Talk:American Civil War/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This the second archive of the American Civil War page, and contains posts from 18 October 2005 until 4 June 2006.

Please do not make changes to this page.

Wide Awakes

I think it would be beneficial if we mentioned the Wide Awakes and their contribution to the Southern Fear of Lincoln/Republicans abolishing slavery. There is already a nice page written up on it, it would only take a small blurb and would illustrate the growing tensions between the North and South on the topic of slavery.

--Grimlockbash

--69.182.79.218 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)== Deaths in todays population? ==

"Those numbers are the equivalent of more than 5.3 million deaths and 9.2 million total casualties in the U.S. today." - removed this; seems like a strange thing to do to give numbers when the percentage figure has alread been stated. At least it shouldnt go in the intro, maybe further down in the article Astrokey44 01:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC) no one is really wide awake were all tired

        love u people wat u doin who u chattin wit i talking to pete yo bye see yall later--69.182.79.218 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Map

"Map of the division of the states during the Civil War. Dark blue represents Union states; light blue represents Union states that permitted slavery; red represents Confederate states; Unshaded represents areas that had not yet become states."

That map is a map of the modern USA with states colored in. Someone please fix this. Ken Arromdee 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

      Hey Ken, 
      I created a replacement for this map a year ago, but it unfortunately keeps getting reverted without discussion.
      I will change it again. However, I would like whoever who disagrees with me to please discuss their reasons and let
      people decide what to keep. No one likes revert wars. So lets end it.
              --Ampersand 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PS

 My arguments against the previous map are as follows:
 1) borders are inaccurate. 
 2) color scheme is inappropriate, the standard is grey for the confederacy. don't drag politics into this.
 3) my map uses a politically neutral color arrangement and outlines borders of US territories at the time.

Infobox

I don't much care for this infobox. For one thing, it just has too many flags. We should just pick two (either the two used at the beginning of the war, or the two at the end). Links to Flag of the United States and Flags of the Confederate States of America can be provided for anyone who wants more information. Also, the color scheme isn't very pleasing to the eye. What about something more like the one at War of 1812? --JW1805 20:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

When is the turning point?

Was the turning point Gettysburg, Antietam or what? Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, do your own homework! —Cleared as filed. 22:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

See Turning point of the American Civil War. Hal Jespersen 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Depends on who you ask, I have heard Gettsyburg, Sharpsburg, even Vicksburg. (the case for Vicksburg being that once Grant took Vicksburg the Blockade could finally take effect, and runners had a tougher time getting through)

Combatants as listed in the warbox template

Considering that this was a civil war, like the American Revolutionary War, shouldn't the warbox list the combatants as being the United States versus something like "Confederate Rebels" or "Southern Rebels." The American Revolutionary War article lists the conflict as being between "American Patriots" and the British Empire, not the United States versus the British Empire.

I understand the history of the Confederacy and the desire to legitimatize it as a political entity, but the fact of the matter is that it was never a recognized government, just as the American government was not fully internationally recognized until after the War of 1812, really. Just as it would be silly to characterize the War of Independence as being between the United States and Great Britain, I think that it is inaccurate to characterize the American Civil War as being between the Confederate States and the United States.

If nobody offers any insight into this, I'll change the template soon.

See American Revolutionary War Talk:American Revolutionary War to see the origin of this discussion.--AaronS 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that the South already had a coherent state organization in the federal system, which was at the time even more powerful in relative terms than it is today. The Confederacy established a government with all of the trimmings of a normal government, mostly mimicking the United States. We have an article under Confederacy... describing its organization. While the United States and most of the rest of the world did not acknowledge the Confederacy at the time, I think on Wikipedia, in order to avoid POV, it is best to used the self-ascribed label--perhaps a footnote can explain that this might not be considered a "real state." But isn't POV to ascribe conditions definitively anyway? Also "rebels" is perhaps an even more dicey term because of the different historical associations it has in this case. Tfine80 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Those who supported the Confederacy were rebels, because they supported the rebellion against the United States. There is really nothing POV about that, since a rebel is any person who rebels. While the Confederacy did have an established state structure, it basically copied that of the United States, as you note. While it is true that the fledgling United States, during the American War of Independence, were not as strong or well-established as the Confederacy was during the American Civil War, American rebels were still citizens of the British Empire, and Southern rebels were still citizens of the United States. During the former, the United States were viewed internationally as colonies in insurrection; during the latter, the Confederate States were viewed as states rebelling against a federal government.

I understand the desire to give legitimacy to the Confederate States of America as a historical and political entity. I believe that the rules for "recognition" are arbitrary, but the line of demarcation is rather clear, for the most part. The Confederate States were never recognized by anybody, save supporters of the rebellion, as a legitimate government separate from the United States. It is vitally important to treat the CSA as a political entity, but it should be done in-depth in the article, and not prima facie in the warbox.--AaronS 01:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestion has any hope of success. It doesn' t matter who recognized the Confederate government, as the opening paragraph says: "...the Confederate States of America, a coalition of eleven southern states that declared their independence and claimed the right of secession from the Union in 1860-1861." That's what the term "Confederate States of America" means, that's what the Union was fighting, so that's what should be in the infobox. --JW1805 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they were recognized by Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But that's not the point. And it's not about giving them "legitimacy." The point is that this is what they called themselves. And it's a lot easier to label them that and discuss why they might not be considered a real state than it is to come up with our own label which we will never find consensus for. Why start a fight about what to call them if you can just insert a footnote saying that most countries in the world did not recognize them. Tfine80 03:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Something missing?

Shouldn't there be a section in the "Division of the country" section on the North? Nowhere in the article does it list all the Union states. Seems odd. --JW1805 ^(Talk) 03:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Somehow I doubt that this article is truly unsourced, given the large amount of books and other references, any number of which may and probably have been cited. I defer to HLJ and others here, but I, for one, think that the unsourced tag is absolutely unnecessary and would suggest that it be removed. --Martin Osterman 14:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Units

Not sure if this is the place, but, can we devise reference to notable units of the war? I'm thinking, in particular, 54h MA Colored Volunteers, Pickett's division, 69h New York, Jackson's "Foot Cav", 71t PA Vols ("CA Rgt"), the like. Comment? Trekphiler 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is turning into too much of a kitchen sink to include an ever-expanding list like this. If you want a separate article like List of ..., go ahead, but it would be more interesting to write/improve the articles about the units, not merely list them. Hal Jespersen 13:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Populations

I think the whole population (everyone, civilians and soldiers) of the Union and the Confederacy should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.19.75 (talk • contribs) 06:34, December 10, 2005.

Advantages of the North

I'm deleting the parts about African Americans and Immigrants and putting those under the Population Advantage. Cameron Nedland 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to U.S. Civil War?

Given that there have been civil wars in several American countries, shouldn't the title be changed to something more accurate? Markb 10:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm not familiar with civil wars occuring in other "American countries" -- the term's a contradiction in and of itself since America is made up of states (and America is a country). --Vortex 14:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He's probably referring to the use of American to apply to the two continents, not the U.S.A. Although there may be a tiny degree of truth to that, "American" used without a qualifier (North, South, Central) is almost universally understood to mean the U.S.A. I also cannot think of any other conflict that could be confused with the American Civil War. Some name like the "South American Civil War" would not be possible under the definition of Civil War anyway. And since there are probably 1,000 articles pointing to this name, I don't think any change is justified.

Let me see, how about:

All 'American' civil wars. To describe the US civil war as 'American', is confusing and inaccurate. If I refered to 'The European civil war', the 'African civil war' or the Asian civil war, which conflict would I mean? Wikipedia is an encylopidia used globally, authors should not assume users will have the same view of the world as themselves. As to the other articles, I thought that a 'move' also changed those references? Markb 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting is that the American Civil War article should be used instead as a list to list all Civil Wars that have occurred in America? I would disagree with that, since each civil war is referred to by the name of the country that it happened in (e.g. Mexican Civil War). See, though America may refer to a continent, most people don't go for American Civil War if they're looking for a civil war in Columbia. Instead, they're going to look at Columbian Civil War. The name before the war gives an indication of where it happened, which is the primary reason that I don't agree with you. Give me more convincing and clear-cut evidence and I'll reconsider. (As for the suggestion that this is not a 'global' thing... Google "American Civil War" and see how many articles in that search turn out to be for wars other than this one. I think that you'll pretty much find that scholars around the globe call the civil war that happened in the United States the "American Civil War".) --Vortex 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as named. While I agree that the name "American Civil War" isn't as accurate as it could be, it's the most common name of the war. We're not here to improve the names people use, but reflect their current use. --A D Monroe III 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have an article called Naming the American Civil War. If Mark can actually find a documented source that makes this criticism, he can add it there. Tfine80 23:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Naming the American Civil War, so now understand. To Vortex My only suggestion was to rename to U.S. civil war,if you want to make a list of civil wars in America, go ahead. As to the concept of "the name before the war gives an indication of where it happened", then U.S. is far more accurate than just America, in the same way that English Civil War is more helpful than European Civil War, Northern Hemisphere Civil War or Global Civil war - get the idea? Markb 09:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)]

My apologies for taking your idea the wrong way. :) I've been locked into finals at my university and have become a bit fuzzheaded due to the copious amounts of information I'm trying to cram into my brain in a limited amount of time. I think the U.S./America question could be debated for years to come, truthfully, even though I'm not quite sure why it is the way it is. I only know that most scholars have chosen to name it the American Civil War, and I tend to follow precedents. :) I think that part of it is the fact that people shorten the name (they refer to the United States of America as just America), and the colloquism has stuck since then. --Vortex 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to the following scenario:

Keep the article American Civil War without any name changes.
Create a new article American Civil War (disambiguation) that points to the original article and any other articles people may think can classified as "American" Civil Wars.

This suggestion is in keeping with the Wikipedia tradition of using the most popular name for an article and using disambiguation articles with alternative names when there might be any confusion. Hal Jespersen 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea Hal Jespersen . I hope people don't think I'm on some kind of mission to erase the word "American". My eyes have been opened recently when I suggested to my son and his school mates to look on Wikipedia when doing school work ( they are 14 yrs old). If I say 'Kennedy shot', they think Im taking about a minor footballer (soccer to some) who plays for Wolverhampton Wanderers has just been killed! To them the 'civil war' refers to the English civil war. They *do* understand, having school-friends from Brazil and Mexico (they at at school in London, england), that "america" has several meanings. If there is one thing that an encylopedia *should* be about, is leaving a source of unambigious information for future generations, untainted by the prevailing orthodoxy of the time.

Markb 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with the creation of a American Civil War (disambiguation) page. A disamb page should only be used if different things are called by the same name. As other posts have pointed out, no one really uses "American Civil War" to refer to anything other than the American Civil War. A page called something like List of Civil Wars in the Americas would be more appropriate, if you really want a page listing these conflicts. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

'no one really uses "American Civil War" to refer to anything other than the American Civil War'. Well I do, so that's just proved your theory false, hasn't it? As I've written before, if you want to create a new entry with a list of American civil wars, go ahead. I'm concerned with the name of *this* entry.Markb 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

America/American is used to mean USA probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of times in the English Wikipedia, reflecting its ubiquitous usage as such in English. Meanwhile it is used to refer to "the American continent" (a minority geographical classification btw) in a handful of places most of which are probably contained within the title of the article on the OAS. And yet every day someone else comes along to help prevent that evil gut-wrenching soul-crushing ambiguity by trying to replace all of the former usage. Yeah right it's not a crusade. Here's an easier approach: North America/South America/The Americas. Teach your kid those. problem solved. 69.108.48.80 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There are, at the time or writing, 867,919 articles in the English Wikipedia. You state that at least 200,000 of these articles contain the use of America/American to mean USA. I doubt it, but look forward to your proof, something I doubt we'll see from an anonymous poster. Markb 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that's what I "state"? maybe you should look again. But indeed adding 175961[1] + 53089[2] give us 229050 candidates. So I'm rather confident we can find tens if not hundreds of thousands of uses of the term therein in the manner described. 69.108.48.80 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's calm down. I think we're missing the point of an encyclopedia. Yes, American English could be improved, but we're not going to improve it here. Historians and history books most often refer to the war in question as the American Civil War, as does the public using Wikipedia. Perhaps there is little justification for using that name, but it's used anyway. Our job as Wikipedia editors isn't to correct human knowledge, but to reflect it. The names of the Indian Wars and American Revolutionary War could be equally improved, but right or wrong, those are their names. When the public stops using these names for these wars, we must also stop using them. Until then, we must use them. --A D Monroe III 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Following a link from the request for comment page I posted some comments on Talk:Naming the American Civil War. Perhaps the article should be Civil War (United States of America). This pattern might eliminate a similar issue for another country. --Gbleem 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO the name of anything on wikipedia should be what the most common usage is in the language of the wiki (en for en of course, etc.), regardless of what may actually or academically be considered "correct." An encyclopedia is meant to be a useful reference, not to obfuscate and confuse by the use of some sort of convention that has been arrived at by committee. I also posted a comment on Talk:Naming the American Civil War, but here goes on this one as well: American is used the world over, in its variations in the particular language, when one wants to refer to a U.S. citizen, it is also used in the adjective form to describe things from or about the U.S. So calling it the American Civil War should not be a big deal. I say leave it as is and have everything else redirect here. --Easter Monkey 03:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As an interesting observation, I just noticed that on the Manual of Style National varieties of English subsection that American Civil War is the specific example used to illustrate when American English should be used...--Easter Monkey 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Countries have internal designations and external designations. In the U.S., "America" and "American" refer to U.S. interests first and the matters of the continents in general second. Despite how awkward that might seem in another dialect of English, that is simply the way it is and the U.S. will name its conflicts and other such matters accordingly. If there is any real problem with this, it's the attempt to unify the dialects of English into one Wikipedia section. No one seems to lodge any complaints about the sensibility of naming a conflict "The Nine Years War."

A civil War can be defined as a war that occurs between two or more factions within a country itself. As far as I know, the United States of America is the only nation that referrs to itself as 'America', so I really see no competition for the name 'American Civil War'. Firestorm 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Latin library?

Someone just edited in an external reference to http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/chron/civilwar.html, which is a pretty interesting chronology of the war. Browsing it casually, I can see that a lot of the material came from Wikipedia (uncited), which would normally make it a bogus external reference, but it is organized in an interesting way. Does anyone know what this site is supposed to be? If you go to the top-level URL, you get a lot of Roman history references, but nothing to lead you to the American Civil War topics buried beneath. Just wondering who/why ... Hal Jespersen 16:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

KIA?

Can somebody name the last man killed in the war? (Include it?) Trekphiler 08:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't see a) how you verify a name or make a case for one person or the other or b) how it would especially notable anyway. --Easter Monkey 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The last battle was in Texas, and that's all I know about it.--Dark Fennec 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The weird thing is that the Confederates actually won it and it was 300 Confederate cavalry against 500 Union infantry. Don't know the name tho.Cameron Nedland 01:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiple articles here--will eventually need to split them

There are at least 5 articles here, and they will eventually have to be split. This is such a huge topic!

1. Causes of Civil War. It already has its own article, and this section is in no way integrated into the article. So it can be merged into main "causes".
2. Battle History, which is what this covers.
3 Other military topics (logistics, manpower, technology, naval)
4. Homefront issues, USA and CSA. Politics, Economics, society.
5. International affairs, diplomacy
6. Long term implications
7. Bibliography and maybe historiography.

Rjensen 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an overstatement to suggest that this article is primarily focused on the battle history; there are many additional topics included. It is interesting to note a parallel set of articles on Wikipedia: American Revolution is a broad set of topics and American Revolutionary War is a separate article. I find it hard to imagine that our audience of reviewers would be able to agree on the name for the era that encompasses the war; it has been difficult enough to agree on the name of the war itself. One of the problems I see in the organization of articles and subarticles in Wikipedia is that there are a number of people who are unwilling to see their key ideas relegated to a subarticle, so the main articles keep growing, even when topics have been reorganized. An interesting data point, however: I recently had some free time to browse through the Encyclopedia Britannica in printed form and note that they cover the entire American Civil War era in a single large article. (They also have a series of smaller articles in what they call their "micropedia" volumes that include some important biographies and a few of the large battles in more detail, although considerably less detailed than we have here.) Hal Jespersen 18:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with many the article is unmanageably long, though I'm not an advocate of the suggested breakdown. I'm not at all satisfied with the current construction, but am too much of a freshman to consider making serious changes.

I would also suggest Hal has identified two of the "nuggets" in the situation:

differentiating between the era of conflict (forshadowing, causes, action, reaction, aftermath, consequences, legacy) and the war itself (very roughly the 1458 days between Fort Sumter and Appomatox); this issue has itself been made the subject of an article (naming of the war).
personal rancor of those who for whatever reason hold strong viewpoints and who can make article management more difficult; ACW is one subject which evokes a personal and visceral reaction even among those who wouldn't otherwise involve themselves in the discussion

I don't see this problem going away anytime soon. IMHO, the sooner any strategy is designed and adopted, the sooner the strategy can be modified and optimized. BusterD 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate bibliography-historiography article

Yes I think there should be a separate article on the historiography and bibliography of the war. That would mean a "reference" section of maybe 20 titles will remain in the main article, to get people started. 55 years ago the Randall-Donald textbook had an 85 page annotated bibliography, and the literature has more than doubled since then. Rjensen 01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the function of Wikipedia is to provide bibliographies for their own sake. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Delaware seceding

The text stated that Delaware never considered secession, but this is incorrect; see 1861 and here. I have fixed the text. Deville 23:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Confederate Insurgency

I suggest rewording this in line with the Iraqi Civil War by deeming it an Insurgency. For as you see the Confederate Insurgents declared war on the Union.

King Legit

we have a whole article on naming the CW that explores such questions. Rjensen 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

pl:Kampania na Missisipi

'Campaign on Missisipi' is a Polish Wikipedia Feature Article. Strangly, it is not linked to en version and I cannot find anything that would look similar. Any suggestions? Lead of the Polish article translates at: Campaign on Missisip - series of battles over control of the Missisipi river valley during the American Civil War in North America, from February 1862 to July 1863.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Although I can't read it, from the various images and links, it looks pretty decent. What sort of suggestions are you soliciting? That someone translate it? It is somwhat similar to the first half of Western Theater of the American Civil War, although that article is more army-oriented. Hal Jespersen 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant suggestions whether there is an existign article on en on the same subject that is not connect to pl via interwiki, and if not, whether anybody can create a stub at least (I could help with some translations). It's kind of strange for pl wiki to have a FA on American history, and for en wiki not to have even a stub on the subject.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Union States

Hello all,

I was reading the article on American Civil War and I have a serious probelm with the section on Union states. Once Virginia, Louisiana, and Tennessee secede they were not technically part of the Union. Not until Congress re-admitted them back into the Union. It is true that Abraham Lincoln and others refused to recognize the secession of the the South. Yet, the fact remains that the South seceded.

Additionally, the Union army only controlled portions of Louisiana at the end of the war. The Red River Campaign was a disaster for the Unoin army. Therefore, part of the state of Louisiana was still in Confederate control.

I therefore purpose that the line "The Union counted Virginia as well, and added Nevada and West Virginia. It added Tennessee, Louisiana and other rebel states as soon as they were reconquered." be removed from the article.--Christian_Historybuff aka Steve

the status of the reconquered areas was hotly debated and became one of the major issues of Reconstruction. However, they WERE reconquered; they became part of the Union again as soon as that happened, so the article is quite correct. (It does not say what legal status they had -- but they were treated as part of Union, as shown for example by Emanc. Proc.) Rjensen 19:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand yuor anser, Rjensen. However, I still object to Louisiana being include because only the area around the Mississippi River was under Union control by the end of the war.--Christian_Historybuff aka Steve

I think over 80% of the Louisiana population was under Union control there-- The people lived along the Mississippi river in those days; the Red River area was lightly populated. Certainly most Confederates at the time thought Lousiana was "lost". Rjensen 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Failure to Compromise" section

This is sort of a question here ... not an argument OK? I seem to recall hearing about a compromise that was proposed at one point that the South didn't accept. Sombody proposed that slavery would be allowed in all territories south of the missouri/arkansas border except california and forbidden north of there forever. Or something close to that. somebody named "Kellog" or however you spell that breakfast cereal company. --Nerd42 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

there were a lot of compromises proposed but none that had approval of both north and south. By December 1860 the possibility of any successful compromise was near zero. Rjensen 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

this section kind of seems to indicate that there weren't any - wouldn't saying that neither side accepted them because they weren't gentlemen enough be kinda POV? --Nerd42 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point! I tried to fix it. Rjensen 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Result of the war

In the infobox, the "Result" section used to say "...Southern states reannexed..." But this has been changed to "reconstructed". I think it should be changed back to "reannexed" (or something similar), since "reconstruction" is a nebulous term, and didn't really occur (if at all) until some time after the war. While the southern states were unquestionable "reannexed" at the end of the war. Also, reconstruction may not be a term familiar to many non-Americans, or non-historians, and it may seem confusing. Everybody knows what "annexed" means.--JW1805 (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening section

The opening section was recently changed to include "...The Union led by President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant won a decisive victory,..." with the italics added. I don't think this clause should be included. If we mention Lincoln, we would have to mention Davis. And Grant in no way "led the Union". He did "lead the US Army" only near the end of the war. There were many other Union generals who contributed to the victory. No point in singling him out here, I don't think. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening works. "Reconstruction" was the term used then (starting in 1861) and now by all historians and textbooks and reference books. See the article Reconstruction. Reannexation did not happen and the term was never used. As for Grant he was commander in chief of all US forces in 1864-65 and is unanimously given credit with Lincoln. Davis gets mentioned but later of course. To say he helped the Union to victory would be too sarcastic, I think. Rjensen 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with military history we give the commanding general the credit for winning the war. Americans at the time and ever since have given Grant the credit, as well they should. Who else but Grant should get credit? Sherman? Thomas? McClellen? People expect the opening to be a capsule summary and not mentioning any soldier would seem very odd. So why does one editor keep eliminating Grant? He needs to explain this strange choice. Rjensen 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is enormously long. A page summary should be concise and contain NO unnecessary detail. Mentioning these two individuals is totally beside the subject of the American Civil War; they were major figures, but not essential to a page summary. The article has mountains of (poorly organized) detail and plenty of kudos for generals and presidents. BusterD 01:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enouigh: I will trim elsewhere to make room for this important fact. Rjensen 01:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point, I think. Length is one factor. Significance is another. There's no compelling need to mention these two individuals out of the millions involved. The lengthy three paragraph introduction to the World War II doesn't mention Adolf Hitler. The two paragraph introduction to WWI doesn't mention any individual. Gulf war intro doesn't mention Saddam. Current conflict intro doesn't mention current president or Saddam. My point is that an article introduction need not mention names of the victors in a conflict. It's not encyclopedian, and it borders on cheerleading. I'll not switch it back because you're so attached to it, but it doesn't belong. Oh by the way, no state was ever "reconstructed." The constitutional term is readmitted. BusterD 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you brought up length. Significance is another: Lincoln and Grant had charge of the war, made the plans and won it. Those are the facts that people need to know. If someone spends 60 seconds on the article we want them to know about Lincoln and Grant. Rjensen 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I never knew Lincoln and Grant "had charge of the war." I'm sure that would have come as a surprise to both Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Grant. As previously pointed out, Grant only had multi-theater control in the last 11 months of the war. That Lincoln "had charge" is debatable. In fact, the winning plan was determined by outgoing Army commander Winfield Scott (Anaconda Plan). Lincoln adopted it and adapted as necessary. Grant was the plan's most effective executor, but the plan was Scott's. Whether Lincoln and Grant "won" anything, that sounds like hyperbole to me. And damned disrespectful to all those others who died in the war (including relatives of mine). No, go ahead and cheerlead for individuals whose honor doesn't need your help, but if the first three paragraphs of the WWII article don't warrant a mention of Hitler, then Lincoln and Grant only belong in the introduction of this article as a vanity. BusterD 02:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC) LLBusterD seems to have very strong person POV. That does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rjensen 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we have 1 for inclusion, and 3 against, so I went ahead and removed the Grant reference again. Rjense, unless you can get somebody else to agree with you, we should leave it out. It just isn't necessary. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

BusterD does have a strong point of view about adhering to wikipedia standards and generally letting the community solve these issues. I'm a bit annoyed (and also enlightened) you feel you must get your way on this petty, petty matter. If the defense of your position is that BusterD does feel strongly, I must concede. If your objection to my point of view is that you must have your own way, that's a very different matter. IMHO, this page is on the verge of becoming one user's vanity project (look at the recent talk above), and THAT has no place in an encyclopedia. BusterD 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problems with the Origins of the War coming before the Division of the Country?

I mean, the origins of war ends up with secession, so the sections dovetail nicely.

The first section needs adapting, and secession would need help. I encourge those who want to see what it looks like to see my version reverted (as vandalism) by rjensen. I think the version I created is more readable, and is certainly not vandalism.

Perhaps my change was hasty, but look at it and tell me what we have now is better. BusterD 03:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Origins section is now entirely about historiography and should stay that way--that is it gives a succinct summary of the multiple positions that exist on the causes. There is a long separate article on Causes that should be used instead of this one. Rjensen

I agree, the Origins section should go before the Division of the country section. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What should be on this page? What would a featured article look like?

Many have mentioned a willingness to see some significant changes on this essential English-language page. This should be a page that other language wikipedias use as reference. It should reflect the community of wikischolars assembled, and I see a bunch of folks out there.

Rjensen correctly notes that this article needs to be broken down into separate articles, and suggests one possible method of breakdown. I'd like to look at this from a slightly different vantage: Once separate articles are written, imagine what's left on this page to form a core around which those subjects can be linked.

That being said, I'm going to offer my opinions. What follows are merely my suggestions. I relish discussion on this page on this subject.

IMHO, I think we should have a first-rate graphic next to the contents, pushing the warbox further down. I believe that the introductory statement might be made even longer, perhaps three or four paragraphs which contain links to a number of top-quality peripheral articles as described above.

Next, Rjensen is also correct about the historiography not belonging at the beginning of the article. Something does belong there, and what's there now does serve, but isn't optimal. This section belongs after the narrative summary, or in another article, IMHO.

Division of the country is so rough, but is essential to this article. IMHO, the entire Union might be described, followed by how each state (or group of states) secceeded. The narrative summary is clearly essential, and isn't terrible as is. It should be much tighter (about 1/2 as long). More graphics here, especially a few easy maps.

Analysis of why the north won is mere punditry, and few of us are truly qualifed to to draw those conclusions. Lately it has become a bulletin board for northern partisans. Not essential. Move to new article or delete.

Battle table? Better at the Battles article. Fold in Major Land Battles and Naval Actions with narrative history. Not necessary. Just my opinion. Civil War Leaders and soldiers deserves its own article. Question of Slavery should be covered in Causes, and integrated into the narrative.

Foreign Diplomacy deserves its own article, but needs to be tightened and illustrated in this article, it's essential. Aftermath is crucial, needs tightening and illustration.

Historiography that's currently serving as "Multiple explanations" should go after the aftermath, and needs a better title.

References are a big problem with this article. Half the last two hundred or so lines of this page are just not necessary. Only references necessary for creating the article are required. A separate article on bibliography and/or historiography might serve. Non-essential ending links might be shuttled over to a links article (I don't like it either, but we need to agree to some cutoff point).

Anybody else have an opinion on this important (and too long neglected) subject? BusterD 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I was expecting a flame war. Either nobody disagrees with me (seems unlikely), nobody wants to interact on this subject, or nobody cares enough to express an opinion on a page I'm sure hundreds of wikicitizens watch. I choose "nobody disagrees with what I've said." First thing I plan to do is move "multiple reasons" down, then copy and paste the excellent overview from the Origins article. If no one objects, I'll do this in the next 5 hours or so. BusterD 00:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So I pasted in the overview. I also subtly changed the lead paragraph. Hence another suggestion: this page discusses a controversial subject. We should say so from the very beginning, and perhaps create a "Controversies of the ACW" article (which would soon overawe this article in size) to syphon off some of the heat. We should certainly integrate discussion of controversy with this article. "Strong views are like tigers." We should definitely display this tiger, but not let it out of the cage. BusterD 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with plan. BUT I suggest that "reasons North won" is essential part of article-- and one of main reasons people will wuse it. It is not "mere punditry" but is instead based on solid scholarship. References: the Further Reading books are essential for guiding people to further reading. Anyone who goes to a library or bookstore will be overwhelmed by hundreds and thousands of titles. The list now is quite compact. The idea is not that someone will read all the books, but they will browse and see if their local library has any. Small libraries will only have a few of the books. Rjensen 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to disagree with your points. But lately the "reasons" section has gotten fat with just junk (heck I even added to the collage myself). I just think a group of responsible folks should create a map of what this page should look like, and a strategy for maintaining the look and feel. Once that group has some success, they could should maintain standards of sorts, and shuffle off most changes to the sub articles, which by that time will be much richer themselves. BusterD 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with all of Buster's points, but was too lazy to make comments on individual entries. I support the idea of moving the battle table to the article Battles of the American Civil War and to get rid of sections that consist primarily of lists of names; these invite repeated additions for favorite people and battles and there is little justification to keep any one out. I also would support a separate article entitled American Civil War Bibliography into which virtually all of the lengthy end matter can be moved. There is no reason that an encyclopedia article needs more than a half-dozen recommendations on other books to read; check out a printed encyclopaedia as an example. It is ironic that this article no longer has a section entitled References and no footnotes, meaning that the article is (gasp) unsourced. (I am not recommending that we merely rename the existing grab bags of books, but that we be careful and disciplined about listing which books were actually used in writing the article.) Hal Jespersen 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You need multiple items in a reading list to help users who use small libraries. After a couple thousand edits there is no way that "references" tells us what sources each editor used. The reading list is about right for a topic so important. Rjensen 02:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Why the North Won" section needs some serious NPOV surgery. Also agree that there are too many unnecessary references listed (do we really need Strange & Fascinating Facts and a cookbook?). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

you're right about those cookbooks. (Anyone interested in that would do much better browsing at a bookstore.) Let's look at those NPOV issues here--what problems do people see? Rjensen 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the worthy discussion. After a bunch of sideways reading on wikipedia, I have another idea: I notice many important topic articles are grouped into series, some more successfully than others. I propose we create comprehensive list of articles on this talk page or another temporary page, then group them. We might use an article box (like at World War II) or a series box (like at Rome). I'm way open to suggestions. IMHO, the important thing is we integrate existing work into a coherent framework, then create a demi-moderated structure on this ACW page that makes it difficult to turn into hash again. I believe we have a small intrepid interested group. Let's go quietly after the star. Set a deadline of, what, June? BusterD 12:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Air War--spin off?

Somebody added a long section of the Air War (balloons) -- with far more attention than is given signals, railroads, artillery, cavalry or infantry combined. Any objections to spinning it off to new article? Rjensen 07:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the balloons to Aerial warfare. Rjensen 13:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good move. The article inserted was actually quite good (I didn't see any obvious errors) but it needed to be wiki'd thoroughly. I could see that being a separate article. BusterD 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Navigation box

I created this, based on the World War II template. What do you think? (In case you're wondering how I selected the entries, they were based entirely on my memory. They are obviously changeable.) Hal Jespersen 19:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice start, but the density of the box makes me think this is going to be MUCH longer. I like it though, and am pleasantly surprised to see many of the things I described already taking place. Thanks Hal! BusterD 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Historiography

The article had two parallel sections on Origins, or historiography. I merged them together. Rjensen 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Did Slave-owners feel guilty?

Does this even belong in the article?

A small, but militant, abolitionist movement existed in the North--a matter of a few thousand advocates. Their insistence that slavery was a sin and slave owners were deeply guilty angered the South, as shown by the reaction to the overwhelmingly popular (in the North) book and play by Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that stereotyped slave owners as heartless Simon Legrees. Historians have looked at many slave owners and decided that they felt neither guilt nor shame (Berringer 359-60[1]), but were angry at what they considered "un-Christian" hate speech from abolitionists

the source (which requires registration) gives ONE historian who says yes & one who says "not so much" - not a case of historianS "deciding"
did historians "look at" them in their graves to determine their "feelings"?
was hate-speech a term even used then - could they have considered it "hate speech"
other parts of the same paragraph also need work
- abolitionists are portrayed as concerned primarily with shaming the south - when Northerners themselves were forced to make moral decisions because of the fugitive slave laws
- reaction to being portrayed as cruel Simon Legrees does not show they were also angry because Northerners thought ALL slavery was wrong
- talking twice in the same sentence about the "small" number of abolitionists (--a matter of a few thousand advocates) is dismissive
- the whole paragraph is anti-abolitionist

--JimWae 21:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

- - Abolitionism is a major issue and has to be covered. The Berringer book has the best summary of the debate and cites most of the major arguments; it should be read by anyone who wants to edit the material. "Hate speech" is modern phrasing (back then they just called it hatred). We use 2006 language to describe 1860. Abolitionists did indeed spend most of their energy on shaming the South. The "small number" --= 3,000-10,000 people. The goal it to be as NPOV as possible about a highly controversial group, and to cover them in a paragraph or so. Rjensen 21:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that paragraph doesn't do it with NPOV, does it..--JimWae 21:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every time the word abolitionist appears, it is deprecated. Here are quotes from the article

a small but militant abolitionist
ruthless and conspiratorial abolitionists,
A small, but militant, abolitionist movement [ again ]
hate speech from abolitionists.
had its neoabolitionist roots

This is typical of articles on this topic on wikipedia --JimWae 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

- I tried rewriting it again, and merged the two sections on the abolitionists. They were a HIGHLY controversial group and still are, so NPOV is very difficult. "Militant" is not controversial. "Small" is not controversial. "Hate speech" is what southerners felt. "Conspiratorial" is not POV when it refers esp to John Brown. The term "neoabolitionist" refers to postwar historians. Rjensen 21:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Where in this (or many other wikiarticles) is there any balanced presentation? Slavery was already abolished in Europe & Mexico. Slave politics was leading to concerns that the US would be fighting everyone all the way to Tierra del Fuego --JimWae 22:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- in 1860 slavery was going strong in Brazil and Cuba and much of Africa, while Russia still had serfdom. The goal is to achieve balance in Wiki articles, even highly controversial ones like this. Rjensen 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
?? would brazil and cuba be easier to conquer? --JimWae 23:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

- - well I tweaked it a little more--is it NPOV enough now?. Cuba in fact was on the agenda--see Ostend Manifesto. Rjensen 23:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

- - - The issue of abolitionists is very important and has to be covered. Our job is to say what upset the southerners so much (Wiki is not allowed to pass moral judgments). Do historians look at folks in their grace? Actually they read their letters and speeches. See for example Genovese's new book The Mind of the Master Class [3] Rjensen 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested the whole topic of abolitionism be removed - it was just poorly written & very POV. It is somewhat/slightly better now <pat> <pat> --JimWae 00:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Immediate vs gradual emancipation

From 1770s a debate took place between gradualist and immediatist anti-slavery reformers. Gradualists said the transition from slavery to freedom should be characterized by a series of intermediary steps (apprenticeship, colonization, etc.). Gradualists dominated the early antislavery thinking. However, during the 1830s, the idea of immediate emancipation superseded gradualism. Immediatists all advocated total, unconditional, and uncompensated emancipation. Some immediatists were cautious saying the commitment to emancipation had to be made right now but the implementation might take years. ("immediate emancipation gradually achieved.") They all agreed sinful slave owners had to immediately repent. See David Brion Davis, "The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought," MVHR 49:209-30 (September 1962). Rjensen 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

but I think it would be hard to provide a credible source that EVERY abolitionist even believed in sin - the possibility cannot be discounted that there were abolitionists that were not asserting the Xian notion of sin - and the article just has no need to make any extraordinary claim on this - which is why I changed "the abolitionists" to "many...". "Great majority" is realistic however. --JimWae 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War a true civil war?

I made a recent (very minor) change to this article, which was promptly changed back. Perhaps I should have explained why I made the change.

I changed the first sentence, which read "The American Civil War was a civil war between..."; modifying it to read "The American Civil War was a war between..." I made this change, because I saw the sentence as factually inaccurate. The American Civil War was NOT a true civil war.

Wikipedia's article on civil war defines the term in the first sentence: "A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power." This definition does not fit the American Civil War for two reasons:

The Southern states had already declared their independence, becoming a separate nation.
The South was not trying to gain control of the United States; they just wanted to separate from it.

I don't see anything wrong with this definition. "Civil War" is a misnomer in this case. Unless we are using a broader definition than this, the sentence should be changed. I'll change it later if there's no objection. TheButterfly 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I do object actually, here's why:

Generations of historians have had no problem calling it a civil war. I'm not against calling generations of historians wrong, see also: the world is flat; the sun revolves around the earth, but in this case I think that they have gotten it right.
The reasons that you cite that this war doesn't fit the wikipedia definition don't take the Northern/Union point of view into consideration.

"The South was not trying to gain control of the United States" Not true: the Union/North did not recognize the right of the southern states to secede in the first place and considered those areas under contention as part of the United States. The "War for States Rights" turned out to be in fact a lost cause, thus they were indeed citizens of the same country struggling for national control of the state power.

If the south had defeated the north, you would perhaps have a better case, i.e. it was a second American Revolution, and not just a civil war, resulting in the establishment and independence of the CSA. But there again, even then the civil war article points out that "Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict." Which would then lead to the argument that if you wanted to call it a revolution, no matter whether they won or not, it could still fit the wikipedia test of civil war. But they didn't win, and even regardless of that fact, your arguments don't take into account everything that was going on at the time, IMO of course. I say leave the sentence as is. --Easter Monkey 14:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also kinda object. I reverted your change myself; I must admit I thought the change was vandalism of a subtle kind, especially because the change wasn't signed by a user. If a user (even a very new account) had made the identical change, I would have respected the boldness, and held fire, awaiting this very discussion. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia! BusterD 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I also find it appropriate to object. I understand your points. However, in retrospect, perhaps largely due to the outcome, the North's position prevailed, and the legal premise upon which it was all largely settled, was that the Union was intact. There is room to present the South's perspective during the conflict, but I feel the term civil war is appropriate in the whole. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 04:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I can see how my edit may have looked like vandalism. Oh well.

Easter Monkey, I can see what you're saying in point number two. According to the North's reasoning, this war does fit the definition of a civil war. However, I don't think that's good enough, because this article shouldn't be a portrayal of anyone's opinion. Also, history is always written by the winners of conflicts, so it's not surprising that "generations of historians" would write from a Northern perspective.

As for the argument that my points would be more valid if the South had won the war, I definitely don't believe that. That's the "might makes right" logic fallacy. The fact that the North was able to force the Southern states back into their former positions in the Union has no effect on which side was right (if either could be said to be right). Remember that we don't celebrate Independence Day on the day we defeated the British; we celebrate it on the day we declared our independence. The Southern states ceased to be a part of the Union as soon as they officially declared it to be the case.

"Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict."

It's true that some revolutions could be called "civil wars"; but I don't believe that this is true of ALL revolutions. The ratification of the U.S. Constitution was a revolution, because it overturned the Articles of Confederation, but that wasn't even a war at all.

If the South had intended to OVERTHROW the government of the United States and replace it with something else, then I can see that as being a civil war. But they made no move to do anything of the kind; they simply vacated their positions in the old government, leaving it to continue its existence without them.

Perhaps none of this is true from the North's point of view, but I don't think it's the purpose of this article to advance anyone's point of view. The term "civil war" is not correct from the South's perspective, but I can't see how anyone would object to calling the conflict a "war." --TheButterfly 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle that "point of view" and the fact that as you say, history is written from the POV of the victor, means that we should (and fact by wikipedia policy) take a harder look; however, I still say it was more then just a war, but rather a civil war.

"The term ... is not correct from the South's perspective..." The article shouldn't be written from anybody's perspective, not the south's, nor the north's, but rather document the facts as they occurred. This is of course rather difficult when it comes to writing history, but we do the best we can.

You see, this is why this is so difficult: The south clearly hadn't intended to overthrow the government, no objection there, but they did in fact replace it: with the government of the CSA. Splitting hairs? Perhaps, but they seceded from the Union, (an illegal act?) and formed their own (illegal?) government.

As far as I can tell, the south and the north were both part of the same country at the breakout of the conflict. Sure, most tendered their secessions a year or two before the battles occurred that we define as the opening of the war, but even then, wasn't secession a hostile act in and of itself? What was the true start of the war? Was it the shots fired at Fort Sumter, or when South Carolina told Lincoln what he could do with his United States. I'm playing devil's advocate at this point, but regardless, anyway you slice it, IMO, it was indeed a war "in which parties within the same country or empire struggle[d] for national control of state power," thus meeting the WP definition.

I am not objecting to calling it a "war", of course it was. I'm objecting to not calling it a "civil war." I would not object though, to something written into either this article, or the CSA article or whereever, that says exactly what you are saying, i.e. that the southern leaders, or leading historians and/or scholars have said that it wasn't a "true civil war." Provided it is properly sourced and documented of course.

Quite frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about. Lee had been a leading candidate for the commander of the Union Army, most of the Southern Generals had been trained in the north, they had all served together for years, Mexico, out west, etc. The demographics were just about as diverse as they are today, but many folks had business interests on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, they all had grandfathers and great grandfathers that had fought at Yorktown, etc. etc. etc. These were Americans fighting Americans (or in the political correct world of the WP, USians fighting USians). If we can't call this one a civil war, then nothing will ever meet that definition. --Easter Monkey 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also remember that the creation of the Union did not provide an exit strategy option. Regarding misspelling, I have found the freeware ieSpell program to be easy and really helpful in reviewing my edits, and I recommend it. Vaoverland 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, been distracted by other things, but whatever.

I've thought about adding something to this article or a related one that explains this, but this doesn't really seem to be necessary. The article already states that there is a controversy over what to "name" the war. The thing that bothered me and led me to make my edit was the fact that the very first words of the article said "The American Civil War was a civil war..."--stated as fact. I just couldn't see letting such a blatantly false statement remain as it was.

"If we can't call this one a civil war, then nothing will ever meet that definition."

It seems to me that civil wars happen all the time. There is currently one happening in Iraq.

But after thinking a little bit about this, I don't think I'm going to push this point. Many terms have multiple definitions. I guess "civil war" must be one of those. If a country breaks into two segments, and one of those segments invades and subjugates the other, then I suppose that most people would probably call it a "civil war"; although I would not.

Once I get the time (and patience) for the necessary research, I might come back to this article for some bigger edits, though. --TheButterfly 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming around to the view that northern people of the time felt the conflict as rebellion, and contemporary southerners felt the conflict was a war of independence. It would not be inaccurate to describe the event as an "unsuccessful rebellion." Popular usage of the term civil war arose several years after the conflict, though Abraham Lincoln himself used the term in his Gettysburg Address. As the introduction gets lengthened, I could see some of this mentioned, although this more properly belongs in the naming article. BusterD 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead on your bigger edits. I, for one, will be anxiously waiting. --Easter Monkey 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way as The Butterfly does. I totally disagree with the term American Civil War and believe that "The War between the States", "The War for Southern Independance", or "The War of Northern Agression" are much more accurate names. Bacongirl 16:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on [[Naming the American Civil War

]] where this sort of question should be discussed. This is about the war itself, not the name. Rjensen 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

State's Rights section

The States' rights debate cut across the issues. Southern politicians argued that the federal government had no power to prevent slaves from being carried into new territories, but they also demanded federal jurisdiction over slaves who escaped into the North; Northern politicians took reversed, though equally contradictory, stances on these issues.

I believe the above paragraph is ambiguous. Does it mean that Northen politicians reversed both positions, claiming that the federal government could prevent slave ownership in the territories but did not need to return run away slaves? or does it mean that they reversed only the first position regarding the territories? It is my understanding that Lincoln's position was that the federal government could prohibit slavery in the territories, but was still bound by the fugative slave clause of the constitution. Thus, this is a request both for a fact check and for a clarification of the existing wording. --24.30.122.32 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

good points--text is ambiguous. Republicans said Feds could prohibit slavery in territories but GOP was split on fug slave issue--Lincoln said yes but many said no. Democrats said people in territories had to decide, not Washington; Dems supported Fug Slave law. Rjensen 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Name of the war...

A civil war is defined as two groups within a society fighting for control of the government. That did not happen between 1861-65. The desire was for the South to create its own nation. Before somebody jumps, I am not a neo-Confederate, but details do matter. —This unsigned comment was added by 66.156.25.14 (talk • contribs) 21:47, April 3, 2006 .

See Naming the American Civil War. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

a civil war is defined by whom? ans: the reference books, which all call the 1861-5 conflict a civil war. Rjensen 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

yet few of the journals of the day used the phrase "civil war" until the conflict was well underway. As described in the naming article, most Northern journals referred to the "rebellion," and individual Confederates seemed to have little issue being characterized during the war as "Johnny Reb." I personally believe the conflict is best defined as an unsuccessful separatist rebellion. In most matters I must defer to Rjensen's scholarship, but a seasoned wiki-veteran recently reminded me that all naming "triggers" are best kept off the main page and onto the naming page, to prevent unnecessary edit wars from erupting. With all the random vandalism on this article, we don't need the extra reversions. BusterD 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Civil war is defined by reference books. Society is defined by reference books. According to every definition I've ever seen, including the WP def, a civil war involves two or more groups within a society struggling for control of the government/nation/state/etc. The North and South were the same "society" no matter the regional, cultural differences that existed and have persisted to this day. The struggle happened to take the form of one group trying to form its own nation. That doesn't make it any less a civil war. What it was popularly defined as in 1865, 1965, or 2006 is not relevant. A lot of people who are paid to study such things and who quite clearly have given this a lot more thought than you or I, academics, historians, the editors of Webster's and the Oxford English Dictionary, all say that what happened in the U.S. between 1861 and 1865 is defined as a "civil war." Agreed though that frontpage discussion should be kept to the naming article, but this is also a valid forum for it as well I think, after all the interested parties are certainly watching both anyway. --Easter Monkey 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the best reference for the term civil war is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "...We are now engaged in a great civil war testing whether...", but I'm of the opinion that Lincoln was both framing the issue in a favorable political light and acknowledging the changing fraternal character of the conflict during that particular graveyard speech. That Lincoln had no idea how important these words would become is precisely why I must accept Lincoln believed the conflict had become civil war. BusterD 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Context is important. Witness Lincoln's speech at his first inaugural, delivered two and a half years before his address at Gettysburg: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war."[4] (opening of the second to last paragraph). By the time November, 1863 rolled around, that the conflict was indeed a "civil war" was something that had been long ingrained in Lincoln's mind. As it was the election of Lincoln that broke the dam on secession, certainly everybody involved, both North and South, were eager to hear what he had to say on March 4, 1861. There can be no doubt that the description "civil war" was one not unfamiliar to everybody that mattered. --Easter Monkey 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is, how did the name "civil war" get tagged onto this war? Bacongirl 16:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A request to hold fire on the new introduction

I just added a much longer introduction. I spent some time on this. I feel the statements made are non-controversial, but are strong summaries of events described. I'd be glad to answer any objections, comments critiques here. I have said on this page that I'd be making a few changes in the intro, this is my first try. BusterD 23:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good! nice job. I recommend dropping all of the links (we want people to read summary straight through and not go wandering off). It needs to mention Lincoln, Davis, Grant & Lee or it's too impersonal. Rjensen 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A minor point perhaps: IMO brilliant prose does not contain contractions. (teehee, I almost wrote "...doesn't contain...") --Easter Monkey 04:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have some problems with the new version, but I think we can work with it. Although, putting so much detail in the intro is inevibly going to lead to POV edits like this. The older version was pretty uncontroversial. This version is pretty vague and simplistic (Grant raised the Army? I think McClellan would have something to say about that....) --JW1805 (Talk) 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

on second reading I have problems. It does not summarize what happened. Readers needs to know 1) cause 2) military 3) non-military 4) leadership 5) ending Rjensen 13:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So you replaced it with something far inferior with no links, no info, and no consensus. This is WIKIPEDIA. WIKI links are good things here! You agree you like the new introduction, then you remove it? I don't understand your compliment, if you're just going ignore the request to hold fire. BusterD 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with BusterD. Lets discuss it here. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The summary has to summarize the whole war in a few sentences. Many readers will only read the summary. It will NOT do to speculate and analyze. Summary must cover all the basic facts concisely. Simple stuff? well yes that's one good way to start. as for links: NO we do not want people jumping off the summary. Everything gets linked later on. Rjensen 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you've found yourself in a minority here, Dr. Jensen. The current intro gives a solid precise of event with no specifics and details (those go in the article). The new intro is superior in every way to the old one, save sheer econmy of size. I'm responding to critique in peer review that says this article needs a longer intro. I'm trying to respond correctly to that critique. BusterD 18:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems explained in detail: formed of eleven southern states' governments which moved to secede from the Union after the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. This tells too little; it fails to mention any causes and talks about states—war was fought by Confederacy not 11 states

The older version was superior: "The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war between the United States of America, called the Union, and the Confederate States of America, formed by eleven Southern states that had declared their secession from the Union. " It mentioned the CSA, without taking a position on whether secession was legal or not. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While many on both sides believed the war would be resolved quickly by aggressive tactical military action, the unforseen rapid evolution of military science and the conflict's immense social, economic and human costs soon dashed the public's romantic notions of Napoleonic warfare. This does not summarize any part of the article. It cannot stay

The North's victory was eventually achieved by leveraging advantages in population, manufacturing and logistics and through strategic naval blockade preventing the Confederacy from access to the world's markets This is inadequate—no mention of leadership for example, or battles; exaggerates role of blockade. Has to be expanded

I don't see any point in mentioning specific generals or battles in the intro. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is not a summary of the article at all—in fact it’s about Reconstruction, which has its own long article. In many ways the conflict's central issues (the role of federal government under the constitution, states' rights, treatment of African men and women) are not completely resolved; the Confederate Army's April 9, 1865 surrender at Appomattox did little to change many Americans' attitudes about threats posed by a powerful central government, the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth constitutional amendments in the years immediately after the war had little power to change attitudes of racial prejudice prevalent among Americans of the day, and the process of Reconstruction could not heal the deeply personal wounds inflicted by four brutal years of war and more than 970,000 casualties including approximately 620,000 soldiers who died (one third in combat, two-thirds by disease). As a result, controversies affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought. The causes of the war, the reasons for the outcome, and even the name of the war itself, are subjects of much controversy, even today. Rjensen 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the intro doesn't need to have so much on Reconstruction. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

the summary should NOT include material that is not in the article (like the romantic-Napoleon), and should NOT cover Reconstruction--a wholly separate article. Rjensen 18:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your critique here. This is precisely why I asked folks to hold fire and allow me to defend my effort BEFORE we started this mass deletion thing.

Points raised:

formed of eleven southern states' governments which moved to secede from the Union after the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. limited reading. That clause is modifier to the previous noun "Confederate States of America." So unless you're specifically trying to misread it, it reads correctly.
While many on both sides believed the war would be resolved quickly by aggressive tactical military action, the unforseen rapid evolution of military science and the conflict's immense social, economic and human costs soon dashed the public's romantic notions of Napoleonic warfare. This is an accurate (non-controversial) precis of the war, and should be an accurate precis of an ACW article. If the article doesn't relect this, then it should.
The North's victory was eventually achieved by leveraging advantages in population, manufacturing and logistics and through strategic naval blockade preventing the Confederacy from access to the world's markets This is inadequate—no mention of leadership for example, or battles; exaggerates role of blockade. In an introduction to a 10,000 word article, this is as much detail as is required. More detail would either make the intro untenably long, or unreasonably detailed. The confederacy's failure to access markets was the primary reason the Union won; if Britain, France, or Brazil had come in on the south's side, the confederacy might still exist.
In many ways the conflict's central issues (the role of federal government under the constitution, states' rights, treatment of African men and women) are not completely resolved; the Confederate Army's April 9, 1865 surrender at Appomattox did little to change many Americans' attitudes about threats posed by a powerful central government, the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth constitutional amendments in the years immediately after the war had little power to change attitudes of racial prejudice prevalent among Americans of the day, and the process of Reconstruction could not heal the deeply personal wounds inflicted by four brutal years of war and more than 970,000 casualties including approximately 620,000 soldiers who died (one third in combat, two-thirds by disease). As a result, controversies affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought. The causes of the war, the reasons for the outcome, and even the name of the war itself, are subjects of much controversy, even today. This is a summary of the legacy of the war. Beginning, middle, end. What I'm trying to say is that even though the war was extremely costly, lots of controversy is still present BECAUSE of the unresolved conflict. Now that's an assertion, but one that the links backup.

BusterD 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

neoabolitionist roots ?

I'ver seen this sentenced dumped into a few articles

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s had its neoabolitionist roots in the failure of Reconstruction.

It seems POV to say the CRM had neoabolitionist roots - ambiguously suggesting there were no other roots. It also has little or no relationship to the rest of the article or at least would require unpacking to include it --JimWae 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How much of the Civil rights movement was a continuation of the abolitionist/neo-ab/NAACP agenda? quite a lot. There was a lot of emphasis on the linkage esp in the 100th anniversary of the war Rjensen 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

- it is a questionable, totally unnecessary, POV linkage whose meaning is not even clear --JimWae 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost comment

A summary has to summarize the main points of the article. It can NOT introduce new material or new theories. It should not deal with the aftermath or legacy of the war--but with the war itself. Much of the article deals with causes so that has to be included. Much of the article deals with the military history so that has to be included. Rjensen 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone BESIDES Rjensen think the current intro is ok?

current at time of my comment Revision as of 18:25, 5 April 2006
my attempted intro: Revision as of 18:04, 5 April 2006

I mean, there are two bold faced ACW's for heck's sake. So a well-considered intro is bad, but a written on the fly and not even proofread is superior? Am I all by myself here? Or are we back to "Rjensen's way or the highway"... BusterD 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not alone. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. This article must have a more professional tone. Tfine80 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the shorter intro myself although I'm nessecerly attached to the current text. MarcusGraly 23:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we received pretty clear guidance from the small peer review that we should have 3-4 paragraphs and that they should be a capsule description of the entire article. I'm now confused about what the "current intro" is, but I thought the one BusterD was working on was getting closer to the mark than the one that was there before. Hal Jespersen 23:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha. The one beginning "The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a total war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war between ..." That one's a mess. Hal Jespersen 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to be civil, and add well-considered content (for which I'd invited a few users to critique before I posted). I invite you to read my corrected intro, and help me make that writing better, if you think it better than what we've seen. I'm getting weary of needing rjensen's approval for every American History change I make. If this were a schoolyard, I would consider one user a schoolyard bully. BusterD 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the current version is a compromise so that we can hash out details here, but working just from this point forward: I'd like to see The Union won a decisive victory... as well as The causes of the war... expanded for the purposes of the introduction. How, where, when, why, who, these are the most important things. IMO the intro as is does not go into the reasons the rest of the article exists. Why make readers wait to see names like Lincoln, Lee, Grant, etc. and places like Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, etc. and their significance in the conflict? As it is right now, the only battles that you can click a link to without scrolling down are Gettysburg, Fort Hindman and Stones River: with the notable exception of Gettysburg of course, we've not exactly featured the turning points right up front. Also, we should incorporate the titles of the sections from the greater causes section. These are the most important aspects of the article and should be featured in some way in the intro. --Easter Monkey 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good. Aleph2.0 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavery ended with the Civil War?

The actual end of slavery was with ratification of the 13th amendment, not with the end of the Civil War. 69.118.97.26 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is reasonable to consider the end of slavery an outcome of the war. It's hard to imagine a situation in which the 13th Amendment could have passed without the war. -Will Beback 03:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By May of 1865 99% of slaves were free except a small number in Kentucky who were freed in December when the 13th Amdt went into effect.Rjensen 03:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nenack's assesment.--JohnFlaherty 04:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fredericksburg Picture

I believe the picture of the sunken road in front of Marye's heights is likely from the Battle of Fredericksburg (December 1862) NOT the battle of Chancellorsville. Chancellorsville is approximately 15 miles west of Fredericksburg. While there were some minor skirmishes in the town of Fredericksburg associated with the battle of Chancellorsville, I believe none of them took place at the sunken road, whereas the sunken road was the nexus of the battle of Fredericksburg. Also, note that the deciduous trees have no leaves in the picture. It was taken in the winter (December), not in June, when Chancellorsville was fought. If anyone else can confirm, the caption should be updated.

The Battle of Chancellorsville included an assault by Sedgwick's corps on Marye's Heights. The Library of Congress entry for this photo says it was taken May 3, 1863, so the caption is correct. Hal Jespersen 19:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Another consideration: The Union photographer (Russell) who took this could not have been behind the wall in December 62. Hal Jespersen 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Foreign diplomacy

I sort of think the "Foreign diplomacy" section is unnecessary for this article, and more properly belongs in the Confederate States of America article. It isn't really about the war. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Diplomacy was the Confederacy's best hope to win the war. Why it failed is an important part of the history of the war. Rjensen 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam cleanup

I cleaned up some spam in the into. Apperently, some one was bored and hates Wikipedia. Keep the wiki projects strong! (204.110.45.191 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

?

I'm sorry, I just don't see why a picture of a whipped slave should go on this page. I understand it, but isn't it just a little too in-depth?

The Ronin 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. I thought that was a little much. Graphic, you know? --Dark Fennec 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

? ?

The first paragraph is abstrucious. What a sodding mess.

Flame viper 12 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I had written something strong and concise about a month ago. Rjensen deleted it all, then stuck in much of the unreadable junk currently there. When anyone changes it, he mucks it up more. Despite the efforts of many, this article is still an embarrassment to Wikipedia. BusterD 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

put it back on the page for comparison. BusterD 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Buster, many of your statements in the intro are POV in my opinion. Romanticism? Napoleonic warfare? Military consensus? These are all disputed points. Tfine80 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we work on making my intro much better, instead of reverting to something less offensive. Aren't we trying to improve the page? Should we be trying something different? Do we have to use the short, boring, incomplete intro as a base? Just my opinion, but I can defend each statement (and have above). Does the intro to this article just have to suck? BusterD 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A new into should be worked out on this talk page. If the new intro by BusterD was had some POV elements they could have been dealt with on a case by case basis - I'm not certain a full-scale reversion was appropriate. -- No Guru 19:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote; I think this version the best:

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a bitter sectional conflict between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, formed of eleven southern states' governments which moved to secede from the Union after the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. While many on both sides believed the war would be resolved quickly by aggressive tactical military action, the unforseen rapid evolution of military science and the conflict's immense social, economic and human costs soon dashed the public's romantic notions of Napoleonic warfare. The North's victory was eventually achieved by leveraging advantages in population, manufacturing and logistics and through strategic naval blockade preventing the Confederacy from access to the world's markets.

In many ways the conflict's central issues (the role of federal government under the constitution, states' rights, treatment of African men and women) are not completely resolved; the Confederate Army's April 9, 1865 surrender at Appomattox did little to change many Americans' attitudes about threats posed by a powerful central government, the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth constitutional amendments in the years immediately after the war had little power to change attitudes of racial prejudice prevalent among Americans of the day, and the process of Reconstruction could not heal the deeply personal wounds inflicted by four brutal years of war and more than 970,000 casualties (3 percent of population), including approximately 560,000 deaths. As a result, controversies affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought. The causes of the war, the reasons for the outcome, and even the name of the war itself, are subjects of much controversy, even today.

BusterD 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good start on a replacement, although it is currently deficient enough that it will be reversion-bait if it is not improved here before being placed into the main article. I think the "public's romantic notions of Napoleonic warfare" is too obscure for many readers and we should have a goal that they don't have to follow a lot of links to understand the introduction (assuming that Napoleonic Wars actually says something relevant). Probably something like "public's expectation that the war would be ended by quick, decisive victories on the battlefield, without affecting the economy or their daily lives." My other criticism is that there should be at least an equal amount of text describing the war itself before introducing info about its aftermath and unresolved issues. (I am away from home for a few days and won't attempt to craft this text here yet.) Hal Jespersen 00:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not like the replacement at all. 1) Too much attention to postwar issues. 2) Nonsense about Napoleon has to go. 3) Not a good summary of main military, diplomatic political or economic forces at work; 4) too many links --the summary has to be self contained, and should have very few links. Rjensen 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, far too much about other things—not nearly enough about the war itself. Sounds like a master's class in Civil War history when all we need are the basics (Napoleonic?). Where are the major battles? When I look at other pages about wars that I know little about, I'm interested in the commander's names, what the battles are called, where they were fought, and what the outcome was. Some words about the cause, but that's why those main articles exist. Let's make this intro about the war itself, not about everything related or semi-related. Oh, and do we have to say "African men and women"? The term "slave" is certainly distasteful, and yes they were of African descent, but let's call them what they were, whether in the intro or not. --Easter Monkey 16:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a version for your consideration:

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a bitter sectional conflict between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. The latter formed of eleven southern states' governments that had moved to secede from the Union after the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. The causes of the war were many—the expansion of slavery into new States and territories, abolitionism, as well as States' rights are all often cited. Another cause has been seen as divergent nationalism—citizens of the southern States had traditionally seen themselves as citizens of their State first, and then U.S. citizens second. This led to differing interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Confederate President Jefferson Davis's goal was to form a separate nation, taking the original Constitution and Articles of Confederation and improving and building upon them, while protecting the identity of the State's themselves. The federal government was meant to be decentralized and not take precedence over the State governments. Whereas Lincoln and the Unionists never recognized that a State had the right to secede in the first place. As such Lincoln kept the various Federal forts located in the south open and it was a resupply mission of one of these that precipitated the actual fighting. Emancipation was not an immediate goal for the Union at the outset of the conflict, but rather something that became a rallying cry later in the war.

The war itself began when Confederate forces fired on the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter in South Carolina in the spring of 1861. In fact the war had two major theaters—in the east Joseph E. Johnston, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and James Longstreet fought a succession of Union commanders, including George McClellan, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, Joseph Hooker, George Meade, and finally U.S. Grant at places such as Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg. While in the west Union commanders such as Grant, William T. Sherman, George Thomas, Henry Halleck, Don Carlos Buell, and others faced off against P.G.T. Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, Braxton Bragg, Nathan Bedford Forrest, among others in battles such as Shiloh, Vicksburg, and many others.

After four years of land warfare, blockades of Southern ports, and the failure of King Cotton and cotton diplomacy to prove decisive or induce Europe to intervene, the conflict finally came to an end when Grant forced Lee to surrender at Appomattox Court House. What followed has come to be known as "Reconstruction." The origins of the war, the reasons for the outcome, and even the name of the war itself, are subjects of much controversy, even today.

That was very quickly written, but includes much of what I would think would belong. Of course, as you know, it's way over-simplified, i.e. it doesn't take into account movement of commanders from eastern to western and vice versa (J.E. Johnston, Grant, Beauragard, etc.) It would need cleaned up, I'm certainly open to suggestions, but it is mostly just about the subject of the article—the war itself. --Easter Monkey 07:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's get slavery, abolition, states rights and divergent nationalism in there as a cause of war; include war goals of independence (CSA), unification & emancipation (USA). Mention blockade & economic warfare. Rjensen 10:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reposting, I've made edits directly to the above. The first paragraph got away from me a bit though. Comments? --Easter Monkey 15:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No other comments? I'll give it another day or so before replacing. --Easter Monkey 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Try this version: Rjensen 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a bitter war between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, comprising states that tried to secede from the Union in 1860-61. The causes of the war involved the morality of slavery, the threat posed by the Slave Power, and the rights of the states to establish slavery. At a deeper level North and South had grown apart on many issues, as the North modernized and built an economy around free labor and the South was built around large slave plantations growing cotton, tobacco and sugar. The federal government refused to recognize any right of secession and tried to hold the two forts in the Confederacy it still controlled, when Confederates fired on and captured Ft Sumter. Both sides mobilized in what became a total war for the South, and almost one for the North. The Confederacy’s sole goal was to secure independence. It hoped the loss of cotton would bring Britain into the war, but that did not happen. while imposing a blockade that shut down all commercial shipping in the South. Lincoln’s strategy was to blockade the South (done in 1861), seize the border states (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia, done in 1861, seize New Orleans (1862), the Tennessee and Cuimberland Rivers (1862), and the Mississippi (1863) and capture the Confederate capital of Richmond. The last goal was blocked by the brilliant maneuvers of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson who filed a whole series of Union commanders in the East. In 1862 Lincoln expanded the war goals by announcing the goal of freeing all the Confederate-owned slaves by the Emancipation Proclamation . Although Lee won famous victories at Fredericksburg, (1862) and Chancellorsville, (1863) his invasion of the north was decisively defeated at Gettysburg. (1863). [to be continued]

Military intro

Without getting into all of the political and social issues, here is my take on a military description of the war for the introductory section. It is a little long, but we know from previous review comments regarding featured article status that a major article of this length should have an introduction of at least four paragraphs. Perhaps this text can be integrated into a more complete introduction that includes the other issues.

The Civil War has been called the "first modern war", in which a host of technological advances (rifled muskets, ironclad ships, railroads, telegraphy, etc.) changed the tactical and strategic thinking of 19th Century soldiers, and it was one of the first large-scale wars in which entire societies and their economies did battle alongside their field armies and navies. The North had enormous manpower and industrial advantages over the South, although the early days of the war made it seem as if the military prowess of the Southern soldiers could offset this advantage. Military action began in April 1861 with the bombardment and surrender of the Federal installation at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. The first year of the war was characterized by the combatants scrambling to assemble armies and navies; the United States Army had only 16,000 officers and men at the start of the war and the vast majority of combatants on both sides were to be enlistees (and eventually draftees) provided by the states. The First Battle of Bull Run demonstrated that quick battlefield victories would not end the war. But as the major armies assembled and a rudimentary naval blockade of Southern ports began, the emphasis in 1861 was on retaining the border states in the Union. Through military reverses and political missteps, both of the crucial states of Missouri and Kentucky were denied to the Confederacy.

Beginning in 1862, the land war proceeded as essentially separate actions in two major theaters: Eastern and Western. (The Trans-Mississippi and Gulf Coast theaters also saw action during the war, but they were dwarfed by the two major theaters.) The Eastern theater, comprising Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the seaports of the Atlantic Coast, had by far the most attention due to its proximity to the opposing capitals, the major cities, and their newspapers. The Northern efforts in this theater consisted primarily of attempts to capture the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia; the Southern forces resisted these invasions, but also attempted to carry the war into the North, hoping to affect public opinion and bring the war to a political end. President Lincoln appointed a series of generals to command his Eastern armies, but almost all were disappointments, militarily and sometimes politically. Major General George B. McClellan organized the Army of the Potomac efficiently, but failed to capture Richmond in the 1862 Peninsula Campaign, beaten back by General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia. Confederate Maj. Gen. Stonewall Jackson tied up three Union armies in his brilliant Valley Campaign. John Pope was humiliated by Lee at the Second Battle of Bull Run. Lee launched his first invasion of the North and was checked by McClellan at the Battle of Antietam in Maryland, a tactical draw (and the bloodiest single day in American military history), but the springboard for Lincoln's announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lee went on to defeat Ambrose Burnside decisively at Fredericksburg and Joseph Hooker at Chancellorsville. Lee's winning streak was ended at the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, his army defeated, but not destroyed, by George G. Meade.

The Western Theater, comprising the states between the Allegheny Mountains and the Mississippi River, was arguably more important militarily to the defeat of the Confederacy than the battle against Lee. Wide swaths of territory and economically important river systems were seized by methodical invasions, which the thinly stretched Confederate forces could not counter. Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant began 1862 with his capture of Forts Henry and Donelson on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers, causing the abandonment of Nashville. Confederate forces then concentrated under the command of Albert Sidney Johnston and they nearly defeated Grant at the Battle of Shiloh. Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg invaded Kentucky, but was checked at the Battle of Perryville by Don Carlos Buell. William S. Rosecrans fought Bragg to a bloody stalemate at Stones River in Tennessee. Meanwhile, Union armies and U.S. Navy gunboats methodically seized control of most of the Mississippi River, including New Orleans. In the summer of 1863, Grant successfully executed his brilliant Vicksburg Campaign, opening the river to Union control, and splitting the Confederacy in two. The surrender of Vicksburg, Mississippi, occurred on July 4, 1863, one day after Lee's defeat at Gettysburg. That fall, Rosecrans seized Middle Tennessee, but was defeated decisively by Bragg at Chickamauga and retreated to Chattanooga. Grant was given command of all the armies in the Western theater and routed Bragg at Chattanooga.

In 1864, the Union naval blockade became a stranglehold on Southern commerce and Union strategies in the two major theaters began to be coordinated. Ulysses S. Grant was promoted to lieutenant general and general in chief of all the Union armies. Grant launched the Overland Campaign against Lee in Virginia while William T. Sherman moved from Chattanooga in his Atlanta Campaign. Grant's campaign was a war of attrition that began in May 1864 and kept pressure on Lee almost daily until the end of the war, causing enormous casualties on both sides in battles such as the Wilderness and Cold Harbor. However, Grant and Lincoln understood that the North could afford to replenish lost men and equipment and the South could not. The campaign of battle and maneuver settled in to a siege of Petersburg, Virginia, that bottled up Lee's army all winter. By this time in the war, both armies had realized the importance of fortifications and their vast arrays of entrenchments foreshadowed the tactics of World War I. Sherman defeated General Joseph E. Johnston and John Bell Hood to capture Atlanta, directly promoting the reelection of Abraham Lincoln that November. His army continued to the southeast and captured Savannah, Georgia, a march to the sea that laid waste to the economic infrastructure of a wide portion of Georgia. (Meanwhile, Union Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan was accomplishing similar destruction in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.) Sherman turned north through the Carolinas with the intent of linking up to Grant's army and defeating Robert E. Lee, but Lee abandoned his entrenchments at Petersburg and was pursued by Grant to his surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. Johnston surrendered to Sherman in North Carolina that same month and the war was effectively over.

Hal Jespersen 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive! I defer to this version, though I suspect you've ruffled a few personal feathers with the regulars. I'd like to add my legacy paragraph onto the end, but the tide's against me. I offically vote for Hal's version. BusterD 01:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice job: here's a much shorter version:

The North had enormous manpower and industrial advantages over the South, although the early days of the war made it seem as if the military prowess of the Southern soldiers could offset this advantage. Military action began in April 1861 with the attack on Fort Sumter. Both North and South immediately rallied to the flag. The first year of the war was characterized by the combatants scrambling to assemble voluntary armies. Lincoln's strategy was to ruin the Southern economy by blockading all commercial shipping. Only special blockade runners operated by British sailors got through. The First Battle of Bull Run demonstrated that quick battlefield victories would not end the war. The Union succeeded in 1861 in retaining all the border states.

Beginning in 1862, the land war proceeded as essentially separate actions in two major theaters: Eastern and Western. The Union goal in the East was to capture the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia; Robert E. Lee brilliantly defended every attack. Major General George B. McClellan organized the Army of the Potomac efficiently, but failed to capture Richmond in the 1862 Peninsula Campaign. Confederate Maj. Gen. Stonewall Jackson won fame for his brilliant maneuvers in the Valley Campaign. Lee tried to undermine Union morale by invading the North. His first effort was beaten back at the Battle of Antietam. Lincoln thereupon announced the Emancipation Proclamation, whereby all slaves owned inside the Confederacy were to be freed by advancing Union armies. This was a new war goal that was angrily rejected by most Democrats (called [[Copperheads), although Lincoln did retain the support of most [{War Democrats]]. . Lee went on to defeat Ambrose Burnside decisively at Fredericksburg and Joseph Hooker at Chancellorsville. Lee invaded Pennsylvania in June 1863, a disastrous mistake as he was defeated at the largest and bloodiest battle at Battle of Gettysburg, and almost captured.

In the Western Theater the Confederacy had no general of the caliber of Lee, but the Union had Ulysses S. Grant. In early 1862, with cooperation of the Union Navy, he seized control of two of the three most important river systems. Grant held off a furious attack at the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862, the largest and bloodiest battle of the war to date. Meanwhile, Union armies and U.S. Navy gunboats methodically seized control of most of the Mississippi River, capturing the largest Confederate city New Orleans. In the summer of 1863, Grant successfully executed his brilliant Vicksburg Campaign, opening the river to Union control, and splitting the Confederacy in two. After rescuing the city of Chattanooga from siege, Grant was brought to Washington as the commander of all Union armies.

Meanwhile the long-term advantages of the much larger and more industrialized Union were beginning to tell. Thousands of factories produced war goods, and a totally reinvented financial system created thousands of national banks that made the war highly profitable for the North. The Southern economy crumbled. Without ocean or river transport, the South had to rely on a small railway system that virtually collapsed. Cotton production was useless so plantations shifted to food production, yet it was harder and harder to move foodstuffs to the cities or to the armies. Riots broke out in Richmond because the stores were empty. The Confederacy tried to build a munitions industry, but lacked the engineering expertise, raw materials, machine tools, financial support and transportation system it required. Confederate armies got some supplies through the blockade runners, but by 1864 most of those were captured. Dissent grew in both Union and Confederacy, but the Union had a stronger political system, and a stronger will to victory. Desertions by 1864 became a major problem for the Confederacy.

In the East in 1864 Grant launched the Overland Campaign against Lee in order to grind down Lee’s army. Defeats such as Wilderness and Cold Harbor did not matter--Grant destroyed Lee's army by attrition, while Lincoln replaced Grant's enormous losses. Heavily outnumbered Lee resorted to trench warfare to defend Richmond and nearby Petersburg in fall 1864. Meanwhile Sherman captured Atlanta and began his March to the Sea. Sherman did not fight any major battles on the March, but by devastating Georgia shattered Confederate morale--they knew they could never win. Still the battle-hardened Confederate armies fought on. In December 1864 Hood's army tried to invade Tennessee but was annihilated at Nashville. As spring arrived Sherman marched north through the Carolinas. Lee's forces, decimated by desertion, had to evacuate Richmond and soon surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. Rjensen 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if one overlooks the sloppy punctuation and bloopers like "Lee was almost captured at Gettysburg", it is not terribly different, with a significant exception—I included more Western details and names of generals there, whereas you focused more on Grant and Lee. (I admit I deliberately omitted Franklin-Nashville, which is an interesting campaign, but sort of a sideshow at that point in the war.) So that is a general discussion topic: should the Western Theater have equal footing with the Eastern in the intro? If we decided to go with your version, I would have to do a lot of editing to correct things, so I'd prefer to hear comments from others first. Hal Jespersen 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Lookout Mountain Picture

Minor complaint about the Peace Monument picture at the end. It's at Chickamauga Battlefield. Lookout Mountain Battlefield has a couple of cannons, but no statues. 146.7.214.100 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)M. Howell

Nope, it's at Point Park, atop Lookout Mountain. See [5]. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Medicine

For the External Links section, it might be useful to add links to the two manuals of military surgery (1861 and 1863) recently made available online at 1861 S.D. Gross version used by the Union Army and 1863 version used by the Confederate States Army A Koopman 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)A Koopman

Comment from 67.182.233.137

This comment was originally posted to the main article page: Please. Will someone include Civil War "ideas"? That would be helpful! I am sorry that I had to edit the article to put this in; I just can't really do it any other way. Please feel free to delete my comment.

Flags

Like battles of other wars all the battles that took place during this war should have the flag of the country next to the name. see battle of gettysburg(Griffjam 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Suggest we create second talk archive

I suggest talk has gotten long, and there's a clear break of discussion above 6 June. Archive might end at this point, keeping the fresh discussion for the new talk. BusterD 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)