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.
Just as a curiosity, I checked the Official Records for diplomatic communications about Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The Naval records, as you know, contain the section of the Confederate diplomatic archive purchased by Secretary Seward from John T. Pickett, former Confederate diplomat, in Canada after the war.
The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is mentioned twice. Both are in letters by Confederate commissioner A. Dudley Mann, from Brussels, in 1863.
One mention is of the possibility that Leopold I of Belgium might convince his nephew Duke Ernst II to take the throne of Greece (which his other nephew, Ferdinand of Portugal, had just turned down). Duke Ernst II did not become King of Greece, as it turned out.
The other mention is that Queen Victoria had just left Brussels where she was visiting her husband's Uncle, Leopold I, to visit her brother-in-law, Ernst II, in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Seems strange to me that, if Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was the only nation to recognize the Confederacy, there would be no diplomatic correspondence in the archive for or about them. What do you suppose is the reason for that?
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.
Just as a curiosity, I checked the Official Records for diplomatic communications about Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The Naval records, as you know, contain the section of the Confederate diplomatic archive purchased by Secretary Seward from John T. Pickett, former Confederate diplomat, in Canada after the war.
The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is mentioned twice. Both are in letters by Confederate commissioner A. Dudley Mann, from Brussels, in 1863.
One mention is of the possibility that Leopold I of Belgium might convince his nephew Duke Ernst II to take the throne of Greece (which his other nephew, Ferdinand of Portugal, had just turned down). Duke Ernst II did not become King of Greece, as it turned out.
The other mention is that Queen Victoria had just left Brussels where she was visiting her husband's Uncle, Leopold I, to visit her brother-in-law, Ernst II, in Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Seems strange to me that, if Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was the only nation to recognize the Confederacy, there would be no diplomatic correspondence in the archive for or about them. What do you suppose is the reason for that?
Tim
...and how many times is S-C & G mentioned in the entire Congressional record of the United States?
Once...in a message from the President to Congress, 1870.
How many times is it mentioned by Federal authorities in the Official Records?
Zero.
Any letter from the Duke to the US government saying "we are great supporters of the Union"?
Nope...nada...none...
~
The Official Records do not contain all the correspondence and documents of the Confederate Government (nor of the Federal). If that were done it would add several hundred more volumes to the OR.
__________________ 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 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."
...and how many times is S-C & G mentioned in the entire Congressional record of the United States?
Once...in a message from the President to Congress, 1870. How many times is it mentioned by Federal authorities in the Official Records?
Zero.
Any letter from the Duke to the US government saying "we are great supporters of the Union"?
Nope...nada...none...
Come now. The situations aren't at all comparable. The United States has official diplomatic relations with hundreds of nations. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha became part of the new German empire in 1870-71, so there would not be any official relations with the Duchy after that, and the Duchy was fairly small -- so why would you expect to find them discussed in the Congress?. Plus, I am not even certain that the US ever had official diplomatic relations with the United States -- although I can find accounts of a US diplomat who had dinner with Duke Ernst II in Saxe-Coburg.
According to you, the Confederate states had official diplomatic relations with only one: Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Seems strange there is no mention of them in the official diplomatic correspondence of the Confederates we do have. Why do you think that was?
It does seem logical for the US to never mention them in the Official Records if there was no reason to do so. Plus there is no US diplomatic records section in the Official Records, so you'd have to look elsewhere for that, right? Isn't that so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
The Official Records do not contain all the correspondence and documents of the Confederate Government (nor of the Federal). If that were done it would add several hundred more volumes to the OR.
I told you that just recently. But you do realize that many of the documents of the Confederate commissioners to Europe are there, right? Doesn't it seem strange to you that they never mention the one country that you suppose officially recognized the Confederacy?
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 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
As I mentioned before, you are deliberately distorting the Right Honorable Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore's work here by omission of text and by ignoring the context of what you have posted. The rest of his book does not disappear because you don't want to see it.
I'll be glad to show you where and when as soon as you post the background you have for interpreting highly technical works of International Law. When you asked me, I posted a synopsis of my background. I've asked you to post your's many times since and we have nothing from you. Act as a fair man: post your own background so everyone can judge honestly as we go forward.
If you are unwilling to do so, that's fine. Everyone will just have to assume you are afraid to discuss your qualifications for some reason until you do.
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.
Come now. The situations aren't at all comparable. The United States has official diplomatic relations with hundreds of nations. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha became part of the new German empire in 1870-71, so there would not be any official relations with the Duchy after that, and the Duchy was fairly small -- so why would you expect to find them discussed in the Congress?
Appointments of diplomats and consular officials have to be approved by Congress. Do they not?
Therefore I would expect to see some mentioned in the Congressional Record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Plus, I am not even certain that the US ever had official diplomatic relations with the United States [?] -- although I can find accounts of a US diplomat who had dinner with Duke Ernst II in Saxe-Coburg.
According to you, the Confederate states had official diplomatic relations with only one: Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Where have I made this claim?
See Virtual Recognition in Phillimore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
It does seem logical for the US to never mention them in the Official Records if there was no reason to do so. Plus there is no US diplomatic records section in the Official Records, so you'd have to look elsewhere for that, right? Isn't that so?
I told you that just recently. But you do realize that many of the documents of the Confederate commissioners to Europe are there, right? Doesn't it seem strange to you that they never mention the one country that you suppose officially recognized the Confederacy?
Tim
See answer to previous question.
__________________ 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."
As I mentioned before, you are deliberately distorting the Right Honorable Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore's work here by omission of text and by ignoring the context of what you have posted. The rest of his book does not disappear because you don't want to see it.
As usual.....false accusation.
There is no distortion...nothing out of context.
__________________ 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."
"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."
BTW, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha had eight consuls in the United States in 1868. None of them in the 11 states that seceded to form the Confederacy: 2 in New York, 1 each in Cincinnati, St. Louis, La Crosse (WI), Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia.
Also, BTW and FWIW, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas say that Ernst Raven was appointed the first ambassador to the Republic of Texas in 1838 (when he left Saxe-Coburg and moved to Baltimore for several years before moving to Texas) and became Saxe-Coburg and Gotha's consul in Texas when Texas was annexed to the US. But they have him down twice, with a different article for each entry. May simply be a mistake.
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, just accurate. You are deliberately omitting sections that have bearing on what the man said.
BTW, if you search through a post-Civil War edition of the Right Honorable Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore's work (i.e., not the 1855 one), you'll find that he characterized the United States as the legitimate government and the Confederate States as the insurrectionist government.
Also BTW, it doesn't matter if you have a background of any sort in political science, or history, or international law or not. Why not just tell us? To be a fair man, you should supply for yourself what you asked of others; you questioned my qualifications, so I told you what they were. I note you are still trying to avoid your responsibility here. 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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha: no correspondence? 
Linear Mode
