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.
1. The United States never declared war. This was in keeping with its position that the rebel states did not form a new nation, rather they were states in which a rebellion was taking place. Abraham Lincoln issued a
Proclamation that an insurrection existed in the states of SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX on 15 Apr 1861 (Messages & Papers of the Presidents, vol. V,
p3214). He also proclaimed a blockade of Southern harbors on 19 Apr 1861, and the date of this proclamation was taken by the Supreme Court in
several cases to be the official beginning of the insurrection.
2. The Confederate States passed "An Act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States" on 6 May 1861. This act exempted MD, NC, TN, KY, AR, MO, DE, and the territories of AZ and NM, and the Indian Territory south of KS.
Sources: McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; Official Records, Ser. IV, Vol. 1
I have reviewed the Congressional record for July 1861 and can find no declaration of war by the United States against the Confederate States. Indeed, Lincoln's proclaimation calling up 75,000 volunteers is very carefully crafted to avoid calling it a war, but rather stated that the laws were opposed by cominations too powerful for the Marshalls to surpress. He was very careful to thereby cast it as a civil insurrection - a police matter if you will - and throughout his Presidency refused to take any act which would de facto recognize the legitimacy of the Confederate States of America.
The Confederate States failed to receive recognition of a single foreign state - the necessary step under international law to be a legitimate government.
"One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield. Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government. Although this success can be attributed to the skill of Northern diplomats, the anti-slavery sentiments of the European populace, and European diversion to crises in Poland and Denmark, the most important factor stills rises from the battlefields on American soil. The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence."
The Confederate States of America was never a legitimate government and the United States never declared war.
Okay, so inform me, here... At what point did the rest of the world begin looking at the United States as a real country? Was it with King George III at Yorktown?
No, wait. There was another war... or two. With them.
And then the theft of our soldiers, and all, by Britain... and Jefferson's embargo...
Did we get under the sheets with France, at some point? Did they 'sign off' on our "World Certification"?
Did they see us as 'real' then?
Who gave us the Nod?
And who are BRITAIN AND FRANCE TO GIVE ANY NODS, seeing as how they attack each other as regularly as marrieds do?
Who is this United Nations which gave the USA its worldwide legitimacy?
We called ourselves "The united states are"... when did anyone else do that? Or were we the United STATE IS before anyone said OKAY, overseas?
Was it under Lincoln that the British sent troops to help the North? I forgot.
I am confused here...
If we need another country (such as the yankee North!) to justify us on the planet, we may as well surrender then... NOT!
Hey, if the South had won, and the rest of the world had said, "Oh, no! You own negroes, and that has been out of fashion for at least fifty years! Sorry! You cannot be a nation!"
Would we have said, "Aw, gee, fellers! We tried so hard!"
Okay, so inform me, here... At what point did the rest of the world begin looking at the United States as a real country? Was it with King George III at Yorktown?
No, wait. There was another war... or two. With them.
And then the theft of our soldiers, and all, by Britain...
Did we get under the sheets with France, at some point?
Did they see us as 'real' then?
Who gave us the Nod?
And who are BRITAIN AND FRANCE TO GIVE ANY NODS, seeing as how they attack each other as regularly as marrieds do?
Who is this United Nations which gave the USA its worldwide legitimacy?
We called ourselves "The united states are"...
Was it under Lincoln that the British sent troops to help the North?
I am confused here...
Yes, you are.
If we need another country (such as the yankee North!) to justify us on the planet, we may as well surrender then...
Hey, if the South had won, and the rest of the world had said, "Oh, no! You own negroes, and that has been out of fashion for at least fifty years! Sorry! You cannot be a nation!"
Would we have said, "Aw, gee, fellers! We tried so hard!"
THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!
It would appear only to you. Timewalker made it very clear to those who can read and accept historical events, not those who desperately wish us to believe in fairy tales.
Beowulf
None of the above refutes the historical fact that the Confederacy failed to gain recognition as a legitimate nation. It was viewed as a region of the United States in rebellion against the nation.
Period.
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
None of the above refutes the historical fact that the Confederacy failed to gain recognition as a legitimate nation. It was viewed as a region of the United States in rebellion against the nation.
Period.
Unionblue
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.
In law the CSA was legaly recognised not only by the many natiosn who acepted and gave it beligernat ststus in repsect of the blockade, by the USW Pres did so as well, acknowedged he had done so, and explained he knew little international alw, and thought Seward should have pointed out that he had just legaly recognised the CSA as nation with the rights of such in internationla law.
you really ought to read up of this, as your posting as though history support your claims, it does not.
__________________ "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
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.
Was the Confederacy EVER recognized as a nation?
In law the CSA was legaly recognised not only by the many natiosn who acepted and gave it beligernat ststus in repsect of the blockade, by the USW Pres did so as well, acknowedged he had done so, and explained he knew little international alw, and thought Seward should have pointed out that he had just legaly recognised the CSA as nation with the rights of such in internationla law.
I repeat, what nation officialy recognized the CSA, exchanged ambassadors, made treaties with, etc?
you really ought to read up of this, as your posting as though history support your claims, it does not.
Hanny,
I have read history and I have no idea where you get the idea that the Confederacy was recognized as a nation by any European power or any nation of worth, status, etc.
History does support my claim, as Confederate representatives were trying desperately to gain such recognition and never did.
How you equate "belligerent status" with official recognition is simply wrong and not based in historical events.
You must prove this claim of yours by providing documentation from either the French or British governments of the time that formly did what you claim. NOTHING else will satisfy.
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
I have read history and I have no idea where you get the idea that the Confederacy was recognized as a nation by any European power or any nation of worth, status, etc.
History does support my claim, as Confederate representatives were trying desperately to gain such recognition and never did.
How you equate "belligerent status" with official recognition is simply wrong and not based in historical events.
You must prove this claim of yours by providing documentation from either the French or British governments of the time that formly did what you claim. NOTHING else will satisfy.
Unionblue
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.
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?.
__________________ "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
There was no declaration of war by Congress against the Confederacy because that would amount to calling it a separate nation. The Civil War was considered a rebellion or insurection by Congress therefor no need arose to declare war.
Congress declared war on April 14, CSA May 16, 1861 recognised the state of war to exist.
__________________ "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
As soon as you come up with the Declaration of War, I'll consider it my duty to look up the actual charges, if any.
Congress declared war on April 14, CSA May 16, 1861 recognised the state of war to exist.
Quote:
Every citizen of every state was and is a citizen of the United States. You're basing your opinion on your seriously flawed argument about state citizenship.
No, its a fact that the constion and federal law could not tell the stste who could a citizen of that state, othersise the issue of sl;avery would not be aproblem as the government would dictate that they be free and citizens of that state, all the legal document support only one view, that states determine the citizens are provision for who can be a citizen, and for federal purposes, only the term of residency in those state is the full extent of the governments authority to regulate.
Quote:
In the realistic end game, the Confederacy was wrong because it lost; the Nazis were wrong because they lost; Charlie was right because we lost. Might does make right when compromise fails.
ole
No, more might meerly makes you mighty, it not make you righty when you chose to excercise it. But i hope you dont actually believe its right to commit genocide becausae you have the might 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
From various acts of Congress:
===== 1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".
===== 1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
===== 1802Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
===== 1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
=====
Looks like the US Congress does not agree with you.
Tim
first Congress in the Naturalization Act of 26 March 1790:
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States; Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.(12)
This restriction of citizenship to "free white persons" was reiterated when the second Naturalization Act replaced the first on 29 January 1795 and was repeated in all subsequent naturalization acts up to 1906, except for a brief period from 1873 to 1875, when it was omitted by mistake.(13)
According to John Quincy Adams, "The condition of the blacks being in this Union regulated by the municipal laws of the separate States, the Government of the United States can neither guarantee their liberty in the States where they could only be received as slaves nor control them in the States where they would be recognized as free."(14) If the Negroes, whether slave or free, were under the local jurisdiction of the States, but beyond the protection of the general Government, it necessarily follows that they were not Citizens under the Constitution and did not and could not enjoy any of the political rights which that compact guaranteed to White Americans. In his widely-used Law Dictionary, John Bouvier wrote, "All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to rights of citizens.... [The] Constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white."(15) In addition to the above-quoted Naturalization Act of 1790, we find additional Acts of Congress which state that "no other than a free white person shall be employed in carrying the mail of the United States" (1802),(16) that restrict suffrage and the office of mayor "in the town of Alexandria" (Washington, D.C.) to "free white male citizens" (1804),(17) that extend the right of suffrage in the Mississippi territory to "free white male inhabitants above the age of twenty-one years" (1808),(18) and that authorize "free white male citizens of the United States" to form "a constitution and State government for the Territory of Orleans" (Louisiana).(19)
The several States likewise adopted this "free white male citizen" restriction in their respective constitutions:
No free negro, free mulatto, or free person of mixed blood, descended from negro ancestors, to the fourth generation inclusive (though one ancestor of each generation may have been a white person), shall vote for members of the senate or house of commons.(20)
Every free white man at the age of twenty-one years, being a native or naturalized citizen of the United States, and who has been an inhabitant of the State for twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes, shall be entitled to vote for a member of the senate for the district in which he resides.(21)
Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male citizen of Mexico who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States, under the treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at Queretaro, on the thirtieth day of May, 1848, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the State six months next preceding the election, and the county or district in which he claims his vote thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law....(22)
In all elections not otherwise provided for by this constitution, every white citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have resided in the state during the six months immediately preceding such election; and every white male of foreign birth of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have resided in the United States one year, and shall have resided in this state during the six months immediately preceding such election, and shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States one year preceding such election, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, shall be entitled to vote at all elections authorized by law.(23)
In light of these facts, it is undeniable that the U.S. Supreme Court was correct when it was declared in 1922 that the exclusion of non-White people from the privileges of citizenship under the Constitution was "a part of our history as well as our law, welded into the structure of our national polity by a century of legislative and administrative acts and judicial decisions."(24)
12. An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization; Statutes at Large For the United States of America, Volume I, page 103.
13. Ozawa v. United States (1922), 43 S.Ct. 65; 260 U.S. 178; 67 L.ed. 199, supra, at 178.
14. John Quincy Adams, in American State Papers: Foreign Relations (Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, Printers, 1832), Volume IV, page 400.
15. John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1839), Volume I.
16. Statutes at Large, Volume I, page 191.
17. Op. cit., pages 256, 258.
18. Op. cit., page 455.
19. Op. cit., page 641.
20. Constitution of North Carolina (1776), Article I, Section 3.
21. Constitution of North Carolina (1865), Article I, Section 3. This constitution was struck down by the Reconstruction Acts of 1867.
22. Constitution of California (1848), Article 2, Section 1.
23. Constitution of Oregon (1857), Article II, Section 2.
24. Ozawa v. United States, supra, at 207.
__________________ "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
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.
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
__________________ "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.
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
__________________ "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
