Oops, big lump of your posts....

[jgoodguy]

If the majority prevailed in support of WV branching off from Va, did all of Va get a voice in such a measure?

Did all of the United States get a voice in VA's secession

 

[jgoodguy]

Let's not forget that Virginia was planning on presenting a list of changes they wanted to see from the Union or they were going to leave to form their own Confederation of border states

Do you have a link to that quickly and easily available? Thanks

 

[Gene Green]

There were ethnic, national, religious, racial, class, economic, moral, and other differences throughout the states and within different parts of the various states north and south.

Thank you !
Some here don’t like me so I get a thumbs down for saying the same thing.

 

[archieclement]

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?

 

[James Lutzweiler]

Why yes James. LOL.

SC seceded Dec 20th. The speech is explicitly shown to be January 7th. So 18 days.

And he is talking about why SC seceded, this after visits from the commissioners of secession.


He was also quite irked that they attempted to coerce Virginia by declaring that no Virginia slaves would be allowed to be sold into their proposed confederacy.

But then, that confederacy was still a month away, at the Montgomery Convention of Feb 4th.

And of course I didn't state all the non-slaveholding states, it's disingenuous to suggest so when I'm quoting someone else. You'll have to do a lot better than that to discredit the words of the governor of Virginia on the topic of why secession occurred and why all of his proposed remedies explicitly concerned slavery.

You can find overwhelming evidence of similar thought in the various secession conventions, the commissioner's speeches, and the newspapers at the time.

Thanks for your post, Corporal.

I would not strawman you for the world. I withdraw any implication relative to your legitimate complaint.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

Do you have any more of the "arms...have been fabricated, and sent into the slave states" Area of ignorance of mine. Harper's Ferry yes, but more???? Unaware of this.

Good question.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

LOL. Why would you possibly think I'd limit my responses to you based on your construction of limiting my free speech? How abstruse.

And we were talking about a governor, not a President. Therefore your segue is inappropriate.

Feel free to put forward a point. No one owes you a response here, and the Socratic method is always of dubious providence when you have yet to prove your bonafides.

I think you meant obtuse instead of abstruse.

Feel perfectly free not to reply to any of my posts.

 

[jgoodguy]

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

 

[byron ed]

The election of governor Arthor Boremam in 1863...no one was allowed to run against him.

Arthur Boreman was nominated and ran unopposed.

There was no directive whatsoever that "no one was allowed" to run against him. Why fabricate that there was?

Golly at least get a dead guy's name close to right before slurring him. It's very evident how committed Boreman was to the folks of western Virginia. Clue: there was not a long election cycle here, so of course Boreman was a shoe-in. There was nothing shady about it.

 

[jgoodguy]

french revolutionary view ?

Many Americans North and South were divided in their opinions of the French Revolution.

Biggest problem I see running through many of these responses is the use of the words "all." We can generalize about the majority, but the country was far from one mass of homogenized people. There were ethnic, national, religious, racial, class, economic, moral, and other differences throughout the states and within different parts of the various states north and south.

Thank you !
Some here don’t like me so I get a thumbs down for saying the same thing.

Some discussed here
The Differences between the Antebellum North and South.

 

[19thGeorgia]

My Fellow Posters,

...My own caption for those who resort to this kind of debate is "Lost Logicers." But I don't like the euphony of that response, even though I think the caption is correct.
...If anyone has a better neologism for responding to these advocates, I would like to find something better and more euphonic.

Who can help?

James

What about the Diabolic Frenzies?

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads." -Richmond Dispatch, February 17, 1863

 

[James Lutzweiler]

My Fellow Posters,

FYI, I have added a paragraph to my OP. Last full paragraph toward the end of the post.

JL

 

[James Lutzweiler]

What about the Diabolic Frenzies?

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads." -Richmond Dispatch, February 17, 1863

A wonderful post. Thank you.

 

[unionblue]

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

@RobertP ,

I got enough problems with everyday, normal English, let alone any high tone stuff.

Hope you're doing OK, "tu quoque fallacy" and all, old frtiend.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[demiurge]

I think you meant obtuse instead of abstruse.

Abstruse means difficult to understand. That's what I intended to convey.

Obtuse in this context at least, would mean dull or slow to understand.

Different root words, but due to the similar construction , they are often conflated.

 

[unionblue]

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

Richmond Dispatch, February 7, 1865-

View attachment 301543

@19thGeorgia ,

And with all of that 'language,' did the government of Norway and Sweden recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate, sovereiogn, nation?

Like I said before, diplo speak meaning not much of anything.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[archieclement]

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

 

[demiurge]

Do you have any more of the "arms...have been fabricated, and sent into the slave states" Area of ignorance of mine. Harper's Ferry yes, but more???? Unaware of this.

Sorry, I don't have anything on this. I'll see if I can find anything - certainly servile insurrection was on the mind of many of the secessionists, even more so explicitly since the Haiti Rebellion and Harper's Ferry. Whether the allegations of arming the slaves was justified outside the attempt to gain the arsenal at Harper's Ferry I can't say with any clarity.

 

[unionblue]

The British and French also had treaties with these nations.

And? The results of the British and French having treaties with these 'nations' did what for foreign recognition of the Confederacy?

ZERO.

 

[unionblue]

Perhaps because if the US government says something doesn't exist it doesn't exist.

Sure didn't exist enough to help the Confederacy gain recognition as an independent, sovereign nation.