Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 2

Misconception of Beginnings of the War
The Confederacy didn't attack Fort Sumpter they was pushed and egged on by the Union by them being on Confederate property just like we did in the Mexican-American War, also slavery wa one of the least important reason of the Civil War even if it was a major outcome of it.


 * This page doesn't exist to discuss the war, only the article. -Will Beback 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is dealing with the aticle, maybe you wanna read it first.

HEY on the right hand summary section it says the war ended in 1990! fix it

Actually, the initial firing on Fort Sumter was an accident. In fact, American Historian Clint Johnson says that a confederate gun commander actually rowed to the fort in a boat and apologized "profusely" to US Army officers. Less than a week after Lincoln ASSURED South Carolina that Fort Sumter would be abandoned, Lincoln sent two hundred troops to further fortify the fort. "On April 11, 1861, South Carolina officials urged [Fort Sumter] commanders to surrender or... Confederates would feel compelled to open fire on a... hostile fort within their harbor. At 4:30 on April 12, 1861, the Confederates fired the first shells at Fort Sumter... rather than batter Sumter to the ground, a Confederate delegation asked for the surrender of the fort. Major Anderson accepted the terms. The ninety-man garrison was not taken prisoner... Instead, the garrison was allowed to leave for New York City aboard one of the supply ships sent by Lincoln (the two hundred soldiers they carried never disembarked South Carolina" Like I said earlier... let's have some unbiased reporting. --68.18.179.64 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source or I'd post it, but the first shots were fired on the Mississippi River by Arkansawyers.Lee 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about y'll but i still believe fotsumter was the incident that started the civil war and oh by the way the rinforcements lincoln sent i have checked few history books about that were not soliders but foodstuffs--Missionimpossible 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal status of consuls: they have no diplomatic role
CSA Secretary of State Judah Benjamin on Oct. 8, 1863. explained the status of consuls under international law:
 * When the Confederacy was first formed, there were in our ports a number of British Consuls and Consular Agents, who had been recognized as such, not only by the Government of the United States, which was then the authorized agent of the several States for that purpose, but by the State authorities themselves. Under the law of nations, these officials are not entitled to exercise political or diplomatic functions, nor are they ever accredited to the sovereigns within whose dominions they reside. Their only warrant of authority is the commission of their own government; but usage requires that those who have the full grade of Consul should not exercise their functions within the territory of any sovereign before receiving his permission in the form of an exequatur; while consular agents of inferior grade simply notify the local authorities of their intention to act in that capacity. It has not been customary upon any change of government, to interfere with these commercial officials, already established in the discharge of their duties, and it is their recognized obligation to treat all governments which may be established, de facto, over the ports where they reside, as governments de jure.  So Raven was not a diplomat. He was a citizen of CSA which he recognized as sovereign. He could not bind the government of Saxe in any way--he could not make Saxe officially recognize the CSA.  Rjensen 12:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, you are correct, consuls do not have a diplomatic role, they have a consular role. The distinction between the two roles is made in the article on consul (representative) that you recently edited: "In modern usage, a consul is a representative of a sovereign state, posted to a foreign territory, in charge of matters related to individual people and businesses, in other words issues outside inter-governmental diplomacy." A more detailed description of consular functions can be found in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Nonetheless, a consul is still a commissioned representative of his government. It is for this reason that the sources that I cited earlier regard a request for an exequatur for a consul to be de facto recognition rather than de jure recognition, which would require the sending of a diplomatic official such as an ambassador or a minister. Nicholas F 19:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nicholas is correct in the sense that consul Raven recognized the Confederacy. He certainly did--he was a loyal Texan after all. But as he said he did not imply that Saxe-C-G recognized the Confederacy. It did not. But the Duke did not and did not send an ambassador. Nor did the CSA government announce it had been recognized and send its minister to the Duke. Rjensen 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are talking about two different points in international law. If your point is that there was no formal de jure recognition of the C.S.A. by Saxe-Colburg-Gotha, then you are correct.  The Duke's government sent no ambassador or minister nor did it make any formal announcement of recognition.  The controversy over Conusl Raven's request for an exequatur is over whether it represented an informal de facto recognition of the C.S.A.  This is a weaker and more tentative form of recognition than de jure recognition and is implicit, rather then explicit, being based on established common practice and precedent rather than a formal declaration by the recognizing power.  It is possible that the Duke's government, as claimed by Bergwanger claims, did make a statement that the request did not imply recognition.  More evidence to back up this claim would certainly end the controversy.  At the moment, however, the case rests on the interpretation of actions.  I've laid out a chain of logic that, minus any contrary statement by the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha goverment, does support the view that there was an implicit de facto recogntion.  It is not clear from your counter arguments were you disagree with this logic: (1) Was Raven appointed Consul by the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha government? (2) Is an appointed consul an official of that goverment? (3) Was a formal request for an exequatur made by an official of the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha government to the C.S.A.? (4) Is there not precedent, as I've cited, that in common practive of international law that a request for an exequatur consitutes a de facto recognition of sovereignty?  Or is it your argument that while these previous points may be true that Berwanger's claim is strong enough on its own to show that the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha goverment explicitely denied that the request implied recognition?  Zeroing in on exact point of dispute would help this debate just being one of "yes, it may have happened/no, it definately didn't happen".  I look forward to your response.  Nicholas F 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Raven recognized the confederacy. He was a citizen of Texas and the Confederacy (and not of Saxe). He had no diplomatic or political power to recognize anyone, says Benjamin. Raven was not appointed consul to the CSA--no one claims that. (He was appointed some time previously to texas and just kept on going). Exequator was not a formal diplomatic procedure, as the ConfedeSecty of State tells us. Asking for it was therefore not a formal diplomatic request. The Duke apparently never heard of the business because he gave speeches and interviews expressing his support for USA. Rjensen 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that any kind of detailed discussion of these issues is simply not appropriate in this article, which should give an overview of the Confederacy. An article about Confederate Diplomacy would be a good place to iron out all this stuff. john k 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Table of states
The table of states has details on Reconstruction, which have no bearing whatever on the defunct CSA. (each state covers that topic in its article). More interesting was when the state was mostly controlled by USA, so I added that info (but am not positive about a couple cases like Arkansas). Likewise we should tell when Union took over each of those 15 cities. I think Baltimore and St Louis should be added. Rjensen 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

List of cities
I am not sure that Baltimore really belongs on the list as the C.S.A. never claimed Maryland. As for St. Louis and Louisville, although the C.S.A. did claim Missouri and Kentucky, neither state was ever under the effective control of the C.S.A. so it is questionable that they should be on the list. Furthermore, doesn't listing dates when the U.S. took over control of Baltimore, St. Louis, and Louisville in an article on the C.S.A. imply that the C.S.A. contolled them before then? Wheeling is a slightly different case as Virginia did have de jure jurisdiction over Wheeling when it seceeded. Nicholas F 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Places in Kentucky and Missouri should only be included if they were at some point under de facto Confederate control. Places in Maryland should not be included at all. john k 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Baltimore was early on de-facto controlled by CSA supporters, who engaged in military action (attacking federal troops, burning bridges), until the city was seized by force by Gen Butler. So it counts. St Louis was contested territory and Union won. It's more than a nicety--these were two if the three largest and most important slave cities and without them (and New Orleans), CSA was an economic cripple. Louisville was neutral but was claimed by CSA and had a CSA Congressman, as did St Louis. The CSA recruited lots of soldiers from these areas as well. The story has it that Louisville became Confederate in 1865! In a word: it is helpful to readers to explain what happened. Rjensen 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Baltimore saw a riot against federal troops, and was certainly never part of the Confederacy. This is an incredibly dubious claim.  There was a riot against federal troops in New York, as well.  And St. Louis was seized very early by union troops, and was never effectively controlled by Confederate troops.  This all happened well before Missouri's confederate supporters officially seceded.  As such, neither Baltimore nor St. Louis (nor certainly Louisville) was ever under Confederate control (as opposed to Confederate sympathizer control, which is not the same thing at all).  And there's absolutely no way that Baltimore should be included.  john k 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Confederacy claims LOTS of territory it never actually controlled--see the map. delete cities, ok, then delete the map and the claims for "states" like Kentucky and Missouri. For that matter the population numbers are way too high as well because the CSA at no time controlled all the population of even the 11 core states. (for example it never controlled western Virginia.) Rjensen 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Date Jefferson Davis was selected president
The text says "Following Abraham Lincoln's election as President of the United States in 1860 on a platform that opposed the extension of slavery, seven slave southern states chose to secede from the United States and declared that the Confederate States of America was formed on February 4, 1861; Jefferson Davis was selected as its first President the next day."

From what I've read, including McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, Jefferson Davis was selected as president on February 9, not February 5. The February 9 date agrees with the Jefferson Davis article. I altered the page text to reflect this. I also added his inauguration date.

Should the article include the date Davis was actually elected president? If so, the section on Davis being selected president should make it clear that he was only selected as "provisional" president. There was a formal election and inauguration after the war had already begun. My main concern, though, was correcting the error suggesting Davis was selected president on February 5. Agoodall 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Brazil?
I happened upon a website "brainyhistory" that claims Brazil recognized the Confederacy on August 1, 1861. Has anyone seen this claim previously? Hal Jespersen 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Trick question. Yes I've seen it everywhere online, but I've seen no attribution in any case. I've seen it listed as part of online turnbased cardgames. OR doesn't say a word about Brazil, just a complaint by a consul at Ben Butler's attrocious behavior in New Orleans (III, 2). Looking through digitized diplomatic files (in Portuguese) is tough going, but I see nothing like recognition; I see several lengthly statements of neutrality as it regards the conflict. I'll bet Rjensen knows where to look. BusterD 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a very good idea to create a Diplomatic History of the Confederate States, as someone has proposed above, and move all this angel-counting about SCG and Brazil and the Vatican and God-knows-where to that page. Clearly, the essentially issue for this page is that the Confederate States did not recieve robust support from any other nation, and that the matter of official recognition can only be addressed at the level of diplomatic minutiae.  Ethan Mitchell 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more clear, I did not intend to add any Brazil info to this or other Wiki pages, but was merely inquiring about where this claim came from. I have never read it in any reputable source, but it has found its way around the web (and a little Civil War desk calendar someone gave me). Hal Jespersen 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On recognition: the CSA was truly desperate for recognition and would have trumpeted any that it received. It never claimed any. Rjensen 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, OK, that's a theory. There are a bunch of folks who disagree, and they'r all vehement about it.  So I think this is an important enough issue to have its own page.  But it is a relatively minor footnote to the history of the CSA, so let's give it its own page and be done with..  Ethan Mitchell 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No there are not a "bunch of folks who disagree" -- there is not a single reliable source that says so. It's a new myth invented in the 1990s as a practical joke. Rjensen 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was a reliable source that said so, I said 'a bunch of folks disagree', which is god's own truth. A bunch of Mormons think that Jesus crossed the Atlantic on a Boeing, and we have pages about it.  By comparison, the claim that the CSA had diplomatic ties with other countries is both mild and well-documented.  It deserves its own page, if only so we can have this argument without blocking traffic here on more important issues. Ethan Mitchell 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nation?
I think calling the Confederacy a "nation" is fraught with all sorts of implications, so I changed it back to "government", although perhaps a better phrasing is in order than that. The problem is that the Union considered the Confederacy nothing more than rebelling states against the United States, and not a separate "nation" in any sense whatsoever. A "nation" is generally construed as more than just a government, but a people with a common character and identity (and the word "nation" can be used in all sorts of non-political contexts--Nation of Islam, and so forth). In fact, in the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln made a point of using the word "nation" to describe the entire United States, including the South. soulpatch

I don't agree. The South legally sceeded from the union. They were united by more than a government, slavery, and territory. There was a sense throught the Confederacy that they were a single nation, united by ties of blood, idealogy, and natiolalism. How else could you explain cowboys from Texas, indians form Oklahoma, cotton pickers from Georgia, and tobacco growers from Virginia to fight and die along side people thay had never met. Unlike the north, who had mass amounts of immagrents from northern and western Europe, there was little immagration to the South so the people there could trace there roots to the foundings of the english colonies. There was a sense of nationalism and brotherhood that was and still is apart of the way the South sees it's self in this world. It's no different than the fellings of the first americans in the Revolutionary war. And if people think that the Revoulutionary war and the Civil war were fought over different reasons, and that the South didn't have the same right as those early americans than they are hypocritical. Jim

Considering soulpatch's statements, I have to disagree. While Lincoln argued that the CSA wasn't a seperate nation but "our brothers in err", he arguably had political motivations in doing so; in short, he was fighting a PR battle as well as a war. By your definition, the America South is probably the most distinct area of the US, both culturally and economically. Only New England has a group of states similar in culture, speech, and manner. Southerners are instantly recognized by speech, manner, culture, and beliefs. They had good reason to believe themselves a kind of seperate people. DesScorp 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's view on whether the Confederacy was a nation or not is moot. The fact is that succession is legal according to the costitution and the Cofederacy declared it and there for was a seperate sovereign nation.


 * The Confederate States of America was considered a "Nation". The US treated the CS as so de jure in the example when Jefferson Davis was up for treason (not convicted because of his legal obligation to protect his boarders). Also, let it be noted The Confederate Government is still in existence (de jure). This would be a good thing to ask for trivia game on here (hint). But it's also a thing that makes you wonder "why hasn't anyone caught this yet?" Sophion 23:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is POV to say it was a nation. It is POV to say it was not a nation. Say neither. --JimWae 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Map?
Can we get a map that shows what the CSA really looked like [as well as the rest of the world] when it was born? On the map, some of the countries in Europe such as Poland don't even exist. --71.35.88.125 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Edited the map to show 1865 political geography.--RedFoxBandit 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indian Territory (i.e. Oklahoma) and the Confederate Territory of Arizona (i.e. southern Arizona and southern New Mexico) should be added to the CSA in the location map as they both under CSA control in the early part of the war. 71.246.225.183 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Major parts of New Mexico came under Confederate control for a short time, but I don't recall that much of Arizona did. --Al-Nofi 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

the Recognition hoax
I do not know what was here and was deleted, but I suppose this is where I would type this. It says in the article it was never recognized by any country but I recall that it was actually recognized by a few, including Britian. Is it true noone recognized it as a nation?


 * No nation ever formally recognized the CSA. It is a matter of dispute whether the appointment of a new consul for Texas by the Duchy of Saxe-Colberg-Gotha and his subsequent request of an exequator from the CSA government constituted an implied recognition. Some people erroneously refer to a letter from the Pope addressed to Jefferson Davis as "President of the Confederate States" as implying recognition, but this view was rejected even by the CS Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, who regarded the letter as an informal personal correspondance rather than a formal letter from one head of state to another. Nicholas F 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Confederacy never claimed Raven was appointed to the Confederacy. No one seems certain of the date but it seems to have been before the CSA formed in Feb 1861. The Duke of Saxe was hailed by American diplomats as a very strong friend of USA. He never recognized the Confederacy. The CSA never claimed recognition by Saxe or anyone else--that story was invented in the 1990s by neoconfederates. Rjensen 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not advocating putting this issue in the article, but lets put the facts on the table, shall we. The historical record is clear that Raven was appointed as consul for Texas by the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.  The historical record is clear that on July 30, 1861, six months after Texas seceded from the Union, Raven applied for and received an exequatur from the Government of the Confederate States.  It is also clear from the historical record that as a matter of public policy the Confederate States recognized the exequaturs granted by the US Government prior to the secession of the various Southern states and did not require previously appointed consuls to request a new exequatur from the CS Government. I don’t believe Rjensen disputes any of the above.


 * Now for the matters that are in dispute. Was Raven appointed “to” the CSA?  This question is misleading.  Consuls are not appointed “to” any government, they are public officials appointed “for “ specified consular districts and they perform their duties with the permission of the host government via an exequatur.  As a matter of record, Raven made the request for an exequatur to the CS Government.


 * Rjensen’s claim that Raven was appointed prior to February 1861 has absolutely no substance, it a mere speculation. It would have been unusual for an appointed consul to wait six months to request an exequatur. I will concede that it is possible that Raven hesitated due to the unsettled political situation, but again this would be speculation.  The timing of the appointment, however, is rather minor.  More important is what were the instructions given to Raven on to which authority he was to submit his request for an exequatur?  Even if Raven were appointed prior to February 1861, six months would certainly been enough time to give the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha government an opportunity to clarify its instructions to Raven.


 * In the past, Rjensen has asserted that there was something amiss by Raven’s submitting the request on his own behalf rather than the request being sent separately by the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Consuls are minor officials, so it is unlikely that any head of state would personally make such a request.  To show the normal practice at the time, let me quote from the contemporary US manual for consuls to show that it was common practice for a consul to submit his own request if there were no diplomatic official present to submit the request for him.


 * 76. It is the practice of the Department to the consular commission to the legation, with instructions to the diplomatic agent to apply for the exequatur by which the consul general or consul is officially recognised and enabled to discharge without interruption his consular duties.
 * 77. If there be no legation of the United States in the country, the commission will be sent to the consul direct, who will, without delay, transmit it to the proper department, and request an exequatur.  (The United States Consular System: A Manual for Consuls. 1856. p. 40)


 * One is free to speculate that Raven was appointed before Texas seceded and that, on his own, he made the decision to make the request to the CS Government rather than the US Government, but you can’t establish this as fact. If he had made the request against the instructions of his government, it would have been likely that his commission would have been revoked.  There is nothing in the historical record to suggest any displeasure in Raven by the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha government.  The claim by some US diplomats that the Duke was a friend of the US doesn't prove that Raven wasn't instructed to make the request to the CS government, but it may lend some support to Berwanger's claim on caveats presented along with the request (see below).


 * Does a request for an exequatur imply recognition of a de facto governments? Again, let be quote from the 1856 Manual for Consuls, “Commercial agents are sometimes appointed, rather than consuls, for the sole purpose of avoiding the necessity of recognising an authority de facto by requesting an exequatur. “(p. 28)  Previously in this debate, I’ve cited official British dispatches that hold that a request for an exequatur implies recognition of a de facto government.  Let me add three authorities on international law who have also supported this view.  The first is Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, London, New York and Bombay, 1905.  This is still the standard textbook on international law and is now in its 7th edition.  The second is Amos S. Hershey, Essential Public Law and Organization, New York: Macmillan, 1927.  The third is Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.  I can cite others supporting this view.  I will concede, however, that this is still a grey area in international law and you can find authorities who take the opposite position.


 * Where does this leave us with regard to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and recognition? First, it is not a hoax to view Raven’s appointment and request for an exequatur as implied recognition.  A legitimate case can certainly be made for recognition.  Is it definitive? No, but neither is the case against recognition.  The matter rests on several issues.  The first is whether Raven was carrying out the instructions of his government by making the request to the CS Government.  The presumption must be that, minus evidence to the contrary, that actions by public officials are in accord with their duties and responsibilities.  The second issue is whether such a request implies recognition.  Here we are trapped in the murkiness of international law.  There is no definitive answer, though the weight of evidence suggests the affirmative.


 * There is one final issue that plays on the question of recognition. As alluded to earlier, the historian Berwanger claims that the government of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha made it clear that the request for the exequatur did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition.  Unfortunately, Berwanger doesn’t cite the source of this claim, making it impossible to confirm.  In the end, the question of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha recognition is one has no answer with certainty.  We are left with a situation were the interpretation of history is without any absolute authority.  Nicholas F 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CSA and Saxe-Colburg-Gotha
I would like to get some compromise language on this issue. Despite your edit comments, as I last edited this piece it stated that the CSA did NOT claim recognition. Also, my edits are not original research as I cite published primary sources on the point that a request for an exequator has been regarded in international law as de facto recognition. This is an historical fact. Did you bother even to read these sources? I also challenge you to point out exactly what in my edit was false about Raven.

As for your own edits. First, what does Raven's citizenship have to do with the recognition question? He was appointed as an agent of a foreign government. It was not unusual for countries to appoint citizens of the host country as consuls. Second, please either cite a source for Raven being appointed before the war (better yet would be his appointment prior to secession) or remove the comment. Third, unless you can produce a survey of all historians showing that none of them regard the request as de facto recognition, please remove this comment as it is speculation and implies that other historians, besides Berwenger, have even looked at the issue.

Now let's see if there are some facts we can agree on and from which we can formulate a compromise.

1) Saxe-Colburg-Gotha appointed Raven as consul for Texas. [Not the Confederacy] 2)  A letter requesting an exequator for Raven was submitted to the CSA government. [the only document we have says RAVEN sent the letter, not the Duke]

3) It is unclear from the sources who wrote the letter, Raven or the Duke himself. [there is NO EVIDENCE the Duke knew about the letter Raven sent.]

4) If Raven wrote the letter, it would have been in the name of the Duke under his appointment as consul. [NOT TRUE--Raven as consul had no political or diplomatic power, said Benjamin]

5) There is precedent in international law for such a request to be regarded as de facto recognition, but not de jure recognition. [NOT TRUE -- that is originial research and was rejected by Benjamin]

6) The Confederacy never cited this request as a recognition by a foreign government. [right--the first time it was raised was by some unknown person 130 years later]

I believe these are all factual. Do you disagree with any of the above points? If so, please explain why. I really would like us to settle this issue without further edit wars.

Nicholas F 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Raven was not appointed to the Confederacy; he had no diplomatic or political power. He was a Confederate citizen. He could not speak for the Duke and did not try. The Confederates knew all this and NEVER claimed recognition by Saxe. The recognition myth was invented in the 1990s. No reliable source supports the recognition story and Wiki therefore is not allowed to report it. Rjensen 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to perpetuate a hoax, just trying to get to the truth. If you check, you can see that I was the person who first pointed out in the article that Benjamin rejected the view that the Pope's letter to Davis implied recognition.  If I may, I will reply to some of your points above:


 * 1) Raven was appointed consul FOR Texas, not TO Texas. The reference to Texas only indicates the area of his responsibility, not the government to which he was accredited.  (I hope you are not advancing the argument that SCG was recognzing Texas as an independent nation.)


 * 2 & 3) Looking back on your previous arguments, it appears we do indeed have evidence the SCG government sent the letter and that it was not just a personal request from Raven. In your earlier citation of Berwanger, he writes: "In asking for the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." This clearly indicates that the request came from the SCG government, although Berwanger does say that SCG attached a caveat to the letter or otherwise communicated to the CSA that the request did not imply recognition. Furthermore, the apparent need to caveat the request supports the argument that minus the caveat that such a request would normally imply de facto recognition.


 * 4) You are being pedantic on the issue of Raven's diplomatic status. Yes, he wasn't a diplomatic official, he was a consular official.  Lacking diplomatic credentials, Raven could not issue any de jure recognition on the behalf of SCG, but if he was authorized to request an exequatur, then this action would carry implied de facto recognition, unless the SCG government explicitly stated otherwise.  In any case, Raven's official status is moot if Berwanger is correct in that the letter was sent by the SCG government.


 * 5) Again, citing previously published primary souces is not original research as defined by Wikipedia. The sources I provided clearly state that a request for an exequatur normally carries de facto recognition. Benjamin's quote that you use as your evidence makes no mention at all of the recognition issue, only that consuls are not entitled to exercise diplomatic functions, which are distinct from consular functions. Please read the sources that I provided.


 * Your earlier argument that cited Berwanger on the SCG government's caveat on its request for an exequatur for Raven is stronger ground on which to stand than your newer argument that Raven was acting on his own without any authority or knowledge from SCG. How could the SCG government "make clear" that the request for an exequatur did not imply recognition if it wasn't even aware that a request was made? hmmm


 * So where do we stand? I would suggest that it is that the SCG government did make the request for the exequatur.  That such a request normally implies de facto recognition.  But, according to Berwanger, that the SCG government caveated its request, thus overriding the customary understanding normally attached to such a request.  Thus, per Berwanger, the action did not carry any form of recognition by SCG.  We can also add that neither the CSA nor any contemporary commentator ever claimed that the request implied recognition.  I would prefer some confirmation of the SCG caveat, but I can live with citing Berwanger.  Nicholas F 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue here is recognition of the CSA by a foreign government. No reliable source has ever said there was recognition. The Confederacy did not claim it. Raven was a Confederate citizen and he of course did not speak for the Duke--he had no diplomatic ort political power or responsibility whatsoever. Did the Duke write some sort of letter--no one has every found one or given even the approximate date of the letter.  The idea that there was recognition was a hoax invented in the 1990s. Rjensen 02:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the issue is recognition, but that it hinges on the status of the request for an exequatur made by the Saxe-Colburg and Gotha government, not a letter personally written by the Duke. Or are you disputing that a request for an exequatur was made by the SCG government? Berwanger states that the request came from the SCG government. Is he not a reliable source?  Also, you are wrong in stating that Raven did not speak for the Duke.  Although Raven could not speak for the Duke on diplomatic or political matters, his consular appointment gave him authority to speak for the Duke on matters relating to SCG citizens and businesses in Texas. Whether Raven spoke to or corresponeded directly with the Duke rather than through the his foreign ministry is immaterial.  Raven's citizenship is also immaterial as long as he held a legitimate appointment from the SCG government.  As for this being a hoax invented in the 1990s, unless you can show that Raven never received a consular appointment from the SCG government the worse that can be said is that this has been a misunderstanding of events surrounding Raven's appointment.  It all hangs on Berwanger's statement that the SCG government caveated its request for an exequatur for Raven.  Futhermore, even if it can be shown that SCG did recognize the CSA, it would still be a rather trivial matter as SCG just didn't carry much weight in international politics. The CSA might as well have been recognized by King of Tonga as from Saxe-Coburg.  What mattered was recognition from a major power such Britain, France, Russia, or Spain. Nicholas F 02:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Try again: what secondary sources are you using? Any???? Rjensen 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your hang up with using only secondary sources? Wikipedia guidelines allow citiations to previously published primary sources. Is because you are unable to refute my primary sources?  As for the SCG government requesting an exequatur for Raven, I can cite one secondary source with which I believe you are familiar: The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War by Eugene H Berwanger (1994). Nicholas F 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with Rjensen that this doesn't belong, but for different reasons. RJensen has made the mistake of entering the worthy arena of accuracy. However, even if this information is correct and completely documented (and that's not at all the case here), this subject matter is trivia and given proportional recognition has no place on this page. It's too trivial to warrant its own article. Zero importance, okay maybe 1%. There's lots of more essential information which would make preferable addition on this page. Further, this subject matter has received lots of previous talk and consensus is that it just doesn't belong. I don't think any compromise is warranted. Enough already. It should come out, and I'll support any artful deletion. BusterD 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BusterD is correct that it's trivia. But it's also heavy POV from neoconfederate sources that Nicholas F refuses to acknowledge. Rjensen 03:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We can have another discussion on whether it is trivia or not. Personally, I don't like removing items that other have placed in articles (I didn't originate the SCG issue), but rather check on their accuracy. That is what I am doing here.  The amount of discussion generated by these claimed recognitions indicates to me that there is certainly interest in the topic.  I am neutral, however, on whether it belongs on this page or in a separate article.  Rjensen, please do not misunderstand me, I am NOT claiming that SCG recognized the CSA.  All I am trying to do is to accurately frame the issue.  Simplifying, it is (1) SCG requested an exequator for Raven, (2) such a request is normally regarded as a de facto recognition, (3) citing Berwanger, the SCG caveated its request, thus nullifying (2).  Is that so hard?  It has nothing to do with neoconfederate sources.  Nicholas F 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) There is zero evidence that SCG requested anything of the CSA. (The only document in evidence says that Raven himself made the request). 2) it is not true that such a request involves de facto recognition. CSA Sec State Benjamin made that very clear. 3) Raven's letter said it did not imply recognition. 4) we know that the Duke was a strong friend of the USA. 5) We know the CSA and its press never mentioned the episode publicly. 6) We know no historian has ever thought it worthy of discussion (save Berwanger). 7) There is nothing for Wiki to say in this CSA article. Rjensen 03:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a funny way of looking at evidence. Raven was a duly appointed consul of SCG and probably the only SCG official in the CSA. Who else would have submitted the letter to CS State Dept in Richmond? Benjamin's statement does not say that Raven wrote the letter himself, only that he submitted the letter. Benjamin acceptance of the request implies that he viewed as coming from the SCG government. Berwanger states that the letter came from the SCG government. Isn't this evidence of a request from the CSG goverment? You are misquoting Benjamin as his comments on the duties of consuls makes no mention at all of the recognition issue.  Yes, the request for an exequatur was caveated as indicating it wasn't a recognition (funny that you accept Berwanger here but not on the issue of who sent the letter).  If the request was caveated, why would the CSA government bother to make a public statement? Nicholas F 04:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see a vast amount of talk on this extremely marginal subject, so I'll not belabor this any more than necessary. There is only one issue here: inclusion. I for one feel this is trivia (no one has contested this) and unless convinced otherwise with adequate inline citation I'll delete it evey time I see it. BusterD 04:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason neoconfederates raised the issue is to proclaim the recognition of CSA by a European government. That's the hoax part and that is the reason people want to insert it into Wiki. (and the reason I don't want the hoax here--it degrades Wiki.) Apart from that it is the trivial case of a Confederate citizen recognizing the Confederacy and sending in a polite request to continue his status. I suggest he was the consul BEFORE 1861--that is had been appointed to the USA, and now was sending a courtesy note to Richmond. Rjensen 04:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pray tell, exactly what evidence do you have the Raven was consul BEFORE 1861 or that he was appointed to the USA? I'm not picky, either primary or secondary sources would suffice.  Nicholas F 04:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nick, Rjensen, everybody, please gods lets move this to its own page. Diplomatic History of the Confederate States of America.  Just click it, you know you want to.  Ethan Mitchell 18:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The business about the Papacy extending recognition is also bogus. At most there's a private letter from the Pope to Davis, without accompanying diplomatic terminology formally extending recognition. --Al-Nofi 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Six states listed under 'four seceeded'
There had been some very biased editing and incomplete correction regarding the disputed secession of Kentucky and Missouri. East Kentucky, like West Virginia, was pro-Union and both states had a real civil war within the civil war.

I'm not getting involved, but someone should sort this out. Maybe also lock the article against recent or unregistered users.

--GwydionM 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

List of secession now neutral
Kentucky has been omitted. The Confederacy definitely recoginsed it as having seceeded, though the Union side had the better claim to be legal.

Missouri's secession may have been legal, this is disputed. What's definite is that the pro-Union government included part of the pre-war government and had solid support in some parts of the state.

--GwydionM 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Put things back roughly as they were. The previous edit lost Kentucky in Missouri's notes.  --GwydionM 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

GROSSLY MISLEADING
The bold underlined section is worded so as to mislead the reader into thinking that the Ordinances of Secession also stated that Slavery was the reason behind the Secession. I have reviewed all 13 Ordinances and none of the documents mention the protection of slaveholding rights as the cause or even a cause for the Secession. Alabama has this statement in its opening sentences: ...by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions... and  ...the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South...  but this is hardly conclusive that Slavery was the reason. The Texas Ordinance has these statements: ...or to the property of our citizens,...  and   ...strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States,...  but one can hardly conclude that this is an indication that Slavery was the reason for their seceding. So I am going to remove the misleading statement that reads: ...in addition to the legal ordinances of secession adopted by each of the seceding states,...
 * By contrast, Confederate President Jefferson Davis made no explicit reference to slavery at all in his inaugural address. However, in addition to the legal ordinances of secession adopted by each of the seceding states, the Deep South states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas all issued declarations of causes, each of which identified the threat to slavery and slaveholders’ rights as a major cause of secession.


 * --Clay 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're confusing the ordinances - technical legal documents - with the reasons stated at the time. See South Carolina's viewpoint, for instance.


 * Likewise if you check what Jefferson Davis said, you find plenty of explicit defence of slavery up until the actual secession. Then it became a question of looking for foreign recognition, with foreign governments reluctant to support one of the dwindling number of places where slavery was still legal.  Then he will talk about any issue except slavery. --GwydionM 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not confused on anything. I have studied this period at great length.  I'm not questioning the causes, but rather the blatant assertion in this statement: ...in addition to the legal ordinances of secession adopted by each of the seceding states,... as noted above.  It is misleading and serves no purpose but to misinterpret for the reader the stated intent of the Ordinances.  I removed the statement because it is subjective and not neutral, since it isn't grounded in fact.--Clay 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The ordinances of secession were accompanied by "declarations of causes," and all of those stress slavery.--Al-Nofi 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Only four of the 13 States that issued Ordinances of Secession also published declarations of causes.--Clay 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so those states that chose to issue a formal explanation as to why they were seceding all stressed slavery. For the others, just consult the debates in the state legislatures or conventions and you'll find that they too stress slavery. --Al-Nofi 16:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Debating something within the chambers of a government building can't conclusively be declared the sole reason for an act even though a document stating such wasn't issued. As a life long resident of Louisiana, I know that my State didn't issue a declaration of causes, because the matter largely under debate at the Secession Convention was over whether or not to support the Union or follow South Carolina's lead. The part of Louisiana that largely supported secession was the Plantation country along the Mississippi River from St Francisville (North of Baton Rouge) to New Orleans.  This is also where the greatest concentration of slaves was located.  Much of Central and Northern LA actually voted to support the Union, alas their voice didn't prevail at the convention.--Clay 06:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

>>I think it is important to put the slavery issue into a proper context. As an "unreconstructed Southerner" yes, even I have to agree it would be absurd to deny that the slavery issue didn't enter into the ultimate reason why the states of the "Lower South" (South Carolina thru Texas) initially seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. In fact, in some ways, to deny that fact, looses those of us who believe the South had the best constitutional rights on our side, credibility.

>>BUT...with that said, it is important to keep in mind that the issue of slavery was NOT a truly MORAL consideration with the overwhelming majority of northerners. Most yankees couldn't have cared less if the slaves were free if it might not have affected their more immediate economic concerns. Blacks were actually banned from residency in some northern states. And the biggest consideration among most northerners who opposed slavery in the territories -- the issue which brought sectional division to a head -- was not an altruisic concern for blacks, but that they didn't want them (or Southerners) living there. >>As an afterthough, the Texas Ordinance of Secession mentioned several issue besides slavery. One of them was the failure of the federal government, dominated by northern interests, to live up to the promise -- contained within the Annexation agreement -- to protect the lives and property of citizens living along the exposed western frontier. I truly believe that the simplistic notion of the north "fighting to free the slaves" was created by way of the fact that the winners write the history, and to justify to posterity what was in truth an outrageous violation of the ultimate truth among free people. That is, government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. TexasReb 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC) TexasReb 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Said TexasReb.--Clay 01:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's grossly misleading I'm sure some CNN MSNBC brainwashed idiot wrote all of that crap. It was about States' rights to government themselves plain and simple. Enough race card playing. (70.105.6.60)