I’m willing to meet the Confederates halfway on this one. It’s true that they were never legally recognized as a separate nation by the United States. But I feel that the Confederates did manage to put together a functioning country which was a de facto independent nation during the few years of its existence.
One thing I won’t do is buy into the revisionist notion that pretends the Confederates and the “Union” were somehow both Americans. Our country has a name; it’s the United States of America not the “union” or the “north” or the “federals”. And the people in the United States are Americans. When the Confederates seceded from the United States they stopped being Americans. They were a foreign country which declared war on the United States.
I reject pretty much your whole line of argument here.
The only thing I am willing to meet Confederates (and the modern fankids) on is that they lost the war. Heck, I’ll meet them all the way on that.
They were never a country, as emphasized by having never been recognized as one.
Legally, there is actually a Supreme Court case that buttresses (actually, affirms) the notion that the so-called Confederate States were only ever states within the USA. Had they been anything other than that, surely it follows that they would have to have been readmitted as such. They were not because they never left, only claimed to have left. But the court case in question actually had to do with war bonds, and whether or not the post-war government of the state of Texas had to be on the hook to pay for the wartime confederate state bonds. See Texas v. White.
So, given 3 above, it follows that the rebels were only ever Americans (of the US variety). Moreover, I don’t even see how that’s “revisionist.” That was Lincoln’s entire premise: that they could not leave, and had not left, the Union. Are you claiming Lincoln was a revisionist?
For the so-called Confederate States to have truly left the Union, it would have required a constitutional amendment to that affect. There was no right to secede within the Constitution, and so, as we now know, Lincoln could not lawfully have recognized them as foreign states upon which war could be declared even if he had wanted to.
The two sentences are in conflict. Lincoln did not recognize the secession: Consequently, he had no interest in going to war.
As he repeatedly said.
The south did have an interest in going to war, were prepared to do so, said so and did so. Partly because of economics: partly because the south did not have a cultural understanding of compromise and regarded every attempt at compromise and conciliation as dishonesty, right up to the assassination. Lincoln wanted war: he said he did not, but he was dishonest. After the war, he said he wanted peace, but he did not, he was dishonest. The whole argument that Lincoln wanted war is based on the premise the he was dishonest, which is/was clearly based on a cultural premise that no honest man would ever compromise on an issue of identity, and that insults should be repaid with violence.
Lincoln didn’t recognize the legal validity of secession. And he didn’t accept that it was permanent.
But Lincoln wasn’t delusional. He was aware that eleven states had seceded and formed a separate country. He wasn’t pretending this hadn’t happened.
As I said above, Lincoln didn’t want a war. He was hoping that he could negotiate with the southern states and persuade them to rejoin the United States.
But if the southern states could not be persuaded to rejoin the United States peacefully, Lincoln was willing to fight a war to force them back into the United States rather than let them go.
Lincoln was always very clear about these positions. I don’t see where he was being dishonest. I’m also not seeing what the conflict is that you’re saying is in these positions.
Let’s not forget this ‘honour’ culture said that raping slaves or whipping them to death was admirable. Or bravely sneak-attacking a US Senator when he’s alone and unarmed and you’ve got two buddies, packing pistols, to help you out (and later accepting a duel from his friend but chickening out when you find out he’s a good shot).
I don’t have any respect for that kind of ‘honour’.
I’ve always wondered, why did the north seemingly change names from USA to Union? Seems like doing so pretended the north was NOT the same country any more, almost like both sides agreed to separate. What was that about?
The Federal government never actually changed their name. “Union” was basically a PR trick to advertise their goal. Officially, the CSA states were still part of the US, but in rebellion against it.
What puzzles me about this argument isn’t that it’s wrong (although I think it is: the premise of the civil war was – and had to be – that the federal government was quashing a rebellion or insurrection by illegitimate state governments in domestic US territory), but that it dramatically weakens any claim that the “Confederates” were “traitors.”
If the CSA was a “foreign country” (not made up of Americans) that was invaded, defeated, and annexed by the United States, then that’s the way of the world, of course, but how do you argue that the formerly (but no longer) American military officers had any duty to their former nationality? Or that the citizenry wasn’t entitled to defend their country from a foreign invader? The Jane Fonda comparison becomes entirely inapt – the Confederate flag becomes like the use of any flag of a formerly independent (now annexed) region with its own sense of identity. Your approach massively (and, again, I think incorrectly) validates the CSA.
It is not true that Lincoln “didn’t much care either way.” He believed in abolition of slavery and was a member of a party founded for the purpose of abolition. As president, his first priority was preservation of the union, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t much care either way.
No, I don’t buy this. They weren’t foreigners. They were Americans in rebellion against their country. They were traitors. Their insurrection was quelled.
The North didn’t change names. “The Union” had long been shorthand, a kind of affectionate nickname, for “the United States of America.”
I suppose this is true, but pretty quickly the CSA lost control of massive parts of their “country”. They lost control of the Mississipi and New Orleans, as well as almost all of TN pretty quickly, right?
Economically they were a basket-case the whole time, with very little ability to raise funds or enlist soldiers. They had no control of their ports for pretty much the entire insurrection, and were never diplomatically recognized by any country that mattered.
Correct. He did not favor sudden emancipation (at least at the start of the war) or sudden abolition (until near the end). Some of that was politically (he needed to keep MO and KY, both Union slave states, in the Union). Some of that was probably honestly-held belief regarding the wisdom of sudden emancipation.
He favored a more gradual elimination of slavery, including the government compensating the slaveholders for the property and even more outlandish schemes like recolonization of slaves outside of the USA.
But, like most everyone else, his views changed pretty dramatically through the course of the war.
This is a bit inaccurate. I should have made clear I meant “most of the Mississippi River, including New Orleans” and “Eastern TN”, not all of TN.
The point is, for what’s it worth", the CSA never controlled their entire land mass, nor their ports. They may have been a “de facto” country, but they were always a weak one. And from day 1 there were US troops inside their “country”.
Would you agree that the Confederates regarded themselves as foreigners? They did not see themselves as being part of the United States. Their position was that they had left the United States, were no longer Americans, and now lived in a new country.
I feel that the use of this nickname is part of an effort to promote a false viewpoint. There are people who want to push the idea that it was the Confederates versus the Union rather than the Confederates versus the United States. Because they are pushing the idea that both sides are part of the history of the United States. They are trying to pretend this was a conflict between two disagreeing factions within the United States. By doing so they can make the argument that a person can endorse the Confederate cause while simultaneously remained a loyal American.
I disagree. We need to remember what the Confederate cause actually was; it was an attempt to not be part of the United States. You cannot declare your support for this cause and still claim to be a loyal supporter of the United States. The two causes are incompatible. People who are displaying Confederate flags are saying they do not wish to be Americans. The rest of us need to make that message clear.
As Jas09 pointed, no foreign government ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent country. I do remember also that while the north fought the war with one arm tied behind their back, the Confederacy also did, undermining even more their demands that they should be considered a country.
A peculiar country where some states refused to sent troops to invade the North, The confederated states did agree early that their position should be a defensive one and when Jefferson Davis eventually did agree to allow Lee into invading the north (He did not agree whole-hardily with Lee on that), the states that did agree to send troops saw several soldiers desert before crossing the border with the north. And then they rejoined when their army returned to the south as they did agree to the “proper” reason to fight.
Lee hoped to pressure senators and representatives to pressure President Abraham Lincoln into curtailing hostilities, negotiating with Richmond and perhaps even recognizing the Confederacy. It was a bold long shot, but Davis finally, grudgingly, approved it. Even then, hundreds of members of the Army of Northern Virginia deserted on principal when Lee invaded Maryland in September 1862—only to rejoin him in Winchester after his return, to resume their defense of the South and the Cause.
Incidentally, I do remember also that the Union did not ever recognice the Confederacy as a separate country either.
I don’t really care what their perspective was. I have the perspective that I believe all Americans then and now should have. They were traitors in rebellion against their country, and we put them down.
They were all in the United States. They were all Americans. Some of them were in rebellion against the lawful government of the United States and were committing treason against the United States. That’s the perspective I have today and I believe the legitimate perspective of the lawful government at the time, which used the terms “Union” and “United States of America” interchangeably.
