Article by Article comparison of the USA and CSA constitutions

[AntiochusIII]

Away with the South-loving! Slavery was slavery and it was a shameful crime no matter how "patriotic" the slavers are, thank you!

The CSA was as blatantly self-interested as any political entities are. Its claims to state's rights is only as far as it serves their purpose; and since when does "state's rights" is a more significant issue than slavery? This obsession, while historically backgrounds could be established, logically is outrageously...foolish. Why does it matter if Maryland's your sovereign state as opposed to the USA? If you argue smaller size than how the hell do you justify Maryland having more authority than the local county?

The entire country in 1860 was bigoted, the majority distrust, heck, hate, the blacks, that is to be no doubt. The abolitionists were a vocal, "extremist" minority hated by Northern businessmen and the entire South alike. Only the Fugitive Slave Law of the 1850s compromise cause anything along the lines of a widespread Northern support for the Abolitionist cause.

There was a quote which represents the issue starkly, and it dates, methinks, quite a long time after the fuss of the Civil War was over. It goes along the lines of, "The South doesn't care how close you are as long as you're not free; the North doesn't care how free you are as long as you're not close." Both are bigoted, so?

Does that excuse the fact that the Civil War was indeed fought with an important reason as a futile attempt to preserve "Southern culture," of which slavery was a cornerstone? No. Does that change the fact that saying that seceding from the United States of America over a loss in elections can be called a patriotic act in favor of the United States of America is quite an oxymoron? No. Does that considers anything about how the Northern soldiers were indeed, oh the horror, welcomed by the enslaved blacks even when they ravaged the ruins of Georgia? No.

Patriots my arse. They rebelled to protect their precious slaves--so only a small percentage owned slaves, naturally; yet many considered themselves the slaves' superiors, and fought just as much to keep that social position--and they got their arses handed to them. Their Constitution clearly outlined their goals: protect slavery and secure power for the states as opposed to the federal, or the smaller administrative functions. Social statis and power plays, not some patriotic heroism.

Not to mention this assumption that history books are dumber than us. Clearly, some of you haven't been in history classes lately; the more advanced ones successfully present the complexities of history to us well enough, thank you. We're not taught "evil Brits" and "evil rednecks," we're taught the flow of the political, social, and economic forces and the events involved. We are perfectly aware that there's much more to the Civil War than good vs evil. If the history classes for dummies fails to do justice to the complexities of it all then it's the fault of simplification, not some crazy Northern conspiracy against the "Patriotic South." The argument that slavery was to die anyway does not excuse anything.

[Strike For The South]

Protect there precious slaves. Do you know how many union officers secded? Do you know Robert E Lee's story? Men fought out of loyatly to there states and familes not for rich plantation owners. Nearly Everyone on both sides thought they were serpoiur to the blacks it wasnt just confined to the south. The average confedrate was worried about his home and his family not the slaves.

[itchrelief]

Protect there precious slaves. Do you know how many union officers secded? Do you know Robert E Lee's story? Men fought out of loyatly to there states and familes not for rich plantation owners. Nearly Everyone on both sides thought they were serpoiur to the blacks it wasnt just confined to the south. The average confedrate was worried about his home and his family not the slaves.

Individual soldiers can fight for whatever they want, be it honor, duty, country, or a paycheck. Heck, one guy may have fought because he liked blueberries. The reason for the war is a quite different matter.

[Strike For The South]

The whole reason the CSA was able to get anything rolling was becuase the average southener thought his rights were being taken away. Slavery was very important to a very very small amount. Granted a powerful faction. If slavery was the most important factor many southern genrals (Stonewall Lee Stuart) would have never have joined the CSA.

[itchrelief]

The whole reason the CSA was able to get anything rolling was becuase the average southener thought his rights were being taken away. Slavery was very important to a very very small amount. Granted a powerful faction. If slavery was the most important factor many southern genrals (Stonewall Lee Stuart) would have never have joined the CSA.

Union officers that seceded did so because they felt more fealty to the South than to the Union, simple as that. That does not change the fact that many of the reasons for the war link in so many ways to slavery.

Let me state again: an individual soldier serves for his own reasons; the reasons and cause of the war do not necessarily coincide with the soldier's reasons for serving.

Given an environment that stresses duty, loyalty, honor, et al, above all, many people will fight for whichever entity they pledge their fealty to regardless of whether they completely agree with why that entity fights. The reason that individual fights is out of duty and loyalty to his state, lord, nation, local pizza parlor, etc.

In this case, Southern generals who may have personally disliked slavery were willing to LOOK PAST the fact that the CSA was a slave owning entity, out of loyalty to State and region. This does not change the fact that the CSA seceded because one of the vital tenets of its economy, power, and identity, slavery, was being threatened.

I bet many of the soldiers Clinton sent to Somalia did not personally agree with using the U.S. military for humanitarian aid distribution nor with nation building, yet they went anyhow because it was their duty. That does not change the fact that Clinton sent them there to distribute aid packets and later changed the goal to try to set up a new functioning Somali government. Furthermore, it most certainly does NOT mean that Somalis were somehow abridging the rights of those U.S. soldiers.

Anyhow, exactly what rights was the average Southerner losing? What he thinks and reality are two different animals. Heck, other than slavery, what were the rights and interests of the Southern STATES that were being threatened?

In fact, I would argue the average Southerner got duped into fighting a war which didn't really benefit him, even if the CSA did win. But when nationalism/sectarianism and Victorian notions of duty and honor are at such a preciously combustible level, them's the breaks.

[lars573]

The reason for the war is a quite different matter.

Because the Southern states ruling classes were afraid that Lincon would pass a federal law prohibiting (or at the very least severly limiting) slave ownership. And that the supreme court would uphold it.

The whole reason the CSA was able to get anything rolling was becuase the average southener thought his rights were being taken away. Slavery was very important to a very very small amount. Granted a powerful faction. If slavery was the most important factor many southern genrals (Stonewall Lee Stuart) would have never have joined the CSA.

And the only reason they though that was because their leaders had told them too. Some times I wonder how democracy took root in the west given the bone ignorance and gullability of the electorates in the 19th century.

Hmm Lee's story I do know. He was against slavery and sucession, but couldn't bring himself to fight against Virginia. In other words a hypocritical traitor.

[Strike For The South]

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.

[itchrelief]

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.

Or in other words someone who squelched his conscience out of notions of duty.

I pity Lee for the choice he had to make. I do not dislike the man and would not wish his predicament on anyone, except maybe my worst enemy. I only say the above because of the hyperbole in the quoted post.

[lars573]

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.

That idea is really what caused the yankee civil war. That the parts are greater than the whole was a death sentence to the US. The fact that after less than 100 years the US nearly fell apart is proof of that. And the fact that similar decentralized unions have all failed is also proof of that. No your loyalty is to your nation first, the particular sub unit in that nation second. A distant second.

To repeat this ad infinitum (no one has ever answered me on this, really, and it's a major point; I'm feeling ignored): why Virginia? Why not the USA? Because it's smaller? And if smaller is your righteous justification? Why not the counties? Many Floridan, Texan, and many other counties did vote for the Union, and only the counties in West Virginia ever got seperated for free! Hypocrisy, no? And if the counties still; why not smaller, your local town, your household, yourself?

Why state?

Oh, that and the issue that to my limited knowledge it seems Lee was an officer of the United States army and not some Virginian militia that he had the right to choose between the two, but I don't know enough to be sure on that.

Because appearntly in those days some people felt more of a connection to their home state. Lee considered Virginia to be sacred ground for some crazy reason. And yes he was a General in the US army. Widely regarded by his superiors, subordinates, and comrades to be the single best soldier in the US army. Many historians consider his leadership and skill the reason the CSA army was able to keep going for 4 years.

[AntiochusIII]

Protect there precious slaves. Do you know how many union officers secded? Do you know Robert E Lee's story? Men fought out of loyatly to there states and familes not for rich plantation owners.

And betrayed their country. Nice. And you people call that patriotism. Misnomer, anyone?

Nearly Everyone on both sides thought they were serpoiur to the blacks it wasnt just confined to the south.

I thought I made that point very clear. The real difference is that the North has an abolitionist movement going and overall, a softer, if still terrible, sentiment on the black people overall. At least that allowed for actual further increase in the rights of the black population as opposed to enslaving them "forever," the theoretical result of the CSA's victory, as outlined in their very Constitution, presented in the first post.

The average confedrate was worried about his home and his family not the slaves.

They do worry about the slaves. Where do you think the Ku Klux Klan came from? The few landowners only? No, it's the population of the South--landowners and commoners. Not to mention the general sentiment of the poor white "free" Southern population (its majority, that is) was something along the lines of, "no matter how pathetic our lives are, we still are superior to the slaves."

That and the fact that what they personally fight for meant squat when they were fighting for the CSA anyway. What do you think an average soldier in any war fight for? To live another day! To survive!

The whole reason the CSA was able to get anything rolling was becuase the average southener thought his rights were being taken away.

There's something call propaganda; and there's something call demagoguery; there's something call rabblerousing; and there's also something call mob mentality...

To be fair, both sides were perfectly inclined to throw their children to death with parades and great fanfare until the realities of war set in.

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.

To repeat this ad infinitum (no one has ever answered me on this, really, and it's a major point; I'm feeling ignored): why Virginia? Why not the USA? Because it's smaller? And if smaller is your righteous justification? Why not the counties? Many Floridan, Texan, and many other counties did vote for the Union, and only the counties in West Virginia ever got seperated for free! Hypocrisy, no? And if the counties still; why not smaller, your local town, your household, yourself?

Why state?

Oh, that and the issue that to my limited knowledge it seems Lee was an officer of the United States army and not some Virginian militia that he had the right to choose between the two, but I don't know enough to be sure on that.

Edit: Forgot to add: the CSA Constitution, apart from being such a blatantly obvious document for slave-owners, does not really support the "state's rights" cause at all. They do have a few good ideas, though, ones that arguably could've been included into the USA Constitution anyway given a chance for additions and revisions.

[Divinus Arma]

Patriotism is not the willingness to fight for government, laws, or territory.

Patriotism is the respect and sacrifice for the values that the nation is founded on. The federal government overstepped its boundaries and seperated itself from its values.

The CSA didn't abandon the federal government. The CSA was abandoned by the federal government.

Lee & Co. were patriots. They were Americans. And they were betrayed by their government. They stood for the founding principles of the constitution. When a government no longer represents its people, it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow their government.

[AntiochusIII]

Patriotism is not the willingness to fight for government, laws, or territory.

Patriotism is the respect and sacrifice for the values that the nation is founded on. The federal government overstepped its boundaries and seperated itself from its values.

The CSA didn't abandon the federal government. The CSA was abandoned by the federal government.

Lee & Co. were patriots. They were Americans. And they were betrayed by their government. They stood for the founding principles of the constitution. When a government no longer represents its people, it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow their government.

Emotional appeal is its own refutation.

By all technicality and reality the seceding states were rebelling against the country and therefore are the ones who abandon the federal government. Hello, disappointed with election results = right to secede?

Do you think it's right for the "Blue States" to abandon the Bible Belt and create the Democratic States of America or something because they lost the election?

Please address this issue first; then please address the point on how exactly are they holding up the "principles of the country" against the "evil federal government"; then please address the issue of slavery.

Oh, and my major point has again been ignored. Please address it too: what makes the state more important than the country?

[Strike For The South]

Oh, and my major point has again been ignored. Please address it too: what makes the state more important than the country?

The USA is a union of states that decide to work together not states that are binded by one.

[AntiochusIII]

The USA is a union of states that decide to work together not states that are binded by one.

And that is based on?

[Papewaio]

Patriotism is not the willingness to fight for government, laws, or territory.

Patriotism is the respect and sacrifice for the values that the nation is founded on. The federal government overstepped its boundaries and seperated itself from its values.

The CSA didn't abandon the federal government. The CSA was abandoned by the federal government.

Lee & Co. were patriots. They were Americans. And they were betrayed by their government. They stood for the founding principles of the constitution. When a government no longer represents its people, it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow their government.

Maybe Lee & Co should have read the declaration of Independence if they were really fighting for what the country was founded on:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Slavery is certainly not equality. When the rich search to upsurp the rule of law and justice and then manipulate others to do their bidding it is not a matter of State vs Federal rights its a matter of right vs wrong. A man who puts state rights above human rights should have been stripped of all honours, hanged like a dog and buried in lime for all time.

Lee & Co stepped away from the line of thinking that created the Declaration and did not have the strength of courage and foresight to follow it through. Cowardice in the name of state rights and the idea that loyalty to state is above human rights is not something to admire. The SS where loyal too.

[Marshal Murat]

The SS were loyal to a nation which was "perfect"
Lee and Co. were standing by their homeland, a land more perfect than the federal government. They had their doubts, and generally disliked, the institution of slavery, and fought for the state's right to withdraw from the Union whenever they chose to do so.

[Papewaio]

So they put state rights above human rights. Loyalty and Duty are only as good as the Code one follows. If the code is wrong then that loyalty and duty is misplaced.

Code is the map, get the wrong map and it doesn't matter how hard or fast you march you still end up at the wrong place.

[Reenk Roink]

Maybe Lee & Co should have read the declaration of Independence if they were really fighting for what the country was founded on:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Slavery is certainly not equality. When the rich search to upsurp the rule of law and justice and then manipulate others to do their bidding it is not a matter of State vs Federal rights its a matter of right vs wrong. A man who puts state rights above human rights should have been stripped of all honours, hanged like a dog and buried in lime for all time.

I'm afraid you are not interpreting the Constitution in its proper historical context here. The framers and founding fathers (a majority of them) saw no contradiction between this passage (which would have been naturally limited to white men) and allowing slavery. Compare this to the fact that the framers and founding fathers saw no contradiction between freedom of speech and blasphemy laws.

Interpreting the Constitution in it's proper historical context becomes very important. For example, I agree with a historical interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to freedom of speech, I simply cannot accept complete free speech. Also, I agree with the historical interpretation of the Second Amendment. People do not have a right to bear arms except to revolt in the case of an oppressive government (as you can see, the historical context of the Second Amendment renders it void in today's context)...

However, I agree with you on the point that slavery is not equality and furthermore, the slavery practiced was (mostly because Strike for the South will call me out) unequal in regards with race... I do not agree with a historical interpretation in this case.

[Papewaio]

I agree that in its historical context it wasn't seen as a conflict that equality and slavery existed. Nor do I now, as long as all can own slaves and all could be slaves if indentured as an adult. That would be equal. However equally stupid is not something to aspire to, so wisdom should be applied. That and economies tend to be more powerful per capita the more equal access the citizens have.

Important part of my post:

Lee & Co stepped away from the line of thinking that created the Declaration and did not have the strength of courage and foresight to follow it through.

My point is that the Declaration is a starting point, of why to do things, a Vision statement, and that it is for following generations to follow through on it and flesh it out. The Consitution, being the guidelines of how to do it or Mission statement. But to make it flesh and to live up to its promises it has to be lived and adapt to our modern understanding.

Lee & Co. choose a path that did not take it higher, they choose a path that was not in alignment with the seed nor what the declaration could ultimately grow into. Thankfully the Confederacy failed.

Thankfully other nations also gave women the vote and the US followed.

The good thing about a good starting compass is the path that it can set us upon. The writers may have not known were ulitmately it would lead, but if the premise is good so should be the outcome.