Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 3 March 2005

Map

Why is Texas so small?

Why is Oklahoma so huge?

Why has the Territory of Arizona been omitted?

Main Discussion

I think calling the Confederacy a "nation" is fraught with all sorts of implications, so I changed it back to "government", although perhaps a better phrasing is in order than that. The problem is that the Union considered the Confederacy nothing more than rebelling states against the United States, and not a separate "nation" in any sense whatsoever. A "nation" is generally construed as more than just a government, but a people with a common character and identity (and the word "nation" can be used in all sorts of non-political contexts--Nation of Islam, and so forth). In fact, in the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln made a point of using the word "nation" to describe the entire United States, including the South. soulpatch

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Broadside, Jefferson Davis Papers, University Library,

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

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

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

Appendix C, pages 319-320.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Move here

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

Article I - Section IX-3 says

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

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

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

Roadrunner 06:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Country?

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

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

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

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

Conservative rule reestablished?

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

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

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

Nation Template

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

Confederate motto

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think calling the Confederacy a "nation" is fraught with all sorts of implications, so I changed it back to "government", although perhaps a better phrasing is in order than that. The problem is that the Union considered the Confederacy nothing more than rebelling states against the United States, and not a separate "nation" in any sense whatsoever. A "nation" is generally construed as more than just a government, but a people with a common character and identity (and the word "nation" can be used in all sorts of non-political contexts--Nation of Islam, and so forth). In fact, in the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln made a point of using the word "nation" to describe the entire United States, including the South. soulpatch

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Broadside, Jefferson Davis Papers, University Library,

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

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

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

Appendix C, pages 319-320.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Move here

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

Article I - Section IX-3 says

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

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

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

Roadrunner 06:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Country?

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

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

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

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

Conservative rule reestablished?

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

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

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

Nation Template

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

Confederate motto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

good enough for me - i'll add it back

==Map==

Map

Why is Oklahoma so huge, and Texas so small?

Why is the Territory of Arizona omitted?

Main Discussion

Does the CSA still exist as a Country?

The nation taxo-box lists these dates:

• Independence
• - Declared
• - Recognized

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

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

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

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

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