[BroJoeK]

steve in dc: "Slavery, despite its inherent immorality, was not addressed in the Constitution.”

jeffersondem: "It was addressed in the sense it was enshrined in the United States Constitution."

Jeffersondem, your favorite term "enshrined" is too highfalutin a word, when "buried", "entombed" or "embalmed" would be better descriptions, because:

Montgomery, Alabama, February 1861:

1. Unlike the Confederate constitution -- framed in Montgomery, Alabama starting on February 7, 1861 -- the US 1787 Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery by name.
   Our Founders went to great lengths to avoid saying directly what they intended, suggesting they knew full well slavery was so wrong it must not be called by its proper name.
   So, they wanted to bury the corpse of slavery under a matting of obfuscatory words.

2. Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not allow exceptions in laws abolishing imports of slaves from other countries.

3. Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not prohibit outlawing slavery.
   As the CSA constitution said:

   "Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]"

   Now, to a normal person reading this, it seems pretty clear that the Confederate constitution outlaws abolishing slavery, but our pro-Confederates here respond with two arguments:
   • This provision only prohibits the Confederate Federal government from abolishing slavery, it does not prohibit states from abolishing slavery.
     States, our pro-Confederates claim, were still free to abolish slavery if they wished.

   • Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin!
     The CSA constitution, they claim, only says exactly what Corwin said:
     

     "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.[2][3]"

   Northern Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan,
   signed Corwin Amendment after unanimous Democrat votes for it.

   However, we should notice the historical timeline here:

   • February 7, 1861 -- the Confederate Secession Convention in Montgomery, Alabama, began work on their new Confederate constitution.
     It was completed on March 11, 1861.

   • February 28, 1861 -- Ohio Republican Congressman Corwin submitted his proposed amendment.
     It barely passed with 100% Democrat support and majority Republican opposition and was signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan on March 4.

   So it appears to me that the Confederate constitution came first and Corwin was simply hoping to match what Confederates were already guaranteeing.
   Corwin was ratified by just two of five Union slave states and three of 18 Union free states -- nowhere near the 3/4 required.
   In 1864 Ohio rescinded its ratification and Maryland voted to abolish slavery on its own.

4. Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 USA Constitution makes no guarantees of a "right of sojourn" with slaves.
   In contrast, the CSA constitution says:

   "Article IV Section 2(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.[31]"

   Crazy Roger Taney's insane 1857 misinterpretations
   of our Founders' Original Intentions:

   To which our pro-Confederates respond: that's just what the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scot ruling provided.
   However, the fact is that no Founder in 1787 would have interpreted their new US Constitution the way Crazy Roger Taney did in 1857.

5. Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 US Constitution did not forbid Congress from outlawing slavery in US territories.
   Indeed, the US Congress had outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories in 1787, so that was clearly intended by our Founders.

   The CSA constitution says, regarding territories:

   "Article IV Section 3(3) -- 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.[32]"

   Again, this was Crazy Roger's ruling in Dred Scott, but it had nothing to do with our Founders' original intentions.

   The three-fifths clauses of both constitutions are almost identical, except for Confederates' use of the words, "three-fifths of all slaves".

6. The fugitive slave clauses of both constitutions are identical, because for once Confederates decided to use our Southern Founders' euphemistic language instead of their own more blunt words regarding fugitive slaves.

Bottom line: your favorite word, "enshrined", is indeed the proper word for slavery in the 1861 CSA constitution, but not in the 1787 US Constitution.
Instead, our Founders in 1787 hoped to "bury", "entomb" and/or "embalm" slavery, as best they could at that time.
Sadly, for them and the USA, slavery was not yet dead in 1787.

[FLT-bird]

Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not allow exceptions in laws abolishing imports of slaves from other countries.,/p>

The 1861 Constitution flat out banned the slave trade. The 1787 Constitution allowed for it to continue for 20 more years.

Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not prohibit outlawing slavery. As the CSA constitution said: "Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[13]" Now, to a normal person reading this, it seems pretty clear that the Confederate constitution outlaws abolishing slavery, but our pro-Confederates here respond with two arguments: This provision only prohibits the Confederate Federal government from abolishing slavery, it does not prohibit states from abolishing slavery. States, our pro-Confederates claim, were still free to abolish slavery if they wished. Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin! The CSA constitution, they claim, only says exactly what Corwin said: "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.[2][3]" Northern Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan, signed Corwin Amendment after unanimous Democrat votes for it. However, we should notice the historical timeline here: February 7, 1861 -- the Confederate Secession Convention in Montgomery, Alabama, began work on their new Confederate constitution. It was completed on March 11, 1861. February 28, 1861 -- Ohio Republican Congressman Corwin submitted his proposed amendment. It barely passed with 100% Democrat support and majority Republican opposition and was signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan on March 4. So it appears to me that the Confederate constitution came first and Corwin was simply hoping to match what Confederates were already guaranteeing. Corwin was ratified by just two of five Union slave states and three of 18 Union free states -- nowhere near the 3/4 required. In 1864 Ohio rescinded its ratification and Maryland voted to abolish slavery on its own.

The Corwin Amendment which was introduced in each house of Congress by a Republican was - as Doris Kearns-Goodwin goes to great trouble to lay out - orchestrated by incoming Republican Abe Lincoln. Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland and Lincoln's Illinois ratified it. As NYs Seward said, NY would have ratified it too had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it. They did not. Ohio rescinding its approval long after the Southern states had rejected it was a bit like closing the barn door after all the horses had bolted. ie a useless and meaningless gesture.

Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 USA Constitution makes no guarantees of a "right of sojourn" with slaves. In contrast, the CSA constitution says: "Article IV Section 2(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.[31]" Crazy Roger Taney's insane 1857 misinterpretations of our Founders' Original Intentions: To which our pro-Confederates respond: that's just what the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scot ruling provided. However, the fact is that no Founder in 1787 would have interpreted their new US Constitution the way Crazy Roger Taney did in 1857.

How do you know that? You like to hurl epithets at Chief Justice Taney as if he alone were responsible but the fact is a majority of the SCOTUS agreed with him and ruled that way. The 1861 Confederate Constitution was no different from what the law was in the US prior to 1861.

Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 US Constitution did not forbid Congress from outlawing slavery in US territories. Indeed, the US Congress had outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories in 1787, so that was clearly intended by our Founders. The CSA constitution says, regarding territories: "Article IV Section 3(3) -- 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.[32]" Again, this was Crazy Roger's ruling in Dred Scott, but it had nothing to do with our Founders' original intentions.

Again, this was the same as in the US prior to 1861 and again, Chief Justice Taney represented the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court. The Confederate Constitution other than mentioning the word "slavery" explicitly didn't protect it any more than or provide additional rights to slaveowners that they did not have in the US at the time.

The three-fifths clauses of both constitutions are almost identical, except for Confederates' use of the words, "three-fifths of all slaves".

Yes the Confederate Constitution was more honest in explicitly using the word slave while the US Constitution didn't specifically use that word even while doing exactly the same thing.

The fugitive slave clauses of both constitutions are identical, because for once Confederates decided to use our Southern Founders' euphemistic language instead of their own more blunt words regarding fugitive slaves.,/p>

In General the Confederate Constitution simply adopted large swathes of the US Constitution in the same way that the US Constitution incorporated large swathes of the Articles of Confederation. In each instance, the drafters of both only made changes in areas they felt needed reform.

Bottom line: your favorite word, "enshrined", is indeed the proper word for slavery in the 1861 CSA constitution, but not in the 1787 US Constitution. Instead, our Founders in 1787 hoped to "bury", "entomb" and/or "embalm" slavery, as best they could at that time. Sadly, for them and the USA, slavery was not yet dead in 1787.

Bottom line the protections of slavery and the rights of slaveowners were the same in the Confederate Constitution as they had been under the US Constitution. The only difference was that the Confederate Constitution is more honest in explicitly saying the word slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

US 1787 Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery by name.

A silly point. Article IV, section 2 is clearly referring to slaves. Also the authorization of Congress to ban the slave trade in 1808 uses euphemisms, but it is absolutely referring to slaves.

Article IV, simply blows your point out of the water. The US Constitution did indeed endorse slavery, both tacitly and actively.

[jeffersondem]

“. . . the US 1787 Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery by name.”

It seems to me you are attempting to distance the original 13 slave states from their unanimous vote to adopt the pro-slavery United States Constitution.

Brings to mind the University professor from up north who argued the U.S. Constitution does not provide a criminal defendant with the right to remain silent; only that a criminal defendant can't be “compelled . . . to be a witness against himself.”

Brother Joe, it is the same thing.

In his first inaugural address President Lincoln stated: “There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

“It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?”

President Lincoln could find slavery in the United States Constitution, something you claim you can't find.

But I guess Lincoln was not playing a little game that day.

[FLT-bird]

Unlike the Confederate constitution -- framed in Montgomery, Alabama starting on February 7, 1861 -- the US 1787 Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery by name. Our Founders went to great lengths to avoid saying directly what they intended, suggesting they knew full well slavery was so wrong it must not be called by its proper name. So, they wanted to bury the corpse of slavery under a matting of obfuscatory words.

The Confederate Constitution adopted on March 11, 9 days after the Corwin Amendment, does explicitly use the word "slavery" while the US constitution tap dances around it while referring to it several times. So what?

Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not allow exceptions in laws abolishing imports of slaves from other countries.,

All the Confederate constitution allowed was importation from the very same states...ie from the US....from which slaves had been able to be traded prior to secession. It was no different from the situation that existed prior to secession. You know what one key difference was? The Confederate Constitution banned the importation of slaves from the rest of the world immediately. The US Constitution allowed for the importation of slaves for another 20 years after ratification. The Confederate Constitution was stricter in its ban on the slave trade.

Unlike the 1861 Confederate constitution, the US 1787 Constitution does not prohibit outlawing slavery.

This only applied to the Confederate Government not to the state governments. Once again, this was an explicit spelling out of the situation that existed in the US prior to secession. The US Federal government also had no power provided to it in the US Constitution to force a state to abolish slavery.

Now, to a normal person reading this, it seems pretty clear that the Confederate constitution outlaws abolishing slavery,

Oh that seems far from clear. The Confederate Constitution applied to the central government, not to the states. That was the same understanding everyone had about the US Constitution. It only contained restrictions on the power of the federal government.

but our pro-Confederates here respond with two arguments: This provision only prohibits the Confederate Federal government from abolishing slavery, it does not prohibit states from abolishing slavery. States, our pro-Confederates claim, were still free to abolish slavery if they wished. Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin, Corwin! The CSA constitution, they claim, only says exactly what Corwin said: "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.[2][3]" Northern Doughfaced Democrat Pres. Buchanan, signed Corwin Amendment after unanimous Democrat votes for it. However, we should notice the historical timeline here: February 7, 1861 -- the Confederate Secession Convention in Montgomery, Alabama, began work on their new Confederate constitution. It was completed on March 11, 1861. February 28, 1861 -- Ohio Republican Congressman Corwin submitted his proposed amendment. It barely passed with 100% Democrat support and majority Republican opposition and was signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan on March 4. So it appears to me that the Confederate constitution came first and Corwin was simply hoping to match what Confederates were already guaranteeing. Corwin was ratified by just two of five Union slave states and three of 18 Union free states -- nowhere near the 3/4 required. In 1864 Ohio rescinded its ratification and Maryland voted to abolish slavery on its own.

Here are some other facts: Republicans introduced the Corwin Amendment to each house of Congress. Plenty of Republicans voted for the passage of it - which it did pass with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority. It could not have passed without substantial Republican support.

Its drafting was orchestrated....yes that is the correct word....ORCHESTRATED as Doris Kearns Goodwin went to considerable pains to point out in Team of Rivals...by Lincoln himself.

It was ratified by multiple Northern states even after the war started.

It was introduced on March 2 while the Confederate Constitution was not approved until March 11. So the Corwin Amendment came first. The timeline is indeed important

Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 USA Constitution makes no guarantees of a "right of sojourn" with slaves. In contrast, the CSA constitution says: "Article IV Section 2(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.[31]" Crazy Roger Taney's insane 1857 misinterpretations of our Founders' Original Intentions: To which our pro-Confederates respond: that's just what the SCOTUS 1857 Dred Scot ruling provided. However, the fact is that no Founder in 1787 would have interpreted their new US Constitution the way Crazy Roger Taney did in 1857.

The fact remains that this was the majority opinion of the SCOTUS, not just the opinion of Chief Justice Taney.

The fact also remains that there is no way you can show that no Founding Father would have agreed with the SCOTUS' opinion in Dred Scott. None of the Founders said anything about the issue - unless you can provide us a quote from each of the Founding Fathers showing otherwise.

Unlike the 1861 CSA constitution, the 1787 US Constitution did not forbid Congress from outlawing slavery in US territories. Indeed, the US Congress had outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories in 1787, so that was clearly intended by our Founders. The CSA constitution says, regarding territories: "Article IV Section 3(3) -- 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.[32]" Again, this was Crazy Roger's ruling in Dred Scott, but it had nothing to do with our Founders' original intentions. The three-fifths clauses of both constitutions are almost identical, except for Confederates' use of the words, "three-fifths of all slaves".

And as the SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott, the US Federal government could not outlaw slavery in US territories either. So any such law was in fact unconstitutional in the US. You are free to disagree with the SCOTUS but that was the law of the land. Furthermore, there is no way you can prove that was not the Founding Fathers' intent.

The fugitive slave clauses of both constitutions are identical, because for once Confederates decided to use our Southern Founders' euphemistic language instead of their own more blunt words regarding fugitive slaves.

It is identical because the Confederate Constitution is in many parts identical just as the US Constitution was in many parts identical to the Articles of Confederation. The Confederate Constitution did not treat slavery differently than how the US Constitution did prior to secession.

Bottom line: your favorite word, "enshrined", is indeed the proper word for slavery in the 1861 CSA constitution, but not in the 1787 US Constitution.

Bottom line: The Confederate Constitution was more honest in explicitly using the word "slavery" while both protected it equally.

Instead, our Founders in 1787 hoped to "bury", "entomb" and/or "embalm" slavery, as best they could at that time.

The 1787 Constitution tap danced around/obfuscated when referring to slaves instead of explicitly saying the word while providing protections for slavery that were identical to those in the Confederate Constitution - expect the 1787 Constitution allowed 20 more years of the African Slave Trade while the Confederate Constitution banned it immeditately.