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.
From December of 1860 to April of 1861 there was no other government in the world that recognized the existence of the Confederacy or of any of the individual states as sovereign and independent from the United States. One tried, Mexico, sending an emissary to Montgomery to discuss the matter. Jefferson Davis refused to meet with him, thinking it would be embarassing to have treated with Mexico for recognition should he lead an invasion of their country within a couple of years or so.
What this means is that the Confederacy is not a country, although they want to be. To become one, they need to establish the viability of their venture, and to get recognition of their status from other nations. That is simply the way international law works.
Until they do that, the world would think of them as a province in rebellion against legitimate authority. That is also the way international law works.
There is NO violation of territory by the US under international law. There is not even a case to be made under South Carolina law, since Ft. Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and Ft. Sumter were all US property according to the South Carolina records when the state decided to seize them.
Tim
I am curious about something...
Historically, how many successful world countries were formed with this 'consent' from other countries?
Was there always some half-baked Woodrow Wilson 'league of nations', or Freemason-styled star-chamber body politick which decided which land masses would be conferred this status?
If the North had surrendered, would the Confederacy have had to go before these people, with hat in hand, and say, 'look! We won! Could we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be our own nation, in the eyes of the world'?
The US government was being run by a voting accident named Abraham Lincoln, who was bent upon changing the rules to disallow the sovereignty of states, property in slaves, the general safety of the common public... and to institute and augment Consolidationalism,
federal patronage, and graft and political corruption on a scale undreamed of by even the worst thoughts of Hamilton, Adams, and dear old Henry Clay. The Judge of the General Court of Virginia, Abel Parker Upshur, in his book, THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - A Critical review of Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution blows the yankee theories and excuses completely out of the water!
(He was the Secretary of State under President Tyler, and also the former Secy of the Navy).
The Confederacy was what was left of the original founding fathers. We were what was left of the states with whom treaties were signed with England. This mob in DC acting under color of law was not even a recognizable entity with England, having usurped state powers and aggrandized itself as a mob rule.
If either side has problems with legitimacy, it is thou, O David! THOU ART THE MAN! England does not recognize our Constitution, only our states as individual entities.
(So, before you start flinging garbage like that through the bars of your cell, make sure you clear the bars, or it will splash back upon you!)
What this means is that the Confederacy is not a country, although they want to be.
The Confederacy was an independent and sovereign nation and exercised all the characteristics of a sovereign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
To become one, they need to establish the viability of their venture,
This was done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
and to get recognition of their status from other nations.
A goal but not an initial necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
That is simply the way international law works.
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Until they do that, the world would think of them as a province in rebellion against legitimate authority. That is also the way international law works.
Tim
The European nations recognized them as a belligerent power. This is a significant step ahead of what you describe.
__________________ 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 Judge of the General Court of Virginia, Abel Parker Upshur, in his book, THE TRUE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - A Critical review of Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution blows the yankee theories and excuses completely out of the water!
Cute. A Virginia judge blows Joseph Story out of the water. If that weren't so pathetic a claim, it would be funny.
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
Instead of refighting Sumter for the umpteenth time, can anyone disagree with this:
J. Davis wanted to establish an independent nation. That nation, especially the South Carolina part of it, could not tolerate a U.S. fort and U.S. flag in Charleston Harbor, in part because it seemed to deny that a new nation was being created.
A. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. He could not abandon federal forts if he intended to accomplish that. Fort Sumter was a symbol that the federal government and its authority still extended over the South.
Quote: There were promises made to evacuate the fort peacefully at Sumter which were handled treacherously by Mr. Lincoln, who was a treacherous man.
I replied:
Quote:
Cite the promises made, when, and by whom for the benefit of our lurkers who may not be as familiar with the situation as you are. Be specific.
There is one promise made, with maybe another two reiterations. Yet Mr. Beowulf has not yet produced that promise, who made it, and when.
What has been our reply? I think he knows very well who made the "promise," but to reveal it would be to expose the statement as riduculous hyperbole.
Just one statement. Just one source. Not too difficult, eh?
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
Both sides had imperatives that they were willing to fight, kill and die for.
What were those imperatives? Instead of refighting the war, like this a barroom in 1860, try to understand how the folks of 1860 felt and acted.
Case in point: Davis was a tyrant because he did...Lincoln was a tyrant because he did...
Both presidents centralized power and suppressed dissent, because that was what wartime presidents do. Neither was a tyrant, wished to act like a tyrant, and while both acted highhandedly on occasion, their obvious motivation was the need to win the war, not ideology. All the so called tyrannical actions happened after secession, and are a result of the war, not a cause of it.
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 03-31-2008 at 11:25 PM.
Sumter was a flash point. There were many problems to be resolved with the separation. Sumter wouldn't resolve them. But until that annoying spot in Charleston Harbor was eliminated as a problem, peacefully or otherwise, the other questions couldn't be addressed properly.
Neither side really needed it for other than politically symbolic reasons.
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
Both sides had imperatives that they were willing to fight, kill and die for.
What were those imperatives? Instead of refighting the war, like this a barroom in 1860, try to understand how the folks of 1860 felt and acted.
Case in point: Davis was a tyrant because he did...Lincoln was a tyrant because he did...
Both presidents centralized power and suppressed dissent, because that was what wartime presidents do. Neither was a tyrant, wished to act like a tyrant, and while both acted highhandedly on occasion, their obvious motivation was the need to win the war, not ideology. All the so called tyrannical actions happened after secession, and are a result of the war, not a cause of it.
Davis was not trying to destroy the invading North.
Lincoln, however, was the aggressor in trying to destroy the South.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
