Talk:Seal of the Confederate States

George Washington?

IS THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON ON THE SEAL?

I believe it is. The Confederates always claimed to be upholding the spirit of the Founding Fathers, so it is natural they would put one of their heroes on the Seal. Washington was also a slaveholder. It was probably a nod to the State of Virginia, the most influential of the Confederate states. Danthemankhan 04:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the significance of Feb 22, 1862 is? At first I thought it might be Confederate Independance Day, but wouldn't that be February 4, 1861?

OK I got it. Feb 22, 1862 was the day Jefferson Davis was inaugurated after the first (and only) general election of the Confederacy. It also coincides with Washington's birthday, so that is probably why he is also on the seal. We should probably put this information in the page. I'll do it if I get a chance.

The admiration of Washington HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY. The Name Confederate States was a direct NOD to the founding of America as led to Victory by Washington. 1782 to 1787 We weren't the USA but operated solely as a confederation under the Articles of Confederations.

The GREAT Seal Of The Confederate States Of America

The Great Seal of the Confederate States of America was engraved in 1864, by the late Joseph S. Wyon, of London, England, predecessor of Messrs J. S. and A. B. Wyon, chief engravers of Her British Majesty's seals, etc., and reached Richmond not long before the evacuation of the city, April 3, 1865. It was of silver, and in diameter measured nearly four inches. At the evacuation it was overlooked by the Confederate authorities, and subsequently fell into the possession of the late genial and accomplished Colonel John T. Pickett, of Washington, D.C., who, after having a number of electrotype copies in copper, silver and gold plating made from it, presented the original to Colonel William E. Earle, of Washington, D.C. This last gentleman, on December 27th, 1888, formally presented it to the State of South Carolina. The announcement of the gift elicited from the Picayune, in its issue of January 6, 1889, the interesting report of an interview, by one of its representatives, held with Hon. Thomas J. Semmes, of New Orleans, which follows:

Mr. Semmes said it always afforded him pleasure to converse on the events of the war, particularly the transactions of the Confederate Senate. He was attorney-general of Louisiana in 1861. When it became necessary to elect to the Confederate Senate, organized under the new constitution, Mr. Semmes and General Edward T. Sparrow were chosen senators from this State. In drawing for terms he drew that for four years, while General Sparrow drew that for six years. This was at Richmond, Va., in February, 1862.

In speaking of his services in the Senate, Mr. Semmes said he was appointed a member of the finance committee in conjunction with Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, and Hon. Robert Barnwell, of South Carolina and a member of the judiciary committee, of which Hon. B. H. Hill was chairman. He was also chairman of the joint committee on the flag and seal of the Confederate States. He drafted, under the direction of Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, the 'tax in kind' bill, which practically supported the Confederacy during the last two years of the war.

As member of the finance committee, he advocated the sealing and calling in of the outstanding Confederate currency, on the ground that the purchasing power of the new currency to be issued in exchange would be greater than the total amount of the outstanding currency in its then depreciated condition. He made a report from the judiciary committee adverse to martial law.

Upon being questioned as to the seal which he had designed, Mr. Semmes said it was a device representing an equestrian portrait of Washington (after the statue which surmounts his monument in the capitol square at Richmond), surrounded with a wreath, composed of the principal agricultural products of the Confederacy, and having around its margin the words: 'Confederate States of America, 22d February, 1862,' with the motto, 'Deo vindice.'

In the latter part of April, 1864, quite an interesting debate was had on the adoption of the motto. The House resolutions fixing the motto as 'Deo Duce Vincemus' being considered, Mr. Semmes moved to substitute ' Deo vindice majores aemulamur.' The motto had been suggested by Professor Alexander Dimitry. Mr. Semmes thought 'Deo vindice' sufficient and preferred it. He was finally triumphant.

In this connection it is appropriate and interesting to reproduce the speech made by Mr. Semmes on that occasion. It was as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT--I am instructed by the committee to move to strike out the words "duce vincemus" in the motto and insert in lieu thereof the words "Vindice majores aemulamur," "Under the guidance and protection of God we endeavor to equal and even excel our ancestors." Before discussing the proposed change in the motto, I will submit to the Senate a few remarks as to the device on the seal.

The committee has been greatly exercised on this subject, and it has been extremely difficult to come to any satisfactory conclusion. This is a difficulty, however, incident to the subject, and all that we have to do is to avoid what Visconti calls 'an absurdity in bronze.'

The equestrian statue of Washington has been selected in deference to the current popular sentiment. The equestrian figure impressed on our seal will be regarded by those skilled in glyptics as to a certain extent indicative of our origin. It is a most remarkable fact that an equestrian figure constituted the seal of Great Britain from the time of Edward the Confessor down to the reign of George III, except during the short interval of the protectorate of Cromwell, when the trial of the King was substituted for the man on horseback. Even Cromwell retained the equestrian figure on the seal of Scotland, but he characteristically mounted himself on the horse. In the reign of William and Mary the seal bore the impress of the king and queen both mounted on horseback.

Washington has been selected as the emblem for our shield, as a type of our ancestors, in his character of princeps majorum. In addition to this, the equestrian figure is consecrated in the hearts of our own people by the local circumstance that on the gloomy and stormy 22d of February, 1862, our permanent government was set in motion by the inauguration of President Davis under the shadow of the statue of Washington.

The committee are dissatisfied with the motto on the seal proposed by the House resolution. The motto proposed is as follows: 'Deo Duce Vincemus'--(Under the leadership of God we will conquer).

The word ' duce' is too pagan in its signification, and is degrading to God, because it reduces him to the leader of an army; for scarcely does the word 'duce' escape the lips before the imagination suggests 'exercitus,' an army for a leader to command. It degrades the Christian God to the level of pagan gods, goddesses and heroes, as is manifest from the following quotation; 'Nil desperandum Tenero duce.' This word duce is particularly objectionable because of its connection with the word 'vincemus'--(we will conquer). This connection makes God the leader of a physical army, by means of which we will conquer, or must conquer. If God be our leader we must conquer, or he would not be the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, nor the God of the Christian. This very doubt implied in the word 'vincemus' so qualifies the omnipotence of the God who is to be our 'leader,' that it imparts a degrading signification to the word 'duce' in its relations to the attributes of the Deity.

The word 'vincemus' is equally objectionable because it implies that war is to be our normal state; besides, it is in the future tense --' we will conquer.' The future is always uncertain, and ,therefore, it implies doubt. What becomes of our motto when we shall have conquered? The future becomes an accomplished fact, and our motto thus loses its significance.

In addition to this there are only two languages in which the words will and shall are to be found--the English and the German--and in those they are used to qualify a positive condition of the mind and render it uncertain; they are repugnant to repose, quiet, absolute and positive existence.

As to the motto proposed by us, we concur with the House in accepting the word 'Deo'--God. We do so in conformity to the expressed wishes of the framers of our Constitution, and the sentiments of the people and of the army.

The preamble of the Provisional Constitution declares that 'We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent States of South Carolina, etc., invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain,' etc.

In this respect both our Constitutions have deviated in the most emphatic manner from the spirit that presided over the construction of the Constitution of the United States, which is silent on the subject of the Deity.

Having discarded the word 'duce,' the committee endeavored to select in lieu of it a word more in consonance with the attributes of the Deity, and therefore more imposing and significant. They think success has crowned their efforts in the selection of the word 'vindex,' which signifies an assenter, a defender, protector, deliverer, liberator, a mediator and a ruler or guardian. 'Vindex' also means an avenger or punisher.

No word appeared more grand, more expressive or significant than this. Under God as the asserter of our rights, the defender of our liberties, our protector against danger, our mediator, our ruler and guardian, and, as the avenger of our wrongs and the punisher of our crimes, we endeavor to equal or even excel our ancestors. What word can be suggested of more power, and so replete with sentiments and thoughts consonant with our idea of the omnipotence and justice of God?

At this point the committee hesitated whether it were necessary to add anything further to the motto 'Deo Vindice.' These words alone were sufficient and impressive, and, in the spirit of the lapidary style of composition, were elliptical and left much to the play of the imagination. Reflection, however, induced us to add the words 'majores aemulamur,' because without them there would be nothing in the motto referring to the equestrian figure of Washington. It was thought better to insert something elucidative or adaptive of the idea to be conveyed by that figure. Having determined on this point, the committee submitted to the judgment of the Senate the words ' majores aemulamur,' as best adapted to express the ideas of 'our ancestors.' 'Patres' was first suggested, but abandoned because 'majores' signifies ancestors absolutely, and is also more suggestive than 'patres.' The latter is a term applied to our immediate progenitors who may be alive, whereas ' majores' conveys the idea of a more remote generation that has passed away.

That being disposed of, the question arose as to the proper signification of the word 'aemulamur.' Honorable emulation is the primary signification of the word; in its secondary sense it is true it includes the idea of improper rivalry, or jealousy. But it is used in its primary and honorable sense by the most approved authors.

The secondary and improper sense of the aemulari is excluded in the proposed motto by the relation it bears to 'Deo vindice.' This relation excludes the idea of envy or jealousy, because God, as the asserter of what is right, justifies the emulation, and as a punisher of what is wrong checks excess in case the emulation runs into improper envy or jealousy. In adopting the equestrian figure of Washington, the committee desires distinctly to disavow any recognition of the embodiment of the idea of the 'cavalier.' We have no admiration for the character of the cavalier of 1640 any more than for his opponent, the Puritan. We turn with disgust from the violent and licentious cavalier, and we abhor the acerb, morose and fanatic Puritan, of whom Oliver Cromwell was the type. In speaking of Cromwell and his character, Guizot says that ' he possessed the faculty of lying at need with an inexhaustible and unhesitating hardihood which struck even his enemies with surprise and embarrassment.'

This characteristic seems to have been transmitted to the descendants of the pilgrims who settled in Massachusetts Bay to enjoy the liberty of persecution. If the cavalier is to carry us back to days earlier than the American Revolution, I prefer to be transported in imagination to the field of Runnymede, when the barons extorted Magna Charta from the unwilling John. But I discard all reference to the cavalier of old, because it implies a division of society into two orders, an idea inconsistent with confederate institutions."

Mr. Semmes moved to amend by substituting "vindice" for "duce," and it was agreed to. In taking his leave, the reporter was informed by Mr. Semmes that he did not know the seal was in existence and was glad to learn that it had been presented to the State of South Carolina, the first State which seceded from the Union.

Source: Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVI. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1888. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.28 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Saying they seceded is POV, saying they did not may also be POV - instead say neither. Repeated insertion that did did secede has been accompanied by other blatant POV comments in edit summary --JimWae (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they wrote up a bill of secession and legally ratified it is not POV, it is a fact. User:Rationalizer

I can write a document excusing me from my mortgage and have my family vote on it and have the document notarized. That does not mean my mortgage is cancelled. If they had won the war, then they would have successfully seceded. Since they lost, their action amounts to a rebellion, not a revolution. It is the position of SCOTUS and the US gov't that the acts of secession were null and void -- See Texas v. White. It is POV to say they seceded, a POV for which there is a clear (& in this case, btw, legally official) opposing POV. To state one side's POV as fact is againt wiki policy of WP:NPOV. Instead take neither side & state what happened in NPOV terms. Saying they declared a secession does not say that they did NOT secede --JimWae (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Take Quebec as an example. Many Quebeckers want to secede from Canada, but most recogize that they cannot legally do so unilaterally. Secession is a performance-oriented process, which means it must be successful to be a true secession. Instances of successful secession in the world involve either winning a war to do so, getting the agreement of all the other parties involved, or getting other coutries to recognize the claimed independence. The CSA was not successful in any of those. If the US had lost its Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence would be a null and void scrap of paper. It declared independence, but by itself it did not accomplish independence.--JimWae (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

They declared secession, although the U.S. did not recognize it, hence the Civil War started. If they actually did "secede", then they wouldn't be part of the U.S. today. As the old adage goes "if you secede, you'd better succeed". Illegitimate Barrister 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

See also

Sigillologia. Being some Account of the Great or Broad Seal of the Confederatte States of America. A Monograph. … Washington DC published by Kervand & Towers 1873

Infobox statements dubious?

There is some conflicting information about when the seal was adopted. The infobox says 1863, and the text says 1863 as well, giving the reference as a link to the object record at the Smithsonian. However, the link page doesn't give the date...only that the vintage was 1864. A more detailed account says that the motto wasn't even settled upon until roughly the same date in 1864. So is "1863" a typo in two places in the article? Or does Semmes account have an error as to the date?

Regardless of the date the seal was adopted and when it was actually produced, the "use" portion of the infobox appears to be conjecture or needs a source. From the Semmes account the seal did not arrive in time to be put into actual use. Red Harvest (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed the Sigillogia ref above. It appears to confirm the 1863 date, see: https://archive.org/stream/sigillologiabein00pick/sigillologiabein00pick_djvu.txt So the online transcription or the original article of Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XVI. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1888 might very well be in error when it states, "In the latter part of April, 1864, quite an interesting debate was had on the adoption of the motto." Need to see if there is a separate Congressional record of this to confirm. Red Harvest (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And now I've located confirmation of the act of the 3rd session of the 1st Congress on the date in question. http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/22conf/1863stat.html#p167 So the Semmes account must have the wrong year. Red Harvest (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Who designed the seal?

Did one person design the seal, or was it designed by a committee? – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Colors

Is there any historical basis for the colors used in the seal SVG, or is it just artist's interpretation? – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Great Seal of the Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Seal Created & Defaced?

According to The Numismatist, the seal was defaced with an axe then tossed overboard into the Savannah river.

https://books.google.com/books?id=o_cMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=numismatist+confederate+seal&source=bl&ots=dxy0lRtIew&sig=5CKKxa3eFmXn-Qu19ka_ZMGa5fk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWi8X2xM7RAhUF1CYKHRrHC1YQ6AEIMzAH#v=onepage&q=numismatist%20confederate%20seal&f=false

Honestly, I don't think that's correct, but I felt I'd add it here for discussion and/or debunking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.170 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Deo Vindice doesn't appear in the citation for this

"The religious motto reflected the view of, probably, most Confederate citizens: that slavery was condoned by Christianity and thus, by extension, the Confederacy was supported by God." The citation and reference for this doesn't discuss "Deo Vindice". This line should be deleted.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)