The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism (Paperback)

~ Marshall L. Derosa (Author) "The Confederate States of America, politically established in 1861 and militarily extirpated in 1865, was neither simply a historic accident initiated by radicals attempting to..." (more)
Key Phrases: United States, South Carolina, Confederate Congress (more...)

Product Details

• Paperback: 182 pages
• Publisher: University of Missouri Press; First Edition edition (November 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0826208126
• ISBN-13: 978-0826208125
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.5 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #578,701 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

94 of 101 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Concise, Informative, Ground Breaking, January 21, 1999

By A Customer

This book is perhaps the best I have read on the Confederate Constitution. The book explains the basis for the state's rights and tariff issues and how they effected the writing of the CS Constitution. A large portion of the book talks about John C. Calhoun and his stance on the issues. Also read to learn the improvements in the CS Constitution over the US counterpart. I would recomend this too all Americans, not just Southerners. If you were ever unsure as to what "state's rights" was, this is the book for you. Read! and learn the real reason the South seceeded.

28 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Very Informative, irritating to Yankees, June 30, 2003

By	Robert Perkins (Phoenix, Arizona) - See all my reviews

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it. In reply to some of the points in conlawyer's condemnatory review...
1) Davis and Stephens, in their 1861 speeches mentioned by conlawyer, spoke of "agitation over slavery," rather than the desire to perpetuate slavery itself, as being the motivation behind secession. The slavery provisions of the Confederate Constitution of were designed to eliminate this "agitation over slavery"...that is, conflict between States which have emancipated and those which have not...not to protect slavery itself. It removed slavery from the realm of national government and placed it where it properly belonged, in the sphere of State legislative action. The Northern States had eliminated slavery when it became economically unviable in the North...not due to any moral outrage over slavery itself...and did so by the action of their individual State Legislatures. The Southern States, through the Confederate Constitution, simply preserved their right to handle the issue by the same means, and for the same reasons, which the Northern States had used.
2)The State Secession documents...actually, conlawyer is referring to the Declarations of the Causes of Secession issued by four of the States seceding from the Union (the rest did not explain their reasons)...do cite slavery as the prime reason for secession. Southerners often cite conflicts over high tariffs and other economic issues as the cause of secession, and a superficial reading of these Declarations of the Causes of Secession does seem to contradict this, as conlawyer points out. However, what these Declarations were doing was providing a legal basis for secession, just as the original Declaration of Independence set out the legal basis for America's secession from the British Empire. The Southern States needed a clear, unambiguous violation of the Constitution by the Northern States to justify their "breaking of the contract" represented by the Union. It was not unconstitutional for Congress to levy tariffs on imported goods bought by Southerners, or to spend the money thus raised on internal improvements and business subsidies for capitalists in the Northern States. So although the South might have liked to secede over these issues (the Republican Party platform called for high tariffs, internal improvements, and business subsidies, and indeed, soon after taking control, they passed the highest tariff in American history, which would have devastated the South economically), legally, they could not have justified "breaking the contract" between the Southern States and the rest of the Union on that basis. However, the Northern States were in clear violation of the Constitution by acts of their legislatures and decisions by their State Courts which nullified and prevented enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution (and the various Fugitive Slave Acts which were passed for the enforcement of said Clause). And it is this which is prominently cited in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession. Also, it is noteworthy that the Declaration issued by the State of Georgia does, in fact, talk about the tariff issue as well as slavery...indeed, it states that it was the alliance of Northern anti-slavery agitators with the Northern mercantilist/high tariff faction (represented by the Republican Party) which had allowed the election of Abraham Lincoln, thus creating the need for secession. So slavery is not the ONLY issue discussed in these declarations.
3) Article I, Section 9, Subsection 4, of the Confederate Constitution does prohibit the Confederate Congress from interfering with slavery, as conlawyer says. However, despite what conlawyer says, slavery is not "completely protected" by the Confederate Constitution. None of the provisions of the Confederate Constitution prevent the States from abolishing slavery. So the intent was not to protect slavery, but to preserve the right of the States to handle the issue when it became advantageous for them to do so, as the Northern States had themselves done. Conlawyer doesn't mention that there are other provisions in the Confederate Constitution intended to prevent future conflicts from arising between States which have abolished slavery and those which have not. If slavery was "completely protected" by the Confederate Constitution, and the founding fathers of the Confederacy intended that the slaves never be emancipated, why would those provisions have been included?
4) Conlawyer states that the question of whether a State has the right to secede from the Union was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. This is not true. The said case mentions secession not at all. Like conlawyer,I encourage you to check it out...it can be found via an internet search.

5.0 out of 5 stars Facts speak for themselves., July 26, 2005

By	getthefacts - See all my reviews

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
--Ulysses S. Grant

I suspect that Grant -Commander of the Union Army and President of the United States- had a better idea of what the War was about than those who would deny the truth today.