Has anybody ever read the Confederate Constitution?

[Walt Starr]

It's so similar to the U.S. constititution. The first amendment is coped verbatim in Article II Section 9 Clause 12 of the Confederate constitution, but there is no 14th amendment to extend those prohibitions to the several states.

The other interesting thing is that the Confederate States recognize the supernatural entity known as "Almighty God" in their preamble:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity -- invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God -- do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.


I think this document give a unique insight into the thought processes prevelant in that area of the country. It's pretty important to pay attention to history:

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

[C_U_L8R]

1. They were wrong then

and wrong now.

Fate's doomed them.

[Inland]

2. Actually, yes.

The point of the CSA constitution was to make keep it similar to the previous constitution in wording and structure, so that the rest of the US could easily discern the points of compromise to bring the CSA staes back into the union. The points of difference are the permanent institution of slavery by forbidding any state from outlawing it, and a weaker federal government.

I'm not sure what the express invocation of god means. Probably the weaker the cause, the more invocations to god one sees.

[Walt Starr]

4. I think it gives a unique insight into the public place the South has

placed religion.

For instance, in South Carolina, a religious test is required for state officials and to sit on a jury. It's a requirement of the state constitution. Today, although still in effect, it's a blatant violation of the 14th, and 1st amendments, not to mention Article VI., Clause 3 of the U.S. constitution.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. Ugh!

Someone should fight that ridiculous law since it goes against the Constiution. Who gives a damn about religious beliefs when it concerns working for the state. I go by who can do the best job. I live in the south (Tn) and last April we had our mayoral race. A rumor got out that one of the canidates was an athiest and people started freaking out. It turned out it wasn't true and the person was a Christian and a local news station affiliate did an interview her to let her speak about the rumor. It was totally ridiculous.

[Yupster]

11. When the Confederate Constitution was being written

in Montgomery in 1861, I don't think the writers were thinking of coming back into the USA. They were putting together their new government which they thought would be as permanent as any other would.

Here's a link to the best book on the writing of the Confederate constitutional Convention for those interested.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029077354/qid=1131315496/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0594916-8242226?v=glance&s=books

I was not aware that the onfederate onstitution forbid states to drop slavery. That is interesting. Where is that in the document? Though I guess it took a Constitutional Amendment to rid it from the USA to.

[Inland]

23. Article 4, section 1.

1. 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.

That's equivalent to saying that if a Carolignian were to take up residence in New York, he gets to keep his slaves there...or for that matter, would allow a New Yorker to go to carolina, buy slaves, and keep them.

The next section puts the essence of the Fugitive Slave Act in the constitution.

SEction 3 loads the deck for the territories:

In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by 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.

[Yupster]

24. Interesting

I had always read that as that any slaveholder could take his slaves into any territory whether slavery was legal there or not -- like you said, basically institutionalizing the Dredd Scott and Fugitive Slave decisions.

I didn't read it as a state couldn't abolish slavery among its citizens, but I guess just like in the US it would take a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the institution in either country.

[sandnsea]

25. But it wasn't about slavery

I don't see how that holds up, with it right there in their constitution.

[Inland]

27. More to the point of "the reason" were the Declarations of Secession

You can google them. Some, like MS and TX, are quite explicit in saying that the states are leaving the Union to preserve slavery.

[RoyGBiv]

28. Good resource ...

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/plat.html

[Inland]

36. Thanks! Bookmarked!

You never know when you might need a copy of the Declaration of Secession, I always say.

[RoyGBiv]

32. Well, it doesn't ...

But, apologists will argue a "theory of government" angle. Find some Libertarian commentary on the Confederate Constitution, and you'll see what I mean.

The key for this line of thought requires considering the entire wording of that and similar articles. The broad point is to protect personal property with a clarification noting that human slaves are property. Apologists interperet that point as incidental to the theory of government upon which is rests. The US Constitution was seen as imperfect on this point.

I'm not agreeing, just explaining.

[Inland]

39. And all one has to do is point out exactly what they SAID was important

It wasn't any property aside from slaves. When the legislature takes the trouble to write down, formally, the reasons and vote on them, you can be pretty sure that they didn't leave something out by mistake.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

snip

[RoyGBiv]

40. I agree ...

As I said, I was just explaining.

Some of the stuff people like Thomas DiLorenzo have written on this point, however, are masterpieces of sophistry that attempt to explain away "what they said." It's interesting reading, just to be familiar with it, because the same sort of rhetorical tactics are often used by modern extremists of various ideological stripes.

It's also interesting since Libertarianism is seen as legitimate, even by many liberals who aren't familiar with it in all its details. As an aside, the same person who put together the website at that link has been working on another that dismantles various arguments DiLorenzo and his ilk have advanced.

About that link: You may have discovered this already, but the link I provided was to a section of a larger website. If you just follow http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ it'll take you to the main site.

[Raiden]

3. Even still, many former Confederate states

still invoke "Almighty God." It's sad that they think doing so justifies racist and conservative policies.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Well of course there was no 14th

as that was the amendment put in place after the war to make sure that there would be no further debate of the primacy of federal law vs state law. Ratified June 13 1866. It would have been a bit odd for it to be in the confederate version.

But don't get too smug about 'that area of the country'. The Democratic Party ran McClellen against Lincoln in 1864 and he ran one of the most blatantly racist and vile campaigns in the history of the republic and came very close to winning without anyone from 'that area of the country' being allowed to vote.

20 years after the war reconstruction was over and the black population of the south was put back onto the land as virtual serfs (sharecroppers,) racial order was re-established with the full blessing of the northern establishment, and nothing would change until the tractor and mechanized farming made the whole system obsolete in the 30's and 40's.

[jaysunb]

8. Warren....

you are not stupid at all. :toast:

[Walt Starr]

44. My point was about how the 14th altered things to apply those rights

and protect them from state governments as well as the federal government.

And there is a striking difference between the preamble of the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution. One is strictly secular and the other is not.

Oddly enough, it is my opinion that had the U.S. Constitution included such a recognition of a deity, that atheism would nnot be a protected stance on the subject of religion. Religious belief would trump atheism in all cases and, in fact, atheism could be banned under the law.

[applegrove]

6. I think the part about slavery negates pretty much everything in that

document. U.S. constitution was not worth shit until all people were free.

[Lex]

7. Although it's the Confederate Constitution that thinking isn't limited to

the thought processes prevalant in "that area" of the country.

Kansas and Idaho come to mind, for example.

[noahmijo]

9. Here is all you need to know about the filthy confederate traitors

Fuck the Confederates and their sympathizers. Their acts of treason led to far more deaths of Americans than any terrorist group and for what?

I see a person bearing the rebel flag they immediately get shoved into my book of facist moronic half witted dopes that I won't shed a single tear for should they happen to have an accident.

[Yupster]

12. The Constitutional Convention in Montgomery

was the only time anyone has taken the US Constitution and decided what they wanted to keep and jettison in a real life situation.

For that reason, there is quite a bit of interest among historians and others about the Montgomery convention. I'm a former college history teacher and textbook author myself. For people like me it's interesting to see which changes they decided to make and what things they kept the same, and read the debates and reasoning behind them. The convention went on a long time and each clause was considered and debated.

I understand if you don't have any interest in the subject matter.

Heck, if I came across a bunch of people discussing the rumbim wars of the Maring Indians of New Guinea, I might shrug and walk on by.

I don't think I'd stop, get their attention and say "Here is all you need to know about the filthy cannibals with the bones in their noses. Fuck them all."

What in the world would that contribute to the conversation?

[noahmijo]

15. I never said studying them was worthless

You're taking what I said and translating it to "let's just not bother reading or studying them"

It is a fact that there are terrorists who call themselves muslims and they do some bad things.

The hasn't stopped me from studying Islam and reading books about Zoroastrians and how for example the Shia religion developed from this archaic form of belief.

When it comes to confederate sympathizers though my statements come from oberservation and fact finding ventures which lead me to have the opinion for which I convey onto such types today.

Never have I ever met a rebel flag waver to be anything but an ignorant racist rube.

I have on the other hand met Muslims who are not terrorists.

Victory for the confederacy would have meant slavery and a brutal system based on religious mythology which would've no doubt put us in a system not all that different from nations like Saudia Arabia who have instituted a form of government which completely is void of human rights and progress.

And yes for the snide, it would be far worse than what we have now understanding that our current system could be called barbaric in places and far too based on mythological religious figures.

Notice I do not throw my harsh message onto people from the south; that's the same as damning someone for being a muslim.

But I do throw this sentiment onto people who embrace the radical belief stemmed from the south and at root disregard for human life just the same as I have no sympathy for someone who call themself a muslim but then thinks it's Allah or maybe even Atta's will that they become a martyr by blowing me or my family up.

[Yupster]

17. That's all fine

and no one appointed me the thread police, but the original poster asked if anyone has read or had any opinions on the Confederate Constitution.

Do you have anything to add that's on topic?

[jody]

20. rebel flag waver = ignorant racist rube? I've met many who are very

intelligent and well read.

I'm sure you and I would agree that their political goals are completely different from ours but, don't underestimate their intellectual ability and knowledge.

[noahmijo]

21. So what were their reasons for being rebel flag wavers?

I don't doubt that alot of these people could maybe win a spelling bee contest or perhaps even give you a good history of Herman Goering, but what precisely are they supporting by being proud of this flag which symbolizes the desire to overthrow America and replace it with a theocratic system in which slavery is legalized?

[jody]

26. I don't know their reasons, I simply pointed out that they are not all

"ignorant racist rubes" as you implied. :shrug:

[Yupster]

29. I was friends for many years with the

head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans group in this area. I think he had a military rank so he was a brigadier general in the group or something like that.

Anyway, he was a wonderful man, a bit of an amateur historian, a retired organizer-volunteer type from a very military family. He had a relative who was in the Confederate army, and his son was just back from Iraq where he's continued the family's military tradition.

Tragically the man was killed this past year in a car accident while he was on his way to visit his grandchildren. It was a real shame because he had much life left in him.

[RoyGBiv]

41. Who was this?

You can PM me if you'd rather not post it in the open. I'm just curious because of relationships I've had with various SCV members, and I wonder if I knew him.

On that point, I had a working relationship with the head of a state SCV division several years ago while working on building a Longstreet monument at Gettysburg. We had many long, detailed, and sometimes contentious discussions about politics, federal v. state power, civil rights, religion, etc. We had both disagreements and agreements on various points. He was what I'd call a Southern Democrat, fiercely populist, generally conservative socially, but not one who sought government intervention to enforce his social views on everyone. And, more importantly for this sub-thread, I never once took away from our discussions that he was even the slightest bit a racist, and his intellect was well above average.

Of course I've known the other type as well. The SCV itself is a mixed organization that different people join for different reasons, and some of those reasons do nothing but feed the stereotype. The group has been experiencing its own internal civil war of late due to this.

[Walt Starr]

47. I really don't agree with that when it comes to Civil War Re-enactment

Civil War Re-enactors play a vital role in providing a look into history. And in order to achieve this, somebody must carry the battle flag of the confederacy in certain re-enacments

[bhunt70]

31. Some famous southerners...

George Washington, Bill Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, James Madison, John Tyler, Booker T Washington...

oh those bad bad southerners.

[jody]

33. Don't forget Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and thousands of other Democrats. n/t

[noahmijo]

37. Did they call themselves confederates or southerners?

I clearly said confederates NOT southerners.

when someone talks shit about terrorists in general do you immediately chide them for being bigoted towards muslims or christians too?

[On the Road]

10. My First Thought Was That They Were Copying the US Constitution

My second thought was that Washington, Jefferson, and other founding fathers were from the South, and that the Confederates had as much right to the Constitution as Ben Franklin, John Adams, or any founding father from the North.

[Walt Starr]

38. The most interesting thing was the single six year term for the president

Think of how THAT would work out!

Seriously, no thoughts of getting re-elected. Six years to do your business.

It's an interesting alteration of the original.

[On the Road]

46. I've Actually Heard The Single Six-Year Term Proposed for the US

Had no idea it was a Confederate idea. I think at least one country does it this way. Maybe Peru (anyone know)?

[RoyGBiv]

13. Many times ...

From the perspective of those who wrote the Confederate constitution, the point was not to create anything new but to preserve something old. In other words, they saw themselves as defenders of the "original intent" of the Founders and so did not need an entirely new document. However, they wanted to clarify certain points so as to avoid the interpretations that had led to disagreements of federal vs. state power.

And I wouldn't read what you're reading into the "Almighty God" addition. The entire country had recently gone through the so-called Great Awakening, which had as much if not more influence in the North as it did in the South. Anti-slavery sentiment was in part fueled by the religious fervor, the implication being that "God" did not endorse slavery. It became more than implication with Seward's "higher law" speech, which noted that a higher law than the Constitution existed, and it deemed slavery an abomination. Southerners were very much aware of this speech and its impact at the time and had it in mind as they composed their speeches and documents seeking independence from the United States.

[Yupster]

14. Agree RoyG

You can see what you're talking about especially in clauses about the federal government not being able to use tax dollars for improvements in some states with some exceptions.

This was because they thought the federal US government was playing favorites to the north by using tax dollars for expnsive projects like canals which were always in the north.

The Confederates, in their opinions, were trying to preserve the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, not create anything new.

[TomClash]

16. You forgot a small part of it

The First Amendment said "The Negro shall not count as a man and shall have no rights hereunder, except that he shall be the perpetual property of his owner."

:sarcasm:

[Charlie Brown]

18. Many state constitutions have the "almighty God" phrase in the preamble

I'm no fan of the CSA, but this was hardly a unique feature to their constitution.

from the Massachusetts Constitution:

WE, therefore, the people of Massachusettes, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the
Universe, in affording us, in the course of his Providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprize, or entering into an Original, explicit, and Solemn Compact with each other; and of forming a New Constitution of Civil Government, for Ourselves and Posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a Design, DO agree upon, ordain and establish, the following DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, AND FRAME OF GOVERNMENT, as the CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTES.

from Article II:

It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.

[Inland]

22. The Illinois Const. has, "To Get A Share of the Pie" in the preamble.

But yours is good, too.

[MojoXN]

30. If only the REST of the country would have integrated "state's rights"...

Into their collective psyche, the New England region would be a paradise right now, and the South would be hell. Fair trade? Yes, in my opinion.

Seriously though, the Southern states had MANY grievances aside from slavery. Not all of them were unreasonable. Most were, but not all. Keep that in mind.

EDIT: Had the CSA succeeded, we'd have a precedent for secession. Wouldn't that be nice in this day and age?

MojoXN

[RoyGBiv]

34. Not particularly ...

If we had a precedent for secession, the United States as we know it would not have survived into the 20th century, and despite what is taking place now, I'm not sure the utter failure of the so-called American experiment in government less than a century after it began would have served the best interests of humankind.

[MojoXN]

35. Point well taken...

Just the same, I wish that the CURRENT federal government had less power to interfere with the sensible states of the USA. But, as you say, the genesis of the precedent for that restriction would likely have had terrible consequences.

MojoXN

[Zynx]

42. However, without the South, politics would be so much different right now.

It is actually difficult to imagine what it would be like.

[Walt Starr]

45. If you want to imagine what would have happened if the South had succeeded

Read Harry Turtledove.

I'm up to 1941 in the series and the confederate States have recently attacked the United States. This will be the fourth war between the two in the Alternate History Turtledove has laid out.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Historical revisionism.

"Seriously though, the Southern states had MANY grievances aside from slavery"

That, my friend, is made up bullshit spewed by the right and unsupported by the actual history of the times. The war was indeed about 'states' rights' but it was specifically about the right to keep slaves. The issue was slavery and had been for years before the actual secession.

[newspeak]

48. all those people dead!!!

I know my family fought on both sides in the Civil War. Sometimes I think it was better if we would have just split. The South wanted to trade with England, and England and other European countries would have pushed against slavery. The Civil War was the bloodiest war for the US, and it looks, that as a country, we are still polarized. What's the solution? I don't know.

[newspeak]

49. and, in the Bible

you can excuse anything. See, it's alright to have slaves cause it says so right in the Bible. See, genocide is okay cause God annihilated Jericho--yep, it was God, not man. And, the abolitionists were arguing against from that same Bible; however, one was reading the "Old" Testament and the other the "New."

[Charlie Brown]

50. It would NOT have been better if the South had split

The South would have remained agrarian, feudal, and poor, with different currencies, governments, and rights in each state.

Women would not have the vote in most of the South. There would not be progress that we take for granted like paved roads, electricity, decent wages, and other legacies of the New Deal. Education would most likely be handled by churches, and there would be no standard curriculum or teachers' unions. Illiteracy would still be very high.

And all that is assuming the South was not gobbled up by another European power and ruled as a protectorate.

The South would be a hell-hole if it had somehow won the war.