Assuming the CSA exists, then what was it Discussion.


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

archieclement

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,427
Location
mo
#2
Because the English word for nation and even country is very broad, I hold the CSA was nation or country. The only thing it was not was an international person with recognition.

Look forward to a discussion on this.
I would say obviously it existed as an organized political entity which was also recognized as existing as a belligerent with a formally organized army and navy. And to the majority of its citizens it existed as a country or nation.

not sure would go as far to it didn't exist as an "international person with recognition" it didn't exist as a formally recognized sovereign nation......may be a minor distinction, but how could one sell cotton abroad and purchase arms as the CSA with CSA owned blockade runners and agents.....without being recognized an international person or entity?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#3
I would say obviously it existed as an organized political entity which was also recognized as existing as a belligerent with a formally organized army and navy. And to the majority of its citizens it existed as a country or nation.

not sure would go as far to it didn't exist as an "international person with recognition" it didn't exist as a formally recognized sovereign nation......may be a minor distinction, but how could one sell cotton abroad and purchase arms as the CSA with CSA owned blockade runners and agents.....without being recognized an international person or entity?
It was classified as a belligerent. Which is some sort of minimal recognization but only limited to the laws of war.

For example
Belligerent | Definition of Belligerent by Merriam-Webster
belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war.

Buying and selling were done through individuals subject to the laws of the nation they were citizens of. Sometimes that did not go well as in the Laird rams
 

archieclement

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,427
Location
mo
#4
It was classified as a belligerent. Which is some sort of minimal recognization but only limited to the laws of war.

For example
Belligerent | Definition of Belligerent by Merriam-Webster
belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war.

Buying and selling were done through individuals subject to the laws of the nation they were citizens of. Sometimes that did not go well as in the Laird rams
The raiders were sold through third parties, but still dont see how one could buy or sell clearly as the CSA whether through first or third parties...….without existing......…..

The same with belligerent. to be recognized as one would require actually existing I would think.

So pretty much anything that requires actually existing to do, would be a form of existence it existed as. From belligerent to owner of military forces, to elected government
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
219
#5
I share a similar view, that the CSA did exist as a political entity. That is, it built a funcitoning government, a political system, an army, a navy, etc. So, in my view, it existed as a country, albeit for a relatively short period of time.

I agree that the CSA was not formally recognised by international powers (particularly the ones that really mattered at the time) but for me I'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic at hand. What I mean by this is that if the CSA had won the war and gained its independence, international recognition would, very likely, have followed. I believe that formal recognition and support were not going to come unless the CSA won the war first.

If you wanted to be very technical about what the CSA was, it might be called a "region in revolt". But, I don't think this is immensely accurate as the political/national system the CSA built was quite sophisticated.

So in my opinion, for as long as it lasted, it was a nation.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#7
I share a similar view, that the CSA did exist as a political entity. That is, it built a funcitoning government, a political system, an army, a navy, etc. So, in my view, it existed as a country, albeit for a relatively short period of time.

I agree that the CSA was not formally recognised by international powers (particularly the ones that really mattered at the time) but for me I'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic at hand. What I mean by this is that if the CSA had won the war and gained its independence, international recognition would, very likely, have followed. I believe that formal recognition and support were not going to come unless the CSA won the war first.

If you wanted to be very technical about what the CSA was, it might be called a "region in revolt". But, I don't think this is immensely accurate as the political/national system the CSA built was quite sophisticated.

So in my opinion, for as long as it lasted, it was a nation.
We could say it existed wherever its army occupied, it literally disappeared with its army.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
219
#8
We could say it existed wherever its army occupied, it literally disappeared with its army.
I think by the end (1864-1865) that is certainly true, but I would have thought that in the earlier years (particularly 1861-1862) the CSA effectively controlled much of its claimed territory, including places where they didn't have substantial numbers of troops on the ground.

I agree though that once the war started, the political existence of the CSA was absolutely tied to the fortunes of the army. If they didn't win their independence on the battlefield, no foreign power was going to come and do it for them.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,836
Location
los angeles ca
#9
Because the English word for nation and even country is very broad, I hold the CSA was nation or country. The only thing it was not was an international person with recognition.

Look forward to a discussion on this.
I can give a modern example of a political entity that some nations have formal diplomatic relations with but it doesn't do said entity a whole lot of good. A good PM subject for discussion.
Unless the Confederacy is recognized by a major world military power then said recognition does little good for the Confederacy.
For example if Luxembourg recognized the Confederacy now what? Luxembourg does not have a navy that can break through the blockade. Luxembourg can certainly purchase or produce weapons for the Confederacy but now it risks retaliation from the United States plus loss of trade.
Really only the UK and France as the then two leading world military powers mattered to the Confederacy and neither countries leaders were eager to enter the fray of the ACW on behalf of the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#10
I think by the end (1864-1865) that is certainly true, but I would have thought that in the earlier years (particularly 1861-1862) the CSA effectively controlled much of its claimed territory, including places where they didn't have substantial numbers of troops on the ground.

I agree though that once the war started, the political existence of the CSA was absolutely tied to the fortunes of the army. If they didn't win their independence on the battlefield, no foreign power was going to come and do it for them.
FWIW the shrinking CSA.


1861.jpg
1862.jpg
1863.jpg
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,945
#11
I can give a modern example of a political entity that some nations have formal diplomatic relations with but it doesn't do said entity a whole lot of good. A good PM subject for discussion.
Unless the Confederacy is recognized by a major world military power then said recognition does little good for the Confederacy.
For example if Luxembourg recognized the Confederacy now what? Luxembourg does not have a navy that can break through the blockade. Luxembourg can certainly purchase or produce weapons for the Confederacy but now it risks retaliation from the United States plus loss of trade.
Really only the UK and France as the then two leading world military powers mattered to the Confederacy and neither countries leaders were eager to enter the fray of the ACW on behalf of the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
Was there a universal doctrine stating a world superpower had to recognize the nation? The UK nor France were eager to enter the fray on behalf of either side. Did that illigitimize the Confederacy?
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,836
Location
los angeles ca
#12
One if our posters years ago pointed out that once New Orleans fell to the Union the Confederacy was essentially doomed to non recognition. If the Confederacy can't defend it's most important port then how is the Confederacy viable?
In an earlier thread either Mason or Slidell was grilled by the British on weather or not the border states with emphasis on Kentucky and Missouri would join the Confederacy. Once it became apparent that they would not British enthusiasm for diplomatic recognition waned.
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,293
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#13
I can give a modern example of a political entity that some nations have formal diplomatic relations with but it doesn't do said entity a whole lot of good. A good PM subject for discussion.
Unless the Confederacy is recognized by a major world military power then said recognition does little good for the Confederacy.
For example if Luxembourg recognized the Confederacy now what? Luxembourg does not have a navy that can break through the blockade. Luxembourg can certainly purchase or produce weapons for the Confederacy but now it risks retaliation from the United States plus loss of trade.
Really only the UK and France as the then two leading world military powers mattered to the Confederacy and neither countries leaders were eager to enter the fray of the ACW on behalf of the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
Luxembourg was around in the 1860s with the same limitations. If recognization makes the CSA a nation/country, then Luxembourg is important. Once we move the goalposts then where do we stop? You have a good point for practical considerations, but we end up with unless Britain and/or France recognizes the CSA, it is not a nation.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,836
Location
los angeles ca
#15
Was there a universal doctrine stating a world superpower has to recognize the nation? The UK nor France were eager to enter the fray on behalf of either side. Did that illigitimize the Confederacy?
Yes in the sense that new nations historically are very eager to seek diplomatic relations with major powers. Diplomatic Recognition is not a slam dunk for military intervention in behalf of a Nation but it is certainly a precursor.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,945
#16
Yes in the sense that new nations historically are very eager ti seek diplomatic relations with major powers. Diplomatic Recognition is not a slam dunk for military intervention in behalf of a Nation but it is certainly a precursor.
Leftyhunter
There is also international trading, lending, etc., but could also occur after the nation has been formalized.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,206
Location
Charlotte, NC
#17
One if our posters years ago pointed out that once New Orleans fell to the Union the Confederacy was essentially doomed to non recognition. If the Confederacy can't defend it's most important port then how is the Confederacy viable?
In an earlier thread either Mason or Slidell was grilled by the British on weather or not the border states with emphasis on Kentucky and Missouri would join the Confederacy. Once it became apparent that they would not British enthusiasm for diplomatic recognition waned.
Leftyhunter
The long ago poster was incorrect. If the Continentals could not control New York City, their most important port, how could the US be viable? Oh, yes, they did not control Philadelphia or Charleston or Newport ---- but they still won.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
219
#18
Was there a universal doctrine stating a world superpower has to recognize the nation? The UK nor France were eager to enter the fray on behalf of either side. Did that illigitimize the Confederacy?
In my view, lack of recognition by France and Britain didn't illigitemise the CSA. I still believe it was a nation for as long as it existed.

Ultimately I don't believe that recognition by either country would have helped the CSA unless those countries were willing to support recognition with action, particularly military and naval. Which I don't think would have been realistically forthcoming at any point. I simply cannot see Britain or France risking war with the USA to support the CSA.

I also cannot see the USA discontinuing the military effort to reunify the country, even under diplomatic pressure from other nations.

The CSA was on its own to win its independence on the battlefield before anyone was going to come running to 'help'.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,206
Location
Charlotte, NC
#19
Yes in the sense that new nations historically are very eager ti seek diplomatic relations with major powers. Diplomatic Recognition is not a slam dunk for military intervention in behalf of a Nation but it is certainly a precursor.
Leftyhunter
Nations did not require great power recognition to be nations. The CS wanted the recognition of UK and France as a military counter to the strength of the US. A country in Africa, fighting to gain its independence from another country, did not need great power recognition -- it needed enough military success to control its own land. The CS had that much success, for a short while, and tried to get European assistance in assuring that control continued.

The CS was a country in every way -- it was just conquered by its enemy after only 4 years of existence.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,836
Location
los angeles ca
#20
Luxembourg was around in the 1860s with the same limitations. If recognization makes the CSA a nation/country, then Luxembourg is important. Once we move the goalposts then where do we stop? You have a good point for practical considerations, but we end up with unless Britain and/or France recognizes the CSA, it is not a nation.
For practical purposes that is true. The economy of the Confederacy is almost entirely dependent on agricultural exports. Said exports can only be exported via shipping. The Confederacy simply lacks the industrial ability to build their own naval and commercial vessels let alone man them and supply enough soldiers to the Confederate Army.
Yes the Confederate Navy had raiders but because the Confederacy only had belligerent status ( also @Waterloo50 ) the Confederacy can not in the long run maintain their military craft. For example the CSS Alabama is undergoing dry dock repairs in the French port of La Harve (?)but once the US Consulate finds out the Alabama has at most only 72 hours in which to leave right in to the waiting arms of the Kearsarge.
Had France full diplomatic relations with the Confederacy then the Alabama could of stated until the repairs were done and might of stood a chance against the Kearsarge.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top