Re: Initial Draft for a New Constitution

[Eluvatar]

A) Why would you ever draw any inspiration from the confederate constitution?
B) The CSA constitution was basically a carbon copy of the US constitution anyway.... There were 4 differences I believe:

1. CSA constitution prohibits statesfrom banning slavery
2. CSA constitution has line item veto
3. CSA constitution requires bills to have 1 subject (whatever that means)
4. CSA constitution doesn't let the CSA spend money on canals or anything

 

[Romanoffia]

A) Why would you ever draw any inspiration from the confederate constitution?
B) The CSA constitution was basically a carbon copy of the US constitution anyway.... There were 4 differences I believe:

1. CSA constitution prohibits statesfrom banning slavery
2. CSA constitution has line item veto
3. CSA constitution requires bills to have 1 subject (whatever that means)
4. CSA constitution doesn't let the CSA spend money on canals or anything

The Confederate Constitution was actually a superior document in terms of what was actually intended by the "Founding Fathers" in most provisions. The one short coming was that it carried Reserved Rights of the States a bit too far in certain instances, particularly national defense. The US Constitution was very lax on the importation of slaves into the US (the CSA Constitution prohibited it except in instances where a US state might secede to the Confederacy).


The Constitution of the Confederacy had a substantial number of differences, only three of which dealt with slavery and only clarifying exactly what the US Constitution and federal law/Supreme Courts had already solidified. If anything, the CSA Constitution was more restrictive on slaver in terms of the importation of slaves into the CSA. You have to remember that Federal Law nullified the US Constitution provisions on the importation of slaves after the year 1805:



There were a lot of organizational differences in terms of government in the CSA Constitution that made the document substantially different, and especially in the department of 'tax and spend' on the part of the federal government of the CSA.

Item #1 on your list is incorrect.

Article 1, Section 9 states:

(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.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

US Constitution says: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

On this particular point, the CSA Constitution actually prohibits the slave trade in terms of importation of slaves from Africa, etc.,,,. The United States permitted and actually promoted the continued importation of African slaves, and the Confederacy prohibited it. The Confederacy was intending to ultimately abolish slaver but in a gradual period of time over 20 years so as not to have a problem with a couple of million newly freed slaves being dropped out into a society for which they (and this might be cruel to say, but it is true) were probably not prepared to compete in for reasons specific to that time in history.

And, as a point of irony, federal law only permitted ships registered to owners and businesses in certain states (all of them Northern States) to engage in importation of slaves.

Also, it is worth noting that one of the reasons why the American Colonies seceded from the British Empire (the American Revolution was not a revolution but a war secession from Britain in nearly the exact vein as the 13 Confederates States did in seceding from the Federal Union) was precisely over the issue of the slave trade and restrictions and ultimate abolition of slavery the Crown wished to impose on the American Colonies. And, given it was the New England Colonies that had an absolute monopoly on the slave trade in the American Colonies it was no mistake that the American "Revolution" was promulgated by Massachusetts/Pennsylvania/New York businessmen and slave traders who were making heap big bucks importing slaves.

Secession of the Souther States is a very complex thing of which slavery was just one tiny and not the primary cause of secession - after all, if the South seceded to protect the institution of slavery why then did they not just stay in the Union where it was constitutionally protected? Think about that and remember the Southern States had enough legislative authority in terms of representation in Congress and Senate to prevent the abolition of slavery altogether in any circumstance. This is one single point of fact that most historians tend to gloss over because if the abolition of slavery cost the lives of 3/4 of a million people, it was a stupid way to abolish slavery. The historical reality was that the Norther States had economic reasons for the most part and very few altruistic reasons for wanting the abolition of slavery, mainly a really cheap source of new labor to exploit (slaves are, after all, more expensive than free labor all around).

Here's a point by point comparison of relevant items in comparison (although the arrangement is not in the actual order as each item appears in each Constitution: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

 

[Gulliver]

Item #1 on your list is incorrect.

It does, however, ban Congress from "denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves" and says that slave owners can take their slaves anywhere, even states that choose to abolish slavery, and that slavery will be legal in all new territories and protected by the confederal government.

The United States permitted and actually promoted the continued importation of African slaves, and the Confederacy prohibited it.

The Constitution prohibited Congress from banning imports of slaves until 1808 as a concession to Southern states, and once it was allowed to it promptly did so.

Secession of the Souther States is a very complex thing of which slavery was just one tiny and not the primary cause of secession

I took the time to read through the official declarations of causes for secession for several states, and for each counted the number of paragraphs which were related to slavery, the persecution of slaveholding states, etc., and the number which were about other matters. How thoughts are grouped and the size of paragraphs varies from document to document, but it provides a rough metric that isn't pure speculation. The results:

State[c]Paragraphs about slavery[c]Other paragraphs[c] Texas [c]12[c]14[c] South Carolina [c]9[c]20[c] Mississippi [c]18[c]3[c] Georgia [c]12[c]2[c]Total[c]51[c]39

Even allowing a generous margin of error for my own personal biases in making close calls and variations between the the seceding states, slavery absolutely was not a "tiny" reason for secession. It wasn't the only reason, but it definitely was one of the main ones, and the primary issue for some states.

[A]fter all, if the South seceded to protect the institution of slavery why then did they not just stay in the Union where it was constitutionally protected?

They felt that the federal government and northern states were disregarding the Constitution over this matter. Their declarations make this very clear. You're also making the assumption that the South was behaving entirely rationally, which people often do not do in heated matters of politics.

This is one single point of fact that most historians tend to gloss over because if the abolition of slavery cost the lives of 3/4 of a million people, it was a stupid way to abolish slavery.

Yes, which is why people tried to avoid it. Lincoln, for example, went as far as to support the Corwin Amendment, which would have forbidden any amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery. And when the Civil War did start, the objective was to prevent the South from seceding, not abolition. When the Emancipation Proclamation was introduced, it was justified as an economic weapon. The war wasn't started to end slavery, rather abolitionists took advantage of it to do so, since their opponents had done them the favor of withdrawing their representation from Congress and creating conditions under which forces of arms could be used against them.

 

[Romanoffia]

Two problems arose, though.

The first was that the US Federal Government didn't properly enforce the prohibition of the importation of slaves and this worried most people, and oddly enough, most of the worried people were in the South (with, of course, the exception of those willing to purchase imported slaves).

Second problem is that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free one single slave, anywhere. And it certainly didn't free any slaves in any area controlled by, occupied by or under Union control - it only freed slaves in areas where the Union had no control or authority to do so. This meant slave Union/Occupied states like Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, West Virginia and occupied Kentucky, Missouri and Louisiana were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.

Essentially, it was a political ploy by Lincoln that had no effect whatsoever, which, of course makes the point that, as you note, the abolition of slavery was an economic tool.

Lincoln probably intended that the Emancipation Proclamation would have the effect of causing the slaves in the Confederacy to revolt or mass-escape, which, oddly enough, the slaves did not do for any number of reasons considered to politically incorrect to mention today.

The strange thing is that had the South succeeded in becoming an independent nation permanently, the Union would have still continued to exist, albeit a few states short. It is worth noting that the US Federal Government got about 75% of its revenue from the South which is why it was felt that force of arms was needed to maintain that revenue flow.

One of the big arguments that let to secession was that the US government refused to enforce the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution (Reserved Rights and Enumerated Rights). This was a big issue (and still is today). The US Constitution was intended to limit the authority of the federal government which was created by the states, and under the 10th Amendment, all federal authority emanates from the states who can withdraw those rights at will with cause if the compact of the Constitution was violated. The Federal Government is a product of the states and not the other way around. The Federal Government is limited by the Constitution and any authority not specifically delegated by the states to the federal government are held in reserve by the states and the people, in that order.

Since the states are not prohibited from seceding from the Union, that right is held in reserve by the individual states, and lacking a state constitutional prohibitions on secession, held in reserve ultimately by the electorate of a given state. Hence, secession is not prohibited by the US Constitution nor any federal law and hence a quite legal thing for a state to do.

Then again, it was quite legal for the Union to invade and conquer any seceding states under sovereign right to engage in war with foreign powers. This, of course meant that in order for Lincoln to use military force on the South it would be required that the Confederacy be recognized as a foreign state, which it was as far as conduct of the war - and the fact that the states that seceded had to be 'readmitted' to the Union which claimed said states were never out of the Union which is a total logical disconnect.

And this is why Constitutions in general have to be very carefully constructed so as to hopefully avoid such bizarre situation.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

 

[Romanoffia]

LOL!