Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[Delta4Embassy]

Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.


...Logical extension of your arguement.

It's not an argument it's historical fact.

So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.

 

[Asclepias]

Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

 

[peach174]

a

Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.


...Logical extension of your arguement.

It's not an argument it's historical fact.

So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.

That is exactly why we have the bill of rights and nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

[peach174]

Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

 

[Asclepias]

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

It didnt effect their money and provided political power. BTW there was no law passed for all new states to be free.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.


...Logical extension of your arguement.

It's not an argument it's historical fact.

So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.

That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.

By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves.

As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.

"Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote

 

[Asclepias]

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.


...Logical extension of your arguement.

It's not an argument it's historical fact.

So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.

That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.

By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves.

As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.

"Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote

Thats the psychological implication and fits in neatly with the racist views that Blacks were sub-human and therefore needed to be enslaved as the christian thing to do.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.


...Logical extension of your arguement.

It's not an argument it's historical fact.

So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.

That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.

By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves.

As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.

"Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote

Thats the psychological implication and fits in neatly with the racist views that Blacks were sub-human and therefore needed to be enslaved as the christian thing to do.

Offshoot continues to this day with how we often describe murderers are sub-human. Nope. Just human. But we're animals so that kind of potential behaviour is within us all. As with enslaving our own species.

 

[Asclepias]

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Link?

 

[paperview]

Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Where did you get that idea?

 

[James Everett]

The fact is.....
The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.

Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?

Hey, idiot....
The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.

Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.

Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have ***** slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to ***** slap her and every other pious Yankee.

When have you ever ***** slapped anyone, let alone me?

Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.

You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.

On other related threads, that's where.
Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
The questions are .....
When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?

 

[James Everett]

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Where did you get that idea?

Johnson, pardoned the confederate soldiers and officers. Otherwise the legal arguments would have exposed Lincoln's rebellion.

 

[James Everett]

Hey, idiot....
The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.

Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.

Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have ***** slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to ***** slap her and every other pious Yankee.

Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.

I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
Goota run now, I will continue the ***** slapping tonight.

Wonder of wonders. You are a loser confederate! Doesnt matter what you never claimed. Plenty of other losers such as yourself have claimed slavery was not the main reason. You know domestic abuse is against the law right?

Domestic abuse is a State issue you ignorant Yankee. Your own U.S. CONstitution allowed legal slavery by not addressing it within that CONstitution, why do you think it lasted all those years before secession?

 

[peach174]

So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Where did you get that idea?

The Northwest Ordinance
American History USA
The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.

Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.

 

[Asclepias]

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Where did you get that idea?

The Northwest Ordinance
American History USA
The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.

Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.

Thats not all new states but nice try.

 

[paperview]

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Where did you get that idea?

The Northwest Ordinance
American History USA
The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.

Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.

ha ha. I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!

Amirite?

Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.

You're way out of your league here.

 

[Ravi]

Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?

Hey, idiot....
The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.

Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.

Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have ***** slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to ***** slap her and every other pious Yankee.

When have you ever ***** slapped anyone, let alone me?

Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.

You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.

On other related threads, that's where.
Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
The questions are .....
When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?

Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.

 

[peach174]

They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Where did you get that idea?

The Northwest Ordinance
American History USA
The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.

Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.

ha ha. I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!

Amirite?

Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.

You're way out of your league here.

You are the one who asked.
It's your problem if you did not like the answer

 

[hortysir]

Hey, idiot....
The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.

Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.

Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have ***** slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to ***** slap her and every other pious Yankee.

When have you ever ***** slapped anyone, let alone me?

Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.

You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.

On other related threads, that's where.
Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
The questions are .....
When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?

Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.

While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union

 

[paperview]

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.

Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?

Where did you get that idea?

The Northwest Ordinance
American History USA
The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.

Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.

ha ha. I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!

Amirite?

Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.

You're way out of your league here.

You are the one who asked.
It's your problem if you did not like the answer

The answer was *wrong.*

You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"

Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.

Which makes people