<s>Robert</s>Beto O'Rourke Calls For Removal of Confederate Plaque [ed]

Newsweek ^ | November 27, 2018 | Alexandra Hutzler

[jeffersondem]

“Confederate constitution.”

Do you mean this:

Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

[DoodleDawg]

Do you mean this:

Yes. It specifically protects slave imports from the U.S.

[jeffersondem]

“Yes. It specifically protects slave imports from the U.S.”

Southern states, when in the USA, could import slaves from other U.S. states and territories. That's nothing new.

Brother x in post 54 asked: “What could they do in the Confederacy that they couldn’t do in the US?”

For you to say “Import slaves from U.S. states” is not responsive to his question.

[DoodleDawg]

Southern states, when in the USA, could import slaves from other U.S. states and territories. That's nothing new.

The Confederate states no longer considered themselves part of the U.S. Therefore any slaves brought in from the slave-holding states and territories of the U.S. were imported. Ergo, the Confederate constitution protected slave imports.

For you to say “Import slaves from U.S. states” is not responsive to his question.

Sure it was. States in the U.S. could not import slaves. States in the Confederacy could.

[jeffersondem]

“Sure it was. States in the U.S. could not import slaves. States in the Confederacy could.”

Is this your final answer?

[DoodleDawg]

Is this your final answer?

That would depend on what you come up with.

[jeffersondem]

“Confederate constitution.”

The citation of the Confederate constitution as the source of your argument's authority entitles your post number 119 to a minimum of half credit. For me to do less would disincentivize your search for the truth.

Certainly the Confederate constitution was right in styling the United States as one of the foreign countries. No disagreement with you there.

But that is not the entire story in the context of Brother x’s question in post 54: “What could they (southern states) do in the Confederacy that they couldn’t do in the US?”

When the U.S. constitution was adopted Virginia could legally get slaves from Maryland. When the C.S. constitution was adopted Virginia could legally get slaves from Maryland. Virginia did not need - this is just my schoolboy thinking - to join the Confederacy to get slaves from Maryland.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

How dare a Republican like President Lincoln deprive the Democrats of their free labor?

[DoodleDawg]

When the U.S. constitution was adopted Virginia could legally get slaves from Maryland. When the C.S. constitution was adopted Virginia could legally get slaves from Maryland.

Of course they could because when the Confederate constitution was adopted Virginia was still a part of the United States. But to the point, South Carolina could still get slaves from Maryland because the Confederate constitution specifically protected slave imports from the United States. But conversely Maryland could not get slaves from South Carolina because Congress had passed laws prohibiting the importation of slaves from any source. (That assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.)

Virginia did not need - this is just my schoolboy thinking - to join the Confederacy to get slaves from Maryland.

"But that is not the entire story in the context of Brother x’s question in post 54: “What could they (southern states) do in the Confederacy that they couldn’t do in the US?”" And I answered that - import slaves.

[jeffersondem]

“But conversely Maryland could not get slaves from South Carolina because Congress had passed laws prohibiting the importation of slaves from any source. (That assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.)”

You must be forgetting that Lincoln actually did bring into the United States slaves from the Confederacy - not that it has any real connection to Brother x’s question.

[DoodleDawg]

You must be forgetting that Lincoln actually did bring into the United States slaves from the Confederacy - not that it has any real connection to Brother x’s question.

Oh really?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Is that the official explanation on the plaque at 75 Wall Street between Pine and Waters Streets - the generally accepted site of New York’s slave auction block?
Or is that beautifully exculpatory statement something you just made up?"

It's what was reported by participants at the 1787 Constitution Convention in Philadelphia.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " '. . . AS TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' (Emphasis added.)"

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary ...to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…"

Necessity and mutual consent, not "at pleasure".

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Slavery was codified in the US Constitution.
The Confederate States just adopted the US Constitution with some additions."

The US Constitution never mentioned slavery by name and referred to it specifically only once -- the 3/5 rule.

By stark contrast the Confederate constitution used words like "slavery", "slaves", "institution of negro slavery", "negros of the African race" & "property in slaves" 17 times.

[jeffersondem]

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary ...to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

To which Lincoln replied: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Can/could 5 million whites, over half women and children ever pose and extensional threat to 30+ million northerners?"

Sure, if those 30+ million were not determined to defend themselves.
As it was, Confederates outright claimed & invaded two Union states, Missouri & Kentucky.
Confederate forces also invaded Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Oklahoma & New Mexico.
Confederate guerillas operated in California, Colorado & Vermont among others.
Confederate navy captured or sank hundreds of Union ships.

If those are not "existential threats", then nothing is.

central_va: "You sir are a ridiculous a$$.
You have a cartoon mind."

Nonsense.
In the Civil War's first 12 months more battles were fought in Union states than Confederate and more Confederate soldiers died in the Union than in the Confederacy.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "To which Lincoln replied:"

Naw, neither Lincoln nor any other Northern leader (i.e., President Buchanan) agreed that secession "at pleasure" was legitimate.
All agreed that secession alone was not rebellion.
But even former President Buchanan did agree that Davis' assault on Fort Sumter was rebellion and must be defended against.

So it was Fire Eaters and Davis who played the role of your Darth Vader, altering the terms Constitutional compact.

[jeffersondem]

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary ...to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

This is from the DOI; not the U.S. Constitution.

Start with that.

[Uncle Sham]

The South Left the union.They didn’t need the North and decided that their futures were for THEM to determine. The North refused to let them go. The North, by provocation, saw fit to end the lives of 750,000 young men in the prime of their lives to FORCE itself upon the South. This is equivalent to rape and enforces the truth that the North had been raping the South financially for quite a while before the war. Having the good ole South around must have been a really good thing for the North and a bad habit that it couldn’t give up.

[BroJoeK]

Uncle Sham: "The South Left the union."

Fire Eaters in seven Deep South cotton states declared secession.
But even in those seven states large regions were Unionist majorities:

Uncle Sham: "They didn’t need the North and decided that their futures were for THEM to determine."

Fire Eaters declared secession "at pleasure" over nothing more than constitutionally elected Republican majorities and President.

Uncle Sham: "The North refused to let them go."

False.
Union officials took no actions to stop secession or the new Confederacy.
The Northern public only demanded action in response to dozens of Confederate seizures of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc..
When those seizures took the form of Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, President Lincoln responded by calling up 75,000 troops to suppress rebellion, in accordance with the 1792 Insurrection Act.

So our Lost Causers make a huge deal over Lincoln's alleged "provocation" in sending a "war fleet" to Charleston, SC.
But the reality is that Jefferson Davis intended to take both Forts Sumter & Pickens, by force if necessary, long before any "war fleet" showed up.
Indeed, Davis well understood that some act of war was necessary to flip Virginia & other Upper South states from Union to Confederacy.

So Lincoln's alleged "provocation" was irrelevant to Davis' plans to eliminate Union forces in the Confederacy.

Uncle Sham: "The North, by provocation, saw fit to end the lives of 750,000 young men in the prime of their lives to FORCE itself upon the South."

The United States responded to the Confederate Declaration of War, May 6, 1861, and Confederate military threats to Union states & territories including Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma & New Mexico\Arizona among others.

In the Civil War's first 12 months more battles were fought and more Confederate soldiers were killed in the Union than the Confederacy.

Uncle Sham: "This is equivalent to rape and enforces the truth that the North had been raping the South financially for quite a while before the war.
Having the good ole South around must have been a really good thing for the North and a bad habit that it couldn’t give up."

Well, first, throughout the South were huge regions of white majority Unionists and anti-slavery:

Second, far from "rape" you're really talking about consensual political, economic & social relations between Southern & Northern Democrats.
As to which side was the "male", well, until 1861 Southerners were clearly in charge of their "Doughfaced" Northern allies.
And Northern Democrats generally supported Deep South secession until Fire Eaters turned on them, renouncing their debts.
Then most Democrats came to join Republicans in believing our Union was worth fighting for & preserving.

Third there was simply no way to eliminate the Confederate military threat to the United States without defeating it unconditionally.