Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Slavery Issue and Current Implications of Racism

I think that this article like most accounts of the time is flawed with Reconstructionist propiganda, which trys to convey a false since that the entire nation of the Confederacy was 100% pro slavery and went to war and only fought to the bitter end to en-slave African Americans.

This is false, the Confederacy banned slavery in 1864; if my math is correct then the nation of Dixie only had legal slavery for 3 years. Meanwhile up north it was not until the year 1900 that slavery would be 100% outlawed in the United States. Delaware in the year 1900 was the last state to ratify the amendment to the Constitution.

Also what about Lincloin's post war speech, when he said something like "If I could have freed no slaves, and won the war then I would have done it"; this statement is not per batom but I'n sure you know what I'm talking about. This should also be added because it makes it crystal clear that the North did not fight to wipe out slavery, and the fact that the South banned slavery in 1864, makes it also clear that they did not go to war to preserve it.

Also the artilce leaves out the fact that the South as early as 1861 had free uniformed African American troops fightning against the North, how come history leaves out the plight of the Black Confederate troops?

In closing, this false history has done nothing but spread racism and keep it alive to this day. I'm a Southerner and I'm darn mad that just because I fly a Confederate Flag that people around me, hell fellow Floridians automatically classifiy me as a racist.

Our proud heritage was hijacked by radical fundamentalist's (KKK), just like how islaim has been hijacked by the terrorists in the Middle East. If you want racism to end then history needs to be told correctly, then the Klan, whom are using these lies to recruit new Klansmen everyday will eventually run out of new-recruits and collapse. They are nothing more then a bunch of neo-nazi's that have discraced the South.

Ignorance breeds hate and the continued lies surrounding the War for Southern Independence need to be erased if we hope to advance past this conflict and come together as Americans. Sorry for the grand standing but everything I have said applies to my complaint regarding the article.

Map

Why is Texas so small?

Why is Oklahoma so huge?

Why has the Territory of Arizona been omitted?

NPOV re Bill of Rights / slavery

Removed (ironically, this was placed in its "Bill of Rights"-- since ownership of slaves was considered part of the "right to own private property" by white men)

1: The "ironically" prelude violates NPOV. Consider thet a writer with a different POV could substitute "properly" for "ironically".

2: The above text is misleading in implying that there was a "Confederate Bill of Rights". While Article I Section 9 of the CoCSA resembles the BOR, there are other BOR-like restrictions peppered throughout the CoCSA.

I haven't heard of the reenslavement near the end of the war, very interested in that. What is the source? If we can get a date of the decree it would go well in the date section down below but I don't think it belongs in the section about the Confederate constitution. The main focus of the paragraph is the constitution and the gear switch is sort of jarring.Ark30inf 00:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Putting text here until we can get a source. I can't find a quick source on Google. "In the last days of the Confederacy, all free blacks were decreed to be enslaved." Probably should get date as well so it can go in date section instead of section on the form of government.Ark30inf 00:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thereference is Jefferson Davis' An Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy which came out on January 5th 1863: "On and after February 22, 1863 all free negroes within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and be deemd to be chattels, they and their issue for ever." So it was not so much towards the end of the war, but inresponse to Lincoln's speech of partial emancipation. It shows that the form of government was explicitly racist - Davis says his aim was the restoration of the old Union with "slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of Africab descent". Harry Potter 01:50, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you want to put the date of the address and description in the date section then I can't complain. But the reference to the speech doesn't belong in a section about what is in the confederate constitution.Ark30inf 02:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been searching Google and Altavista for "slavery nationally declared to be" and "they and their issue forever" and the speech title and can't locate it. Can you provide a link. I see Jefferson Davis's reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation in the "complete and crowning proof" transmission to the Confederate Congress on 12 Jan 1863 but it doesn't seem to contain these phrases.Ark30inf 02:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found a message on a Yahoo message board referencing this as a broadside published in Richmond with this as a source.

-- please leave this source on the talk page in case the 'reenslavement speech' date is questioned again --

Source: Broadside, Jefferson Davis Papers, University Library,

Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA. This is printed in

Ervin L. Jordan, _Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War

Virginia,_ University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 1995,

Appendix C, pages 319-320.

So the presence of this in the date section is satisfactory to me.*:Ark30inf 02:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

There is a little anomaly here. In Davis' original address he writes: "While I would not ignore the conservative policy of the Slave States, namely that a Federal Government cannot without, violating the fundamental principles of a Constitution, interfere with the internal policy of several states, since, however, Abraham lincoln has seen fit to ignore the Constitution he has solemnly sworn to support, it ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been at an early day of this Southern republic, assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner stone of a Western republic." So perhaps Davis' original intention was over-ruled by conservatives who did consider his behaviou improper.???Harry Potter 05:00, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Davis was infuriated by the Emancipation Proclamation, probably because he realized he had just lost all hope for foreign recongition and thus the war. All of his reactions to it were uncharacteristically over the top, he was generally a very exacting and quiet man, almost to a fault. But as for actually implementing such a policy, he would have had to get the Confederate Congress to back him. Davis had a hard time getting them to back him on anything. And even if they had backed him, they were about the most ineffective body ever elected to anything.Ark30inf 16:57, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you. However what I find more poignant is the way Davis' response was to over-ride states rights which was, at one level, the causa belli. Fronm what you say, the confederacy was doomed in that its central political making organs were no taken seriously, and did not take themselves seriously. And of course to do so would be to usurp states rights by making decisions binding. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia unfortunately only reviews the situation in Virginia. Perhaps a broader portrayal of the situation across the Confederacy would offer us more evidence to consider when working out the political questions which faced free African Americans resident in confederate states during the civil war.Harry Potter 12:29, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You have to remember, contrary to now & to the Federals, CSA was extremly states' rights. It took fairly extreme measures just to get state railway agencies to co-operate in troop movements, for instance. And only after CW did it become "the U.S.", & N "these U.S." Trekphiler 05:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"An Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy

Richmond, January 5, 1863.

Citizens of the non-slaveholding States of America, swayed by peaceable motives, I have used all my influence, often thereby endangering my position as the President of the Southern Confederacy, to have the unhappy conflict now existing between my people and yourselves, governed by those well established international rules, which heretofore have softened the asperities which necessarily are the concomitants of a state of belligerency, but all my efforts in the premises have heretofore been unavailing. Now, therefore, I am compelled e necessitati rei to employ a measure, which most willingly I would have omitted to do, regarding, as I always must, State Rights, as the very organism of politically associated society.

For nearly two years my people have been defending their inherent rights their political, social and religious rights against the speculators of New England and their allies in the States heretofore regarded as conservative. The people of the Southern Confederacy have - making sacrifices such as the modern world has never witnessed - patiently, but determinedly, stood between their home interests and the well paid, well fed and well clad mercenaries of the Abolitionists, and I need not say that they have nobly vindicated the good name of American citizens. Heretofore, the warfare has been conducted by white men - peers, scions of the same stock; but the programme has been changed, and your rulers despairing of a triumph by the employment of white men, have degraded you and themselves, by inviting the cooperation of the black race. Thus, while they deprecate the intervention of white men -- the French and the English -- in behalf of the Southern Confederacy, they, these Abolitionists, do not hesitate to invoke the intervention of the African race in favor of the North.

The time has, therefore, come when a becoming respect for the good opinion of the civilized world impels me to set forth the following facts:

First. Abraham Lincoln, the President of the Non-Slaveholding States, has issued his proclamation, declaring the slaves within the limits of the Southern Confederacy to be free.

Second. Abraham Lincoln has declared that the slaves so emancipated may be used in the Army and Navy, now under his control, by which he means to employ, against the Free People of the South, insurrectionary measures, the inevitable tendency of which will be to inaugurate a Servile War, and thereby prove destructive, in a great measure, to slave property.

Now, therefore, as a compensatory measure, I do hereby issue the following Address to the People of the Non-Slaveholding States:

On and after February 22, 1863, all free negroes within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and be deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever.

All negroes who shall be taken in any of the States in which slavery does not now exist, in the progress of our arms, shall be adjudged, immediately after such capture, to occupy the slave status, and in all States which shall be vanquished by our arms, all free negroes shall, ipsofacto, be reduced to the condition of helotism, so that the respective normal conditions of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis, so as to prevent the public peace from being thereafter endangered.

Therefore, while I would not ignore the conservative policy of the Slave States, namely, that a Federal Government cannot, without violating the fundamental principles of a Constitution, interfere with the internal policy of several States; since, however, Abraham Lincoln has seen fit to ignore the Constitution he has solemnly sworn to support, it ought not be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been at an early day of this Southern republic, assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner-stone of a Western Republic. It is not necessary for me to elaborate this proposition. I may merely refer, in passing, to the prominent fact, that the South is emphatically a producing section of North America; this is equally true of the West and Northwest, the people of which have been mainly dependent on the South for the consumption of their products. The other States, in which slavery does not exist, have occupied a middle position, as to the South, West and Northwest. The States of New England, from which all complicated difficulties have arisen, owe their greatness and power to the free suffrages of all other sections of North America; and yet, as is now evident, they have, from the adoption of the Federal Constitution, waged a persistent warfare against the interests of all the other States of the old Union. The great centre of their opposition has been Slavery, while the annual statistics of their respective State Governments abundantly prove that they entertain within all their boundaries fewer negroes than any single State which does not tolerate slavery.

In view of these facts, and conscientiously believing that the proper condition of the negro is slavery, or a complete subjection to the white man, -- and entertaining the belief that the day is not distant when the old Union will be restored with slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of African descent, and in view of the future harmony and progress of all the States of America, I have been induced to issue this address, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the future.

JEFFERSON DAVIS" [1] [2]

Constitution of CSA Article I. Sect. 9. (4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA Pilot Pirx (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Troops

I am concerned with the bias and possible inaccuracy in the wording in the time line for the line . . . . "March 13, 1865 - Faced with severe manpower shortages the CSA reluctantly agreed to use African American troops." The fact is that they agreed to use African troops, whether is was "reluctantly" is an editorial call, and perhaps a bad one in my mind. For reference, Robert E. Lee, who was in fact the CSA, enthusiastically wanted black troops. Please read his letter at Arming Slaves to Andrew Hunter. Lee is almost begging for slaves, and shows NO bias against blacks fighting along side his white troops. I would believe that the southern slave owners would be very much against it, but they were not the CSA. I did not edit the article, but think the wording should be tweeked on this one line, as it is a pretty clear NPOV violation. Vic

In fact, one of the first all black Confederate units was a Louisiana home guard unit formed in 1862. There were black soilders used throught the war for the South. Individual states, such as Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, ect., recruted slave and free blacks throught the war. It was on March 13, 1965 that the Confederate central government officially allowed blacks to enter the army. All to gether there were between 60,000-90,000 registerd black Confederates. This number does not include those who joined the army in rout or served as laborers, camp servents, and in other military related jobs. Jim

President of Congress

What does "President of Congress" mean? There were two Houses in the Confederate Congress, surely he wasn't President of both? RickK 02:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Slavery and states rights

Move here

resulting a relatively moderate founding document. This moderation came from the commonly accepted notion in the Southern states that slavery had become obsolete, while the explicit protection of slavery allowed each state to decide for itself a timetable for phasing out slavery into more modern labor.

Article I - Section IX-3 says

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And it's unclear from the context that this restriction applies only to the Confederate Congress.

Can someone cite something that shows that the Confederacy did have the intention of allowing states to ban slavery.

Roadrunner 06:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Considering the emphasis the CSA placed on state's right, I think it can be safely assumed that they simply did not think the rights included in the constitution could be binding for the states as well. This is even clearer to me when you consider that even in the USA this is a newer development, and much was brought forth against it. How much more controversial (or rather unacceptable) must it have seemed to the Southern states.--Laca 01:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Confederacy is not only a word for "Confederate Stateds of America". It's also word for organisation of people (in Poland), kind of government etc.. Shouldn't confederacy be a disambiguation page?! Szopen 06:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Capital-C "Confederacy" usually means the CSA, but we don't have the ability to have it be different from "confederacy", and it's not that hard to fix the links. Stan 16:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Flags

What is wrong with the flag images they are black instead of white

Banning the slave trade

This is speculation with regard to the banning of the slave trade in the Confederate constitution.

This provision ensured the practice of slave labor would not expand, and would encourage states to actively pursue transition to a modern labor force.

Its not clear that it wouldn't cause slave labor not to expand. People were actively talking about invading Cuba and the Carribean.

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages! jengod 22:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the Golden Circle_(Slavery) was supposed to be. The drama from those times still lingers on in Cuba today, which is why they are so cagey around American policy, aside from the Spanish war, which was merely the fruition of Golden Circle policies. Doughface 08:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Country?

I've noticed that this page is included in the Former Country category, and I wonder whether that is really accurate. For one, I believe it was the official policy of the Union that the confederate states had never seceded, rather there were ongoing insurrections in those states. Also, I am not aware of any major power which recognized the South as a sovereign state. By what criteria do we consider the confederacy a former country? Mackensen 00:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I partly started this, by reverting Mackensen's removal of the categorisation. I don't know a huge amount about the US Civil War and the Reconstruction (I'm a European) but I would certainly have considered that the CSA were a state–actor. It functioned as a country in many ways that smaller countries do not (it had an independent head of state, broadly unlike Andorra or even Canada, after a fashion; it certainly had more territory than the Vatican City; it made war, which used to be considered something that only states could do; it held democratic elections, I think). That it was not recognised by the USA is hardly surprising, but I certainly think people would expect to find the CSA in Category:Former countries. — OwenBlacker 00:30, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think the prevailing viewpoint in the USA would be that the Confederacy was a portion of the USA in the state of rebellion. Only a diehard southerner would claim that it was a true country. Pollinator 03:14, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

It was sovereign within its territory, and intended to remain so permanently; had its own government departments, sent out diplomats, etc. Britain did declare neutrality in the conflict, thereby officially recognizing the Confederates as a belligerent power (and angering the Northerners in so doing). One could argue technicalities, but I think there are plenty of Northerners who have no problem calling the CSA a country. Stan 04:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The CSA was not a country, but rather a group of states rebelling against a federal government. The CSA was never internationally recognized as a legitimate government separate from the United States. It wasn't even sovereign within its territory, as you claim, since much of the American Civil War was fought in the South, the northern borders were constantly in flux, and the countryside was full of Union troops. Britain declared neutrality only to annoy the United States, since relations between the two countries were still bitter.

The CSA did have its own government, but it essentially copied that of the United States. Just as the American Revolutionary War was between American rebels and Great Britain, the Civil War was between Confederate rebels and the United States -- not two countries.

Any reference to the CSA as a "former country" is POV and should be removed. It is nothing more than a romanticized view of history. I do not diminish the historical and political significance of the CSA, or the cultural and historical heritage of the South, but calling the CSA a "former country" is both inaccurate and POV.--AaronS 01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to defend Confederate romanticists, but I think there is some room for argument about whether the CSA was a country. It certainly met some of the standard requirements for sovereignty, and it managed to have a government and military in charge of most of its extremely large terrority for four years, and its citizens certainly saw themselves as citizens of a separate country. Of course, from a political and legal view, the United States government viewed the Confederacy as no more than an armed rebellion, but that doesn't mean that from a neutral perspective the Confederacy didn't necessarily exist as a basically sovereign country until they were defeated by the Union. Maybe we don't have to make a judgment one way or the other on whether it was a country, but merely point out the arguments for and against. (In the American Revolution, by the way, the Americans didn't see it as a fight between American rebels and Great Britain — they were operating under the Declaration of Independence, and saw themselves as a separate country with sovereign rights. Today, we see the origin of the United States as the signing of the Declaration, not the last successful battle of the Revolutionary War. So was it a country from the start? And if so, why not the Confederacy during its short time?) —Cleared as filed. 02:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a country. They lost. Rebellious provinces become countries after successful rebellions; the U.S. was N a country until victory in 1783. So. Trekphiler 05:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Trekphiler, that is completely false. The United States became a country upon signing the Declaration of Independence and setting up a provisional government.

The argument that the Confederate States of America was nothing more than "states rebelling against a federal government," is quite inaccurate, if you will take in mind several facts. First off, by using this argument, the United States itself never became a country, but were merely "states rebelling" against a king. The people of the Southern States in Convention set up their Governments, that is the right of people anywhere, to be ruled by their own Government. Abe Lincoln himself said, "Any people whatever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better." - (Congressional Records, 1847). ALSO, if the Southern States never left the Union, as most of you seem to claim, then why did the Congress of the United States have to RE-ADMIT them to the Union, and used the Ratification of the 14th Amendment in that reguard. As a matter of fact, the US Congress acted as though the States were part of the US for ratification of the 13th Amendment, and then changed its views after that. Also listed below are arguments for this from many leaders of their times, some Northerers as well:

"The States are Nations." - Daniel Webster (Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. III, p. 287)

"The States acceded to the Constitution." - Benjamin Franklin (Franklin Works, Vol. V, p. 409)

"John Q. Adams, in 1839, and Abraham lincoln, in 1847, make elaborate arguments in favor of the legal right of a State to Secede." - Judge Black of Pennsylvania (Black's Essays)

"If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, I do not see why the Constitution ratified by the same men should not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of the Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861. We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed is sound and just, then if the Cotton States, the Gulf States or any other States choose to form an independent nation they have a clear right to do it. The right to secede may be a revoltionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof; to withdraw from the Union is another matter. And when a section of our Union resolves to go out, we shall resist any coercive acts to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic where one section is pinned to the other section by bayonets." - Horace Greeley, New York Tribune

Thanks for considering these facts.

Conservative rule reestablished?

What does "Conservative rule reestablished" mean? A google search mostly turned up other sites that were ripping off Wikipedia. Lkesteloot 21:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this makes little sense. I think it means the period at which the Reconstruction ended in the state with local politicians regaining control (immediately after the civil war, the Union imposed governors on the south, as allowing states to elect a governor who supported the side that had just lost the war was seen as a bad idea). However, calling this "conservative rule" is something I've never seen before, and usually it's called "local control", so I've changed it to this. Feel free to substitute if you can find a better or more canonical phrase. --Delirium 05:47, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I added that. There was a chart/map SOMEWHERE, I can't find it anymore, but that it was the terminology used there. jengod 19:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Nation Template

Shouldn't this place have a nation template ("Name, capital, population", a map of the nation, etc)..Even if its not considered a "country" for NPOV reasons, even Taiwan follows this template. I think this article should as well. Comrade Tassadar 04:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confederate motto

So, people keep seeming to change this motto. I've looked on Google and I frequently see very poor translations of it. I'll tell you why - they say "God will vindicate" and "God defends" and some such things. But this is incorrect, as Deo vindice is not a nominative phrase. It has no such word as "is" and no verb as such - rather, it is a phrase in the ablative- ablative of means if memory serves. So it's "With God our defender" or "With God as our defender" - from the words Deus and vindex. If it were "God vindicates" it would be Deus vindicabit and were it "God defends" it would be Deus defendit or vindicit.

• You are right about Deo. Vindice is harder to translate - I think Protector might be better than Defender -- or perhaps Vindicator or Champion or Deliverer or Justifier
  • vindico : to avenge, punish, liberate, deliver, protect
  • Vindicate (to justify, to avenge) has a remarkable etymon. Vindicius (aka Vindex) was a slave of the Vitelli, who informed the Senate of the conspiracy of the sons of Junius Brutus to restore Tarquin, for which service he was rewarded with liberty (Livy, ii. 5); hence the rod with which a slave was struck in manumission was called vindicta, a Vindicius rod (See Manumit ; and to set free was in Latin vindicare in libertatem. One way of settling disputes was to give the litigants two rods, which they crossed as if in fight, and the person whom the praetor vindicated broke the rod of his opponent. These rods were called vindiciae, and hence vindicate, meaning to “justify.” To avenge is simply to justify oneself by punishing the wrongdoer.
  • In addition, the motto, "Victoria Liberatis Vindex", is traditionally translated "Victory Vindicates Liberty
  • --JimWae 06:29, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • but http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederateseal.htm is a must see - it contains a speech by one of the eventual designers during a vote on what motto to have

    ".. in the selection of the word 'vindex,' which signifies an assenter, a defender, protector, deliverer, liberator, a mediator and a ruler or guardian. 'Vindex' also means an avenger or punisher.

    "... Under God as the asserter of our rights, the defender of our liberties, our protector against danger, our mediator, our ruler and guardian, and, as the avenger of our wrongs and the punisher of our crimes..."

  • Under God, Our Vindicator?
  • --JimWae 07:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I think that "With God as our vindicator" is perfect. I'll change it right away

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

--

Removed (ironically, this was placed in its "Bill of Rights"-- since ownership of slaves was considered part of the "right to own private property" by white men)

1: The "ironically" prelude violates NPOV. Consider thet a writer with a different POV could substitute "properly" for "ironically".

2: The above text is misleading in implying that there was a "Confederate Bill of Rights". While Article I Section 9 of the CoCSA resembles the BOR, there are other BOR-like restrictions peppered throughout the CoCSA.

I haven't heard of the reenslavement near the end of the war, very interested in that. What is the source? If we can get a date of the decree it would go well in the date section down below but I don't think it belongs in the section about the Confederate constitution. The main focus of the paragraph is the constitution and the gear switch is sort of jarring.Ark30inf 00:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Putting text here until we can get a source. I can't find a quick source on Google. "In the last days of the Confederacy, all free blacks were decreed to be enslaved." Probably should get date as well so it can go in date section instead of section on the form of government.Ark30inf 00:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thereference is Jefferson Davis' An Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy which came out on January 5th 1863: "On and after February 22, 1863 all free negroes within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and be deemd to be chattels, they and their issue for ever." So it was not so much towards the end of the war, but inresponse to Lincoln's speech of partial emancipation. It shows that the form of government was explicitly racist - Davis says his aim was the restoration of the old Union with "slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of Africab descent". Harry Potter 01:50, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you want to put the date of the address and description in the date section then I can't complain. But the reference to the speech doesn't belong in a section about what is in the confederate constitution.Ark30inf 02:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've been searching Google and Altavista for "slavery nationally declared to be" and "they and their issue forever" and the speech title and can't locate it. Can you provide a link. I see Jefferson Davis's reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation in the "complete and crowning proof" transmission to the Confederate Congress on 12 Jan 1863 but it doesn't seem to contain these phrases.Ark30inf 02:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found a message on a Yahoo message board referencing this as a broadside published in Richmond with this as a source.

-- please leave this source on the talk page in case the 'reenslavement speech' date is questioned again --

Source: Broadside, Jefferson Davis Papers, University Library,

Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA. This is printed in

Ervin L. Jordan, _Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War

Virginia,_ University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 1995,

Appendix C, pages 319-320.

So the presence of this in the date section is satisfactory to me.*:Ark30inf 02:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

There is a little anomaly here. In Davis' original address he writes: "While I would not ignore the conservative policy of the Slave States, namely that a Federal Government cannot without, violating the fundamental principles of a Constitution, interfere with the internal policy of several states, since, however, Abraham lincoln has seen fit to ignore the Constitution he has solemnly sworn to support, it ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been at an early day of this Southern republic, assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner stone of a Western republic." So perhaps Davis' original intention was over-ruled by conservatives who did consider his behaviou improper.???Harry Potter 05:00, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Davis was infuriated by the Emancipation Proclamation, probably because he realized he had just lost all hope for foreign recongition and thus the war. All of his reactions to it were uncharacteristically over the top, he was generally a very exacting and quiet man, almost to a fault. But as for actually implementing such a policy, he would have had to get the Confederate Congress to back him. Davis had a hard time getting them to back him on anything. And even if they had backed him, they were about the most ineffective body ever elected to anything.Ark30inf 16:57, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with you. However what I find more poignant is the way Davis' response was to over-ride states rights which was, at one level, the causa belli. Fronm what you say, the confederacy was doomed in that its central political making organs were no taken seriously, and did not take themselves seriously. And of course to do so would be to usurp states rights by making decisions binding. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia unfortunately only reviews the situation in Virginia. Perhaps a broader portrayal of the situation across the Confederacy would offer us more evidence to consider when working out the political questions which faced free African Americans resident in confederate states during the civil war.Harry Potter 12:29, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am concerned with the bias and possible inaccuracy in the wording in the time line for the line . . . . "March 13, 1865 - Faced with severe manpower shortages the CSA reluctantly agreed to use African American troops." The fact is that they agreed to use African troops, whether is was "reluctantly" is an editorial call, and perhaps a bad one in my mind. For reference, Robert E. Lee, who was in fact the CSA, enthusiastically wanted black troops. Please read his letter at Arming Slaves to Andrew Hunter. Lee is almost begging for slaves, and shows NO bias against blacks fighting along side his white troops. I would believe that the southern slave owners would be very much against it, but they were not the CSA. I did not edit the article, but think the wording should be tweeked on this one line, as it is a pretty clear NPOV violation. Vic

---

What does "President of Congress" mean? There were two Houses in the Confederate Congress, surely he wasn't President of both? RickK 02:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Move here

resulting a relatively moderate founding document. This moderation came from the commonly accepted notion in the Southern states that slavery had become obsolete, while the explicit protection of slavery allowed each state to decide for itself a timetable for phasing out slavery into more modern labor.

Article I - Section IX-3 says

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And it's unclear from the context that this restriction applies only to the Confederate Congress.

Can someone cite something that shows that the Confederacy did have the intention of allowing states to ban slavery.

Roadrunner 06:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Considering the emphasis the CSA placed on state's right, I think it can be safely assumed that they simply did not think the rights included in the constitution could be binding for the states as well. This is even clearer to me when you consider that even in the USA this is a newer development, and much was brought forth against it. How much more controversial (or rather unacceptable) must it have seemed to the Southern states.--Laca 01:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Confederacy is not only a word for "Confederate Stateds of America". It's also word for organisation of people (in Poland), kind of government etc.. Shouldn't confederacy be a disambiguation page?! Szopen 06:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Capital-C "Confederacy" usually means the CSA, but we don't have the ability to have it be different from "confederacy", and it's not that hard to fix the links. Stan 16:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with the flag images they are black instead of white

---

This is speculation with regard to the banning of the slave trade in the Confederate constitution.

This provision ensured the practice of slave labor would not expand, and would encourage states to actively pursue transition to a modern labor force.

Its not clear that it wouldn't cause slave labor not to expand. People were actively talking about invading Cuba and the Carribean.

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages! jengod 22:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Country?

I've noticed that this page is included in the Former Country category, and I wonder whether that is really accurate. For one, I believe it was the official policy of the Union that the confederate states had never seceded, rather there were ongoing insurrections in those states. Also, I am not aware of any major power which recognized the South as a sovereign state. By what criteria do we consider the confederacy a former country? Mackensen 00:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I partly started this, by reverting Mackensen's removal of the categorisation. I don't know a huge amount about the US Civil War and the Reconstruction (I'm a European) but I would certainly have considered that the CSA were a state–actor. It functioned as a country in many ways that smaller countries do not (it had an independent head of state, broadly unlike Andorra or even Canada, after a fashion; it certainly had more territory than the Vatican City; it made war, which used to be considered something that only states could do; it held democratic elections, I think). That it was not recognised by the USA is hardly surprising, but I certainly think people would expect to find the CSA in Category:Former countries. — OwenBlacker 00:30, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think the prevailing viewpoint in the USA would be that the Confederacy was a portion of the USA in the state of rebellion. Only a diehard southerner would claim that it was a true country. Pollinator 03:14, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

It was sovereign within its territory, and intended to remain so permanently; had its own government departments, sent out diplomats, etc. Britain did declare neutrality in the conflict, thereby officially recognizing the Confederates as a belligerent power (and angering the Northerners in so doing). One could argue technicalities, but I think there are plenty of Northerners who have no problem calling the CSA a country. Stan 04:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Conservative rule reestablished?

What does "Conservative rule reestablished" mean? A google search mostly turned up other sites that were ripping off Wikipedia. Lkesteloot 21:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this makes little sense. I think it means the period at which the Reconstruction ended in the state with local politicians regaining control (immediately after the civil war, the Union imposed governors on the south, as allowing states to elect a governor who supported the side that had just lost the war was seen as a bad idea). However, calling this "conservative rule" is something I've never seen before, and usually it's called "local control", so I've changed it to this. Feel free to substitute if you can find a better or more canonical phrase. --Delirium 05:47, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I added that. There was a chart/map SOMEWHERE, I can't find it anymore, but that it was the terminology used there. jengod 19:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Nation Template

Shouldn't this place have a nation template ("Name, capital, population", a map of the nation, etc)..Even if its not considered a "country" for NPOV reasons, even Taiwan follows this template. I think this article should as well. Comrade Tassadar 04:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confederate motto

So, people keep seeming to change this motto. I've looked on Google and I frequently see very poor translations of it. I'll tell you why - they say "God will vindicate" and "God defends" and some such things. But this is incorrect, as Deo vindice is not a nominative phrase. It has no such word as "is" and no verb as such - rather, it is a phrase in the ablative- ablative of means if memory serves. So it's "With God our defender" or "With God as our defender" - from the words Deus and vindex. If it were "God vindicates" it would be Deus vindicabit and were it "God defends" it would be Deus defendit or vindicit.

• You are right about Deo. Vindice is harder to translate - I think Protector might be better than Defender -- or perhaps Vindicator or Champion or Deliverer or Justifier
  • vindico : to avenge, punish, liberate, deliver, protect
  • Vindicate (to justify, to avenge) has a remarkable etymon. Vindicius (aka Vindex) was a slave of the Vitelli, who informed the Senate of the conspiracy of the sons of Junius Brutus to restore Tarquin, for which service he was rewarded with liberty (Livy, ii. 5); hence the rod with which a slave was struck in manumission was called vindicta, a Vindicius rod (See Manumit ; and to set free was in Latin vindicare in libertatem. One way of settling disputes was to give the litigants two rods, which they crossed as if in fight, and the person whom the praetor vindicated broke the rod of his opponent. These rods were called vindiciae, and hence vindicate, meaning to “justify.” To avenge is simply to justify oneself by punishing the wrongdoer.
  • In addition, the motto, "Victoria Liberatis Vindex", is traditionally translated "Victory Vindicates Liberty
  • --JimWae 06:29, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • but http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederateseal.htm is a must see - it contains a speech by one of the eventual designers during a vote on what motto to have

    ".. in the selection of the word 'vindex,' which signifies an assenter, a defender, protector, deliverer, liberator, a mediator and a ruler or guardian. 'Vindex' also means an avenger or punisher.

    "... Under God as the asserter of our rights, the defender of our liberties, our protector against danger, our mediator, our ruler and guardian, and, as the avenger of our wrongs and the punisher of our crimes..."

  • Under God, Our Vindicator?
  • --JimWae 07:18, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I think that "With God our vindicator" is perfect. I'll change it right away --Gaidheal nan Stàitean Aonaichte 22:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

er "under God our vindicator" sorry! --Gaidheal nan Stàitean Aonaichte 22:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Recognized by Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but no other countries."

I've never heard such a thing, so in my reversion I got rid of it - if the author of the edit could back this up, that would be great. gaidheal 22:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha recognition of the CSA is one of those things that appears in all the civil war trivia books about which country was the only one to recognize them. Of course it didn't mean much on the world scale because Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was one of those tiny German countries about the size of Rhode Island. But it's a footnote in history that should be posted.

It happened in mid 1861 when the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha consul in Texas became vacant and had to be replaced. Since Texas had changed hands in between it caused a diplomatic problem since they could no longer send their diplomats to the United States. The Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha solved the problem by recognizing the CSA and sending the new consul, Ernst Raven, to Richmond where he applied for an Exquator from the Confederate Government and was received as the only foreign diplomat ever officially appointed to a post in the CSA. The matter was discussed at the time in the Confederate Congress. Here's one of the journal pages that does so - http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcc/005/0400/04240422.gif

Regards. Rangerdude 17:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

good enough for me - i'll add it back

Does the CSA still exist as a Country?

The nation taxo-box lists these dates:

• Independence
• - Declared
• - Recognized

But there is no date for the cessation of its independence. Would Lee's surrender be the appropriate date? Davis' resignation capture? Any suggestions? -Willmcw 23:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this article shouldnt even have the taxo-box, since the categories are set up for current nations. For example, the country code and TLD. Also, there is no category for the date when it ceased to exist. --L. Pistachio 02:47, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • I found an infobox for defunct countries, which I'm sure we all agree is the situation. It is more free-form than this one. I'll post it here when I find it again. -Willmcw 07:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I edited this one instead. -Willmcw 07:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

In 1861, the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was a member of the German Empire, and had a population of under 250,000. Thus it was barely more of a nation than Rhode Island. I think it could be called a "state". (And I am surprised that a state with so few inhabitants would send a consul to Texas, which probably had a similarly small population. Perhaps there was significant trade or migration between the two.) [3] [4] -Willmcw 22:14, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Your information, as usual, is uninformed and erronious. The German Empire was not created until 1871, and even its member states retained semi-sovereignty. Prior to 1871 there were 41 sovereign Germanic nation-states that belonged to the German Confederation created by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. During this period SCG was no less a sovereign country than Austria, Prussia, Bavaria or any of the other duchies, principalities, and city-states that were members. Rangerdude 04:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right you are, and gracious as always. ;) I should have remembered that the German Empire didn't form until 1871. Unfortunately, the lousy article of SGC doesn't mention any of this. In any case, 250,000 people doesn't make a nation. I think that "state" is sufficient. And in the context of the info box, "duchy" is certainly accurate. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the SCG article - it needs to be rewritten and an info box added. The proper term for it is nation-state. It may have been a small nation-state, but it was one nonetheless. Just the same Luxembourg (which is also a sovereign duchy) is a very small nation-state today but one nonetheless. The term "duchy" is a reference to its head of state, who goes by the title of Duke. Just the same a "principality" is a nation whose head of state goes by the title "Prince" and a "kingdom" for "King." Some duchies such as Cornwall and York were historically parts of a kingdom (England). Others were not and were independent countries in their own right, like SCG. Rangerdude 02:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, there have been little duchies and grand duchies, just as there have been large and small kingdoms and empires. But this the Duchy of SC & G was a duchy all the same, so that is what we should call it. I think that the word "duchy" efectively carries the connotation of a small state. If any editor wants to label it as a nation-state instead of a duchy then it would be necessary to list its population so that casual readers would have a snese of how tiny the place was. And that would be a bit silly, so let's just leave it as it is. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:42, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Duchy's fine by me. My previous objection was to the claim that SCG was not its own sovereign nation, which was historically wrong. If anybody wants to know the size of SCG (it was about as big as Luxembourg today) or its population all they've gotta do is click on the link Rangerdude 08:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the map, it looks slightly odd because it's from a large map shrunken down to just a few pixels. Anyone can edit it, if they want. I don't have time right now. And you're correct about Arizona Territory.

And I think maybe the population number should be investigated or revised. Remember, 5 slaves counted as 3 people. So if you want the actual number of bodies, someone could crunch those numbers.

And what happened to the national anthem link? Either it's vandalism or someone is being awful anal-retentive about it. The whole God Save the South page is gone, in fact.

Map Inaccuracy

The map is inaccurate namely because it is the present day map with an outline of Confederate states, as opposed to a world map of the time. I'm unsure of the exact specifics of what the map would be, so perhaps someone else would like to take a shot? 24.10.139.96 07:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Currency

I have an 1864 Confederate $20 bill that I can scan in and place here; is this of any use here? --Schultz.Ryan 06:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a nice addition. -Willmcw 19:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Manifestations after collapse of Confederacy

In what article should "Confederate" entities after the collapse of the Confederacy be alluded to or discussed? (Confederate Air Force, Confederate College of Heraldry &c.) --Daniel C. Boyer 17:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neo-confederate? -Willmcw 19:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, again

An editor has added the dates of existence of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, again. Why? If then intent is to show that it was a short-lived state, then there are plenty of significant states that have had shorter terms. It seems like an extraneous detail in the taxo-box. -Willmcw 02:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

DELAWARE - 1860 Census

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=860

County	TOTAL NO.OF MALE SLAVES	TOTAL NO.OF FEMALE SLAVES	AGGR. NO. OF SLAVES	TOTAL # OF SLAVEHOLDERS	NO. OF WHITE PERSONS	Total Population
KENT	89	114	203	66	20330	27804
NEW CASTLE	121	133	254	86	46355	54797
SUSSEX	650	691	1341	435	23904	29615
Totals	860	938	1798	587	90589	112216

There's no need to give A reason why DE did not consider secession - there are likely many reasons. Geopolitical is so unspecific as to be "contentless".

AND to say the North INVADED the South is to take a POV on the legality of secession and on the aims of the North. According to the North, it was to recover forts overtaken by South. Also your change overlooks other things South did - such as "invade" North. Just leave the POV out--JimWae 19:32, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Do police "invade" premises when arresting with warrant? Did federal troops "invade" U of Alabama in 60s? Perhaps one thinks yes, or that situations are not exactly parallel, but it is POV to insist North's aim was to "conquer or pillage" the South - especially as "conquer" implies taking away rightful ownership or power --JimWae 20:20, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Legality of the secession by CSA members

I noticed that an editor recently included this comment in an edit summary: "Discuss/debate secession's legality on secession, not here." Since this is an international encyclopedia and that article is a generic discussion of secession, it would not seem like the appropriate place to discuss the legality of one specific secession. This article would seem to be a good place. Origins of the American Civil War might be another, though some of the determinations of legality happened after the war, so that is not idea either. In any case, I don't see a reason to avoid the topic here. The same editor also commented "SCOTUS "opinions" are inherently POV themselves & not a determinant of factuality." On the contrary, in this country courts of law are generally deemed to be determiners of fact, particulalry when it comes to interpreting the laws of the nation. Their opinions can be rebutted by those who disagree, but they nonetheless stand unless overturned or overridden. -Willmcw 19:17, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think the best solution for the secession article would be to subdivide it into applicable sections. While it is indisputable that the concept of secession applies internationally, its historical origins are heavily rooted in British and American political theory. Thus what the American court system says on secession, and what others argued in response to that court decision, are pertinent to the article on secession theory. Of course my main point is that we should NOT be holding a debate over whether or not secession is legitimate in the middle of a related albeit separate article such as Abraham Lincoln or the CSA. You are also incorrect about the status of courts. They are the interpreters of fact, or at least fact as it is presented (as courts can and do err about facts both big and small all the time). They are not the determiners of facts though nor could they be, as court cases tend to address tangible events that have already happened or are in the process of happening. The factual nature of those events both precedes and exists independent of the court process, meaning it is not contingent upon the court's outcome (e.g. whether OJ Simpson did/didn't kill his ex wife - either way - is a fact regardless of whether the court found him guilty or found reasonable doubt to his guilt. That the court determined reasonable doubt, however, does not alter what actually happened whether he killed her or not). In this case, it is both proper and NPOV to note the court's opinion on secession in the appropriate places and articles. It is a POV however to endorse that opinion and attempt to rewrite the article from its perspective as JimWae has been doing, just as it would be a POV to rewrite the abortion article with a view slanted toward Roe v. Wade or, alternatively, rewrite the segregation article slanted toward Plessy v. Ferguson. Rangerdude 20:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be highly inappropriate to remove material giving the SCOTUS's view on the legality of abortion in the United States. The opinion of the SCOTUS is highly relevant to legal issues inthe United States. However, it is also necessary to include other views that disagree with the prevailing legal opinion. If the head court of the country has determined that something is illegal, then it is logical to present that as the first view. -Willmcw 21:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to remove an NPOV description of it so long as that description is neutral and in the proper article. My issue is with JimWae attempting to justify his wording re: secession upon the SCOTUS opinion, which is a POV whether one agrees or disagrees with it. Rangerdude 23:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being so dumb, but I don't understand your point about the SCOTUS's opinions being inherently POV. Does this extend to all courts? Are we barred from saying someone is a murderer just because a court found them guilty? Is SCOTUS incapable of correctly interpreting the laws of the land? Are laws passed by Congress POV? ("well, that's just their opinion of which laws we should have...") I mean, sure, we can report that others contend that he isn't a murder, that the SCOTUS got it wrong, that Congress is full of idiots. But the bottom line is that if SCOTUS says something is illegal, it's illegal. -Willmcw 00:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, Willmcw. The point is that the SCOTUS, just like any other source, has a POV. That does not mean we can't quote them nor did I ever suggest anything even remotely approaching that end. It does, however, mean that the position they take is NOT the only position, nor is it the final authority between right and wrong. JimWae claims that since the SCOTUS ruled against secession's legality we can't say that the south seceded. And that is an endorsement of a POV. Rangerdude 00:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• How is it not POV to state as fact "the south seceded" when the legal fact as far as the USA is concerned is clearly that they did not? To avoid arguments over whether or not they did or did not, the article can say they "declared a secession", they "were seceding", they "fought an unsuccessful war for secession". It's not about what is "right", it is about what is fact, what is POV, and what is NPOV. Why is it always POV to disagree with the insurgents, & not POV to disagree with SCOTUS? You want special treatment for the rebels? --JimWae 00:47, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• Saying the Confederate states "declared their secession" does not take a POV on whether or not they seceded - though a very good argument can be made that the FACT is that they did NOT. Secession is a completely legal concept. SCOTUS has determined (in Texas v. White) that the legal FACT is that the Southern states did not secede. Murder (a moral & legal concept) is illegal, but legally possible. It is illegal to commit murder, but if it were not true that one had COMMITTED murder then one could NOT be charged with it. Secession was not only illegal, but it had not (according to SCOTUS, the arbiter of legal fact in the USA) been committed. Rebellion was committed, not secession. Colloquial shorthand was that they "rejoined the union" - what that meant practically & legally was that they could again vote for and seat representatives in the House & Senate, etc. It also later involved the end of martial law & the return of local rule. There is not the same problem with "seceding" - for it entails something "in process" - and had the Confederates won, or found another way to get agreement on secession, they could have completed the process. It is sufficient, to avoid revert wars to say they "declared a secession". The CSA article needs to have a section on the whole legality issue, however. It surprises me how many have chimed in with an opinion, yet never heard of Texas v. White --JimWae 00:53, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

• • So you're asking everyone to prove a negative, Jim? Interesting. In the meantime, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's definition of secession on the article of the same name: "Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity." No matter how one spins or interprets it, the south certainly did just that. They were defeated in the ensuing war and their secession was later found to be illegal 4 years after the war, but it cannot be denied that they did it, legally or not. Oh, and nobody's asking for special treatment of anything around here. I'm simply asking for some common sense, and your tortured hairsplitting over the use of the word "secession" is distinguished by its absence. Rangerdude 01:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I see RD's point. The CSA certainly it went beyond merely "declaring" a secession. I can sit in my chair and declare a secession, but unless I act on it I haven't really attempted to secede. The CSA definitely tried to secede. I think it is correct to say that they illegally attempted to secede. "Illegal" because the highest court in the land said so. "Attempted" because they did not succeed. -Willmcw 01:00, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

More on Secession

According to wikipedia's secession article "Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity." This is a fairly standard dictionary definition. Whether or not the south's secession was legal, there is little question that what they were trying to do in 1861 was "withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity." They did not simply say "we declare ourselves seceded" and leave it at that. They actually executed that act of secession and fought a lengthy but eventually unsuccessful war to carry it out. Whether or not it was legal for them to do so is immaterial to the fact that they did so, though it is pertinent to mention the dispute over secession's legality in the proper context. I've suggested that context is the article on secession itself. Willmcw suggested one of the civil war articles, and some on the Lincoln page have suggested a new article entirely. Whatever solution comes of this though, it needs to occur on one of those other articles and with NPOV in mind. Neglecting to do so and then giving favor to the SCOTUS opinion here without mentioning other views is unavoidably POV. Rangerdude 20:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• What's missing is "official" and "successfully". Are the Basques a separate state from Spain because they say so? Kurdistan? Is Quebec a separate country from Canada because their ruling party had said so? If the US lost the revolution would they still be independent because they endorsed a declaration of independence? I am not saying the article should say the South did not secede. Nor should it say they did. Both are POV, (but saying they did flies in the face of legal facts -- and secession is a concept that is entirely legal. Had they won, laws & facts would be different). Saying they "declared a secession" is NPOV. Saying they did is clearly POV that ignores legal FACT. I am not talking about what is "right" as some have argued against. I am talking about what is fact & what is POV.--JimWae 00:59, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately for your cause, Jim, you are not the arbiter of the definition of secession. As listed here on wikipedia and in most dictionaries, "official" and "successfully" are not part of the definition. Nor is your unnecessarily wordy "declared a secession" NPOV no matter how you try to dress it because it is admittedly premised on a Supreme Court decision, that is inherently POV. Rangerdude 01:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Nor are the other editors of wikipedia arbiters of definition any more than I am - most dictionaries include "formal". Name other "countries" that seceded but did so unofficially & unsuccessfully.
• Btw, SCOTUS declared in a five to three decision, read on April 15, 1869, by Chief Justice S. P. Chase, that the Union was indestructable and, thus, not dissoluble by any act of a state, the government, or the people. Arise wikipedians & weigh in on how ignoring SCOTUS' determination of fact is or is not taking a POV on the issue.
• My revision is not premised on SCOTUS, it simply does not ignore it like you would prefer.--JimWae 04:36, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Now you're just plain fibbing, Jim. NOWHERE have I suggested that we should simply ignore Texas v. White and I defy you to quote me if you think that I did. In fact, I would be perfectly content if you wanted to mention it and add in a link IF it meets two simple and perfectly reasonable conditions: (1) the case is presented from a neutral point of view that does not endorse its opinion as the authoritative and correct one as you have been doing and (2) it is placed in the proper article and with the proper context indicating its circumstances (IOW, there shouldn't be a multi-paragraph essay on Texas v. White in every single civil war article, though a sentence is fine where it is reasonable appropriate). As for the use of secession, I've yet to see you show any of these dictionaries that supposedly modify the definition to include your criteria yet I do see the existing wikipedia article on secession, that does NOT abide by your criteria. I also see several dictionaries that do not include your version of the word "Secession." The American Heritage Dictionary defines secession as "To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance." It also has an interesting second definition "The withdrawal of 11 Southern states from the Union in 1860-1861, precipitating the U.S. Civil War." Princeton WordNet defines it similarly as "formal separation from an alliance or federation" and "the withdrawal of eleven Southern states from the Union in 1860 which precipitated the American Civil War." IOW, the dictionaries are against you as well and even go so far as to explicitly apply the word "secession" to the confederacy. Rangerdude 05:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• The question is still hangs on whether they withdrew. It is not enough in constitutional law to say "I divorce thee" 3 times, to effect a secession. SCOTUS has said they did not withdraw. True they did much else to attempt to withdraw, but that does not settle that they sucessfully did so. I do not find it necessary to say all this in intro paragraph - though full section on it is needed. I have edited intro to say "attempted to secede". Saying they DID secede is not only POV, it is POV counter to fact (as determined by SCOTUS, the supreme arbiter of legal fact in the USA) --JimWae 06:04, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • You are simply mistaken in your application of terminology, Jim. Secession (or more specifically "secede") as used here is a verb referring to a specific act in itself. The use of that verb (as in "the south seceded") is in perfect keeping with its definition in two reputable dictionaries as well as the secession article on wikipedia. I suppose you can and will call that use POV till the cows come home since you seem intent upon injecting a real POV - the supreme court decision - into the wording as a situational arbiter, but the fact remains that "secession," as used in its verb form and as it appears presently in the article, is a perfectly valid, correct, and professional wording per multiple sources that carry substantially more weight than the whims of your own personal opinions, Jim. You also seem incapable of comprehending that wikipedia is not a national but rather international encyclopedia, thus the POV opinion asserted by the United States Supreme Court is no more "neutral" or "final" than any other opinion in the world. "Attempted to secede" is not much better than your previous iteration. Not only is it unnecessarily wordy (thus making for a poor writing style) - it also runs into conflict with multiple standard English dictionary definitions, which as I have shown directly recognize what the CSA states did as an act of secession. It was not an "attempt to secede" because they actually passed secession ordinances and for a period of about four years removed themselves from the northern government and operated under their own. Some legislators in Maryland "attempted to secede" but were thwarted before they could get a bill out of the legislature. The CSA states, however, carried secession into action and sustained it for four years before being defeated. Now the Supreme Court, as you say, did rule in 1869 against the legality of secession. But by then it had already happened and the war it caused was long over, resulting in the secessionists' defeat. If one accepts and supports the Supreme Court's opinion (and apparently you do, though many others did not) that means secession, as it happened, was illegal and thus invalid. It does NOT mean secession did not happen though...unless you are suggesting that we should interpret Texas v. White as a damnatio memoriae on the events in 1861 that is. Rangerdude 06:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• they did not say it was simply illegal, they said it did not happen... "that the Union was indestructable and, thus, not dissoluble by any act of a state, the government, or the people." The question was whether SCOTUS had jurisdiction over events that happened after the attempted secession & before their defeat. They ruled they did. You may disagree, but what SCOTUS decrees is legal fact at least in the USA. A NPOV is one that accomodates opposing viewpoints w/o taking sides. You are proposing that wikipedia take sides against SCOTUS. I am not proposing that the article take SCOTUS side, only that it not be undermined. --JimWae 06:53, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • That's a declaration of illegality, Jim. It's the equivalent of saying that since the union was indissoluble, the states that seceded acted illegally by trying to dissolve it. It does not alter the fact that secession happened though (and in fact had it not happened, the SCOTUS would not have had a case!). So unless you are trying to use Texas v. White as a damnatio memoriae upon the Civil War, there simply isn't any basis to your interpretation. And since when is denying your attempts to insert the SCOTUS POV as the litmus test for using the word secession taking sides against Texas v. White? As I've told you many times, I'm perfectly open to including a reference and link to Texas v. White in the appropriate articles and context so long as it is done in NPOV. Yet you refuse to add it and then have the audacity to accuse me of trying to suppress it! Rangerdude 17:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, this discussion makes it apparent that the topic of the legal status of the CSA should be mentioned in the article. -Willmcw 18:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I added a brief section on the confederacy's legal status. It covers diplomacy, the CSA as seen by itself versus as seen by the north, and both sides of the Texas v. White issue. Rangerdude 19:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps cover an important aspect of the history of the CSA. Chers, -Willmcw 03:25, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Coming in a bit late...It seems to me we've got a disagreement between "legal" & "common" usage: SCotUS says N, because CSA failed in forming sep nation; we say Y, because CSA tried. Both right? Trekphiler 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming in a bit late too because I wasn't a member of Wikipedia during this debate. The above is clearly a debate over the CSA's de jure and de facto status. The SCOTUS ruling (after the fact) that the secession never happened (legally) doesn't change the fact that the CSA exercised sovereignty over a significant portion of North America for several years. Not only that, but an extremely organized and coherent government existed within the CSA. The SCOTUS clearly had a political agenda of ensuring the fidelity of the Union. Their definition of what did and didn't happen is irrelevant to the facts on the ground and what we know. The CSA did a darned good job of seceding from the Union, regardless of what SCOTUS ruled years later. If you say otherwise, you put yourself in an awkward position of having to define (in specific terms) what constitutes secession. Cessation of hostilities? A certain time span? Forgive me for beating a dead horse! --BWD 04:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Secession/Declared secession

JimWae - Please cease and desist your edits to replace "secession" with "declared their secession," "declared their separation" or any other variation thereof. These changes do not have the consensus of the other editors on this article. They also conflict with the Princeton and American Heritage Dictionary definitions of the word secession, not to mention the wikipedia article. This has been pointed out to you. A proper, fitting, NPOV section has also been added to this article that documents and links to the Texas v. White decision per your desire to cover that topic. You therefore have no basis to pursue your changes any further. Please make your edits in a manner consistent with this discussion or show cause why you believe the issue should be revisited. You may consider this a warning before administrator notification is sought. Rangerdude 03:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

A discussion between 3 people with 1 guy seeing points made on both sides is not a consensus. SCOTUS has said no state ever seceded. It is POV to say any did, it is NPOV to say they "declared a secession" (a totally true fact, altho' I do agree they did more than declare, they fought for it). It is NPOV to say they "attempted to secede". You want to say it is POV to state a clear fact, but not POV to state a contentious opinion at odds with legal fact (as determined by SCOTUS). Someone has argued that outside the US it is recognized they seceded - but that is true officially only by Saxy-Coburgh (sp?). SCOTUS says the declaration of secession was "absolutely null" - this is a subset of the non-specific illegal. It was not illegal in the sense of murder, which it is possible to commit. Legal fact in the US & in every country - but one that no longer exists - is that no secession was ever committed. --JimWae 04:19, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

The problem with that take on things, Jim, is that "declared their secession" etc. itself connotes a POV aimed at diminishing the act of secession. It also ascribes to an unsourced definition of secession that is in clear in conflict with what the dictionaries say on secession (quoted above). Those dictionary definitions both apply to what the South did in general and contain secondary definitions specifying the confederacy by name as a secessionist act. Since your personal definition and the dictionary's are in conflict, the burden is on you to come up with a reason why we should discard them and take yours instead. As to your claim that I "want to say it is POV to state a clear fact," this is pure and utter nonesense. What you are stating is NOT clear fact but rather a convoluted wording premised upon your endorsement of a Supreme Court opinion that factually happened but is also nevertheless a POV onto itself. Curiously, despite all your efforts to load this and the other articles with semantical hairsplitting, you seem unusually averse to actually specifying that Supreme Court opinion in the article's text and letting the reader make up his mind for himself about it, which is what we're supposed to do. From day 1 I have been agreeable to stating the clear fact that Texas v. White happened and specifying what Texas v. White was. In fact, I repeatedly invited and urged you to write a couple of NPOV sentences detailing Texas v. White and any other relevent material within the article itself. You ignored each of these invitations and chose not to. I suppose could have simply left it at that, taking your inaction as an indicator that properly inserting Texas v. White into the article didn't merit the effort. But in complete fairness to your indicated position of including it, I composed and added a section on Texas v. White covering the basis of your argument and more in a neutral and succinct manner. You have yet to even acknowledge this contribution or consider it as a reasonable alternative to your single-minded and unilateral insistence of introducing the cumbersome and etymologically incorrect "declared their secession" phrasing at every opportunity possible. Rangerdude 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I will review the Lincoln page to see if any consensus emerged there -- but I have not, as you repeatedly claim, violated NPOV - you just do not, for some reason, understand my point. I am not advocating we say they did not secede, as true as that is. I am saying it is POV to say they did - even more POV than saying that they did not. Btw, "warn" me all you want - you are wrong.JimWae 04:23, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I don't know how consensus is judged on this page, but my earlier remarks were to the effect that the CSA never successfully seceded. -Willmcw 04:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for the clarification. My point is that the verb "seceded" or "to secede," as defined by the dictionaries and wikipedia's secession article, is perfectly proper under its use here. All of this "declared there secession" stuff is unnecessary hairsplitting that reduces the overall quality of the article through awkward language and has a POV effect of minimizing the south's secession (which only started a little thing called the Civil War) to a simple declaration on paper. Since the dictionaries are consistent with the use of secession/seceded as it appears here, I see no reason to alter it. Now, JimWae has indicated that he wanted to include something about Texas v. White. That is fine by me, and as you have seen I was fully accomodating of that request going so far as to write the paragraph myself when he refused to do so after being invited repeatedly. If JimWae doubts that Texas v. White is properly covered in the section I added, I invite him to propose additions to it. But right now all I see is cumbersome and weasily language that is apparently premised upon Texas v. White (and thus POV in itself) without saying so. Rangerdude 05:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Secession? IMHO, SCotUS may have engaged in a bit of legal fic to preserve USA: by say "N secede", makes it possible to readmit w/o hassle & prevent future "attempts"/"rebellions" @a stroke. Trekphiler 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Surrender and Dissolution

The infobox has been changed. Formerly it said that the Surrender occured April 9, 1865. Now it says, "Surrender and Dissolution April 9, 1865-July 15, 1870". Can someone explain how it could be that the CSA existed for five years after its surrender? Were some CSA officials still in office? Can anyone explain? Thanks, -Willmcw July 1, 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Georgia was the last state to be re-admitted on that day. so it may count.

You're right that that is probalby the source of the date. But surely the CSA dissolved prior to that. The CSA ceased to function as a political entity as soon as the armies surrendered, the president was arrested, and martial law was declared by the Union. It didn't take five years for "dissolution", it took a month or so. In any case, I think we adequately explain the issue in the body of the article and so there's no need to put an unclear reference to "dissolution" in the infobox. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Aid from Britain?

Could someone please explain the phrase, "it received material support from Britain." Unless there is evidence of cash, weapons etc supplied by the British government, which I have never heard about, this is misleading. Osomec 2 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

What little navy the CSA had was purchased from Britain. I think there may have been some other aid, but I don't know for sure. -- Nik42 07:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That isn't material aid. It is a commercial transaction under the conventions of neutrality. The statement has stood for nearly a month without meaningful evidence being produced, so I am deleting it.Osomec 06:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was misleading. The aid was more of the "wink wink nudge nudge" variety. The British government did not openly give material aid. British citizens did, and the government turned a blind eye to it until Adams made it clear they could not dance the line of neutrality in it and allow the ship-building to continue. Bulloch, et al, had to move their secret dealings to France and for a time were successful in getting things built there on the sly, and even almost had the King of France support them openly, but things changed....plange 02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-admitted

The table of important dates has just had an interesting change. Re-admitted U.S. became Representation in Congress Restored. If the southern states never left then they couldn't be re-admitted so that is a POV issue either way. More objectively, one of they ways in which they "left" was by withdrawing from the U.S. Congress. So the restoration of that representation would be an NPOV date. However, are those the actual dates of restoration? Since the title was just changed without comment by an unregistered user I do not automatically trust it. Can any editor confirm it? Thanks, - Willmcw July 5, 2005 07:43 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation in lead?

What has the Emancipation Proclamation got to do with which states joined the Confederacy? Putting it in the lead is just off-topic Which states were slave states is relevant - but not the Emancipation Proc--JimWae 19:39, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

New comments and "facts", July 2005

A first time user has added new "facts" and commentary to the lead section. I will revert it. Below are some of my reasons. The parts in bold are (mostly) the new additions.

In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation, that it was a binding contract even if the federal government broke its terms.

• - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union is the full official name of the document & using it reduces explanation necessary
• + he does not argue "even if the federal government broke its terms" NOR is there any text provided for suggesting that the gov't HAD broken its terms

+Lincoln disagreed with Thomas Jefferson that a revolution now and then was a good thing.

• Lincoln does not mention revolution, Jefferson, (nor disagreeing with this idea in general) in his Inaugural Address - and Jefferson disagreed with this himself (in non-general ways) while he was president

+Instead, he believed that the words "perpetual union" in the original Articles meant that it was a union that a state could join but could not leave;

• that is the usual meaning of perpetual, no?

+"perpetual," he said, meant '"forever".

• if he said this, so does a dictionary. I doubt he said this, but you are welcome to check instead of making things up as you go along

+Therefore, he called the southern votes for independence "legally void."

• the southern votes were for "secession", the word there before

+He stated he had no intent to invade southern states, but would use force to maintain possession of federal forts, arsenals, and munitions depots on southern territory.

• -"property" (the word that was there) also includes customs houses, which you left out

His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of the Union on the South.

• he called for a restoration of the bonds of union between all the states - framing it as things that bond people together, not that are bound ON them

+The South, particularly South Carolina, scoffed at the speech. They believed that a people have a right to rule themselves.

• both sides believed people have a right to rule themselves - both sides believed this can only be done through a formal process (rather than anarchy)

+So on April 12, South Carolininians fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina before ships could arrive to fortify it more heavily. During this campaign, South Carolina resupplied the garrison with food, water, and medical supplies, and it surrendered without casualties.

• On 1861 April 6, Lincoln notified South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."
• The Union commander let the SC commander know that he would be forced to surrender in a few more days because of lack of food - SC did NOT provide any supplies (unless you can find some source for this that I cannot). There were casualties & 1 fatality - oddly enough, all in the surrender ceremonies themselves

Lincoln called for all remaining states in the Union to send troops to recapture the South Carolina fort and thus preserve the Union

• No, Lincoln called for far more than that. Other federal property had also been taken & taking ONE fort back would NOT preserve the Union (nor was it the closest accessible to the North)

Most Northern Republicans believed that a quick brutal victory for the Union would crush the nascent secessionists, and Lincoln at first called for volunteers for ninety days only. +This act against one southern state resulted in the outraged citizens of four more states voting to secede from the federal government.

• some of the votes were close & took time, the characterization of "outraged" paints a picture of an immediate upsurge. In some cases it was not outrage at the call, but refusing to fight against the seceding states & thus being forced to choose sides

Once Virginia seceded, the Confederate capital was moved to Richmond, Virginia. The southerners had underestimated Lincoln's resolve to keep the South from leaving at any price.

• this is editorial comment, POV, and in many cases wrong. There were many in the south who did all they could to bring about the war. Some had estimated him about right. Many had underestimated his reluctance to engage in war, expecting to force him to start the first battle.

• --JimWae 06:47, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Let's list

Let's list the states which inscribe this flag. --VKokielov 06:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Kentucky?

I'm from the North, so perhaps it's a bias - but I'm having trouble finding a credible source that has linked Kentucky with secession from USA and been annexed by CSA. --Mrmiscellanious 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I too was surprised at first to see this. But I agree with the article as it stands. The point is that the CSA government claimed Kentucky as part of its territory. Whether the government and population of Kentucky ever considered themselves to have seceded is a somewhat different issue. There is more detail on the particular history under Border states (Civil War). -- 67.174.231.120 07:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Kentucky situation was basically one of loyalties that split the state in half. Two competing governments were set up, and Kentucky raised several units of troops for both sides in the war. That both governments claimed them is accordingly not surprising. Rangerdude 08:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

See Russellville Convention • CQ 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC) • WP:ACW

Missouri Admission?

A table in the article has Missouri "Admitted C.S.A." on August 19, 1861. This precedes the (disputed) secession ordinance of October 31, 1861. So is that August date a typo? It does not match up with the Missouri Secession article either. -- 67.174.231.120 07:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the Confederate Congress passed a resolution saying that Missouri would be accepted contingent upon their legislature seceding or something to that effect in August. When the Neosho government voted to secede in late October they were seated right away. Rangerdude 08:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Georgia Secession?

Not to stir up the issue again (...), but in 1865, GA Gov Joseph E. Brown threatened to secede from the CSA... Trekphiler 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that too.Cameron Nedland 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed link, which had nothing to do with the actual history.

I took the liberty of removing one external link. It is an issue of today and has nothing at all too do with the history of the Confederate States of America. As a historian I feel it is important to maintain a historical outlook on any historical topic and not push today's agenda's via the same. Best, --Bumpusmills1 12:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg Gotha "recognition" did not happen

No country regnized CSA, and especially not Saxe-Coburg Gotha. What happened was that the German states had numerous consuls in the Confederacy. All had their formal papers (called "exequatur") from the State Department in Washington, except for one Ernest Raven, the Saxe-Coburg Gotha consul in Texas. He did have his exequatur from Richmond but the Saxe-Coburg government had made it clear that the request for an exequatur did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition. What's interesting is that the Confederacy decided to expel all the other consuls because their exequators were from Washington, which further isolated the CSA from the world. (there were zero ambassadors in Richmond.)

Source: The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War by Eugene H Berwanger (1994) p 111 online at Google.books.com Rjensen 07:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. -Will Beback 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "No country regnized CSA, and especially not Saxe-Coburg Gotha. What happened was that the German states had numerous consuls in the Confederacy." does not appear in Mr. Berwanger's book. Rjensen added that himself. Mr. Berwanger also has Raven's name wrong, as it was Ernst. Mr. Berwanger also does not footnote his statement that diplomatic recognition was not extended. The footnote for that passage shows only the Confederate Congress journal where Benjamin anounced the exequatur.

Please sign your talk page comments. "Exequatur" appears to be a request to recognize a foreign agent, not a document recognizing a country as sovereign. -Will Beback 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How do I sign them? In international law diplomatic recognition isn't a change of papers itself saying "i recognize you" but an exchange of appointed diplomats to each other with papers asking the other government to receive its diplomat (and thus recognizing its authority).

Sign by typing four tildes ("~"). Can you provide a source which shows that a request for an Exaquatur is equivalent to formal diplomatic recognition? -Will Beback 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You can look at most countries constitutions. The exequatur is in the diplomatic recognition powers of their executives or sovereigns. - CSAcongress 01:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the word isn't used in the U.S. Constitution. The only constitution that matters here is that of the CSA. Does it mention the word? -Will Beback 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Berwanger clearly says that Saxe-Coburg did not recognize the Confederacy. Read Berwanger for yourself: online at Google.books.com Now let's ask: what source says otherwise? Answer: none. I searched the web with Google and every reference to this "recognition" leads back to Wiki! So there is no evidence for the statement, anywhere, and there is a clear statement by the leading scholar that it did not happen. Rjensen 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to do a little better than only searching around the web. You also misquoted what Mr. Berwanger said above. If you look at the google books section where Mr. Berwanger makes the claim that it wasn't a recognition it has a footnote - footnote #10. Go to the back of the book and see what footnote #10 says. It only shows the CSA Congress journal pages, and those pages say nothing about it not being a recognition so Mr. Berwanger didn't support his interpretation. Your answer "none" is also wrong. I did a simple search on Amazon.com's etexts and found one immediately that says they did recognize the confederacy. So at best we've got two sources with conflicting claims plus an original source in the Confederate Congress Journal that says a consul was appointed and recd. That's nowhere near enough consensus to call it a "myth" like you do, and in fact the evidence leans in favor. CSAcongress 06:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Civil War books of lists does not pretend to be based on any research whatever. It's a popular sort of thing. A consul was given his exequatur by Richmond. It is false to say that implies recognition. Recognition of the CSA was a big deal: the US threatened Briatin and France with war if they did so. Obviously it was not a sterp to be taken lightly, nor one to be decided by a very junior diplomat stationed in Texas primarily to handle commercial issues. If it had been taken by the Duke it would have been front-page news all over the USA, & the Confederacy. It's not in the NY Times which is online and well indexed. It's not in the London Times which is online. Two Confederate newspapers are on cdrom (Charleston Mercury & Richmond Enquirer) and they never mention Saxe-Coburg. So we have a story made up in the 1990s based on a bad reading of a document. Who made up the story is unknown but it looks like an amateur who did not know much about diplomacy.

The page from Confederate records that mentions the Saxe counsul asking for his exequatur--which is what Berwanger said--but says nothing whatever about the Duke recognizing the Confederacy. There is a lot of literature about the Duke since he was a close relative of Queen Victoria. None of those sources mention the Duke recognized the Confederacy, and the counsul's request (says Berwanger) explicity said no recognition is intended or implied. So what we have is someone in the 1990s misread the documents and launched the myth. Rjensen 06:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all a bunch of fancy speculation, Rjensen, but it doesn't prove anything. Why would a minor country's diplomatic recognition necesarily be a big deal? And why would London or New York newspapers care about it? Do you seriously think the US would have gone to war with a small landlocked German country over recognition? They probably didn't care one way or another. Mr. Berwanger may say that it intended no recognition but the sources he gave do not support that claim. If anyone misread the documents then, it is Mr. Berwanger. So at face value his claim is no more valid than the Book of Lists, and probably less so since the source he gave doesn't say what he claims it says. - CSAcongress 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New evidence. The Americans praised the Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha and called on all of Germany to emulate him. That suggests that nobody in Saxe heard of this so-called recognition of the Confederacy! The American counsul general W W Murphy made a major address at a ceremony in front of the Duke of Saxe Coburg-Gotha. After describing the Civil war as a great effort to destroy slavery, he praised the Duke. (NY TIMES Aug 8 1862 p 5)

"I must mention the enlightened and liberal Duke of Saxe Coburg Gotha, and the Grand Duke of Baden. Throughout America they are venerated for their liberal views and in the press and in the cottage and in the schools are their names everywhere mentioned in honorable terms. May their days be long and useful, and it is to be hoped that all the Princes of Germany will follow their example."

New evidence? I think not. That article doesn't even say anything about the issue of diplomacy. Its meaningless flowery fluff. You are simply doing original research and speculating about what it means to an historical event that you have an agenda against for some reason. - CSAcongress 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is zero evidence. CSACongress turned up a book that says in its title it is a list of the ridiculous, and I agree this is ridiculous. CSAcongress has not cited a single scholar or historian or reference book that agrees with his novel theory. No newspaper in the 1860s mentions this big event. The US counsel in Saxe did not know about it. Only CSAcongress seems to know. He refuses to disclose his sources, which suggests a hoax. Rjensen 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You yourself just admitted that there are only about 3 or 4 newspapers that are even electronic from the civil war, so how can you say that no newspaper in the 1860's mentions it? Did you search them all Rjensen? Did you try searching newspapers that may be likely to report it such as the Galveston Daily News where Consul Raven was apointed? No. You searched the New York Times a thousand miles away and speculated that it never happened since they published some unrelated fluff reference to the Duke a couple years later. Anyway I'm tired of fighting somebody who is obviously pushing an agenda here and trying to engage in original reasearch about something he believes is a "myth." So I reworded the paragraph to say what we KNOW to be the facts - that Ernst Raven was apointed consul in 1861 to the confederacy and was officially accepted by their government. - CSAcongress 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether a request for an exequator for a consul implies recognition needs some more research. According to this confidential 1938 telegram from the UK Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the UK High Commissioner to Austrialia[5], an application for an exequatur for a consul-general is regarded as de facto recognition of a government. The issue raised in the telegram was the difference in the de jure recognition of the absorbtion of Austria by Germany versus only the de facto recognition of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, the first being done in accordance with the laws of both Austria and Germany, whereas the latter case was not done by force. BTW, the US doesn't distinguish between de jure and de fact recognition, using only the de facto standard in determining when to recognize a government. (A further technical point, the US affords recognition to governments, not to countries.) I do not know if Saxe Coberg-Gotha makes a distinction between de jure governments and de facto governments. Regardless, the discussion of international law in this British telegraph supports the thesis that, at the very least, the request for an exequator for a consul implied de facto recognition of the Confederate States Government as the government of territory that it controlled. Nicholas F 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is an earlier telegram referenced in the 1936 British telegram I mentioned above.[6] The full text is as follows:

My telegram of 25th March Circular B 82. It is proposed in the course of a few days to inform the German Government that it is our intention to replace our legation at Vienna by a Consulate-General and to ask for an exequatur for the new Consul-General.

It will be understood that such a note to the German Government would be interpreted as constituting an act (and supplying the date) of formal recognition by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of the incorporation of Austria in the German Reich.

This again supports the thesis that requesting an exequator is an act of recognition. As an exequatur is the official recognition of a consul or commercial agent by the government of the country to which he is accredited, authorising him to exercise his functions, it follows that such a request would only be made to authorities who have the right to grant such a recognition, that is to say to a recognized government. Nicholas F 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are two more examples that I have found that show that a consul’s receiving an exequatur is a de facto recognition of the issuing government. The first[7] deals with the US recognition of British sovereignty over Belize:

. . . the United States had, in 1847, sent a consul to this settlement, which consul had received his exequatur from the British Government; circumstance which constitutes a recognition by the United States Government of the Settlement of British Honduras under Her Majesty as it then existed.

The second[8] is from a 1873 British Admiralty Court case that resolved around the question of whether Egypt was a sovereign nation or a part of the Ottoman Empire. The relevant part of the testimony is:

Lastly, no treaty ever having been made with his Highness, no ambassador ever received from or sent to him, British consuls in Egypt receiving no exequatur from him, there being, in other words, no de facto recognition of his Highness as a sovereign by our government, has there been any recognition de jure of him in this capacity? Nicholas F 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

flags

Why are only Union flags in the chart? The old flags should be displayed, too.

Time zones

Did times zone exist in 1865? -Will Beback 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Time zone#History, they did not. -Will Beback 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Time was basically random in the U.S. until the late 1800's when the railroad companies standardized the time. THB 19:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Category

FYI this article belongs to the Category: Confederate States of America, which in turn belongs to Category:Short-lived states. The criteria for that category is: "Countries, recognized or not, that controlled territory but existed for less than five years." That all seems appropriate. -Will Beback 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Map issues

I have issues with the main and locator maps, which piqued my interest during my quest to clarify various definitions for regions in the Americas. While I do not deny that various states and territories were allied to either side during the American Civil War, the maps neither clearly differentiate allegiances nor are they sourced.

Apropos: the Oxford English Reference Dictionary (ISBN 0-19-860652-4), Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (ISBN 0-87779-809-5), Cassell's The American Civil War by Brian Holden Reed (ISBN 0-304-35230-6) et al. indicate/depict that the CSA was comprised of just eleven states:

• Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia

Cassell's depicts Missouri (for instance) as part of the Union despite advocating slavery, while the main map in the article indicates Southern allegiance unequivocally. As well, nor does Cassell's depict Arizona Territory and New Mexico Territory as belonging to the Confederacy despite their allegiance to it.

Thoughts? If sufficient sources cannot be provided to substantiate this, I will revise both maps to more clearly depict Confederate territory. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the maps as they are. They are an accurate depiction of the states and territories claimed by the CSA. (See Image talk:Map of CSA.png for an earlier discussion on the rationale behind the main map.) The map is properly labelled as area claimed by the CSA. A map of actual military control (which varied during the war) more properly belongs on the American Civil War page.

The problem is that by the very nature of the war there is no definitive list of what states and territories were part of the Confederate States of America. This was one of, if not the principal, issues on which the war was fought. The Union disputed the very existence of the CSA and denied that any of states were under its authority. The 11 states that you list at best represents the states which Union regarded as being in rebellion, but this list leaves out other states and territories that the CSA made claim to politically and attempted to back up militarily.

Both Kentucky and Missouri had competing pro-US and pro-CS goverments, sent troops to both armies, had representatives in the corresponding US and CS Congresses, and were fought over by US and CS armies. The CSA signed treaties with the all of the tribes in Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma), raised Indian troops under Gen. Stand Watie, and controlled most of the territory for a large part of the war. The CSA also recognized the formation of a territorial government in Arizona (southern New Mexico Territory) based at Mesilla and contolled this territory for a fair amount of time. Both the Indian Territory and Arizona Territory sent delegates to sit the CS Congress. The CSA also made claim to the northern half of New Mexico Territory and sent an army which briefly occupied Santa Fe. These facts are well documented, but I can send you additional citations if you require them for you own satisfaction.

Nicholas F 05:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is informative; however, this is also insufficient. Please provide sources that support the current maps – my references indicate differently and are quite clear. Can you refer to another map that demonstrates this? As noted above, I do not dispute that various territories were variably allied during the CSA's existence, but the current maps do not clearly depict these contentious territories ... and by this I mean the states/territories not included among the 11 commonly known to form the CSA (e.g., the split of Virginia/West Virginia). This can be fulfilled, for instance, through the use of different colours and legend. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The acts admitting the states of Missouri (August 20, 1861) and Kentucky (December 20, 1861) into the C.S.A. can be found in The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, Richmond, 1862. The same volume contains the following treaties with the Indian tribes residing in Indian Territory, placing them under the laws and protection of the C.S.A.:

• Creek Nation – July 10, 1861
• Choctaws and Chickasaws – July 12, 1861
• Seminole Nation – August 1, 1861
• Comanches and other tribes leasing lands from the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations – August 12, 1861
• Comanches of the Prairies and Staked Plan – August 12, 1861
• Osages – October 2. 1861
• Senecas and Shawnees – October 4, 1861
• Quapaws – October 4, 1861
• Cherokees – October 7, 1861

On March 1, 1861 Lt. Col. John Baylor, commanding the Confederate army in the Territory of Arizona, issued a proclamation taking possession of the territory in the name of the C.S.A., comprising all that portion of New Mexico laying south of the 34th parallel. (La Bree, Ben, ed. The Confederate Soldier in the Civil War, Paterson. NJ: Pageant Books [1895] 1959, p. 28) The C.S. Congress passed an act organizing the territory on January 18, 1862. (Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the C.S.A.)

On December 20, 1861, General Sibley, in command of the Army of New Mexico, issued a proclamation taking possession of New Mexico in the name of the C.S.A. (Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 1, Vol. IV, p. 89). His ill-fated New Mexico campaign to enforce the proclamation ended at the Battle of Glorieta Pass on March 26-28, 1862.

On June 4, 1864, the C.S. Congress passed a joint resolution declaring reasserting the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the C.S.A. and the state of Virginia over the western portion of the state from which the Union carved out the state of West Virginia.

Nicholas F 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: this is very helpful and informative; I'll peruse in more detail shortly. In addition, can you direct me to any maps that hark of the presentations herein?

Regardless, this still begs for improvements to the map that more clearly depicts major territories that were lost, gained, or otherwise allied during the CSA's existence. Maps of other historical political entities generally depict territories at a specific point in time or clearly exhibit losses and gains (even with just a year) ... in this case, it's slightly misleading to exhibit the maximum extant of control without qualifiying it more clearly. I will work on this. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other published map that shows the all of the territorial claims of the C.S.A. While some do show include Missouri and Kentucky, they typically leave out the Territories. Perhaps this due to a "War Between the States" point of view. If you are interested in maps that show territory actually controlled, let me suggest Atlas of the Civil War, Month by Month: Major Battles and Troop Movements by Mark Swanson. Athens, Ga.: The University of Georgia Press, 2004. As the title indicates, it has a map for each month of the war showing lines of control.

I suggest the main map remain as is as I believe that a map of the political claims of the C.S.A. is important. This could be supplemented, however, with a second map that would show the lines of control at various dates. I could create such a map without much difficulty, but we would have to decide on which dates to use. Four dates probably would be the most that could be used before the map became too cluttered. May I suggest December of 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864. Nicholas F 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There are various thematic and political maps which exhibit the extant of the CSA at various points. And, of course, these vary and some are inexorably linked to the Civil War; some examples (of varied authority) include:

• various maps regarding the Civil War in the National Atlas of the United States, based on government parks brochure, et al.
• PBS (I know, I know ...)
• map from Harper's Weekly, and other content
• "Kirchener's Map of the Confederacy"
• this nifty site depicts changes in territories and assets as of specific dates

While I fully support your proposal to depict temporal changes in Confederate territory (I think the year is sufficient), the main map should not remain as is. Don't get me wrong, it's good (and I've drawn or adapted maps in Wp too) but the main one needs to be clearer (hence this discussion). If anything, I suggest tweaking the map to more clearly depict the incipient states, while indicating (with different colour or typeface) states/territories added later or having ambiguous political status. Thoughts? In any event, I'll pull something together shortly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a proposed change to the main map. Comments please. Nicholas F 00:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Map of the states and territories claimed by the Confederate States of America

That looks much more "NPOV". Thanks for doing that. -Will Beback 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes: this map is better. I think the Virginia/West Virginia split needs to be demonstrated, since the boundaries changed and the latter formed and admitted to the Union during the CSA's existence. Moreover, the territories should somehow be treated uniquely. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the Confederate presence in West Virginia (and Alexandria) was as fleeting as their presence in Kentucky. Septentrionalis 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a political map, not a map of military lines of control. West Virginia did not come into existance until 1863. The boundaries of Virginia are those recognized by both the CSA throughout the war and the USA up until June 20, 1863, when West Virginia was created and admitted as a new state in the Union. Nicholas F 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Sentence

One of the greatest misunderstandings about the Confederacy was that the issue was never over slavery. President Lincoln was quoted on many occasions stating that if he could keep the southern states, and slavery, and avoid a war, he would. This sentence is rather deceptive, and since it's wedged in rather awkwardly, I can't help but wonder if it was put in there by an apologist for the Confederacy. It sounds like it's trying to say One of the greatest misunderstandings about the Civil War was that slavery was never the issue. This is not an article about the causes of the Civil War, this is an article about the Confederate States of America. Also to say that "the issue" was never slavery is extremely deceptive. Not only was moral opposition to slavery a factor in the cultural differences that led to the war, it created a different economic order in the South that in turn led to other differences. Furthermore, slavery was abolished just about everywhere after the Civil War, and although the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves, it did turn slavery into an issue. Slavery was not the only issue that led to the Civil War, to say that it was never an issue is absurd. I say this sentence should be removed as being inaccurrate, POV, and out of place in this article. Rhesusman 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• But you know they would have stopped slavery eventually they were laying the groundwork for it from the beginning. Jamhaw 18:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
  • The same could be said of the U.S. Constititution, which laid the groundwork for eventual abolition. However the CSA was founded on the cornerstone of slavery, and specualting about what would have happened if the CSA had succeeded in seceding is not encyclopedic. -Will Beback 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the difference that should be noted is that slavery was one of the main reasons for the secession of the first wave of states (and thus the formation of the CSA), it might not necessarily have been the main reason for the War, but not sure if people would understand this nuance and so perhaps should be left out. plange 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius IX's Letter to Jefferson Davis and Recognition

In an official correspondence from Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamine to Dudley Mann, special envoy to the Holy See, dated February 1, 1864, Benjamin rejected Mann’s assertion that the Pope’s addressing a letter "to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America" was a recognition of the C.S.A. as an independent nation. Benjamin noted that the Pope's reference to the war as an intestine or civil war rather than a foreign war in the letter showed that his address to Jefferson Davis as "President of the Confederate States" was only a formula of politeness. I will change the article to reflect this.

• A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, including the Diplomatic Correspondence 1861-1865. Vol. II. Compiled and edited by James D. Richardson. Nashville: United States Publishing Company, 1906. p. 623

Nicholas F 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Image:Confederate National Flag since Mar 1865.svg

Someone fix that!

Ernst Raven

I'm posting this here because Rjensen keeps deleting a carefully worked out text on Ernst Raven, the consul appointed by Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the confederacy. You can see from the article and discussion history that this topic has been worked on for many many months leading to the current language. That text is factually accurate and presented in a way that is neutral to both sides. It's also got a valid first hand source from the confederate government records proving beyond any doubt that Raven was appointed consul in 1861.

Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, ruler of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the brother-in-law of Queen Victoria, appointed Ernst Raven as consul to the Confederate government in 1861. Raven was granted diplomatic exequatur on July 30 1861. [9] There is a question under international law whether this act amounted to de jure or merely de facto recognition of the Confederate government.

I restored it because this text is balanced and factually true. Yet every time I see this article Rjensen keeps coming along and deleting it without ANY discussion. This is inappropriate and its just plain wrong. Rjensen needs to explain himself and work as part of the team on this article - not change it back after long standing compromises are made. - MightyMo

I delete this because 1) it is original research and 2) it is false. The Duke was a famous friend of the US, hailed by American diplomats./ More to the point is the leading diplomatic historian who explicitly reports: "In asking for the exequatar, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." [The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War

By Eugene H Berwanger, U of Kentucky Press 1994 p 111] it is online at [10] A third reason might be added--it is recent neo-Confederate deliberate myth.

You are saying that the Trent Affair had nothing to do with Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and that cotton had nothing to do with British interests, while pretending the Golden Circle_(Slavery) had nothing to do with the French interest because of the Mexican Empire?. Don't make omissions because they seem unpleasant to you. You have an agenda to rewrite the past of the CSA, but Wikipedia's job is to present as wide a view as possible. This means NPOV, not slanting one way or the other. Give each issue its proper due, nothing more or less. Why is it in your POV interest to diminish the knowledge of the CSA's diplomatic or worth status? Please, no Union revisionism and no Confederate fantasies. Just keep it straight and don't advance any particular side. You obviously have an agenda, but please keep it at home and don't bring it here. You risk offending others, just as you would be offended if a Neoconfederate edited with an agenda on the Union article. Relax. Doughface 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I am saying there is NO RELIABLE SOURCE that says Confederacy was recognized by Saxe, and there is a reliable source that explictly denies it.[11] I am also saying there is no reliable source that says the Golden Circle ever existed (seems to be a confusion with a group called the Knights of the Golden Circle). My agenda is keeping false history nd hoaxes off Wiki. Rjensen 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not supposed to disrupt the Wikipedia to make a point. (See WP:POINT) There are opposite theories to yours, while Wikipedia attempts to give each side a say and not one or the other. You are trying to advance the singular position of one history book, but the article already described the vague nature of diplomatic recognition. You are staking a POV claim of definitiveness, where it does not explicitly apply. Unofficial recognition was more than relevant in the international affairs of the Confederacy, which is what almost prompted a war between the Union and the UK. It turned out that neither side was willing to go to war over it. The simple matter of fact is that the British Royal Family was in fact involved in the issues, while the British Parliament was as well. The extent with which the Saxonian duchy dealt with the CSA, is restricted by the nature of its extended relationship via the British Empire and nothing more or less. This was plainly a British/French affair and when you add a House of Windsor relative into the situation, it is obvious that this person was acting only in British interests as a "neutral power broker" (or something like that). You are a little off kilter with this deletion-frenzy. The Golden Circle was a political manifesto, a dream that some adventurers attempted and failed to create, with its own background in the Mexican War (some say as far back as Drake and English piracy on the Spanish Main). The anti-imperial sentiment in New England during the Spanish-American War was convinced that the Spanish war was a revival of this in the Union government, as it had been during the Polk Presidency. These are not controversial observances on the matters, but your blatant rewrites and omissions only obscure very well researched and hard-labored articles. This is hard to find subject-matter, due to the taboos about the Confederacy. Rest assured, the Golden Circle was an important topic in the Election of 1860. It even led to war. To pretend like the concept had no currency, is just ignorant of the entire antebellum South and American imperialism on the whole. Doughface 07:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all original research. please give me a reliable source. (I have already cited one that completely rejects the recognition theory). Rjensen 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it that your one source outweighs all others, including the common belief of it being otherwise to your own take, as supported by your singular source? The article already stated the unofficial recognition and the tentative status with which the Saxon duchy had shown diplomatic recognition. You are attempting to choose a side. Why not merely add your cited source, along with the previous details? It is better than erasing what you diagree with. Doughface 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Recognition hoax

The notion that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha officially recognized the Confederacy is rejected by all historians. It's a hoax invented by neo-confederates in the 1990s. Rjensen 07:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source for this statement of yours. Pray tell, does it come from Morris Dees? You assert that ALL historians agree with your view, but you've only provided one source and one historian. Doughface 07:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

the story is not mentioned in any of the books cited in the bibliography. Where did Doughface find the story? Rjensen 08:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please rephrase that, because it is hard to understand what you just wrote. Doughface 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What reliable sources did Doughface use re Saxe- issue??? Rjensen 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How about the sources every other editor has had? I am only defending the long and hard work they did, while you wish to supplant their efforts instead of add meaningful quality. Add your info, but do not erase the other information. Learn how to make your edits coexist with other edits. Review common objections to your revisionist edits, here and elsewhere in relation to the Civil War. I have witnessed several complaints about your editing from others. Doughface 08:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen is pushing a clear POV here and he's also making personal attacks by calling it a hoax and neo-confederate. The link accompanying the compromise version of the text on Ernst Raven is an indisputable and authentic historical document from the official records of the confederate government. It shows without any doubt that Raven was appointed as consul to the Confederate government. The neutral text that was added after it is fair and balanced because it leaves the question of whether it was recognition or not open. Also several editors have indicated it should be included but only RJensen keeps trying to remove it, and he's revert warring like crazy to do so. I've reported the incident for 3RR because of this and because he's violating consensus for POV reasons. - MightyMo

RFC on recognition by Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

The basic question is whether the European country of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha officially recognized the Confederacy. The Wiki qustion is whether the statement that it was recognized is based on original research or on verifiable sources. 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you and your one book going to redefine the failed state known as the CSA, all on your own? That sounds eccentric to me. Doughface 08:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

well it's better than zero books! Note that none of the books in the bibliography mention the Saxe business. Nobody says it's true. Try again: where did you get your information on Saxe???? Rjensen 09:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know this? I already answered you, but you haven't listened. I'm advancing no agenda here. Doughface 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just dropped by to see if I can help here. Doughface, could you tell us new folk what your source is? Rjensen, could you tell us why this source is not acceptable to you? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Doughface seems unwilling to tell us the reliable sources he used. Note that the official recognition is not mentioned in any major reference book on the Civil War or the Confederacy--which seems odd, if it happened. For example both President Davis and VP Stephens wrote long histories of the Confederacy (online at Gutenberg), with great detail on foreign affairs and yet never mention this great achievement of official recognition. Several Confed newspapers are digitzed but they don't mention it. Rjensen 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only been a spectator to this and do not care either way, as long as what is decided is fair and NPOV, so in the interest of furthering this, I looked up above in the discussions to see what was used to back up the claim and here it is: http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcc/005/0400/04240422.gif -- in other discussions above it appears that some earlier editors had come up with compromise language that stated that "There is a question under international law whether this act amounted to de jure or merely de facto recognition of the Confederate government" -plange 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The cited original-research-source shows Raven (an American citizen) got permission from Confederacy to be the counsel for Saxe in Texas. As the historian Berwanger points out, there was no question of diplomatic recognition either de jure or de facto. The point was that Raven was allowed to handle official papers for the many German immigrants in Texas. No reliable source says there was recognition--the notion was invened by neo-Confederates in the 1990s. It's a hoax and should not be in Wiki. Rjensen 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look at the link and see what I think. My preliminary search turns up no reference that says this German state recognized the CSA, but I've only begun to look. I think we need some pretty speciific language that says this, though, if we are to put it in the article. Ben Franklin, for example, was received as a representative during the Revolution long before the French court recognized the government.

If we do not have evidence of the German state recognizing the CSA, we can, if the literature says it, mention that they sent an envoy.

Any other scholarship out there on this question we should look at? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've examined the source. All it says is that the CSA recognized Raven as an agent of the Saxe principality and that government appointed Raven as counsul. In addition, this is a deep link into a document that I cannot easily identify, which makes it uncitable. Do we know what it is?

Barring that, I think we cannot say this state recognized the CSA, only that it sent an agent recognized by them as an agent. If memory serves, Counsuls have lesser rank than Ambassadors and are appointed when less than full relations are present between governments. (Does anyone know if I'm right?

So, for what it's worth, I think we should say a counsul was appointed, but only if we can get a full citation for it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this again. The link is to the Libarary of Congress website and is a page from the Journal of the Confederate Congress. This clearly states that Ernst Raven did apply for exequater. Now unless someone can come up with evidence that this did not happen, it should be mentioned in the article. However, it also needs to be mentioned that there is a dispute about the meaning and significance of this action. Did Saxe-Coburg-Gotha intend full diplomatic recognition or just to get it's agent to be allowed to continue to function in Texas? I thought that was how we were suposed to do things on Wikipedia. State the facts and if there is a dispute as to interpretation, mention that also. Iwalters 03:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No original research--we cannot have editors ransacking original documents and proclaiming what they mean. We have the leading historian who clearly says there was no sort of recognition ever intended, Source: The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War

by Eugene H Berwanger (1994) p 111 online at Google.books.com The reason no standard reference book mentions the epsiode is that it is a recent hoax invented by neo-confederates. There were numerous European consuls all over the South--as Berringer explains in elaborate detail. Ernst Raven was an immigrant from Saxe who went to Texas in the 1840s when it was an independent country and became a citizen of texas and held local office. It was common then (and now) to appoint such people as counsuls even if they are no longer citizens of the foreign country (Saxe). Ravens was not a career diplomat in any sense--he was a local businessman in Texas. Exactly when he was appointed by the Duke as counsul is unclear--probably well before secession. The document cited states that ERNST applied to the Richmond government for permission (exequator) in 1861, it does NOT say the Duke applied on his behalf. As for international law, there have been no citation to a reliable source on that point either. Rjensen 03:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. The editor(s) arguing that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha officially recognized the CSA haven't presented any reliable secondary sources to support their argument, just a tendentious interpretation of a primary source (the Journal of the Confederate Congress). This is clearly original research, so leave it out. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has provided a source that says the CSA was recognized by the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha principality, we cannot assert it in the article. We can, however, point out that Raven was appointed a counsul, providing a fuller reference to the page in American Memory can be provided. I have been unable to do this and the reference is worthless without it. No one can garentee that Library of Congress will leave this page where it is or leave it in this format even. So, unless this reference is provided, I move that we remove all references to Raven and to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyree H. Bell????

Why is this rather obscure general (who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article) included in the list of Confederate military leaders? I can build a case that he (and a few others on the list) should be replaced with more prominent omissions. Scott Mingus 12:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Info box error

it says that there was no minted coinage while the CSA did mint some coins

Wikipedia cannot say the Confederate States seceded

The North said they did not. SCOTUS (in Texas v. White) said they did not. No country recognized their declarations of secession. Saying without qualification that the Confederate States seceded is to take a POV. This has been discussed at length repeatedly. Quit putting this crap back in. We can say "they declared their secession", "they seceded[1]", even "the seceding states", but to say outright that they seceded - especially in the first instance in which the topic is broached - is POV. I can understand falling into short-hand usage after the issue has been qualified, and I know many academics do not make any distinction, but NPOV has priority--JimWae 06:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You have no knowledge of the "Readmittance" clause in the Republican/Union occupied states (districts) formerly independent parts of the CSA? Go to school, not Revisionist GOP parties. Hell, I'm Republican and accept that they did secede. I don't have any interest in skewing the viewpoint to favour that there was no CSA. I would insult you, but this is an encyclopedia and we are supposed to be professional. IP Address 06:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not address the above (partially "withdrawn" here), though I will look into procedures to deal with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I will add, for others, that I am not advocating saying they did not secede either --JimWae 06:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I only felt like you were trolling. Let's not play this legalistic perception bullshit. Call a spade a spade. IP Address 06:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Jim, do you have a few cites that state point blank that the CSA states did not secede? IP, do you have cites from scholarship or Union sources that say they did? Our POVs do not matter here. What do sources tell us? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that you lot are off your rockers. This is taught in all schools across the nation, from grade school to university level! Oh my God! How dare you screw around like this?! What a waste of time! Stop trolling! IP Address 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. Yes, it can seem like some sort of game. But where there are emotional issues involved, insisting on documentation is the only way to resolve them. I've been asked on the Martin Luther page to cite even the doctrine of salvation by grace, which is taught even to our kindergarteners. *roll eyes* Yet these are the easiest to cite. I'm betting that northern sources even called the CSA states seceded. I don't know absolutely for certain. The simplest way to end that argument is to cite sources. So, please, don't throw around emotional language. Just go and find a few sources. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)--CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What is common knowledge about the Civil War even from Third World Countries, is that the CSA was a secessionist movement that failed. It is not about civility, it is about obstinate stupidity. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_dense IP Address 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the canons of English Wikipedia do not allow for common knowledge. I've tried to argue for it, but lost that debate. So, that leaves us with documenting the obvious. So, please, humor us and keep the insults in the real world. O.K.? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just showed you a wikipolicy. Apparently, you think it is an insult and so will not follow it. Ahh, the irony. IP Address 14:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into any of the content issues, it's clear that IP Address is engaged in multiple unprovoked uses of obscene language on this talk page, and is in a poor ethical position to quote wiki policy. No matter how strongly felt the contention, using this space as a platform for indiscrete language is inappropriate and unacceptable. To his or her credit, he or she redacted the worst four-letter offense (acknowledging error), but other epithets remain. If IP Address wishes to post using unacceptable language, I encourage that user to please post elsewhere than Wikipedia. BusterD 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I will look up sources, but my gut reaction to this is that it's POV-pushing to say they didn't secede based on the fact that the US didn't recognize it, because of course they didn't, that's why there was a war. But I guess the old adage is true, history writing belongs to the victor. If they didn't secede then why the whole rigamarole of re-admitting them to the Union? -plange 17:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, agendas are plastered out openly. It is wrong to say yes means yes and no means no. IP Address 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I will have to agree with RJensen on this. All reputable secondary sources say that the Southern states seceded and that is not POV. It would be possible to qualify the statement by saying that "virtually all major historians agree that the South seceded" and then back that up with some specific citations, such as Nevins or McPherson, but those are weasel words that do a disservice to the average Wikipedia reader. The fact that the Supreme Court, long after the fact, said they did not is merely a CYA legal footnote to history. Hal Jespersen 23:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying we should say they did not secede. I am saying it is a POV issue & wikipedia cannot take sides. In 1861 Lincoln & the Republicans said the secession was legally void, and in 1869 SCOTUS said the same. To assert they seceded is to assert that they were wrong. I am aware that the vast majority of people go along with the oversimplification that "they seceded", and so it appears in a great number of history books. Secession is a process, and if it were accomplished, then they would have seceded - but they failed. If some group of people takes control of the Queen Elizabeth and presents it to Kim Song Yung, we do not say they have transferred title - at least not until at least a few nations recognize it as a transfer of title. West Virgina seceded, the Republics of Slovakia seceded, Ireland seceded, several previously Russian states seceded, and about half of Quebec wants to secede, but the Confederacy did not achieve secession. As the decision in Texas v. White 1869 says: secession is either a legal process or one achieved by winning a revolution - the Confederacy did neither. --JimWae 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a disservice to readers to portray the situation in an flat, overly-simplified manner. The legal pronouncements by SCOTUS have bearing on any future attempts as secession. --JimWae 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If and when someone finds any historians who declare they seceded, be sure they are discussing it as an issue and not just talking short-handedly about the events. Is this even a topic for historians? It seems, to me at least, that only legal and political science scholars would qualify as authorities in this area. --JimWae 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So I guess your definition of 'seceded' means 'left and never came back'? Would your take on the 1956 Hungarian Revolution be that they never revolted because they didn't succeed? Would you say that a divorced couple that reconciled and remarried never divorced in the first place? Would you prefer to say "attempted to secede and were successful only for four years"? In Wikipedia, we have a devotion to secondary sources. We go to prominent historians and ask them what to say, so to speak. All prominent historians say the South seceded. I think the legal status of secession as expressed in an 1869 opinion is interesting historical info for discussion deep in the article, but it should not affect the lead paragraphs. Hal Jespersen 01:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Did they get a legal divorce or not?--JimWae 02:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Historians uses "secede" and "secession". For a sample of the scholarship see David Potter's Pulitzer prize book, with a chapter on "The Lower South Secedes" and look at the use of "secession" in the many books and articles he cites here [12]. Rjensen 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As I acknowledged earlier, I am sure they use it - as shorthand, but where do they address whether or not it is a fully correct term for what happened? Wikipedia is unique - Other encyclopedia do not proclaim they are NPOV - & POVs pop up everywhere in them. Academics are expected to expound upon their POVs. Do not be surprised if many more things that are "common knowledge" are shown to be POV issues. --JimWae 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Secession usage. Lincoln in formal papers in 1861 always said something like "the so-called seceding states." by 1862 he let that drop. Secretary of State Seward called them seceding states: In formal instruction to the US minister to Britain in 1861 Seward wrote: "You will indulge in no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or even impatience concerning the seceding States, their agents, or their people. But you will, on the contrary, all the while remember that those States are now, as they always heretofore have been, and, notwithstanding their temporary serf-delusion, they must always continue to be, equal and honored members of this Federal Union, and that their citizens throughout all political misunderstandings and alienations, still are and always must be our kindred and countrymen." (end Seward quote) Rjensen 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Secession is "achievement" concept - just like you do not win a game by saying you will show up for it - nor by playing only 4 innings. I have no problem with saying seceding because that means it is a process (which was never completed). Lincoln was careful NOT to refer to them as having seceded --JimWae 02:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remember, no OR - we need to cite from books written on the subject, not interpret original documents ourselves. That's for historians, and though you might be one, we (both sides) have to go from published books. -plange 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We have the published decision of SCOTUS - and anyone who can read can see what is said there. I am not advocating that we say something original, I am advocating that we NOT say something that is POV--JimWae 02:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Jimmy here thinks the SCOTUS is a good liberal activist forum. IP Address 09:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The SCOTUS did not say people may not use the word secede. They did not say it was POV. No one said so. Where did that POV notion come from anyway?? Rjensen 09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim, do you have a cite from a historian that says the states did not secede? Rjensen's cites establish what we all have sensed: that in general usage, the states are talked about as having seceded. If so, then we can cite both historical sources. If not, would it work for you if we craft a line that says something like: the Supreme Court later ruled secession unconstitutional? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another citation: "As a protest against the election of Abraham Lincoln, who had received not a single southern electoral vote, secession was a fact - to be reinforced, if necessary, by the sword." Shelby Foote "The Civil War: A Narrative", p.3 -plange 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a legal document. Secession was ruled illegal and extraconstitutional ex post facto (due to Lincoln's speech and the result of the war, REUNION), although no sort of revisionism or negationism can change the prior events to a PERCEPTION by judges! IP Address 13:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that the southern states seceded is not to express the POV that secession was legal or constitutional, because this usage ("the southern states seceded") is used by people who do not believe that secession was legal. By "seceded" what is meant is "passed ordinances of secession." john k 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vatican?

The article keeps mentioning diplomatic exchanges between the CSA and the "Vatican". No such country existed in the 1860's. The Pope was the ruler of the Papal States, which by 1863 comprised all the city of Rome and the surrounding areas. The Papal States ceased to exist in 1870 and the Vatican was formed in 1929. --Marcdein 12:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Vatican, as the Palace where the Pope resides, is an acceptable synecdoche for the Pope, in the same way that Sublime Porte is an acceptable synecdoche for the Ottoman Sultan. However it is a bit misleading, and does seem to depart from common usage, both of the time and of historians. john k 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Any thoughts on having a disambiguation page as well? I wholly agree that this should be the primary link, but those trying to find information on the similarly named book or movie might find it useful. 72.139.185.19 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest revert

Latest revert not sure if reasoning is right. See this paragraph in WP:OR - Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

to elaborate, what I think this means is, if a letter is deposited at, say, Duke's special arhives that says "yesterday I visited the Prime minister and had lunch with him. Afterwards we strolled through the park" we can say that the person writing the letter had lunch with the prime minister on that date, but we can't infer anything else from that, like that since they took a walk afterwards it must mean they liked each other and had a great time at lunch. I didn't read the part that was removed to see if it met or did not meet this criteria, but just saw your reasoning and wanted to be sure you were deleting it for the right reasons plange 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

however, if a secondary source states that the person writing the letter did like the Prime minister, then that's what we'd use to cite that claim.plange 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The material on the Pope was original synthesis based on a very narrow range of primary sources, with no reliance on the scholarly literature. Is that against Wiki rules or is it merely bad editing? It was a trivial episode that gets more attention than about 75 major issues--like the food supply, conscription, manpower, Congress, women, bread riots, state governors, Mexico, Canada, attacking New York City, espionage, status of slaves, banking, bond issues, news media, schools, finance, inflation, taxes-in-kind, or internal politics, etc etc. Just drop the paragraphs on how the Pope addressed a letter--historians rarely mention the episode at all (there was of course no Papal ambassador sent to Richmond, which is what recognition would involve.)Rjensen 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Plange is correct, this material is "source-based research" and not "original research" according to Wikipedia guidelines. There is no requirement that only scholarly literature be used in Wikipedia. The incidents cited are facts and should be used, although Rjensen does have a point that the write up was too long. My concern is that there are enough people who have heard about the Papal "recognition" that the article should convey at least a summary of what this was about and the fact that not even the Confederate Secretary of State regarded it as official recognition. Otherwise it is highly likely that this event will become an urban legend fueled by other websites that will place the event out of context as "proof" that the Papacy recognized the CSA. Nicholas F 00:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely this information is discussed in secondary sources? There are books about Confederate diplomacy in Europe, aren't there? john k 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I Suggest one sentence to the effect the Pope wrote a friendly letter but Richmond (and all historians) agreed it did not even begin to reach "recognition." And please use scholarly sources--editors inependent interpretation of primary documents is seldome acceptable when there are serious scholars who have addressed the issue (like Owsley). Rjensen 17:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a standard secondary source: "After seeing ... the pope himself, Mann held in his hands a reply addressed to “Illustrious and Honorable Sir, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.” Mann took this to be recognition of the Confederacy: “The hand of the Lord has been in it, and eternal glory and praise be to his holy and righteous name.” Judah Benjamin assured him it was only a polite formula with no meaning because no diplomatic action followed." from Jefferson Davis, Unconquerable Heart. by Felicity Allen, University of Missouri Press. 1999. Page 441. Rjensen 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So, this would seem to confirm what was on the page before, or, at least, what was on it when I saw it - Mann thought it meant recognition, but Benjamin realized it didn't, and no historians or anybody else thinks it does. john k 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's about it--and it deserves one sentence. Rjensen 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole section on diplomacy is deeply amateurish. I tried editing it a couple days ago, but it seemed to have been written someone who's never actually read any specific discussions of the Confederacy's diplomatic efforts. I tried to fix the most glaring errors (notably, that Napoleon III had created a Mexican Empire in 1861, and that Britain almost recognized the Confederacy on a couple of occasions), but it probably needs a wholesale rewrite. Before I came a long, it mentioned this whole Mann incident, but did not mention Mason or Slidell, or, I think, Palmerston or Russell. john k 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"but did not mention Mason or Slidell" Wow, that's a glaring ommission. The Trent Affair was a major deal and almost caused a war between the US and Britain... I must confess I haven't read this article yet, have only been keeping an eye on changes. I guess it's time to dig in plange 23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It didn't mention Mason and Slidell either in context of the Trent affair or as the Confederate emissaries to Britain and France, respectively. It mentioned the Trent affair, but didn't explain what it was at all. It included the following sentence: Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy during the Trent Affair and began preparations to offer mediation along with France (due to Emperor Napoleon III's project, the Mexican Empire). Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert helped block recognition. Recognition was again considered following the Second Battle of Manassas when the British government were preparing to mediate in the conflict, but both nations backed away after the Battle of Antietam and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. john k 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Plange too - this is sourced based research, NOT original research. It comes from the official U.S. Government records of the Civil War that are online at Columbia University - a highly reputable source. And yes - there have been secondary books written on the diplomacy of the confederate states that cover Mann's visit to the Vatican. They're all based on the letters in the Official Records that are linked to here. I don't know of any that deny it as Rjensen seems to be doing when he keeps deleting all the links to the Columbia university sources. Also, since all of Mann's letters are online for free at Columbia and can be linked to here they are better for the article than books that are either not online or you have to pay to access. - MightyMo

More on Saxe-Gotha

I asked for moderator help on Ernst Raven since there's been so much revert warring and disregard of consensus on it. I looked at the book Rjensen gives from Eugene Berwanger and it doesn't say everything he claims. It doesn't say anything about the Raven thing being "invented in the 1990's" and its a very ambiguous reference. It states only this:

"Benjamin, in response, admitted that only one consul in the entire Confederacy (Ernest (sic) Raven, consul for the State of Texas from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) had received his exequatur from the Richmond government. In asking for the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition."

As somebody pointed out a few months ago [13] there are several problems with this passage from Berwanger's book as a source. I double checked and they seem to be valid criticisms.

1. Berwanger doesn't give any sources that show that "Raven's government made it clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recogniztion." His only source (footnote 10, p. 190) is the exact same page from the journal entry at the library of Congress that Rjensen keeps deleting. That entry doesn't say anything about Raven's status other than this, and makes no reference to additional papers from Raven's government saying it was not diplomatic recognition:

"Ernst Raven, esq., who was appointed consul for the State of Texas by his highness the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and who applied to this government for an exequator on the 30th of July 1861"[14].

2. Berwanger gets Raven's first name wrong and calls him Ernest instead of Ernst. That's not exactly confidence inspiring.

3. Most of the things Rjensen claims about Berwanger's source are not there at all. Berwanger does not say Raven was a U.S. Citizen like Rjensen suggests. Berwanger does not say Raven was only there to handle German immigration. Berwanger does not say the story is a "hoax" invented in the 1990's by neoconfederates.

Since Berwanger's ONLY identified source is the page at the Library of Congress link it is necessarily the more reliable source of the two. If we are to discuss the Raven incident (and I believe the consensus generally indicates that we should mention it in the appropriate section) we should quote from the library of congress page. Nothing more, and nothing less. - MightyMo

I concur. Here is the summary of the official Wikipedia "No original research" guidlines:

The items to which Rjensen repeatedly objects are primary sources that have been previously published. Rjensen appears to want to exclude primary sources and rely only on secondary sources. Quoting again from the official guidelines, here are the definitions of primary and secondary sources, both of which are allowed in Wikipedia:

• Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
• Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

What is not allowed is citing unpublished information or data, or presenting an original generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources. That being said, Rjensen is on more solid ground when arguing that amount of space devoted to the issue is excessive, but in that case it would be more appropriate to summarize the issue and move the details to a linked subsidiary article.Nicholas F 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A German named Ernst who had lived in the United States for some time would alternately use the names "Ernst" or "Ernest" without any consistency, so that's not a very big issue. In terms of primary sources, you are not allowed to give your own interpretation of them. john k 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The document in question never mentions recognition of the confederacy, and never says Saxe appointed Raven as consul to the confederacy (it mentions Texas, not the confederacy). It is a false reading to invent words like "recognition": and "Confederacy" that are not in the document. That invention is "original" with the editor. Indeed it is a plain misreading of plain words. It is rejected explictly by the historian most familiar with the material (Berwanger). No reliable source supports the argument--if true it would have been trumpeted by Jefferson Davis and all the Confederacy; it should not be in Wiki. Rjensen 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your source that the document never mentions the Confederacy? Wasn't it addressed to Confederate authorities in Richmond rather than to Texan authorities in Austin? Has the full text of the request for an exequatur ever been published? As for Raven being appointed "counsel for the State of Texas", this would be the limit of his jurisdiction not the government to which the request was made. Am I mistaken, but don't ALL of the sources indicate that the request for a diplomatic exequatur was made to the Confederate States' government and that it was the CSA, not Texas that granted the exequatur?

If it is agreed that the request was made to and was granted by the C.S.A., then the question becomes one of whether such a request constitutes official recognition. Rjensen argues that this does not and cites ONE historian, Berwanger. Rjensen further argues that linking a request for an exquator is an invention and states that there are NO reliable sources that indicate otherwise. I will now provide THREE reliable primary sources that indicate that a request for a diplomatic exequatur does indeed imply official recognition:

• An 1873 British Admiralty Court case that concluded: "Lastly, no treaty ever having been made with his Highness, no ambassador ever received from or sent to him, British consuls in Egypt receiving no exequatur from him, there being, in other words, no de facto recognition of his Highness as a sovereign by our government, has there been any recognition de jure of him in this capacity?"[15]

• A 1936 British telegram that states that "It will be understood that such a note [to ask for an exequatur for a new Consul-General at Vienna] to the German Government would be interpreted as constituting an act (and supplying the date) of formal recognition by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of the incorporation of Austria in the German Reich. [16]

• A confidential 1938 telegram from the UK Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the UK High Commissioner to Austrialia[17], that state that an application for an exequatur for a consul-general is regarded as de facto recognition of a government.

• A fourth potential supporting claim can be found at this website [18] which discusses a US consul to Belize receiving an exequator from the British government being regared as a recognition by the United States of British sovereignty over British Honduras. This website in and of itself probably does not rise to the level of a reliable source, but it does follow the positions of the above unimpeachable sources on the relationship between a request for an exequatur and recognition.

I raised all of the points in January. There is sufficient evidence to show that linking a request for an exequatur with recognition is not an original theory, but previously backed in international law. The only question that remains is whether "Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." Berwanger gives no sources or other information, such as quoting the actual letter, to back up this assertion. As far as I am aware, no other historian has independently made the same interpretation of the diplomatic correspondence surrounding the request.

In summary, we can make the following points: (1) Saxe-Coburg-Gotha made a request to the C.S.A. for an exequatur for a consul for Texas. (2) This request was granted by the government of the Confederate States. (3) Several sources indicate that such a request would normally be regarded as an official recognition of the sovereignty of the government to which the request was made. (4) One historian claims that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha caveated the request as not implying or extending diplomatic recognition, but this claim has not been verified by any other historian. Nicholas F 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We know no such thing that "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha made a request." We know that Ernst Raven made such a request, and that he was employed as a Consul in Texas by the Duke's government. Given that no other small German state consuls in the southern states made similar requests (and one would imagine that there were other S-C-G consular officials in the Confederacy), we have no reason to think this was a decision emanating from Coburg. We also have no historical sources which say that this act implies recognition on the part of the Duke. Thus, it is original research to take other statements and use them as evidence for this particular issue. Biswanger's statement, unsupported as it may be, will have to be taken on faith unless we can find another source. I wonder if there's anything on this in Foreign Relations of the United States. I imagine the US government had a minister in Frankfurt who could have conversed with the Coburg representative there if the fancy struck him. If this was a significant issue, this probably would have been done (because it's not like the US minister in Frankfurt has much else to do). john k 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

John Kenny makes a good point. The NY Times reports that the US minister went to Saxe at the invitation of the Duke and gave a speech praising the Duke's policy of support for the US and expressing the hope that other countries would follow the Duke. The Duke's brother Albert was married to Queen Victoria, and Albert was well-known for supporting US against the British government in the Trent affair. There is an interview with the Duke at MOA in which he supports the North. Rjensen 18:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that certainly suggests that old Ernst II was not terribly pro-confederate, which detracts from the idea that the government in Coburg had anything to do with the request. If the Union had had any sense that the initiative had originated from Coburg, you'd think they'd have brought this up at some point. john k 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, from the evidence we have, we do indeed know that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha made the request. It makes absolutely no difference if the letter was written by the Duke himself, his foreign minister or by Raven. The sources indicate that Raven was appointed consul by the government of S-C-G. This made him an official of that government. A request for an exequatur is a formal diplomatic request from one government to another, not a private correspondence. Even if Raven wrote the request letter himself (and we don't know that it wasn't written by the foreign minister), he would have done it as an official of the S-C-G government engaged in the duties of his office. This makes it an official request from one government to another. I have seen no sources, or even suggestions, that Raven was not actually appointed as Consul by S-C-G. Unless Raven was a fraud or S-C-G repudiated his action, and we don't have any evidence for either, then we can state as fact that an official of the S-C-G made a formal diplomatic request to the C.S.A. government for an exequatur to allow Raven to act as a Consul in Texas. That is all that needs to be said to support the statement that S-C-G made the request. Nicholas F 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If Raven was, as Rjensen suggests, a consul who was basically a private individual, with only very limited contacts with the government in Coburg, then his request could very easily have absolutely nothing to do with the Coburg government. 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that no other German states made a similar request is immaterial to this case. The C.S.A. maintained that exequaturs previously granted by the U.S. government were still valid as the USG was, prior to seccession, was acting as an agent of the states. Thus, there was no requirement by the C.S.A. government for previously appointed Consuls to request new exequaturs. Only in the case of a NEW appointed Consul did the C.S.A. require a request for an exequatur. In this same way, the Consuls from Britain and France maintained their presence in the C.S.A. Nicholas F 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The point was not that no other German states made a similar request, but the no other SCG consuls made a similar request. john k 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My edits are fully backed by legitmate cited sources. It is original research (as in presenting a new theory) to suggest thhat events that did not occur, such as no other similar requests from other minor German states or the lack of a protest from the U.S., implies that a general reading of international law did not apply in this specific case. An why didn't the U.S. protest this request? We simply don't know. We don't have ANY evidence that the US was even aware of the appointment. S-C-G afterall was a rather minor state and it is entirely possible that S-C-G never told the U.S. Further, even if the Duke did express friendship to the US, are there no examples in history of a country playing both sides in a conflict? Wikipedia articles should be written from facts, not suppositions. It is a fact that Raven was appointement as Consul by the S-C-G government. It is a fact that an official of the S-C-G government made a formal request to the C.S.A. for a diplomatic exequatur. It is a fact that the request was granted. It is a fact that a request for a diplomatic exequatur has been regarded in international law as a de facto recognition of sovereignty. It is a fact the one historian claims that S-C-G told the C.S.A. that in this particular case that the request did not imply recognition. That is all we can say. It is also the case that no legitimate sources, neither primary nor secondary, have used the actions of other German states or the non-protest of the US to support the theory that S-C-G did not recognize the C.S.A. Thus, these arguments are original research and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Nicholas F 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please find and cite a secondary source which indicated that Ernst II recognized the confederacy. And why on earth would the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha have any interest in "playing both sides?" john k 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A Consul is NOT basically a private individual, a Consul is an officially accredited representative of a foreign government, even if it is only a part-time position. His actions in that capacity are recognized in international law as those of his government. The amount of contact with the government in Coburg is also immaterial as long as that government had not withdrawn the appointment. Either Raven was appointed as Consul by Saxe-Colberg-Gotha or he was not. The sources says that he was. Even Berwanger concedes this point. As to no other SCG consuls making a similar request, that is because no other country appointed a NEW consul to the C.S.A. As I explained before, consuls that were already in place with an exequatur from the U.S. prior the secession of the Southern states HAD NO NEED to request a new exequatur. Raven was unique in that he wasn't already a consul, he was a NEW appointment. There is no need to quote a secondary source on this, I have found primary sources that show that as a matter of international law that a request for a diplomatic exequatur connotes de facto recognition of sovereignty. The debate is whether Saxe-Coburg-Gotha departed from normal practice and told the C.S. government that this particular appointment did not imply recognition. Berwanger claims that this is the case, but provides no sourcing or other evidence. NO OTHER SOURCE has been cited to back up Berwanger's claim. The facts as I laid out above still remain. Speculation on how pro-US or pro-CS the Duke was is just that, speculation, and cannot be brought in as evidence in this debate. Nicholas F 01:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your primary source does not say that Raven was a new appointment. It says he had been appointed as a consul in Texas by the duke, and that he requested an exequatur from the Richmond government. It also notes that no other consuls had done so, but doesn't say that Raven did so because he was newly appointed, which is incredibly unlikely, and which you would clearly need to document, not just deduce. Also note that the primary source says that it would be within the Confederacy's right to kick the agents out, but that it hasn't done so. That suggests that the basic issue is that the Confederate government doesn't want to force the agents to ask for new exequaturs, knowing that none would do so, rather than that it is not considered necessary under a strict interpretation of international law. If you want to do this, you're going to have to find a source that relies on something besides that one document, preferably something from someone who has gone through the S-C-G archives. john k 11:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that it was highly unlikely that Raven was a new appointment? If he already held the position of consul there was no need for him to request a new exequatur from the C.S.A. government. Here is a quote from a letter from C.S. Secretary of State Benjamin to James Mason explaining the official C.S. position on consuls already serving:

The State of Virginia having delegated to the government of the United States, by the Constitution of 1787, the power of controlling its foreign relations, became bound by the action or that government in its grant of an exequatur to Consul Moore. When Virginia seceded, withdrew the powers delegated to the government of the United States, and conferred them on this government, the exequatur granted to Consul Moore was not thereby invalidated. An act done by an agent while duly authorized continues to bind the principal after the revocation of the agent's authority. On these grounds, the President has hitherto steadily resisted all influences which have been exerted to induce him to exact of foreign consuls that they should ask for an exequatur from this government as a condition of the continued exercise of their functions. It was not deemed compatible with the dignity of the government to extort, by enforcing thewithdrawal of national protection from neutral residents, such inferential recognition of its independence as might be supposed to be implied in the request for an exequatur. The consuls of foreign nations, therefore, established within the Confederacy, who were in possession of an exequatur issued by the government of the United States, prior to the formation of the Confederacy, have been maintained and respected in the exercise of their legitimate functions, and the same protection and respect will be accorded to them in future, so long as they confine themselves to the sphere of their duties and seek neither to evade nor defy the legitimate authority of this government within its own jurisdiction.[19]

What this letter makes clear is that the C.S. did not require already present consuls to submit new requests for an exequatur. It is possible that Raven was already a consul and misinterpreted the C.S. position on previously appointed consuls, but this is simple speculation and not indicated in any of the sources. In any case, the fact remains that a request for an exequatur was submitted to the C.S. government by a commissioned official of the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha government. Even if this request was submitted by Raven rather than the Saxe foreign minister (the sources aren't clear on who wrote the request), it remained an official request unless repudiated by the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha government. Nicholas F 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume he was not a new appointment because there is no source which says he was, and because it's incredibly unlikely that the Duke, who apparently sympathized with the north, would have for some reason appointed a new consul in Texas in 1861, in the midst of a civil war, in a way that would explicitly have pissed off the United States government. You have to provide some actual evidence that he did so. john k 03:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)