How different would American History would be if the Founding Fathers somehow ended up with the creation of the Confederate Constitution but without the unable to ban slavery and a Supreme Court?
WI: The Founding Fathers created the Confederate Constitution without the Slavery part and the addition of a Supreme Court?
- Thread starter Oba Cahokia
- Start date
What if instead of the US Constitution way it was the ended the CSA Constitution as it was intended work. Except for the guaranteed slavery and the lack of a Supreme Court in the CSA Constitution.
The CS Constitution was not a document conducive to good governance. You'd either run into a failed state US or a second constitutional convention
What are some of the other differences you have in mind to highlight?
The key differences I've seen in the CSA Constitution:
The president can only have one term of 6 years.
No establishment of a Supreme Court for some reason.
It guaranteed slavery was unbannable.
Their Federal Government was a coalition of independent and sovereign states. (Basically something like the EU and ASEAN)
Here is a link to a interesting article on it. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/... much of,first in American Constitutional law.
They would have to centralise the govt at some point, or it would be viewed like ASEAN or OAS...a supranational organisation of independent states. Which is, I suppose, what many at the time wanted.
Ignoring that, I think lack of a supreme court would impede efforts at centralisation. It could lead to more fights between states. The 6 year, single term presidency might be good but it would also hamper centralisation, I think.
Ignoring that, I think lack of a supreme court would impede efforts at centralisation. It could lead to more fights between states. The 6 year, single term presidency might be good but it would also hamper centralisation, I think.
The Confederate Constitution just seems like the Articles of Confederation but even worse. Either it is done away with or the USA is a non-functional state.
From Bonner's Expedient Corporatism and Confederate Political Economy:
'...The foundation of political culture was the Confederate constitution, which, despite the arguments of some historians that it merely mimicked the U.S. document and added safeguards for slavery, was fundamentally different from the U.S. Constitution. The Confederate constitution allowed for extensive executive powers, including six-year terms of office, a line-item veto, and control over government expenditures. The six-year term for the president and vice president were counterbalanced by the rule that executives could not serve two consecutive terms, but six years afforded Confederate executives ample time to implement policy before being turned out of office. The line-item veto provided the Confederate president with great power over the legislative process, since the Congress was practically forced into passage of bills that were completely amenable to the chief executive.
Perhaps the greatest power of the Confederate president, often overlooked by historians, was the ability to control appropriations, which has usually been the main role of legislative bodies in the American system. The president's power of appropriation derived from Article I, Section 9, clause 9 of the Confederate constitution, which declared, "Congress shall appropriate no money from the treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses … unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments, and submitted to Congress by the President." If Congress could not achieve a two-thirds majority in both Houses, which was a difficult task, then, logically, most government financial appropriations would have to be requested by the president and the array of bureaucratic department heads. This gave the executive branch far-reaching control over the purse strings of the Confederate government. From the earliest stages of the Confederate government, in February 1861, "the first Congressional defense measure initiated the prime pattern in the Confederate war effort—letting the President do it."
Delegates and participants present at the founding of the Confederate government also set an important precedent for government proceedings with the use of secret sessions. Confederate leaders mimicked the 1787 Constitutional convention's use of secret sessions, and allowed the practice to continue throughout the deliberations of the provisional and regular congress. Confederate delegate Robert Barnwell Rhett criticized the newly established government for not being as open to public as that of its northern enemies and observed that "almost all important business was transacted away from the knowledge and thus beyond the criticism of the people." Even if leaders did not conspire behind closed doors to pursue policies detrimental to the Confederate citizenry, it certainly appeared suspicious at best to some observers and downright undemocratic to others. Secret sessions by the Confederate congress allowed for speculation of collusion and inserted an implied atmosphere of authoritarianism into Confederate political culture, which perhaps undermined popular support for the government's representative branch.
Confederate interpretations of executive and legislative constitutional powers were merely slight changes from the American constitutional precedent, especially when viewed against the Confederate judicial branch, or lack thereof. Passage of the Judiciary Act of March 1861 allowed for the creation of a Confederate supreme court, but the congress never put the legislation into practice. In spring 1862, Congress revisited the matter, but only six senators "could accept the principle of appellate jurisdiction involved," and when the House also refused to support the powers of judicial review, then "the entire matter was dropped." Neither the president or the congress wished to contend with judicial review of legislation, so the Supreme Court was simply never allowed to exist. In the absence of a centralized supreme court, judicial review responsibilities and Confederate constitutional interpretation were left to the state courts, which often thwarted Confederate laws, especially conscription, to the chagrin of Davis and the congress. North Carolina jurist Richmond Pearson became symbolic of the potential for legal dissent at the state level and continuously hamstrung conscription efforts in the state. The lack of a central Confederate supreme court might be interpreted as democratic because state courts could protect the rights of their respective citizens against Richmond, or it may be viewed as the executive and legislative branches' attempt to forego centralized judicial review to enhance their powers. The failure of the Confederate government to establish a functional supreme court allowed for bitter legal battles over states' rights and epitomized the political culture of centralized power and local dissent.
...The Confederacy exhibited many of the characteristics of later corporatist governments. Some of these include "a limited and insecure establishment of liberal democracy, a political system characterized by a dominant ruling elite," and an economy "with industry playing only a minority part in national output and with agriculture … being predominant." All of these preconditions existed in the American south at the outset of war in 1861. The Confederacy also conforms to the idea that "corporatism … appears to have been established in response to growing tensions of transition from a relatively backward agrarian economy to an essentially modern industrial capitalist one." The war forced a rapid mobilization and industrialization and corporatism evolved as an expedient response to the needs of Confederate survival.
Did corporatism help or hinder the Confederate war effort? The expedient corporatist arrangement satisfied the immediate needs of Confederate leaders and helped to fill army ranks and munitions requests. In the short run, it allowed the Confederacy to survive during a time of constant crisis, and it assisted national existence for four years. However, corporatist public policies, like conscription, caused dissent and eroded Confederate nationalism among the southern populace. Private companies that benefited from the corporatist arrangement also undermined the Confederate war effort and crafted their own self-serving policies, which arguably weakened the military effort. Expedient corporatism helped the Confederacy overcome each immediate crisis but created an authoritarian relationship between the government and the people that some citizens found unworthy of further defense.'
'...The foundation of political culture was the Confederate constitution, which, despite the arguments of some historians that it merely mimicked the U.S. document and added safeguards for slavery, was fundamentally different from the U.S. Constitution. The Confederate constitution allowed for extensive executive powers, including six-year terms of office, a line-item veto, and control over government expenditures. The six-year term for the president and vice president were counterbalanced by the rule that executives could not serve two consecutive terms, but six years afforded Confederate executives ample time to implement policy before being turned out of office. The line-item veto provided the Confederate president with great power over the legislative process, since the Congress was practically forced into passage of bills that were completely amenable to the chief executive.
Perhaps the greatest power of the Confederate president, often overlooked by historians, was the ability to control appropriations, which has usually been the main role of legislative bodies in the American system. The president's power of appropriation derived from Article I, Section 9, clause 9 of the Confederate constitution, which declared, "Congress shall appropriate no money from the treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses … unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments, and submitted to Congress by the President." If Congress could not achieve a two-thirds majority in both Houses, which was a difficult task, then, logically, most government financial appropriations would have to be requested by the president and the array of bureaucratic department heads. This gave the executive branch far-reaching control over the purse strings of the Confederate government. From the earliest stages of the Confederate government, in February 1861, "the first Congressional defense measure initiated the prime pattern in the Confederate war effort—letting the President do it."
Delegates and participants present at the founding of the Confederate government also set an important precedent for government proceedings with the use of secret sessions. Confederate leaders mimicked the 1787 Constitutional convention's use of secret sessions, and allowed the practice to continue throughout the deliberations of the provisional and regular congress. Confederate delegate Robert Barnwell Rhett criticized the newly established government for not being as open to public as that of its northern enemies and observed that "almost all important business was transacted away from the knowledge and thus beyond the criticism of the people." Even if leaders did not conspire behind closed doors to pursue policies detrimental to the Confederate citizenry, it certainly appeared suspicious at best to some observers and downright undemocratic to others. Secret sessions by the Confederate congress allowed for speculation of collusion and inserted an implied atmosphere of authoritarianism into Confederate political culture, which perhaps undermined popular support for the government's representative branch.
Confederate interpretations of executive and legislative constitutional powers were merely slight changes from the American constitutional precedent, especially when viewed against the Confederate judicial branch, or lack thereof. Passage of the Judiciary Act of March 1861 allowed for the creation of a Confederate supreme court, but the congress never put the legislation into practice. In spring 1862, Congress revisited the matter, but only six senators "could accept the principle of appellate jurisdiction involved," and when the House also refused to support the powers of judicial review, then "the entire matter was dropped." Neither the president or the congress wished to contend with judicial review of legislation, so the Supreme Court was simply never allowed to exist. In the absence of a centralized supreme court, judicial review responsibilities and Confederate constitutional interpretation were left to the state courts, which often thwarted Confederate laws, especially conscription, to the chagrin of Davis and the congress. North Carolina jurist Richmond Pearson became symbolic of the potential for legal dissent at the state level and continuously hamstrung conscription efforts in the state. The lack of a central Confederate supreme court might be interpreted as democratic because state courts could protect the rights of their respective citizens against Richmond, or it may be viewed as the executive and legislative branches' attempt to forego centralized judicial review to enhance their powers. The failure of the Confederate government to establish a functional supreme court allowed for bitter legal battles over states' rights and epitomized the political culture of centralized power and local dissent.
...The Confederacy exhibited many of the characteristics of later corporatist governments. Some of these include "a limited and insecure establishment of liberal democracy, a political system characterized by a dominant ruling elite," and an economy "with industry playing only a minority part in national output and with agriculture … being predominant." All of these preconditions existed in the American south at the outset of war in 1861. The Confederacy also conforms to the idea that "corporatism … appears to have been established in response to growing tensions of transition from a relatively backward agrarian economy to an essentially modern industrial capitalist one." The war forced a rapid mobilization and industrialization and corporatism evolved as an expedient response to the needs of Confederate survival.
Did corporatism help or hinder the Confederate war effort? The expedient corporatist arrangement satisfied the immediate needs of Confederate leaders and helped to fill army ranks and munitions requests. In the short run, it allowed the Confederacy to survive during a time of constant crisis, and it assisted national existence for four years. However, corporatist public policies, like conscription, caused dissent and eroded Confederate nationalism among the southern populace. Private companies that benefited from the corporatist arrangement also undermined the Confederate war effort and crafted their own self-serving policies, which arguably weakened the military effort. Expedient corporatism helped the Confederacy overcome each immediate crisis but created an authoritarian relationship between the government and the people that some citizens found unworthy of further defense.'
Who ever considered not having a Supreme Court? Also, you can have the Supreme Court, but have its power checked by not establishing judicial review.
WI: No Process of Judicial Review
How would the legal history of the US change if Malbury vs Madison, somehow, didn't establish Judicial Review? Would the Supreme Court eventually assert that power, or would it just sorta disappear?
www.alternatehistory.com