Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[James Everett]

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.

Yeah but the U.S. CONstitution didnt.

 

[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?

Loser? Oh no that's YOU. You are being beaten right now. Squirm and squeal Yankee.

 

[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.

hahahahaha! You are a Confederate???? We must arrest you for treason if you are actively trying to overthrow the USA. Or terrorism.

Well, Well, what do we have here? Another Yankee who does not understand his own CONstitution, and its first amendment. Figures.

 

[James Everett]

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.

Kinda like the Yankee and the Native American Indian, where the U.S. Soldiers claimed that they were killing babies because nits make lice. I guess the Yankee felt our Native American brothers were nothing but lice.

 

[James Everett]

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.

Or exterminating them, such as the case with our Native American brothers.

 

[Ravi]

Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?

No deflection.
Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA

Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.

In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.

No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.

Those words aren't in the Constitution.

Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.

Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves. An Amendment was needed for that.

And he signed that Amendment. Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.

If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.

 

[Ravi]

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

Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant? The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.

Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.

 

[Ravi]

No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.

That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.

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?

This thread opened the door to ridicule Hypocrites, I just stepped in to ridicule and set the record straight. Makes you uncomfortable huh?

Oh, I see. You deflect because you're a hypocrit.

 

[Valerie]

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

Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant? The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.

Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.

he seems kinda defensive...

 

[paperview]

Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.

Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.

Numerous times.

That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.

One remarkable thing the CSA did was also not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.

Not so the the CSA.

When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.

They founded their nation on being a perpetual slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was required to be a slave state..

How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be 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.”

Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.

And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)

 

[paperview]

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

Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?

No deflection.
Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA

Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.

Nothing is illegal unless a law is passed making something illegal. Slavery was NOT illegal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution, because NO LAW or amendment was passed until the 13th amendment which was after the occupation began in 1865. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. until then.

There was no federal law, but most all the northern states abolished slavery individually, many in the 18th century.

There were a few slaves here and there in some of the states, border states of course more so, but it was tiny, compared to this:

 

[paperview]

No deflection.
Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA

Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.

In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.

No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.

Those words aren't in the Constitution.

Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.

Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves. An Amendment was needed for that.

And he signed that Amendment. Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.

If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.

3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.

Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.

After 1865, it became unconstitutional.

 

[hortysir]

Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.

Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.

Numerous times.

That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.

One remarkable thing the CSA did was also not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.

Not so the the CSA.

When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.

They founded their nation on being a perpetual slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was required to be a slave state..

How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be 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.”

Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.

And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)

Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?

No deflection.
Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA

Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.

Nothing is illegal unless a law is passed making something illegal. Slavery was NOT illegal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution, because NO LAW or amendment was passed until the 13th amendment which was after the occupation began in 1865. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. until then.

Then slavery became legal again in the 14th and 16th amendments. Only this time with the Government being the slave owner.

 

[bodecea]

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

If you don't have the individual liberty to own human beings of another color, is anyone really free?

Of course not. The south would have eventually started breeding farms. Much cheaper than importing.

They already had them...Virginia was well known for its breeding plantations.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant? The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.

Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.

The north did not attack the south over slavery. The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery. The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery. The fight was over land and control, not slavery. Slavery was the excuse given.

 

[James Everett]

Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.

Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.

Numerous times.

That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.

One remarkable thing the CSA did was also not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.

Not so the the CSA.

When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.

They founded their nation on being a perpetual slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was required to be a slave state..

How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be 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.”

Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.

And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)

Nice try, however our CSA Constitution is every bit as amendable as YOUR U.S. CONstitution. While perhaps no existing slave may have been taken, any date could be set wherein no new slave could be made, hence ending the institution with the last living chattel slave , Ex post facto would not then be an issue .
The point of this very thread is meant to do nothing more than inflame.
This is the tactic of the Yankee to deflect from their own immorality, that of their government, their ancestors rebellion, and the past 150 years of occupation as a result thereof.
Nothing new here, other than continued Yankee deflection.

 

[James Everett]

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

Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?

No deflection.
Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA

Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.

Nothing is illegal unless a law is passed making something illegal. Slavery was NOT illegal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution, because NO LAW or amendment was passed until the 13th amendment which was after the occupation began in 1865. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. until then.

There was no federal law, but most all the northern states abolished slavery individually, many in the 18th century.

There were a few slaves here and there in some of the states, border states of course more so, but it was tiny, compared to this:

No, there was no federal law, and that is the point, absent a law, such is lawful. Slavery was legal under YOUR CONstitution or it would not have existed in any of the States, hence this thread is just another Yankee deflecting and inflaming. Nothing new here.
It's simply a way to cover up.

 

[Ravi]

Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.

In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.

No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.

Those words aren't in the Constitution.

Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.

Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves. An Amendment was needed for that.

And he signed that Amendment. Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.

If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.

3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.

Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.

After 1865, it became unconstitutional.

Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.

 

[Ravi]

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

Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant? The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.

Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.

The north did not attack the south over slavery. The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery. The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery. The fight was over land and control, not slavery. Slavery was the excuse given.

No.