Talk:Constitution of the Confederate States

Cut back?
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)
 * 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. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 03:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Supreme Court?
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)

Wow, that was a blatant omission. Added the fact that the Confederate Constitution allowed state legislatures to impeach Confederate officials serving within the state. Rogue 9 01:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Present Physical Location
Added that the original Constitution of the CSA document (hand-written) is in the University of Georgia archives in Athens, Georgia. An article about the document should mention where it is currently physically located, shouldn't it?

Naming Conventions
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)

Filibuster Cartoons Link
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)

Supreme Court
Another reason that no Supreme Court was ever appointed was that Davis intended to appoint Judah P. Benjamin as chief justice, and many in Congress didn't like the idea of him being in that position. Should this be added to the article?

Branches
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)

Removed uncited editorial which is not related to the topic of the article.


 * 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)

"Slavery as a right"
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).&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS INCORRECT
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)

The section that states that you had to be born prior to 20 December 1860 and live in a Confederate state for 14 years to be a citizen is not correct, that was for the President of the United States. However, I would not say the whole article is incorrect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlayne (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this, but it really does sometimes seem like there is this liberal conspiracy to have the South eternally cast in the role of national villains in U.S. history...Did anybody even read the CSA Constitution before publishing this article? Yes, it did say "No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed." But this simply meant the central government would not make such laws, not that the Confederacy was seeking to expand slavery; this was something that was up to the individual states. Southerners wanted a central government with less power. This article also conveniently ignores clause 1 and 2 of Article 1, Section 9 of the constitution which explicitly banned the slave trade and prohibited the importation of slaves into any Confederate state or territory. Maybe the whole article isn't wrong, but it certainly isn't completeSentinel1701 (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * I wouldn't really bother responding to a comment from 14 years ago.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  04:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Assumptions made on amendment to Article 1 of the CSA constitution from US Constitution
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)

Unable to Hyperlink to Wikipedia Page?
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)

Constitutions of Former Countries
Why is the article in this category? The Confederate States of America was never an idependent nation. The Union won, the winners write history, and the North said that the South never secceeded. The Confederate States of America article refers to it as a "separatist political entity existing between 1861 to 1865". Since the South lost, that is the correct terminology. If they had won, then one could call the Confederacy a country, because as I said, the winners write history. The article needs to be removed from this category.Emperor001 (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone comes across this comment, but what you wrote, Emperor001, is rubbish:
 * The North (a.k.a. the U.S.) never said "the South never secceeded" - the pro-Union side they didn't have the right to do so. If they had considered the secession as non-existent, then why did they make it quite hard for those state that had secceeded to be readmitted to the Union?
 * "Winners write history" is a silly platitude! Of course, winner tend to use their victory in a propagandistic fashion so as to potray themselves as being in the right, the losers as being in the wrong. But a) that has never stopped losers from having thoughts of their own, and b) if not hindered by force, voicing them. c) There currently is no force to hinder them. d) Winners and losers of a past conflict are not the only parties to such a historiographical debate. e) Considering what was said in (c), there is really no point in shirking the historical fact that - like it or not - the CSA were as much of a country in 1862 as the US were.
 * Deposuit (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the CSA considered itself a country doesn't make it a country. The only country that ever recognized the CSA as a country was the CSA itself, and self-declaration doesn't get you very far. When there is a rebellion ongoing in a country, we say that borders are disputed, we don't simply take the side of the rebels with complete and total credulity and recognize a new country before the war is even decided. The CSA was a political entity that had no legal or democratic (since it ignored the votes of slaves) right to exist, it's only right to exist could be through right makes might, and it failed to do even that. The CSA was never a country, and that is a historical fact.65.0.180.71 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Could Confederate states outlaw slavery?
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)
 * The first line means that the national government couldn't ban slavery. There's nothing saying state governments couldn't ban it.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Representation
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Major Changes
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

New Confederate States have no ability to abolish slavery
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs)
 * 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)


 * I've removed that part. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

opening paragraph as 8/14/14
"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)

Article V Discussion Missing
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)122.150.43.96 (talk)
 * That information is already in the article. Edward321 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Permanent CSA Constitution states ratification
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)

effective date
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)

Article wrong in stating importation of slaves as such permitted?
The article states that the Confederate Constitution allowed the importation of slaves from the USA (emphases mine):

''Though Article I, Section 9(1), of both constitutions are quite similar in banning the importation of slaves from foreign nations, the Confederate Constitution permitted the Confederate States to import slaves from the United States and specified the "African race" as the subject. The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had been illegal since 1808.''

However, this claim is not supported by the actual clause in question, which states (again, emphasis is mine):"Article I Section 9(1): The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."Why did it say "Negroes of the African race" instead of "slaves" or even "Negro slaves"? The Confederate Constitution was not shy about explicitly referring to slavery as such and by name. And yet here the "importation" ban is not about slaves, but about black people ("Negroes of the African race"). Taken literally, this ban would of course ban the importation of slaves from anywhere other than US slave states, but it would also ban FREE BLACK PEOPLE from coming into the CSA from anywhere in the world other than US slave states. While this might be seen as motivated by a desire to keep free black people out of the Confederacy, the language of this ban does not ban free black people AS SUCH. Nothing in it forbids FREE "Negroes of the African race" to come into the CSA, as long as those people come from US slave states.

It's hard to think of a coherent rationale underlying this. Racially motivated desire to not add more black people doesn't fit, because it allows more black people in. Desire to protect slavery by keeping out free black people doesn't fit, because it allows in free black people from US slave states. Desire to strengthen slavery by only allowing in slaves but not free black people doesn't fit, because while it allows slaves from the USA to come in, it also allows free black people from the US slave states, and maintains the pre-secession ban on the rest of the international slave trade. A humanitarian desire to continue the ban on long-distance shipping of slaves (especially the trans-Atlantic slave trade from Africa) doesn't fit, because Florida could not accept a slave from nearby Cuba a hundred miles away but could accept a slave from faraway Delaware a thousand miles distant - potentially a harrowing trip in the hold of a long-distance ship.

In any case, whether this phrasing was an oversight on the part of the drafters and ratifiers accidentally falling back on the old habits of euphemism and circumlocution, or whether "everyone knew" it meant slaves regardless of the literal meaning, or whether it was a carefully thought-through strategy for specific purposes that escape me, or was merely a political compromise hammered out in the full knowledge that it conformed to no consistent principle, the matter at hand is the accuracy of the article.

Does anyone else agree that the article seems to be wrong when it says that the importation of slaves (qua slaves) from the USA was allowed, since the actual clause instead says that what is allowed is the "importation of Negroes of the African race" (ANY "NEGROES", WITH NO MENTION OF WHETHER THEY ARE ENSLAVED) as long as they come from "the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America"?

Carney333 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_v022861.asp
 * "The rule herein given is emphatic, and distinctly directs the legislation which shall effectually prevent the importation of African negroes. The bill before me denounces as high misdemeanor the importation of African negroes or other persons of color, either to be sold as slaves or to be held to service or labor, affixing heavy, degrading penalties on the act, if done with such intent." Seville1861 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)