Do the Confederates form a new nation?

[matthew mckeon]

This is more of Gallagher's presentation to us. If I'm misrepresenting his thinking, its my bad.

He argues the Civil War was a conflict between two mid 19th century republics. One is the United States of America, founded 85 years before, and the other is the Confederate States of America, which lasted four years. While he understands Lincoln's argument that the states couldn't leave the Union, and never left the Union, and that the Civil War was an action by rebellious individuals within the states, he thinks it isn't a useful way to understand how and why the Confederates acted as they did

 

[matthew mckeon]

One of the consequences for us was that Gallagher never uses the term "southerner" or "northerner," and seldom "Union". Instead he says "The United States" and "The Confederates." The Union Army is usually referred as "The United States Army," and the free states and loyal slave states, "The United States."

 

[leftyhunter]

This is more of Gallagher's presentation to us. If I'm misrepresenting his thinking, its my bad.

He argues the Civil War was a conflict between two mid 19th century republics. One is the United States of America, founded 85 years before, and the other is the Confederate States of America, which lasted four years. While he understands Lincoln's argument that the states couldn't leave the Union, and never left the Union, and that the Civil War was an action by rebellious individuals within the states, he thinks it isn't a useful way to understand how and why the Confederates acted as they did

One would think what the Confederates wrote in their own words especially the Ordinances of Secession would tell us why the Confederacy seceeded.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

I like the terminology.

 

[leftyhunter]

One of the consequences for us was that Gallagher never uses the term "southerner" or "northerner," and seldom "Union". Instead he says "The United States" and "The Confederates." The Union Army is usually referred as "The United States Army," and the free states and loyal slave states, "The United States."

Gallagher may be right. The Union military had several hundred thousand Southern born men black and white in its ranks.
The Confederacy had Northern men in it's ranks but in the low thousands. Both sides had border state men but more so the Union
Leftyhunter

 

[MattL]

This is more of Gallagher's presentation to us. If I'm misrepresenting his thinking, its my bad.

He argues the Civil War was a conflict between two mid 19th century republics. One is the United States of America, founded 85 years before, and the other is the Confederate States of America, which lasted four years. While he understands Lincoln's argument that the states couldn't leave the Union, and never left the Union, and that the Civil War was an action by rebellious individuals within the states, he thinks it isn't a useful way to understand how and why the Confederates acted as they did

I like the terminology.

Agreed. Whether or not they did form a "Nation" legally, technically, etc it's certainly a useful conceptual approach.

I've found Gallagher very reasoned in the what I've watched and listened, going to have to re-listen to his Civil War Great Courses lecture (I have it on audible), it's really a good 24 hours packed with information.

 

[MattL]

Gallagher may be right. The Union military had several hundred thousand Southern born men black and white in its ranks.
The Confederacy had Northern men in it's ranks but in the low thousands. Both sides had border state men but more so the Union
Leftyhunter

Good examples of how Northern and Southern are inefficient terms (other than their actual use beyond US vs Confederacy). Also Southerners in the South that didn't support the Confederacy. They are still Southerners.

I know after listening to Gallagher I've found myself referring to the Union as the US more.

 

[Pat Young]

Good examples of how Northern and Southern are inefficient terms (other than their actual use beyond US vs Confederacy). Also Southerners in the South that didn't support the Confederacy. They are still Southerners.

I know after listening to Gallagher I've found myself referring to the Union as the US more.

I don't think that the Confederacy was a nation at all. It was a political movement. It was not identical to The South. Roughly a third of all Southerners were held in bondage and many whites dissented from the Confederate movement. Hundreds of thousands of Southerners fought to keep their states in the United States.

I try to never use the term "Southern" for "Confederate."

I also never use the term "Yankee" for Union or United States.

 

[gem]

This is more of Gallagher's presentation to us. If I'm misrepresenting his thinking, its my bad.

He argues the Civil War was a conflict between two mid 19th century republics. One is the United States of America, founded 85 years before, and the other is the Confederate States of America, which lasted four years. While he understands Lincoln's argument that the states couldn't leave the Union, and never left the Union, and that the Civil War was an action by rebellious individuals within the states, he thinks it isn't a useful way to understand how and why the Confederates acted as they did

I must have missed the initial discussion, which presentation are you referring to?

 

[leftyhunter]

I don't think that the Confederacy was a nation at all. It was a political movement. It was not identical to The South. Roughly a third of all Southerners were held in bondage and many whites dissented from the Confederate movement. Hundreds of thousands of Southerners fought to keep their states in the United States.

I try to never use the term "Southern" for "Confederate."

I also never use the term "Yankee" for Union or United States.

To be fair to the Confederacy most secessionist movements world wide have serious internal divisions that end in bloodshed. I don't know if the Mods want modern examples. Point being secession does not always equal nirvana.
Leftyhunter

 

[Pat Young]

To be fair to the Confederacy most secessionist movements world wide have serious internal divisions that end in bloodshed. I don't know if the Mods want modern examples. Point being secession does not always equal nirvana.
Leftyhunter

Slaves were not an "internal division" within the Confederacy, they were people held in bondage through extreme violence. Slaves and slave owners were never part of the same "nation" and nearly all whites in the Confederacy would have been revolted by any notion that they were.

 

[leftyhunter]

Slaves were not an "internal division" within the Confederacy, they were people held in bondage through extreme violence. Slaves and slave owners were never part of the same "nation" and nearly all whites in the Confederacy would have been revolted by any notion that they were.

I wasn't thinking of slaves I was thinking of secessionist movements such has Eritrea and South Sudan.
If the Confederacy had been allowed to peacefully seceede blacks would of been suppressed for a good many years. On the other hand poor whites might become an internal division.
Leftyhunter

 

[Pat Young]

I wasn't thinking of slaves I was thinking of secessionist movements such has Eritrea and South Sudan.
If the Confederacy had been allowed to peacefully seceede blacks would of been suppressed for a good many years. On the other hand poor whites might become an internal division.
Leftyhunter

I am just saying that there was no basis for a Southern Nation.

 

[jgoodguy]

I don't think that the Confederacy was a nation at all. It was a political movement.

Nation is a slippery term. IMHO the CSA was a nation and soverign wherever its army was dominant.

 

[jgoodguy]

I am just saying that there was no basis for a Southern Nation.

What is a 'Nation' in your opinion. Both nation and country have many meanings and shades of meanings.

 

[jgoodguy]

Slaves and slave owners were never part of the same "nation"

We really need a concise definition of nation from you.

 

[Pat Young]

We really need a concise definition of nation from you.

I am working with the fairly traditional notion of nation that you can find in Black's or in most political science books. I went to school a very long time ago and the ideas I learned back then have stayed with me. Here is Black's definition:

http://thelawdictionary.org/nation/

I realize that people use the term nation loosely now. There is a Red Sox Nation and a Hip Hop Nation. Colbert Nation flourished once but now is gone. I am using the term in its older sense. I don't consider "nation" to be coextensive with "country" "state" etc.

The Confederacy, with a third of its people enslaved blacks and two thirds free white could never be a nation. And, if we accept the NeoConfederate notion that "a man's state was his country" then how could a pan Confederate nation be called into being even among the white overlords?

The Confederacy was a political movement whose primary tool was armed struggle.

 

[jgoodguy]

I am working with the fairly traditional notion of nation that you can find in Black's or in most political science books. I went to school a very long time ago and the ideas I learned back then have stayed with me. Here is Black's definition:

http://thelawdictionary.org/nation/

I realize that people use the term nation loosely now. There is a Red Sox Nation and a Hip Hop Nation. Colbert Nation flourished once but now is gone. I am using the term in its older sense. I don't consider "nation" to be coextensive with "country" "state" etc.

The Confederacy, with a third of its people enslaved blacks and two thirds free white could never be a nation. And, if we accept the NeoConfederate notion that "a man's state was his country" then how could a pan Confederate nation be called into being even among the white overlords?

The Confederacy was a political movement whose primary tool was armed struggle.

http://thelawdictionary.org/nation/

What is NATION?
A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.

Appears to me to describe the CSA.
Nation" and "Nationalism": The Misuse of Key Concepts in Political Science
Author(s): Lowell W. Barrington
Suggests the polisci folks don't have a consistent definition.

Wiki says

A nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock") is a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them — including language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity. By comparison, a nation is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group.[1] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[2]

Ernest Renan's What is a Nation? (1882) declares that "race is confused with nation and a sovereignty analogous to that of really existing peoples is attributed to ethnographic or, rather linguistic groups", and "The truth is that there is no pure race and that to make politics depend upon ethnographic analysis is to surrender it to a chimera", echoing a sentiment of civic nationalism. He also claims that a nation is not formed on the basis of dynasty, language, religion, geography, or shared interests. Rather, "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form", emphasizing the democratic and historical aspects of what constitutes a nation, although, "Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation". "A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity", which he famously said is reaffirmed in a "daily plebiscite".[3]

The nation has been described by Benedict Anderson as an "imagined community"[4] and by Paul James as an "abstract community".[5] It is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections. It is an abstract community in the sense that it is objectively impersonal, even if each individual in the nation experiences him or herself as subjectively part of an embodied unity with others. For the most part, members of a nation remain strangers to each other and will never likely meet.[6]Hence the phrase, "a nation of strangers" used by such writers as Vance Packard.

Again it appears to me that the CSA was a nation. Maybe only where its army held sway, but still a nation.

 

[Pat Young]

Appears to me to describe the CSA.
Nation" and "Nationalism": The Misuse of Key Concepts in Political Science
Author(s): Lowell W. Barrington
Suggests the polisci folks don't have a consistent definition.

Wiki says

Again it appears to me that the CSA was a nation. Maybe only where its army held sway, but still a nation.

There is no consisten definition, but even with inconsistencies the Confederacy does not meet the traditional definitions.

Let me ask you, how many people called themselves Confederates before 1860?

 

[Pat Young]

it appears to me that the CSA was a nation. Maybe only where its army held sway, but still a nation.

"Where our army goes, there is our nation" meets no one's definition of nation.