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.
This opinion was issued early. Subsequent events may have changed his mind as recognition can be a process (see Phillimore).
No, Battalion: his opinion on the letter to Davis through Mann was given after he had read the letter. He is telling Mann that Mann's interpertation is wrong. Nothing happened after that to change his mind; in fact, further interaction that we know about would have been discouraging. But you already know all that, and simply do not want to include it in your world-view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
What about the reactions of the US Secretary of State?
Based on the letter-writing between King & Seward he seems to have been quite concerned about it.
Seward asked King to find out what Cardinal Antonelli said the letter meant. This is what a normal, rational person would do: ask for an explanation. King's report says that the Cardinal denied that it had any meaning such as you want it to have. You already know this for a fact, so why are you trying to make something else up?
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 will get to this subject later...or start a new thread for it
We have already visited it in this thread -- and you had nothing to back up your claims. Unless you have recently discovered something, why not just admit the truth: you have nothing.
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.
My guess, however, is that he has seen the application Ernst Raven sent from Texas to Richmond, and so probably has the right of it. You know -- the one Secretary Benjamin is referring to in his statement to the Confederate Congress, the one you are pointing to in this link:
"The one agent who is excepted from these remarks is ErnstRaven esq., who was appointed consul for the State of Texas by his highness the Duke of SaxeCoburg and Gotha, and wire applied to this Government for an exequatur on the 30th of July, 1861." as Secretary Benjamin says. Note that Secretary Benjamin does not say Mr. Raven was a consul from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the Confederacy.
Mr. Raven, BTW, had been the Duke's bookbinder in the 1830s, before he moved to Baltimore in 1838 and then on to Texas, and had done some furniture work for the Texas legislature before the Civil War. That Duke was Ernest I who died in 1844, which means that the last time the Duke Ernest II (born in 1818) saw Mr. Raven, the Duke was perhaps 20 years old at the most and Mr. Raven was perhaps 34. Raven is not a professional diplomat, just an alderman of Austin, Texas who seems to have seen an opportunity to make something of himself and taken advantage of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Where does he say this?
AS NOTED in the message you are replying to, Secretary of State Benjamin says this in the text at the link you, yourself, supplied.
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.
Raven is "excepted from these remarks" because he did not receive his authority from the United States gov't.
In one message, you don't know where the statement came from (even though it was in a link you supplied.) In the next message, you already have a definite declaration about what it meant. Not believeable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
He does not have to be a citizen of SCG to be the consul representing (and at the request of) SCG.
No one said that he did. For that matter, I never said what nation he was a citizen of, either.
However, it would appear he was probably a citizen of the US in early 1861. He had been an alderman in Austin, Texas in the 1850s. At some time in 1846 or earlier, he had moved to Texas, and so he may have been a citizen of Texas before US annexation -- which would make him a US citizen if true.
Note however, that we have no indication whatsoever that he was ever appointed to be the consul of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the Confederacy by Duke Ernest II. Secretary Benjamin does not describe him as such in his report to the Confederate Congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
SCG establishing a consular official in Texas and Raven applying to the Confederate gov't for his authority amounts to Virtual Recognition (see Phillimore).
Well, no, it doesn't. As Phillimore makes clear in the parts you left out, that is merely one of the things that a nation may do if it wishes to establish "Virtual Recognition". But once again, if you want to set yourself up as an interperter of highly technical texts on International law, what is your background so that we may judge the value of your opinion?
You questioned my qualifications and I quickly gave you a sketch of them. I asked you -- and all we get is a constant avoidance of the request, the sound of silence. It appears you are afraid to reveal yourself. Is that the case? If so, why should anyone listen to your prattling?
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.
One of the great failures of the Confederate States, which is often covered-up by historians, with what if -Great Britain and France came to the assistance of the Confederates.
But they never did, did they. And what blundering the Confederacy did, by even thinking, that assistance was coming.
Some much for the Confederacy blue sky diplomacy, and the results that never happened.
"Lincoln had proclaimed the rebels to be insurrectionists. Under international law this would deny the Confederacy status as a belligerent power. But the North's declaration of a blockade constituted an act of war affecting neutral powers. On May 13 Britain therefore declared her neutrality in a proclamation issued by the Queen. This would seem to have been unexceptionable--except that it automatically recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent power. Other European nations followed the British lead. Status as a belligerent gave Confederates the right under international law to contract loans and purchase arms in neutral nations, and to commission cruisers on the high seas with the power of search and seizure. Northerners protested this British action with hot words....But northern protests rested on weak legal grounds, for the blockade was a virtual recognition of southern belligerency. Moreover, in European eyes the Confederacy with its national constitution, its army, its effective control of 750,000 square miles of territory and a population of nine million people, was a belligerent power in practice no matter what it was in northern theory. As Lord Russell put it: 'The question of belligerent rights is one, not of principle, but of fact.'
Northern bitterness stemmed in part from the context and timing of British action. The proclamation of neutrality came just after two 'un-official' conferences between Lord Russell and the Confederate envoys.."
McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 388
__________________ 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."
No, Battalion: his opinion on the letter to Davis through Mann was given after he had read the letter.
...and I believe that would be considered "early" as I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
He is telling Mann that Mann's interpertation is wrong.
Mann was a career diplomat. His opinion cannot be disregarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Nothing happened after that to change his mind...
They sent Bishop Lynch.
__________________ 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."
That Duke was Ernest I who died in 1844, which means that the last time the Duke Ernest II (born in 1818) saw Mr. Raven, the Duke was perhaps 20 years old at the most and Mr. Raven was perhaps 34.
They can't communicate by letter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Raven is not a professional diplomat
Who said he was?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Note however, that we have no indication whatsoever that he was ever appointed to be the consul of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the Confederacy by Duke Ernest II. Secretary Benjamin does not describe him as such in his report to the Confederate Congress.
The report of the Secretary of State (15 Sept. 1862) describes Raven as an "agent" (meaning he is an agent) and appointed by the Duke of Saxe Coburg and Gotha-
"The one agent who is excepted from these remarks is Ernst Raven esq., who was appointed consul for the State of Texas by his highness the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and who applied to this Government for an exequatur on the 30th of July, 1861." http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...424&linkText=1
In 1861 Texas was a Confederate State.
__________________ 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 one message, you don't know where the statement came from (even though it was in a link you supplied.) In the next message, you already have a definite declaration about what it meant. Not believeable.
No one said that he did. For that matter, I never said what nation he was a citizen of, either
Well, no, it doesn't. As Phillimore makes clear in the parts you left out, that is merely one of the things that a nation may do if it wishes to establish "Virtual Recognition". But once again, if you want to set yourself up as an interperter of highly technical texts on International law, what is your background so that we may judge the value of your opinion?
You questioned my qualifications and I quickly gave you a sketch of them. I asked you -- and all we get is a constant avoidance of the request, the sound of silence. It appears you are afraid to reveal yourself. Is that the case? If so, why should anyone listen to your prattling?
etc etc etc
-Nitpick frenzy.
__________________ 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."
What interesting information this thread has unearthed.
Did the Papal States diplomatically recognize the Confederacy?
The Confederate Secretary of States didn't think so, and you would have thought he would have really wanted some diplomatic recognition. In fact it was a major policy goal of the CSA.
The Papal States are vague, the CSA government says no. Did any other government of the face of the earth consider that the Papal States diplomatically recognized the CSA?
An individual claimed that he discouraged Irish people from joining the Union army because the letters from the Pope or his representatives. Did he, or didn't he? Influencing the decision making of Catholics would be the only relevant effect the Pontiff could have in this juncture in history. Its not like the Papal guard was going to march on Richmond/Washington. His words could have been interpreted in such way as to support one side of the war. That's called propaganda, and all the best people use it.
A prince of a small German state had an agent employed in Texas. Does this mean he diplomatically recognized the CSA? Or Texas, even? What effect did Saxe-Coburg have on the Civil War. There is the picture of the prince, in his wonderful uniform, and impressive hairdo. Certainly an force to be reckoned with on any battlefield. Yet what material aid did Saxe Coburg render the CSA? Or Union for that matter? Did any government consider S-C as having recognizing the CSA?
The Catholic Church often has a comfortable relationship with secular governments, and has historically demonstrated the flexibility of an organization that is a lot older than those government, and one that plans to still be around when these governments bite the dust.
German Catholic immigrants were often more tolerant of slavery than German protestants. The Catholic church had close relations and played important roles in slaveowning societies in South America. According to what little I've read, some Catholic leaders early on didn't take political stances on the war(but not discouraging those participating in the war), but pledged to allievate suffering with nursing by orders of nuns etc.
Anyone read the Noll book, which addressed some of these issues?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
