Talk:Confederate States of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confederate States of America was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-13

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.	History Portal Geography Portal Atlas Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WP Former Countries - Things to do: Open tasks for WikiProject Former countries      Edit Correct links: Correct any wikilinks that you find anywhere on Wikipedia where the link is to the wrong version of the state. Some examples of bad links: Referring to the former Free City of Lübeck (an independent entity for 711 years), but the link goes to the modern city of Lübeck. Referring to Napoleon's France, where the link instead goes to modern France. Create redirects: If the article for the correct state does not yet exist, create a redirect to the nearest existing article (if possible) and place {{WPFC|class=Needed}} on the redirect's talk page. Whether or not a redirect has been created, list the wanted article below under "Needed". Article improvement After performing any of these tasks, re-rate the entry via the WPFC banner, and remove the article from the relevant list. Expand: Confederation of the Rhine, Straits Settlements, Belgian Congo, Free City of Lübeck, Kingdom of Ireland, North German Confederation, Spanish East Indies Stubs: Adamawa Emirate, Baranya-Baja Republic, Kingdom of Redonda, Piratini Republic, United States of Colombia Needed: Kingdom of Bavaria Assess: Anjouan, Austrian Empire, German East Africa, Orange Free State Articles requiring particular elements After providing the requested element, please remove the relevant tag from the article's WPFC banner and remove the article from this list. Flag: Alta California, Baranya-Baja Republic, Bishopric of Liège, Lordship of Ireland, Mexican Empire Coat of Arms: Adamawa Emirate, Anjouan, Baranya-Baja Republic, Confederation of the Equator, Congo Free State, New Spain, West Florida Map: Baranya-Baja Republic, California Republic, Holy Roman Empire, Republic of Manitoba Venezuela (second republic) Infobox: Anjouan, Austrian Empire, Baranya-Baja Republic, Belgian Congo, Holy Roman Empire, Orange Free State Quality watch: 4 FA-Class former country articles - 3 GA-Class former country articles.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive1

Contents 1 Misconception of Beginnings of the War 2 Legal status of consuls: they have no diplomatic role 3 Table of states 4 List of cities 5 Date Jefferson Davis was selected president 6 Brazil? 7 Nation? 8 Map? 9 the Recognition hoax 10 CSA and Saxe-Colburg-Gotha 11 Six states listed under 'four seceeded' 12 List of secession now neutral 13 GROSSLY MISLEADING 14 important economic data sets 15 West Virginia on Map 16 Guerilla warfare 17 Rampant Vandalism 18 ANGRY!! 19 The Pope 20 Cause 21 Readmission to the Union 22 Map points 23 Confederation versus Federation 24 Cities With CSA Sympathies 25 Morally superior? 26 GA Failed 27 Respective Advantages of North and South

[edit] Misconception of Beginnings of the War

The Confederacy didn't attack Fort Sumpter they was pushed and egged on by the Union by them being on Confederate property just like we did in the Mexican-American War, also slavery wa one of the least important reason of the Civil War even if it was a major outcome of it.

This page doesn't exist to discuss the war, only the article. -Will Beback 10:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is dealing with the aticle, maybe you wanna read it first.

HEY on the right hand summary section it says the war ended in 1990! fix it

Actually, the initial firing on Fort Sumter was an accident. In fact, American Historian Clint Johnson says that a confederate gun commander actually rowed to the fort in a boat and apologized "profusely" to US Army officers. Less than a week after Lincoln ASSURED South Carolina that Fort Sumter would be abandoned, Lincoln sent two hundred troops to further fortify the fort. "On April 11, 1861, South Carolina officials urged [Fort Sumter] commanders to surrender or... Confederates would feel compelled to open fire on a... hostile fort within their harbor. At 4:30 on April 12, 1861, the Confederates fired the first shells at Fort Sumter... rather than batter Sumter to the ground, a Confederate delegation asked for the surrender of the fort. Major Anderson accepted the terms. The ninety-man garrison was not taken prisoner... Instead, the garrison was allowed to leave for New York City aboard one of the supply ships sent by Lincoln (the two hundred soldiers they carried never disembarked South Carolina" Like I said earlier... let's have some unbiased reporting. --68.18.179.64 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a source or I'd post it, but the first shots were fired on the Mississippi River by Arkansawyers.Lee 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status of consuls: they have no diplomatic role

CSA Secretary of State Judah Benjamin on Oct. 8, 1863. explained the status of consuls under international law:

When the Confederacy was first formed, there were in our ports a number of British Consuls and Consular Agents, who had been recognized as such, not only by the Government of the United States, which was then the authorized agent of the several States for that purpose, but by the State authorities themselves. Under the law of nations, these officials are not entitled to exercise political or diplomatic functions, nor are they ever accredited to the sovereigns within whose dominions they reside. Their only warrant of authority is the commission of their own government; but usage requires that those who have the full grade of Consul should not exercise their functions within the territory of any sovereign before receiving his permission in the form of an exequatur; while consular agents of inferior grade simply notify the local authorities of their intention to act in that capacity. It has not been customary upon any change of government, to interfere with these commercial officials, already established in the discharge of their duties, and it is their recognized obligation to treat all governments which may be established, de facto, over the ports where they reside, as governments de jure. [1] So Raven was not a diplomat. He was a citizen of CSA which he recognized as sovereign. He could not bind the government of Saxe in any way--he could not make Saxe officially recognize the CSA. Rjensen 12:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, you are correct, consuls do not have a diplomatic role, they have a consular role. The distinction between the two roles is made in the article on consul (representative) that you recently edited: "In modern usage, a consul is a representative of a sovereign state, posted to a foreign territory, in charge of matters related to individual people and businesses, in other words issues outside inter-governmental diplomacy." A more detailed description of consular functions can be found in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.[2] Nonetheless, a consul is still a commissioned representative of his government. It is for this reason that the sources that I cited earlier regard a request for an exequatur for a consul to be de facto recognition rather than de jure recognition, which would require the sending of a diplomatic official such as an ambassador or a minister. Nicholas F 19:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas is correct in the sense that consul Raven recognized the Confederacy. He certainly did--he was a loyal Texan after all. But as he said he did not imply that Saxe-C-G recognized the Confederacy. It did not. But the Duke did not and did not send an ambassador. Nor did the CSA government announce it had been recognized and send its minister to the Duke. Rjensen 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are talking about two different points in international law. If your point is that there was no formal de jure recognition of the C.S.A. by Saxe-Colburg-Gotha, then you are correct. The Duke's government sent no ambassador or minister nor did it make any formal announcement of recognition. The controversy over Conusl Raven's request for an exequatur is over whether it represented an informal de facto recognition of the C.S.A. This is a weaker and more tentative form of recognition than de jure recognition and is implicit, rather then explicit, being based on established common practice and precedent rather than a formal declaration by the recognizing power. It is possible that the Duke's government, as claimed by Bergwanger claims, did make a statement that the request did not imply recognition. More evidence to back up this claim would certainly end the controversy. At the moment, however, the case rests on the interpretation of actions. I've laid out a chain of logic that, minus any contrary statement by the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha goverment, does support the view that there was an implicit de facto recogntion. It is not clear from your counter arguments were you disagree with this logic: (1) Was Raven appointed Consul by the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha government? (2) Is an appointed consul an official of that goverment? (3) Was a formal request for an exequatur made by an official of the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha government to the C.S.A.? (4) Is there not precedent, as I've cited, that in common practive of international law that a request for an exequatur consitutes a de facto recognition of sovereignty? Or is it your argument that while these previous points may be true that Berwanger's claim is strong enough on its own to show that the Saxe-Colburg-Gotha goverment explicitely denied that the request implied recognition? Zeroing in on exact point of dispute would help this debate just being one of "yes, it may have happened/no, it definately didn't happen". I look forward to your response. Nicholas F 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Raven recognized the confederacy. He was a citizen of Texas and the Confederacy (and not of Saxe). He had no diplomatic or political power to recognize anyone, says Benjamin. Raven was not appointed consul to the CSA--no one claims that. (He was appointed some time previously to texas and just kept on going). Exequator was not a formal diplomatic procedure, as the ConfedeSecty of State tells us. Asking for it was therefore not a formal diplomatic request. The Duke apparently never heard of the business because he gave speeches and interviews expressing his support for USA. Rjensen 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that any kind of detailed discussion of these issues is simply not appropriate in this article, which should give an overview of the Confederacy. An article about Confederate Diplomacy would be a good place to iron out all this stuff. john k 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of states

The table of states has details on Reconstruction, which have no bearing whatever on the defunct CSA. (each state covers that topic in its article). More interesting was when the state was mostly controlled by USA, so I added that info (but am not positive about a couple cases like Arkansas). Likewise we should tell when Union took over each of those 15 cities. I think Baltimore and St Louis should be added. Rjensen 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities

I am not sure that Baltimore really belongs on the list as the C.S.A. never claimed Maryland. As for St. Louis and Louisville, although the C.S.A. did claim Missouri and Kentucky, neither state was ever under the effective control of the C.S.A. so it is questionable that they should be on the list. Furthermore, doesn't listing dates when the U.S. took over control of Baltimore, St. Louis, and Louisville in an article on the C.S.A. imply that the C.S.A. contolled them before then? Wheeling is a slightly different case as Virginia did have de jure jurisdiction over Wheeling when it seceeded. Nicholas F 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Places in Kentucky and Missouri should only be included if they were at some point under de facto Confederate control. Places in Maryland should not be included at all. john k 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Baltimore was early on de-facto controlled by CSA supporters, who engaged in military action (attacking federal troops, burning bridges), until the city was seized by force by Gen Butler. So it counts. St Louis was contested territory and Union won. It's more than a nicety--these were two if the three largest and most important slave cities and without them (and New Orleans), CSA was an economic cripple. Louisville was neutral but was claimed by CSA and had a CSA Congressman, as did St Louis. The CSA recruited lots of soldiers from these areas as well. The story has it that Louisville became Confederate in 1865! In a word: it is helpful to readers to explain what happened. Rjensen 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Baltimore saw a riot against federal troops, and was certainly never part of the Confederacy. This is an incredibly dubious claim. There was a riot against federal troops in New York, as well. And St. Louis was seized very early by union troops, and was never effectively controlled by Confederate troops. This all happened well before Missouri's confederate supporters officially seceded. As such, neither Baltimore nor St. Louis (nor certainly Louisville) was ever under Confederate control (as opposed to Confederate sympathizer control, which is not the same thing at all). And there's absolutely no way that Baltimore should be included. john k 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Confederacy claims LOTS of territory it never actually controlled--see the map. delete cities, ok, then delete the map and the claims for "states" like Kentucky and Missouri. For that matter the population numbers are way too high as well because the CSA at no time controlled all the population of even the 11 core states. (for example it never controlled western Virginia.) Rjensen 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date Jefferson Davis was selected president

The text says "Following Abraham Lincoln's election as President of the United States in 1860 on a platform that opposed the extension of slavery, seven slave southern states chose to secede from the United States and declared that the Confederate States of America was formed on February 4, 1861; Jefferson Davis was selected as its first President the next day."

From what I've read, including McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, Jefferson Davis was selected as president on February 9, not February 5. The February 9 date agrees with the Jefferson Davis article. I altered the page text to reflect this. I also added his inauguration date.

Should the article include the date Davis was actually elected president? If so, the section on Davis being selected president should make it clear that he was only selected as "provisional" president. There was a formal election and inauguration after the war had already begun. My main concern, though, was correcting the error suggesting Davis was selected president on February 5. Agoodall 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil?

I happened upon a website "brainyhistory" that claims Brazil recognized the Confederacy on August 1, 1861. Has anyone seen this claim previously? Hal Jespersen 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Trick question. Yes I've seen it everywhere online, but I've seen no attribution in any case. I've seen it listed as part of online turnbased cardgames. OR doesn't say a word about Brazil, just a complaint by a consul at Ben Butler's attrocious behavior in New Orleans (III, 2). Looking through digitized diplomatic files (in Portuguese) is tough going, but I see nothing like recognition; I see several lengthly statements of neutrality as it regards the conflict. I'll bet Rjensen knows where to look. BusterD 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a very good idea to create a Diplomatic History of the Confederate States, as someone has proposed above, and move all this angel-counting about SCG and Brazil and the Vatican and God-knows-where to that page. Clearly, the essentially issue for this page is that the Confederate States did not recieve robust support from any other nation, and that the matter of official recognition can only be addressed at the level of diplomatic minutiae. Ethan Mitchell 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more clear, I did not intend to add any Brazil info to this or other Wiki pages, but was merely inquiring about where this claim came from. I have never read it in any reputable source, but it has found its way around the web (and a little Civil War desk calendar someone gave me). Hal Jespersen 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On recognition: the CSA was truly desperate for recognition and would have trumpeted any that it received. It never claimed any. Rjensen 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, that's a theory. There are a bunch of folks who disagree, and they'r all vehement about it. So I think this is an important enough issue to have its own page. But it is a relatively minor footnote to the history of the CSA, so let's give it its own page and be done with.. Ethan Mitchell 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No there are not a "bunch of folks who disagree" -- there is not a single reliable source that says so. It's a new myth invented in the 1990s as a practical joke. Rjensen 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a reliable source that said so, I said 'a bunch of folks disagree', which is god's own truth. A bunch of Mormons think that Jesus crossed the Atlantic on a Boeing, and we have pages about it. By comparison, the claim that the CSA had diplomatic ties with other countries is both mild and well-documented. It deserves its own page, if only so we can have this argument without blocking traffic here on more important issues. Ethan Mitchell 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation?

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

I don't agree. The South legally sceeded from the union. They were united by more than a government, slavery, and territory. There was a sense throught the Confederacy that they were a single nation, united by ties of blood, idealogy, and natiolalism. How else could you explain cowboys from Texas, indians form Oklahoma, cotton pickers from Georgia, and tobacco growers from Virginia to fight and die along side people thay had never met. Unlike the north, who had mass amounts of immagrents from northern and western Europe, there was little immagration to the South so the people there could trace there roots to the foundings of the english colonies. There was a sense of nationalism and brotherhood that was and still is apart of the way the South sees it's self in this world. It's no different than the fellings of the first americans in the Revolutionary war. And if people think that the Revoulutionary war and the Civil war were fought over different reasons, and that the South didn't have the same right as those early americans than they are hypocritical. Jim

Considering soulpatch's statements, I have to disagree. While Lincoln argued that the CSA wasn't a seperate nation but "our brothers in err", he arguably had political motivations in doing so; in short, he was fighting a PR battle as well as a war. By your definition, the America South is probably the most distinct area of the US, both culturally and economically. Only New England has a group of states similar in culture, speech, and manner. Southerners are instantly recognized by speech, manner, culture, and beliefs. They had good reason to believe themselves a kind of seperate people. DesScorp 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln's view on whether the Confederacy was a nation or not is moot. The fact is that succession is legal according to the costitution and the Cofederacy declared it and there for was a seperate sovereign nation.

The Confederate States of America was considered a "Nation". The US treated the CS as so de jure in the example when Jefferson Davis was up for treason (not convicted because of his legal obligation to protect his boarders). Also, let it be noted The Confederate Government is still in existence (de jure). This would be a good thing to ask for trivia game on here (hint). But it's also a thing that makes you wonder "why hasn't anyone caught this yet?" Sophion 23:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is POV to say it was a nation. It is POV to say it was not a nation. Say neither. --JimWae 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map?

Can we get a map that shows what the CSA really looked like [as well as the rest of the world] when it was born? On the map, some of the countries in Europe such as Poland don't even exist. --71.35.88.125 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited the map to show 1865 political geography.--RedFoxBandit 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Territory (i.e. Oklahoma) and the Confederate Territory of Arizona (i.e. southern Arizona and southern New Mexico) should be added to the CSA in the location map as they both under CSA control in the early part of the war. 71.246.225.183 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Major parts of New Mexico came under Confederate control for a short time, but I don't recall that much of Arizona did. --Al-Nofi 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Recognition hoax

I do not know what was here and was deleted, but I suppose this is where I would type this. It says in the article it was never recognized by any country but I recall that it was actually recognized by a few, including Britian. Is it true noone recognized it as a nation?

No nation ever formally recognized the CSA. It is a matter of dispute whether the appointment of a new consul for Texas by the Duchy of Saxe-Colberg-Gotha and his subsequent request of an exequator from the CSA government constituted an implied recognition. Some people erroneously refer to a letter from the Pope addressed to Jefferson Davis as "President of the Confederate States" as implying recognition, but this view was rejected even by the CS Secretary of State Judah Benjamin, who regarded the letter as an informal personal correspondance rather than a formal letter from one head of state to another. Nicholas F 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Confederacy never claimed Raven was appointed to the Confederacy. No one seems certain of the date but it seems to have been before the CSA formed in Feb 1861. The Duke of Saxe was hailed by American diplomats as a very strong friend of USA. He never recognized the Confederacy. The CSA never claimed recognition by Saxe or anyone else--that story was invented in the 1990s by neoconfederates. Rjensen 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not advocating putting this issue in the article, but lets put the facts on the table, shall we. The historical record is clear that Raven was appointed as consul for Texas by the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The historical record is clear that on July 30, 1861, six months after Texas seceded from the Union, Raven applied for and received an exequatur from the Government of the Confederate States. It is also clear from the historical record that as a matter of public policy the Confederate States recognized the exequaturs granted by the US Government prior to the secession of the various Southern states and did not require previously appointed consuls to request a new exequatur from the CS Government. I don’t believe Rjensen disputes any of the above.

Now for the matters that are in dispute. Was Raven appointed “to” the CSA? This question is misleading. Consuls are not appointed “to” any government, they are public officials appointed “for “ specified consular districts and they perform their duties with the permission of the host government via an exequatur. As a matter of record, Raven made the request for an exequatur to the CS Government.

Rjensen’s claim that Raven was appointed prior to February 1861 has absolutely no substance, it a mere speculation. It would have been unusual for an appointed consul to wait six months to request an exequatur. I will concede that it is possible that Raven hesitated due to the unsettled political situation, but again this would be speculation. The timing of the appointment, however, is rather minor. More important is what were the instructions given to Raven on to which authority he was to submit his request for an exequatur? Even if Raven were appointed prior to February 1861, six months would certainly been enough time to give the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha government an opportunity to clarify its instructions to Raven.

In the past, Rjensen has asserted that there was something amiss by Raven’s submitting the request on his own behalf rather than the request being sent separately by the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Consuls are minor officials, so it is unlikely that any head of state would personally make such a request. To show the normal practice at the time, let me quote from the contemporary US manual for consuls to show that it was common practice for a consul to submit his own request if there were no diplomatic official present to submit the request for him.

76. It is the practice of the Department to the consular commission to the legation, with instructions to the diplomatic agent to apply for the exequatur by which the consul general or consul is officially recognised and enabled to discharge without interruption his consular duties.

77. If there be no legation of the United States in the country, the commission will be sent to the consul direct, who will, without delay, transmit it to the proper department, and request an exequatur. (The United States Consular System: A Manual for Consuls. 1856. p. 40)

One is free to speculate that Raven was appointed before Texas seceded and that, on his own, he made the decision to make the request to the CS Government rather than the US Government, but you can’t establish this as fact. If he had made the request against the instructions of his government, it would have been likely that his commission would have been revoked. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest any displeasure in Raven by the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha government. The claim by some US diplomats that the Duke was a friend of the US doesn't prove that Raven wasn't instructed to make the request to the CS government, but it may lend some support to Berwanger's claim on caveats presented along with the request (see below).

Does a request for an exequatur imply recognition of a de facto governments? Again, let be quote from the 1856 Manual for Consuls, “Commercial agents are sometimes appointed, rather than consuls, for the sole purpose of avoiding the necessity of recognising an authority de facto by requesting an exequatur. “(p. 28) Previously in this debate, I’ve cited official British dispatches that hold that a request for an exequatur implies recognition of a de facto government. Let me add three authorities on international law who have also supported this view. The first is Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, London, New York and Bombay, 1905. This is still the standard textbook on international law and is now in its 7th edition. The second is Amos S. Hershey, Essential Public Law and Organization, New York: Macmillan, 1927. The third is Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. I can cite others supporting this view. I will concede, however, that this is still a grey area in international law and you can find authorities who take the opposite position.

Where does this leave us with regard to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and recognition? First, it is not a hoax to view Raven’s appointment and request for an exequatur as implied recognition. A legitimate case can certainly be made for recognition. Is it definitive? No, but neither is the case against recognition. The matter rests on several issues. The first is whether Raven was carrying out the instructions of his government by making the request to the CS Government. The presumption must be that, minus evidence to the contrary, that actions by public officials are in accord with their duties and responsibilities. The second issue is whether such a request implies recognition. Here we are trapped in the murkiness of international law. There is no definitive answer, though the weight of evidence suggests the affirmative.

There is one final issue that plays on the question of recognition. As alluded to earlier, the historian Berwanger claims that the government of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha made it clear that the request for the exequatur did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition. Unfortunately, Berwanger doesn’t cite the source of this claim, making it impossible to confirm. In the end, the question of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha recognition is one has no answer with certainty. We are left with a situation were the interpretation of history is without any absolute authority. Nicholas F 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSA and Saxe-Colburg-Gotha

I would like to get some compromise language on this issue. Despite your edit comments, as I last edited this piece it stated that the CSA did NOT claim recognition. Also, my edits are not original research as I cite published primary sources on the point that a request for an exequator has been regarded in international law as de facto recognition. This is an historical fact. Did you bother even to read these sources? I also challenge you to point out exactly what in my edit was false about Raven.

As for your own edits. First, what does Raven's citizenship have to do with the recognition question? He was appointed as an agent of a foreign government. It was not unusual for countries to appoint citizens of the host country as consuls. Second, please either cite a source for Raven being appointed before the war (better yet would be his appointment prior to secession) or remove the comment. Third, unless you can produce a survey of all historians showing that none of them regard the request as de facto recognition, please remove this comment as it is speculation and implies that other historians, besides Berwenger, have even looked at the issue.

Now let's see if there are some facts we can agree on and from which we can formulate a compromise.

1) Saxe-Colburg-Gotha appointed Raven as consul for Texas. [Not the Confederacy] 2) A letter requesting an exequator for Raven was submitted to the CSA government. [the only document we have says RAVEN sent the letter, not the Duke]

3) It is unclear from the sources who wrote the letter, Raven or the Duke himself. [there is NO EVIDENCE the Duke knew about the letter Raven sent.]

4) If Raven wrote the letter, it would have been in the name of the Duke under his appointment as consul. [NOT TRUE--Raven as consul had no political or diplomatic power, said Benjamin]

5) There is precedent in international law for such a request to be regarded as de facto recognition, but not de jure recognition. [NOT TRUE -- that is originial research and was rejected by Benjamin]

6) The Confederacy never cited this request as a recognition by a foreign government. [right--the first time it was raised was by some unknown person 130 years later]

I believe these are all factual. Do you disagree with any of the above points? If so, please explain why. I really would like us to settle this issue without further edit wars.

Nicholas F 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Raven was not appointed to the Confederacy; he had no diplomatic or political power. He was a Confederate citizen. He could not speak for the Duke and did not try. The Confederates knew all this and NEVER claimed recognition by Saxe. The recognition myth was invented in the 1990s. No reliable source supports the recognition story and Wiki therefore is not allowed to report it. Rjensen 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to perpetuate a hoax, just trying to get to the truth. If you check, you can see that I was the person who first pointed out in the article that Benjamin rejected the view that the Pope's letter to Davis implied recognition. If I may, I will reply to some of your points above:

1) Raven was appointed consul FOR Texas, not TO Texas. The reference to Texas only indicates the area of his responsibility, not the government to which he was accredited. (I hope you are not advancing the argument that SCG was recognzing Texas as an independent nation.)

2 & 3) Looking back on your previous arguments, it appears we do indeed have evidence the SCG government sent the letter and that it was not just a personal request from Raven. In your earlier citation of Berwanger, he writes: "In asking for the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." This clearly indicates that the request came from the SCG government, although Berwanger does say that SCG attached a caveat to the letter or otherwise communicated to the CSA that the request did not imply recognition. Furthermore, the apparent need to caveat the request supports the argument that minus the caveat that such a request would normally imply de facto recognition.

4) You are being pedantic on the issue of Raven's diplomatic status. Yes, he wasn't a diplomatic official, he was a consular official. Lacking diplomatic credentials, Raven could not issue any de jure recognition on the behalf of SCG, but if he was authorized to request an exequatur, then this action would carry implied de facto recognition, unless the SCG government explicitly stated otherwise. In any case, Raven's official status is moot if Berwanger is correct in that the letter was sent by the SCG government.

5) Again, citing previously published primary souces is not original research as defined by Wikipedia. The sources I provided clearly state that a request for an exequatur normally carries de facto recognition. Benjamin's quote that you use as your evidence makes no mention at all of the recognition issue, only that consuls are not entitled to exercise diplomatic functions, which are distinct from consular functions. Please read the sources that I provided.

Your earlier argument that cited Berwanger on the SCG government's caveat on its request for an exequatur for Raven is stronger ground on which to stand than your newer argument that Raven was acting on his own without any authority or knowledge from SCG. How could the SCG government "make clear" that the request for an exequatur did not imply recognition if it wasn't even aware that a request was made? hmmm

So where do we stand? I would suggest that it is that the SCG government did make the request for the exequatur. That such a request normally implies de facto recognition. But, according to Berwanger, that the SCG government caveated its request, thus overriding the customary understanding normally attached to such a request. Thus, per Berwanger, the action did not carry any form of recognition by SCG. We can also add that neither the CSA nor any contemporary commentator ever claimed that the request implied recognition. I would prefer some confirmation of the SCG caveat, but I can live with citing Berwanger. Nicholas F 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is recognition of the CSA by a foreign government. No reliable source has ever said there was recognition. The Confederacy did not claim it. Raven was a Confederate citizen and he of course did not speak for the Duke--he had no diplomatic ort political power or responsibility whatsoever. Did the Duke write some sort of letter--no one has every found one or given even the approximate date of the letter. The idea that there was recognition was a hoax invented in the 1990s. Rjensen 02:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is recognition, but that it hinges on the status of the request for an exequatur made by the Saxe-Colburg and Gotha government, not a letter personally written by the Duke. Or are you disputing that a request for an exequatur was made by the SCG government? Berwanger states that the request came from the SCG government. Is he not a reliable source? Also, you are wrong in stating that Raven did not speak for the Duke. Although Raven could not speak for the Duke on diplomatic or political matters, his consular appointment gave him authority to speak for the Duke on matters relating to SCG citizens and businesses in Texas. Whether Raven spoke to or corresponeded directly with the Duke rather than through the his foreign ministry is immaterial. Raven's citizenship is also immaterial as long as he held a legitimate appointment from the SCG government. As for this being a hoax invented in the 1990s, unless you can show that Raven never received a consular appointment from the SCG government the worse that can be said is that this has been a misunderstanding of events surrounding Raven's appointment. It all hangs on Berwanger's statement that the SCG government caveated its request for an exequatur for Raven. Futhermore, even if it can be shown that SCG did recognize the CSA, it would still be a rather trivial matter as SCG just didn't carry much weight in international politics. The CSA might as well have been recognized by King of Tonga as from Saxe-Coburg. What mattered was recognition from a major power such Britain, France, Russia, or Spain. Nicholas F 02:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Try again: what secondary sources are you using? Any???? Rjensen 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What is your hang up with using only secondary sources? Wikipedia guidelines allow citiations to previously published primary sources. Is because you are unable to refute my primary sources? As for the SCG government requesting an exequatur for Raven, I can cite one secondary source with which I believe you are familiar: The British Foreign Service and the American Civil War by Eugene H Berwanger (1994). Nicholas F 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with Rjensen that this doesn't belong, but for different reasons. RJensen has made the mistake of entering the worthy arena of accuracy. However, even if this information is correct and completely documented (and that's not at all the case here), this subject matter is trivia and given proportional recognition has no place on this page. It's too trivial to warrant its own article. Zero importance, okay maybe 1%. There's lots of more essential information which would make preferable addition on this page. Further, this subject matter has received lots of previous talk and consensus is that it just doesn't belong. I don't think any compromise is warranted. Enough already. It should come out, and I'll support any artful deletion. BusterD 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BusterD is correct that it's trivia. But it's also heavy POV from neoconfederate sources that Nicholas F refuses to acknowledge. Rjensen 03:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We can have another discussion on whether it is trivia or not. Personally, I don't like removing items that other have placed in articles (I didn't originate the SCG issue), but rather check on their accuracy. That is what I am doing here. The amount of discussion generated by these claimed recognitions indicates to me that there is certainly interest in the topic. I am neutral, however, on whether it belongs on this page or in a separate article. Rjensen, please do not misunderstand me, I am NOT claiming that SCG recognized the CSA. All I am trying to do is to accurately frame the issue. Simplifying, it is (1) SCG requested an exequator for Raven, (2) such a request is normally regarded as a de facto recognition, (3) citing Berwanger, the SCG caveated its request, thus nullifying (2). Is that so hard? It has nothing to do with neoconfederate sources. Nicholas F 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1) There is zero evidence that SCG requested anything of the CSA. (The only document in evidence says that Raven himself made the request). 2) it is not true that such a request involves de facto recognition. CSA Sec State Benjamin made that very clear. 3) Raven's letter said it did not imply recognition. 4) we know that the Duke was a strong friend of the USA. 5) We know the CSA and its press never mentioned the episode publicly. 6) We know no historian has ever thought it worthy of discussion (save Berwanger). 7) There is nothing for Wiki to say in this CSA article. Rjensen 03:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a funny way of looking at evidence. Raven was a duly appointed consul of SCG and probably the only SCG official in the CSA. Who else would have submitted the letter to CS State Dept in Richmond? Benjamin's statement does not say that Raven wrote the letter himself, only that he submitted the letter. Benjamin acceptance of the request implies that he viewed as coming from the SCG government. Berwanger states that the letter came from the SCG government. Isn't this evidence of a request from the CSG goverment? You are misquoting Benjamin as his comments on the duties of consuls makes no mention at all of the recognition issue. Yes, the request for an exequatur was caveated as indicating it wasn't a recognition (funny that you accept Berwanger here but not on the issue of who sent the letter). If the request was caveated, why would the CSA government bother to make a public statement? Nicholas F 04:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see a vast amount of talk on this extremely marginal subject, so I'll not belabor this any more than necessary. There is only one issue here: inclusion. I for one feel this is trivia (no one has contested this) and unless convinced otherwise with adequate inline citation I'll delete it evey time I see it. BusterD 04:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason neoconfederates raised the issue is to proclaim the recognition of CSA by a European government. That's the hoax part and that is the reason people want to insert it into Wiki. (and the reason I don't want the hoax here--it degrades Wiki.) Apart from that it is the trivial case of a Confederate citizen recognizing the Confederacy and sending in a polite request to continue his status. I suggest he was the consul BEFORE 1861--that is had been appointed to the USA, and now was sending a courtesy note to Richmond. Rjensen 04:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pray tell, exactly what evidence do you have the Raven was consul BEFORE 1861 or that he was appointed to the USA? I'm not picky, either primary or secondary sources would suffice. Nicholas F 04:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick, Rjensen, everybody, please gods lets move this to its own page. Diplomatic History of the Confederate States of America. Just click it, you know you want to. Ethan Mitchell 18:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The business about the Papacy extending recognition is also bogus. At most there's a private letter from the Pope to Davis, without accompanying diplomatic terminology formally extending recognition. --Al-Nofi 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six states listed under 'four seceeded'

There had been some very biased editing and incomplete correction regarding the disputed secession of Kentucky and Missouri. East Kentucky, like West Virginia, was pro-Union and both states had a real civil war within the civil war.

I'm not getting involved, but someone should sort this out. Maybe also lock the article against recent or unregistered users.

--GwydionM 17:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of secession now neutral

Kentucky has been omitted. The Confederacy definitely recoginsed it as having seceeded, though the Union side had the better claim to be legal.

Missouri's secession may have been legal, this is disputed. What's definite is that the pro-Union government included part of the pre-war government and had solid support in some parts of the state.

--GwydionM 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Put things back roughly as they were. The previous edit lost Kentucky in Missouri's notes. --GwydionM 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GROSSLY MISLEADING

The bold underlined section is worded so as to mislead the reader into thinking that the Ordinances of Secession also stated that Slavery was the reason behind the Secession. I have reviewed all 13 Ordinances and none of the documents mention the protection of slaveholding rights as the cause or even a cause for the Secession. Alabama has this statement in its opening sentences: ...by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions... and ...the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South... but this is hardly conclusive that Slavery was the reason. The Texas Ordinance has these statements: ...or to the property of our citizens,... and ...strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States,... but one can hardly conclude that this is an indication that Slavery was the reason for their seceding. So I am going to remove the misleading statement that reads: ...in addition to the legal ordinances of secession adopted by each of the seceding states,...

By contrast, Confederate President Jefferson Davis made no explicit reference to slavery at all in his inaugural address. However, in addition to the legal ordinances of secession adopted by each of the seceding states, the Deep South states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas all issued declarations of causes, each of which identified the threat to slavery and slaveholders’ rights as a major cause of secession.

--Clay 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing the ordinances - technical legal documents - with the reasons stated at the time. See South Carolina's viewpoint, for instance.

Likewise if you check what Jefferson Davis said, you find plenty of explicit defence of slavery up until the actual secession. Then it became a question of looking for foreign recognition, with foreign governments reluctant to support one of the dwindling number of places where slavery was still legal. Then he will talk about any issue except slavery. --GwydionM 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused on anything. I have studied this period at great length. I'm not questioning the causes, but rather the blatant assertion in this statement: ...in addition to the legal ordinances of secession adopted by each of the seceding states,... as noted above. It is misleading and serves no purpose but to misinterpret for the reader the stated intent of the Ordinances. I removed the statement because it is subjective and not neutral, since it isn't grounded in fact.--Clay 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The ordinances of secession were accompanied by "declarations of causes," and all of those stress slavery.--Al-Nofi 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Only four of the 13 States that issued Ordinances of Secession also published declarations of causes.--Clay 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so those states that chose to issue a formal explanation as to why they were seceding all stressed slavery. For the others, just consult the debates in the state legislatures or conventions and you'll find that they too stress slavery. --Al-Nofi 16:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Debating something within the chambers of a government building can't conclusively be declared the sole reason for an act even though a document stating such wasn't issued. As a life long resident of Louisiana, I know that my State didn't issue a declaration of causes, because the matter largely under debate at the Secession Convention was over whether or not to support the Union or follow South Carolina's lead. The part of Louisiana that largely supported secession was the Plantation country along the Mississippi River from St Francisville (North of Baton Rouge) to New Orleans. This is also where the greatest concentration of slaves was located. Much of Central and Northern LA actually voted to support the Union, alas their voice didn't prevail at the convention.--Clay 06:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

>>I think it is important to put the slavery issue into a proper context. As an "unreconstructed Southerner" yes, even I have to agree it would be absurd to deny that the slavery issue didn't enter into the ultimate reason why the states of the "Lower South" (South Carolina thru Texas) initially seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. In fact, in some ways, to deny that fact, looses those of us who believe the South had the best constitutional rights on our side, credibility.

>>BUT...with that said, it is important to keep in mind that the issue of slavery was NOT a truly MORAL consideration with the overwhelming majority of northerners. Most yankees couldn't have cared less if the slaves were free if it might not have affected their more immediate economic concerns. Blacks were actually banned from residency in some northern states. And the biggest consideration among most northerners who opposed slavery in the territories -- the issue which brought sectional division to a head -- was not an altruisic concern for blacks, but that they didn't want them (or Southerners) living there. >>As an afterthough, the Texas Ordinance of Secession mentioned several issue besides slavery. One of them was the failure of the federal government, dominated by northern interests, to live up to the promise -- contained within the Annexation agreement -- to protect the lives and property of citizens living along the exposed western frontier. I truly believe that the simplistic notion of the north "fighting to free the slaves" was created by way of the fact that the winners write the history, and to justify to posterity what was in truth an outrageous violation of the ultimate truth among free people. That is, government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. TexasReb 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC) TexasReb 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Said TexasReb.--Clay 01:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's grossly misleading I'm sure some CNN MSNBC brainwashed idiot wrote all of that crap. It was about States' rights to government themselves plain and simple. Enough race card playing. (70.105.6.60)

[edit] important economic data sets

the data sets are new (released in 2006), and are by far the richest set of economic data relating to the Confederacy. They are even available online (and also on paper) and a rich resource indeed for the CSA. Rjensen 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if you are correct in every specific, the issue of undue weight applies. I think this should boil down to one hyperlink (which you should have added yourself). IMHO BusterD 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the great fature of Wiki is that it can carry this kind of very useful information. People interested in economics and business issues will find it invaluable; everyone else can ignore it without getting harmed or annoyed. Rjensen 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• One link should be sufficient. We shouldn't be pasting tables of contents from reference books in articles. Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate collection"??? Please don't be insulting. Some editors work hard to add fresh new material. Rjensen 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't intend any insult. Actually, it is a real wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

apology accepted. My point is that it was NOT an "indiscriminate" lumping of info. I sat down one night and went through the Carter datasets and picked only those I thought would be of most value to Wiki users of this article. (there are tens of thousands of data sets in that vast collection.) Rjensen 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Virginia on Map

The map of the Confederacy includes West Virgina as under Confederate control. Does this need to be changed? omg ShiftPlusOne 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The map is correct. There was no state of West Virginia as separate political entity from Virginia until June 1863, some two years into the war. Up until that point it was Union-occupied (or liberated, depending on your point of view) Virginia. Furthermore, the CSA never relinquished its claim (see title of the map), with both the C.S. Congress and the Virginia legislature passing resolutions reasserting the borders of Virginia in response to the creation of the Union state of West Virginia. Nicholas F 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. I guess i failed to notice the 'areas claimed' part... omg ShiftPlusOne 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guerilla warfare

An edit on Jan 14th completely changes the meaning of the sentence on surrender. Originally it stated that the fighting came to an end after the surrender, because "there was no guerrilla warfare afterwards." The new sentence states that the guerilla warfare ended with the surrender. The original statement points out that the people of the South did not turn to guerilla tactics, but instead honored the surrender. The new statement makes it sound like the South waged guerilla tactics the entire war, which is patently untrue. Reverting.--Bridgecross 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rampant Vandalism

If I knew how to fix this page I would, can someone more experienced clean up all this drivel with "Jeffrey Bell" and the Skull and Bones as the flag. IS there no one monitoring this?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.236.209 (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).71.108.236.209 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANGRY!!

This article is very one sided and shows the confederacy from a northern viewpoint! The war was not over slavery it was over southern independence, taxation, and the rights of the states and people. The north was only using slavery to justify thier senseless invasion of the south. I am a black man and my ancestor was a free black confederate who recieved equal pay, a voice, and kindness while serving in the confederacy. Trust me he didn't sighn up to defend slavery either, he sighned up to defend his famly, friends, home, and country, the Confederate States of America.69.19.14.15 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Jamal Byrd

My god a black Southerner who knows the truth, thank god for people like you. A couple months ago I stopped reading this article, because all it does is p*** me off with its Northern bias. No matter what truth a Southerner interjects here it gets edited out or changed to the point that it nolonger resembles what we placed originally. This article is entirely subjective from the Northern point of view. --Clay 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then if the war wasn't over slavery and instead over state's rights, how come the Confederate constitution actually removed several key state powers (such as actually being able to decide if a state was to be free or slave) and exchanged them for fairly weak ones all the while when it specifically mentions slavery on a very large number of occassions? Individuals may very well have had good intention to serve the cause, but you better believe that the Southern states were overwhelmingly pushed into the war by the ever-present slavocracy that refused any form of question of their all sacred institution and threatened seccession on every possible occassion otherwise. What you fail to realize is that, even with a Republican majority in the Congress and a Republican President, Southerners still held more than enough power to prevent any form of constitutional amendment to ban slavery or any other viewed way of Southern life. Also, considering that when the Confederacy attempted to raise a black company in Richmond during 1865, it caused a public riot even though the South needed all the troops it could possibly get, so I'm severely doubting that your granddad actually served Confederate government in any military fashion. RPH 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The South probably did fight to preserve slavery, but, still we need to put the principle of regional self-determination into account. Think about IRA and East Timor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooyi (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

EVerytime someone attempts to add any logical discussion regarding the truth it gets nailed as vandalism and deleted. The 'powers that be' will never open their eyes to history, they rely strictly on their so called history books that simply says that the war was over slavery. I can site source afetr source showing it was state's rights and just the South in general being feed up with the North's BS. I can also show them picture after picture of Black units carrying Confederate Battle Flags... but it's stillg et labeleed Vandalism and be deleted. This is why no one puts any faith in Wikipedia... it is beyong bias.

There are no 'powers that be' on wikipedia. That is both the greatest strength and the weakness. The 'states' rights' argument has a lot of flaws in it. The biggest is the fact that, pre-war and pre-succession, the southern states opposed expressions of non-slave-states rights when they threatened or tended to weaken the slave power. The whole fugitive slave law history is rife with that. They were perfectly willing to trample states rights when it suited them. "States rights" was a fig leaf, just like today when politicians say one thing and everyone knows they really mean something else. DMorpheus 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"States' Rights" is a loaded term, as it can mean lots of things. But regional self-determination is different. When IRA fought for Irish independence, it never say they fight for any "Ireland's rights" but rather outright independence. Wooyi 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right its a loaded term. But Ireland is not a comparable situation. Ireland has never been a region of England. The IRA claimed they were fighting to restore the independence of Ireland. The south was never an independent entity separate from the rest of the USA. Whether the individual states were is an interesting argument and is not nearly as clear-cut as some would have us believe. DMorpheus 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pope

I hate to argue with the masters at Wikipedia, but the Confederate States of America actually WERE recognized by a foreign entity... The Papal States of Italy. In fact, the Vatican newspaper referred to Jefferson Davis as "His Excellency, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America." In 1866, while Davis was imprisoned at Fort Monroe, Pope Pius IX actually sent Davis a signed photograph, along with a crown of thorns that he wove with his own two hands. I don't know how to do it, but I want to mark this article for review by an expert. Let's keep this article unbiased... I sense a strong bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.18.179.64 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Oh, and by the way, my source is historian Mr. Clint Johnson, who has studied American history for 30 years and who, I believe, has his own Wikipedia article. --68.18.179.64 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been raised before, please look in the archives. CS Secretary of State Judah Benjamin addressed this directly in his official correspondence and rejected the interpretation that the salutation that Pope Puis IX used in his letter to Jefferson Davis (which is what the Vatican newspaper would have been quoting) constituted recognition and viewed it as nothing more than form of politeness. Nicholas F 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the pope's correspondence, I said the address that was in the Vatican's newspaper reporting on Jefferson Davis' arrest. --68.18.179.64 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pope sent a photograph? recognition = Pope sending an ambassador. No one sent an ambassador. Rjensen 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Although there are other ways of bestowing recognition besides sending an ambassador, referring to Jefferson Davis as the President of the CSA in a newspaper isn't one of them.Nicholas F 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause

Somewhere on wikipedia there needs to be an article that deals more thoroughly with Causation in history & then this article needs to link to it. Many things could be pointed to as a 'cause' if all that is necessary is establishing some powerful chain of events leading up to some other event. The Industrial Revolution and the Rise of Capitalism could be considered causes of the American Civil War - as they led to economic visions that differed from that of Jeffersonian agrarianism, and to political visions that included a federal government actively supporting the development of infrastructure to enable industry & commerce. --JimWae 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Readmission to the Union

It is neither inaccurate nor POV to say that the Southern states were readmitted to the Union. If a state is denied representation in Congress, it is by definition foreign. Article V of the U.S. Constitution states, "No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." It follows, then, that any state being involuntarily denied its representation in the Senate is recognized by Congress as a foreign entity (at least de facto if not de jure). The issue regarding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrates that Congress dealt with the Southern states as foreign territories. Their suffrage in the Senate was denied until they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment at which point they were readmitted. I have on this basis restored the original wording.—Emote _{Talk Page} 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There were three operational theories on the legal basis for restoring the Southern states to full status within the Union. Charles Sumner advanced the theory of state suicide -- a de facto argument that would have required readmission on the same terms as any other new state was admitted. Thaddeus Stevens went a step further and argued that the entire area needed to go through a new territorial stage -- a process that would not guarantee even the same borders and states that existed before the war. For the purposes of this discussion it needs to be noted that neither of these theories were adopted.

Instead, the dominant theory was that the states had never left the Union but by the operation of individuals the states had ceased to have republican government (see Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution). Congress's and/or the President's job during Reconstruction was to define when the states had properly re instituted republican government. Readmission of a state's representatives to Congress was a major, but not the final, step in this process -- Congress had this authority from each house's Constitutional power to determine the validity of the credentials of its own members. Tom 16:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a republican government? Montesquieu defined it as follows: "A republican government is that in which the body, or only a part, of the people is possessed of the supreme power; a monarchical, that in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws; a despotic government, that in which a single person, without law and without rule, directs every thing by his own will and caprice." This definition was quoted and endorsed during the debates in the state constitutional conventions. Congressmen throughout the nineteenth century asserted that a republican government was one with three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. All of the Southern states retained these characteristics, regardless of which definition you like. But the entire argument is moot anyway. If the Southern states did not become independent by virtue of their own secession ordinances, then neither did the original thirteen colonies become independent by virtue of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore if the CSA government was illegitimately formed, so was the USA government, since both were created by seceded states.—Emote _{Talk Page} 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You can argue with whether the United States Congress correctly defined what a republican form of government is, but that doesn't change the fact that restoring republican government, rather than readmitting legally seceded states, is the actual, historical rationale that they preceded on. It is arguments on the legality of secession that are moot for purposes of describing, in an encyclopedia article, the decision-making actually used in creating and implementing reconstruction policy. The actual Reconstruction Acts as passed by Congress are available at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/reconstruction.html and they clearly show that the issue was the restructuring of state governments and constitutions, not readmission. As far as the DOI reference, the colonies became independent for all intents and purposes only after they carried the day militarily -- something the CSA failed to do. Tom 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is POV to say the CSA was a foreign country. It is POV to say they were never a foreign country. Say neither. It is POV to say they were readmitted to the Union. It is POV to say they were not readmitted to the Union. Say neither --JimWae 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is POV to say that they were readmitted to the Union, it is also POV to say that they were readmitted to Congress.—Emote _{Talk Page} 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, as I said, it would be POV to say they were NOT readmitted to the union... only readmitted to Congress. I am not advocating that we say they were ONLY readmitted to Congress. It is correct & NPOV to say they were readmitted to Congress. If you have a NPOV way to say anything beyond that, let's see it here --JimWae 03:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument: "Readmitted to the Union" is POV because it assumes they left at some point.

My corollary: "Readmitted to Congress" is therefore POV because it assumes they left at some point.—Emote _{Talk Page} 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uhm.. they did leave Congress, voluntarily - except Andrew Johnson stayed--JimWae 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and that is my point. The act of departure is a demonstrable one (and therefore not POV). Just as they left Congress voluntarily, they also left the Union voluntarily. Not only did the Southern states declare themselves to be separate, but they also were treated by the U.S. government as though they were separate.

The U.S. Constitution requires that three-fourths of the state legislatures ratify an amendment before it may be enacted. When the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed, it was legitimately ratified by the required number of states. (The Southern states at this time held their seats in Congress, were recognized as part of the Union, and voted to ratify this amendment.) When the Fourteenth Amendment was first proposed, however, it did not even meet the required two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, much less the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Consequently, Congress kicked the Southern states out of Congress in order to get the two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. Then they kicked the same states out of the Union in order to get the three-fourths vote from the state legislatures. In order to be readmitted to the Union, the Southern states were forced to ratify the amendment. New Jersey submitted the following resolution in response to the aforementioned events:

That it being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union.

The actions of Congress attest to the departure of the Southern states (involuntary in this case). And above is the direct testimony of a Northern state that these states were kicked out. The fact of their departure (in one form or another) has been demonstrated here, thus it is not POV to say that they were readmitted to the Union.—Emote _{Talk Page} 05:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• What you call "your points" are being presented by you as original research, and even if you had sources, they are still one-sided. Neither is how wikipedia works --JimWae 05:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have presented the case as original research because this is a discussion page and I have neither the time nor the obligation here to cite sources that you would (by your own admission) throw in the trash anyway. I could argue that "readmitted to Congress" is original research and that even if you had sources, they would be one-sided. That doesn't hold much water. At any rate, I despise revert wars, so I will leave the wording as you have it. Perhaps other editors will care to express their opinions on this issue. If not, then you win. Nevertheless, the evidence has been presented.—Emote _{Talk Page} 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Re-admitted to the Union" is POV because according to the US government (see. Texas v. White) they never legally left. It seems better to just describe the event (their representitives were allowed to take seats, though they had been refused previously) rather than make a legal claim when the underlying legal principles are (and were at the time) in dispute. Eluchil404 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire table therefore becomes meaningless as its purpose is to demonstrate the governmental changes regarding the Southern states. If "readmitted to the Union" is POV, so also is "secession ordinance" and "admitted to CSA" since it is argued that these states never actually seceded and that the Confederate government never actually existed. If you intend to be consistent, you need to delete the whole table or else go through and put the word "alleged" at the front of every column heading.—Emote _{Talk Page} 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map points

I came to the article after seeing it listed on the WP:GAN page. At first glance, the most obvious thing I noted was the maps. The main map which shows the country nicely (though not all disputes in detail) is buried near the bottom of the article in the Geography section. It or one like it would be very helpful in the infobox or otherwise near the top of the article. Also the locator map in the infobox only shows the "core" states and excludes Arizona, Indian territory, and (I believe) West Virginia as well. It would be better for it to deal with the broader claims I think, since they were as legally valid as the rest (Missouri and Kentucky are closer cases) and core state borders make a poor proxy for actual control given how much territory was under Northern occupation from early in the war. Eluchil404 09:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confederation versus Federation

One of the things we were taught in school was that the South was a confederation (States had a lot of power, kind of like the European Union today gives a lot of veto power to member countries) while the North was a Federation with over-riding Federal central control. Failure to **clearly state** this in the article is a huge hole in the government section. --anon

Federation and confederation are identical in practice as well as in etymology. Compare the U.S. Constitution with the Confederate Constitution. There is little difference. Both governments were federations of states (legally and practically). It was not until Lincoln took office that the North acquired de facto "Federal central control" and soon forced the same fate upon the South.—Emote _{Talk Page} 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one theory among several available. DMorpheus 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Stephens argues the issue as follows:

The great American lexicographer, Noah Webster, says of this word "Federal," that it is derived from the Latin word "Foedus," which means a League. A League he defines to be "an Alliance or Confederacy between Princes or States for their mutual aid or defence." And, in defining the meaning of the word Federal, he uses this language: "Consisting in a Compact between States or Nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as, a Federal Government, such as that of the United States." … Federal, from its very origin and derivation, therefore, has no meaning, and can have none, dissociated from Compact or Agreement of some sort, and it is seldom ever used to qualify any Compacts or Agreements except those between States or Nations. So that Federal and Confederate mean substantially the same thing. When applied to States they both imply and import a Compact between States (A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, Vol. I, pp. 167, 168).

—Emote _{Talk Page} 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Confederation and Federation are not inter-changeable. The Confederate government was weaker with regard to the will of the states. In part, the inability of the Confederate Executive to force states to accept the national government's will, helped contribute to the Confederacy's defeat. Regardless, the very difference between confederation and federation is exactly how the first poster in this thread described it. Now if you want to argue that the Confederate government acted in a more federal style, than in name, thats allowable. However, its bad civics to claim that the two words and forms of governing are equal. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to legal authorities like Vattel and Burlamaqui, common sense suggests that there is no substantial difference between "federation" and "with federation"—they mean exactly the same thing. Compare Google's definition results: Federation and Confederation. If you mean that there was a de facto difference between the USA and the CSA governments, I agree. But de jure (i.e., according to their Constitutions) they were the same—each was a league or alliance of states. The Union government never had "overriding Federal central control" de jure. What exactly was the Confederate executive trying to force on the states that it was unable to accomplish?—Emote _{Talk Page} 04:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cities With CSA Sympathies

I reversed a section that referred to six cities in which it was ambiguously stated that some of them had significant CSA sympathies. Of these six, two were never claimed even by the CSA to be part of the CSA (Baltimore and Washington) so discussing their loyalties under the geographic section of the CSA (or any other part of this article) seems irrelevant -- especially since the rioting in Baltimore is covered extensively. Also to bring up this one example of Baltimore is misleading -- although it did register a high number of voters for Brechkinridge in the 1860 election, it also had many social and economic characteristics that tied it with the North. St. Louis, Louisville, and Wheeling were outside of the black belts of their respective states and Union sentiment predominated. This leaves only Alexandria. Perhaps a better way to bring in some of the information is to include a section discussing the differences in Big City CSA (including Nasville, New Orleans, etc,) versus the rural CSA. Tom 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morally superior?

In 1861 C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens stated in the Cornerstone Speech that the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition."

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln said (in his fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois) the following: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing."

The difference does not seem to be as great as media portrayal would have you believe. What about Wikipedia? 217.236.243.74 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You can cherry-pick quotations from plenty of people to create almost any ill-founded impression you like. Would you like to see Marx's praise of capitalism? DMorpheus 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I sure do. But do you seriously think that the impression created by this quotation is more ill-founded than the impression generally portrayed in the media - "fighting for equality ..." etc.? I take Lincoln's word - regarding his opinion on slavery, but also regarding what he said in the quotation. Confederates stating such beliefs are labelled as racists. It's of course always easier to identify "the good and the bad guys" when the history book uses 'proper' retouching. 217.236.217.208 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the place to debate the morality of the ACW or slavery. Of course I think it is obvious that Lincoln abhorred slavery. So to answer your question, I say with a loud and thunderous YES, the impression you are trying to create is more ill-founded than the general impression that Lincoln was on the right side of this issue.

Creating false impressions by cherry-picking a quote is easy and misleading, but you know that already. Politicians make very carefully-nuanced statements all the time, because they are trying to make a specific point at a specific time during an election or they are just pandering to their audiences. People also change their views over time as they are confronted with new knowledge. Look at how George Washington's views changed during his lifetime. This sort of isolated factoid-grabbing is just not a valid method.

There is also a logical fallacy here. The fact that the union cause, or Lincoln himself, was not 100% pure may be correct. That is a completely separate question from whether the Confederacy or slavery was OK, and does not make them morally equal. Not by a long, long, long, long shot. Might as well argue that the Nazis were OK because they fought the Red Army. DMorpheus 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Morality is ambiguous at best. Few things in this world are completely evil or completely good. The Nazis came up with solutions that led to the U.S. Shuttle, a gun that could shoot around corners, jet engines, fought communism, fought communism in France (would it really have been that bad if we let Germany keep France?), etc. Americans have confined Japanese-Americans, made slaves of those who were black, have killed millions of civilians in war, etc. On top of that, we all have our ideas of what morality is and (as pointed out above), it changes over time. Society's views also change over time and that must be taken into account.

Slavery is morally abhorrent, but it wasn't always so. We came to that conclusion only about 150 years ago. To judge anyone in the past as evil because they reflected society's norms at the time, is disingenuous and misleading. For the sake of accuracy and to retain an NPOV and if we are going to discuss morailty, I recommend doing so on a philosophy page. Whichever side was "morally superior" is irrelevant and ambiguous. BQZip01 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(would it really have been that bad if we let Germany keep France?) Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. The answer, in fact, is "yes." john k 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note I didn't say we let Hitler/Nazis maintain power. Please note I said that tongue-in-cheek, not in seriousness BQZip01 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I did of course not try to create such an absolutely ridiculous impression - of course Lincoln abhorred slavery - I did write that the difference was not as great as stated today; and I wrote that I take Lincoln's word on slavery. No doubt that he detested it. The impression that the quote made on you was different that what I expected. I did and do not see any word supporting slavery in it. Lincoln was a strong opponent of slavery. Period. In fact in exactly the same debate he goes on like this

" ... denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes."

Do you think I should have added this? I don't think so. The point of the above quotation was to raise awareness that the picture is more complex. And when people are really surprised and often find it hard to believe that Lincoln could even say something like it (apropos negating suffrage, intermarriage etc.) is obvious that the historic picture is blurred - that's what I mean with retouching.

By the way – the heading was just meant to be 'loud' – and regarding human rights I surely do answer it with YES.

(Nevertheless there is deeper and motivating idea behind the question – it's the following thought: a 'moral' that's only 'moral' if the economy says 'yep' (if other factors make it appropriate) is amoral. And don't get me wrong again. This is NOT an accusation against Lincoln.)

217.236.221.189 22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between Lincoln and Stephens (who were, iirc, old friends from Lincoln's time in Congress) is still fairly great. The key part of Stephens' comment is not the part that said that blacks were inferior - I daresay that, unfortunately, nearly every mainstream politician in the United States at the time would have agreed with this (perhaps not Sumner and a few radicals, but almost everybody). The key part is his claim that their natural condition was slavery. Sure, everyone was a racist (although I think that one can plausibly argue that Lincoln had become less racist by the time he died than he was in 1858), but not everybody was willing to outright claim that the natural condition for blacks was slavery. And Lincoln's dislike of slavery was, in fact, based on the moral grounds that he did not think that it was morally justifiable to hold other human beings as slaves even if he felt the particular category of human beings being held as slave was inferior. The key issue at the time was not the equality of the races, it was slavery, and it is unsurprising that this is the issue on which Lincoln differs from Stephens. The issue of racial equality only comes into play during Reconstruction. Given general racial attitudes in the north, where the opinion expressed by Lincoln was relatively progressive, it is rather unsurprising that this debate, unlike the one over slavery, was settled temporarily in favor of the South's position - unlike their views of slavery, which a majority in the north clearly disliked, most northerners were not, in fact, interested in equality for blacks. It took another hundred years for that idea to have its day. john k 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Stephens regarded blacks as an inferior race, but he did not view them as "less human" than whites. He simply regarded them as childlike people who needed to be taken care of. He had a strong affinity for the blacks throughout the South. As a lawyer, he defended a negro woman who had been accused of murder and was easily going to be convicted. Instead of being executed, she was promptly acquitted by virtue of Stephens's defense. At the Hampton Roads Conference, a concerned Stephens inquired of Lincoln how the blacks would subsist after being suddenly thrown onto the street (emancipated) without homes or possessions. Lincoln responded, "Let them root, hog, or die." The Confederate Vice President was shocked by Lincoln's indifferent attitude toward the blacks and their welfare. But Stephens's love for the blacks did not lack reciprocity. On July 4, 1876, more than three thousand negros from Taliaferro and the adjacent counties gathered at Liberty Hall to sing for the old crippled statesman. An observer recorded the subsequent events as follows:

When the whole chorus was over, the young man upon the steps, as the spokesman of the assembly asked Mr. Stephens to address them. … He could not stand, but leaning forward in his chair, with his arms resting on the railing, spoke to the hushed crowd; and weak as he was, and even in that unfavorable position, his voice at times, under the inspiration of his feelings, rang out so that it could be heard at the village nearly half a mile distant. He told them how gratified he was to see the progress the colored people were making, especially in his neighborhood, amid the friendly relations of the two races; he advised them, cautioned them, encouraged them to persevere. He told them of the duties they owed to themselves, of the duty of educating their children that they might understand the position in which they were placed, the new responsibilities that rested on them, and the all-importance of a faithful and intelligent performance of duty. His heart seemed overflowing with kindness and benevolence, and he ceased only when he was too much exhausted to speak further.

My point is that the acknowledgement of an inferiority is not an intrinsically hateful attitude. Nor does the presumption of equality imply benevolence. Many Northern states (including Illinois) passed laws after the war which prohibited black residence within the state, thus effectively communicating to them, "No way will we permit you to be taken care of by these hateful Southerners, but don't you dare step foot on our soil." Consider General Sherman who despised the blacks passionately and allowed his men to rape hundreds of negro women as they burned Georgia to the ground. Contrast such actions with those of General Jackson who, when attending church, insisted that his slaves be seated alongside him rather than in the balcony designated for the blacks, commenting, "My family will sit with me." Which was the friend of the negro? The one that deemed him inferior but fed him, clothed him, boarded him, employed him, and defended him? Or the one that deemed him equal, tossed him on the street, and locked his own doors against him?—Emote _{Talk Page} 07:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Those are interesting facts which you provde. Could you plase find somewhere to cite for them, and then maybe add them to an article someplace, such as either in the main article for this talk page, or maybe in another one or a new one, such as Confederate attitudes or Slavery in the Confederacy or something like that? (By the way I didn't check to see if these articles already exist, but under different names.) Thanks. --Sm8900 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts are wrong. Sherman did not tolerate rapists and did not have many. The Illinois laws were passed by Copperheads BEFORE the war and repealed by the Republicans. Rjensen 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

Unfortunately, I had to fail this article under the good article criteria found at: WP:WIAGA. The BIG issue is the poor referencing here. There are two referencing issues:

1. References are missing in many places in the article. Many sections are entirely unreferenced.
2. No less than 3 referencing styles are used (in-line links, in-line footnotes, and Harvard referencing). Pick a style and stick to it. While no one style is prefered over any other, using a single style is a must. See citation guidelines and citation templates and how to attribute sources for more information. If these issues can be addressed, please feel free to renominate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respective Advantages of North and South

I deleted the following italicized section from the main article because of its poor formatting (an outline inserted within a narrative) and its location in the article (in a section titled “Constitution”). The information is preserved in the event someone, or the original editor, wishes to resubmit it either as a narrative with its own section header or in an actual table. I would suggest if the tabular method is chosen that it restrict itself to the more objective factors (i.e. those expressed as ratios). Also in the population numbers the 3,000,000 plus slaves were certainly an advantage to the CSA, and the 100,000 white southerners (not counting southerners in the non-seceding border states) and 150,000 southern blacks who fought for the north would also be an additional northern advantage.

A. North's advantages over the South

1. Potential fighting and working force: 20 million citizens a) Population: 2.5:1 b) Free male population (ages 18-60): 4.4:1 2. Wealth produced: 3:1 a) Factory production: 10:1 b) Textile goods produced: 14:1 c) Iron production: 15:1 d) Coal production: 38:1 e) Farm acreage: 3:1 f) Draft animals: 1.8:1 g) Livestock: 1.5:1 h) Wheat production: 4.2:1 i) Corn production: 2:1

3. Transportation--superior in every respect

a) Railroad mileage: 7:1 b) Naval tonnage: 25:1 c) Merchant ship tonnage: 9:1 B. South's advantages over the North 1. Fighting a defensive war. Local support and familiarity with terrain 2. Positive goal: seeking independence 3. Short communication lines and friendly population 4. United public in contrast to the North. Nonslaveholders eager to volunteer to fight 5. Experienced officer corps--many veterans of the Mexican-American War joined the Confederacy 6. Cotton (24:1 advantage over North)--necessary for textile factories of England and France III. Early Strategies of the Opposing Sides Tom (North Shoreman) 15:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)