I think you're setting too high a standard here.
By 19th century standards they were perhaps better off than many nation states you could shake a stick at.
The lack of a Supreme Court is not especially troubling considering they were at war. The United States itself took some time to set up its own during peacetime in 1789-1793. The CSA in any case had inferior courts, and that sufficed for their purproses at the time. In any case, a Supreme Court is not a requirement by any reasonable standard for sovereignty. It only comes up here at all because the CSA constitution called for one.
As for borders: 1) The USA in 1789 was hardly able defend its own claimed borders; it had no presence to speak of on the Great Lakes or the Mississippi; likewise Russia hardly had control of its vast borders for most of the 19th century, yet no one questiosn that they were a nation state. 2) The status of Missouri and Kentucky is not clear-cut, since neither had a clear vote for secession that was fully recognized in the state - but rather rump conventions held in exile from the state capital. 3) The CSA certainly had reasonable control exercised over its territory until Union forces began invading in earnest in 1862 - with the possible exception of sparsely inhabited and remote areas of western Virginia. But then the same thing can be said of the US itself, which was unable to prevent CSA incursions into Indian Territory and New Mexico Territory - or, for that matter, the eleven states which seceded. By your definition, the USA itself in 1861 has difficulty meeting that definition.
If you look at the most commonly accepted definitions of sovereignty in political science, the CSA fulfilled them, certainly by 19th century standards, whether we like it or not. It had defined borders; it had a government; it had a capital; it had an army and a navy; it had court system and a postal service; and it certainly exercised reasonable control throughout its claimed territory (until the final stages of the war) save possibly for some barren stretches of Texas and unionist counties in western Virginia - but then the USA itself had the same difficulty in much of the western territories.
Diplomatic recognition is another question. But then the US had the same difficulty in the first years of the Revolution, as did many Latin American states after first rebelling against Spanish control. The CSA lacked de jure recognition as a nation state by other states, but it certainly fulfilled the de facto defintion - and it was, after all, recognized as a belligerent by Great Britain.
The confederacy never met essential attributes of nationhood - they were, at best, an unsuccessful separatist movement.
I tend to disagree on the first clause despite my lack of sympathy for neo-Confederate apologetics (on ample display in this thread). As for your second clause, that's ultimately what they wound up as.
Possibly so - the essential attributes of nationhood are a topic discussed with respect to international relations and the proliferation of "micro-nations" these days.
The the case of Biafra. Nation-state or not? They were diplomatically recognized as such by a few of their neighboring countries, but they failed to enforce their borders against the sovereign authority the rebelled against.
"The lack of a Supreme Court is not especially troubling considering they were at war."
I agree. The United States did not have a Supreme Court until Congress created it by legislation following the ratification of the Constitution. The difference being, the confederate constitution called for that court and the confederate legislature never created it. That's why I used the term "fully functioning." If you have not read it, I would recommend The Cause Lost by William C. Davis. It is still in print in paperback.
"The CSA certainly had reasonable control exercised over its territory until Union forces began invading in earnest in 1862 - with the possible exception of sparsely inhabited and remote areas of western Virginia. But then the same thing can be said of the US itself, which was unable to prevent CSA incursions into Indian Territory and New Mexico Territory - or, for that matter, the eleven states which seceded. By your definition, the USA itself in 1861 has difficulty meeting that definition."
The point which I was making was especially in regard to Kentucky and Missouri. The United States had internationally recognized boundaries that were from time to time violated (i.e War of 1812). To maintain territorial integrity, borders need to be defended, and they were. In the case of the confederacy, they claimed territory they had no control over at all.
The Constitution was ratified in 1798, Washington was inaugurated in April 1789, the members of the Supreme Court were confirmed in the fall of 1789 and the court met for the first time in 1790. There was no deliberate delay in establishing the Supreme Court, the third branch of government. The confederacy, on the other hand had no trouble funding an army or passing tariff legislation, yet Davis and the confederate congress would not establish the one court required by their constitution. They had no trouble keeping their revolving door of a cabinet fully staffed, something not required by their constitution, in spite of the war, but they couldn't be bothered with the third branch of government. I would agree with you that it is not necessarily an indication of a functioning government but it is evidence of a government in contempt of its own constitution.
The USA in 1789 was hardly able defend its own claimed borders; it had no presence to speak of on the Great Lakes or the Mississippi; likewise Russia hardly had control of its vast borders for most of the 19th century, yet no one questiosn that they were a nation state.
In 1789 the U.S. borders ran about to the Mississippi. Parts of it may not have been adequately mapped but none of it was being taken away, either.
If you look at the most commonly accepted definitions of sovereignty in political science, the CSA fulfilled them, certainly by 19th century standards, whether we like it or not. It had defined borders; it had a government; it had a capital; it had an army and a navy; it had court system and a postal service; and it certainly exercised reasonable control throughout its claimed territory (until the final stages of the war) save possibly for some barren stretches of Texas and unionist counties in western Virginia - but then the USA itself had the same difficulty in much of the western territories.
It did not, as you pointed out, have the one true measure of sovereignty, the recognition of other nations. Nobody, with the possible exception of a single minor German principality (and that is questionable), ever considered the confederacy to be anything other than a rebellious part of the United States.
But then the US had the same difficulty in the first years of the Revolution, as did many Latin American states after first rebelling against Spanish control.
And the same situation would be true of them. They were nations in their own eyes only until someone else agreed that they were sovereign. For the U.S. that occur-ed in 1777.
The CSA lacked de jure recognition as a nation state by other states, but it certainly fulfilled the de facto defintion - and it was, after all, recognized as a belligerent by Great Britain.
De facto recognition holds no legal standing, and your claim that the confederacy had it from Great Britain or anyone else is debatable.