Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Were The Rebels Illegal Combatants?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • By the international law of the time a blockade was counted as an act of war between nations - not part of a suppression of an insurrection.
    {}

    "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

    Comment


    • "Lincoln made a mistake".....that usually draws a reaction....
      {}

      "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

      Comment


      • Excuses, excuses, excuses. We're all just glad that the Union won the war & vanquished the rebellion. It has been explained to you before how the blockade turned out like it did. Apparently, you just want to ignore the parts that don't go along with your preconceived notions of the American Civil War. It doesn't matter. As I said, it worked out well in the end!
        The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
          "Lincoln made a mistake".....that usually draws a reaction....
          He made far less mistakes than his counterpart in the Confederate White House. We are the United States, not the CSA & USA. That usually draws a reaction!
          The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
            By the international law of the time a blockade was counted as an act of war between nations - not part of a suppression of an insurrection.
            By INTERNATIONAL LAW, the Confederacy was not a real nation. But we have been down that road before plenty of times as well. Kind of like those elusive "black confederates" that you claim.
            The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hellboy30 View Post
              By INTERNATIONAL LAW, the Confederacy was not a real nation. But we have been down that road before plenty of times as well. Kind of like those elusive "black confederates" that you claim.
              "Jefferson Davis and his fellow-patriots have created a nation" - William Gladstone, August 1862
              {}

              "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                "Jefferson Davis and his fellow-patriots have created a nation" - William Gladstone, August 1862
                Strange, then why didn't HE recognize it? Actions speak volumes greater than words. No matter how to try & slice it, you come up on the losing end each time Border.
                The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                  "Jefferson Davis and his fellow-patriots have created a nation" - William Gladstone, August 1862
                  Yep, he said that but he was not Prime Minister at the time. That would've been Lord Palmerston.

                  And he later regretted making that statement:

                  As Chancellor, Gladstone made a speech at Newcastle on 7 October 1862 in which he supported the independence of the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War, claiming that Jefferson Davis had "made a nation". He did not consider slavery a problem; his father owned over two and a half thousand slaves when Gladstone was first elected to Parliament, and the young man helped his father obtain full payment for them. Great Britain was officially neutral at the time, and Gladstone later regretted the Newcastle speech.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ewart_Gladstone

                  In the future present the whole picture of the man.
                  Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                  Comment


                  • Look this thread has obviously ruffled a few confederate feathers.

                    Can we not accept the plain fact that the British were politiking with their own self interest in mind as a premium? that selling arms and other goods to the CSA AND the union was far more important to them than any paper recognition?

                    This dovetails quite nicely with the assertion that British intervention was a lot of posturing, in deed as well as on paper.

                    I have no problems with Southerners. I think they are as american as others who claim to be.

                    I have no extant problems with northerners either.

                    to me, they are all AMERICANS, and look what they achieved when they co-operated with one another?

                    I am grateful for americans, as I am for russians. I wish for a better world than the 20th century gave us, and a more stable political climate than "two minutes to midnight". When we can be rid of the "doomsday clock" for evermore, then we have ourselves a real global society. I'm not fence sitting either, just pointing out that the whole South/North 'thing' is so passe', and americans have gone onward and upward since then.

                    the Great United States will ALWAYS have freinds in this particular house. We will also acknowledge FULLY the russian perspective.

                    Druski/Drusus Claudius Nero
                    My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                    Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                    GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                    Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by hellboy30 View Post
                      By INTERNATIONAL LAW, the Confederacy was not a real nation. But we have been down that road before plenty of times as well.
                      But the topic of this thread is the status of servicemen, not the status of the belligerent power, and we know very well the two are not closely related. You can be a soldier with a right to POW status if captured, even when you serve an "organized armed group" in a "non-international conflict". This wording only goes back to 1977, but as we have seen upthread, there is a continuity in such a principle dating back to the time frame we're talking about.
                      Michele

                      Comment


                      • For the British to intervene, there needs to be one of two things.


                        (1) is a feeling British interests are served by intervening. This is what gave Trent teeth - it was the British intending to protect their neutral rights, not to intervene in the ACW as such.

                        (2) is the idea that the war is SO bloody that the British need to step in to stop the bloodshed. This is an idea occasionally mooted, but OTL it never really gained traction since the British felt an intervention could never be unilateral (OTL they wanted Russia in on it, since Russia was vaguely friendly to the Union).

                        Neither of these overcame the countervailing factor of inertia OTL, whether because the Union apologized or because the British very rarely intervene in civil wars.

                        Now, OTL the Union was probably breaking international law (the Paris declaration, which they say they're abiding by, requires that a blockade be effective - and at least until 1863 the blockade was not, in that Royal Navy ships could sail right up to Confederate ports and lie off them for hours making smoke without even being challenged). But the British considered it more in their interest to just take copious notes, because it would mean they could broaden the definition of "effective" in future if they wanted - precedent, basically.

                        There's other places too, such as the Union plan to intercept CSA raiders outside coaling ports in violation of - in some cases - territorial waters.





                        Now, one of the things which might trigger (2) is if the Union treats Confederate prisoners as unlawful combatants as a matter of course. Since the Union is already trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds (declaring a blockade, thus making the Confederacy a belligerent, and then protesting when the British treat the Confederacy as a belligerent; demanding to be allowed to make use of a treaty it has never signed; the frankly bizarre case of the Trent; even threatening to the British that if the British do not help the Union then the Union will unleash a servile war in the South)... then the expansion of summary justice, reprisals and counter-reprisals might well cause the British to pull together a European coalition of powers to suggest a summit.

                        Comment


                        • The British were not interested in summits, in 1861-5, or in bringing to a close the Russian Civil War.

                          PROFIT has and always will be, the prime motivator in foreign intervention in ANY conflict of a "civil" nature.

                          Why do we not intervene in the Syrian conflict then? Answer: To appease our Saudi allies, who have oil profits and production as THEIR prime motivator.
                          My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                          Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                          GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                          Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Saphroneth View Post
                            For the British to intervene, there needs to be one of two things.


                            (1) is a feeling British interests are served by intervening. This is what gave Trent teeth - it was the British intending to protect their neutral rights, not to intervene in the ACW as such.

                            (2) is the idea that the war is SO bloody that the British need to step in to stop the bloodshed. This is an idea occasionally mooted, but OTL it never really gained traction since the British felt an intervention could never be unilateral (OTL they wanted Russia in on it, since Russia was vaguely friendly to the Union).

                            Neither of these overcame the countervailing factor of inertia OTL, whether because the Union apologized or because the British very rarely intervene in civil wars.

                            Now, OTL the Union was probably breaking international law (the Paris declaration, which they say they're abiding by, requires that a blockade be effective - and at least until 1863 the blockade was not, in that Royal Navy ships could sail right up to Confederate ports and lie off them for hours making smoke without even being challenged). But the British considered it more in their interest to just take copious notes, because it would mean they could broaden the definition of "effective" in future if they wanted - precedent, basically.

                            There's other places too, such as the Union plan to intercept CSA raiders outside coaling ports in violation of - in some cases - territorial waters.





                            Now, one of the things which might trigger (2) is if the Union treats Confederate prisoners as unlawful combatants as a matter of course. Since the Union is already trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds (declaring a blockade, thus making the Confederacy a belligerent, and then protesting when the British treat the Confederacy as a belligerent; demanding to be allowed to make use of a treaty it has never signed; the frankly bizarre case of the Trent; even threatening to the British that if the British do not help the Union then the Union will unleash a servile war in the South)... then the expansion of summary justice, reprisals and counter-reprisals might well cause the British to pull together a European coalition of powers to suggest a summit.
                            During the period of his administration Wellington had established an overt policy of not intervening in civil wars or rebellions unless British interests were directly threatened. His argument was, in part, moral. If Britain intervened it might encourage one side and if Britain was not prepared to continue to provide active support (what today would be "boots on the ground") to the very end this could be false encouragement and a British withdrawal could leave the side supported very exposed and cause more bloodshed than if she had never intervened.

                            This policy would still be current in 1860
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                              The British were not interested in summits, in 1861-5, or in bringing to a close the Russian Civil War.

                              PROFIT has and always will be, the prime motivator in foreign intervention in ANY conflict of a "civil" nature.

                              Why do we not intervene in the Syrian conflict then? Answer: To appease our Saudi allies, who have oil profits and production as THEIR prime motivator.
                              "Russian Civil War "?

                              (Or a test to check if people are paying attention ?
                              "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                              Samuel Johnson.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                                "Russian Civil War "?

                                (Or a test to check if people are paying attention ?
                                I assume he is referring to the one at the end of WW1 in which Britain (and the USA, Japan, France amongst others) definitely intervened.
                                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X