Talk:President of the Confederate States of America

Davis election
Was Jefferson Davis elected in the manner described? Also, has any anyone else, perhaps a leader of some fringe group, ever declared themselves "President of the Confederate States"?--Pharos 22:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State of Confederacy
I took this line out:


 * Instead of a "State of the Union" speech the President of the Confederacy was to give a "State of the Confederacy" speech to a joint session of Congress once a year.

First of all, I don't think the fact that it has a slightly different name makes it a "key" difference. Also, it's not true that it has to be a speech; until Woodrow Wilson, the State of the Union was a written address delivered to Congress by courier. I assume it worked the same way in the Confederacy. --Chowbok 18:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not a difference
Removed:
 * The Confederacy did not indicate who succeeds to the office of President following the removal or death of both the President and Vice President. The constitution states that Congress will appoint an officer to act as President in such cases. In the United States, the Presidency is passed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives then a long list of other offices.

This is the same as the US. That "long list of other offices" is provided by a law passed by Congress according to the provisions of the US Constitution

CS Constitution
 * In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President; and the Congress may, by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.

US Constitution
 * In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Only minor, unimportant, differences in wording, capitalization, and punctuation. -- Nik42 07:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Term limit
After the war, this innovation gained considerable popularity in the re-constituted Union, most notably being endorsed by Rutherford B. Hayes in his inaugural address.

Did this really gain greter popularity after the war than it had before? The writers of the CS Constitution didn't come up with this from scratch, after all. The idea had existed long before the Civil War, and had even been one proposal during the initial Constitutional Convention (along with such peculiar notions as a three-man presidency) -- Nik42 07:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis the ONLY president?
According to their respective pages, Robert Woodward Barnwell and Howell Cobb were both "Heads of the Confederacy" at one point, and their pages point to Davis as their sucsessor. What exactly dose "Head of the Confederacy" mean in comparason to presidency? I think this article should reference them as leaders before the office of the president of the Confederate States was established. It should be noted that Barnwell's article states
 * "At the congress' first meeting on February 4, 1861, William P. Chilton moved that Barnwell be appointed to preside temporarily over the Congress until its permanent organization. The Congress approved that proposal, but later that day, Barnwell handed the presidency over to Howell Cobb, who was elected president. In that Congress, he cast the vote (February 9, 1861) that ensured the election of Jefferson Davis as the Confederate President,"

Wouldn't this technicaly make Davis the third president of the CSA?--ThrashedParanoid&#9733; 03:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not included as presidents for the same reason men like Peyton Randolph and John Hancock are not included in the list of US presidents: They were only presiding officers of Congress, like the Speaker of the House, with little to no executive poweres. They were not heads of government or formed an executive branch of government, not until the Constitutional Office of the President had been created and adopted, leaving Jefferson Davis as the sole President of the Confederacy.--Supersexyspacemonkey 17:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Vital Component keeps adding this to the article, and I keep removing it. Howell Cobb was never the Confederate President. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Provisional President
Davis was Provisional President from February 18, 1861 to February 22, 1862. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Agree this should be noted in the article, because the powers of the president spelled out in the constitution would only apply from feb 22 1862 onward. Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
I have a question. Since the Confederacy was never officially recognized by the Union as an official form of government, would that make it a non-legitimate body? Or would it still be legitiamte whether or not the Union accpeted it? For example, if Great Britain had never accepted America as being a legitimate government body of its own accord, would that non-recognition in itself have made the American Colonies non-legitimate?

Also, is the Confederacy now recognized by the U.S.A. as an official legitimate former (historical) government body?Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found it confusing. The USA viewed secession as illegal, yet they had reconstruction to 're-admit' the former Confederate states. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If Great Britain had never accepted the U.S. as independent, but everyone else in the world did, and the "colonies" were in fact conducting themselves as an independent state or states without the British being able to do anything to stop them, then at some point the British would just look sort of stupid. (Bearing in mind that at the time Britain was the leading world power, so their P.O.V. did count for more than that of Portugal or the Two Sicilies.) There are regions of the Earth right now that for all practical purposes conduct themselves as states, but are not officially recognized as such by anyone else, or in some cases are recognized by some countries and not recognized by others. (See Abkhazia or Transnistria for example.)


 * In the end, no one recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign state--not the U.S., not Britain, nor any other power--and furthermore the U.S. government was able to successfully end the Confederacy as a de facto government by military force.


 * The U.S. has never recognized the government of the Confederate States as an "official legitimate former (historical) government body"; some individual Americans romanticize or revere or honor the Confederacy to varying degrees; the U.S. government has on occasion named things after Confederate leaders.


 * Strictly speaking, the U.S. did not "re-admit" any states to the Union, since after all it was the position of the U.S. government that they had never left. Rather, states were re-admitted to representation in Congress, mostly (except for Tennessee) after a period of direct Federal military rule. -- 139.76.224.67 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't Britain give assistance of some military kind to the Confederacy during the war? Seems to me that would count as British "recognition" of the Confederacy.  However, admittedly, this seems hypocritical, since the British had abolished slavery decades before and would have been supporting a slavery nation.  The only justification I can think of for British backing of the Confederacy was that they had some kind of dispute with the USA and "the enemy of my 'enemy' (dispute opponent) is my friend". GBC (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sidestepping that (i.e. my question above): What would the answer be from a modern non-biased historian scholar's point of veiw? I have read both "Union" and "Confederate" history books, and it does seem that there is much bias and contradiction between the two. To put it candidly and in layman's terms: The Union says "I'm right, the South was never independent from the Union" ; but the Confederacy says "We were independent according to the clause 'it is the right of the people... for a redress of grievances' and we were fighting for just that!" Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 14:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation precisely to head-off the British from recognising the Confederacy (they could not be seen to fight for the defence of slavery). British support for the South then had to take an indirect form, supplying blockade-runners to third-party neutrals. Valetude (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Request Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

President of the Confederate States of America → President of the Confederate States – as we've got President of the United States & not President of the United States of America. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (though this should have been a multi-move; consider this !vote to apply to the VP article as well); "the United States" is a common term for the nation, but I don't think "the Confederate States" was ever in wide use as a proper noun without "America" on the end. Powers T 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LtPowers above and my comments at the first one. Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for substantially the same reasons as LtPowers and Dicklyon. "Confederate States" is not in general use to describe the CSA.  When you do see it, it's in a discussion where the full "Confederate States of America" name has been used, and even then, it's often in lower case, as a generic term referring to the group of states rather than the name of the would-be political unit.  In contrast "United States" is a well-known term.  Had the confederacy prevailed in the war and gone on to being a recognized nation, perhaps today "Confederate States" would be in common use, but that's speculation and contrary to actual fact.


 * I'm not persuaded that a mere consistency with "United States" is a valid reason to rename. The circumstances of the CSA and USA are not consistent, and it would be error to impose a consistency based on the mere superficial similarity.  Besides,  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." TJRC (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Davis a Democrat?
This article has Davis listed as a member of the Democratic Party during his presidency, but the "1861 Confederate States of America Presidential Election" page has him listed as a non-partisan. Shouldn't these be coordinated to read the same for consistency's sake? As far as I know, the lack of opposition to the 'Democrats' made that label somewhat obsolete: Confederate Congressmen are generally classified based on their support of secession in relation to Lincoln's call for troops (before/after), so it seems logical that the Democratic party did not exist in the Confederacy, or at least was moot due to its near universiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.63.239 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have eliminated the references to the CSA having a party system -- there was no CSA Democratic Party. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

oath
was the oath of office he took in 1861 as provisional president the same as he took under the constitution in 1862? Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Democratic Party in the CSA
If your logic about non-existence of the Democratic Party in the CSA is true, we have a real problem of consistency at our hands. What is your explanation for clear party labeling which can be seen at other lists of Confederate officeholders? Please see Vice President of the Confederate States of America and Cabinet of the Confederate States, among many others... Its a well known fact that the Democratic Party was dominant in the South both before and after the Civil War (all the way until 1960s-1970s), and according to all logic it was certainly dominant during the existence of the CSA. You need to tell the name of the source which emphasize the lack of political parties in the CSA, and to remodel all the other lists of Confederate officeholders according to it (if that source is right, which I truly doubt). Removal of the Democratic Party can't be limited to just one article, President of the Confederate States of America, while leaving all the others with party label. By the way, while removing party label at the President of the CSA, you also removed some other data (election year, for instance) which I intend to put back. --Sundostund (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I moved your comment from my talk page to herer. It's not a matter of "logic" -- it's a matter of facts. In any event, George Rable's "The Confederate Republic" is probably the most comprehensive study. Mark Neely Jr. in "The Union Divided" is another example --he addresses the controversy over whether the lack of a party system in the CSA was an asset or a liability. Neely mentions historians Michael Holt and Richard Bensel as persons who had different opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of the CSA political system.


 * Have you read anything on the subject that claims otherwise? I eliminated the reference to the Democratic Party in the other two articles you mentioned -- you should also note a previous discussion on this issue on this page. See also Confederate States presidential election, 1861 and Confederate States of America which explains:


 * Despite political differences within the Confederacy, no national political parties were formed because they were seen as illegitimate. "Anti-partyism became an article of political faith."[199] Without a two-party system building alternative sets of national leaders, electoral protests tended to be narrowly state-based, "negative, carping and petty". The 1863 mid-term elections became mere expressions of futile and frustrated dissatisfaction. According to historian David M. Potter, this lack of a functioning two-party system caused "real and direct damage" to the Confederate war effort since it prevented the formulation of any effective alternatives to the conduct of the war by the Davis administration.[200]Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * All right, you stated your sources - Rable, Nelly, etc. The names of your sources are here, everyone can see them so its open to dispute if someone have source which claim otherwise. I don't have such sources, maybe some other users have them... Until then, we'll work with what we have. You eliminated only the link to the Democratic Party at the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, but left party colors (I'll fix it, as I did in this article). As for the Cabinet of the Confederate States, again - there are still party colors, without the link to the Democratic Party. Also, please look every article about secretaries in the Confederate Cabinet (from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General, all of them contain the reference to the Democratic Party). --Sundostund (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed Vice President of the Confederate States of America and Cabinet of the Confederate States, but someone should fix secretaries in the Confederate Cabinet (from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General). --Sundostund (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

List of presidents
Is a list with one single entry really useful? You would expect a list to be a collection of items (i.e. >1) 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wo st 01 (talk • contribs)

Confederate States presidential inauguration

 * In 1861, Davis was inaugurated the Provisional President of the CSA. He wasn't inaugurated as President of the CSA, until 1862. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fictional presidents of the CSA
I have moved the "Fictional Presidents of the Confederate States of America" section from Lists of fictional presidents of the United States to this article (and left behind a "see also" link to the information). I did this because the information—fictional CSA presidents—falls outside the parameters for inclusion established by the article's title. Drdpw (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess this article would be a better fit for the section. Too bad we don't have enough information to put it on its own article. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Or maybe we do. I think a separate article for the fiction Confederate Presidents would make sense. I should probably ask to create an article instead or just making an article out-of-the-blue like I usually do, just to be on the safe side, of coarse. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, now I have created an article for those fictional presidents named the Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

 * This B-class article is about an historical event but takes a twist into the fantasy world (fiction) with the "Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America" and the See also of American Civil War alternate histories. I am not sure how this was deemed an important addition to the article but I do not see the relevance, importance, or need.
 * A serious issue, other than actual relevance to the article, would be the lack of references throughout the entire section.
 * If there is sufficient sourcing this content should likely be in a stand alone article. Lacking reliable sources and inline citations the content should be removed. If not then a reassessment per the B-Class criteria #1 could result. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: I see above where this information was added but would have contested such a move as also being "outside the parameters for inclusion" here. Otr500 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You know, I could probably add a source or two for the information regarding the film CSA: The Confederate States of America. However, IMHO, I think that the List of Fictional Confederate Presidents should be split off and formed into its own article. That way, it wouldn't look so weird to see that list right below the real life information. What do you think of that? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping. Per above, if there are enough sources to support a stand alone article. That may be an issue (I haven't looked) but other than that I do not see a problem. Where it is located now is certainly out of place. Otr500 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Otr500. Well, I've got a few sources lined up so I can at least get an article off the ground with. However, it's probably gonna be a while before it looks perfect. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I have created an article for the fictional Confederate States Presidents named Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America. It may need some work, though. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , per comments above, my concerns were related to wording like "sufficient sourcing", "reliable sources", and "enough sources to support a stand alone article", especially after your comments "I could probably add a source or two...", - and now there is a new article.
 * The first source is absolutely not generally considered a reliable source by WP:USERG and External links/Perennial websites, as exampled by Wikipedia's requirements, and is about "The Family Guy" more than the subject. Recent AFD's have not been friendly to articles sourced by IMDb as an "External link" either so hopefully finding/adding additional sources is a high priority. Otr500 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * More sources will be added in my upcoming edits. Just you wait and see. As I said above, it's probably gonna be a while before the article is perfect. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, I have added a few more sources to the article. More will be added when and if I can find them. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Term of Office
Right now the article lists the date of Davis's arrest as the end of his term. However, de jure (under the Confederate Constitution) Davis's term would hvmave lasted until February 22, 1868. Shouldn't that be noted? Emperor001 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the Confederate presidency was abolished & with it, the rest of the six-year term. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)