Do the Confederates form a new nation?

[Pat Young]

Such a society, says Vattel, has her affairs and her interests ; YES
she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; YES
thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights. YES

While I would love to discuss Vattel with you, having spent too much time in his company a few years ago, I will just say that it is difficult to see the conglomeration of people who styled themselves Confederates as creating a nation with a will peculiar to themselves. Most of the Confederate institutions were direct holdovers from the systems that existed in the United States. There was nothing "peculiar" (meaning special or separate from others) about them.

 

[wausaubob]

If it was a nation, it was defined by slavery, a particular version of Jim Crow laws, and racial segregation. If it is a nation, then its participants owe a duty of loyalty to those principals. It is not enough to sustain the definition, because all the other aspects of nationhood are missing.

 

[Pat Young]

The Confederates were a political movement, not a nation.

Let us say that a president is elected that I really don't like. My state and others become part of a resistance. The fact that we don't like the outcome of an election does not make us a nation. The fact that we use armed struggle as part of our resistance does not make us a nation. Even if we temporarily hold territory, we are still not a nation.

 

[Pat Young]

One aspect that sometimes is used to define nationhood that is not in Black's definition is having a distinct religion. Even here, we don't see that element of nationhood among Confederates.

Sure there were Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists, Southern Presbyterians, etc. But just putting the word Southern in front of an existing demonination's name did not make these distinct religions. For other reliions in the South, the unified structure remained (Jews, Catholics, Episcopalians) prior to the war.

So the Confederates had diverse religions, and they took the lazy man's way out by just adding "Southern" to some religions.

And as we know, these religious schisms were over slavery and the humanity of black folks.

 

[WJC]

They were a nation to the extent that the rulers agreed that slavery was a positive good and should be continued indefinitely.
This was very unusual belief in western civilization by 1850 and it did distinguish them.

Does one belief held by a ruling class make a "nation"?
"Unusual", in the sense that others had abolished slavery. Not unique: Brazil- by far the largest importer of slaves during the Atlantic Slave Trade- did not outlaw slavery until 1888.

 

[jgoodguy]

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

Actually it does. If wish to debate me on this regarding the CSA in a separate thread I'd be delighted.

 

[wausaubob]

You are relying on Brazil? What about British No. America, the U.S. North, Mexico, Peru, Columbia, Chile, Argentina, the Dutch possessions, Jamaica, Santo Domingo, all all the rest, to say nothing of Britain and Northern Europe?

 

[Pat Young]

Actually it does. If wish to debate me on this regarding the CSA in a separate thread I'd be delighted.

It doesn't, and no thanks.

 

[wausaubob]

Actually it does. If wish to debate me on this regarding the CSA in a separate thread I'd be delighted.

How does that comprise a nation? It reads like a violent criminal syndicate to me.

 

[jgoodguy]

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?

Not sure how many folks called themselves Citizens of the United States before it was formed.

 

[jgoodguy]

It doesn't, and no thanks.

Noted without comment.

 

[Pat Young]

Not sure how many folks called themselves Citizens of the United States before it was formed.

Neither am I. I don't argue that the United States was a nation even in 1861. It was a country, it was a state. But a nation, I don't know.

I do know that immigrants routinely said that they were citizens. It was a status that they prized. Did native-born accord it the same reverance, I don't know.

I also know that immigrants who became US citizens did not feel that they were no longer members of the Irish nation or the German nation.

 

[Rebforever]

It doesn't, and no thanks.

You seem to be rough riding one man's opinion which appears to me biased and only interesting in changing Southern History. There is enough of that going on now as it is. Not making a discussion out of your opinions bares the facts of your biases.

 

[Pat Young]

You seem to be rough riding one man's opinion which appears to me biased and only interesting in changing Southern History. There is enough of that going on now as it is. Not making a discussion out of your opinions bares the facts of your biases.

I am going point by point through Black's definition. I appreciated that it was segmented to make it easier to respond. Enjoy your coffee. I am off to get mine.

 

[Rebforever]

I am going point by point through Black's definition. I appreciated that it was segmented to make it easier to respond. Enjoy your coffee. I am off to get mine.

Later.

 

[jgoodguy]

I am going point by point through Black's definition. I appreciated that it was segmented to make it easier to respond. Enjoy your coffee. I am off to get mine.

Sounds fun, but a separate thread might be better. Might be one of those times when @Rebforever and I are on the same side. For this thread, Dr. Gary W. Gallagher the inspiration for the OP appears to contend the CSA was a nation as does David Potter before him. Contending otherwise, IMHO is off topic.
Gary Gallagher: Was there a better choice for CSA president

Potter argued that "the discrepancy in ability between Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis" was "as great or greater than the economic disparities" between the two nations and stood as a principal factor explaining Union triumph.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Sounds fun, but a separate thread might be better. Might be one of those times when @Rebforever and I are on the same side. For this thread, Dr. Gary W. Gallagher the inspiration for the OP appears to contend the CSA was a nation as does David Potter before him. Contending otherwise, IMHO is off topic.
Gary Gallagher: Was there a better choice for CSA president

I 'm confused here. The OP has Gallagher contending that the CSA was a nation and arguing that is was not is off topic?

 

[Pat Young]

Sounds fun, but a separate thread might be better. Might be one of those times when @Rebforever and I are on the same side. For this thread, Dr. Gary W. Gallagher the inspiration for the OP appears to contend the CSA was a nation as does David Potter before him. Contending otherwise, IMHO is off topic.
Gary Gallagher: Was there a better choice for CSA president

Discussing whether there was a Confederate nation, which is what I did is not off topic, it directly addresses what Gallagher is discussing. My posting of Black's definition was in direct response to your question of what my definition of "nation" is.

 

[jgoodguy]

Discussing whether there was a Confederate nation, which is what I did is not off topic, it directly addresses what Gallagher is discussing. My posting of Black's definition was in direct response to your question of what my definition of "nation" is.

Is your position that Gallagher is incorrect in his assertion that the CSA was nation?

 

[Pat Young]

Is your position that Gallagher is incorrect in his assertion that the CSA was nation?

There was no Confederate nation.

I am heading out to Green-wood Cemetery now for the Thomas Francis Meagher commemoration, so I may be out of communication for quite a while.

Take care and have an enjoyable day. It is besutiful here and I hope it is where you are as well.