Article V of the CSA Constitution: Impact?

Article V of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:

(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.

This process for amending the Constitution is rather different from that in the US Constitution, from which most of the CS Constitution is borrowed. For reference:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Aside from the update in spelling and grammar conventions, the CS Article V cuts the Congress out of the process entirely, making it dependent upon state legislatures or conventions. Additionally, it takes only three states to call such a convention, effectively just over 1/4 of the states, and only 2/3 of all states must ratify, by convention or legislature, those amendments, as opposed to 3/4 under the US process.

Now, entrenched political interests in the CSA are a given, in a big way, but I found the idea that only three states were needed to call a convention.

So, a couple questions (under the heading of 'assuming some type of Confederate independence'):

1) What kind of amendments to the CS Constitution might be passed, or at least proposed?
2) How might this different process of amending the Constitution affect matters?
3) Just because three states can call a convention, does that mean all states have to send delegates? I am thinking not, so even if three state legislatures were to be held by some type of pro-reform/-amendment party, the other states could simply ignore the convention and refuse to send delegates, right?
 
For a comparison, let's look at how the South voted on the OTL 16th Amendment, the next one after the Civil War amendments, which wouldn't have had a chance of passing.

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Passed by a Republican Congress on 12 July 1909, and sent off to the states. 36 states ratified it between that date and 3 Februrary 1913, and are listed here, with former Confederate States in bold:


Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
Delaware (February 3, 1913)

Virginia rejected the amendment, and Florida never even put it up for a vote. However, all 11 other Confederate states did ratify the amendment, and opposition was reported to be strongest in the northeast.

Of course, we're talking about a different political environment and quite a few years later, but it is an interesting point, no?
 
There are a whole slew of amendments that the CS Congress could pass. The entire constitution is amendable, to even a new constitutional convention, are possible - NOT that they would but the options are there.

Undoubtedly, there will now be some debate about what would happen, as opposed what could.
 
Also up for examination are OTL amendments proposed, but not ratified.

The 1871 proposed Anti-Miscegenation Amendment, aimed at banning interracial marriage (brought to us by Missouri Democrat Andrew King), while certainly a concept popular in the South, was a reaction to fears that the 14th Amendment would prohibit state laws against the practice, and the CSA probably would have no need of such an amendment.

The 1863 Christian Amendment, proposing to change the Preamble to the Constitution to:
We, the people of the United States recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all (added), in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense (removed), promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This does look remarkably like the actual CS Preamble:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Note the deletion of 'provide for the common defense' and the addition of the reference to 'Almighty God.' The proposal itself was a Northern one (obviously, as during the Civil War southern states were not represented), and the idea is already to some extent recognized in the OTL CS Constitution. Interesting, though.
 
There are a whole slew of amendments that the CS Congress could pass. The entire constitution is amendable, to even a new constitutional convention, are possible - NOT that they would but the options are there.

Undoubtedly, there will now be some debate about what would happen, as opposed what could.
The CS Congress is cut out of the process, there's no provision for them to amend the Constitution, if I read Article V right.

People often, and with good reason, point to the problematic portions of the CS Constitution, like:

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
and:
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
and:
(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
and:
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates [sic]; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. 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.

These are all problems, and they could become really, really big problems, and I'm wondering what solutions might be sought, especially considering the different amendment process that might make those solutions easier to reach, structurally speaking. The US Constitution came with problems, too, some that ended up blowing up (you know, like the Civil War and all), but some of them were repaired by amendments. I can't imagine a CSA lasting some appreciable amount of time not trying to find a way to deal with constitutional problems, whatever those problems might be.

As a thought, maybe a strapped-for-cash CSA would pass an income tax amendment to satisfy populists and help pay for high military expenses. Maybe anti-populist planters and co. would try to head this off by passing an amendment prohibiting any state from passing its own income tax laws.
 
Last edited:
Here is something interesting that I just thought up. The CS constitution forbids the central government from undertaking internal improvement projects, but during the war they created a Railroad Bureau which used its powers to take materials from private companies to improve rail lines considered military necessities. Now since most of the writers here who won't to write a TL with an independent CSA which also involves the CSA giving up the use of slavery before 1900 (like myself) couldn't it be possible to involve the CSA in a situation where they decide on a plan to phase out slavery as a "military necessity" to avoid slave revolts? At least in a situation where amending the constitution doesn’t work or either of the plans from How Few Remain or The Guns of the South don't work?
 
Here is something interesting that I just thought up. The CS constitution forbids the central government from undertaking internal improvement projects, but during the war they created a Railroad Bureau which used its powers to take materials from private companies to improve rail lines considered military necessities. Now since most of the writers here who won't to write a TL with an independent CSA which also involves the CSA giving up the use of slavery before 1900 (like myself) couldn't it be possible to involve the CSA in a situation where they decide on a plan to phase out slavery as a "military necessity" to avoid slave revolts? At least in a situation where amending the constitution doesn’t work or either of the plans from How Few Remain or The Guns of the South don't work?

Yes, it strikes me that the constitutional convention route would be used most likely for both these purposes OVER TIME in an independent CSA

1) to allow the federal government to invest in infrastructure that was not JUST waterways and harbours

2) to begin the process of manumission; after all the CSA constitution forbids the trans-Atlantic slave trade, so the theory on some restrictions is already there (of course that one works IN the interests of slave owners)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Here is something interesting that I just thought up. The CS constitution forbids the central government from undertaking internal improvement projects, but during the war they created a Railroad Bureau which used its powers to take materials from private companies to improve rail lines considered military necessities. Now since most of the writers here who won't to write a TL with an independent CSA which also involves the CSA giving up the use of slavery before 1900 (like myself) couldn't it be possible to involve the CSA in a situation where they decide on a plan to phase out slavery as a "military necessity" to avoid slave revolts? At least in a situation where amending the constitution doesn’t work or either of the plans from How Few Remain or The Guns of the South don't work?
The military necessity was the whole organized military might of the Union threatening to undo the whole Confederate States, a not-insignificant threat. They didn't consider arming slaves until the very end of the war, after it was far too late. The military threat that slave revolts would have to pose would be dire indeed.


Yes, it strikes me that the constitutional convention route would be used most likely for both these purposes OVER TIME in an independent CSA

1) to allow the federal government to invest in infrastructure that was not JUST waterways and harbours

2) to begin the process of manumission; after all the CSA constitution forbids the trans-Atlantic slave trade, so the theory on some restrictions is already there (of course that one works IN the interests of slave owners)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
The internal improvements one is the one that seems like it would be the most important, but given the process of amendment calling for state ratification, this is going to require some kind of organized inter-state political parties or alliances, which, if I understand things correctly, the South didn't develop much of during OTL. How much of that is a factor of time, and how much is due to the ideals at work in the CS system is an open question.

I feel like, in some ATL where the US collapsed after retaining the Articles of Confederation, people discuss the inherent unworkability of the US system, and the impossibility of reform, and so on. The Confederacy is not in an identical place, certainly, but there parallel is interesting.
 
The internal improvements one is the one that seems like it would be the most important, but given the process of amendment calling for state ratification, this is going to require some kind of organized inter-state political parties or alliances, which, if I understand things correctly, the South didn't develop much of during OTL. How much of that is a factor of time, and how much is due to the ideals at work in the CS system is an open question.

I feel like, in some ATL where the US collapsed after retaining the Articles of Confederation, people discuss the inherent unworkability of the US system, and the impossibility of reform, and so on. The Confederacy is not in an identical place, certainly, but there parallel is interesting.

It is entirely possible that the CS Constitution could evolve into one where powers and limitations are explicitly listed, as opposed to 'implied' within the US Constitution. They want a central bank? Then they have a convocation of states and hammer out an amendment - or not. This arrangement does suggest that a great cost will be paid by any special interest groups since they must influence many state legislatures as opposed to fewer congressmen.
 
It is entirely possible that the CS Constitution could evolve into one where powers and limitations are explicitly listed, as opposed to 'implied' within the US Constitution. They want a central bank? Then they have a convocation of states and hammer out an amendment - or not. This arrangement does suggest that a great cost will be paid by any special interest groups since they must influence many state legislatures as opposed to fewer congressmen.

Or perhaps one convention, altering the method by which the CS Constitution is amended?

Anything that the national government wants (say the power to build railroads or invest in oil companies) will have to be okayed by the states in convention. If Texas is making money hand over fist out of oil, they're going to thumb their nose at any convention. I am still wondering about the prospect of states just not showing up to conventions when they can be called by only a fourth of the CSA.

Or perhaps the difficulty in changing things at the national level would force the handful of like-minded states to cooperate on a state-to-state basis? Say, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia want a national bank, but they can't get one past a convention, so they agree to have their state banks coordinate on certain matters?
 
Or perhaps one convention, altering the method by which the CS Constitution is amended?

Anything that the national government wants (say the power to build railroads or invest in oil companies) will have to be okayed by the states in convention. If Texas is making money hand over fist out of oil, they're going to thumb their nose at any convention. I am still wondering about the prospect of states just not showing up to conventions when they can be called by only a fourth of the CSA.

Or perhaps the difficulty in changing things at the national level would force the handful of like-minded states to cooperate on a state-to-state basis? Say, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia want a national bank, but they can't get one past a convention, so they agree to have their state banks coordinate on certain matters?

All points are possible.

I think that states working together, probably forming corporations etc, to achieve a shared goal is very likely. I'm not convinced that the existence of either a national bank nor government subsides on the national level are givens nor necessarily good ideas. Much was accomplished by private enterprise without government funds.
 
I would expect the more reactionary elements to propose amendments legalizing the international slave trade, forbidding the states from ending slavery, and enslaving or expelling free blacks.

The ability of states to impeach Federal officials may prove problematic.

The CS government being able to place different export tariffs on different states, the CS states being able to tax each other for use of ports, and make river-related treaties among themselves could lead to internal trade wars.

If a man proves popular enough, they may consider amending the Presidential term limit.
 
I would expect the more reactionary elements to propose amendments legalizing the international slave trade, forbidding the states from ending slavery, and enslaving or expelling free blacks.

The ability of states to impeach Federal officials may prove problematic.

The CS government being able to place different export tariffs on different states, the CS states being able to tax each other for use of ports, and make river-related treaties among themselves could lead to internal trade wars.

If a man proves popular enough, they may consider amending the Presidential term limit.

All is possible, pretty much like the proposition system in California.
 
Amending the CSA Constitution at the federal level was not impossible. Like in the USA, it would still be easier to amend state constitutions to deal with local issues.
 
Amending the CSA Constitution at the federal level was not impossible. Like in the USA, it would still be easier to amend state constitutions to deal with local issues.

Have I read the CS Constitution wrong, because all I'm seeing is the bit about states calling conventions?
 
Top