Did the Confederacy ever have any sort of legal existence in the eyes of the Union? Were there ever any agreements reached beyond the surrenders of Lee and Johnston that implied the Confederacy had some form of legitimacy?
Nope.
Whether or not the Union ever recoginized the Confederacy is a moot point. BUT, if you want to know the truth of the matter, it didn’t matter if they chose to or not. When the Constitution was radified by the states, it was done so with specific reservations. The States of Virginia, Texas, and several NEW ENGLAND states(NEW YORK being the most vocal on the matter) radified the constitution RESERVING the right to withdraw from the compact, in the case of NEW YORK whenever it made the state happy! SO, the constitution was agreed to and entered into by ALL parties concerned with this provision being an integral part. Allowing this provision AND what we now call the bill of rights, was the ONLY way the states would agree to the compact. The Union agreed to the right of states to withdraw from the compact from it’s inception. There were several legitimate secession threats made by several states, not just the southern states during the war between the states. The “Hartford Convention” several decades prior to the war of 1861 involved several northern states that threatened to seceed if the state of Lousiana was allowed to join the union! There was a similar threat when Texas was considered for union membership years later. Abe Lincoln esposed the right of secession as a staunch SUPPORTER and member of congress, on the floor of congress just 13 years prior to the war between the states. Those are just some of the facts that validate the right of the states to seceed. You wont read THAT in the history books though, you have to do REAL research that involves reading the minutes of congressional sessions, reading matters pertaining to the radification of the constitution, etc. to uncover these truths. “Don’t believe everything you read” is more true today than it ever was, with special interests trying to RE-WRITE history to suit their agendas.
Sorry, broken train of thought, Texas didn’t exist to radify the constitution! What I was eluding to was that Texas upon joining the Union, left itself a way out, just as the other states had done whenever it percieved the union was acting in a fashion contrary to the best interests of the state.
Of course, what the revisionists won’t tell you is that when the Hartford Convention was held, Virginia and a couple of the Southern states argued that it was entertaining an illegal act and threatened to preserve the union through force, if necessary.
And, while several states put “escape clauses” into their ratification votes (and appeals for admittance), none of them actually bothered to make an effort to amend the Constitution with language that would give Federal agreement to that position.
I guess in the matters of ox fights, it generally matters whose ox. . . .
Reeder gave the correct short answer: the North never extended any diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy beyond treating its soldiers as soldiers rather than treating them as traitors, as some wild-eyed Unionists demanded. The Confederate states were recognized as states that happened to be in rebellion, rather than pretending that the states had magically disappeared with the secession, but such recognition was generally used for administrative purposes rather than any other.
onerebelgent, New York is not part of New England.
And I can’t find anything in New York’s Article of Ratification that supports your claim that New York reserved the right to withdraw. Do you have a cite that explains what you’re talking about?
Both the Congress of the Republic of Texas:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan02.htm
and the convention called to draw up a state constitution:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan03.htm
endorsed the annexation of Texas to the United States. Neither made any mention of secession nor “reserved” any right to withdraw.
Also, Abraham Lincoln never endorsed secession. It sounds like you’re the one rewriting history.
Above all, please note that the OP did not ask whether onerebelgent recognizes the Confederacy, or whether the United States should have. Such matters are better discussed in GD. It asked whether the United States did recognize the Confederacy.
1787, New York delegates closed their commission with “This 9th day of May, in the eleventh year of the Independence of the said State”
ALSO:
New York voted to accept the Constitution giving certain powers to Congress, but it added: " That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Virginia - same subject:
“The powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be reassumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”
1847 - Abe Lincoln, floor of Congress:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”
It was this comment that caused British historian, Goldwyn Smith, to believe that “Southern Secession could not have asked a cleareer supporter than Lincoln”.
1803 - New England- “Hartford Convention”
Senator Plumer:“The Eastern States must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate governmentof their own; and the sooner they do this, the better.”
Senator Pickering of Mass.:" I rather anticipate a new Confederacy exempt from the corrupt influence of the aristocratic Democrats of the South…There will be separation…The British provinces (of Canada), even with the consent of Great Britian, will become members of the Northern Confederacy."
1845- John Quincy Adams so opposed the admission of Texas into the Union that he openly urged the withdrawal from the Union should it come about.
You wont find what it is you seek in modern references. Spend some cash and buy OLD history books printed prior to 1865-68 from a rare book store. Newer references already have “edited” History.
It is expensive but worth it…If it’s the truth you seek.
I think this thread needs to go to GD if you want to continue it.
Piffle. I found all but one of your references on the [gasp!] internet with links and citations from quite modern sources. (Admittedly, the crank-to-scholar ratio was pretty high on a couple of them, but the information is out there, supported by scholars as well as cranks.) The notion that there is some great modern power or authority that is preventing “old” information from being published is just silly. There is always a market for information.
It ain’t “Piffle”. And you’re right about the “cranks”, that’s why I only reference BOOKS, preferably with footnotes that allow me to look it up myself to verify. You must have misunderstood my post, there is not any “great Power” or “Authority” PREVENTING the publishing of this information, quite the opposite, the text books are catering to the liberal interests. They simply don’t publish the truth, simply what they would have you believe is the truth. Teach the G-G-Grandkids what you want them to think, and “wah-lah” you can change history by just telling half truths, and never had to suppress anything! The only thing “they” would have to confront is the historians that do their OWN research and come to different conclusions than they are teaching. But these are mostly labled “cranks” by the “experts” and children already rebelling against their parents and are of the opinion “they don’t know anything”, are wrong, etc. will readilly defend “their” “enlightened” perspective. I mean, it has to be right doesn’t it? They are hired to be teachers afterall, they would lose their jobs if they did’nt TEACH EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO TEACH, FROM THE TEXT BOOK THAT WAS APPROVED BY ________(fill in the blank with special interest money influenced group). Get the picture? There are none so blind as those who will not see.
“Most people don’t really think for themselves, they limit their thinking to deciding who will do their thinking for them.”
You wouldn’t happen to be a subscriber to “Southern Partisan” would you onerebelgent?
But I asked for a cite confirming that New York specifically reserved the right to withdraw from the Union when it ratified the Constitution. Obviously, New York is an independent state after the American Revolution and during the Articles of Confederation – I don’t see that being disputed anywhere.
That clause of New York’s ratification quite clearly does not refer to the Union specifically but to Government in general. It’s simply Jeffersonian statement acknowledging the responsibility of people to overthrow tyranical governments, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. It is not a statement of the right to secede. The rest of that paragraph is an affirmation of the seperation of state and federal powers:
If you can show me somewhere in that document where it is specifically stated that “New York reserves the right to secede from the Union” (or words to that effect) I will withdraw my argument.
I don’t know enough about the history of other states to address your other points.
What New York or Texas included in their articles of ratification or annexation is unimportant. They had no power or authority to dictate such departures from the Constitution; nor did they have the power to (looking at the New York articles) limit the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, nor to interpret the Constitution to suit their own preference. The delegates had the power to take it or leave it. Amendments (ALL amendments) must be ratified. What was understood by any of the states must be greeted by a hearty “Well, y’wez wrong then, wezn’t yeh?”
If you wish to assert that text books (particularly school texts on history) are generally unworthy of the trees sacrificed to make them, I would certainly agree with you. However, you original statements did not specify school texts; it expressly mentioned finding books printed prior to the Civil War (which would have eliminated your reference to Goldwyn Smith, of course). There is a lot of literature out there that does not conform to any set agenda.
On the other hand, you seem to be under some delusion that the quality of textbooks is poor due to a specific political agenda. Had you taken the time to compare actual history to the textboooks, you would have noted that they fail not in being “liberal” (or “conservative” or following any other political bent), but in being written to offend as few people as possible, ignoring most of the details of history, altogether. School texts do not provide any perspective, and Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Marxists, and Adam Smith FreeMarketers who have studied history all despise them with equal vigor.
Here is the transcript of Lincoln’s 1848 speech, from the Library of Congress.
It is a pretty clear expression of realpolitik. I would paraphrase it to mean," If people have a revolution and can make it stick by force, they may form such government as they choose." But I realize this is getting into IMHO or GD territory, so I won’t go farther along this road.
Reeder’s original response is correct, though there were some individual Unionists who made statements indicating otherwise. I’m not sure who the Union general was at the time of Gettyburg (Meade? maybe) who reported to Lincoln after the battle something to the effect of “We have driven the Confederates out of our territory”. Lincoln supposedly exploded in rage saying, “Its ALL our territory.” I haven’t looked up the actual exchange, but I think this is a pretty fair summary of the gost of it.
Make that “gist of it”.
BobT,
No, I don’t know who, or what, the “Southern Partisan” is, but it doesn’t sound like a very friendly name for an organization. If it is some race hate org. I would NOT be interested. I am a student of history, law, a businessman and a conservative with over 18 years in the government service of my country. Above all else I am a patriot. I am not the kind of patriot that has become fashionable as of late. I am not the kind of patriot that is of the mind that my country does no wrong. I am not the kind of patriot that will vote for whomever will give me the biggest check. I am the kind that has sacrificed years of my life, opportunity, and fortune because I believed I could not sit idle and pass onto others my share of the cost of OUR freedom, all the while watching as others enjoy the benefits of our forefathers efforts and oblivious to their share of the debt. It pains me to listen to some of the drivel “these people” espouse. There are those that are so ingratious of the gift purchased by other’s blood, that it incenses my soul, boiling my blood. BUT, they are Americans too, and you have to love them…even if they are pathetic dumb #&%$s that would sell their freedom for temporary personal gain.
OK, but what does any of that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Sorry, i omitted “School textbooks” from my diatribe. Tomndebb I believe you are correct, my mistake for not identifying the target of my rant specifically.
Nametag, you’re wrong. They had every “right” to do as they wished. The Constitution did not exist until it was ratified. It was merely a “contractual offer” to the states involved. The states had every right to “counteroffer” and for that “counteroffer” to be either accepted, or rejected with it’s exemptions and restrictions. If no “counter-counteroffer” was forwarded, only a notice of acceptance, than legally speaking, the state would right to assume their counteroffer was accepted…restrictions and all. Let me analogize, if you were handed a contract, and upon reading that contract “lined out” certain provisions, made some amendments, and returned it, the first party either accepts the amended contract, or renegotiates with a counteroffer. and so on and so on. If your amended contractual offer is accepted, well, the first party is bound to the ENTIRE contract, not just the original portions, REGARDLESS of how many others had signed a similar contract. And as there was not a “Constitution” at that time, they were operating under the Articles of Confederation, the individual states did not HAVE to do anything, and the supreme seat of power rested primarily with the state. THUS we have happened upon THE supreme cause of the “War between the States” and NEED to take this to GD if you wish to pursue it, or we will risk being “booted”.
Okay, you’re a patriot. No one disputes it. Do you have any better evidence on the right of states to secede?
I thought the Lincoln speech was quite interesting. I’ve opened a thread on in in GD. Perhaps you’d like to join in that, onerebelgent.
It is Does Lincoln’s 1848 speech to Congress support the right of Secession?