Looking back at the Confederate Constitution

mojaveman · 03-12-2014, 18:29

I thought this was kind of interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/looking-back-c...103819503.html

Quietus · 03-12-2014, 19:42

I have been told that the Constitution of the Confederate States had no clause talking about providing for the general welfare. The US of A document includes that language. That clause is the anchor that is sinking the ship.

Stiletto11 · 03-13-2014, 19:48

It would have to been covered under Law of Nations if they were to be a legitimate government. It would have been a internal obligation.

Tango three · 03-14-2014, 09:39

The Confederate preamble begins, “We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character…”

Appears they sought to return to the days of the Articles of Confederation the failure of which led to the Constitutional Convention.

Confederate version used the word “slaves,” unlike the U.S. Constitution. One article banned any Confederate state from making slavery illegal. Another ensured that slave owners could travel between Confederate states with their slaves.]
This makes the argument that secession was not about preserving slavery a little harder to support.

Streck-Fu · 03-14-2014, 10:23

Quote:

This makes the argument that secession was not about preserving slavery a little harder to support.

While slavery was the primary issue of disagreement between the slave and non-slave states, it was the matter of Southern states losing legislative power to the northern states. The break came when Lincoln one without a single Southern state.

Conversely to your sentence, though, the fact that Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri were permitted to retain the institution of slavery even though they remained with the union proves that Lincoln permitted the war not to free the slaves.

ZonieDiver · 03-17-2014, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

While slavery was the primary issue of disagreement between the slave and non-slave states, it was the matter of Southern states losing legislative power to the northern states. The break came when Lincoln one without a single Southern state.

Conversely to your sentence, though, the fact that Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri were permitted to retain the institution of slavery even though they remained with the union proves that Lincoln permitted the war not to free the slaves.

Brevity is great.

Brevity at the cost of cogency is not.

Tango three · 03-20-2014, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

...Conversely to your sentence, though, the fact that Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri were permitted to retain the institution of slavery even though they remained with the union proves that Lincoln permitted the war not to free the slaves.

Conversely?
Lincoln did not "permit" the War of Southern Secession, it was thrust upon him with the attack on Fort Sumpter by the citizens of South Carolina.

That Lincoln allowed slavery in the four states you cite is evidence that his only intention was the avoidance of war and preservation of the Union. This desire for preservation is a repeated theme in Lincoln's words -- the Gettysburg Address, and his actions -- The Emancipation Proclamation.

I don't really know what that word ZonieDiver used means, but I suspect I'd probably agree.