The Confederate Constitution vs. The USA Constitution

[Gary G]

The Confederate Constitution was a virtual copy of the original constitution except for a few telling changes. Especially section 8 where the Federal Government has used the general welfare clause to justify abuse of the limited powers provision (amendment 10). The tariff was a major cause of the war because it aided northern industrialist at the expense of the southern planter effectively redistributing the wealth from one region to the other. The government has no business favoring one industry over another. This has been discussed in a most recent thread.

Here is a side by side comparison of the two constitutions. Many clues for the complaints of the south can be easily garnered from this document. Be especially sure to look at section 8.
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Section 9 is interesting.
My conclusions are somewhat different than the conclusions of the author of this article.

[williamlayton]

Each state was Soverign. In this case it means it is a country unto itsownself. I can raise an army. It can create a treaty with a foreign nation without consent of the other states.
It is not held to uphold another state in time of war or feud. It is a nation by itself held together by a treaty with others.
This Confederate government has the powers of the UN---zip, nada--if the state involved says sorry--I'm off in another direction.
Blessings

[Gary G]

Each state was Soverign. In this case it means it is a country unto itsownself. I can raise an army. It can create a treaty with a foreign nation without consent of the other states.
It is not held to uphold another state in time of war or feud. It is a nation by itself held together by a treaty with others.
This Confederate government has the powers of the UN---zip, nada--if the state involved says sorry--I'm off in another direction.
Blessings

Those are some good ideas that you have there William. Does that mean we don't have to go down with the ship?

[williamlayton]

Sure did help those folks out in 1812---they would have gone down with the ship.
What if Virginia had said who cares about Fla. or Louisiana?
We started out together and we will go down together. We are one people. It has worked out well so far.
NOW, if we will just elect the right people. The parties have come to the conclusion that they are the leaders of this country.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

As I have stated here before our Confederation, the first US Constitution, only lasted 6 years because it was to limited in scope for a growing country and lacked a strong central government if it was to live and grow.

I take exception to the thought this country would fail because some might not join or might leave. Our founding fathers did not believe that because in changing to a Constitution they only required 9 of the 13 colonies to agree and then went merrily on its way when 3 did not join from the getgo. In fact RI had to be dragged into joining some 3 years later. Therefore stating that 6 states leaving would be the downfall of the other 27 is a bit much IMVHO as the facts don't support that theory at all.

One only has to remember that our original Confederation demanded that to dissolve or leave the Union required a 100% vote to do so, it was perpetual and stated so! Yet not one person or state threw that fact into the mix as a road block to our new Constitution for it only require a vote of 9 to come into being thus desolving that same Confederation and has not one word about perpetuity.

It is also why my belief is that the Resulting Southern Confederation, modeled after our own, had little or no chance to hold those states together over the long haul. Our own history of that time clearly shows this is what would happen. All you have to do is take in the workings of the 4 years the CSA was alive to see the truth is that the central Government was a mess from the getgo and the State Governors did pretty much what they wanted to do. Georgia's Brown was, in fact, one of the leaders in throwing up road blocks and Stevens, the VP, never once helped in the national government during the 4 years it was in being. South Carolina was another that clearly wanted things its own way. It was bound to fail and war only added to its demise.

I ask you, if you can't stick together when all around you are against you there is no way you can survive over the long haul, is there?

[williamlayton]

Good theology with some minor flaws, IMO.
The States went to a constitution because of the  failures and basic weakness's of a Confederacy.
True no one bolted after the first cannon shot--but not all joined in wholeheartedly.
The Conrederacy did not have a chance to fail. Therefore your arguement falls on much of mine--there is no history to prove any absolutes.
There are some hints however  in the reactions and actions of some. SC was resolved to be a nation unto itsownself---with allies as it suited their needs.
What about the border states---would they have turned back at the first sign of conflicts between the confederate states.
You have presented a picture that the South was at peace with its boundry's---Then why all the marching into territories in the west in order to claim them---all in the name of expanding slavery.
We shall never know, the last chapter was written before the author could complete another plot.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

The States went to a constitution because of the  failures and basic weakness's of a Confederacy.

As I stated so how is it a flaw if you are in agreement?

True no one bolted after the first cannon shot--but not all joined in wholeheartedly.

What does that have to do with anything I posted in this post?

The Conrederacy did not have a chance to fail.

Which I stated, the Confederacy, as it failed due to WAR. BTW I don't deal in absolutes, only in facts. I will stand by history as my judge which has been proven time and time again, from the Greeks going forward Confederations are doomed to failure one way or the other and included our own. It seems to me you are arguing against our own proven history which doesn't back you up BTW.

You have presented a picture that the South was at peace with its boundry's---Then why all the marching into territories in the west in order to claim them---all in the name of expanding slavery.
We shall never know, the last chapter was written before the author could complete another plot.

Whatever are you talking about? This last quote of yours has nothing to do with this thread or anything I've posted in it. The topic is the difference between two documents and nothing more. I addressed only that subject and will continue to do so. How about you?

May God bless you too.

[williamlayton]

The post was right above yours--like many who use scripture out of context to prove a point, your highlights do also--but I will oblige your hate and answer each.
This has been discussed but it is worthy or repeating.
The colonies realized during the Revolution that a confederacy was a weak nation--as a matter of fact they realized they had no nation whatever--it was a group of nations with a treaty amongst themselves---THEY wanted a Republic---one nation bound together, under one government. 
Well you took my facts and made them yours. When I said that the Southern Confederacy had no chance to fail on its own--that is what I meant. The South never got of the run way. I would propose that should the Confederacy have been left alone--not only would the British have a colony here, but also the French and the Spanish---that is conjecture on my part, I will admit.
I will also state, again, that this war was doomed to happen if not in 1860 by at least 1880. There was no room for two nations on this piece of land.
When I posted the fact that not all joined in whole heartily, I meant just that, in your response that the Confederacy was, in fact, totally joined at the hip in this venture.
GW--You surely did present the idea that this Southern territory was all the south wanted. If you did not mean to imply that then you can correct me in a better tone.
Blessings
 

[ironfoot]

I found this provision in the Confederate Constitution to be telling. (Confederate change in bold italics.)


4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

[Ga.windbreak]

I found this provision in the Confederate Constitution to be telling. (Confederate change in bold italics.)


4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I would only ask in return: Where is that in any way different than the legality of Slavery in the US Constitution at that time? I find it telling that you would attempt to make it appear that there was a difference at that time between the two; when in fact there was none.

[williamlayton]

The constitution could be changed--the Confederate version could not.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

The constitution could be changed--the Confederate version could not.
Blessings

Oh dear, I would suggest a review of Article 5 section 1 is in order, thus it is quoted below.

Article 5 sec. 1

(1) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention — voting by States — and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof — as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention — they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

The CSA method for making constitutional amendments is a bit different, but keeps the general spirit intact.

The biggest difference is that in the Confederacy the Congress has no role in passing amendments. It's all done by the state legislatures single-handedly.

As suggested by Gary G, in his OP with the link provided to read the link, one can then debate this issue without stumping one's toe!

[williamlayton]

By your own post you indicated that slavery was not an issue that could be touched bt ammendment.
That said--nothing about a constitution is written in stone. Of course changeing it, doing away with the agreement can be a challenge--and can lead to a fight.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

I found this provision in the Confederate Constitution to be telling. (Confederate change in bold italics.)


4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I would only ask in return: Where is that in any way different than the legality of Slavery in the US Constitution at that time? I find it telling that you would attempt to make it appear that there was a difference at that time between the two; when in fact there was none.

Then why would the CSA add the provision to their Constitution?

[Ga.windbreak]

By your own post you indicated that slavery was not an issue that could be touched bt ammendment.
That said--nothing about a constitution is written in stone. Of course changeing it, doing away with the agreement can be a challenge--and can lead to a fight.
Blessings

Ha, ha, ha Again you stump your toe and try to deflect it by attempting to put words in my mouth, as I said no such thing. I was mearly quoting the passege of ironfoot to be able to ask him a question. Which I did, I made no determination except to say the US Constitution was nearly the same. Which BTW it is.

You then countered with the CSA Constitution could not be changed, which is your first mistake and now with that noted you then attempt to deflect by misstating my post.

Oh, William , can't you do better than that? Why not admit you are wrong and we'll just move on.

[Ga.windbreak]

I found this provision in the Confederate Constitution to be telling. (Confederate change in bold italics.)


4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I would only ask in return: Where is that in any way different than the legality of Slavery in the US Constitution at that time? I find it telling that you would attempt to make it appear that there was a difference at that time between the two; when in fact there was none.

Then why would the CSA add the provision to their Constitution?

Great question and I don't have the faintest clue. I'm sorry but I wasn't present when this Constitution was drawn up so although I'm a pretty smart guy I'm not versed in mind reading someone who was alive 150 years ago. Are you?

[williamlayton]

That is double talk.
Sure you said--by quoting IF--then saying that there was no difference in the two.
The Confederate articles strictly forbid changing any law about slavery--the US does not.
As a matter of fact why even put such a law in their articles if slavery was not an issue in the secession.
More double talk.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

I found this provision in the Confederate Constitution to be telling. (Confederate change in bold italics.)


4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I would only ask in return: Where is that in any way different than the legality of Slavery in the US Constitution at that time? I find it telling that you would attempt to make it appear that there was a difference at that time between the two; when in fact there was none.

The difference was that much of the North had outlawed slavery, and that the North was trying to prevent the spread of slavery into the territories, and that when Lincoln was elected on an anti spread of slavery platform the South rebelled in order to preserve and expand slavery. They put the preservation of slavery words into the CSA Constitution for a reason.

So I ask you, why would they insert those words if they didn't change anything?

[Ga.windbreak]

You two  . I'll be back when there is something posted worth debating.

I'm curous about one thing thought WL, you talk of my tone?? Just what do you mean?

Ya'll play nice now. Bye.

[subdjoe]

I found this provision in the Confederate Constitution to be telling. (Confederate change in bold italics.)


4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

I would only ask in return: Where is that in any way different than the legality of Slavery in the US Constitution at that time? I find it telling that you would attempt to make it appear that there was a difference at that time between the two; when in fact there was none.

Then why would the CSA add the provision to their Constitution?

Maybe, since the CSA modeled its Constitution on the US Constitution, they just included the Corwin Amendment:

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.

Which passed in both houses of the US Congress without any support from the seven states of the deep south.

[ironfoot]

See Article IV sec. 3 (3)

"Another new clause created for the Confederacy. It basically demands that any new state that joins the CSA be recognized as a "slave state." At the time the United States was a mix of "slave" and "free" states, and allowed the states themselves to choose what they wanted to be. No such luck in the Confederacy."

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/csa.htm