If I Had Been President of the Confederacy. . . .

[RetiredGySgt]

Was the Confederacy ever officially recognized by the US or other countries?

No

 

[jacksonlamb]

If I had been president of the Confederacy, instead of Jefferson Davis, here is what I would have done differently:

-- I would have vetoed the Confederate congressional bill in early March 1861 that set CSA tariff rates at 10%. This low tariff posed a direct threat to Northern economic interests. Many Northern newspapers noted the threat that the lower CSA tariff posed to the Northern economy. It was too early to be passing such a provocative tariff bill. I would have worked to ensure that the initial CSA tariff rates were comparable to the U.S. rates, if not identical to them. I would not have considered lowering Confederate tariff rates until months after it was clear there would be no war with the U.S.

-- I would have ordered a halt to the seizure of federal installations in the South.

-- I would have publicly expressed regret for the seizures that had already occurred and would have explained that they were done before the Confederacy was formed.

-- I would have repeatedly made it clear in public statements that the Confederacy was willing to pay compensation for federal installations in the South.

-- I would have repudiated the obnoxious, ridiculous statements regarding slavery in Alexander Stephens' "cornerstone speech."

-- I would have ensured that the provision of food to the Fort Sumter garrison was continued. This would have enabled Lincoln to avoid having to send a federal naval convoy to provide food to the garrison.

-- If Lincoln had still sent a convoy to Sumter to provide additional food, I would have done nothing to prevent the operation.

-- Regarding the whole Sumter question, I would have issued a public statement along these lines:

"I realize that for many of our Northern brethren, Fort Sumter is still federal property and cannot be relinquished. I know there are some elements in the North who hope that we will attack Fort Sumter if it is not evacuated in the next few weeks, and who plan on using such an attack as a pretext for an invasion of the Confederacy. I declare that we will not attack Fort Sumter as long as the fort does not fire on us and does not fire on ships entering and leaving Charleston Harbor. We will leave Fort Sumter unmolested even if the federal garrison remains there for years to come--again, as long as the garrison takes no hostile action against us or against shipping in the harbor. The same applies to Fort Pickens."

This would have put the onus on Northern hardliners to fire the first shot. It would have led many more Northerners to conclude that it made no sense to leave the garrison on Sumter given that the fort was now in another nation's harbor and could no good for the U.S. there. This, couple with a repeated Confederate offer of compensation for all federal installations in the South, would have caused a majority of Northerners to see Sumter as a non-issue and to support its sale to the Confederacy.

-- I would have publicly called for a gradual, compensated emancipation program in my first message to the Confederate Congress in early 1861.

-- By no later than mid-1862, I would have called for enlisting slaves as soldiers in exchange for freedom for themselves and their families. Some states and individual commanders were already doing this, persuading 3,000 to 7,000 slaves to serve as soldiers in their armies, but this was a drop in the bucket. A call for such enlistments sanctioned by the national government from the Confederate president would have been a great PR move and would have provided much-needed reinforcements for the army.

-- If the Confederate Congress still had not begun a gradual emancipation program by the time Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, I would have used the proclamation as another occasion to call for a Confederate emancipation program.

-- In response to the Emancipation Proclamation issued in January 1863, I would not have threatened to treat ex-Southern slaves serving in the Union army and their officers as criminals who would be handed over to the states for prosecution. Instead, I would have announced that such soldiers and officers would be treated just like any other captured Union soldiers and officers.

-- I would have used the occasion of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation to again call for a Confederate emancipation program.

-- I would not have refused to include captured black Union soldiers in prisoner exchanges.

-- I would have accepted the huge loans that European nations offered in early 1861, as opposed to the much smaller loans that Jefferson Davis agreed to accept.

-- I would have made no effort to seize New Mexico Territory. The Confederacy had no right to that territory. If you leave the Union, then you forfeit any right to a "fair distribution of the territories."

 

[Quantrill]

No

Yes, the U.S. recognized the Confederacy when it initiated a blockade on the Southern ports.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, the U.S. recognized the Confederacy when it initiated a blockade on the Southern ports.

Quantrill

Nope. Not one country on earth recognized the so-called "confederacy." It never existed and those states never legally or legitimately left the Union. Just traitorous dogs who had to be put down.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Yes, the U.S. recognized the Confederacy when it initiated a blockade on the Southern ports.

Quantrill

The US simply recognized the criminality that needed to be suppressed. It did not recognize the CSA.

 

[Quantrill]

The US simply recognized the criminality that needed to be suppressed. It did not recognize the CSA.

Again, Yes, the U.S. recognized the Confederacy when it blockaded the Southern ports. Their actions contradict their words, as was common with the U.S. in those days.

Quantrill

 

[shockedcanadian]

If I had been president of the Confederacy, instead of Jefferson Davis, here is what I would have done differently:

-- I would have vetoed the Confederate congressional bill in early March 1861 that set CSA tariff rates at 10%. This low tariff posed a direct threat to Northern economic interests. Many Northern newspapers noted the threat that the lower CSA tariff posed to the Northern economy. It was too early to be passing such a provocative tariff bill. I would have worked to ensure that the initial CSA tariff rates were comparable to the U.S. rates, if not identical to them. I would not have considered lowering Confederate tariff rates until months after it was clear there would be no war with the U.S.

-- I would have ordered a halt to the seizure of federal installations in the South.

-- I would have publicly expressed regret for the seizures that had already occurred and would have explained that they were done before the Confederacy was formed.

-- I would have repeatedly made it clear in public statements that the Confederacy was willing to pay compensation for federal installations in the South.

-- I would have repudiated the obnoxious, ridiculous statements regarding slavery in Alexander Stephens' "cornerstone speech."

-- I would have ensured that the provision of food to the Fort Sumter garrison was continued. This would have enabled Lincoln to avoid having to send a federal naval convoy to provide food to the garrison.

-- If Lincoln had still sent a convoy to Sumter to provide additional food, I would have done nothing to prevent the operation.

-- Regarding the whole Sumter question, I would have issued a public statement along these lines:

"I realize that for many of our Northern brethren, Fort Sumter is still federal property and cannot be relinquished. I know there are some elements in the North who hope that we will attack Fort Sumter if it is not evacuated in the next few weeks, and who plan on using such an attack as a pretext for an invasion of the Confederacy. I declare that we will not attack Fort Sumter as long as the fort does not fire on us and does not fire on ships entering and leaving Charleston Harbor. We will leave Fort Sumter unmolested even if the federal garrison remains there for years to come--again, as long as the garrison takes no hostile action against us or against shipping in the harbor. The same applies to Fort Pickens."

This would have put the onus on Northern hardliners to fire the first shot. It would have led many more Northerners to conclude that it made no sense to leave the garrison on Sumter given that the fort was now in another nation's harbor and could no good for the U.S. there. This, couple with a repeated Confederate offer of compensation for all federal installations in the South, would have caused a majority of Northerners to see Sumter as a non-issue and to support its sale to the Confederacy.

-- I would have publicly called for a gradual, compensated emancipation program in my first message to the Confederate Congress in early 1861.

-- By no later than mid-1862, I would have called for enlisting slaves as soldiers in exchange for freedom for themselves and their families. Some states and individual commanders were already doing this, persuading 3,000 to 7,000 slaves to serve as soldiers in their armies, but this was a drop in the bucket. A call for such enlistments sanctioned by the national government from the Confederate president would have been a great PR move and would have provided much-needed reinforcements for the army.

-- If the Confederate Congress still had not begun a gradual emancipation program by the time Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, I would have used the proclamation as another occasion to call for a Confederate emancipation program.

-- In response to the Emancipation Proclamation issued in January 1863, I would not have threatened to treat ex-Southern slaves serving in the Union army and their officers as criminals who would be handed over to the states for prosecution. Instead, I would have announced that such soldiers and officers would be treated just like any other captured Union soldiers and officers.

-- I would have used the occasion of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation to again call for a Confederate emancipation program.

-- I would not have refused to include captured black Union soldiers in prisoner exchanges.

-- I would have accepted the huge loans that European nations offered in early 1861, as opposed to the much smaller loans that Jefferson Davis agreed to accept.

-- I would have made no effort to seize New Mexico Territory. The Confederacy had no right to that territory. If you leave the Union, then you forfeit any right to a "fair distribution of the territories."

I do not know this much about U.S history so I admire you for your commitment to this. I believe you too that you really would like to roll back time and enact these changes lol.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Again, Yes, the U.S. recognized the Confederacy when it blockaded the Southern ports. Their actions contradict their words, as was common with the U.S. in those days.

Quantrill

That may be your opinion, but it certainly is not the law then or now.

 

[Quantrill]

That may be your opinion, but it certainly is not the law then or now.

It certainly was the law. June of 1861 a Confederate ship was captured, the Savannah. The crew were tried as 'pirates' as the U.S. did not recognize the Confederate govt. The jury refused to convict and the prosecution then refused to retry. The crew were eventually exchanged as 'prisoners of war'. Which was another acknowledgement of the Confederacy by the North.

In other words, the U.S. wanted it both ways. They wanted no recognition of the Confederacy. So they try the crew as pirates. But then in the course of the trial, the legal ramifications of the blockade would come into play, which was an acknowledgement of the Confederacy making the crew prisoners of war and not pirates. The jury saw through the legal juggling (lying) the U.S. was trying to do and would not convict. The Yankee prosecution saw the same and so refused to pursue it and the crew were later exchanged as prisoners of war.

In other words, it is not just my opinion. When put to the test by the courts, and not some military mob rule bullshit set up, it was the law.

Quantrill

 

[EdwinAMartin]

PAY YOUR LABOR you lazy assed treasonous fukkwads....

Lincoln did that. He set their pay rates at about half of what the typical substance levels were in the slave south. lol

Most he just shoved into 'contraband camps' where they lived under the same conditions of prisoner of war camps. Many thousands died from disease and starvation, meanwhile the North was exporting bumper crops to Europe. After the war, having ruined the cotton export trade, they were forced into share cropping for chump change. They got the same treatment 'free' labor got, i.e. even worse poverty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, the U.S. recognized the Confederacy when it initiated a blockade on the Southern ports.

Quantrill

No it did not retard no country recognized the Confederacy as a Country all the US did is recognize it as a rebellion.

 

[jacksonlamb]

It certainly was the law. June of 1861 a Confederate ship was captured, the Savannah. The crew were tried as 'pirates' as the U.S. did not recognize the Confederate govt. The jury refused to convict and the prosecution then refused to retry. The crew were eventually exchanged as 'prisoners of war'. Which was another acknowledgement of the Confederacy by the North.

In other words, the U.S. wanted it both ways. They wanted no recognition of the Confederacy. So they try the crew as pirates. But then in the course of the trial, the legal ramifications of the blockade would come into play, which was an acknowledgement of the Confederacy making the crew prisoners of war and not pirates. The jury saw through the legal juggling (lying) the U.S. was trying to do and would not convict. The Yankee prosecution saw the same and so refused to pursue it and the crew were later exchanged as prisoners of war.

In other words, it is not just my opinion. When put to the test by the courts, and not some military mob rule bullshit set up, it was the law.

Quantrill

Your opinion is not law, not US or international. You have no evidence in either to support your nonsensical claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your opinion is not law, not US or international. You have no evidence in either to support your nonsensical claim.

next he will claim the North cheated cause it had more industry and men.

 

[Quantrill]

Your opinion is not law, not US or international. You have no evidence in either to support your nonsensical claim.

I just presented the evidence, dumbass. You don't like it...tough shit. Your denial of the juries verdict means nothing. Your wish that it went the other way, means nothing. In other words, your opinion means shit.

The fact remains, the jury would not convict these men as pirates. The fact remains, these men were exchanged as 'prisoners of war'. All of which means the traitorous U.S. government recognized the Confederacy.

Your opinion is nothing but Yankee bullshit.

Quantrill

 

[jacksonlamb]

I just presented the evidence, dumbass. You don't like it...tough shit. Your denial of the juries verdict means nothing. Your wish that it went the other way, means nothing. In other words, your opinion means shit.

The fact remains, the jury would not convict these men as pirates. The fact remains, these men were exchanged as 'prisoners of war'. All of which means the traitorous U.S. government recognized the Confederacy.

Your opinion is nothing but Yankee bullshit.

Quantrill

Learn logic. You presented a fallacy of over assertion with no factual proof.

 

[Quantrill]

Learn logic. You presented a fallacy of over assertion with no factual proof.

Are you saying the trial against the Confederate crew of Savannah is not proof? That is no fallacy.

The fallacy is your refusal to recognize the proof before you. Why? Because, just like with other Yankee bastards, proof doesn't matter. What the Yankee says is all that matters. They had the power, and that is all that matters.

You are the sons of your lying thieving yankee fathers. How does it feel...traitor?

Quantrill

 

[jacksonlamb]

Are you saying the trial against the Confederate crew of Savannah is not proof? That is no fallacy.

The fallacy is your refusal to recognize the proof before you. Why? Because, just like with other Yankee bastards, proof doesn't matter. What the Yankee says is all that matters. They had the power, and that is all that matters.

You are the sons of your lying thieving yankee fathers. How does it feel...traitor?

Quantrill

That is proof of supremacy of US law, nothing of recognition of CSA nationality.

You have added no proof. Yes, proof is everything, and that's why your arguments amount to nothing.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The CSA was a traitorous revolt with no legal standing.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Are you saying the trial against the Confederate crew of Savannah is not proof? That is no fallacy.

The fallacy is your refusal to recognize the proof before you. Why? Because, just like with other Yankee bastards, proof doesn't matter. What the Yankee says is all that matters. They had the power, and that is all that matters.

You are the sons of your lying thieving yankee fathers. How does it feel...traitor?

Quantrill

Feels good...loser~

 

[Quantrill]

That is proof of supremacy of US law, nothing of recognition of CSA nationality.

You have added no proof. Yes, proof is everything, and that's why your arguments amount to nothing.

The CSA was a traitorous revolt with no legal standing.

Says you. Yet you have offered nothing but bullshit. I showed you proof. You showed me shit.

How does it feel...traitor?

Quantrill