When was "confederate, confederacy" used to describe states that seceded, and why?

ewmail15

Retired User
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
I've pondered the questions over the years, but never really bothered to learn the answers. When did the southern states decide to use terms like confederate and confederacy, and why did they use them? Were they referencing the Articles of Confederation, the precursors to the US Constitution, in choosing those words?
 
I've pondered the questions over the years, but never really bothered to learn the answers. When did the southern states decide to use terms like confederate and confederacy, and why did they use them? Were they referencing the Articles of Confederation, the precursors to the US Constitution, in choosing those words?
I've always thought 'Constitutionalists' would have been a better name.
 
Confederacy is another term similar to union. Such as 'Articles of Confederation'.

So when the several southern states secceded and banded together, they were a Southern Confederacy.
A confederacy is considered to be looser association, especially when compared with the government established under our Constitution which was at best open to interpretation. This was by definition weakening the power of a central government over its constituent states, not to my way of thinking altogether a bad thing.
 
Was it really a confederation? The federal gov't of the CSA was pretty powerful, taking control of the telegraph, imposing conscription, income tax, etc.
 
I've seen newspaper editorials from late 1860 saying that the Southern states should go ahead and form their Confederacy.

I think this term, as we think of it, was several years old by the time of the actual succession. I have never seen any period discussion of any other term for the newly forming country.
 
Was it really a confederation? The federal gov't of the CSA was pretty powerful, taking control of the telegraph, imposing conscription, income tax, etc.

The CSA central government did not have the same power as the USA Federal government in dealing with the member States.
The refusal of the member States to support a supreme or federal court is an example.
 
U(nited)SA vs C(onfederate)SA, as in centralized power vs decentralized (theoretically).
But what you name your organisation often have nothing to do with what the organization is about.

The United Nations are not about Nations but States.
East German was called, Deutsche Demokratische Republik But where not democratic.
Democratic Republic of the Congo have been a dictatorship for many of the years they have been independent.
The DNSAP was not socialists despite the name. (no matter if we are talking the danish or German party)
The Swiss Confederation (Switzerland) is actually a federation, the name is just used because of history.
The CSA was in their Constitution more centralized than the USA. With a number of "states rights" removed. (most obvious the right to ban slavery in their state) A more fitting and honest name would have included "slavery" in the name.
 
Back
Top