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.
Do you have an actual document written by Cardinal Antonelli stating this...or do we rely on the hearsay of Mr. King?
Before we get to this, how about you tell us about your background here? You asked me; I told you, and asked you for the same courtesy. Yet all we hear from you is silence. How come?
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.
For those who are wondering about what Pope Pius IX, Cardinal Antonelli (effectively, Pope Pius IX's Secretary of State), Confederate Commissioner Mann, US diplomat Rufus King, US Secretary of State Seward, Confederate President Davis, and Confederate Secretary of State Benjamin were doing and why this tempest in a teapot over whether or not the Pope/the Papal States actually recognized the Confederate states, a little background:
-- In everything you hear about this, keep in mind that Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli is often referred to as "the Italian Richelieu" in diplomatic histories. Other diplomats used words like slippery and devious and Machiavellian in referring to him; his diplomacy is regarded as the reason the Papal States had continued to exist after the Revolutions of 1848 and remained alive until the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 (when the new Kingdom of Italy declared war and conquered them). Anyone who tells you they understand all of what what Antonelli was doing in any particular matter is almost certainly wrong. The man practiced diplomatic deception and slight-of-hand as routine practice.
-- the Confederate States of America were not officially recognized by anyone else. Diplomatically, this is a disaster. Confederate diplomats were desperate to get some state -- any reputable state -- to recognize them by 1863-64 and were grasping at straws. In particular, Mr. Mann (a very senior pre-Civil-War US diplomat who became one of the first three foreign "commissioners" for the Confederacy) was looking at a long and frustrating three years of failure when he received this letter from the Pope, and was beating his own drum as he trumpeted the importance of the letter.
-- when a nation is recognized by another, diplomatic representatives are appointed. The Papal States never appointed anyone to represent them to the Confederacy; the Confederate states did send Bishop Lynch of Charleston to Rome to try to establish relations after this letter was received, but he was unable to do so. The regular Confederate Commissioners in Europe (Mann, Slidell, Mason) spent the rest of the life of the Confederacy trying to get something more out of Cardinal Antonelli. Months of effort resulted in a few conversations and letters that went nowhere, justifying the Cardinal's slippery reputation and frustrating the Confederates, but nothing more.
-- Confederate Secretary of State Benjamin (himself a very crafty diplomat) felt that Mann had greatly overstated the importance of the letter from the Pope (which was written by Antonelli or his staff anyway). He felt that the recognition was inferred by the reader, not implied by the writer, and so accomplished nothing.
-- After the story broke back in the states, Secretary Seward (who had met Antonelli before the Civil War) had Rufus King (a personal friend of Seward's) meet with Antonelli to see what this letter actually meant. King's report back to Seward after the meeting is given below. Boiled down to it's essentials, Antonelli was vague enough to avoid offending the US, and seems to have said that it was just a friendly and polite letter, which by itself should make us believe we don't know what Antonelli was doing here -- he was too sharp a man for that to be the whole story. No one who knew Antonelli personally or by professional reputation would have believed it was.
-- IMHO, what seems most likely here is that Antonelli was just practicing an open-ended form of diplomacy. He was actually doing nothing, risking nothing. If the Confederacy did survive, then he would be one of the few who had been in any way helpful to them. If they were wiped out, everything he would have done would amount to some easily deniable and innocuous letters and conversations that could be explained away as mere politeness and concern for peace. Meanwhile, he had the two sides paying attention to the Papal States as if they were truly influential. There was no risk for the Papal States involved, and a potential gain no matter which way it went in the end. This is completely consistent with the normal practice of Cardinal Antonelli. He was giving the Americans -- both sides -- the run-around to see what he would end up with.
=====
RUFUS KING TO WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 6
Legation Of The United States, At Rome, March 16, 1864.
Sir,
I availed myself of the earliest opportunity, after my despatch of the 8th inst., to converse with Cardinal Antonelli upon the subject referred to in your communication of the 9th February. After one, or two incidental remarks I observed to His Eminence that in a recent despatch you had called my attention to the letter of the Pope to Jefferson Davis and had said that great efforts were made, both in the United States and elsewhere, by enemies of the Union, to create the impression that this letter of the Holy Father's was designed to give some sanction, or recognition to the Rebel cause. I added that such was not the view taken of it by the Government of the United States; but that, on the contrary, they believed it to have been written solely in the sentiment of Humanity and with no thought, or purpose of interfering in our domestic affairs, or of lending the influence of the Holy Father to the misguided men who were in arms against the constituted authorities of their country. The Cardinal at once replied that this was perfectly correct; that, as he had already informed me, the Pope, as the head of the Christian Church, desired to see all men at peace; that, in this sense, he had written the letters to the Catholic Archbishops of New York and New-Orleans, representing the two parties in America, urging them to take all possible and proper means for the restoration of Peace; that Jefferson Davis had seen fit to acknowledge the letters to the Archbishop of New-Orleans and that the Pope's letter in reply was a simple act of courtesy and devoid of any political design, or significance; that if President Lincoln had written to the Holy Father on the same subject, the latter would have replied in the same tone and spirit, that his sole desire was to see all his children at peace with one another, and that, as an impartial father, he could not lean towards one, more than towards the other of the two parties into which at present the American People were, unhappily, divided; that, in this feeling, he had sent a contribution to the Metropolitan Fair in New York, and would probably transmit a similar offering to the Confederate States; but always in the purpose of maintaining a strict neutrality. Such, I assured His Eminence, was the construction placed upon the Holy Father's letter and action by the U. S. Government and I was happy to hear that it was the correct one. The Cardinal went on to say that in the present excited state of feeling in America, pacific counsels, even tho' prompted by the best motives, would meet with little attention, and he could see the difficulty of offering any advice where both sides insisted so strenuously on being in the right. I remarked, in reply, that the North was waging a defensive, not an agressive war; that we had taken up arms to maintain our Government, Constitution and laws, which the South were seeking to overthrow by force, and that the rebels had but to submit to the lawful authorities of the Union to ensure the immediate restoration of Peace. The Cardinal said that in conversation, recently, with one, or two residents of the Southern States they had informed him that the South, equally with the North, desired the abolition of slavery; but that they thought the slaves, before being emancipated, should be educated for Freedom, in order to avoid the hazard of a war of Races. No such pretence, I said, was set up at the outbreak of the rebellion, nor was any such sentiment proclaimed by the rebel leaders at home. On the contrary, the war was commenced and thus far had been carried on, for the sole, avowed, and indefensible object of extending and perpetuating the system of African bondage. Some further remarks were made by the Cardinal, similar in purport to those above described; the manner of His .Eminence being too earnest to leave any doubt of his sincerity. The Holy Father has been quite ill for several weeks, but is now, I am glad to say, convalescent. There are no news of
interest to communicate."
_United States Ministers to the Papal States-Instruction and Despatches, 1848-1868_, pp.288-289
=====
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.
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
I have no information from the government of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as you describe...
...but I do have this-
"...the Recognition of a revolted Province or Colony by a State, other than that from which it has revolted, is of two kinds, Virtual and Formal....
XIII. If the contest be protracted, and there be any appearance of equality between the contending forces, the subsequent conduct of Third Powers, intending to remain neutral, cannot be blamed, if they proceed to a virtual Recognition of the revolted State; that is to say, if they recognise its commercial flag, and if they sanction the appointment of consuls to the ports of the new State....
XVI. To the Virtual must succeed, in course of time, a Formal Recognition, evidenced by the sending of ambassadors, and the entering into treaties on the part of Foreign Powers, with the new State."
Phillimore, Commentaries on International Law, p. 32, 33
__________________ 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."
"...when a nation is recognized by another, diplomatic representatives are appointed..."
...but an immediate exchange of diplomats is not necessary-
"Form of Recognition
180. No particular formality is required to recognize a new state or government. The fact of establishing diplomatic relations with it is equivalent to a formal recognition.
The formal recognition of a new state or government may take place in different ways. The appointment of consular agents, the conclusion of an international convention, the admission of a new state as such to the provisions of a treaty with other states, and other similar acts of a nature proving the establishment of diplomatic relations may be equivalent to a formal act of recognition."
Fiore, International Law Codified, p. 149
__________________ 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."
-- In everything you hear about this, keep in mind that Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli is often referred to as "the Italian Richelieu" in diplomatic histories. Other diplomats used words like slippery and devious and Machiavellian in referring to him; his diplomacy is regarded as the reason the Papal States had continued to exist after the Revolutions of 1848 and remained alive until the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 (when the new Kingdom of Italy declared war and conquered them). Anyone who tells you they understand all of what what Antonelli was doing in any particular matter is almost certainly wrong. The man practiced diplomatic deception and slight-of-hand as routine practice.
True...so can we trust anything that Antonelli said to Rufus King?
__________________ 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."
" [Antonelli] had the two sides paying attention to the Papal States as if they were truly influential.
The Pope and the Catholic Church are not influential???
__________________ 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."
"...the Confederate States of America were not officially recognized by anyone else.
You seem to be conceding something here. Am I right?
__________________ 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."
You seem to be conceding something here. Am I right?
No, you are wrong as I am sure you already knew and, as usual, trying to make it appear there is something where there is nothing. It is nice to see from the icon, however, that you know when your own comments are laughable.
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 Pope and the Catholic Church are not influential???
I happen to be Catholic, but it would be difficult to claim that a recognition by the Vatican would hav had much effect for a largely Protestant nation, particularly when the secular interests of the Church were being completely disregarded in Italy by Italians. The only effect that I could see would be a reluctance on the part of the Irish (and other Catholic immigrants) to partake in the conflict.
The Pope and the Catholic Church are not influential???
In diplomatic and political circles in the 1860s, no, they were not particularly so. The only reason the Papal States continued to exist at this time was the French garrison Napoleon III maintained in the city of Rome (and which was used in 1867, the first combat test of the new French breech-loading rifle before the Franco-Prussian War, against Italians.) When the Franco-Prussian War started in 1870, the French garrison was recalled to France and the new Kingdom of Italy declared war on September 9, crossed the border on September 10, and took the city of Rome on September 19 after a token resistance.
So what you have here is a Papal States that were largely conquered by the Kingdom of Italy in 1860-61, surviving as a rump state only as long as propped up by the French military, and being wiped out in a farcical ten-day war as soon as that military support was withdrawn.
Cardinal Antonelli then joined Pius IX in his role as "Prisoner of the Vatican" until the Cardinal died in 1876. He left his sizable fortune to his family and hardly anything to the Church. Antonelli was the last of what are called the "Lay Cardinals" and had never been ordained as a priest. After his death, people wondered where he made his fortune, accumulated during his life, had come from; the Vatican accounts were showing a deficit of some 45,000,000 lire, and it was known Antonelli had been receiving a large stipend from the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies for many years.
Now you have made vague claims of vast influence for the Pope and the Papal States. They do not appear to be realistic. Can you back any of them up, as you have been asked, or is all that you post just empty rhetoric on this topic?
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
