Oops, big lump of your posts....

[ErnieMac]

I attached the actual indictment as well...But it wouldn't be the first time Fake News came from the N.Y. Times...

Posted as Moderator. Keep out of modern politics.

 

[leftyhunter]

Not my strong point but doesn’t Belligerent status mean that the confederacy was diplomatically recognised and as such elevates the cause of the confederacy to more than just a rebellion. The confederacy may not have been recognised as a sovereign nation but I think I’m correct in saying that the confederate government was internationally recognised as being a separate entity from the USA.
I’m quite happy to be corrected on that.

Belligerent status means that a political entity can purchase weapons but not receive diplomatic officials or sign treaties with a recognized nation. It can be an obstacle to purchasing weapons I.e. the Laird Ram Affair. It is certainly a major problem for the Confederate Navy has they can only put to dock for 72 hours which makes proper make impossible.
Leftyhunter

 

[Andersonh1]

The Confederate States signed treaties with a number of Indian nations. The Creeks, the Choctaw, The Seminoles, the Cherokee and others. But perhaps they don't really count as nations, despite being referred to as such.

http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/csa_treaties.html

TREATY WITH THE CREEK NATION.​

JULY 10TH, 1861.​

A TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE,​

​

July 10, 1861.​

​

Made and concluded at the North Fork Village, on the North Fork of the Canadian river, in the Creek Nation, west of Arkansas, on the tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, between the Confederate States of America, by Albert Pike, Commissioner, with plenary powers, of the Confederate States, of the one part, and the Creek Nation of Indians, by its Chiefs, Head Men and Warriors in General Council assembled, of the other part.​

​

The Congress of the Confederate States of America, having, by "An act for the protection of certain Indian tribes," approved the twenty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, offered to assume and accept the protectorate of the several nations and tribes of Indians occupying the country west of Arkansas and Missouri, and to recognize them as their wards, subject to all the rights, privileges and immunities, titles and guarantees with each of said nations and tribes under treaties made with them by the United States of America; and the Creek Nation of Indians having assented thereto upon certain terms and conditions:​

​

Now, therefore, the said Confederate States, by Albert Pike, their Commissioner, constituted by the President under authority of the act of Congress in their behalf, with plenary powers for these purposes, and the Creek Nation, in General Council assembled, have agreed to the following articles, that is to say:​

​

ARTICLE I. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship, and an alliance offensive and defensive, between the Confederate States of America, and all of their States and people, and the Creek Nation of Indians, and all its towns and individuals.​

 

[byron ed]

All of Va?

I think we're all a bit past High School History; but whatever: About of third of Virginia, the voting majority in the Western districts, voted out of the Confederacy and became a U.S. State. Having done so, West Virginia fared a bit better for having defended themselves from the Confederacy.

Had Virginia properly defended itself, it too would have fared a bit better. Richmond for sure.

 

[Potomac Pride]

Yes, I see you've ignored all the evidence proving otherwise in this thread, simply restating your assertion despite the fact that slavery was the single largest topic of the secession convention. You've proffered no counter to that. For it to only be about the call to arms, why was the most discussion concerning slavery? Why did they say that they would join the slave states if the call to arms occurred? Why did the commissioners of secession to Virginia state their case in terms of the protection of slavery? Why did the Confederacy offer the honor of the first cannon shot to a Virginian observer? Why was the secession explicitly documented as 'the suppression of the slave holding states?'

If Virginia doesn't secede, then it is very likely that Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Mosby, Johnston, Early, and Pickett remain loyal, or at least don't engage. Tredegar Iron Works, the only major industrial center in the South, doesn't become the armament center of the rebellion. Norfolk Naval Yard is never seized. DC is never threatened. Of Virginia's approximately 150,000 Confederate soldiers, the majority likely don't fight for the Confederacy, just as in every border state more men fought for the Union, including Kentucky were it was 3-1 in favor of the Union.

Deaths were going to occur, but it's a facile argument to shrug off how much difference this would have made in the constitution of the war.

The issue of slavery was an important topic of discussion at the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861. However, the delegates voted against secession by a 2 to 1 margin in early April 1861 when slavery was the main issue discussed at the Convention. However, the delegates also stated they were opposed to any type of federal coercion against the other southern states. Even before the convention met, the Virginia General Assembly had passed an ordinance opposing coercion. The resolution stated that the federal government did not have the authority to make war against the states and federal coercion would be opposed by any means necessary. Subsequently, after Lincoln's Proclamation Calling for Troops on April 15th, the Secession Convention went into special session the next day. The Convention then voted overwhelmingly on April 17th to secede from the Union in direct response to the proposed federal coercion against the other southern states. The Secession Convention considered Lincoln's call for troops to be a federal abuse of power that violated the Constitution. Therefore, the issue of slavery was not important enough by itself to warrant secession but the threat of federal coercion caused the Convention to reverse its original vote and withdraw from the Union.

 

[leftyhunter]

The Confederate States signed treaties with a number of Indian nations. The Creeks, the Choctaw, The Seminoles, the Cherokee and others. But perhaps they don't really count as nations, despite being referred to as such.

http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/csa_treaties.html

TREATY WITH THE CREEK NATION.​

JULY 10TH, 1861.​

A TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE,​

​

July 10, 1861.​

​

Made and concluded at the North Fork Village, on the North Fork of the Canadian river, in the Creek Nation, west of Arkansas, on the tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, between the Confederate States of America, by Albert Pike, Commissioner, with plenary powers, of the Confederate States, of the one part, and the Creek Nation of Indians, by its Chiefs, Head Men and Warriors in General Council assembled, of the other part.​

​

The Congress of the Confederate States of America, having, by "An act for the protection of certain Indian tribes," approved the twenty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, offered to assume and accept the protectorate of the several nations and tribes of Indians occupying the country west of Arkansas and Missouri, and to recognize them as their wards, subject to all the rights, privileges and immunities, titles and guarantees with each of said nations and tribes under treaties made with them by the United States of America; and the Creek Nation of Indians having assented thereto upon certain terms and conditions:​

​

Now, therefore, the said Confederate States, by Albert Pike, their Commissioner, constituted by the President under authority of the act of Congress in their behalf, with plenary powers for these purposes, and the Creek Nation, in General Council assembled, have agreed to the following articles, that is to say:​

​

ARTICLE I. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship, and an alliance offensive and defensive, between the Confederate States of America, and all of their States and people, and the Creek Nation of Indians, and all its towns and individuals.​

No Indian nation was recognized as a true nation by any other nation. Also the Indian tribes were very divided and there were quite a few desertions and defections among Indians who initially fought for the Confederacy. True the United States uses the term Indian Nations but said nations don't have their own defense forces or diplomatic relations with other countries and can not conduct their own trade with other nations without being subject to US tariffs.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

Whereas we are happily at peace with all soverign powers and States:

And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America:

And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the Unites States have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and partial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:

We therefore have thought fit, by [and with] the advice of our privy council; to issue this our royal proclamation:

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.
...
Victoria R
13 May, 1861

Seems some pretty important world players thought the CSA existed....

@Viper21 ,

And yet, never recognized it as a sovereign nation.

I would suggest that Victoria R and her government recognized there were two parties with one "styling themselves as the Confederate States of America," the other, the recognized government of the United States of America.

That's not recognition of a sovereign state. That's diplo speak for "good luck, hope you make it to the big table, but you're on your own."

Unionblue

 

[Andersonh1]

No Indian nation was recognized as a true nation by any other nation.

So they didn't actually exist any more than the CS did, I suppose. I love all these imaginary nations signing treaties with each other and occupying territory, fielding armies and forming governments.

 

[leftyhunter]

So they didn't actually exist any more than the CS did, I suppose. I love all these imaginary nations signing treaties with each other and occupying territory, fielding armies and forming governments.

A few hundred armed Indians is hardly an army. The Confederacy existed as a rebel movement but it never was recognized as a nation.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

The Confederate States signed treaties with a number of Indian nations. The Creeks, the Choctaw, The Seminoles, the Cherokee and others. But perhaps they don't really count as nations, despite being referred to as such.

http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/csa_treaties.html

TREATY WITH THE CREEK NATION.​

JULY 10TH, 1861.​

A TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE,​

​

July 10, 1861.​

​

Made and concluded at the North Fork Village, on the North Fork of the Canadian river, in the Creek Nation, west of Arkansas, on the tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, between the Confederate States of America, by Albert Pike, Commissioner, with plenary powers, of the Confederate States, of the one part, and the Creek Nation of Indians, by its Chiefs, Head Men and Warriors in General Council assembled, of the other part.​

​

The Congress of the Confederate States of America, having, by "An act for the protection of certain Indian tribes," approved the twenty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, offered to assume and accept the protectorate of the several nations and tribes of Indians occupying the country west of Arkansas and Missouri, and to recognize them as their wards, subject to all the rights, privileges and immunities, titles and guarantees with each of said nations and tribes under treaties made with them by the United States of America; and the Creek Nation of Indians having assented thereto upon certain terms and conditions:​

​

Now, therefore, the said Confederate States, by Albert Pike, their Commissioner, constituted by the President under authority of the act of Congress in their behalf, with plenary powers for these purposes, and the Creek Nation, in General Council assembled, have agreed to the following articles, that is to say:​

​

ARTICLE I. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship, and an alliance offensive and defensive, between the Confederate States of America, and all of their States and people, and the Creek Nation of Indians, and all its towns and individuals.​

@Andersonh1 ,

Never fails.

The above gives an illusion of recognition, but by a sovereign power that could amount to something on the world stage?

Hardly.

The US, before and after the civil war, recognized Indian tribes as nations. And that effected relations with Europe how?

The Confederacy knew that without a major foreign power giving it recognition the struggle to be recognized as an independent nation was going to be doubtful. Even the idea of withholding cotton exports to Europe, primarily England, was done in the frantic hope of recognition by blackmail, central to gaining foreign, not Indian, recognition.

Hence their anger at not getting the recognition by England they felt they were due and the expulsion of British counsols from the Confederacy.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

So they didn't actually exist any more than the CS did, I suppose. I love all these imaginary nations signing treaties with each other and occupying territory, fielding armies and forming governments.

Like I said, before and after the war, the US had recognized the existence of Indian nations/tribes. How did that work out for them on the world stage? How much aid did such treaties with the Confederacy help with foreign recognition?

We both know this is not what we are discussing on this thread. It's a footnote about Indian affairs, not recognition of the CSA by a foreign government.

 

[jgoodguy]

The issue of slavery was an important topic of discussion at the Virginia Secession Convention of 1861. However, the delegates voted against secession by a 2 to 1 margin in early April 1861 when slavery was the main issue discussed at the Convention. However, the delegates also stated they were opposed to any type of federal coercion against the other southern states. Even before the convention met, the Virginia General Assembly had passed an ordinance opposing coercion. The resolution stated that the federal government did not have the authority to make war against the states and federal coercion would be opposed by any means necessary. Subsequently, after Lincoln's Proclamation Calling for Troops on April 15th, the Secession Convention went into special session the next day. The Convention then voted overwhelmingly on April 17th to secede from the Union in direct response to the proposed federal coercion against the other southern states. The Secession Convention considered Lincoln's call for troops to be a federal abuse of power that violated the Constitution. Therefore, the issue of slavery was not important enough by itself to warrant secession but the threat of federal coercion caused the Convention to reverse its original vote and withdraw from the Union.

So say 95% slavery and 5% coercion.

 

[OpnCoronet]

According to Alexis de Tocqueville , a French Norman , yes , absolutely !

In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville pronounced the South a society “gone to sleep.” As he steamed down the Ohio River, Tocqueville heard from the free, right, bank the “confused hum” of men at work, while from the left shore came the silence of loitering slaves and idle white men. Slavery cursed southern whites by degrading work and glorifying idleness, Tocqueville argued in Democracy in America. Whites shunned work because it suggested the double debasement of slavery and blackness. In the North men hungered for wealth and worked passionately to get it; in the South people were drawn to the pleasures of the hunt, bottle, and bed. Inevitably, Tocqueville predicted, the North would accumulate the nation’s wealth, leaving the South burdened with problems of slavery and race for which no happy solutions existed.

In other words, the defining characteristic(s) between North and South was Slavery and its effects on southern society ?

 

[OpnCoronet]

Please advise how this addresses the OP.

Please discuss this with General Green.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Not my strong point but doesn’t Belligerent status mean that the confederacy was diplomatically recognised and as such elevates the cause of the confederacy to more than just a rebellion. The confederacy may not have been recognised as a sovereign nation but I think I’m correct in saying that the confederate government was internationally recognised as being a separate entity from the USA.
I’m quite happy to be corrected on that.

Recognition as a belligerent de-criminalized the rebellion forcing the international laws of war and neutrality on both the United States and Confederacy. It also allowed for neutral countries to conduct trade with each side. Had belligerent status not been granted to the Confederate States then the rebellion would have been handled as a law enforcement operation where Confederate soldiers could be charged individually with murder, treason and a host of other crimes. It would have also prohibited trade with any country since the United States would have been acting in its capacity as a sovereign dealing with a criminal rebellion rather than as a belligerent fighting a war with another belligerent. The Confederacy's absence of belligerent status would have also meant that other countries could not offer mediation or have offered recognition. The assignment of an ambassador or its equivalent to a nation's capitol is considered recognition of a state.

The United States Supreme Court recognized the protections that belligerent status bestowed on the common rebel soldier:

"A war may exist where one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other. Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents—the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war. They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign State, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe allegiance, and who should be punished with death for their treason. The laws of war, as established among nations, have their foundation in reason, and all tend to mitigate the cruelties and misery produced by the scourge of war. Hence the parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars. 'A civil war,' says Vattel, breaks the bands of society and government, or at least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two independent parties, who consider each other as enemies and acknowledge no common judge. Those two parties, therefore, must necessarily be considered as constituting, at least for a time, two separate bodies, two distinct societies. Having no common superior to judge between them, they stand in precisely the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms. This being the case, it is very evident that the common laws of war–those maxims of humanity, moderation, and honor—ought to be observed by both parties in every civil war. Should the sovereign conceive he has a right to hang up his prisoners as rebels, the opposite party will make reprisals, &c., &c.; the war will become cruel, horrible, and every day more destructive to the nation. As a civil war is never publicly proclaimed, eo nomine, against insurgents, its actual existence is a fact in our domestic history which the Court is bound to notice and to know."
Excerpt from Justice Grier's written majority opinion in the Prize Cases

 

[RobertP]

@Andersonh1 ,

Never fails.

The above gives an illusion of recognition, but by a sovereign power that could amount to something on the world stage?

Hardly.

The US, before and after the civil war, recognized Indian tribes as nations. And that effected relations with Europe how?

The Confederacy knew that without a major foreign power giving it recognition the struggle to be recognized as an independent nation was going to be doubtful. Even the idea of withholding cotton exports to Europe, primarily England, was done in the frantic hope of recognition by blackmail, central to gaining foreign, not Indian, recognition.

Hence their anger at not getting the recognition by England they felt they were due and the expulsion of British counsols from the Confederacy.

Unionblue

Hi, UB. You could have simply said “tu quoque fallacy”. I really miss the guy.

 

[19thGeorgia]

And yet, never recognized it as a sovereign nation.

I would suggest that Victoria R and her government recognized there were two parties with one "styling themselves as the Confederate States of America," the other, the recognized government of the United States of America.

That's not recognition of a sovereign state.

Yes, sometimes they used that sort of language- "styling themselves as"..."so-called" etc -but sometimes they didn't.

Richmond Dispatch, February 7, 1865-

 

[jgoodguy]

In other words, the defining characteristic(s) between North and South was Slavery and its effects on southern society ?

Slavery affected both Northern and Southern societies/civilizations in vastly different ways.

 

[Potomac Pride]

So say 95% slavery and 5% coercion.

It is difficult to calculate percentages in such cases as this but you could be wrong. The Secession Convention originally voted by almost two-thirds against secession but then reversed their decision and voted by a clear majority to secede due to the threat of federal coercion. Maybe you should go back and recalculate your percentages and come up with a substantially higher figure in regards to coercion.

 

[jgoodguy]

It is difficult to calculate percentages in such cases as this but you could be wrong. The Secession Convention originally voted by almost two-thirds against secession but then reversed their decision and voted by a clear majority to secede due to the threat of federal coercion. Maybe you should go back and recalculate your percentages and come up with a substantially higher figure in regards to coercion.

Let's see slavery was mentioned 1432 times coercion mentioned 230 times in the convention records I'll adjust it to 84% slavery 16% coercion. However, some of the coercion if not all was related to the protection of slavery so as I study the issue we may creep back to 95%

Like this one.

her honor and interest, to restore and maintain it—but that it is proper to declare through the Convention now assembled, her opposition to the coercion , under existing circumstances, of any slave State, and an unalterable determination not to submit to any Administration of the Government in​