6 ms·

Very interesting, but are you sure about that example? Const. of C.S.A. art. I, § 9, ¶ 4 restricted their federal legislature's power: > No bill of attainder

Very interesting, but are you sure about that example? Const. of C.S.A. art. I, § 9, ¶ 4 restricted their federal legislature's power: > No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. The next section similarly restricted the states' power to "pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law" but did not reference slavery.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tdb7893 1y ago
Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know). Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority: Article IV Section 3(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 states; 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 by 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.
- drewbug 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - tdb7893 1y ago
    There are some differences between the Constitutions and I'm not convinced, partially because the vice president of the Confederacy himself seemed to think that it was "unmistakably" protected in the Constitution: "I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property." Edit: The privileges and immunities clause of the US 14th amendment seems to have a parallel in the Confederate Constitution so it's not entirely clear that the Constitutions are the same here (and it seems like if the Constitution didn't protect slavery it was an oversight or someone just forgot to tell their vice president). Apparently the privileges and immunities clause in the US Constitution was essentially nullified later (the US Supreme Court seems to have just wacky interpretations sometimes) but seems intended to confer rights to people in states. I'm a bit out of my depth in finding primary sources on this though, except for the excerpt from the VP who has a very clear opinion (and I have a tendency to not immediately believe what a VP is saying). Article IV Section 2(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.
    - drewbug 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States#Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederat... clarifies a lot: > The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves. Similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause, this does not invalidate the Dred Scott opinion that "a State may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory."

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

tdb7893 1y ago

Maybe I'm wrong but I always interpreted that line as they couldn't pass any laws denying slavery, which would include the states. Lots of the clauses in that article are fairly broad rights that wouldn't make sense if it just restricted the federal government (e.g. the ability to bear arms, the right to not quarter soldiers, the right to reasonable bail) so viewing it as a fundamental restriction, and not just a restriction for Congress, isn't a crazy interpretation (though I'm not a constitutional scholar so I don't know). Their Constitution also had a clause about how new territories needed to allow slavery so choice definitely wasn't their priority: Article IV Section 3(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 states; 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 by 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.

drewbug 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tdb7893 1y ago
  There are some differences between the Constitutions and I'm not convinced, partially because the vice president of the Confederacy himself seemed to think that it was "unmistakably" protected in the Constitution: "I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property." Edit: The privileges and immunities clause of the US 14th amendment seems to have a parallel in the Confederate Constitution so it's not entirely clear that the Constitutions are the same here (and it seems like if the Constitution didn't protect slavery it was an oversight or someone just forgot to tell their vice president). Apparently the privileges and immunities clause in the US Constitution was essentially nullified later (the US Supreme Court seems to have just wacky interpretations sometimes) but seems intended to confer rights to people in states. I'm a bit out of my depth in finding primary sources on this though, except for the excerpt from the VP who has a very clear opinion (and I have a tendency to not immediately believe what a VP is saying). Article IV Section 2(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.
  - drewbug 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States#Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederat... clarifies a lot: > The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves. Similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause, this does not invalidate the Dred Scott opinion that "a State may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory."