Also from Benjamin's letter:
"The Department has no information on this subject, but it is thought not improbable that the instructions sent by foreign governments to their consular agents within the Confederacy are transmitted through diplomatic agents residing in Washington."
The consuls in question had all apparently acted in that office prior to the rebellion. During the rebellion they continued to hold their offices, communicating with their home country not through the confederate secretary of state but through their embassy's in Washington, D.C. It's clear that they did not regard themselves as credited to the Davis regime but instead to the Lincoln administration. In no way does that convey recognition, instead it indicates the opposite.
Making up stuff again?
In response to my statement that "When one acted improperly, however, they revoked his powers.", you said "It appears from other sources that the alleged impropriety was the fact that these counsels all insisted on dealing through their embassies in Washington, in keeping with the fact that none of these countries recognized confederate sovereignty."
I posted the reason for the revocation of Moore's credentials in Benjamin's own words, and it was not what you said.
You also said in another of your posts, "But this is another instance where former consular officials refused to accept the authority of the regime in Richmond and therefore can hardly be held up as an example of foreign recognition of confederate sovereignty."
Did one of those Kansas tornadoes pick you up and drop you on your head? Moore's defrocking, so to speak, wasn't held up as an example of foreign recognition of Confederate sovereignty. Have you been taking posting lessons from Wlat? Come on, non-seq, you're better than that.