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.
You have done well to show a part of Civil War history unknown to many of us here at this board concerning the Vatican.
Don't ruin it by pretending this history was anything more than what it truely was, even according to your own sources which you provided.
You are wrong to assume, and this is exactly what you are doing at this point in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, that the Vatican ever officially recognized the CSA. You destroy your own credibility every time you assert otherwise.
In case you are not aware of it, you are, at this point, your own worse enemy when you try to establish a historical event that did not take place.
Stubborness is not a virtue. In this case, it is a dead weight dragging you down to the depths of being totally ignored, on this and future issues and threads.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Unionblue,
Considering your obvious bias, I don't believe anyone, other than those with the same bias, will consider your 'questioning my credibility'...as having any credibilty.
Respectfully, your obedient servant, &c
__________________ 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."
Merely the fact that he then sent Bishop Lynch as a Special Envoy to establish a relationship which *you* say already existed. Why'd he do that if you have it right -- and why did the Papal States not meet with him officially if they had already formally "recognized" the Confederacy? But, then, if they had officially recognized the Confederacy, why did the Papal States deny it?
Nope. He denied it was recognition. You already know this.
ROFL. This is his official report of a personal meeting with Cardinal Antonelli, the Papal States equivalent of a Secretary of State.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
I've ordered the book. I'll go with whatever it says- yea or nay.
As of now, with the information at hand, it is yea...
Since two of these three points had nothing to do with Bishop Lynch, and in fact occurred before Bishop Lynch became involved with Confederate diplomacy, why do you expect his book to say "yea or nay" about them?
You already know, for a fact, what Secretary Benjamin said on the Pope's letter (written in 1863, Bishop Lynch was recruited in 1864 and arrived in Rome at the end of June). The Secretary's reply is dated February 1, 1864 -- once again before Bishop Lynch became involved with Confederate diplomacy. So please explain in what way you expect to get his book to say "yea or nay" about this.
As you also know, the third incident is an internal matter for the US State Department, a report of a meeting between Rufus King and Cardinal Antonelli. It occurred before Bishop Lynch arrived in Rome at the end of June. Again, please explain in what way you expect to get his book to say "yea or nay" about this.
As to the other matter -- I sincerely hope you find nothing to support the theory of the conspiracy wing-nuts who believe Davis and Benjamin sent Bishop Lynch to Rome to help arrange the Booth plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln and sanctuary for the fleeing agents, if any (Suratt ending up in Rome).
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.
As to the other matter -- I sincerely hope you find nothing to support the theory of the conspiracy wing-nuts who believe Davis and Benjamin sent Bishop Lynch to Rome to help arrange the Booth plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln and sanctuary for the fleeing agents, if any (Suratt ending up in Rome).
Tim[/quote]
I believe Nicholas Cage is starring in the movie version, "National Treasure II"
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 09-06-2007 at 09:32 PM.
Am I the only one wondering what the point is of a recognition no one recognizes?
This thread has been fascinating, actually. But boiling it down to an impact on the war, the closest seems to be the claim, made by a Confederate agent(with a small "a"), at the time, that by using correspondence with the Pope, he discouraged the flow of recruits to the Union army.
This claim has been disputed on several grounds, but if true, its only possible practical effect on the fighting that I can see.
This thread has been fascinating, actually. But boiling it down to an impact on the war, the closest seems to be the claim, made by a Confederate agent(with a small "a"), at the time, that by using correspondence with the Pope, he discouraged the flow of recruits to the Union army.
Thought I had grumped on this earlier. Maybe I thought better of it and said nothing. I might ad that he discouraged the flow of recruits to the Union Army, which appears to have been quite nonexistent.
Previous posts show that Stanton and Welles both denied that there was any recruiting going on. And, while I'm thinking about that, I don't recollect ever reading about foreign recruits. (That don't mean there were none, but I have read more than a couple of books, and nowhere have I seen reference to it other than it's being cleverly thwarted in preceding posts.)
I suspect that you would also welcome some kind of evidence that there were federal agents in Europe recruiting soldier/immigrants. I'm supposing it was possible, but I've seen no more than hints on it.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I believe Nicholas Cage is starring in the movie version, "National Treasure II"
Regards,
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.
Am I the only one wondering what the point is of a recognition no one recognizes?
This thread has been fascinating, actually. But boiling it down to an impact on the war, the closest seems to be the claim, made by a Confederate agent(with a small "a"), at the time, that by using correspondence with the Pope, he discouraged the flow of recruits to the Union army.
This claim has been disputed on several grounds, but if true, its only possible practical effect on the fighting that I can see.
In diplomatic terms, recognition from anyone would have been important -- but the two that *really* mattered were Britain and France. Places like Saxe-Coburg and the Papal States had prestige and connections that could be useful, but no power or might to exert on Confederate behalf. So diplomatically the biggest edge from these would be the Papal States connection to Napoleon III and the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha connection to Queen Victoria and the other European Royal Families.
As far as the practical effects of their support go, neither has the resources to do much. Duke Ernst II was highly respected and had also sunk a Danish frigate with his artillery in the 2nd Danish War (he supported Prussia), but Saxe-Coburg-Githa could have no military impact. The Pope might try to influence Federal recruiting by moral persuasion, but there is little indication it would have worked: in the 1860s, only French troops and support kept the Kingdom of Italy from occupying Rome.
Federal recruiting was done in America, although it was widely known in Europe that you could sign up for a soldier right after you landed and collect a bonus. Where Bishop Lynch and Father Bannon of the Confederacy made efforts to convince the Irish not to go to America and fight for the Union, Bishop Hughes of New York made efforts to convince Irishmen to go to America and enlist in the Federal Army -- and many Irish Fenian leaders (the equivalent of the IRA) saw this as an opportunity to develop a large force of experienced troops for later use against the British.
If the Confederate agents Bishop Lynch and Father Bannon had an impact, you'd see it, if at all, in decreased immigration to America from Ireland starting in early 1864. I've never seen anything to indicate that happened.
In any case, the Irish in America, particularly in New York and the mining areas, were associated with the Democratic Party. They were anti-draft, often regarded emancipation as providing a low-cost competitor to their livelihood, and tended to regard this as a Protestant war. There actually seem to have been far fewer new Irish immigrants in 1861-65 joining the US Army than, say, freed slaves joining the USCT. While any additional numbers must have been helpful, the 179,000 USCT (an estimated 139,000 freed slaves) may have been far more important. Confederate worry and propaganda may have made the issue seem larger than it was.
Regards,
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.
Gaining diplomatic recognition would be a good thing for the Confederacy, even from small states. But a recognition not accepted by anyone, or known by anyone: what's the point? It seems absurd.
Gaining diplomatic recognition would be a good thing for the Confederacy, even from small states. But a recognition not accepted by anyone, or known by anyone: what's the point? It seems absurd.
Yes, that's the problem with this whole line of argument for the Confederate side.
"Recognition" has to be publicly avowed to make a difference in diplomatic terms. Even in "Virtual Recognition" (the Phillimore condition which Battalion wants to claim for Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), specific public acts are expected to follow and a quick formal Recognition is expected or there is no Virtual Recognition. So says Phillimore, anyway ... but somehow we didn't see that in anything Battalion posted.
The tissue of simply using an address for Jefferson Davis in a letter is even flimsier. Here, for example, is how the US announced formally recognizing a few countries in 1950:
=====
The Government of the United States has accorded diplomatic recognition to the Governments of the State of Viet Nam, the Kingdom of Laos, and the Kingdom of Cambodia.
The President, therefore, has instructed the American consul general at Saigon to inform the heads of Government of the State of Viet Nam, the Kingdom of Laos, and the Kingdom of Cambodia that we extend diplomatic recognition to their Governments and look for-ward to an exchange of diplomatic representatives between the United States and these countries.
Our diplomatic recognition of these Governments is based on the formal establishment of the State of Viet Nam, the Kingdom of Laos, and the Kingdom of Cambodia as independent states within the French Union; this recognition is consistent with our fundamental policy of giving support to the peaceful and democratic evolution of dependent peoples toward self-government and independence.
...
=====
Clear and unambiguous, no doubt about what they meant. We search in vain to find anything that even hints at such a thing in Pius IX's letter.
I am sure Pius IX and Antonelli had ulterior reasons for using that address to Davis. They had to know it would tweak noses in the US and cause a lot of press coverage; Antonelli, at least, was way too sharp to let that out unchecked. Heck the Pope had volunteered to write something suitable for public release. I just don't believe that purpose was to recognize the Confederacy, just as Benjamin didn't think so. But Battalion and those who want it to be so desperately jump through all sorts of hoops to try to make it seem that it was something it never was.
Regards,
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.
Considering your obvious bias, I don't believe anyone, other than those with the same bias, will consider your 'questioning my credibility'...as having any credibility.
Respectfully, your obedient servant, &c
Every person has the right to commit suicide in their own way.
But I do find it somewhat amusing that "anyone, other than those with the same bias," needed to be included in your statement about my own bias.
I will accept my own, but I should not be blamed for others opinions on the issues you raise.
But then, I see that as your own, personal bias.
Good luck in the future,
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
