Posted on 09/03/2002 9:08:00 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
That clause was in the confederate constitution for one simple reason, the southern planters did a brisk business in buying slaves from Virginia and North Carolina. They didn't want to turn that supply off. They weren't about to let anything interfere with their institution of slavery, not even their govenment which is why the confederate constitution also banned any legislation hindering the owning of slaves. So rather than planning for the ending of slavery, the southern leaders started a war that cost the lives of 600,000 men precisely to protect slavery. You condemn the cost in blood to preserve the Union, but you would have happily accepted 600,000 dead, or more, in order to have your southron state.
CSA Constitution Section 9.1. The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
it's a goodie, sadly out of print.
free dixie,sw
Ah, but you're wrong on that. By 1860 demand for slaves in the deep soth was still high. With the importation of slaves officially banned, and with fewer and fewer slaves entering America unofficially, the slave owners in the deep south were meeting their demand by buying slaves from Virginia and North Carolina. There was, in fact, a thriving market in this that would have been shut down had the confederate constitution not protected imports because at the time the confederate constitution was ratified in March 1861 those states were still part of the U.S. Banning all imports would have been cutting off their own nose to spite their face. It's interesting to note that the next clause of the constitution gave the confederate congress the power to end imports completely if they wanted. This is generally seen as a stick to goad Virginia and North Carolina into the confederacy. A 'join or we'll cut you off' kind of threat. As it turns out it took a war to bring about their rebellion.
How in God's name do you find a clause in the Confederate constitution that had existed in the US Constitution from its creation to be a step toward ending slavery? By 1860, there was not a single slave legally imported into the US (South Carolina never respected the constitution or any law) for over 50 years, yet the slave population of the US increased nearly fourfold in that same time.
They didn't need or want imports. That would have only depressed the value of their existing property.
I swear some of you guys see the CSA as some sort of heaven on earth when it was nothing but a damn feudal kingdom masquerading as a democracy.
And I swear some of you guys see the USA as some sort of great republic when by lincoln's very actions he had destroyed the Republic and established what amounted to a four year totalitarian state. And what's left is a Socialist Democratic Empire, nothing more. The Republic is dead and has been for 141 years
"Hardtack and Coffee" - the author escapes me at present, but it is a great look at the every day lives of soldiers on both sides.
"Mr. Lincoln's Navy" - same problem (I'm not at home). An excellent account of an under-reported group of fighting men.
I'll post the authors of both of these fine books later.
1. How did Lincoln "destroy the Republic"? What is the evidence of that? Aside from the "right" to own slaves, what rights did Americans not have after the war that they had before? Name just one.
2. How can you call a nation that held regular elections, including a hotly contested presidential election, in the midst of its greatest crisis in history, a toleration state?
In the North, one could have anti-war views, have anti-government views, express those views in public, and still be on the ballot and in many cases be elected. The antiwar northern democrats gained seats in the 1862 election. The anti-war democrats were odds on favorites to win the presidency in 1864 until Union success on the battlefield restored Lincoln's popularity while McClellend refused to tow the Democrat party line of immediate peace with the slavers.
How were pro-Union citizens treated in the south? Could they express their views in public? Were they free to run for office? Were they free to criticize their leaders? You know damn well they weren't. Even before the war, could abolitionists preach in the South? Could they freely criticize slavery or slave owners? Could they criticize the slave codes? Did they have first amendment rights there? You know damn well they didn't! It was against the law to even mention abolition in the south. In 1859, Jeff Davis went to Boston and delivered a speech arguing for the expansion of slavery to the west. He had no fear for his life going there. Could Lincoln have gone to Charleston in 1859 and argued for free soil and have lived to tell about it? You know damn well he couldn’t have.
What section was totalitarian?
Illegal use of the Whiskey Rebellion, theft of 2 million dollars from the US Treasury to outfit his 75,000 'volunteers', building of ships and purchase of more ships without Congressional approval during their three month 'sabbatical'
How can you call a nation that held regular elections, including a hotly contested presidential election, in the midst of its greatest crisis in history, a toleration state?
Tell the voters in Maryland that. They were required to carry different color ballots, Federal troops not even from Maryland voted in the election, and 31 legislators arrested for doing nothing wrong. Voter fraud Al Gore couldn't have even pulled off
In the North, one could have anti-war views, have anti-government views, express those views in public, and still be on the ballot and in many cases be elected
Would these be the same anti-war folks that were summarily expelled from the country? Or the ones rounded up and thrown in the American Bastille, such as Francis Scott Key's grandson. Or would these be the editors of the newspapers that were shut down for printing anti-war views, some whose presses were destroyed and chased by mobs in the street? As history looks upon this for years to come and more surfaces about this tyrant, April 1861 will be come to be known as the month the Constitution died
LOL. Expelled from the country? You guys are so dramatic. That would be the clown from Ohio, Vellingham(sp?), who lost re-election to congress in 1862 because of his rabid pro-confederate stance. He publically advocated that Union soldiers desert from the Army. That is sedition, and any soldier who followed his advice was subject to courts martial and death. As far as being "expelled" he was simply sent over to the confederate side where he belonged. He went to Tennessee, not some Siberian salt mine. He could have been shot, but he wasn't. Lincoln said better to expell one old fool than to have to put a noose around the necks of any young fools who may listen to him.
And since congress approved every penny Lincoln spent in response to the emergency in the spring of 61 when they returned in July, it seems that they had no problem with his decisions. In fact, they even added more money. Nor did the Supreme Court which was stacked with southerners.
Now lets talk about the father of Texas, Sam Houston who as governor in 1861 was damn near hanged by a slaver mob because he opposed secession. Was it 'constitutional' the way the Texas slavers simply drove him from office? Or how about the 60 or so North Texans farmers who were hanged because they were pro-Union. Or the score of Tennessee and North Carolina men who were hanged because they were pro Union? Or the many hundreds who had their houses and barns tourched by the confederate militia. How many pro-southerners were hanged in the North? None. How many southern Unionists had to run for their lives to escape those freedom-loving confederate mobs? Many thousands.
1. How did Davis "destroy the Republic"?
By ignoring the requirements of his own constitution, running unopposed in elections, nationalizing industries, siezing private property for military purposes.
2. How can you call a nation that held regular elections, including a hotly contested presidential election, in the midst of its greatest crisis in history, a toleration state?
Well, you've got him there. Davis was appointed to office in the first place and ran unopposed in a sham election months later. Couldn't take a chance on an opponent since I don't believe that Davis never once won an election where he had an opponent.
In the South, one could have anti-war views, have anti-government views, express those views in public, and still be on the ballot and in many cases be elected.
Try again. The first political prisoner of the war was some poor slob of a newspaper reporter who ticked off Braxton Bragg and was thrown in jail the day after the south started the war in 1861. On a per capita basis the south had more people locked up for political reasons than the North did. People were jailed, people were executed, newspapers shut down, all for opposing the war, including former congressmen like John Minor Botts. When the confederate congress suspended habeas corpus in 1862, southern generals like Bragg used it as an excuse to declare virtual martial law in cities hundreds of miles away from the battlefield. Unlike those arrested in the North, who could appeal to the Supreme Court, southern political prisoners had no legal recourse at all since no federal court system was ever established.
I guess that provides a better idea of which section was totalitarian, doesn't 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.