Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

[jmdrake]

the union and csa were the same political fucks. what was good about the situation is that they were fighting each other. today, they are working together.

See. We can agree on something.

 

[torchbearer]

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe a majority of Louisiana citizens wouldn't oppose. Regardless, this is all a bunch of woulda/coulda/shoulda. Both sides sucked. We should be able to all agree on that and move on.

both governments(the people and their ideas in them) sucked. now to the topic I've been talking about- the idea of states breaking the union. the idea of people breaking their union with government. the ideas of confederacy vs federacy. Do we really need to be fasci? that is federalism.

 

[torchbearer]

the members of the fasci are held in bondage. that is the only way it stays together.

 

[jmdrake]

both governments(the people and their ideas in them) sucked. now to the topic I've been talking about- the idea of states breaking the union. the idea of people breaking their union with government. the ideas of confederacy vs federacy. Do we really need to be fasci? that is federalism.

Totally breaking with government isn't "confederacy". It's anarchy. And yes, I would prefer anarchy to the CSA. For the life of me I really don't know why Trav even started this thread. Both sides are pretty entrenched in their positions. Bottom line, I do not think the CSA is the best vehicle to advance the idea of limited government. I think just about everyone here would agree with your general position that smaller government is better. There was simply no need IMO for your "libtard" quip earlier as nobody in this thread has been arguing for a "strong central government" or against states rights or any of that. In fact one thing I agree with the "Southern Avenger" on is how nullification was actually used by some northern states to fight against slavery by nullifying the fugitive slave laws. In that instance it was the southern states arguing for strong central government.

 

[torchbearer]

Totally breaking with government isn't "confederacy". It's anarchy. And yes, I would prefer anarchy to the CSA. For the life of me I really don't know why Trav even started this thread. Both sides are pretty entrenched in their positions. Bottom line, I do not think the CSA is the best vehicle to advance the idea of limited government. I think just about everyone here would agree with your general position that smaller government is better. There was simply no need IMO for your "libtard" quip earlier as nobody in this thread has been arguing for a "strong central government" or against states rights or any of that. In fact one thing I agree with the "Southern Avenger" on is how nullification was actually used by some northern states to fight against slavery by nullifying the fugitive slave laws. In that instance it was the southern states arguing for strong central government.

libtards demagogue every time the idea of secession is brought up. they use an association of slavery to confederacy, which is false. that is all I was trying to state.

 

[torchbearer]

oh, and on the grammar and syntax police, people from south Louisiana don't speak your engrish.
there have been members from Louisiana who have stopped posting here because of people making fun of their grammar and syntax. most of us are Cajun. we say, who dat.

 

[samforpaul]

Well, the whole damn country didn't care much for the Negro. The average Northerner couldn't care less about slavery so long as the blacks stayed out of their states. The infamous 'Jim Crow' laws had their origin in the Black Codes begun in the Northern states.

Here's a few examples:

Slavery was abolished in Ohio by the state's original constitution (1802). But at the same time, Ohio, with slave-state Kentucky across the river, took the lead in aggressively barring black immigration.

When Virginian John Randolph's 518 slaves were emancipated and a plan was hatched to settle them in southern Ohio, the population rose up in indignation. An Ohio congressman warned that if the attempt were made, "the banks of the Ohio ... would be lined with men with muskets on their shoulders to keep off the emancipated slaves."[1]

According to historian Leon F. Litwack, Ohio "provided a classic example of how anti-immigration legislation could be invoked to harass Negro residents."[2] The state had enacted Black Laws in 1804 and 1807 that compelled blacks entering the state to post bond of $500 guaranteeing good behavior and to produce a court paper as proof that they were free.

"No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement" Likwack wrote, "until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days."

http://www.slavenorth.com/ohio.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ILLINOIS, INDIANA

The legal history of the black codes in these two states is essentially similiar, and in fact Illinois simply continued Indiana's code when it organized as a territory.

The new states that entered the union in the North after the gradual emancipation of northern slaves were just as concerned as the old ones with maintaining their racial purity. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. Slaves could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but slaves already there remained in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred blacks or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race.

Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation was passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[1]

http://www.slavenorth.com/northwest.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oregon Constitution of 1859

Article I Section 35.-- No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such negroes, and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them. (Repealed November 3, 1926).

Article II Section 6.--No Negro, Chinaman, or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage. (Repealed June28, 1927).

http://www.ccrh.org/center/posters/colorl/orcon.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is no moral high ground that either side can claim in regards to Negros. The South wanted to continue slavery. The North didn't need it as it had plenty of immigrants to fill its factories with cheap labor. The North did, however, make use of slaves early on and many prominent Northern families made their fortunes in the slave trade.

It could be argued that the whole country benefited from slavery. The South was made prosperous by slavery and the tariffs that the South paid the lion's share of benefited the North. It wasn't slavery that Lincoln couldn't abide...it was secession and the loss of revenue as the South pursued a policy of low tariffs. In short, the USA feared the commercial competition of a CSA.

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

Appreciate the links there, jay dub.

Very informational.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

both governments(the people and their ideas in them) sucked. now to the topic I've been talking about- the idea of states breaking the union. the idea of people breaking their union with government. the ideas of confederacy vs federacy. Do we really need to be fasci? that is federalism.

That's the fact, Jack.

 

[itshappening]

Slavery is an abomination but it would have died out in the Confederacy as everyone has said because it would have been untenable. They would have had to change that constitution (eventually). It might have taken a while for it to happen but it would have happened naturally without a war and 500,000 American's dead.

Jefferson Davis and his vice president wouldn't been around forever so it doesn't matter what they said. Attitudes would have changed.

 

[itshappening]

Slavery ending in 1870 or 1900 or however long the South would have kept it going is neither here nor there.

500,000 people died in Lincoln's war and countless others disabled!

 

[Travlyr]

Slavery ending in 1870 or 1900 or however long the South would have kept it going is neither here nor there.

500,000 people died in Lincoln's war and countless others disabled!

This is the ignorance from the liberty movement that has to stop eventually. It was not Lincoln's war. Lincoln grew up in anarchy and he rejected it as a man. He was not a killer or tyrant. He was a man. He was basically drafted as president when slave masters wanted to expand slavery and abolitionists wanted to kill slave owners. It was not Lincoln's war.

 

[Travlyr]

Black Hawk was a chief. There were Sauk Indians and Fox (Mesquaki) Indians, but no Black Hawk Indians. I don't profess to know a single thing about Lincoln's role in the Black Hawk wars, but I am aware of who was fighting whom.

Right. I misspoke. One member of Black Hawk's tribe was saved by Lincoln when Black Hawk and his warriors were trying to re-inhabit Illinois. Lincoln was Captain of his platoon. When one of Black Hawk's tribe members wandered into their camp the Illinois militia wanted to kill him claiming he was a spy. Abraham stepped in and released the Indian. He never killed anyone. He hated violence.

 

[Origanalist]

Right. I misspoke. One member of Black Hawk's tribe was saved by Lincoln when Black Hawk and his warriors were trying to re-inhabit Illinois. Lincoln was Captain of his platoon. When one of Black Hawk's tribe members wandered into their camp the Illinois militia wanted to kill him claiming he was a spy. Abraham stepped in and released the Indian. He never killed anyone. He hated violence.

Ya, he was a regular Mahatma Gandhi.

 

[Travlyr]

Ya, he was a regular Mahatma Gandhi.

He was a boy who grew to be a man. Lincoln was a principled, honest, hard working man who freed the negro slaves in America. He never killed anyone his entire life. He was a man of circumstance.

 

[jmdrake]

libtards demagogue every time the idea of secession is brought up. they use an association of slavery to confederacy, which is false. that is all I was trying to state.

Fine. But I don't think anyone here equates the idea of secession with slavery. I don't. I'm betting Trav doesn't either. The 13 colonies seceded from Great Britain. That said, as a practical matter I don't see it as viable. Rich Hamblen (the guy who stood up for the militia clause of the 2nd amendment and lost) proudly wears his confederate lapel pin. Whenever the subject of secession is brought up his answer is "Yeah. You and who's army? The south already tried that and it didn't work." On the flipside, when just one southern state tried nullification they got the result they wanted (historically low tariffs).



Friendly advice that you can take or leave. If your method to advance the idea of states rights and limited government is to convince people that the south was somehow "right" WRT the civil war or the civil rights movement, you will have limited success in advancing your cause. That's just the truth. Take it or leave it. If, on the other hand, you show how states rights and a limited federal government can and have helped in causes they already agree on, that's a totally different matter. Jack Hunter does a great job of doing what you say you want to do here:

oh, and on the grammar and syntax police, people from south Louisiana don't speak your engrish.
there have been members from Louisiana who have stopped posting here because of people making fun of their grammar and syntax. most of us are Cajun. we say, who dat.

Ummmm....who attacked your "engrish"? I certainly didn't.

 

[jmdrake]

Slavery is an abomination but it would have died out in the Confederacy as everyone has said because it would have been untenable. They would have had to change that constitution (eventually). It might have taken a while for it to happen but it would have happened naturally without a war and 500,000 American's dead.

Jefferson Davis and his vice president wouldn't been around forever so it doesn't matter what they said. Attitudes would have changed.

You know, I've heard this argument before. Nobody has ever responded to the question "Why would they have had to change their constitution and end slavery when slavery still exists"? Seriously? And nobody ever looks at the unique dynamic of regional slavery in the U.S. In other nations where slavery ended naturally, there was no concept of "slave state" and "free state". The idea that people in one region could secede and keep their slaves to my knowledge was not tried anywhere else. And considering how long "virtual slavery" continued through Jim Crowe laws and the sharecropping system, I'm not convinced of this "natural death" people love to talk about. I do believe, though, that it could have ended without war despite the regionalism. The problem Lincoln ran into when he tried compensated emancipation with the border states was "Who's going to pay for it?" Oh sure, people can always say "Well it would have been cheaper than war." And in hindsight it would have been. But considering how much people are against being taxed now for no obvious benefit, imagine the reaction of the person who didn't own slaves being taxed to pay the person who did own slaves to do what that person morally should be willing to do anyway. There was a way around that problem that I've talked about before, but nobody seems interested in listening to. Since the money for freeing slaves had to come from some sort of tax revenue, why allocate the money from protective tariffs to do that? Southern slave owners would win because they would have received money for their "property". (I put that in quotes because you really can't own another human being and it was illegitimate property.) Northern manufacturers would have still had the protection they needed. Slaves would have been freed. Taxpayers who didn't own slaves wouldn't have to feel like they were being taxed just for the benefit of slave owners. And for the "free traders" out there, the tariff should have been set to automatically expire once the full cost of freeing slaves and integrating them into society had been reached. But no, that wouldn't work because it makes too much sense.

 

[Travlyr]

Totally breaking with government isn't "confederacy". It's anarchy. And yes, I would prefer anarchy to the CSA. For the life of me I really don't know why Trav even started this thread. Both sides are pretty entrenched in their positions. Bottom line, I do not think the CSA is the best vehicle to advance the idea of limited government. I think just about everyone here would agree with your general position that smaller government is better. There was simply no need IMO for your "libtard" quip earlier as nobody in this thread has been arguing for a "strong central government" or against states rights or any of that. In fact one thing I agree with the "Southern Avenger" on is how nullification was actually used by some northern states to fight against slavery by nullifying the fugitive slave laws. In that instance it was the southern states arguing for strong central government.

I started this thread because too many people believe the propaganda from the Mises Institute, and LewRockwell.com, that the Southern states seceded to defend states rights. That is not what happened in 1861. The proof is in the documents.

People get it backwards. For Lincoln the issue was about states rights, rule of law, and honoring agreements (Article I. Section 10). The Southern Confederacy seceded, not to defend states rights as claimed, but to defend their right to own slaves. The Confederate Constitution did expand freedom and states rights but only for the white guys. If they had included everyone, then their Constitution would have been much, much, better than the U.S. Constitution. They didn't do that. As you stated, they centralized government to nationalize slavery for the benefit of white men.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo misrepresents Abraham Lincoln in his book, "The New Lincoln" by lying about him, taking Lincoln's quotes out-of-context, and ignoring the fact that Abraham grew up in virtual anarchy and rejected it as an adult. DiLorenzo wrote a biography of Lincoln while ignoring Lincoln's formative years and lying about Lincoln's objection to the morality of slavery among other lies. It is a stupid move promoted by the Mises Institute. If the liberty movement wants to move forward, then they must be honest, ethical, and truthful. Liars are losers in the 21st century.

 

[Aratus]

OMFG! It's a civil war/Lincoln/slavery thread and I finally agree with HB on something! This world is definitely coming to an end. When does that Mayan calendar thing kick in again?

today... and it goes to 0000 mayan style?

 

[Aratus]

i just had to give Travlyr some rep...

technically more of the slaves became

free during andrew johnson's term

in office than under poor abe lincoln's!

the 1868 senate trial was triggered by

the pardons done in 1865 as well as

who could vote and how citizens could

vote in the states that wanted re-entry

into the union. tariff rates were debated.

 

[Travlyr]

I don't think hypocrisy becomes apparent except under the false construct that Lincoln fought the war to free the slaves. I don't subscribe to that and see where there is no hypocrisy.

That's right. Lincoln did not fight the war to end slavery. He would have ended slavery if he thought he had the authority to do it, but Lincoln was well versed in the Constitution and correctly understood that an amendment to the constitution would be required to end slavery. That does not mean that Lincoln was not opposed to the institution of slavery. He grew up in an anti-slavery home, and as a young man he piloted a boat down the Mississippi River to New Orleans where he witnessed slave auctions and whipping posts. He saw slavery as an injustice all his life.

Protest in Illinois Legislature on Slavery

March 3, 1837
The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and ordered to be spread on the journals, to wit:

Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.

• They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
• They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
• They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.''

DAN STONE,

A. LINCOLN,

Representatives from the county of Sangamon.

The North was quite upfront about its attitude towards the Negro, so much so that it was codified in several states.

It's just that there is so much ignorance about the issue of slavery that it is sometimes useful to point these things out in order to see the whole cloth of the history of that period.

I agree.

The fact is that Lincoln could find no excuse to begin hostilities with the South until the manufactured incident at Fort Sumter.

That does not make any sense at all. Why would Lincoln provoke a war with a heavily armed and organized southern army when Washington City had virtually no defense, no army, a raided treasury, and a 75 year old General in charge?

In many ways, what Lincoln did following that is mirrored in Bush's actions following 9/11.

I don't see it that way at all. There are no documents to prove that. Lincoln was not looking for war.

Speech at Independence Hall

Abraham Lincoln 
February 22, 1861
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mr. Cuyler:--I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here in the place where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. I can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated, and were given to the world from this hall in which we stand. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. (Great cheering.) I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and adopted that Declaration of Independence--I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army, who achieved that Independence. (Applause.) I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time. (Great applause.) It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. (Cheers.) This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence.

Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to save it. If it can’t be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But, if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle--I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender it. (Applause.)

Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say in advance, there will be no blood shed unless it be forced upon the Government. The Government will not use force unless force is used against it. (Prolonged applause and cries of "That’s the proper sentiment.")

My friends, this is a wholly unprepared speech. I did not expect to be called upon to say a word when I came here--I supposed I was merely to do something towards raising a flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet, (cries of "no, no"), but I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by.

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.