What was the legal status of the Confederate flag, legit or not?

[Colibri]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Okay, back it up, then. What’s the last widely- or fully-accepted such country… and does it take more than recognition by one UN member country for validation?

What do you mean, “back it up”? Define exactly what you mean.

Somaliland is de facto independent, although it is not recognized as such by any other country.

Here’s a list of states with limited recognition. They range from the People’s Republic of China to the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Decide for yourself which ones are “accepted.”

[MEBuckner]

@lalaith

I’m not familiar with any Supreme Court decision on this issue.

Texas v. White, an 1869 Supreme Court case which held that:

When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

N.B. I’m not sure if lalaith meant SCOTUS had never ruled on secession, or had never ruled specifically on the question of the legitimacy of the Confederate flag(s).

[Derleth]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Okay, back it up, then. What’s the last widely- or fully-accepted such country… and does it take more than recognition by one UN member country for validation?

Validation by who?

Other countries are it. There’s nobody “above” them. The UN is a group of sovereign independent states, like Georgia (as opposed to “sovereign” “independent” US states, like Georgia) who agree to abide by certain rules as long as it pleases them, but the UN lacks any sovereignty over them. New York City isn’t Washington, DC, and the General Assembly (or even the Security Council!) isn’t Parliament. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant at best and a raving monster loonie at worst.

Being in the UN doesn’t make a country more “real”. The UN is just a useful barometer for how seriously the world as a whole takes a given statehood claim.

Polity and civil society aside, country is two things: A claim and a backing. The claim is diplomatically useful, but the backing is what it all comes down to. People, being polite formal creatures given to obeying conventions, pretend the claim is paramount, and date a country’s independence from when it first publicly made the claim, but the backing is the only reason claims are taken seriously.

The CSA never had enough backing to make good on its claim. Therefore, it never existed. Having been recognized might have caused it to exist, if that recognition brought with it enough military or economic might to knock the USA down, but if it had been recognized and still lost, that recognition would have been pointless as well.

[lalaith]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Was that true in 1861?

I know that in the postwar, UN era it’s a requirement. But how far back does it go? Was every rearrangement of mitteleuropa subject to “recognition” by other countries for validity?

So we were taught in school (and this was a Mississippi school). There was a list of qualifications to be a country and the CSA met all but one of the requirements. The requirement it did not meet was recognition by one other country in the world.

With recent events and given we fly a Five Flags display (Spanish, French, British, USA and CSA (which the city and county followed my suggestion to replace the CSA flag with the state flag of Florida)), I was looking into the subject. You might be interested in this specifically about the CSA and recognition or
this or this about recognition.

[lalaith]

@MEBuckner

Texas v. White, an 1869 Supreme Court case which held that:

N.B. I’m not sure if lalaith meant SCOTUS had never ruled on secession, or had never ruled specifically on the question of the legitimacy of the Confederate flag(s).

I meant that I had never heard that the Supreme Court and ruled that the CSA was never an independent country.

Now that I see the Texas decision you posted, I do remember the case about Texas. Thanks for the reminder.

[GiantRat]

@RealityChuck

Even before the UN, you needed some other country to recognize you as a country. You may not have had universal recognition, but someone had to agree that your claims were legit.

For instance, Elizabeth I styled herself as Queen of France. No one in Europe accepted that claim.

That’s also why the Confederacy was desperately seeking recognition from established nations like Britain. Oh, and the money and guns thing…

[doorhinge]

@elbows

Seems to me, any legitimacy it may have claimed, was undone by the many public politicians who openly called it ‘the white man’s banner’, back when they were insisting on flying it in front of the state capital.

I believe you’re confusing the Rebel flag/Dixie flag/soldier’s flag/Confederate flag/battle flag of the Army of Tennessee with the 2nd Confederate flag, which was known as The Stain less Banner.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Colibri

What do you mean, “back it up”? Define exactly what you mean.

I meant back the discussion up one notch. Sorry if that sounded like… a challenge.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Recognition by other states is not a qualification for statehood per se. Under modern customary international law (which in this regard has not changed significantly since the Civil War) is is the capacity to enter into relations with other states that signifies statehood. Recognition is an indicator that such capacity exists, of course.

In a sense, the CSA did qualify for statehood because the European powers formally declared neutrality in the conflict, which means the recognized the CSA as a belligerent under the fairly arcane rules of war and diplomacy that existed at the time (if you declare neutrality, you are recognizing that there are two parties to the relevant dispute.) However, they stopped short of recognizing its government.

For its part, the Union did not mind too much that Britain (in particular) declared neutrality because it meant they wouldn’t break the blockade of Southern ports.

@lalaith

I meant that I had never heard that the Supreme Court and ruled that the CSA was never an independent country.

Now that I see the Texas decision you posted, I do remember the case about Texas. Thanks for the reminder.

Well, it kind of follows that if one seceding state was never not part of the US, none of the others were ever not part of the US either (though in fairness Texas took a slightly different route to entry into the Union than the other seceding states.)

[Northern_Piper]

@Amateur_Barbarian

I was trying not to be sarcastic… was I whooshed instead?

Claverhouse is a non-USian poster. It’s quite possible he’s not been following this particular issue with the same level of detail as USian posters.

[Claverhouse]

I started off with Earl Schenck Miers’ The American Civil War when I was 7. It was almost bigger than myself.

[kurtisokc]

@Amateur_Barbarian

(Bolding mine.) For certain four-cornered values of “triangle.”

:smack: I meant to say “rectangular” (blushing)