Posted on 05/01/2024 4:07:52 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
The Declaration of Secession was the result of a convention of the Mississippi Legislature in January of 1861. The convention adopted a formal Ordinance of Secession written by former Congressman Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar. While the ordinance served an official purpose, the declaration laid out the grievances Mississippi’s ruling class held against the federal government under the leadership of President-elect Abraham Lincoln...The convention really couldn’t be any more straightforward:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest in the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at mississippitoday.org ...
The Democrats turned that way in 1896, and the South was still voting for them up until 1980. Reagan barely won some Southern States.
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
In other words, the central government shall no longer have any authority to abolish or interfere in any States slavery laws. Simple. Sounds to me like a strong states-rights stance. There are those, (some on this thread) who in this year 2024 will bend, twist, spindle and mutilate that most basic statement and use it to prove that Lincoln, Republicans and the Union were promoting Slavery everywhere and forevermore. I put forth that they are part and parcel to the very people who have contributed to bringing our country to its knees today, by tarnishing our heritage.
1896 is way early. It came later than that and the South fought a rearguard action for decades to try to keep the Democrat party from going down that path. There's no way anybody in the South was going to vote for a Republican for several generations after the way the Republicans acted.
1896 was when the party turned it’s back on Grover Cleveland in favor of that insane Georgia Socalist Tillman, snd it hardly ever looked back after that. Mabey, Stevenson and Kenbedy resisted it some.
Utterly laughable. No it was not bigger and the Northern government interfered in industry a lot itself.
The South was a Center of the Populist Parry. Most Southern Senators supported the Facist New Deal.
I would call the New Deal much more socialist than fascist. Southern Senators were going to support the Democrat party because they were Democrats. Also under FDR, the federal government put more money into the South than it took out of the South for the first time ever.
Jackson was a founder of what is considered modern Conservatism. The orginal Maga. The Union, Small Goverment, and Anti- Hamiltonianism and Monopoly.
Jackson was the founder of the Democrat party....which was the party of limited government, balanced budgets and decentralized power in the 19th century.
It was MUCH bigger, and The Confederate Constitution had a clause that a State could not Secede. Texas would have broken from the Confederacy for sure. Thier is no way that State would have stayed. And the South itself had many Unionists. The Southern Unionists were the Calverymen who burned Atlanta. These men where Jacksonians, they agreed with Jackson, “ Our Federal Union, it must be preserved.”
Jackson is Trump’s Political hero and also mine.
No it wasn't. Not even close. There was nothing in the Confederate Constitution that prevented any state from seceding. If you say otherwise cite the clause and post it here for us to see. There were some traitors to their states in the South who sided with the federal government. That's true.
A lot of what Jackson did was good but bear in mind, he was the founder of the Democrat party. Political parties can and do change over time.
“There was nothing in the Confederate Constitution that prevented any state from seceding.”
There was however something in the Confederate Constitution to prevent states abolishing slavery, they knew what was important to them.
There was? What was that something? Cite it. Oh by the way......
While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.
So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.
The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.
So not only was there nothing in the Confederate Constitution which would have prevented any Confederate state from abolishing slavery, there was also nothing in the Confederate Constitution which would prevent any state that had already abolished slavery from joining the Confederacy.
". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .
". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
— There was? What was that something? Cite it.
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
“There are those, (some on this thread) who in this year 2024 will bend, twist, spindle and mutilate that most basic statement and use it to prove that Lincoln, Republicans and the Union were promoting Slavery everywhere and forevermore.”
Lincoln wasn’t promoting slavery, just protecting it in the United States Constitution forever.
His determination to repatriate black people to elsewhere was a backup plan.
Since you apparently didn't read when I already addressed this in advance, I'll repeat it again.
While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.
,b>So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.
The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.
So not only was there nothing in the Confederate Constitution which would have prevented any Confederate state from abolishing slavery, there was also nothing in the Confederate Constitution which would prevent any state that had already abolished slavery from joining the Confederacy.
". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .
". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction.". (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 3.
(3)
“In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be 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. “
Oh! So you mean the right of transit was exactly the same as it had been in the US post Dred Scott?
“the right of transit”
So you don’t notice that it also mentions “the institution of negro slavery”
You didn't notice Dred Scott allowed slave owners to transit with their SLAVES as well?
Also, have you failed to notice despite the fact that I've posted it twice already that this prohibition applied to the Central Confederate government only and not to the states in the Confederacy? In other words, the Confederate government could not force a state to abolish slavery. A Confederate state however could decide to do so on their own and there was nothing the Confederate government could do about it. They were even willing to admit states that had already banned slavery.
I did
and that has nothing to do with the fact that the CSA constitution forbid the abolition of slavery
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.