The gist of it all: There is a discussion in Historium (the history forum I'm on) that debates on whether or not the CSA could've conceivably have been considered a nation in and of itself during the American Civil War. We're not here to talk about that. What we're here to talk about is what do you think makes a nation (any nation)...a nation. From what I understand, this is what makes a nation a nation... + Has a government. + Has taxes and a way to circulate money. + Has clearly specified borders. + Has a standing military with which to defend from enemies. + Has trade with other nations. Yet there is a detail argued in that thread that I feel can be addressed here. Is a nation a nation if it fulfills the requirements listed above or does it have to be recognized by other countries? From what I understand, there are nations today that consider themselves nations despite the fact that the world at large do not recognize them as such. Also, there are such things as 'stateless people' in which they themselves, again, from what I understand, are bound together by cultural history and for all intents and purposes, they are basically a nation. They may not have a border and all that other stuff, but they consider themselves a single unity. Some people in that thread believe that unless a 'nation' is recognized by other nations as a nation, it's not a nation. Look at the 'trade' for instance. Can a nation trade with others if the others don't see them as a nation? Others believe the opposite. That as long as a nation can provide the five qualifications of a nation, it's a nation regardless of who says. What are your thoughts? I'm in between, to be honest. I lean toward 'unless they're recognized, they aren't' yet I'm willing to let it be so if the people themselves really want to be considered a nation despite not being recognized by the other nations as...a nation.