Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Potter's got a interesting take on religion in the old South. All the best people were kinda Catholic, but the ordinary people were practicing in Potter's words "the wrong religion." That's right, the Baptists, Methodists and other Protestant Churches of the South were all "Teutonic New England Puritans" propagated by "textile manufacturers."
I especially like when he sneers at Lincoln for going to a Presbytarian church, "tipping his hat" at passersby. The right religion don't need no stinkin' manners!
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 09-03-2007 at 09:38 AM.
This background, although argumented by a stint in drama school in California, indicates that Mr. Potter is well versed in American history? I think not.
I found several articles by Potter. Appears to be very knowledgeable on the history of the Catholic Church...especially 19th-early 20th centuries.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Confederate Secretary of State Benjamin, regarded as a brilliant man and -- incidentally -- A. Dudley Mann's boss, also thought the recognition was inferred by Mann, not implied by the Pope's letter. Benjamin thought it was meaningless as a result.
Regards,
Tim
Potter-
"Some historians have tried to contend otherwise, as if Vatican diplomacy, famous for its punctiliousness, suddenly went slipshod, but for Pius so to address Davis constituted recognition of the existence of the C.S.A."
...-that's what I thought.
Addressing Jefferson Davis as- "Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, Richmond." -was no accident or mere politeness. It was a calculated political act.
Sec. of State Benjamin? -of course he was being cautious...careful not to claim too much.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Mr. Potter's specualtion is riddled with false assertions. For example, Bishop Lynch was appointed to his mission in Richmond on February 26, 1864, wrote to Benjamin in late March as he was preparing to leave for Europe, ran the blockade out of Wilmington in April, was in contact with Confederate commissioners in Paris in early June, left that city and was in Rome at the end of June, 1864. Yet Mr. Potter builds a 'what-if' that asserts the Bishop didn't make it to Rome until "a couple of months before Appomattox" in April of 1865.
Incorrect.
Read the complete statement-
...could the War Between the States have ended differently if Bishop Lynch had reached Rome and been received by Ven. Pope Pius IX earlier than a couple of months before Appomattox?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
It is evident from your last few posts that *YOU* knew about that before you made the post containing the snippet from Mr. Potter. Yet you present it as if it is proof of something, and do not attempt to warn others of the false statements/inaccuracies/mistakes it contains. Why did you do that?
Tim
Wrong again.
I think you need to read that chronology a bit more closely. King reports to Seward on 7 Jan 1865 that Bishop Lynch had been unsuccessful in his previous visit to Rome (~July-Oct~ 1864).
Potter states that Lynch was received by the Pope as Confederate envoy in 1865.
Ther is no conflict.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Potter-
"Some historians have tried to contend otherwise, as if Vatican diplomacy, famous for its punctiliousness, suddenly went slipshod, but for Pius so to address Davis constituted recognition of the existence of the C.S.A."
...-that's what I thought.
Addressing Jefferson Davis as- "Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, Richmond." -was no accident or mere politeness. It was a calculated political act.
Sec. of State Benjamin? -of course he was being cautious...careful not to claim too much.
So your point seems to be that the Confederate Secretary of State Benjamin said it wasn't recognition -- and the Papal States Secretary of State Cardinal Antonelli said it wasn't recognition -- so it must have been recognition because you want it to be recognition. Is that what you are trying to say?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
3) if you are really interested, try finding a copy of Reports of Bishop Lynch of Charleston, South Carolina, commissioner of the Confederate states to the Holy See
by Patrick Neeson Lynch published in 1905.
4) You can also look around for Some wartime letters of Bishop Lynch by Patrick Neeson Lynch, last published in 1957.
Tim
Yes, those would be nice to have...if they were available.
Strange that this volume (published 1922)-
Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. / Series II - Volume 3: Proclamations, Appointments, etc. of President Davis; State Department Correspondence with Diplomatic Agents,etc.
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
...could the War Between the States have ended differently if Bishop Lynch had reached Rome and been received by Ven. Pope Pius IX earlier than a couple of months before Appomattox?
Wrong again.
I think you need to read that chronology a bit more closely. King reports to Seward on 7 Jan 1865 that Bishop Lynch had been unsuccessful in his previous visit to Rome (~July-Oct~ 1864).
Potter states that Lynch was received by the Pope as Confederate envoy in 1865.
Ther is no conflict.
First of all, I doubt, personally, that Mr. Potter knows what he is talking about here. He seems to like to ignore facts when they get in the way of his desire.
Second, take a look at what you just said. *You* claim the Papal States recognized the Confederacy in December of 1863 -- and then refused to see their Special Envoy, personally sent by the President of the Confederacy to discuss obtaining diplomatic recognition (Huh? I thought you said they already had that?) until some time in 1865. Why do you think they insulted the Confederate President that way?
Some people, say most of the world population, would think that maybe they refused to "receive" the Special Envoy all that time because they had NOT recognized the Confederacy. But, hey, that would mean we were paying attention to facts and logic here. We know you don't want to do that.
While you are at it, please show us where Mr. Potter shows any basis at all for his many claims on this subject. Other sources simply say the Pope met with Bishop Lynch, gave him a new set of vestments, and sent him away.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Yes, those would be nice to have...if they were available.
Almost certainly are, somewhere, but rare. Try actually looking for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Strange that this volume (published 1922)-
Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. / Series II - Volume 3: Proclamations, Appointments, etc. of President Davis; State Department Correspondence with Diplomatic Agents,etc.
-does not have those documents.
No, not strange at all. Why would you think so?
1) The contents of the "Official Records" does not consist of all the material available in the archives, only what was selected. If they had included it all they'd still be publishing volumes now.
2) Not all documents of the war made it into the archives. Some was lost, some was deliberately destroyed, some was simply destroyed by accidents. Some was deliberately taken away (see what Johnston and his chief-of-staff did when Johnston was relieved by Hood at Atlanta) by individuals for one reason or another. Confederate documents tend to be scarcer than Union ones, naturally enough, because of the destruction of war and the poorer resources available to them.
Any experienced Civil War researcher will tell you the same thing.
In this case, the two books I cited appear to be based on Bishop Lynch's private records (or maybe those of his archdiocese), not the Confederate government's. Naturally enough, they were not in the Official Records collections published by the post-Civil War US government. Why would you expect them to be there?
You could, of course, also try looking to see what the Vatican records say about all this. Those records are in the periods that have been released (generally a 75 year delay). The Pope didn't speak English, though, and official Papal States correspondence would be in Latin -- so anything you find in English, even including the text of the Pope's letter to Davis you have posted, is really only a translation. I think they have translations available for subscribers. My own Latin is pretty rusty these days -- and I only had two years of it anyway.
Oh, yeah -- they don't release absolutely every document, and they don't really have to answer to anyone on this Earth about their decisions on which ones they do release.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Pope Pius IX to "Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America"-
"Illustrious and honorable sir, greeting:
We have lately received with all kindness, as was meet, the gentlemen sent by your Excellency to present to us your letter dated on the 23d of last September. We have received certainly no small pleasure in learning both from these gentlemen and from your letter the feelings of gratification and of very warm appreciation with which you, illustrious and honorable sir, were moved when you first had knowledge written in October of the preceding year to the venerable brethren, John, archbishop of New York, and John, archbishop of New Orleans, in which we again and again urged and exhorted those venerable brethren that because of their exemplary piety and episcopal zeal they should employ their most earnest efforts, in our name also, in order that the fatal civil war which had arisen in the States should end, and that the people of America might again enjoy mutual peace and concord, and love each other with mutual charity. And it has been very gratifying to us to recognize, illustrious and honorable sir, that you and your people are animated by the same desire for peace and tranquility, which we had so earnestly inculcated in our aforesaid letters to the venerable brethren above named. Oh, that the other people also of the States and their rulers, considering seriously how cruel and how deplorable is this intercine war, would receive and embrace the councils of peace and tranquility. We indeed shall not cease with most fervent prayer to beseech God, the best and highest, and to implore Him to pour out the spirit of Christian love and peace upon all the people of America, and to rescue them from the great calamities with which they are afflicted. And we also pray the same most merciful Lord that he will illumine your Excellency with the light of His divine grace and unite you with ourselves in perfect charity.
Given at Rome at St. Peters on the 3d December, 1863, in the eighteenth year of our Pontificate.
PIUS P. P. IX.
[Addressed to:] Illustrious and Hon. JEFFERSON DAVIS, President of the Confederate States of America, Richmond."
Part of Secretary Benjamin's response to A. Dudley Mann after the Pope's letter had been published, February 2, 1864.
=====
...
The President has been much gratified at learning the cordial reception which you received from the Pope, and the publication of the correspondence here (of which I send you a newspaper slip) has had a good effect. Its best influences, as we hope, will be felt elsewhere in producing a check on the foreign enlistments made by the United States. As a recognition of the Confederate States, we cannot attach to it the same value that you do, a mere inferential recognition unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations possessing none of the moral weight required for awakening the people of the United States from their delusion that these States still remain members of the old Union. Nothing will end this war but the utter exhaustion of the belligerents, unless, by the action of some of the leading powers of Europe in entering into formal relations with us, the United States are made to perceive that we are in the eyes of the world a separate nation, and that the war now waged by them is foreign, not an intestine or civil war, as it is termed by the Pope. This phrase of his letter shows that his address to the President as "President of the Confederate States" is a formula of politeness to his correspondent, not a political recognition of the fact. None of our political journals treat the letter as a recognition in the sense you attach to it, and Mr. Slidell writes that the Nuncio at Paris, on whom be called, had received no instructions to pat his official visa on our passports, as he had been led to hope from his correspondence with you. ... =====
BTW, both of these documents appear to have scanning or transcription errors from the Latin in them. There is no such word as "intercine" given in the Pope's letter example and I doubt very much that Mr. Benjamin was referring to the "intestine" of the human body, be it large or small. The intended word would be internecine, which in the usage the language of war and international law would mean an internal war within a nation. That is, for example, how it was used by Jomini, with whom most professional US and European professional soldiers would be familiar in that day.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The bottom line is, the Vatican did NOT officially recognize the Confederacy. The Union, Confederacy and the Vatican acknowledge this fact.
The sources you yourself have presented here on this thread has more than proven this fact. Others have provided more sources that confirm this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Thank you for an interesting romp through a part of history I had not seen before.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
