Oops, big lump of your posts....


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Status
Not open for further replies.

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,128
Location
SF Bay Area
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.
An excellent question, whatever our individual views it was indeed something and something significant in effort, presence, and especially action.

Along your lines, I think nation and country are indeed very broad terms that might fit. Though I might personally use a narrower definition of nation or country on the grounds of being more useful.

In which case I would propose a comparison. If the US lost the American Revolution and re-submitted, would we still think of the "United States of America" as a Nation, just a failed rebellion, etc?

Depending on the answer to that question I would most concisely label the Confederacy as either

a) An attempted Nation
b) A failed Nation

Personally I would lean towards a (though understand b as a possible fit also). I think a more useful definition of a "Nation" or a "Country" is something that must meet some more specific narrowing specifications. Probably one of these:

1) It exists outside of wartime, basically it can be observed as a "nation" as a peacetime entity for a certainly length of time, say for at least a year or so outside of major military conflict (but also existed in total for something longer as well).
2) It exists and sustains for a certain length of time, probably at least 10+ years. In this case it wouldn't have qualified under #1, so an alleged Nation that started in war and ever only existed in war is more of a military entity rather than a Nation IMHO.
3) Recognition as a Nation from the Nation it split from.
4) Recognition as a Nation from multiple key Nations. So it's home Nation denies it, but it's peers or superiors in relevant international context recognize it.

Basically meeting a subset of requirements I'm not listing here... such as size, believable government organized, etc. Then it must meet at least one of these preconditions before before it grows from a "Rebellion" or one of many terms applied to a military organization or other political organization into an actual Nation.

Sustained rebellions are indeed a thing and we don't consider all of them "Nations" despite their claims. I think if the Confederacy is a "nation" from the more specific context that means many other entities were/are indeed Nations and that creates a lot of noise and then forces us to define a subset of Nations that fit my parameters within that overly broad category (basically the actual useful definition of Nation in how we typically think of it).

Again if one says it was a nation then it was a failed nation. On the other end it really was a Rebellion or again some other term applied to an organization of it's type, then I personally prefer "attempted nation" since I feel it's a bit more positive and communicates the aspiration.
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,395
Are you aware that secession is not being discussed here?
I believe most members are aware of that. The reason they are not discussing it is that it is thoroughly discussed in other threads and would be off-topic here. Those other threads are open and awaiting any thoughts you might have on secession.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,767
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Nope, it's opinion on historical evidence presented by yourself in your previous post# 275.

It's just a plain, historical fact, @19thGeorgia , in spite of all the flowery language and phrases, the Confederate States of America was never recognized as an independent, sovereign nation.

I am of the personal opinion that the political leaders of the Confederacy at that time share some of your own frustration at facing this this conclusion, but that frustration doesn't negate that fact.

It just didn't happen.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,529
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
An excellent question, whatever our individual views it was indeed something and something significant in effort, presence, and especially action.

Along your lines, I think nation and country are indeed very broad terms that might fit. Though I might personally use a narrower definition of nation or country on the grounds of being more useful.

In which case I would propose a comparison. If the US lost the American Revolution and re-submitted, would we still think of the "United States of America" as a Nation, just a failed rebellion, etc?

Depending on the answer to that question I would most concisely label the Confederacy as either

a) An attempted Nation
b) A failed nation

Personally I would lean towards a (though understand b as a possible fit also). I think a more useful definition of a "Nation" or a "Country" is something that must meet some more specific narrowing specifications. Probably one of these:

1) It exists outside of wartime, basically it can be observed as a "nation" as a peacetime entity for a certainly length of time, say for at least a year or so outside of major military conflict.
2) It exists and sustains for a certain length of time, probably at least 10+ years. In this case it wouldn't have qualified under #1, so an alleged Nation that started in war and ever only existed in war is more of a military entity rather than a Nation IMHO.
3) Recognition as a Nation from the Nation it split from.
4) Recognition as a Nation from multiple key Nations. So it's home Nation denies it, but it's peers or superiors in relevant international context recognize it.

Basically meeting a subset of requirements I'm not listing here... such as size, believable government organized, etc. Then it must meet at least one of these preconditions before before it grows from a "Rebellion" or on of many terms applied to a military organization or other political organization into an actual Nation.

Sustained rebellions are indeed a think and we don't consider all of them "Nations" despite their claims. I think if the Confederacy is a "nation" from the more specific context that means many other entities were/are indeed Nations and that creates a lot of noise and then forced us to define a subset of Nations that fit my parameters within that overly broad category (basically the actual useful definition of Nation in how we typically think of it).

Again if one says it was a nation then it was a failed nation. On the other end it really was a Rebellion or again some other term applied to an organization of it's type, though I personally prefer "attempted nation" since I feel it's a bit more positive and communicates the aspiration.
Lots of good info and views.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,128
Location
SF Bay Area
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 respectfully disagree. The term "Nation" is a term specifically meant to definite your organization/entity separate from other "Nations". This implies contextual reference to other "Nations" or uses of that term since it's communicating you are none of these other "Nations." It's basically sort of collective system of recognition (since there is no international authority presiding of it).

Basically if only you call yourself and recognize yourself as a Nation the term is meaningless. The power and use of the term "Nation" is in the specific international use of it recognized by other Nations who have the power to collectively recognize each other as National entities.

It's like me saying I'm a Senior <insert word here>. For my own career field let's say I consider myself a Senior Software Engineer (other fields might use the term "Master" or various other things). That means nothing if everyone else still considers me a non-Senior Software Engineer. In effect though we are using the same words of Senior Software Engineer they are in fact two completely different terms/labels. One has value outside of myself, the other doesn't.

Not all uses of the same words are the same.

Many of the entities you describe are considered just "Rebellions" or something similar and various regions have had countless forms of that (including Europe). So much that if they were all Nations then we'd have to have even far more complex sets of maps drawn for every few months of history.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,052
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
With King Cotton and other crops trading partners was not as much an issue (barring India). Was England prepared to enter a third war across the pond in a century?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,767
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
To All,

Some books that might be of interest on this thread's topic.

Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Farber.

Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.

Lincoln And Chief Justice Taney, by James F. Simon.

Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, by Geoffrey R. Stone.

Lincoln's Wrath, by Jeffrey Manber & Neil Dahlstrom.

Lincoln And The Press, by Robert S. Harper.

Southern Rights, by Mark E. Neely, Jr.

America's Constitution, by Akhil Reed Amar.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
With King Cotton and other crops trading partners was not as much an issue (barring India). Was England prepared to enter a third war across the pond in a century?
Certainly trading partners was not an issue has cotton was sought after by the UK ,France and Czarist occupied Poland.
Quite right about the UK being war weary especially as it had recently concluded the Crimean War. Ultimately the British figured war with a major grain exporter plus other trade was not worth the cost of a war on behalf of the Confederacy.
Between smuggled cotton from the Confederacy , plus cotton from the Union occupied South I.e. the Seaward Island's and parts of Louisiana plus British India and nominally independent Egypt the British textile industry could squeak by.
In essence the Secessionists grossly overestimated the importance so called "Kung Cotton".
Leftyhunter
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,395
So what's the point? Most everyone agrees that Lincoln's action was unconstitutional. The argument is whether or not it was necessary as a measure to preserve the Union.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
So what's the point? Most everyone agrees that Lincoln's action was unconstitutional. The argument is whether or not it was necessary as a measure to preserve the Union.
First things first. I am delighted to see the intellectual honesty that recognizes that Lincoln had no authority to suspend Habeas Corpus. But sadly, the rest of your comment indicates an endorsement of the uncivilized doctrine of "might makes right". I do wish you would rethink that.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,767
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"The provision of the Constitution that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it," is equivalent to a provision--is a provision--that such privilege may be suspended when in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made."

Abraham Lincoln in a message to the special session of Congress, July 4, 1861.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
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.
Your the one telling me what is appropriate or not to discuss. Unless your a Mod or an owner you don't get to tell me anything on what is appropriate. Your point about the majority of Colonial Americans being pro British is simply laughable. If that was even remotely true the British would not have to hire troops from the Germanic Principalities or send in British troops from the mainland.
Name one well respected historian who argues that Lincoln stated a military coup.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,784
Location
Laurinburg NC
That's not a good excuse.Plus white terrorism against black people trying to exercise their rights occurred as soon as the war ended.
Leftyhunter
An even worse was, the North had the opportunity but didn't take advantage of the moment to open their hearts and doors and provide a place of refuge from all these supposed terrorized people.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
An even worse was, the North had the opportunity but didn't take advantage of the moment to open their hearts and doors and provide a place of refuge from all these supposed terrorized people.
Millions of blacks did move out if the South. On the other hand why was it necessary for Southern whites to terrorize black people for so long?
Leftyhunter
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
An even worse was, the North had the opportunity but didn't take advantage of the moment to open their hearts and doors and provide a place of refuge from all these supposed terrorized people.
Are you denying that the KKK existed, or that terror by the KKK against black people never happened?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Top