Fort sumter

[Derek Jackson]

The situation with the US Constitution as opposed to the British one is somewhat different, given that the Confederate constitution was largely modeled upon the US constitution. Given that there is not even a single equivalent document in the United Kingdom for the US to have used as a model in forming its constitution, the comparison strikes me as somewhat out of place.

As far as the fact that the CSA constitution made much over slavery, I would say that this was probably prompted by the fact that slavery was the most important issue in prompting seccession, which is why their constitution was edited to explicitly and repeatedly confirm the right to own slaves.

Note also some of the guarantees given to those who owned human being effectively weakened the concept of States Rights!!

 

[Dean_the_Young]

The situation with the US Constitution as opposed to the British one is somewhat different, given that the Confederate constitution was largely modeled upon the US constitution. Given that there is not even a single equivalent document in the United Kingdom for the US to have used as a model in forming its constitution, the comparison strikes me as somewhat out of place.

As far as the fact that the CSA constitution made much over slavery, I would say that this was probably prompted by the fact that slavery was the most important issue in prompting seccession, which is why their constitution was edited to explicitly and repeatedly confirm the right to own slaves.

This is what we call a double standard. The Confederacy could explicitly change slavery, without admitting that it was legal for the US government to do (one of their claims). They could not clarify a right to secession or other "states rights", because then it would be admiting that they hadn't had the right beforehand.

Which brings us straight back to my point that they didn't care about state rights enough to protect them from the Confederate government, even though they had already proven that they were willing to explicitly address such grievances (slavery) in their constitution.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

It was noted sadly by Senator and former Cabinet Member Breckenridge, who also received the second largest number of electoral votes in 1860, that the CSA had rapdily assumed all of the policies and positions he found so upsetting in the Union as regards states rights. Plus they stood for slavery.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

This is what we call a double standard. The Confederacy could explicitly change slavery, without admitting that it was legal for the US government to do (one of their claims). They could not clarify a right to secession or other "states rights", because then it would be admiting that they hadn't had the right beforehand.

Which brings us straight back to my point that they didn't care about state rights enough to protect them from the Confederate government, even though they had already proven that they were willing to explicitly address such grievances (slavery) in their constitution.

I would imagine the Confederate counter arguement would be that the extra protection granted slavery in their constitution was a political move recognizing the importance of the issue in prompting seccession, but that the changes were not a legal neccessity as they did not believe the Federal government had a right to abolish slavery anyway. To the Confederates the changes were a clarification explicitly stating something that had already been implied, not a revision.

States rights, being of far less political importance, did not receive such a "clarification," and the Confederate government showed little eagerness to cede a great deal of power to the states.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I would imagine the Confederate counter arguement would be that the extra protection granted slavery in their constitution was a political move recognizing the importance of the issue in prompting seccession, but that the changes were not a legal neccessity as they did not believe the Federal government had a right to abolish slavery anyway. To the Confederates the changes were a clarification explicitly stating something that had already been implied, not a revision.

States rights, being of far less political importance, did not receive such a "clarification," and the Confederate government showed little eagerness to cede a great deal of power to the states.

I think the Confederate Constitution more reflections the individuals that were directly involved in Montgomery, Alabama, than in the South in general. The convention which was originally only to be about secession quickly grew into a constitutional convention, which none of the delegates were originally authorized by their states to make any decisions about. The convention itself was briefly dominated by radical fire-eaters, and those were shortly put aside by more moderates with Stephens.

From MPOV the overall differences in the US and the Confederate Constitutions is interpretation - in the overarching approach. It is the same question of 'strict constructionalist' versus 'living and breathing constitution'. Additional material protecting states' rights doesn't have to be added if everyone is looking at the same document the same way. The North had a different way that it wanted to interpret the constitution.

 

[flamelord]

I knew this would happen. I just wanted to see you guys argue. That us enough on that issue. Someone else can put up a new topic for discussion in relation to this thread.