Was the Confederacy a Nation?

The Confederate States of America. Was it a legitimate nation? I mean...they had a flag and everything - but more often than not, a flag just isn't enough.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Last week, I gave a talk on the turning points of 1862. As a sidebar, I mentioned that the Confederacy was indeed a nation...it just didn't last for very long. What followed was an audible groan from the audience. The (mostly northern) group insisted that what passed as a nation in the southern United States was in fact nothing more than a collection of said states in rebellion. No nation.

I asked them to think about that for a minute. The Confederacy resembled a nation in many respects. They had executive and legislative branches of a national government. They had a constitution. They had an army and a navy. They were granted belligerent status by European powers. Not enough? Even the Lincoln administration recognized the Confederacy as a nation de facto when it was convenient. For example - you do not exchange prisoners with rebels, nor can you blockade yourself. But in the end many deny the Confederacy national status because they lost the war. I am not sure that I won many over. They seemed determined to disagree with me. Always careful to choose my battles, I moved on to the topic at hand

But as naming is the origin of all particular things, perhaps we should reflect on some further aspects of nation, nationalism, and indeed...legitimacy. If by recognizing a Confederate nation are we implying as well the existence of Confederate nationalism? Historians have debated this problem for some time. Some say it did not exist in strength - pointing to protests, the relatively few number of slaveholders, etc. Others say that government officials "created" Confederate nationalism and thus duped the white southern populace into supporting the cause. Still others say that despite the privations that went hand in hand with living through war, white southerners remained virulently committed to Confederate nationalism.

I side with the latter - and push the issue even further. The evidence suggests a strong southern commitment to a national vision that existed before the war broke out. In the South, this commitment easily fit with a new national experiment that to white southerners more closely resembled the intentions of the founding generation. Generally speaking, they were nationalistic and created a nation to fit their vision - a slave-holding democratic republic free from the tyranny of an outside power.

Sound familiar? They didn't put George Washington on the national seal for shits and giggles.

And here's where the trouble really gets brewing. Recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate nation (albeit with a pretty short shelf life) might give one away as a member of the neo-Confederate ranks. Not meaning to complicate the obvious,  I would still like to point out that such logic is profoundly flawed. Dear readers, rest assured - I am not throwing my support behind the Confederacy. But I will stand behind my position. The white people of the South created a new nation. They went to war to protect it and in short order...failed on a catastrophic level.

Peace,
Keith

Rivers in the Confederacy

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Last time I spoke of an established United States Navy as an advantage for the Union in the Civil War. Keeping with the water theme, I thought I would turn analysis south and talk about rivers.

Rivers during the Civil War era worked effectively in two significant ways. One, as formidable barriers to attacking armies and two, as avenues of advance for attacking armies and navies. Whether or not rivers helped or hindered the Confederate cause depended on which way the attacks were being launched and which way the rivers flowed.

Not generally one for counterfactuals, it is interesting to speculate nevertheless what might have happened had Kentucky voted to secede from the Union. For one thing, the Ohio River would have been the Confederacy's northern frontier and a really neat way to keep United States forces busy figuring out how to move armies across it. But since this didn't happen, we can move on to how rivers, especially in the western theater  worked against the Rebels.

United States forces had three perfectly suited avenues of advance right in to the heart of the Confederacy. The Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers more than once provided the means by which Union forces made their way south. And of course the Mississippi River (despite the Confederate defense network that lasted until 1863) worked both to bisect the Confederate states and serve as a grand highway for Union vessels. So ultimately, we will have to count the primary western river system as a disadvantage to the Confederates.

The rivers in the eastern theater had the potential to serve the Rebels well, unless of course Union forces moved inland from the coast. And this is precisely what George McClellan did in 1862. While the Potomac served as a barrier at the northern Virginia border, McClellan bypassed this and steamed inland using Virginia's eastward flowing river system. But we know what happened to him....opportunities lost, as they say. But in the event of an overland attack, eastern rivers would prove helpful for the Confederates. The Rappahannock, York, and James rivers in Virginia worked as a series of defensive lines and a real challenge for any army moving south from the Virginia northern frontier. Just ask anyone...like Union generals Burnside or Grant, for example.

Peace,
Keith

Jefferson Davis's Inaugural Address

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Today is the 150th anniversary of Jefferson Davis's inaugural in Montgomery, Alabama. He gave his speech from the steps of the Alabama statehouse - today there is a marker indicating the very spot...a spot that Alabama Governor George Wallace would later use to say a few choice words about segregation.

We are all pretty well versed on Lincoln's First Inaugural - lets see what Davis had to say. He speaks a lot about the "government of our fathers in its spirit," suggesting an overall conservative path for the new Confederate States of America...one which seems likely for a democratic republic conceived in opposition to the progressive nature (or - if you like - the perceived progressive nature) of the recently elected Lincoln administration.

What he doesn't speak of is slavery. At least not in so many words. But he does allude to the issue together with the sectional split. Check it out -  The Confederate Constitution (drafted only a few days prior to this event), he said, “differ[s] only from that of our fathers in so far as it is explanatory of their well-known intent, freed from sectional conflicts, which have interfered with the pursuit of the general welfare.”

Of course, the "well known intent" of the fathers, by Davis's estimation, was the protection of slavery. Yep - that's the little thing that the fathers intentionally left out of the United States Constitution - the word slavery anyway.

This is something that Confederates were certain to take care of right out of the gate. Oh sure, their constitution was pretty much a copy of the US one, with a few notable exceptions. Whereas there were no mentions of slavery in the US Constitution, the Rebs made it crystal clear exactly where they stood on the slavery issues...ten times to be exact.  This one passage alone left little room for interpretation: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

But still - Davis only alluded to this in his inaugural speech...he didn't mention anything about the protection of "our domestic institutions" - something that he spoke of often. This speech's focus was on the hard times ahead - more than anything else. "It is joyous in the midst of perilous times to look around upon a people united in heart, where one purpose of high resolve animates and actuates the whole; where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance against honor and right and liberty and equality. Obstacles may retard, but they cannot long prevent, the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice and sustained by a virtuous people."

There is nothing particularly exciting about this speech - no memorable lines, no slam dunks, no moments of great statesmanship. I wonder what his audience thought as they set out to carve a new nation from the old...maybe kind of let down????

Peace,

Keith