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.
Hanny. You state that Congress declared war on April 14, 1861. Yet Congress was not in session until July 4, 1861 (there was a special session of the Senate from March 4, 1861 to March 28, 2861). See http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lw....html#anchor37
Care to try again?
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
You mean like you would fine in Lincoln bio or any book on the WBTS that expalin when the UK etc awarded beleigerant ststus to the CSA?. I dislke haveing to provide for you what anyone with even a passing intrest of the WBTS should know; so will simply point you to any decent book on the blockade and if the UK France recognised the rights as beligernats to the CSA, which is not the same as your thinking of as recognising it at dipolmatic level as a nation proper.
Hanny, I am well aware of England & France granting the South "belligerent status." What you implied in your previous post that this was somehow construed as a formal recognition of the CSA as a nation by those powers. Now you state above "this is not the same as your thinking of as recoginizing it at diplomatic level as a nation proper." This means you cannot provide any documentation from the period that granted the CSA diplomatic recognition or such from any major power of the time.
In congress Thaddeus Stevens pointed out in the House of Representatives, under International Law, a nation could only institute a blockade against another nation; to blockade the Confederacy was therefore tantamount to granting its status as a "belligerent Power."Stevens, Congressional Globe, 9 December 1862, page 50.
Stevens and the Radical Republicans would later use the premise of this second proclamation as the legal basis for the subjugation of the South as a "conquered enemy" during Reconstruction.
So how about congres and the Abe both doing what you dont know they did eh?., how about not knowing that the blockde cannot operate unless theose nations acept and grant the right of beligerancy eh?.
Again, I am well aware of the above, but again, as I have stated before and will stand by the historical fact, no major power in Europe, Asia or Africa EVER gave diplomatic recognition to the CSA, NEVER recognized it as an independent nation.
If you can prove otherwise, please do so. If not, than admit so.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
When the Union did declare a blockade upon the rebel states in April 1861, however, it did not prompt the response expected from the Europeans. The blockade’s legal and political implications took on greater significance than its economic effects because it undermined Lincoln’s insistence that the war was merely an internal insurrection. A blockade was a weapon of war between sovereign states. In May, Britain responded to the blockade with a proclamation of neutrality, which the other European powers followed. This tacitly granted the Confederacy belligerent status, the right to contract loans and purchase supplies in neutral nations and to exercise belligerent rights on the high seas. The Union was greatly angered by European recognition of Southern belligerency, fearing that is was a first step toward diplomatic recognition, but as British Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell said, “The question of belligerent rights is one, not of principle, but of fact.”
Sensitive to any further international recognition of the Confederates as statesmen rather than rebels, Secretary of State William H. Seward instructed Charles Francis Adams, Minister to England and the son of former Secretary of State and President John Quincy Adams, to warn the British not to “fraternize with our domestic enemy,” whether officially or unofficially, or risk an Anglo-American war. But the Union realized that Europe’s declarations of neutrality also constituted official acceptance of the blockade, a position with many long-standing implications. Although international law stated that a blockade must be “physically effective” to be legally binding on neutral powers, the definition was ambiguous. From before the War of 1812, the United States had insisted upon a strict definition in order to maintain trading rights as a neutral. Now, however, the United States was the belligerent and Britain the predominant neutral power. By officially respecting the Union blockade, even if it was not fully “physically effective,” Britain maintained a consistent position on belligerent rights. The U.S. reversal of its traditional position stressing neutral rights set the precedent that it would be obligated to respect the British argument in future naval issues.
The parties at the time recognized that belligerent statues was NOT the same as recognition.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Makes an interesting topic. Understand that Lincoln made a big-time booboo when he ordered a blockade. He was soon corrected by some in his cabinet that he couldn't order a blockade, but he could close the ports. Some sort of trickiness of international law, of which he knew nothing.
But agree that there was no recognition of the Confederacy unless you want to talk about Saxe-Coburg. Or delve again into whether the Pope actually recognized it. In either case, it amounts to nothing.
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
No, Hanny, "belligerent status" does not equate to recognition as a nation.
From Belligerent Status by Ewen Allison and Robert K. Goldman:
=====
A rebel group gained “belligerent status” when all of the following had occurred: it controlled territory in the State against which it was rebelling; it declared independence, if its goal was secession; it had well-organized armed forces; it began hostilities against the government; and, importantly, the government recognized it as a belligerent.
=====
Lincoln's actions in calling for troops to put down the rebellion and declaring a blockade established the conditions for other nations to recognize the Confederacy as a "belligerent". Some did so -- but "belligerent status" is not the same as formal recognition as a nation.
All belligerent status really means is that other nations recognize there is a war going on.
Tim
Good job i posted as i did and not as you mistkenly want it to read, since i disagree wthn nothing in your post, which is exactly wjhat i posted, it appears you want to waste bandwdth.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Your point was that there were no US citizens until 1866/67. You said there was no US law on this until then. I pointed out a few examples to you, you have now provided other references. I take it then you are admitting your earlier statement is wrong.
Tim
No, i am not. BTw the first of your post is the federal law makeing negros ofspring illegaiable for federal citizenship.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny. You state that Congress declared war on April 14, 1861. Yet Congress was not in session until July 4, 1861 (there was a special session of the Senate from March 4, 1861 to March 28, 2861). See http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lw....html#anchor37
Care to try again?
Ill look at my book again and get back to you by Monday.
"Joint Resolution of 25 July 1861, in which Congress declared, "This war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease."
or http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/m042961.htm
The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month
question in return, the legal basis for Lincoln was that the states had formed a new Un
ion without Congress approval, and was therfore unconstitional, where is congress voteing or debating on this to be found?. Since it would require 2/ of states to vote, and we know the number who had left and or declared neutrility, its a mathamatical imposibility to get that number to deny them to do so.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny You mean like you would fine in Lincoln bio or any book on the WBTS that expalin when the UK etc awarded beleigerant ststus to the CSA?. I dislke haveing to provide for you what anyone with even a passing intrest of the WBTS should know; so will simply point you to any decent book on the blockade and if the UK France recognised the rights as beligernats to the CSA, which is not the same as your thinking of as recognising it at dipolmatic level as a nation proper.
Hanny, I am well aware of England & France granting the South "belligerent status." What you implied in your previous post that this was somehow construed as a formal recognition of the CSA as a nation by those powers. Now you state above "this is not the same as your thinking of as recoginizing it at diplomatic level as a nation proper." This means you cannot provide any documentation from the period that granted the CSA diplomatic recognition or such from any major power of the time.
In congress Thaddeus Stevens pointed out in the House of Representatives, under International Law, a nation could only institute a blockade against another nation; to blockade the Confederacy was therefore tantamount to granting its status as a "belligerent Power."Stevens, Congressional Globe, 9 December 1862, page 50.
Stevens and the Radical Republicans would later use the premise of this second proclamation as the legal basis for the subjugation of the South as a "conquered enemy" during Reconstruction.
So how about congres and the Abe both doing what you dont know they did eh?., how about not knowing that the blockde cannot operate unless theose nations acept and grant the right of beligerancy eh?.
Again, I am well aware of the above, but again, as I have stated before and will stand by the historical fact, no major power in Europe, Asia or Africa EVER gave diplomatic recognition to the CSA, NEVER recognized it as an independent nation.
If you can prove otherwise, please do so. If not, than admit so.
Unionblue
That you chose to misintprete my post is clear, if i worded it poorly, and i dont see that i have cause dyour confusion by doing so. For what i will apoligise for, is if you did not understand my posts content, as you last makes claer you knew about the point i made.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Your point was that there were no US citizens until 1866/67. You said there was no US law on this until then. I pointed out a few examples to you, you have now provided other references. I take it then you are admitting your earlier statement is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
No, i am not.
Too bad. If you, yourself present evidence to disporve what you, yourself, have said and cannot recognize it, then no one can help you. You are lost and I hope you stumble into the light at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
BTw the first of your post is the federal law makeing negros ofspring illegaiable for federal citizenship.
????
If your point is that there were no US citizens before 1866/67, only state citizens (as you rather forcefully claimed), then your statement here makes no sense.
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.
From your post in this thread, #113:
Incorrect the UK French and scandnavian and Russian and Danes and others all recognised then CSA asa beligernat and subject to a blockade enacted by the USA of thye CSA ports, only nations are awarded beligernets status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
No, Hanny, "belligerent status" does not equate to recognition as a nation. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Good job i posted as i did and not as you mistkenly want it to read, since i disagree wthn nothing in your post, which is exactly wjhat i posted, it appears you want to waste bandwdth.
You contradict yourself again. I do not know if you simply cannot remember what you have already said, or whether you simply do not wish to acknowledge that you have made an error. Neither is helpful.
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
