>muh state rights>their constitution literally prohibits states from abolishing slavery
>>18750299Based
Yeah? If all the States agree to it without complaint, then none of them are having their rights infringed. It's immoral to deprive men of their farming equipment anyway; that's Bolshevism.
>>18750299It state right to return pre-1789 constitution.
>>18750299It doesn't. It prohibits congress from abolishing slavery at the federal level. Read what section of the constitution the passage you're referring to is from before you run off here to regurgitate what tankies on r/shermanposting are saying.
Do people think the CSA would have actually given the Indians Oklahoma or was that never really going to be a secure thing?
>>18750569The CSA’s whole model of economics was more predicated on huge slave plantations than independent settler homesteads so it would not have necessarily had the same incentive to open up the land for settlement. The land wasn’t particularly good for cash crops anyway
>>18750600The industrial style slave plantations would have faded due to technology decade by decade no matter what, wouldn't the homestead become inevitable in this case? I'm assuming the CSA's economic backbone would shift to resource extraction with the eventual oil discoveries.
>>18750569yes. I think theres this misconception that at this time in the mid 1800s, the Choctaw, Cherokee, or Creek indians were still these one with nature avatar people living in huts and hunting the wild game. People like this did exist in that lifestyle for sure, but a bunch of these people were living in the standard American plantation lifestyle. They owned huge tracks of land, they grew cash crops using enslaved labor, and they lived in European style homes and wore european style clothes. They sent their kids to prep schools or hired tutors just like the white people did. The reason these specific people supported the confederacy was because they were tapped into the landed gentry system just as much as the white people. It wasnt just these poor ignorant and desperate indians becoming canon fodder for a more powerful entity based on a hallow promise of salvation. William Weatherford, the guy who started the Creek War, owned a massive plantation and slaves in Alabama.
>>18750684Would that have maintained itself after the war? Assuming Southern independence. I'm not saying they'd get expelled or anything but would the promised autonomy in Oklahoma and political representation in the Senate and Congress get respected?
>>18750329>it's immoral to-ACK
Play war of rights now!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNvneLk3gMI
>>18750362Not OP, but that's not right. The privileges and immunities clause in the CSA constitution explicitly incorporated parts of the Dred Scott decision regarding slaves not becoming free when entering free states, and requiring free states to uphold the legal status of slaves subject to another state's law, effectively making it that so long as slavery was legal in one state it was legal everywhere.>ARTICLE IV>Section 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....>(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.So lets say for example, the CSA won the civil war and then Arkansas passed a law saying "as of January 1st, 1870, the trade of negro slaves shall be prohibited, and all children of negro slaves born after that date shall not be considered free." Or even go one further and say they pass a law that says "the practice of negro slavery is abolished, this act has immediate effect on all slaves." An Arkansan owning slaves he bought in Arkansas might have to free his slaves, but then he could just go to any other state that had not abolished the slave trade, buy slaves there, and bring them back to his plantation in Arkansas. Under those two clauses of the constitution Arkansas would have no choice but to allow that slavery to continue, even though the state had tried to outlaw it. The framers of the CSA Constitution were very deliberate in this.
>>18750993To be fair the question of slaves travelling state lines is a blatant legal loophole that should have had a solution to begin with. The pre DvS state of affairs where slaves became free the minute they stepped foot into a free state by any means did not make sense. Either they remain property everywhere or slavery is simply abolished, you can't have a federation where chattel property suddenly stops being property subject to state lines. Irrespective of whether slavery should be legal, this is just not functional or logical.
>>18751023If you say this then you are saying you don't care about states rights. Its one thing to have a fugitive slave clause requiring free states to return runaway slaves, but to include slaves brought by their masters is just trampling on a state's authority to legislate on the issue of slavery, which is a pretty fucking big issue. In the Arkansas hypothetical, no one was being forcing to bring slaves across state lines to a free state, it was entirely by choice. If you think Arkansas shouldn't be able to legislate on that you're admitting states rights is a sham. The drafters of the CSA constitution could have added to the end of Sec IV clause 1 something like "so long as the citizen remains in transit" to cover genuine situations of interstate travel or transit. But they didn't do that, and that's because they wanted to deprive states of the right to abolish slavery. The CSA constitution is not a document meant to establish a looser confederation where states are given greater freedom and sovereignty to decide their own future, it is a document meant to solidify a slave society.
>>18750329Third worldism too
