Confederate versus The U.S Constitution(s)

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
As reference material:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
What was changed? And why?
In February of 1861, six states seceded from the United States of America and declared themselves independent. They formed a new, rival country known as the Confederate States of America. In the months that followed, seven more American states followed suit, slicing the former United States into two clearly-divded rival factions.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) followed, putting the armies of the Confederacy against the armies of the remaining United States, with the United States, or "Union" forces ultimately emerging victorious. Today, we remember the Civil War as one of the seminial events of American history. But why was it fought in the first place? Or, do go back even further, why was the Confederate States of America created?

Modern-day Confederate apologists insist the Southern states only separated from the United States in response to legitimate political grievances, namely that the South's capacity for self-government was being unjustly restrained by the tyrannical U.S. federal government, which was dominated by northern politicians who had no respect for "states' rights," federalism, and local sovereignty. Everyone else insists the Confederacy was founded for a much less noble reason — namely to keep slavery legal at a time when the rest of the United States was uniting against the practice.
We can get a good glimpse into the founding principles of the Confederacy by taking an in-depth look at the Confederate Constitution, which was approved, and came into use by the rebel states on March 11, 1861. The document is largely a word-for-word copy of the United States Constitution of 1789, but with several key changes. The changes offer the clearest window of insight into how precisely the CSA intended to be different from the USA, and why.

THE CHANGES
Before we get into a line-by-line comparison, I should point out the minor, mostly cosmetic changes that occurred during the revision process:

  • All references to the "United States" were changed to the "Confederate States;" references to the "Union" were changed to "Confederacy."
  • The CSA's constitution's punctuation, capitalization, and in some cases spelling, are all updated from 18th Century to 19th Century English standards.
  • The CSA constitution numbers its clauses. In most cases, each paragraph from the US constitution is numbered as a single clause, but in some cases the CSA merges multiple clauses into one big one, or breaks up long paragraphs into several smaller ones.

And now the chart. Note that in the CSA column yellow text indicates new additions to original US clauses.


http://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
 

alexjack

zhe welsh wizard
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
193
(15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

So the Confederacy was denying it's member States the right to do what it was doing fighting the Civil War. Would have been interesting if say, Georgia had wanted to secede from the Confederacy in 1863.  :D
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,173
Reaction score
3,430
alexjack said:
(15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

So the Confederacy was denying it's member States the right to do what it was doing fighting the Civil War. Would have been interesting if say, Georgia had wanted to secede from the Confederacy in 1863.  :D
i think judge roy moore would have ruled it to be unconstitutional
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
alexjack said:
(15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

So the Confederacy was denying it's member States the right to do what it was doing fighting the Civil War. Would have been interesting if say, Georgia had wanted to secede from the Confederacy in 1863.  :D
It would take the nonexistent CSA Supreme Court to interpret if this applied to secession, laws from the CSA Congress to implement anti-secession actions and a plan to implement anti secession actions. It would be interesting, very interesting to see how it played out.
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
580
Reaction score
742
In a theoretical scenario where a state wanted to leave, it's hard to see how a Confederate government could deny secession by a member state without being hypocritical in the extreme, not that hypocrisy stops politicians. During wartime, it would not be hard to come up with a military reason to stop it perhaps, but in peacetime it would be a different story.

The question is, why would a state want to secede? The population of the CS would be far more politically and socially aligned than the population of the US had been. Secession should be even less likely.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Andersonh1 said:
In a theoretical scenario where a state wanted to leave, it's hard to see how a Confederate government could deny secession by a member state without being hypocritical in the extreme, not that hypocrisy stops politicians. During wartime, it would not be hard to come up with a military reason to stop it perhaps, but in peacetime it would be a different story.

The question is, why would a state want to secede? The population of the CS would be far more politically and socially aligned than the population of the US had been. Secession should be even less likely.
I basically agree, but I put it is much simpler terms.  Secession is about politics, not about law or the courts.  Once the political process has played out the laws and courts will be adjusted.  Take Lincoln's response to the 1860-61 secession.  He had law and the courts, but without the Northern States political support he cannot take action.  

Yes, war changes everything.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
Andersonh1 said:
In a theoretical scenario where a state wanted to leave, it's hard to see how a Confederate government could deny secession by a member state without being hypocritical in the extreme, not that hypocrisy stops politicians. During wartime, it would not be hard to come up with a military reason to stop it perhaps, but in peacetime it would be a different story.

The question is, why would a state want to secede? The population of the CS would be far more politically and socially aligned than the population of the US had been. Secession should be even less likely.
I Half agree.  The CSA was heavily divided in itself, small non-slave holding farmers vs large slave plantation owners being a key division.

What I would say it lacked was division divided geographically.  Meaning those divisions seem interspersed within each State not aligned via the North - South slave divisions that had originated and developed further within US history.

It takes a massively important issue (specifically one in which massively important elements are highly dependent on) and that division being geographically among large regions to get secession.

A reason I don't think secession is really going to happen again.  A common talking point is the small town vs city divide where within pretty much every State you can find views ranging most of the spectrum.  That doesn't make for a very strong aligned set of States that can unify and feel strong enough to secede.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
MattL said:
Andersonh1 said:
In a theoretical scenario where a state wanted to leave, it's hard to see how a Confederate government could deny secession by a member state without being hypocritical in the extreme, not that hypocrisy stops politicians. During wartime, it would not be hard to come up with a military reason to stop it perhaps, but in peacetime it would be a different story.

The question is, why would a state want to secede? The population of the CS would be far more politically and socially aligned than the population of the US had been. Secession should be even less likely.
I Half agree.  The CSA was heavily divided in itself, small non-slave holding farmers vs large slave plantation owners being a key division.

What I would say it lacked was division divided geographically.  Meaning those divisions seem interspersed within each State not aligned via the North - South slave divisions that had originated and developed further within US history.

It takes a massively important issue (specifically one in which massively important elements are highly dependent on) and that division being geographically among large regions to get secession.

A reason I don't think secession is really going to happen again.  A common talking point is the small town vs city divide where within pretty much every State you can find views ranging most of the spectrum.  That doesn't make for a very strong aligned set of States that can unify and feel strong enough to secede.
Good points.  IMHO it was the northern tier of border states which had the least percentage population slave and would become free before the Cotton South.   In some timeline, we would Northern States of the CSA secede.
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
jgoodguy said:
MattL said:
Andersonh1 said:
In a theoretical scenario where a state wanted to leave, it's hard to see how a Confederate government could deny secession by a member state without being hypocritical in the extreme, not that hypocrisy stops politicians. During wartime, it would not be hard to come up with a military reason to stop it perhaps, but in peacetime it would be a different story.

The question is, why would a state want to secede? The population of the CS would be far more politically and socially aligned than the population of the US had been. Secession should be even less likely.
I Half agree.  The CSA was heavily divided in itself, small non-slave holding farmers vs large slave plantation owners being a key division.

What I would say it lacked was division divided geographically.  Meaning those divisions seem interspersed within each State not aligned via the North - South slave divisions that had originated and developed further within US history.

It takes a massively important issue (specifically one in which massively important elements are highly dependent on) and that division being geographically among large regions to get secession.

A reason I don't think secession is really going to happen again.  A common talking point is the small town vs city divide where within pretty much every State you can find views ranging most of the spectrum.  That doesn't make for a very strong aligned set of States that can unify and feel strong enough to secede.
Good points.  IMHO it was the northern tier of border states which had the least percentage population slave and would become free before the Cotton South.   In some timeline, we would Northern States of the CSA secede.
That's a very interesting point.  Yeah, especially being on the border of the US, all more US aligned interests (including ones either dependent on or wanting trade) would certainly struggle.

At that point do we see sections of those States try and split off (like West Virginia) or whole States?  Do they jump straight back to the US (and leverage that to get secession).

That last part I could see as a constant thorn in the Confederate's side for those border States.  The constant threat they could probably just leave and rejoin the US (and the US having the power to enforce that).  Basically pull something like Texas did to Mexico, which of course ended with us getting even more territory from Mexico beyond Texas lol (not a pleasant outcome for Confederates to consider).

Of course I'm starting to go potentially of topic lol.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
MattL said:
jgoodguy said:
MattL said:
Andersonh1 said:
In a theoretical scenario where a state wanted to leave, it's hard to see how a Confederate government could deny secession by a member state without being hypocritical in the extreme, not that hypocrisy stops politicians. During wartime, it would not be hard to come up with a military reason to stop it perhaps, but in peacetime it would be a different story.

The question is, why would a state want to secede? The population of the CS would be far more politically and socially aligned than the population of the US had been. Secession should be even less likely.
I Half agree.  The CSA was heavily divided in itself, small non-slave holding farmers vs large slave plantation owners being a key division.

What I would say it lacked was division divided geographically.  Meaning those divisions seem interspersed within each State not aligned via the North - South slave divisions that had originated and developed further within US history.

It takes a massively important issue (specifically one in which massively important elements are highly dependent on) and that division being geographically among large regions to get secession.

A reason I don't think secession is really going to happen again.  A common talking point is the small town vs city divide where within pretty much every State you can find views ranging most of the spectrum.  That doesn't make for a very strong aligned set of States that can unify and feel strong enough to secede.
Good points.  IMHO it was the northern tier of border states which had the least percentage population slave and would become free before the Cotton South.   In some timeline, we would Northern States of the CSA secede.
That's a very interesting point.  Yeah, especially being on the border of the US, all more US aligned interests (including ones either dependent on or wanting trade) would certainly struggle.

At that point do we see sections of those States try and split off (like West Virginia) or whole States?  Do they jump straight back to the US (and leverage that to get secession).

That last part I could see as a constant thorn in the Confederate's side for those border States.  The constant threat they could probably just leave and rejoin the US (and the US having the power to enforce that).  Basically pull something like Texas did to Mexico, which of course ended with us getting even more territory from Mexico beyond Texas lol (not a pleasant outcome for Confederates to consider).

Of course I'm starting to go potentially of topic lol.
I've changed my position several times as I came across new more or less informed speculation on the CSA Constitution.  There are a number of good legal articles and analysis of it.  I hope to post them later.  

I could imagine a CSA crawling Southwards discarding old States to the North and acquiring new territory to the South bringing all the Slaves into the new territories.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Look at "Sec. 2. (I) 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."

This suggests the possibility of Free States in the CSA to me, otherwise why have it?
 

MattL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
203
Reaction score
439
jgoodguy said:
Look at "Sec. 2. (I) 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."

This suggests the possibility of Free States in the CSA to me, otherwise why have it?
True, free States that can't truly be free.  Of course the reality is it was a just a middle finger to the US and the Free States, a comfortable blanket to protect them from what they ran into there and didn't plan to in the CSA, but certainly it suggests what you say it does.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
MattL said:
jgoodguy said:
Look at "Sec. 2. (I) 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."

This suggests the possibility of Free States in the CSA to me, otherwise why have it?
True, free States that can't truly be free. Of course the reality is it was a just a middle finger to the US and the Free States, a comfortable blanket to protect them from what they ran into there and didn't plan to in the CSA, but certainly it suggests what you say it does.
IMHO a compromise at the CSA Constitutional convention to between those who wanted a 'pure' slave CSA and those who wanted to get as many States in the CSA as possible because of the advantage of a slave labor ideology would be apparent to all.
 

Al Mackey

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2019
Messages
596
Reaction score
533
In a theoretical scenario where a state wanted to leave, it's hard to see how a Confederate government could deny secession by a member state without being hypocritical in the extreme, not that hypocrisy stops politicians. During wartime, it would not be hard to come up with a military reason to stop it perhaps, but in peacetime it would be a different story.

The question is, why would a state want to secede? The population of the CS would be far more politically and socially aligned than the population of the US had been. Secession should be even less likely.
Thomas Jefferson came up with the answer to your question in 1798.

“But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units. Seeing, therefore, that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England associates for that purpose than to see our bickerings transferred to others.” [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 Jun 1798]
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Bump:

I have refrained from commenting, to view "differing" reactions. Carry on.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,596
Reaction score
4,539
Carry on.
The Confederate Constitution does not allow states leave...


Of course, the Confederate Constitution never mentioned the right of a state to secede. In fact, theConfederate Constitution overrode any "sovereign right" to ban slavery in their individual state, due to the provisions that all Confederate citizens had the right to bring their slaves to any part of the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
Top