave some businesses an advantage in labor costs, just like what's happening with our free trade deals with the Chicoms now. Remember how the free traitors at FR accused us of being "protectionists"?
We agree here.
A tyrant who ran the country where millions of slaves escaped to, and hundreds of thousands joined the military of.
Actually the Underground Railroad ran to Canada. Northerners didn't want Blacks living in their states. Once the war was on and Lincoln and the Republicans realized they could use Blacks as cannon fodder, they were happy to do so.
"Yet the CSA sent an ambassador with plenipotentiary power to England and France to offer abolition in exchange for military aid..." FLT-Bird, FR, 2022. As you said, they could have abolished slavery, but didn't.
Yes, they "Could" have. Is it reasonable to expect anybody in their situation to have done so right away? I don't believe so. Why do you suppose the Northerners did not free their slaves right away? They were under far less pressure.
If we accept that you aren't a white supremist, then comments like prove you are a leftist who is posing as a Conservative to make all Conservatives look bad. Conservatives don't defend the KKK any more than we defend Nazis. Got it?
I didn't "Defend" them as you claim. Their methods were appalling. That said, they didn't come from nowhere. They were a response to the terrorism of the Union League and the massive theft of Southerners' lands and homes at the hands of corrupt Occupation governments.
An essential element of early "Reconstruction" was the disenfranchisement of all of the adult white males in the South, coupled with the voter registration of every last adult male ex-slave. The ex-slaves assisted in the continued plundering of the South by voting en masse to raise taxes that provided precious little in the form of government services. Untold millions were simply stolen by Republican Party "officials." (Property taxes in South Carolina, for example, were 30 times higher in 1870 than they were in 1860, and a punitive federal tax was imposed on cotton at a time when what the South needed was tax amnesty).
The Ku Klux Klan was created to terrorize the ex-slaves out of participating in this political plundering racket operated by the Republican Party. The Republicans kept promising to share the property of white southerners with the ex-slaves, which of course they never did and never intended to do. Had the Republicans not used their victory and their monopoly of political power to line the pockets of the thousands of political hacks and hangers on who were the backbone of the party (the "carpetbaggers") the Ku Klux Klan would never have existed. This in fact was the conclusion of the minority report of an 1870 congressional commission that investigated the Klan. "Had there been no wanton oppression in the South," the congressmen wrote, "there would have been no Ku Kluxism" (Congressman Fernando Wood, "Alleged Ku Klux Outrages" published by the Congressional Globe Printing Office, 1871, p. 5). The report continued that when southern whites saw that "what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation . . . many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence . . . . history shows that bad government will make bad citizens."
None of that is a "defense" of the Klan. It explains what caused them to arise....that would be oppressive occupation governments that wantonly stole from people after disenfranchising them.
Apples and oranges. The Northern "Black Codes" were not passed by Republicans, and they weren't largely enforced anyway, which allowed the black population in the North to grow at a slightly higher rate than the white population. They were abolished long before the Democrats passed theirs, so you're wrong about those laws being "already on the books".
LOL! You are simply wrong about so much of this. Yes Republicans often did not pass these although some like Lincoln certainly supported the passage of some of them. They absolutely WERE enforced and they were NOT abolished before the end of the Occupation. Why do you think Blacks did not move in the millions up to the North and out of the economically devastated South right away after the war? The answer is they were not allowed to. They were stuck living in the South for the most part.
Here's more. Black Codes Here's more http://slavenorth.com/
OTOH, the Southern "Black Codes" were implemented by the Democrats after the CW to keep blacks tied to the plantation after the CW and abolition. They were one reason reconstruction was handled at the Federal level, because it was clear they were going to use every trick in the book at the state level to keep blacks "in chains".
The Jim Crow laws were modelled on the Black Codes that were still on the books and still enforced in the North. Reconstruction was imposed on the Southern states so that Northern Republicans could have untrammeled political power and so they could line their own pockets stealing from Southerners after disenfranchising them so that they would be powerless to stop the massive theft of their property.
some examples
In addition, there was the burden of discriminatory war taxes and the confiscation laws of Congress. Federal Treasury agents threaded their way through the occupied areas seizing 3 million out of the 5 million bales of cotton which had not been destroyed. They corruptly enriched themselves. "I am sure," said the Secretary of the Treasury, "that I sent some honest agents South; but it sometimes seems very doubtful whether any of them remained honest for very long." A special tax of from 2.5 to 3 cents a pound on cotton yielded the federal treasury $68,000,000. Because of its effects on the economy of a prostrate region, this levy was called by the United States Commissioner of Agriculture "disastrous and disheartening in the extreme." As soon as the federal troops got a foothold in the South, property was seized and sold for nonpayment under the Direct Tax Act. (A History of the South, pp. 247-251, original emphasis)
Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. In Stevens’ own words, the purpose of giving this “dependent population” (Blacks) the vote in the South was to “insure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the union. (ie Republicans)”
It was a “democracy” that caused Georgia’s debt to go from “0” in 1865 to 50 million dollars in 1872, whose budgetary practices in Louisiana caused the cost of the 1871 legislative session to be 9.5 times the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session, and whose budgetary practices in the South Carolina legislature caused the total cost of 6 years of Reconstruction for that not-so-august body to total $2,339,000, (when the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session of the legislature had been $20,000/year!).
This wonderful “democracy” resulted in the tax rate in Mississippi increasing 14 fold during its 5 year tenure in that state and caused 20% of all privately owned land in that state to be put up for sale on the tax auction block.
In Texas, this wonderful "experiment" resulted in a 400% tax increase, while at the same time, another Southern state, Tennessee, saw its state debt inflated by 16 million dollars.
It was an “interracial democracy” which saw 25% of all the property in Little Rock Arkansas in the hands of former Union General Schenck, who had purchased said property at bargain basement prices after those properties had been confiscated for non-payment of taxes.
It was a “democracy” which saw, in South Carolina, the expenditure by the legislature, “of $200,000 - all of which was spent in furnishing the state capitol with costly plate glass mirrors, lounges, arm chairs, a free bar and other luxurious appointments for the use of the legislators.”
It was a “democracy” in South Carolina composed of black men like Beverly Nash, who admitted to taking a $2500 bribe, and who defended his actions with the words, “I merely took the money because I thought I might as well have it and invest it here as for them to carry it outside the state”. That same type of government, in that very same state, also produced the likes of State Representative John Patterson, a white Pennsylvania transplant, who, when questioned about corruption flippantly replied, “Why there are still 5 good years of stealing left in South Carolina”.
So if you ever wondered why Republicans could not win a race for so much as county dog catcher in the South for 100 years afterwards, that's why.
So they couldn't have abolished slavery, even gradually, when they formed their nation if they had intended to, but they could have abolished slavery on the spot to get military aid.
Its not that they "could" not. Its that they had much higher priorities. Independence was of course the highest priority. In order to gain it, they were prepared to get rid of slavery. What it was "all about" was Independence, not slavery.
Judging from you rejection of the Confederacy's own statements and policies, neither is reality.
As if you've ever offered anything different.
Do you mean this?
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
What else do I need?
The Republicans weren't interested in abolishing slavery until very late in the war. Its not as if they were trying to abolish it earlier.
Besides the links above, the US Constitution prevented them from abolishing slavery on the national level until they had the votes to pass abolition. The main roadblock was the Democrat party.
As usual, you have no answer from FLT-Bird.
FIFY.
There was not a "breeding program" as you claimed. You were wrong.
Tell that to the children who were taken from their families and sold as slaves, never to see their families again. Apart from a breeding program, what else does that?
As many times as you repeat the lie that it was constructed to support 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.
Yet a great many Southerners said it was NOT about slavery...
I couldn't care less what they said. Their actions proved otherwise. Of course you'll retreat to your "but they offered abolition in return for military aid", which they never did.
But there were Southerners who were against slavery. Over 100,000 able bodied white men left the South to join the Union Army. Add to them the abolitionists who you refer to as terrorists. I never pinned slavery on the entire South. It is you who are doing exactly that by pinning them to the Confederacy, which to most is almost synonymous with slavery. I'm sure the Democrats appreciate your efforts in freeing them from their slave holding past.
Repeat snipped.
and of course the original 7 seceding states turned down the Corwin Amendment...
Which as you have already admitted would not have given slavery any protections it didn't already have anyway.
and the Upper South only seceded after Lincoln chose to wage an unconstitutional war of aggression. In order to back up the false "all about slavery" Leftist Revisionism, you go miles out of your way to trash several principles of Conservatism the South has always stood for like limited government, decentralized power and balanced budgets. If anybody is a Leftist plant here it is you.
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
Yes they were willing to do so if doing so meant Independence. Thank you for proving that you agree Independence and not the preservation of slavery was what the Southern states were fighting for.
I never said it was about independence. I'll let the Confederacy tell you what it was about.
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
Its funny how often you fall back on the same quotes which don't even address the point made - like a toddler clinging to his binky you can always be counted on to regurgitate the same 3 quotes.
Those links contain a lot more than "3 quotes".
They seceded years later. That does not prove it was "about" slavery.
Years after he said they should, and for the reason he gave.
Repeat snipped.
It was a violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution - irrefutable proof that they and not the Southern states had broken the compact between the states.
And you're defending the Confederacy? Oh, I forgot. You aren't defending the Confederacy. You're accepting its legacy on behalf of Republicans.
I didn't say they couldn't abolish slavery immediately. I said its understandable they did not choose to take on that major task when faced with getting a new country up and running and oh yeah, fighting a war of national survival. If it was "all about" slavery then why didn't all the states that still allowed slavery secede?
Now that was a good question, but it doesn't refute the fact that the states that did secede did so to preserve slavery, especially when they said so themselves.
Good! Then you know both Lincoln and the Republicans still supported slavery until very late in the war.
No, only that they understood they couldn't abolish it under the current framework, which they changed as soon as they had the votes, only 11 years after the Republican party was formed. Pretty impressive.
Us? No. They've been trying to blame the South exclusively for slavery even though there is plenty of blame for everyone in that. They've especially targeted the South. You are furthering their false propaganda.
Is the following leftist propaganda?
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
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
It speaks for itself, so the only question is, do we accept this legacy as our legacy. Your answer on behalf of Conservatives is yes.
The enemies are those who falsely try to discredit state's rights and decentralized power as well as the South by claiming it was "all about" slavery when it plainly was not.
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
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Yes, they were willing to impose that rapid change on their society if it meant gaining their independence.
No they weren't. They did just the opposite when they wrote their Constitution, and never reversed it although they offered to.
They knew how the nations they were asking for help from saw slavery, so it's not as if they were products of their time and couldn't see the evil in what they were doing. Just the opposite, they clung to a previous time that the rest of the western world was already turning away from.
I know, but the North still blah blah blah. That was a few states who fought on the same side as over 100,000 ecaped slaves from the South.
As I said, Jeffersonian Democrats wanted decentralized power, limited government and balanced budgets. You have no answer to that.
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.
You know as well as I that I can post even more quotes from Southerners saying the exact opposite...
I couldn't care less what they said or how many quotes you can post, so I won't ask you to waste your time and FR bandwidth posting them. Their own official documents and their own Constitution, along with the fact that they wouldn't abolish slavery even as they desparately offered to in return for military aid, tells me what their real goals were.
A state not ratifying an amendment quickly does not mean they would not ratify it ever. You simply falsely ASSUME that because it suits your pitiful attempts at argument.
No assumptions needed. They didn't ratify the Corbomite Maneuver, even under the threat of secession and war, and even though they had the time to do so. They did, repeat DID, ratify Abolition.
Besides, as you admit the Corwin Amendment would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.
I never admitted that. Just the opposite, I said it didn't offer slavery any protections it didn't already have under the US Constitution. If you're charging the US Constitution with protecting slavery, I say guilty as charged.
But if the Corbomite Maneuver had been ratified WHICH IT WASN'T, the same representatives who had voted to pass abolition would have to vote for repealing the Corbomite Maneuver, and the same states who voted to ratify abolition would have had to vote to repeal the Corbomite Maneuver. If the Corbomite Maneuver had passed, it would have only made it harder to pass abolition, but it didn't pass so it did nothing anyway.
We agree here.
I'm glad to see that. Then you understand that anything I said about the Confederacy applies to our nation today, too.
Actually the Underground Railroad ran to Canada. Northerners didn't want Blacks living in their states.
While I don't disagree that racism was still a problem in the North, not all ran all the way to Canada, and that does nothing to refute my point that over 100,000 escaped slaves joined the Union Army.
Once the war was on and Lincoln and the Republicans realized they could use Blacks as cannon fodder, they were happy to do so.
That's just another way of blaming the North for the fact that Confederate soldiers were more willing to kill black soldiers than white soldiers. Never mind that escaped slaves joined the Union military, as opposed to the Confederacy forcing their slaves to work as servants for their army.
I didn't "Defend" them as you claim.
Here's your statement again.
The KKK was initially a response to the terrorism of the Union League during the Occupation.
The readers and FR can decide for themselves.
LOL! You are simply wrong about so much of this. Yes Republicans often did not pass these although some like Lincoln certainly supported the passage of some of them.
Lincoln, as has been pointed out by many and acknowledged by myself, had to deal with many attitudes to keep the North together. He frequently had to talk out of both sides of his mouth, but the side that spoke abolition was the side that was made into law.
Lincoln may have talked about supporting these laws to audiences who wanted to hear it, but none of them were passed. In fact, your whole case has been built on laws that were never passed.
They absolutely WERE enforced and they were NOT abolished before the end of the Occupation. Why do you think Blacks did not move in the millions up to the North and out of the economically devastated South right away after the war? The answer is they were not allowed to. They were stuck living in the South for the most part.
Due to the "black codes" which were the Democrat's failed attempt at keeping their slave labor after slavery was abolished by the Republicans.
The Jim Crow laws were modelled on the Black Codes that were still on the books and still enforced in the North. Reconstruction was imposed on the Southern states so that Northern Republicans could have untrammeled political power and so they could line their own pockets stealing from Southerners after disenfranchising them so that they would be powerless to stop the massive theft of their property.
Like the slaves, whom as you admit they saw as property?
some examples
Look, just because you found a book that says what you want to hear, the rest of us aren't obligated to accept the author's conclusions as proof of anything. I could post links defending Stalin and Hitler, but just because someone can cherry pick the facts to defend them, that doesn't obligate the rest of us to accept their conclusions.
So before I consider your examples, I want more details about the book "A History of the South". Who wrote it and when. I want to review its credibility and confirm you aren't posting anything out of context before addressing any of its claims. For example:
Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. In Stevens’ own words, the purpose of giving this “dependent population” (Blacks) the vote in the South was to “insure secure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the union. (ie Republicans)”
Here's the entire speech, for context.
That was about all I was able to verify. Show me where any of those other claims are supported by sources other than some book that says what you want to hear, and we'll talk.
As for the dollar amounts, yes, the war devastated the South so of course budgets ballooned.
Besides, am I supposed to feel sorry for a country that wrote this into their Constitution?
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.
I know you're going to come back with "But the US Constitution also blah blah blah" and it was, but that was inherited by the Republican leadership who changed it when they got the votes they needed. OTOH, the Confederacy's Constitution was written from the ground up with these protections from their contemporary leadership.