Sherman123
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,774
- Reaction score
- 3,791
- Location
- Northeast US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your missing the point that the CSA denounced the "legality" of what you claim and instituted its own government, created its own legality. That was the entire purpose. The secession was tearing Union's authority away and implimenting its own authority. Any argument of legality is futile if the particpants don't recognize the authority. Also, many nations still traded and did business with the CSA. That there is a form of recognition.
You cannot have it both ways. Not that I care about the legalism's involved in the Civil War, but you cannot on the one hand argue the legitimacy of the Southern Confederacy on the basis of its mere existence and assertion to legitimacy, and obviate the Union's claims of illicit rebellion on the basis of illicit trade with European powers. It is fantastically inconsistent.