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.
True...so can we trust anything that Antonelli said to Rufus King?
No more nor less than you can trust anything that came to President Davis or the Confederate diplomats such as Mann. It is all the same insubstantial fluff; no commitments were made to either side. Yet you want to insist that what he said to Confederates was a solid promise of things not said. Your own position is untenable.
By the way, where is the list of your qualifications? You asked for mine, and I posted a sketch of them. I asked for yours -- and we have nothing at all back. That is a pretty disreputable thing for you to do, once again damaging your own credibility. I urge you to stop doing this to yourself.
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 influence that the Catholic church had on the CW would be moral or motivational, as an earlier claim that Irish recruiting had been discouraged by a letter from His Holiness(although how valid those claims were is harder to substandiate.) I don't see the purposely enigmatic language of Cardinal Antonelli as amounting to diplomatic recognition.
What were the bishops in America preaching or advising? What was the Church's attitude towards slavery, both the Church in America and elsewhere?
There was a strong nativist, anti Catholic in the Know Nothing elements that would later join the Republicans, but Lincoln had firmly rejected anti Catholic or anti immigrant beliefs, and in fact put blacks oppression on a spectrum with oppression of Catholics and immigrants.
Certainly large portions of the Irish Catholic community in NY were firmly democratic, and opposed to the war.
Mark Noll has written a book recently on this very subject, which I haven't read. Any thoughts?
He received his credentials ("exequatur") from the Confederate government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
I have no information from the government of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as you describe...
Then you should show us where you came across the usage of such an unusual term as the Latin Exequatur which is a highly technical bit of diplomatic language usage. Could it be, perhaps, some website such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Raven that includes a reference like this:
=====
As Eugene Berwanger writes, "In requesting the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition". Raven had been. the only consul in the Southern states to do so. ===== The Berwanger reference is to Eugene H Berwanger, The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War (U of Kentucky Press, 1994).
Professor Berwanger is currently head of the History Department at Colorado State University, I believe. Once again, what are your qualifications for interperting such arcane diplomatic usage in historical settings?
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 influence that the Catholic church had on the CW would be moral or motivational, as an earlier claim that Irish recruiting had been discouraged by a letter from His Holiness(although how valid those claims were is harder to substandiate.) I don't see the purposely enigmatic language of Cardinal Antonelli as amounting to diplomatic recognition.
Since the moral or motivational influence of the Papal States was not high enough to keep the rest of Italy from conquering them, it is hard to see why it would be strong enough to have a major impact on the Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
What were the bishops in America preaching or advising? What was the Church's attitude towards slavery, both the Church in America and elsewhere?
There was a strong nativist, anti Catholic in the Know Nothing elements that would later join the Republicans, but Lincoln had firmly rejected anti Catholic or anti immigrant beliefs, and in fact put blacks oppression on a spectrum with oppression of Catholics and immigrants.
Certainly large portions of the Irish Catholic community in NY were firmly democratic, and opposed to the war.
Mark Noll has written a book recently on this very subject, which I haven't read. Any thoughts?
Much like Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. You can find Catholic Bishops in the North on one side and in the South on the other side of the slavery issue. The same with soldiers and civilians, Catholics here and Catholics there. In the case of slavery, religious groups tended to fracture, not unite.
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.
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.
There is evidence that Catholic clergy assisted Confederate rep's in breaking up the North's "Lincoln & Co." recruiting scheme in Ireland and elsewhere.
And there is also this-
"Catholic Recognition of the Confederacy.
New York, Jan. 30.-- The Tribune has a leading article on a recognition intrigue in which it says it has obtained a clue to the European complot wherefrom the slaveholding rebels are comforting themselves with hopes of a powerful and speedy aid to their sinking cause. Its outline is:
At an early stage of the rebellion Jeff. Davis sent a Roman Catholic Bishop Lynch, of South Carolina, to Europe, to search for sympathizers and allies, but to make Rome the focus of operations. It was not difficult for him to convince the master spirits of European reaction and absoluteism that the slaveholders' rebellion was identical in spirit with their cause, and enlist their sympathies. But Bishop Lynch went further, and assured the magnates of the Catholic Church that its expansion and predominance throughout the hemisphere would be assured by the triumph of the rebels.
In deference to these representations a secret league of the Roman Catholic powers, France, Spain and Austria, under the guidance of the Pope, has been formed, pledged to recognize the Confederacy after the 4th of March next, on the ground that it did not take part in the Presidential election.
Burlington Weekly Hawkeye (Iowa), 4 February 1865 (and appeared in several other papers)
...of course this may be just rumor to feed the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing faction of the North.
__________________ 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."
Then you should show us where you came across the usage of such an unusual term as the Latin Exequatur which is a highly technical bit of diplomatic language usage. Could it be, perhaps, some website such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Raven that includes a reference like this:
=====
As Eugene Berwanger writes, "In requesting the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition". Raven had been. the only consul in the Southern states to do so.
What does he base that statement on?
Does he reference some document from the government of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? (don't see one)
~
"Then you should show us where you came across the usage of such an unusual term as the Latin Exequatur which is a highly technical bit of diplomatic language usage."
"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 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
Phillimore's is a voluminous work, and I notice you (or where-ever you copied this from) have followed the usual process of replacing the parts that don't fit the argument with "..." and leaving out other sections that aren't compatible with your argument.
But before we get into that, what are your qualifications for interperting such a technical work as this? I've asked a few times now, after answering your query about my qualifications. Why is it we hear only silence from you on your own background?
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.
Was wondering when we'd get back to editorials as evidence. But good grief! Burlington, Iowa? And a weekly, at that.
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
True...so can we trust anything that Antonelli said to Rufus King?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
No more nor less than you can trust anything that came to President Davis or the Confederate diplomats such as Mann. It is all the same insubstantial fluff; no commitments were made to either side. Yet you want to insist that what he said to Confederates was a solid promise of things not said. Your own position is untenable.
Tim
Now you contradict yourself.
You are the one who posted the King-Seward documents as some sort of proof of no-recognition...(and were much congratulated for it by the usual suspects)...now it is as you say- "fluff"...
__________________ 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."
There is evidence that Catholic clergy assisted Confederate rep's in breaking up the North's "Lincoln & Co." recruiting scheme in Ireland and elsewhere.
Actually, what we have is evidence from you that one Catholic priest, who had served in the Confederate Army, went to Rome and Ireland in the pay of the Confederate government. In Ireland, his funds ran out, but we know that he distributed some literature. We have no evidence at all that he had any effect -- although you have been asked to provide some evidence to support your claim and have refused to do so.
Do you have anything at all to back up what you say beyond this?
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
