Posted on 01/18/2023 11:11:53 PM PST by CFW
The US Constitution did not expressly say the word "slavery". They talked around it. Everybody knows what they meant. The 3/5ths compromise, the fugitive slave clause, the 20 year grandfather clause for the slave trade, etc. Substantively, they were no different on the issue of slavery.
As noted earlier, those Democrat states provided written documentation of their reasons for secession. They did not believe Corwin went far enough, and seven states had already seceded by then, anyway. All documents were linked on this thread. You simply don't want to believe them.
This is a classic a "red herring". None of this was in the Confederate Constitution. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes. Of those 3 discussed issues other than the Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the constitution at length even though those other issues were not unconstitutional and this was. Nobody said anything about the Corwin amendment "not going far enough". It was express protection of slavery effectively forever. The fact that some states had already seceded is irrelevant. If their big concern had been protections for slavery, this would have addressed those concerns. It did not and they elected to go their separate way. This has already been shown to you. You just refuse to accept the basic facts.
Note how the words were written with ambiguity. No reference to slavery or race. That was intentional. The Founding Fathers knew slavery was a moral wrong that must be dealt with at some point.
The Founding Fathers were well aware the existence of slavery was incongruous with the values they were expressing in the Constitution and those values expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless, there were numerous provisions in the constitution that were clearly about slavery (see above)
The aggressor fired the first shots at U.S. property.,/p>
The aggressor invaded the territory of another while heavily armed.
Not true. Those Constitutions were very different from each other.
The U.S. Constitution did not refer to slaves or race. It referred to "persons." The Constitution did not abolish slavery, but slavery was not enshrined in it, either. The Founding Fathers worded those clauses very carefully; even those who were slaveholders themselves believed the practice should end. Then, they took steps to end slavery, or at least restrict it and stop its spread. Jefferson banned the transatlantic slave trade in 1808, the earliest date as stipulated in the Constitution, and imposed heavy fines and long prison terms as punishment. Later, the 1820 Piracy Law made transatlantic slave-trading a crime punishable by death. Of course, the debate over slavery within U.S. borders continued back and forth for years.
On the other hand, the Confederate Constitution was very specific about slavery and race. It enshrined slavery as a "right" that could never be denied, either in the existing states or any new territory acquired by the CSA.
>"Only 4 states issued declarations of causes."<
Again, 7 states outlined their reasons, either in "Declarations of Causes" or "Resolutions."
>"Nobody said anything about the Corwin amendment "not going far enough". It was express protection of slavery effectively forever. The fact that some states had already seceded is irrelevant."<
Again, they wanted the Crittenden plan. Corwin did nothing more than what Lincoln already planned to do, which is permit slavery in existing slave states but stop the spread of slavery into new territory. And, yes, the fact that seven states had already seceded before Corwin is relevant.
The blame for death and destruction in the South lies with the Democrats who decided to wage war against their own country. They had to know the Union had a greater population, and they had to know the slaves would fight for their own freedom. Still, they decided to send so many (mostly poor) men to fight and die.
Quite true. They were not different on the issue of slavery. The Confederate Constitution had the same provisions as the US Constitution on that issue.
The U.S. Constitution did not refer to slaves or race. It referred to "persons."
Yes, the US Constitution played coy about it. So what? There was no legal distinction. "persons held to service" were clearly and were understood by one and all to be....SLAVES.
The Constitution did not abolish slavery, but slavery was not enshrined in it, either.
Sure it was. "persons held to service" as in the fugitive slave clause. 3/5ths compromise. 20 year grace period to carry on the slave trade. All of those were in the US Constitution.
The Founding Fathers worded those clauses very carefully;
They didn't say the word "slave". They alluded to it. That's the only difference. On substance, they were the same.
Then, they took steps to end slavery, or at least restrict it and stop its spread.
red herring. That is nowhere in the US Constitution.
Jefferson banned the transatlantic slave trade in 1808, the earliest date as stipulated in the Constitution, and imposed heavy fines and long prison terms as punishment.
Yes. There was a 20 year grace period in the US Constitution to carry on the slave trade. The Confederate Constitution banned the slave trade right from the start.
Later, the 1820 Piracy Law made transatlantic slave-trading a crime punishable by death. Of course, the debate over slavery within U.S. borders continued back and forth for years.
Red Herring. This was not part of the US Constitution. Of course if you want to bring up the slave trade, New England continued to carry on slave trading illegally for years and years after it was formally banned in the Constitution.
read all about it in: Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery. https://www.amazon.ca/Complicity-Promoted-Prolonged-Profited-Slavery-ebook/dp/B000XU4USA
On the other hand, the Confederate Constitution was very specific about slavery and race. It enshrined slavery as a "right" that could never be denied, either in the existing states or any new territory acquired by the CSA.
It specifically mentioned the word "slavery". Other than that, it was no different as to the law that was then in place in the US after the Dred Scott decision.
Again, 7 states outlined their reasons, either in "Declarations of Causes" or "Resolutions."
Again, only 4 states issued declarations of causes.
Again, they wanted the Crittenden plan. Corwin did nothing more than what Lincoln already planned to do, which is permit slavery in existing slave states but stop the spread of slavery into new territory. And, yes, the fact that seven states had already seceded before Corwin is relevant.
Corwin did more than what Lincoln planned to do. It expressly protected slavery via constitutional amendment. That means it could only have been overturned by a future constitutional amendment and no future constitutional amendment could have been passed without the consent of the 15 states that still allowed slavery.
and so what that 7 states had already seceded? If their big concern had been over the continuance of slavery, the Corwin Amendment certainly would have addressed those concerns. Obviously that was not their main concern because they rejected the Corwin Amendment.
The blame for death and destruction in the South lies with the Democrats who decided to wage war against their own country. They had to know the Union had a greater population, and they had to know the slaves would fight for their own freedom. Still, they decided to send so many (mostly poor) men to fight and die.
The blame for the death and destruction that befell everyone in North America falls squarely on Lincoln. Rather than follow principles he himself publicly espoused while in Congress and which the Founding Fathers had proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence - namely that government derives its legitimacy from the Consent of the Governed, he sought to impose a government upon people who did not consent to it....to convert the union from a decentralized one based on consent to a centralized empire based on force, threats and violence. He did so for money. He could not have carried out his economic plans without the North's cash cows - the Southern states. He thought it was going to be quick and easy - just 75,000 volunteers and just for 90 days. Instead it turned into a 4 year long bloodbath.
The steps taken afterward to end the slave trade are relevant because they show that the Founding Fathers intended to end the practice of slavery.
Their careful wording in the U.S. Constitution is relevant, too. The U.S. Constitution is a contract with the people, and it recognizes that people have natural rights. It did not refer to race or slaves. It referred to “persons,” which is significant because the U.S. Constitution recognized the natural rights of people.
Furthermore, the clause refers to “Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof.” Indentured servants or apprentices could fall into that category, too. And someone could argue that the qualifier, “to whom such Service or Labour may be due,” might even rule out slaves, who did not owe their service or labor to slaveholders.
Even the Corwin Amendment was kind of vague. Compare it to the text of the Crittenden Compromise, which used specific wording, including “slavery,” “African race,” and “fugitive slave.” In comparison, Corwin sounded ambiguous.
On the other hand, the Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery forever, more specifically slavery of the “African race,” and its spread to new territories.
The U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution are very different documents.
By the way, there is no reference to secession in the U.S. Constitution, either. The U.S. Constitution is a contract with the people. There is no process outlined by which a state can secede and then trap people inside it. You keep talking about state’s rights, but you seem unconcerned with the natural rights of people.
Great and all, but recognition of and protections for slavery are contained in the US Constitution.
Their careful wording in the U.S. Constitution is relevant, too. The U.S. Constitution is a contract with the people, and it recognizes that people have natural rights. It did not refer to race or slaves. It referred to “persons,” which is significant because the U.S. Constitution recognized the natural rights of people.
Its a contract between states and while it talks a good game about natural rights, it also has recognition of and protection for slavery. That's just a reality.
Furthermore, the clause refers to “Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof.” Indentured servants or apprentices could fall into that category, too. And someone could argue that the qualifier, “to whom such Service or Labour may be due,” might even rule out slaves, who did not owe their service or labor to slaveholders.
It could apply to indentured servants too but that provision was mostly put in there for escaped slaves as everybody knows. One could argue that it ruled out slaves.... if one were massively intellectually dishonest and historically illiterate. No serious historian would ever claim that. That clause was put in there for S-L-A-V-E-S.
Even the Corwin Amendment was kind of vague.
No it wasn't.
Compare it to the text of the Crittenden Compromise, which used specific wording, including “slavery,” “African race,” and “fugitive slave.” In comparison, Corwin sounded ambiguous.
The Corwin amendment used language similar to that used in the rest of the constitution that was clearly meant to refer to and which was clearly understood by everybody as referring to S-L-A-V-E-S. There's no way to weasel out of it.
On the other hand, the Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery forever, more specifically slavery of the “African race,” and its spread to new territories.
The Confederate Constitution used the specific words the US Constitution only referred to. That's it. That's the only difference. De Facto and De Jure, there was no difference. About the spread to new territories, that was the same under the US Constitution post Dred Scott. Again, no difference.
The U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution are very different documents.
They certainly are. The differences however lay in the Confederate Constitution's express recognition of the power of states, and limitations on the power of the central government, not on the issue of slavery. For example, the president got one 6 year term, had a line item veto, all bills could only apply to one thing and that must clearly be stated in the title (no "riders"). There had to be a balanced budget. The only "Goodwill" (infrastructure) spending that could be paid for out of taxes was the dredging of harbors, the rest was to be charged to industry. States could impeach and remove central government officials. The tariff rate was set at a maximum of 10%. Hell, I love most of those provisions - as should any Conservative.
By the way, there is no reference to secession in the U.S. Constitution, either.
There didn't need to be. Under the 10th amendment all powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved by the states. Unilateral secession is one of those powers. Yes, that was absolutely contemplated by all parties at the time of ratification of the US Constitution. 3 states including the two biggest and most important ones which were leaders of their respective sections - namely, Virginia and New York - expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede when they ratified the US Constitution. Every state understood itself to have that right.
The U.S. Constitution is a contract with the people.
It is a contract with the states. There was no "whole people" at the time of ratification. There were 13 sovereign states. The states delegated (what a superior does with a subordinate) some of their sovereignty to the newly created federal government. They retained most of their sovereign powers.
There is no process outlined by which a state can secede and then trap people inside it.
There did not need to be. It is up to the state as the highest sovereign power to decide whether to secede or not. Nobody was "trapped" inside of a state. They were citizens of that state just as they were prior to ratification of the US Constitution.
You keep talking about state’s rights, but you seem unconcerned with the natural rights of people.
The states had express recognition of people's natural rights....except of course slaves and Indians. You keep assuming there was some unified whole people of the US before there was a single unified country. There was no such thing. There were 13 individual sovereign states. The states preceded the US and indeed, created the US.
By the way, what about the natural rights of millions of Southerners who no longer wished to be ruled over by the US Federal government which they saw as an alien, foreign government which acted in ways that were quite harmful to them rather than representing their interests? You seem unconcerned about their right to free association even while professing to care about the slaves' right to free association.
Here's what a US Congressman said about this issue: ""Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848
The U.S. Constitution is a contract with "We the People of the United States of America." Each state is not sovereign; it is part of the United States. And the Constitution limits what states can do: A state cannot issue its own currency, enter into treaties with foreign nations, and so on.
Sure, the issue of secession was discussed during ratification, and then it was not included in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment does not give states a right to secede. Otherwise, the Founding Fathers would have mentioned secession and outlined a process for it in the Constitution. They did not.
And the U.S. Constitution referred to "persons." The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. They knew slavery should be abolished. The Corwin Amendment also referred to "persons." That is an important distinction from "slaves" because "persons" have inalienable rights.
You must not understand the concept of free association at all.
You've already gotten it wrong. Here is what Madison wrote in advance of ratification of the US constitution:
[the Constitution would be ratified by the people]"not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct independent States to which they respectively belong.." James Madison, the Federalist Papers #39
and this:
“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).' James Madison
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT." - Federalist #32 James Madison
There was no whole people of the US. There were States. States were sovereign. It is each individual state by name which is recognized as being sovereign in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Even SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the sovereignty of the states. Coining money and entering into foreign treaties are two of the only powers the sovereign states delegated to the federal government. Why do you think they used the word "delegated"? As is pounded into your skull in law school, that is what a superior does with a subordinate.....yes, it has a specific meaning.
Sure, the issue of secession was discussed during ratification, and then it was not included in the Constitution.
It did not need to be. Remember the states were the supreme sovereigns and preceded the federal government. Any right or power they did not delegate to the federal government, they kept.
"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...."
"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."
"We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."
The 10th Amendment does not give states a right to secede.
Correct! And the 2nd Amendment does not give me a right to keep and bear arms. It merely recognizes a right I already have.
Otherwise, the Founding Fathers would have mentioned secession and outlined a process for it in the Constitution. They did not.
The Founding Fathers ratified the 9th amendment specifically to prevent anybody from making the argument you are trying to make. That is, nobody can say that just because a right is not named in the US Constitution, it therefore does not exist. When you combine the 9th and 10th amendments, it is clear the right to unilateral secession does exist (after all, the states had each seceded from the British Empire) AND the states retained that power. Again, 3 states expressly reserved the right to "resume the powers of government" (ie secede) at the time that they ratified the constitution.
Hamilton also disagreed with you.
"The rule that all authorities, of which the States are not EXPLICITLY divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution." Federalist #45 Alexander Hamilton
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Federalist #46 Alexander Hamilton
And the U.S. Constitution referred to "persons." The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. They knew slavery should be abolished. The Corwin Amendment also referred to "persons." That is an important distinction from "slaves" because "persons" have inalienable rights.
Obviously the "persons" referred to in the US Constitution did not have inalienable rights. After all, they could be held to service against their will, returned to their owners by force if they escaped and only counted for 3/5ths of a person when it came to apportionment.
Its quite clear you don't.
The Constitution was written to protect our individual natural rights from the abuse of a tyrannical government. You seem to believe a state can secede to deprive people of their individual natural rights. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers.
You think like a majority-rule Democrat. Not like a limited-government Republican.
Free association does NOT mean the majority decides how everyone will associate.
It means you yourself, as a person, have an individual right to free association.
States did not secede to deprive people of their individual natural rights. You do realize the Constitution did not apply to Slaves nor to Indians, right?
You think like a big government Leftist, not a limited government Conservative. Freedom of association applies to individuals as well as to sovereign states.
Again, the Constitution referred to "persons." All persons have natural rights.
Indian nations were independent.
Again, the Constitution did not apply to Blacks/Slaves nor did it apply to Indians not just within Indian nations (which the federal government claimed anyway), but on the territory of the US. Its indisputable. If Slaves had natural rights that anybody recognized, how could they be held in slavery? Yet they were. How could Indians be subject to ethnic cleansing and mass murder? Yet they were. Clearly their individual natural rights were not recognized under the Constitution. It wasn't until over 150 years after the Constitution was ratified that they were recognized as having constitutional rights.
Everything you wrote is what Democrats say. I’m just saying.
Everything you write is what Leftists say. More Big Government. Govern me harder daddy!
Obviously, you don’t know what “big government” means.
Obviously, I know exactly what it means. Equally obviously, you just don't want to own up to the fact that you support it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.