No! That is NOT my point, sir. And I am NOT speaking to hypotheticals. Perhaps I did not make myself clear because I was also attempting to deal with your other charges.

I am not going to endlessly repeat myself, giving citations, points and authorities over and over. I am only going to say the following:

The Preamble makes clear that the Confederacy made of “sovereign and independent” States, unlike the Union.

There is nowhere in the CSA Constitution, particularly in Art. I, Section 10 “Limits on the States”, that expressly prohibits any of it’s “sovereign and independent States from banning slavery. But the Congress of the CSA cannot proscribe slavery for the entire nation. Art. IV only addresses the case of privileges and immunities. There would be no purpose of addressing the “pass through” privilege as pertains to slaves and slave ownership, if it were not possible that States could ban slavery within their borders! Thus the CSA Constitution anticipated that there would, at some future time, be States that passed anti-slavery laws. It would not be logical do have such protection if it was anticipated that in all States it would be all slavery, all the time!

Unless you have additional CSA Constitutional citations, or can produce Southern commentaries contemporary with the writing of that Constitution, that provide proof for your assertion, I shall not address the matter again at this time.

I have identified the three separate clauses I mentioned and, I believe, adequately explained my rationale to consider them to be protective of the institution of slavery. Your entire point revolves around the hypothetical that a Confederate State could attempt to ban slavery in it’s own borders (although not traffic in slaves across it) and that the Confederacy was a sufficiently “tenther” organization (and, to be honest, most changes to the US Constitution made in the Confederate one are straight Tea Party lines) that this would have stood. However, even if your entire argument is conceded your line of reasoning assumes that Confederate authorities would have acted in a manner entirely inconsistent with their own wartime conduct and the postwar conduct of both Southern state authorities and their ideological heirs, the more recent right-wing politicians.

Then you have changed your argument. The original statement, with which I disagreed, was that the CSA Constitution “protected slavery in at least three places”. You have now wandered far from that original assertion. As I cautioned, one cannot look at that document against the body of laws and history of the last 150 years.

I will stipulate your assertions of the 1% as against the 99% and agree completely.

Jim Crow was distinctly different from ante-bellum slavery, and not falling until the 60’s is irrelevant to the CSA Constitution. I am QUITE sure I know a bit more of Jim Crow than you, as I was raised in the 50’s in SC. I saw firsthand white and colored water fountains, restrooms, waiting rooms, entrances, etc. I saw municipal pools closed rather than integrate. But the new argument you present is not something to bantered about in a few comments. I suggest you might write an article demonstrating an actual relationship.

At some point, I might consider writing an article based on the premise that, morality of owning other humans aside, in economic terms, Jim Crow was worse for blacks than was slavery.

You misinterpret the thrust of my argument, which was that the Confederacy was a government by and for wealthy slaveowners, primarily aimed at preserving the slave economy and social structure, that brought no benefits to the “99%” of free whites who fought and died for it. And that the Confederate “99%” was manipulated into rebellion by a handful of plutocrats using the argument that their “freedom” was somehow under assault by an encroaching North. Emancipation in the Confederacy is of primary importance to my argument.

You also leave out the small historical fact that Jim Crow didn’t fall in the South until the 1960s, with the assistance of stiff federal intervention into the subject. Economics had nothing to do with it — sheer, naked racism in the states at hand did. Had the Southern States been left to their own devices, Jim Crow would still be around today. You posit that those same states that, post-Reconstruction, fell all over themselves to get as far back to the pre-Civil War racial status quo as possible would have banned slavery if left to their own devices in the officially-pro-slavery Confederacy. That’s ridiculous.

As such, the notion that economic factors would have somehow led to an end to slavery in the Confederacy is patently ridiculous — official bigotry is not economical in any way. A notional “post-war Confederacy” would have retrenched slavery as far as possible heedless of economic or diplomatic consequences and, were the Confederacy not destroyed in subsequent conflict, slavery would still exist in the South today.

Also — I think Prohibition took away rights from American citizens. Just sayin’.

Absolutely true. Just like a “Marriage Amendment” can take the current (though abused) legal right of citizens to be treated equally in contracts. Or like a “Personhood Amendment” could remove the right of a woman to determine her body’s use.

So you go ahead and make a really good, convincing argument FOR such Amendments that, for the first time in American history, take away existing rights from citizens. And when those arguments are used to get the two I mentioned above passed and ratified, when they ARE used to quash speech, remember your contribution.

I would submit that you could better serve your cause by determining how, and encouraging such laws, the people that do not responsibly utilize their right to keep and bear arms, who abuse that right, can be better dealt with. 

Sorry, but you need to read 1,2 and 4 and compare the wording of those against others.
(1) “Congress shall make no law …the freedom … the right …”. (2) “… the right … shall not be infringed.  (4) “The right of the people … shall not be violated”.
These recognize existing, natural rights and state that they are not to be compromised. The Constitution is not “granting” these as legal rights.

Compare with (6) ” … shall enjoy the right …” (14) ” All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law … “ 
These are grants of legal rights, not recognition of natural, existing ones.

Above (#54), I gave you definitions of the differences between the two, after you said you didn’t know what a natural right was!

I encourage you to read the Annotations to the Constitution in Findlaw’s website. On the Second, it gives this: “The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation’s scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present . . .” 
The Constitution is covered here:http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

The article you linked describes the SCOTUS decision that owning firearms is protected by the Second Amendment. That is my own position. Repeal of the Second Amendment would thus negate the question.

Yes, the 2^nd has a rea­son, just like the 1^st. Would you be so auda­cious as to say the 1^st is unnecessary?

No. I would say the First is  necessary, because it establishes the rights listed. Without it, we would question those rights. That is to say, those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. They could be revoked by an amendment to the Constitution. The same is true of the Second.

BOTH of those Amend­ments rec­og­nize prior rights that the gov­ern­ment can­not abridge/​infringe.

“Prior?” No. Legal rights are a function of the particular legal system (in this case, the Constitution.) The whole idea of “rights” is a human construct, created by human laws. Otherwise, prove the existence of god.

Mean­while, you have not met the chal­lenge of pro­vid­ing points and author­i­ties for your opin­ions. NONE.

I don’t have to. The claim — that owning a means to kill people is a “natural right” — is your claim. You are requested to provide support for your claim. I make no claim or opinion at all, other than requesting that “the right to own means to kill” is defended.

Sorry to keep beating you up on this, but one more nail in your whatever. I call your attention to the one clause you have used to hang your argument. I-9–4: 
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.“
I pointed out that it applied ONLY to the national Congress. I also argued that any proscribing  of anti-slavery laws to the States was absent in I-10, “Limits of the States.“
Note in I-10–1 says: ” … ; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law …“
Further making my point of the difference between the Congress and the States.

Only if you wish to ignore the evidence as I have presented it, your point still stands. You cannot “accept all of (my) points as given”, and still have the same conclusion. The two are contradictory.

You are conflating emancipation in the CSA with the CSA Constitution. 

Let’s just say that, within the next 40 years mechanization proceeded as it did. Tractors and farm equipment would be a LOT cheaper than slaves. Productivity gains and production efficiencies would not be in the same town, much less in the same ballpark. The economy of slavery, already in a severe decline by the 1850’s, would be totally in the pits. (A male slave youth would bring $1500 in 1850. Compare that, in terms of today’s dollars, with the cost of a tractor and implements and productivity) Slavery would have ended by the early 1900’s. Few would have wanted the costs and responsibilities of maintaining slaves and the system. It would have occurred at differing times across the states, but I would have expected, strictly from an economic standpoint, that not later than about 1920 the final curtain would have fallen. Each state in turn would, and could under the CSA Constitution, have ended slavery within its borders. 

Because the CSA Constitution did NOT “protect” slavery as an institution within the member States. Only excepting that Confederate territories could not outlaw it. And that is because of the legal relationship of a territory with the national government, same as that between the US government and ITS territories.

On that, I point out that Utah could not become a State as long as it sanctioned polygamy. And you know what happened there. Even the First Amendment didn’t help Utah!

Would the CSA Supreme Court have extended I-9–4 to the individual States? That would be your only argument, and that is NOTHING more than a hypothetical! Look even to I-9–2, which speaks of Congress prohibiting slave importation.

Again, the wording, and the placement within the body of the document, speaks for itself, for those who will listen without 150 years of adverse propaganda and hindsight. And until you can produce a CSA Constitution with a I-10–4 that says “No State shall pass any law prohibiting slavery or interferring with the personal proprety rights of ownership of negro slaves.”, you have no case.

As with dc’s arguments against the 2nd Amendment, you will have to stick with legal points and authorities to make your argument, and leave off the appeals to emotion and hypotheticals.