Still havent seen any proof it was or wasnt. Just some dictionary definitions and opinions. Without question the belligerent status is a certainty. It had many of the characteristics of a nation state. Where is the proof recognition was a requirement?
There is zero proof because there is no such requirement. And the Declaration of Independence emphatically says so.
I checked 23 definitions for "nation" -- not a one required recognition by anyone, except the people claiming to be the nation.
How about survival?
Is, or was, the CSA a nation, even though it did not survive? That in it's brief attempt at independence, it was never recognized as a free and sovereign nation by any nation on the world stage?
Right. And American Independence Day is not July 4th, but rather, February 6, the day France finally extended diplomatic recognition. What rot.
The Confederacy did not survive in it's attempt to become a sovereign, independent, slaveholding nation.
The United States has survived.
There is a difference, I assure you.
But then, Virginians 'opened the door' when they themselves illegally attempted to secede. The separation of West Virginia from Virginia was another of the unforeseen consequences of war.
Changing topics again because your argument failed so badly?
Your claim was that the CSA was not a sovereign state because it did not enter into diplomatic relations with another sovereign state.
I countered and utterly destroyed that rubbish by citing the example of American Independence.
Nope, you didn't.
Then you counter with your lame "might is right" tripe.
Nope. Simply stated an obvious fact.
When the Confederacy decided to fight on the battlefield in defense of slavery, the "might makes right" option is the one they decided on.
It was the 'lame' choice' in my opinion, as I see no current nation with the title, "Confederate States of America."
Actually, it would take a law degree to establish that illegal tactics were employed. West Virginia's statehood and claim to some recalcitrant counties actually did pass legal review in subsequent years, but perhaps even now you can appeal, on the basis that was "shady." Great legal precedent there.
And you really don't understand Lincoln. He was against West Virginia coming in as a new state because it would have been a slave state as first proposed. Anyway Lincoln was not behind everything that happened to Virginia at that time, while Secessionists and the Confederacy were behind most of what happened to Virginia at that time.
No, the CSA had no wish to enter into a war with the United States, or any of them for that matter.
I suggest a reading of the book, The Beginning And The End: The Civil War Story Of Federal Surrenders Before Fort Sumter And Confederate Surrenders After Appomattox, by Dayton Pryor.
All they wanted was to be let alone.
See the above book.
And if "might makes right" is your code,
Not mine, @Kelly, the Confederacy's.
then what, exactly, is your problem with slavery?
I think it an unjust institution, not a worthy cause to seek nationhood over, especially by violence and civil war.
It's just another manifestation of that same "might makes right" doctrine you so adore.
No, it's not, as the "might makes right" theory seemed, to me anyway, to be employed by the Confederacy because it knew it could justify and constitutional or legal method to separate from the United States. So, no, I don't adore it.
I merely acknowledge that the Confederacy employed such a doctrine for one of the worst reasons ever imagined by civilized people.
If they wanted to be left alone they should not have fired at a US fort on US soil.No, the CSA had no wish to enter into a war with the slave republic of United States, or any of them for that matter. All they wanted was to be let alone.
If they wanted to be left alone they should not have fired at a US fort on US soil.
(Fort Sumter was not part of South Carolina)