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.
Wrong again. While the first statement is a fact, it is also a fact that "formal recognition was not obtained". No diplomat, head of state, or student of international politics would be confused by your attempt to muddy the waters.
A statement of formal recognition would have been followed by an exchange of ambassadors or consuls. None of this happened. Please stop all these attempts to avoid simple recognition of data to obfuscate issues.
Tim
It's the writer's opinion...and he is speaking of the situation as of 1863.
__________________ 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."
It's the writer's opinion...and he is speaking of the situation as of 1863.
No, Battalion, it is not. Formal recognition is a specific condition under international law. The Vatican never formally recognized the status of the Confederacy as an independent nation. You are simply wrong, and trying to argue to maintain a fiction that you desire to be true.
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.
No, Battalion, it is not. Formal recognition is a specific condition under international law. The Vatican never formally recognized the status of the Confederacy as an independent nation. You are simply wrong, and trying to argue to maintain a fiction that you desire to be true.
Tim
Are you an expert on international law?...and of that practiced at the time as to what qualifies as recognition?
__________________ 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."
Are you an expert on international law?...and of that practiced at the time as to what qualifies as recognition?
An expert? Heck, no: few people are. My National Security Policy professor might qualify as one; he was an advisor on a number of things, including some of the SALT talks back in the 1970s.
Since you are asking about qualifications, it is only appropriate for you to list your own. What are they?
For myself, one of my degrees is in Political Science, where it was required that I take certain courses in the area of international relations and also in the philosophy of law. Another, the MS, is in Computer Science, if that matters. I have a smattering of education from work in various other disciplines, such as Economics, History, Psychology, Business, etc., if any of them is important. I have run a consulting business for a dozen years or so, but almost none of that was government-related (other than some small NAFTA stuff and the SDN list). But, again, since you feel we must go into this area of qualifications, what are *YOUR* qualifications and background?
FYI, here is an example of how a nation such as the United States issues formal diplomatic recognition to a new nation (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/usrecog.htm). This is UNITED STATES RECOGNITION OF VIET-NAM, LAOS, AND CAMBODIA: Statement by the Department of State, February 7, 1950
It starts out:
=====
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.
=====
I just don't see anything even remotely similar in the Vatican document you are pointing out. Do you? If so, please specify what you think it is.
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.
It's the writer's opinion...and he is speaking of the situation as of 1863.
So all of the sudden writers opinons are not good enough for you? Never stopped you from using editorials as facts before. Guess they only count if they happen to agree with your side huh? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. All you can see now is ""Although formal recognition was not obtained, the Pope did speak warmly of the Confederacy." and you're tryig to back pedal. Better pedal faster before you go under. Nevermind I think it's too late in your case.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
That is exactly the problem here. It is the writer's opinion, and he does not back up his claim with facts. That is the mark of a person doing their homework and getting it all straight; there are facts to back it up, which others can go and check and corroborate. Mr. Gallen failed to do so. As others have said, if you have the evidence, or something that gives it, provide it. Give us a source. Unsubstantiated claims are nothing, and they count for nothing.
And in the case of de facto and de jure (not sure if I spelled that right) recognition, there is neither presented by the Pope. He didn't send a consul, and he didn't state in any way that he wished the Confederacy to win. He said that he wanted peace and a reconciliation between the two sides. That is what the main gist of his letter to Davis seems to be.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
And in the case of de facto and de jure (not sure if I spelled that right) recognition, there is neither presented by the Pope. He didn't send a consul, and he didn't state in any way that he wished the Confederacy to win. He said that he wanted peace and a reconciliation between the two sides. That is what the main gist of his letter to Davis seems to be.
This (Battalion's position) is generally out-of-line with the thinking of that time on diplomatic recognition. It is commonly considered, for example, that the recognition of the existence of Turkey as a nation-state within the international community was conveyed by their inclusion as a signatory to the 1856 treaty ending the Crimean War. Anyone looking to see what the US diplomats used as a form at the time could probably look around for the May, 1856 diplomatic recognition of the government in Nicaraugua by President Pierce (this is while William Walker was Secretary of War down there; he seized the Presidency in July).
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.
The basic question is whether the Pope's reference to Davis' title as president of the CSA constitutes diplomatic recognition of the confederacy as an independent state by the Papal States. Note this would not be recognition by the Vatican, since the Vatican itself wasn't an independent state until 1929.
A competent analysis goes beyond simply looking at the title used and looks at what transpired.
"Strictly speaking, recognition is a formal legal act. It involves interchangeable commitments to undertake certain mutual obligations according to international law and custom. In a broader sense, it is a formal declaration of intention to carry on relations with other states in the society of nations." [Joseph G. Whelan, "The U.S. and Diplomatic Recognition: The Contrasting Cases of Russia and Communist China," _The China Quarterly,_ No. 5, (Jan - Mar, 1961), p. 62]
Clearly, the Papal States did not take steps that would substantiate such a situation.
As to experts, one would think the United States Department of State has expertise in determining if an entity had been recognized as an independent nation:
The fact that the confederacy never engaged in actual diplomatic relations with other nations shows it was never recognized as an independent state.
Let's contrast this with the French recognition of United States independence. The French signed a treaty of alliance with the United States. They signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between The United States and France. They had diplomatic representatives meeting with United States diplomats. Was there a treaty of any kind between the Papal States and the confederacy? No. Not even a treaty of amity.
Any competent observer has to conclude there was no diplomatic recognition of the confederacy by the Papal States, despite the title used by the Pope.
... Any competent observer has to conclude there was no diplomatic recognition of the confederacy by the Papal States, despite the title used by the Pope.
Perhaps more to the point than anything else, after the Pope had written this letter, in 1864 Davis sent Bishop Patrick N. Lynch of Charleston to see Pope Pius IX with authorization to negotiate for diplomatic recognition -- and he was never able to get it.
So if it had been already granted in 1863 as Battalion claims, why was Davis still seeking it in 1864? Sounds like Jefferson Davis didn't believe he had it yet.
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.
...
Any competent observer has to conclude there was no diplomatic recognition of the confederacy by the Papal States, despite the title used by the Pope.
Referring to this letter in A DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS EMBODIED IN DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, INTERNATIONAL AWARDS, THE DECISIONS OF MUNICIPAL COURTS, AND THE WRITINGS OF JURISTS, AND ESPECIALLY IN DOCUMENTS, PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED, ISSUED BY PRESIDENTS AND SECRETARIES OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL, AND THE DECISIONS OF COURTS, FEDERAL AND STATE.
BY
JOHN BASSETT MOORE, LL. D.,
1906
Years later, Mr. Mann wrote: 'Even after this lapse of time I can not help but think how majestic was the conduct of the Government of the pontifical States in its bearing toward me when contrasted with the sneaking subterfuges to which the other European governments had recourse in order to evade intercourse with our commissioners.' "
How many of the other leaders of the Confederacy interpreted the Pope's letter in the same way is not definitely known. Mr. Davis left no official statement of his opinion on the subject. Mr. Benjamin, however, in a communication to Mr. Mann, maintained that as a recognition of the Confederate States the letter was of little value, being only an inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations, and that his address to Mr. Davis as president of the Confederate States was merely a formula of courtesy to his correspondent, and not a political acknowledgment of the fact."
That Mr. Benjamin's interpretation of the letter was correct is shown by statements made by Cardinal Antonelli to Mr. King, minister of the United States to the papal States, by which it appears that the action of his holiness was free from all political design, and was intended merely as an expression of his wishes for the restoration of peace to the people of the United States. (Mr. King to Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, Jan. 3, Jan. 15, March 19, 1863, MSS. Dept. of State; Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. King, Feb. 9 and April 6, 1863, MS. Inst. Papal States, I. 69, 72.)
=====
It seems that neither the President of the Confederacy nor the Confederate Secretary of State believed the Pontiff had recognized the Confederacy.
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
