Confederate War Aims

[unionblue]

Lucky for them? You mean the White Yankee, I guess?

I know you need to see it that way, so go ahead and believe such.

In order to sell a thing, you need a market for it.

Yankee slaveholders were lucky to have a HUGE market for slaves just South of their state's borders, Southern slaveholders.

May both enjoy their time in he**.

 

[TnFed]

Lucky for them? You mean the White Yankee, I guess?

Not to interrupt the thread but have a great Christmas to you and those who have roots in Cherokee County.

 

[unionblue]

Not to interrupt the thread but have a great Christmas to you and those who have roots in Cherokee County.

@TnFed ,

Your good wishes are noted and appreciated, even by those of us not fortunate enough to have roots in Cherokee County.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[uaskme]

Not to interrupt the thread but have a great Christmas to you and those who have roots in Cherokee County.

Same to You.

I look forward to my Winter Camping trip, up there abouts.

 

[leftyhunter]

Ridiculous. North had a slow gradual emancipation. Males were emancipated at 21 or so. Well past many years of productivity. NY and NJ kept slave children in slavery until 21 or so. PAID slave owners for clothing and food expenses, giggle, until emancipation. And the biggest gift to the slave owners, many sold them south instead of Emancipating them. Guess they Colonized them?

The North got rid of slavery without benefit of being forced to by US soldiers that's more then we can say about Southern states. Northerners were not willing to fight and die for slavery nor their woman exortring their men to die so they could have free help in the kitchen.
Leftyhunter

 

[uaskme]

The North got rid of slavery without benefit of being forced to by US soldiers that's more then we can say about Southern states. Northerners were not willing to fight and die for slavery nor their woman exortring their men to die so they could have free help in the kitchen.
Leftyhunter

No they did not get rid of Slavery. They just moved it South. North was invested in Slavery as much as the South was. Hugh portion of the Northern Economy was facilitated by Slavery. Negrophobic Northerners just didn't want the Negro in their 99% Lilly White Society.

What did a Californian pay for a Slave. Shoot a Natuve American male. Take his Wife and Children, pay a JOP a $5 fee. He could get $5 for the males Scalp.

Northerners weren't willing to fight or die to end Slavery either. North was lucky they had a large portion of property less Whites. Who could be paid to fight in the place of middle and upper class Whites.

 

[leftyhunter]

No they did not get rid of Slavery. They just moved it South. North was invested in Slavery as much as the South was. Hugh portion of the Northern Economy was facilitated by Slavery. Negrophobic Northerners just didn't want the Negro in their 99% Lilly White Society.

What did a Californian pay for a Slave. Shoot a Natuve American male. Take his Wife and Children, pay a JOP a $5 fee. He could get $5 for the males Scalp.

Northerners weren't willing to fight or die to end Slavery either. North was lucky they had a large portion of property less Whites. Who could be paid to fight in the place of middle and upper class Whites.

History tell us that it was the Union Army not the Confedrate Army that fought to end slavery. A Californian is not some alien creature they came from all parts of the country especially the South. No Southener in the 19tg Cento had a problem with killing Indian's.
Leftyhunter

 

[TnFed]

@TnFed ,

Your good wishes are noted and appreciated, even by those of us not fortunate enough to have roots in Cherokee County.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Merry Christmas to you UnionBlue. I think we might have "met" on the old news and views board. Not many yanks and TN unionist there at that time.

 

[unionblue]

De facto recognition as a legal necessity-

Lord Russell to US ambassador Adams (in reference to the CSA), November 26, 1861:
"Her Majesty's Government hold it to be an undoubted principle of international law, that when the persons or the property of the subjects or citizens of a State [Britain] are injured by a de facto Government, the State so aggrieved has a right to claim from the de facto Government redress and reparation; and also that in cases of apprehended losses or injury to their subjects, States may lawfully enter into communication with de facto Governments to provide for the temporary security of the persons and property of their subjects."

There's also an interesting story about Consul Robert Bunch. The British government instructed him to contact the Confederates to gain their assent to certain provisions of the Treaty of Paris. When the US government found out about it they revoked his authority. Charles Adams (US Ambassador to Britain) in protest referred to the affair as "diplomatic negotiation."


Recognition as a Belligerent Power-

Speech of Ebon C. Ingersoll (R-Illinois), February 7, 1867:
"Gentlemen in the argument of this question seem to forget the history of the rebellion. They seem to forget that the rebellion organized a de facto government; that the States that went into secession repudiated by a solemn act in convention the act by which they ratified the Constitution of the United States, thereby becoming members of the Federal Government. Gentlemen seem to forget that they formed a government which from the very necessities of the case was recognized by our Government as a de facto government. By the laws of war and by all international law we were bound to recognize them as a belligerent power, as a de facto government. We did do it for over four years. Not only were they recognized by us, but by most of the civilized Powers of the world as a de facto government, authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal, to make captures on the high seas, and one whose flag protected those sailing under it. But for that recognition the character of their cruisers would have been changed to that of piratical crafts. They were expressly recognized as a de facto government by the Roman Government in an official communication addressed "to the President of the Confederate States of America"....
Under what civilized Government was there ever a rebellion that rose to the power and the dignity of a de facto government? Was there ever a rebellion that made such head against the established Government as to create a new Government, occupying and controlling absolutely one third of the territory of the entire country? Was there ever before a rebellion that was recognized as a belligerent power by the civilized Governments of the world? Never, sir. You will search history in vain to produce such an illustration. There never has been before this in any country a rebellion which was recognized as a de facto government by the Government, it was contending against, or recognized by the civilized governments of the world as entitled to belligerent rights. But in this case the recognition was complete at home and abroad. The rebel government was recognized as a de facto government, entitled to belligerent rights and protected in those rights under the law of nations."

@19thGeorgia ,

Finally found what I was looking for in response to the idea that "De Facto" recognition is somehow a recognition of Confederate nationhood/sovereignty.

The following is an extract from the book, The American Civil War through British Eyes, Dispatches from British Diplomats, Volume I, Nov. 1860 - April 1862, by James J. Barnes & Patience Barnes.

From Dispatch 304, Lyons to Russell, 4 Dec. 1860.

"...I merely desire to importune Your Lordship with speculations as to the consequences of this event, with regard either to the prospects of this country, or to it's relations commercial and political with Great Britain.

I merely desire to direct Your Lordship's attention to a few practical questions which would be raised at once by the secession of South Carolina from the Union.

The first point upon which it would be necessary to come to a decision, would be the position of Her Majesty's Consul with regard to the new Government. In principle he would, I presume, stand in no official relation to that Government. Whatever may be the meaning of the pretensions of the separate states of this Union to be each sovereign, it is clear that these pretensions do not fall within the cognizance of any Foreign Power. A State which has not the right to enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; to grant letters of marque or reprisals; to lay any duties on imports or exports; to keep troops or ships of war; to enter into any agreement or compact with a foreign power; or to engage in war; can have no claim to be regarded as sovereign by Foreign Nations.

South Carolina maintains that it has only temporarily abandoned these and other rights to the Federal Power; that it may whenever it pleases resume the independent exercise of them. This is, however, a question with which Foreign Powers have no concern. The only sovereignty which they have recognized is that of "the United States of America." At all events Her Majesty's Consul in South Carolina stands in the position of a Consul appointed for a part of the United States, and exercising his functions in vitrue of an Exequatur from the Federal Government..."

So the British Government, which the Confederacy so desperately want recognition from, said the Confederacy stood "in no official relation to that Government," and it could "have no claim to be regarded as sovereign by Foreign Nations."

De Facto all you want, it did not mean recognition as a sovereign nation.

Unionblue

 

[Old_Glory]

We all know why, not all males were people. Never forget cornerstone of the confederacy. It was the millstone around their neck and the millstone around the neck of their modern advocates.

The cornerstone of the Confederacy was cotton.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The cornerstone of the Confederacy was cotton.

no slavery/**** was.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

 

[atlantis]

no slavery/**** was.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

Thomas that is from a political speech. The preamble of the confederate constitution states the purpose of the confederacy. Your kingdom of Denmark which I admire once had legal slavery in its colony but that does not and should not define the kingdom of Denmark.

 

[leftyhunter]

Thomas that is from a political speech. The preamble of the confederate constitution states the purpose of the confederacy. Your kingdom of Denmark which I admire once had legal slavery in its colony but that does not and should not define the kingdom of Denmark.

The Confedracy has to be defined by slavery and **** because that is all they fought for. If the Confedracy was all about racial equality and democracy then they would of immediately freed all the slaves and established full racial equality.
Lef

 

[atlantis]

The Confedracy has to be defined by slavery and **** because that is all they fought for. If the Confedracy was all about racial equality and democracy then they would of immediately freed all the slaves and established full racial equality.
Lef

No it does not have to be defined by slavery and ****. The goal was to create a more permanent union by restricting the power of the federal gov't of the confederation.

 

[leftyhunter]

No it does not have to be defined by slavery and ****. The goal was to create a more permanent union by restricting the power of the federal gov't of the confederation.

Absolutely not true if the Confedracy didn't want to fight for slavery they would of just eliminated slavery. There never was a post ACW movement for independence. Post ACW in latter decades Southern whites were in no way opposed to big goverment.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

Absolutely not true if the Confedracy didn't want to fight for slavery they would of just eliminated slavery. There never was a post ACW movement for independence. Post ACW in latter decades Southern whites were in no way opposed to big goverment.
Leftyhunter

Pro slavery fanatics like Yancey or Rhett were sidelined, market forces would have killed off slavery by the mid 1880s.
As for a post ACW movement for independence be patient it will happen.

 

[BuckeyeWarrior]

@19thGeorgia ,

Finally found what I was looking for in response to the idea that "De Facto" recognition is somehow a recognition of Confederate nationhood/sovereignty.

The following is an extract from the book, The American Civil War through British Eyes, Dispatches from British Diplomats, Volume I, Nov. 1860 - April 1862, by James J. Barnes & Patience Barnes.

From Dispatch 304, Lyons to Russell, 4 Dec. 1860.

"...I merely desire to importune Your Lordship with speculations as to the consequences of this event, with regard either to the prospects of this country, or to it's relations commercial and political with Great Britain.

I merely desire to direct Your Lordship's attention to a few practical questions which would be raised at once by the secession of South Carolina from the Union.

The first point upon which it would be necessary to come to a decision, would be the position of Her Majesty's Consul with regard to the new Government. In principle he would, I presume, stand in no official relation to that Government. Whatever may be the meaning of the pretensions of the separate states of this Union to be each sovereign, it is clear that these pretensions do not fall within the cognizance of any Foreign Power. A State which has not the right to enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; to grant letters of marque or reprisals; to lay any duties on imports or exports; to keep troops or ships of war; to enter into any agreement or compact with a foreign power; or to engage in war; can have no claim to be regarded as sovereign by Foreign Nations.

South Carolina maintains that it has only temporarily abandoned these and other rights to the Federal Power; that it may whenever it pleases resume the independent exercise of them. This is, however, a question with which Foreign Powers have no concern. The only sovereignty which they have recognized is that of "the United States of America." At all events Her Majesty's Consul in South Carolina stands in the position of a Consul appointed for a part of the United States, and exercising his functions in vitrue of an Exequatur from the Federal Government..."

So the British Government, which the Confederacy so desperately want recognition from, said the Confederacy stood "in no official relation to that Government," and it could "have no claim to be regarded as sovereign by Foreign Nations."

De Facto all you want, it did not mean recognition as a sovereign nation.

Unionblue

Excellent find UnionBlue. His reasoning is the exact same reasoning I've seen in threads on here about states and if they were sovereign.

 

[atlantis]

This letter was written prior to the founding of the confederate states of America. In December only SC had seceded, it was a different situation by June of 61 with 11 states having seceded and formed a confederation with a landmass equal to France, Spain and the low countries.

 

[leftyhunter]

Pro slavery fanatics like Yancey or Rhett were sidelined, market forces would have killed off slavery by the mid 1880s.
As for a post ACW movement for independence be patient it will happen.

We can't know if market conditions would of eliminated slavery. Slavery exsisted in the post ACW South it was renamed " convict leasing". Slavery has survived quite well into the present day.
Suffice to say from 1865 to the present era there was no serious politcal movement for Southern independence.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

This letter was written prior to the founding of the confederate states of America. In December only SC had seceded, it was a different situation by June of 61 with 11 states having seceded and formed a confederation with a landmass equal to France, Spain and the low countries.

Which still didn't result in any nation recognizing the Confedracy.
Leftyhunter