Talk:Constitution of the Confederate States

message: The link to Henry Marshall (Lousisiana signer) directs you to the wrong person. Just look at the date of birth. can someone fix this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.58.185 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: This article should be cut back to a description of the Constitution and the events surrounding its adoption. The TEXT, now in the article should be moved to Wikisource. Then an external link can point to it, either there or on the Web. Any thoughts? Lou I 22:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I consolidated this page with Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which had little content and a copy of the const. turned Constitution of the Confederate States of America into a redirect and put a wikisource link on this page. I think this solves the problem. If anyone is interested about what I did. BrokenSegue 03:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut back?

message: Should there be a note concerning the fact that while the Confederate Constitution outlined a Supreme Court, the Confederates never actually appointed justices, for fear that they would be too powerful over the states?  Rogue 9 00:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Court?

message: Shouldn't this article be titled Confederate States of America Constitution? I was viewing the list of national constitutions, and it looks like it should. It would probably be more recognized, since that was the official title. Also, should we add this article to the list of constitutions under the category Constitutions of former countries? --Toddbloom7 11:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions 

message: While I do realize that Filibuster Cartoons is a political webcomic site, its study on the differences between the CS and US Constitutions is very fascinating and quite informative.  Due to this, I believe it to be worthy of inclusion here.  However, should someone else have a more academic source covering the matter, then by all means it should have precedence over my addition. RPH 05:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Filibuster Cartoons Link

message: The paragraph beginning "In fact, slavery only became a constitutional issue..." seems to become opinion and unsubstantiated, um, facts in the section regarding Jefferson Davis. I intend to delete the words "In his august foresight..." immediately as it is completely unencyclopedic, and will re-visit the page and this talk page soon to consider further revision. The entire paragraph seems to be the work of Robertwhatley, but I am too new to using this editing feature to understand completely. Kcor53 15:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, slavery only became a constitutional issue after the war had begun. In his 1861 inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said, "Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property [is] to be endangered.... I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the United States where it exists.... I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." The legal basis for slavery in the Confederacy is largely presented as an extension of property rights and by the mid to late 19c. was falling out of favor throughout the world and was gradually ending in the agrarian South as well through the educational reforms instituted by President Jefferson Davis.  President Davis knew that there must be implemented a plan to educate the slaves, to teach them how to think for themselves, to read and write, an understanding of government, as well as a simple understanding of the judiciary prior to personal freedom. 
Roadrunner 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Branches

message: I changed this:
: The constitution forbade the practice of importing slaves from outside the Confederacy, but explicitly established slavery as a right...
That's not quite true. What that provision did was forbid the Confederate government from banning slavery. State goverments would still have been free to ban slavery (not that they would have).—Chowbok ☠ 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not correct. A confederate state would not be allowed to ban slavery. Article I Section 9(4) provides that no law "impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." 209.237.120.90 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree with that. Article I Section 9 of the Constitution is reserved for the 'Limits of Congress'. 9(4) is listed within this section. Article IV is reserved for 'The States'. Ar. IV 3(3) allows slave owners to travel to any State or territory with slaves. (It's important to distinguish between States and territories) If States were not able to abolish slavery it would have been listed in Article IV. Seville1861 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: You should probably read the whole thing before you open your mouth.  Article IV Section 3(3) explicitly forbids forming free states on CSA territory.  I.e., yes the confederacy was seeking to expand slavery 209.237.120.90 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really bother responding to a comment from 14 years ago.—Chowbok ☠ 04:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slavery as a right" 

message: Why the hell do you guys only cite a cartoon and some book by a New Yorker?  Who would know the CSA constitution better?  A northerner or a scholar at UGA - where the constitution is located?
Also, the Confederated Constitution limited slavery much more than the U.S. constitution - again this is a fact.  Why don't you check it out?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.240.254 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably read the whole thing before you open your mouth.  Article IV Section 3(3) explicitly forbids forming free states on CSA territory.  I.e., yes the confederacy was seeking to expand slavery 209.237.120.90 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really bother responding to a comment from 14 years ago.—Chowbok ☠ 04:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS INCORRECT

message: Comment made on the page
Several provisions in Article I, as follows: prohibited non-citizens from voting (Sec. 2, Cl. 1 - a nativist provision showing the lingering influence of the Know-Nothing movement, though it was past its peak by the time of the Civil War)[original research?]
This seems a bit presumptive without reference to current historical research or a list of this persons own research to support this statement. Yes there is a amendment to the provision restricting foreign born people from voting and restricting non-citzens of the Confederacy from voting but I believe it may be better to simply point this out and then offer a more open-ended explanation for the reasoning behind it until more thorough research can be completed. Therefore, I have edited this content to fully admit that their is no established understanding of this provision and recognizes that the statements within are debatable. Of course this new explanation may need some wordsmithing but I believe that it is more acceptable.Epignosis (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumptions made on amendment to Article 1 of the CSA constitution from US Constitution 

message: For some reason I am unable to link the reference to organized immigration to Kansas by anti-slavery groups to the Bleeding Kansas page due to it being blacklisted as vandalism? Does anyone know the reason for this or can link it for me. I do not believe that I have committed vandalism by seeking to link the pages have I?Epignosis (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unable to Hyperlink to Wikipedia Page?

message: Currently the article reads: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress] 
The constitution likewise prohibited the Confederate Congress from abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories (unlike the United States, where, prior to the Dred Scott decision, Congress had prohibited slavery in some territories). This did not necessarily mean that individual states could not ban slavery.
"
The last line essentially says individual states could ban slavery. It seems pretty clear to me that the first line, saying that no law could be passed impairing the right to own slaves, means that individual states could not ban slavery. I'm going to remove the last line for the time being unless someone can explain how the first line can allow for a state to ban slavery. Harksaw (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first line means that the national government couldn't ban slavery. There's nothing saying state governments couldn't ban it.—Chowbok ☠ 23:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Article I, section 9 (in which the bar on law banning slavery is located), only applies to Congress.  Article I, section 10, by contrast, contains restrictions on state power.  Section 10 repeats some of the content of section 9 (including the bar on bills of attainder), but not the bar on laws banning slavery.  Therefore, under the Confederate Constitution, individual States could, in principle, ban slavery.  For what it's worth. P.D.    02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual states could abolish slavery, but they could not touch the slaves of individuals who were just passing through the state or who were temporarily residing (say a soldier on duty who takes a slave to a fort in a free state).  All the Confederate Constitution really did was clarify several questions about slavery that were not addressed by the US Constitution.  For example, it was debated whether or not a slave transported from one slave state/territory to another was freed if he was transported through a free state.  Another debate was the status of a slave who temporarily resided in a free state (again, say a soldier stationed in a free state).  All the CSA Constitution did was fix several questions that arose under the US Constitution.  Slavery wasn't the only issue addressed.  For example, internal improvements was another big debate of the time, and the Confederates went ahead and addressed that problem as well.  If the US Constitution were rewritten today, then the writers would probably do the same thing with issues like abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage.  Emperor001 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Confederate states outlaw slavery? 

message: How was representation in Congress (and electoral college) determined? I presume there was no 3/5ths Compromise--JimWae (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the 3/5th compromise remained.  Article 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3 (corresponding to its US counterpart) read
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves."
They were probably so used to it that there was no reason to drop it, probably b/c it implied that slaver were inferior.  Emperor001 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Nonsense, again. It was retained because the CSA-framers saw no reason to change anything about this. Hence, the reasons for the original US-framers applied, a compromise between states that were unequal in regard to the extant of the slave population. In 1787, it was slave-holders that would have liked to count slaves equally, as it would have increased their own clout. It was those uneasy with slavery that felt that states should be given greater representation on behalf of disenfranchised people. Deposuit (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation 

message: I have completed some major chances to this page. Taking it from 3 citations to 62 and listed only the Constitutions when talking about the text. 63.127.162.246 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure most of those citations were a good idea.  All they really do is say that the description of Article X, Section Y(Z) has been taken from Article X, Section Y(Z), information which has already been conveyed more clearly in the text itself.  Furthermore, the very presence of all those little superscript numbers makes it look like we're providing citations to back up the interpretations and misinterpretations that unintentionally creep into our descriptions of what the original document says.  For instance, our summary of Article I, Section 10(3): just a single sentence, but it incorrectly refers to agreements between Confederate states as "treaties", and it's unclear whether "Confederate States" refers to the nation as a whole (which should have been "The Confederate States") or to individual states (which should have been "Confederate states"). Binabik80 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Article I, Section 10(3), thanks. It was an unintentional mistake. Been busy. I had made several other mistakes and omissions that I am now in the process of correcting as well.Kromeke7 (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Changes 

message: The "States' rights" section says "New Confederate States have no ability to abolish slavery" vis Article IV Section 9(3), but I don't see where in Section 9(3) it says that. Unless I'm missing something here, it only seems to prohibit territories from abolishing slavery. It doesn't seem to say anything about states (new or otherwise) abolishing slavery. 
Article IV Section 2(1) states "The citizens of each State [...] 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.". By specifically prohibiting the abolition of transiting and sojourning instead of a blanket prohibition on abolishing slavery, this implies that a state can abolish slavery, so long as the abolition does not extended to transit and sojourning. 20:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Left out a few words there. I should have said "this seems to imply that a state can abolish slavery" not "this implies that a state can abolish slavery". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I've removed that part. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Confederate States have no ability to abolish slavery 

message: "The Constitution of the Confederate States of America was the supreme law of the Confederate States of America, as adopted on March 11, 1861, and in effect from February 22, 1862 through the conclusion of the American Civil War.[1] The Confederacy also operated under a Provisional Constitution from February 8, 1861 to March 11, 1861.[2] "
it states the constitution was in effect starting feb 22 1862, which I assume is correct, the next sentence states the provisional cons was only in effect until mach 11 1861 if that is true what was being used from march 11 1861 to feb 22 1862? Skippypeanuts (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: opening paragraph as 8/14/14

message: I notice that the article has no discussion of the changes in Article V (the amendment article).
In particular: the Confederate Congress cannot propose amendment, ratification is only by 2/3 of states rather than 3/4, and the convention proposing amendments is limited to considering "such amendments to the Constitution as the said states shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made'.
Stephen 13:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That information is already in the article. Edward321 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article V Discussion Missing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Confederate States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.openthought.org/summa/confederate.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.openthought.org/summa/confederate.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.openthought.org/summa/confederate.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Confederate States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: submitted to the states on March 11, 1861
*1. Alabama March 12, 1861
*2. Georgia March 16, 1861
*3. Louisiana  March 21, 1861
*4. Texas March 23, 1861
*5. Mississippi March 26, 1861
*6. South Carolina April 3, 1861
*7. Florida April 22, 1861
*8. Virginia April 25, 1861
*9. North Carolina May 21, 1861
*Arkansas ?
*Tennessee ?
*Kentucky CSA ?
*Missouri CSA ?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/csaconstitutionbackground.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.5.30 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Permanent CSA Constitution states ratification

message: I think the effective date of the "permanent" constitution was February 18, 1862 not Feb 22. The first session of the First Congress began on February 18. 70.59.70.125 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: effective date