[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 In 1864 Ohio rescinded its ratification and Maryland voted to abolish slavery on its own.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.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The 1861 Constitution flat out banned the slave trade.
The 1787 Constitution allowed for it to continue for 20 more years."

The 1861 Confederate constitution specified an exception which is not present in the 1787 US Constitution.

FLT-bird: "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."

Corwin helped keep Border Slave States in the Union:

Your word "orchestrated" can apply to NY Sen. Seward, but not to Lincoln.
And the fact remains, all your handwaving notwithstanding, that Corwin was supported by 100% of Democrats, while opposed by a majority of Republicans, and was even signed by Democrat Pres. Buchanan.

Further, Corwin simply matched language already found in the new Confederate constitution, and so could have no effect whatever on any already seceded states.
It did have a strong effect on keeping Border Slave States in the Union.

FLT-bird: "As NYs Seward said, NY would have ratified it too had the original 7 seceding states agreed to it.
They did not."

What is your source for this claim about Sen. Seward?

FLT-bird on SCOTUS' Dred Scott: "How do you know that? "

I know that no Founder ever agreed with Crazy Roger Taney's insane Dred Scott rulings because there are no quotes from any of them which remotely resemble Crazy Roger's alleged "logic".

FLT-bird: "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."

100% of those who concurred in Crazy Roger's Dred Scott insane rulings were Democrats and of those seven, five were Southern Democrats while the other two were Northern Doughface Democrats.

The two justices who dissented from Crazy Roger were both Republicans -- Curtis from Massachusetts and McLean from Ohio.

FLT-bird: "The 1861 Confederate Constitution was no different from what the law was in the US prior to 1861."

Nooooo... but obviously, the Southern slavocracy was deliriously happy with Crazy Roger's insane opinions, and so repeated them in their new 1861 Confederate constitution.

In the North, the reaction was quite different:

"The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was 'greeted with unmitigated wrath from every segment of the United States except the slave holding states.'[40]
The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described:

The tempest of malediction that burst over the judges seems to have stunned them; far from extinguishing the slavery controversy, they had fanned its flames and had, moreover, deeply endangered the security of the judicial arm of government.
No such vilification as this had been heard even in the wrathful days following the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Taney’s opinion was assailed by the Northern press as a wicked 'stump speech' and was shamefully misquoted and distorted.
'If the people obey this decision,' said one newspaper, 'they disobey God.'[45]"

Perhaps the most important judgment on Crazy Roger's opinions came from lawyer out of Springfield, Illinois:

"Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.

And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of 'care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up', shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.

Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty [Democrats!!!] shall be met and overthrown.

We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.
This is what we have to do."
A. Lincoln, June 16, 1858, "House Divided Speech"

FLT-bird: "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."

Our FRiend, jeffersondem, loves the word "enshrined" regarding slavery in the US Constitution.
In reality, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" several important ideas that were not even hinted at in the 1787 US Constitution, but only very recently imposed on it through the insanities of Crazy Roger and against the strong objections of Northern Republicans.

FLT-bird: "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."

With the one curious exception of the Fugitive Slave clause, in which Confederates repeated the 1787 Constitution's euphemistic language, word for word.
In fact, the 1861 Confederate constitution did "enshrine" many protections for slavery which were in no way spelled out in the 1787 US Constitution, Crazy Roger's lunacies notwithstanding.

FLT-bird: "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."

Sorry, but that is a lie which you can only maintain by claiming that somehow Crazy Roger's insane opinions had anything to do with our 1787 Founding Fathers' Original Intentions.

They didn't, and in your heart of hearts, I think you well know that, as do your pro-Confederate FRiends here.

1787 Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia: