Oops, big lump of your posts....

[wilber6150]

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

Easily no, it's alluded and spoken about several times in the secession meetings,then nothing is spoken about it after Sumter..I think the key search words were border state confederacy, I can loom after work if you want

 

[Andersonh1]

Let me throw a monkey wrench into everything as I get ready to leave for work. I believe that some of the Indian nations at the time of the Civil War had signed treaties of peace with the United States yet were not under any Federal jurisdiction. They sure weren't allowed to vote nor were they taxed. Would not the Constitution's supremacy clause in Article VI acknowledge at that time those Indian nations as sovereigns? I'm out of here and got to go to work.

That was how it worked at first, yes. The Cornell Law Review has a good summary of how things changed over time.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2507&context=clr

The European powers conducted their early dealings with the tribes of North America on a government-to-government basis, recognizing the independent sovereign authority of the Indian Nations. This recognition led to the practice of entering into treaties with the tribes, a practice that the colonies continued when they became the United States of America. This approach made sense for the early settlers, who were small in number and often depended upon the larger Indian tribes for protection from the smaller tribes on whose land they had encroached. These early relations were the last time that Indian tribes held the status of truly independent sovereigns. Indeed, these early treaties represent the last time that their relationships with non-Indians were well defined and at least partially consensual. Significant cultural differences and the settlers' cries for land soon generated conflicts that resulted in the elimination of much of tribal sovereignty.​

​

In other words, the European and US governments treated the Indians as sovereign governments until they wanted their land, and until they were strong enough to not need them any more. Then things changed. The Supreme Court in the early 1800s ruled in three cases that ended the Federal government's recognition of tribal sovereignty. Indian tribes were declared to be under the authority of the United States. As settlers wanted land in the west, Indian tribes were asked to move, and then forced, and then over time the US government just quit honoring treaties or dealing with Indian nations on an individual basis at all. They just took all the land they wanted and killed the Indians or put them in reservations.

At the time that the CS established treaties with the various Indian nations, all of this had been going on for decades. The US government would once have seen the Indian nations as equal governments, but not by 1861. They didn't need to any more. Therein lies one of the problems of tying a nation's existence to the recognition of other nations. "Might makes right" often overrides all other concerns.

 

[unionblue]

It still seems to me foreign recognition isn't the same as "existence" as the OP referred to in not existing at all, which seems to imply in any form..

@archieclement ,

I am willing to conclude the rebellion existed for four years, that an entity calling itself the Confederate States of America, attempted through armed rebellion to establish itself as an independent, sovereign, nation. But as history records, it failed to do such.

As I said before the Continental Congress formed in 1775, declared Independence in 1776, passed Articles of Confederation in 1777, wasn't recognized by France until December 17 1777...……..yet it seems to me it still clearly did exist as a political entity well before Dec 17th 1777...…....

But to me, therein lies the difference. The American colonies, as represented by the Continental Congress, did gain recognition as an independent, sovereign nation, after seven years of struggle to gain that independence.

The OP didn't specify as a recognized nation, but seemed to imply it didn't exist in any form.....

True.

which seems overreaching to me. Many revolutionary forces clearly exist even if not recognized nation states and can even enter into formal negotiations. Even being recognized a belligerent clearly indicates a form of existence...…….

Agreed, a form of recognition, but more like waiting for the belligerent to earn it's formal recognition by successfully establishing itself by winning it's independence.

Which the Confederacy was unable to do.

Unionblue

 

[ebg12]

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.

Those who marched under the Confederate flag where identified as the "traitor" by the Union soldiers who fought under the American "Stars & Stripes." The later song/chanted "Battle Cry of Freedom

 

[Potomac Pride]

And I asked to what extent this coercion was related to slavery.
Certainly without slavery there no coercion.

The opposition to federal coercion by the state of Virginia was separate from the issue of slavery. If you look at the anti - coercion resolution from Virginia it states: “Resolved by the general assembly of Virginia, that the Union being formed by the assent of the sovereign states respectively, and being consistent only with freedom and the republican institutions guaranteed to each, cannot and ought not to be maintained by force."

Virginia believed that coercion was a violation of the sovereignty of the states that was an original part of the Constitution. Since the Union was formed voluntarily by the states, then any attempt to maintain the Union through force went against the nature of the Constitution.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

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.

A thousand pardons. I found your own statement a bit abstruse and thought you must have meant something else.

Confusion compounded!

 

[jgoodguy]

The opposition to federal coercion by the state of Virginia was separate from the issue of slavery. If you look at the anti - coercion resolution from Virginia it states: “Resolved by the general assembly of Virginia, that the Union being formed by the assent of the sovereign states respectively, and being consistent only with freedom and the republican institutions guaranteed to each, cannot and ought not to be maintained by force."

Virginia believed that coercion was a violation of the sovereignty of the states that was an original part of the Constitution. Since the Union was formed voluntarily by the states, then any attempt to maintain the Union through force went against the nature of the Constitution.

Coercion was dependent on the existence of the Slave States.

 

[Viper21]

Agreed, We went to see grandmother most every Sunday. Little one horse town then, nothing like today. She lived on Grant Ave. Till the day he died dad never could figure out who or why it was named Grant.

Same..! My Grandmother lived in West Springfield. What I'd give to go back in time for just one of her meals, & company.

I was horrified a couple years ago when, on a trip up to NOVA, I stopped by her old house. They cut all the trees down, & I could hardly recognize the place Not to mention, the place is a metropolis now...!

 

[Viper21]

Edited. these days if you are from Fairfax you might as well be a Yankee.

Yes, the traffic is very difficult, and the land prices are high. But that's because there are jobs here. But that's why so few people who live here are from here.

I agree. I wish NoVA would secede from the rest of Virginia Take Fairfax, Loudon, & Prince William Counties. Y'all can have Arlington too.

I haven't lived there in over 35yrs. I wouldn't live there today, if you gave me the nicest house in the county, & a 7 figure job

 

[jgoodguy]

Easily no, it's alluded and spoken about several times in the secession meetings,then nothing is spoken about it after Sumter..I think the key search words were border state confederacy, I can loom after work if you want

Thanks, I'll look.

 

[Viper21]

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

Did all of Virginia get a voice in West Virginia's secession from VA..?

 

[unionblue]

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

"There never was, and probably never will be, a more interesting subject of political study than the present condition of America. Every problem of the past, and every political difficulty of the present, is there working itself out visibly before our eyes...
And amidst all these difficulties, the American people alone in history have to work out, not in the course of ages but at once, the problem which is older than any form of government now in existence, the extinction of human slavery."

Source: An article from the London Spectator, December 28, 1861.

 

[Robin Lesjovitch]

I think you were closer to the truth in that they feared the large black population more than anything else. They did nothing to promote international shipping or pacific expansion. All internal improvements were to get interior exports to Charleston to be shipped in New England or British ships.
If any Southern state was interested in a TRR it was Arkansas but even then the view was to the east and Atlantic ports. South Carolina already had a port and timber but did it make ships ?
Everybody interested in a TRR was willing to wait or block until a federal effort was made , through regionally preferred areas, by the feds. Nobody wanted it enough to pay for it except, Californians. All other efforts were to get exports to Atlantic ports. New Orleans was even getting shut out and had to try to intercept some of the trade going up the Mississippi instead of down it , and through the Great Lakes to the Atlantic.
We had a RR across panama in 1855 and a road across Mexico in 1858 (?), both from private investors.

Things are more complicated.
SC was not the melodramatic monomaniac it sometimes seemed to be. It understood the danger of being in a country, with the interwoven economy it had, that might become uninterested in SC's security issues. White SC was in trouble, and it saw only its own wits as a way out. Even SC's immediate neighbors, except maybe Georgia, were not that sympathetic.
Yes, it was private investment that was needed. But so long as SC was part of the US economy, private investors would see no reason to compete with Northern money. It was way too risky to take on the established order. And that Northern money would stay on the points of production that did not compete with other investments.
Ships and railroads needed capital investment. That wasn't coming if SC remained in the US. Ship building was a long term industry and railroads had become something like a board game in the US. SC felt it needed the security of its own independent self determination.

 

[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

Did all of Virginia get a voice in West Virginia's secession from VA..?

While VA 'seceded' from the United States, West VA 'seceded' from the CSA.

 

[Viper21]

While VA 'seceded' from the United States, West VA 'seceded' from the CSA.

How could they do that if the CSA didn't exist..?

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress​

 

[16thVA]

West Virginia, as I have said before, never "seceded" from Virginia.

Statehood vote, percentage of "for" votes per county in red.

Doing something like this in time of war is war profiteering on a grand scale by a small percentage of citizens. If the Wheeling government had been a Confederate government it would have been exposed by historians decades ago.

The Unionist delegate from Wood County, John Jay Jackson, a Richmond delegate who voted No on secession, expressed the views of many who opposed the partition of Virginia.

 

[jgoodguy]

How could they do that if the CSA didn't exist..?

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress​

I'm not a CSA denier. It existed and West VA left it. I don't recall VA going to court to test the Constitutionality of leaving the US.

 

[jgoodguy]

West Virginia, as I have said before, never "seceded" from Virginia.

The claim by West VA was that it was the creature of the US State of VA. Since VA never left the US under US law, then there was no secession, just a division of a State with permission of the State government.

 

[Viper21]

The claim by West VA was that it was the creature of the US State of VA. Since VA never left the US under US law, then there was no secession, just a division of a State with permission of the State government.

Are you serious..?

The formation of West Virginia, & the US acceptance of it, as a state, was corruption at it's finest.

 

[Stratagemo]

I share a similar view, that the CSA did exist as a political entity. That is, it built a funcitoning government, a political system, an army, a navy, etc. So, in my view, it existed as a country, albeit for a relatively short period of time.

I agree that the CSA was not formally recognised by international powers (particularly the ones that really mattered at the time) but for me I'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic at hand. What I mean by this is that if the CSA had won the war and gained its independence, international recognition would, very likely, have followed. I believe that formal recognition and support were not going to come unless the CSA won the war first.

If you wanted to be very technical about what the CSA was, it might be called a "region in revolt". But, I don't think this is immensely accurate as the political/national system the CSA built was quite sophisticated.

So in my opinion, for as long as it lasted, it was a nation.