Justice Grier writes, 'The Government of the United States has recognized the existence of a civil war between Spain and her colonies, and has avowed her determination to remain neutral between the parties. Each party is therefore deemed by us a belligerent nation, having, so far as concerns us, the sovereign rights of war.'
Get it? When a neutral recognizes the parties to a civil war, they are acknowledging the existance of two nations under international law. A blockade is an act of war against a foreign nation. Just how stupid are you?
Grier debunks your invalid assertion of Article IV, Section 4. "Just how stupid are you?"
The United States 'shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.'
It was not invasion, and no governor nor legislature requested aid. The Constitution says nothing about a state being forced to remain in the union. IN fact, given the chance in THIS decision, Grier could have stated that secession was illegal. He does NOT. He states, '[t]heir right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle.' Just how stupid are you?
Recognition of what, I ask. The answer is right there in black and white - "two belligerent parties" in a "civil war." That's not diplomatic recognition. "Just how stupid are you?"
Let me get this straight - a country is not a country unless other countries recognize it diplomatically? ROTFL!!! Does that mean if we do not maintain diplomatic relations with Iraq they ceased to exist? Just how stupid are you?
I will concede that you are correct and publicly apologize to you if you can name for me Great Britain's "ambassador plenipotentiary" to the Confederate States of America. Otherwise, I must ask again, IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS: "Just how stupid are you?"
I will concede that you are correct and publicly apologize to you if you can cite the section of the federal Constitution that explicitly prohibits secession. Just how stupid are you?
On a side note, since you assert that formal diplomatic relations must be in place for a country to exist, who was the united StateS of America ambassador to the England or Great Britain in 1776? 1777? 1778? 1779? Just how stupid are you?
The parts quoted in Texas v White, moron.
I'll save you the ignominy and just accept that you don't have a clue.
Your lack of education is showing. There are a set of criteria known as "essential attributes of nationhood." These describe features that real countries share, and include:
(1) A shared cultural heritage,
(2) A common language,
(3) A sense of national identification,
(4) Recognized and defensible borders,
(5) Diplomatic recognition neighboring nations,
(6) A functioning national government If one were to concede the CSA the first three factors (which I don't for various reasons), there is no way they could claim the last two.
From the beginning of the American Civil War, the CSA lost ground on several fronts. They never controlled some of the territory they claimed (such as Missouri, Kentucky, and the New Mexico Territory, not to mention large areas of Unionist support in western Virgina and the Smokey Mountains).
NO MAJOR POWER ever recognized the CSA. NO neighboring country ever recognized the CSA. The reason was simple - they dared not interfere diplomatically in an internal matter of the United States. You had the British (in Canada) and the Spanish (in Cuba), and the Mexicans on the southern border, and none of them exchanged ambassadors.
A now we come to the "government" issue. One needs only read an one of three books by historian William C. Davis ( Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America; An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government; or The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy) to understand how thoroughly dysfunctional the Confederate Government was. In fact the Confederate government was never fully constituted, in the four years the rebellion lasted, even by its own "founding" document (the focus of the deleted thread).
The best way to describe the South in the late ante-bellum period is, a "sub-culture."
A breath-taking display of ignorance and internally inconsistent thinking!! Even the droller couldn't back you up on this load.
A "civil war" is fought in one country. That's why it is a "civil war." That's why southerners don't like to use the term "civil war." But I am glad to see you recognize it for what it was.
If a "civil war" is fought within one country, an outside, neutral country, certainly can recognize that there exist belligerent parties to that conflict. A belligerent party to a "civil war" is not recognized as an independent nation among the family of nations. If you don't believe me, just ask any Biafran you happen to run into.
A blockade is considered an act of war when one country does it to another country. But there are not two or more countries in a "civil war." In fact, your compatriots have been belly-aching about Lincoln's blockade of port "before they seceded!" Lincoln's blockade was not an act of war, but (to use a more modern term) it was an internal "police action."
Have you been reading the Kennedy's book again? That would account for your comprehension problems.