Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
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?
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
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.
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
Since the end of the Civil War, there have been different schools of thought regarding the cause of the Civil War. Below is a list of the historiography of the Civil War which references noted scholars and historians. Some of the different schools listed did not consider slavery to be a significant cause of the war. However, these historians were not considered to be "Lost Causers" as some would label them today. My point is that slavery was an important contributing factor that led to the war but it wasn't the only reason for the war. The belief that slavery was the one and only cause is really an oversimplistic view of the war. Important historical events such as wars can be complicated matters that have more than one cause.

Definition of HISTORIOGRAPHY

1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods

From Civil War Era: Historiography

Definitions
Nationalist School (James Ford Rhodes, Woodrow Wilson, Edward Channing) 1890: wanted to portray Civil War without the "bitterness" of previous recounts. Increasing Nationalism and Industrialism united the country. Conflict was unavoidable. It was the "collision of impersonal forces beyond the control of individuals." The cotton gin kept slavery from dying out on its own. The war had produced an unforeseen result: nationalism and a united America. Slavery was blamed for keeping the South unindustrialized

Progressive School (Charles & Mary Beard, Matthew Josephson) 1927: The uneven distribution of wealth led Progressive historians to disapprove of the industrialization caused by the war. The resulting industrialization caused a new social class system and gave the government new power. The economy was completely renovated and focused on private profit. Slavery did not seem to play a significant part in the causes of the war.

Marxist School (James S. Allen) 1930: Great Depression hits America. The obvious implications of the economy in the U.S. then played a part in the historiography of the Civil War. Specifically, eliminating slavery caused the development of capitalism and the growth of the labor movement. Slavery was not a major cause of the war.

Southern Agrarians (Ulrich Phillips, Charles Ramsdell Frank Owsley) 1930: The Depression is a problem in the U.S. The Southern characteristic of anti-materialism was necessary for the good of the country. Relied on perceptions of the South as an honorable, peaceful community while the North looked like a cold, industrialized area. Claim that Northern industrialists used abolitionist claims for economical reasons.

Revisionist School (Avery Craven, James Randall) 1930-1940: World War I ended and caused the majority of Americans to avoid future conflict based on "greed, arrogance, and national rivalries." The war could have been avoided. It was an evil act that politicians failed to get out of. "Normal" sectional tensions were heightened and ignored. Slavery was purely a symbol of sectionalism.

New Political Historians (Michael Holt) 1960: Political history became a part of historiography. The differences that caused sectional tension were based on things like Protestantism or nativism. Slavery had very little to do with it. When the tension grew to the size politicians could do nothing to ease it, the North and South became each other's scapegoats.

Comparative School (Eugene Genovese, Peter Kolchin, William Freehling) 1990: Slavery's part in the Civil War can only be fully observed and understood when it is compared to the effects of slavery in other parts of the world
 

unionblue

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

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
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.


Edited. 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 the American slave-owners of 1776 and American Independence. Edited.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Yes.
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.

I knew you were stalking me..... :cautious: I took this photo a few hours ago, between Staunton, & Waynesboro on I-64 :biggrin:

enhance.jpg


Wish the picture was better but, it was: WJC 1
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Changing topics again because your argument failed so badly?

Nope.

Your claim was that the CSA was not a sovereign state because it did not enter into diplomatic relations with another sovereign state.

Yep.

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.

Typical.

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."

Unionblue
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Yes.
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.
One secession deserves another?
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
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."

Unionblue


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. And if "might makes right" is your code, then what, exactly, is your problem with slavery? It's just another manifestation of that same "might makes right" doctrine you so adore.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
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.

"It is said the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we can call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the Constitution, and secession in favor of the Constitution.’’
~ Honest Abe
 

unionblue

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

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
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.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Oh dear, as bad as all that huh? Be that as it may, I fully acknowledge that the slaveowning United States employed the same doctrine for one of the worst reasons ever imagined by civilized people.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
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, so even if session was legal, that would have no effect on the status of the fort.)
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
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)


If they wanted to be left alone, they should have peacefully announced their lawful secession from the United States. Which they did.

(Ft. Sumter was the rightful property of SC).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
Top