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.
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.
I've actually spent considerable time in Turkey. How many treaties and alliances did the Ottoman Empire enter into prior to the Crimean War? If we're discussing recognition of the Republic of Turkey I'd say Treaty of Lausanne did the trick (hence all of the pictures of Kemal Attaturk) all over the place.
With respect to papal recognition, you have to consider a number of things. First and foremost, the US was (and still is) largely a Protestant nation, also consider that most of the Catholics in 1860 are in the North and finally, also please consider that during the 1860s, even the Italians are essentially disregarding the Pope (Italian Reunification/seizure of bulk of Papal States from the Pope)
The Confederacy needs recognition from the US and the UK. No other recognitions matter.
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AWARDS, THE DECISIONS OF MUNICIPAL COURTS, AND THE WRITINGS OF JURISTS, AND ESPECIALLY IN DOCUMENTS, PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED, ISSUED BY PRESIDENTS AND SECRETARIES OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL, AND THE DECISIONS OF COURTS, FEDERAL AND STATE.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
Great post, Tim. Taken all together, the evidence is overwhelming that there was no recognition by the Papal States.
__________________ "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
I've actually spent considerable time in Turkey. How many treaties and alliances did the Ottoman Empire enter into prior to the Crimean War? If we're discussing recognition of the Republic of Turkey I'd say Treaty of Lausanne did the trick (hence all of the pictures of Kemal Attaturk) all over the place.
Lots of treaties and alliances over the centuries -- but we're talking about international law and diplomatic usage here, which is sometimes rational but has little need to be reasonable or to make sense. You can sign treaties with people you don't recognize as members of the "Family of Nations" as it was then called.
If you take a look at Chapter I, Statehood and Recognition (http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-922842-6.pdf) in footnote 55 you will see a reference to this issue. In the General Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey for Re-establishment of Peace, Paris, March 30, 1856 there is a specific statement that admits Turkey. That is why the status of Turkey is considered to date from that moment. Silly, maybe, but true. The Family of Nations in those days was really an outgrowth of the old European nation system and admitted those that it chose to recognize. Before WWI there were generally less than 50; today there seem to be about 200.
In the XIX Century, the major European powers were all concerned with the status of the "sick man of Europe", Turkey (i.e., many of them were sharpening their knives for the carving, but wanted to make sure someone else didn't get too big a share). The Crimean War and the Treaty of Paris were about propping Turkey up, which was why there was an official admittance of Turkey into the group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
With respect to papal recognition, you have to consider a number of things. First and foremost, the US was (and still is) largely a Protestant nation, also consider that most of the Catholics in 1860 are in the North and finally, also please consider that during the 1860s, even the Italians are essentially disregarding the Pope (Italian Reunification/seizure of bulk of Papal States from the Pope)
Most of the Papal States had been occupied by the Sardinians in 1860-61 in the Unification of Italy, and Rome had been made the capital of the new Italy in 1861. Hardly anything of the Papal States was left (the Latium region around Rome), but Napoleon III had a French garrison there to protect the Pope and the Italians could not actually move the capital there until the French withdrew the garrison during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. The Italians then declared war and conquered what remained of the Papal States.
When even the Italians are willing to make war against Papal authority, it is hard to see where all these fantasies of influence on a war in far-off America can be real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
The Confederacy needs recognition from the US and the UK. No other recognitions matter.
In realistic terms, recognition from Great Britain would have been #1 on the hit parade, followed by France as #2. Either one would have been a major accomplishment for Confederate diplomats and probably would have led to a cascade of further recognitions.
After that, there is a second tier of strong European states that would have been important largely because of the influence they might have had on Britain and France. Austria and Russia lead this group, followed by Prussia and the weak sisters like Spain, Portugal and the rest (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Sardinia, etc.)
Then there is a third group of European states that would be short-term propaganda items for the newspapers, but which would affect almost nothing. These are minor German and Italian states, the Hanseatic League, San Marino, Andorra, Montenegro, etc. Recognition by the Papacy would probably fall in here as far as the major European powers were concerned.
Beyond that, you would have the rest of the world. No one in Europe would have really cared much if the South American states recognized the Confederacy. The only worthwhile exception that I can think of might have been a peaceful Mexico in 1861 -- but Jeff Davis refused to consider that one.
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.
CONSULS AND AGENTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO THE CONFEDERATE STATES,
1861-1865.
Great Britain:
George Moore, consul, Richmond, Va., 1861-1864.
Robert Bunch, consul, Charleston, S. C., 1861-1864.
Arthur Lynn, consul, Galveston, Tex., 1861-1864, 1865.
Charles Tulin, consul, Mobile, Ala., 1861-62.
Jamcs Magee, consul, Mobile, Ala., 1863-64.
Frederick Cridland, acting consul, Mobile, Ala.
Monsieur Portz, acting consul, Mobile, Ala.
William Mure, consul, New Orleans, La., 1861-1864.
Denis Donohue, consul, New Orleans, La., 1865.
George Coppell, acting consul,' New Orleans, La.
Henry W. Ovenden, consul, Baltimore, Md., 1861.
Frederick Bonsal, consul, Baltimore, Md., 1862-1864, 1865.
Edm. Molyneaux, consul, Savannah, Ga., 1861-1864, 1865.
A.G. Butterfield, vice-consul, Key West, Fla., 1864-65.
France:
B. Theron, agent and consul, Galveston, Tex.
Baron de St. Andr6, consul, Charleston, S. C.
Monsieur Fauconnet, jr., consul, New Orleans, La.
Monsieur Portz, vice consul, Mobile, Ala.
Spain:
Don Juan Callejon, consul, New Orleans, La.
Nunez de Moncada, consul, Charleston, S. C.
B. Theron, vice consul, Galveston, Tex.
CONFEDERATE COMMISSIONERS AND AGENTS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
England: William L. Yancey, Pierre A. Rost, A. Dudley Mani Mar. 16, 1861.
Mexico: John T. Pickett May 17, 1861.
Mexico (New Leon) : J. A. Quintero May 22, 1861.
Spanish, British, Danish, West Indies: Charles J. Helm July 22, 1861.
United States of Mexico (Monterey) : J. A. Quintero Sept. 3. 1861.
England: James M. Mason; James E. Macfarland, secretary Aug. 24, 1861.
France: John Slidell; George Fustis, secretary Aug. 24, 1861.
Spain: Pierre A. Rost, William L. Yancey, A. Dudley Mann Aug. 24, 1861.
England: Henry Hotze. commercial agent - Nov. 14, 1861.
Mexico (State of Tamaulipas) : Richard Fitzpatrick, commercial agent Nov.
15, 1862.
Russia: Colonel Lucius Q. C. Lamar; Walker Fearn, secretary Nov. 19, 1862.
Mexico (Vera Cruz): Bernard Avegno, commercial agent Dec. 15, 1862.
England (Cork, Ireland) : Robert Dowling, commercial agent Mar. 7, 1863.
The Pope (Rome) : A. Dudley Mann Sept. 24, 1863.
Mexico: William Preston; Walker Fearn, secretary Jan. 7, 1864.
Spain: John Slidell Mar. 26, 1863.
All Countries: James M. Mason; James E. Macfarland, secretary Jan. 18, 1864.
States of the Church: P. N. Lynch Apr. 4, 1864.
Canada: Jacob Thompson Apr. 27, 1864.
Canada: C. C. Clay Apr. 27, 1864.
Mexico (Vera Cruz) : Emile La Sere May 30, 1864.
Bermuda: Norman S. Walker, commercial agent July 7, 1864.
------------------------------
Hi ya'll! Interesting place you have here.
Time to dust off the definition of consul. And agent.
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
CONSULS AND AGENTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO THE CONFEDERATE STATES,
1861-1865.
Great Britain:
George Moore, consul, Richmond, Va., 1861-1864.
Robert Bunch, consul, Charleston, S. C., 1861-1864.
Arthur Lynn, consul, Galveston, Tex., 1861-1864, 1865.
Charles Tulin, consul, Mobile, Ala., 1861-62.
Jamcs Magee, consul, Mobile, Ala., 1863-64.
Frederick Cridland, acting consul, Mobile, Ala.
Monsieur Portz, acting consul, Mobile, Ala.
William Mure, consul, New Orleans, La., 1861-1864.
Denis Donohue, consul, New Orleans, La., 1865.
George Coppell, acting consul,' New Orleans, La.
Henry W. Ovenden, consul, Baltimore, Md., 1861.
Frederick Bonsal, consul, Baltimore, Md., 1862-1864, 1865.
Edm. Molyneaux, consul, Savannah, Ga., 1861-1864, 1865.
A.G. Butterfield, vice-consul, Key West, Fla., 1864-65.
France:
B. Theron, agent and consul, Galveston, Tex.
Baron de St. Andr6, consul, Charleston, S. C.
Monsieur Fauconnet, jr., consul, New Orleans, La.
Monsieur Portz, vice consul, Mobile, Ala.
Spain:
Don Juan Callejon, consul, New Orleans, La.
Nunez de Moncada, consul, Charleston, S. C.
B. Theron, vice consul, Galveston, Tex.
The European nations simply maintained their existing people in place when the Civil War started and did not officially recognize the Confederacy as a nation -- although several of them did recognize the Confederacy as a "belligerent" (pretty obvious, since it was hard to miss the war being fought, but we're talking about diplomatic usage here).
In 1863, IIRR, the Confederacy actually expelled many of these people because they were advising their foreign nationals that they did not have to serve the Confederacy and not to honor the Confederate conscription.
Mexico actually sent an official to discuss recognizing the Confederacy in early 1861. Then-new President Davis refused to meet with him because he thought it might prove embarassing if he ended by invading Mexico in the next year or two.
Also, I'd be fascinated to see how these two men carried out their function in the Confederacy:
Great Britain
Henry W. Ovenden, consul, Baltimore, Md., 1861.
Frederick Bonsal, consul, Baltimore, Md., 1862-1864, 1865.
William Mure, consul, New Orleans, La., 1861-1864.
Denis Donohue, consul, New Orleans, La., 1865.
George Coppell, acting consul,' New Orleans, La.
A.G. Butterfield, vice-consul, Key West, Fla., 1864-65.
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.
Someone named Ernst Raven applied to be consul to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in 1861...and I don't think anything came of it.
Regards,
Tim
He received his credentials ("exequatur") from the Confederate government.
__________________ 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."
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....
Do you have an actual document written by Cardinal Antonelli stating this...or do we rely on the hearsay of Mr. King?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
(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.)
All of these dates are prior to the Pope-to-Jeff Davis letter (Dec. 1863). What goes?
__________________ 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."
He received his credentials ("exequatur") from the Confederate government.
If you know that term, and know that it was used in relation to Ernst Raven, then it seems quite probable that you already know Mr. Raven's government made it very clear they were not recognizing the Confederacy in their application. Is that true?
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. 
Turkey? Catholics 
Linear Mode
