Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,265
Location
Charlotte, NC
One if our posters years ago pointed out that once New Orleans fell to the Union the Confederacy was essentially doomed to non recognition. If the Confederacy can't defend it's most important port then how is the Confederacy viable?
In an earlier thread either Mason or Slidell was grilled by the British on weather or not the border states with emphasis on Kentucky and Missouri would join the Confederacy. Once it became apparent that they would not British enthusiasm for diplomatic recognition waned.
Leftyhunter
The long ago poster was incorrect. If the Continentals could not control New York City, their most important port, how could the US be viable? Oh, yes, they did not control Philadelphia or Charleston or Newport ---- but they still won.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
249
Was there a universal doctrine stating a world superpower has to recognize the nation? The UK nor France were eager to enter the fray on behalf of either side. Did that illigitimize the Confederacy?
In my view, lack of recognition by France and Britain didn't illigitemise the CSA. I still believe it was a nation for as long as it existed.

Ultimately I don't believe that recognition by either country would have helped the CSA unless those countries were willing to support recognition with action, particularly military and naval. Which I don't think would have been realistically forthcoming at any point. I simply cannot see Britain or France risking war with the USA to support the CSA.

I also cannot see the USA discontinuing the military effort to reunify the country, even under diplomatic pressure from other nations.

The CSA was on its own to win its independence on the battlefield before anyone was going to come running to 'help'.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,265
Location
Charlotte, NC
Yes in the sense that new nations historically are very eager ti seek diplomatic relations with major powers. Diplomatic Recognition is not a slam dunk for military intervention in behalf of a Nation but it is certainly a precursor.
Leftyhunter
Nations did not require great power recognition to be nations. The CS wanted the recognition of UK and France as a military counter to the strength of the US. A country in Africa, fighting to gain its independence from another country, did not need great power recognition -- it needed enough military success to control its own land. The CS had that much success, for a short while, and tried to get European assistance in assuring that control continued.

The CS was a country in every way -- it was just conquered by its enemy after only 4 years of existence.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,367
Location
los angeles ca
Luxembourg was around in the 1860s with the same limitations. If recognization makes the CSA a nation/country, then Luxembourg is important. Once we move the goalposts then where do we stop? You have a good point for practical considerations, but we end up with unless Britain and/or France recognizes the CSA, it is not a nation.
For practical purposes that is true. The economy of the Confederacy is almost entirely dependent on agricultural exports. Said exports can only be exported via shipping. The Confederacy simply lacks the industrial ability to build their own naval and commercial vessels let alone man them and supply enough soldiers to the Confederate Army.
Yes the Confederate Navy had raiders but because the Confederacy only had belligerent status ( also @Waterloo50 ) the Confederacy can not in the long run maintain their military craft. For example the CSS Alabama is undergoing dry dock repairs in the French port of La Harve (?)but once the US Consulate finds out the Alabama has at most only 72 hours in which to leave right in to the waiting arms of the Kearsarge.
Had France full diplomatic relations with the Confederacy then the Alabama could of stated until the repairs were done and might of stood a chance against the Kearsarge.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,242
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Many people have been guilty of crimes without being convicted of them throughout human history. People can certainly respect and honor their ancestors, but you cannot honor them while declaring they never did what they did.
I agree. Sherman, Sheridan, & Hunter are great examples :whistling:
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,367
Location
los angeles ca
Nations did not require great power recognition to be nations. The CS wanted the recognition of UK and France as a military counter to the strength of the US. A country in Africa, fighting to gain its independence from another country, did not need great power recognition -- it needed enough military success to control its own land. The CS had that much success, for a short while, and tried to get European assistance in assuring that control continued.

The CS was a country in every way -- it was just conquered by its enemy after only 4 years of existence.
I am some what familiar with modern African history. If the Mods don't mind can you please provide specific examples or you and or others can start a PM thread.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,367
Location
los angeles ca
There is also international trading, lending, etc., but could also occur after the nation has been formalized.
Certainly but in the case of the Confederacy there was only the Earlanger (sp?) loan. Yes non nations can have trade with recognized nations but it is not easy and it is far preferable to have formal diplomatic relations with one's trade partners.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,367
Location
los angeles ca
The long ago poster was incorrect. If the Continentals could not control New York City, their most important port, how could the US be viable? Oh, yes, they did not control Philadelphia or Charleston or Newport ---- but they still won.
With massive military intervention by two at the time military super powers Spain and France plus financial aid from the Netherlands and British forces were stretched thin fighting on the Indian Subcontinent. Also it was difficult to recruit young British men to fight against the Colonial Rebels requiring the British to hire troops from various Germanic Principalities.
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
For practical purposes that is true. The economy of the Confederacy is almost entirely dependent on agricultural exports. Said exports can only be exported via shipping. The Confederacy simply lacks the industrial ability to build their own naval and commercial vessels let alone man them and supply enough soldiers to the Confederate Army.
Yes the Confederate Navy had raiders but because the Confederacy only had belligerent status ( also @Waterloo50 ) the Confederacy can not in the long run maintain their military craft. For example the CSS Alabama is undergoing dry dock repairs in the French port of La Harve (?)but once the US Consulate finds out the Alabama has at most only 72 hours in which to leave right in to the waiting arms of the Kearsarge.
Had France full diplomatic relations with the Confederacy then the Alabama could of stated until the repairs were done and might if stood a chance against the Kearsarge.
Leftyhunter
Unless France is a belligerent in the Civil War the limits on the Alabama are unchanged recognition or not.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
then
He could have been, there's nothing in the Appomattox terms prohibiting post war charges, he had no authority to offer terms other then immediate surrender.

After the fact Grant apparently risked everything to push for his post war ideals of a non vengeful reconstruction......and they blinked
Then why did Lee, when charged with treason after the war, write to General Grant asking if the terms of the parole of Appox. was still enforceable? Didn't Lee realize that the parole terms was only for surrender of arms, and could not help him in his defense against the charge of treason?
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
Are you aware in an unpublished opinion by Taney that Taney was against Secession? Are you also aware that Taney never rendered a judicial decision stating that President Lincoln did not have the right to use force to suppress the rebellion? Also are you aware that other Supreme Court judges that are cited in the Wikipedia article with sources acting as Circuit Court judges affirmed the right of President Lincoln to suspend habeus corpus?
Leftyhunter


Are you aware that secession is not being discussed here? Are you also aware that among the enumerated powers of Article II, there is not so much as a single word giving the power to the president to suspend habeas corpus? Are you also aware that in the entirety of the Constitution, there is not so much as a single word which makes secession unlawful? And are you aware that there is no source prior to Lincoln's military junta of 1861, not one, which recognizes the right of the president to suspend habeas corpus?
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,367
Location
los angeles ca
Are you aware that secession is not being discussed here? Are you also aware that among the enumerated powers of Article II, there is not so much as a single word giving the power to the president to send habeas corpus? Are you also aware that in the entirety of the Constitution, there is not so much as a single word which makes secession unlawful? And are you aware that there is no source prior to Lincoln's military junta of 1861, not one, which recognizes the right of the president to suspend habeas corpus?
Secession is at the heart of any discussion of the ACW. You might want to find a decent history book there was no military junta in 1861. The majority of the American people including many from the South we're against Secession.
Leftyhunter
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
Secession is at the heart of any discussion of the ACW. You might want to find a decent history book there was no military junta in 1861. The majority of the American people including many from the South we're against Secession.
Leftyhunter
I'll decide when it's appropriate to discuss secession and will take no guidance from you on the matter. As for Lincoln's military junta of 1861, you better read some history books to learn about it. Oh, and the majority of the slave-owners and people were against treason in 1776.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top