Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/1

American Civil War

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No action. Please resolve content issues on the article talk page, then reopen a GAR if necessary. Geometry guy 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Notification of intention to close. This is turning into a meandering content dispute and unless I see some signs that editors are addressing failings of this article concisely with respect to the good article criteria, I intend to close this reassessment in the next 24 hours. GAR cannot resolve content disputes. Geometry guy 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see this is a Lost Cause of a GAR discussion :) Majoreditor (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

why doesn't the notice of reassessment appear at the top of the talk page, near the part that denotes the article as a Good Article?Cedwyn (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

It is there, just not very well placed. I've moved it. Geometry guy 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who is the ultimate arbiter of such questions, anyhoo? Is there a panel or something? I'm also wondering about article discussion protocols; on the Lincoln talk page, somebody deleted an ongoing, unresolved discussion. I reinstated it (thank god for cache!) but I am wondering what the standard process is. Thanks!Cedwyn (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Anyone with experience of interpreting the good article criteria can close a reassessment and act on the consensus of the reassessment discussion. There are guidelines on doing it at the top of the reassessment page. In practice, it is often me.

As for talk page etiquette, discussions should not be removed until they are resolved, and even then they should be moved to "archive" pages. See WP:TALK. Geometry guy 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks! i'll keep my suspicions as to who it was to myself for now. heh. so, should i have started an individual reassessment? i really wasn't sure. and what do you think of the examples i've cited so far?

thanks for the feedback.

Cedwyn (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

In the case of a neutrality dispute, individual reassessment is not a good idea. Content issues should be resolved on the article talk page. Community GAR can be used to address failings with respect to the good article criteria (including criterion 4), but it is not the best forum for mediation: try WP:RFC. Geometry guy 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks. i did a request for comment. i noticed the article has retained its Good Article status?

Cedwyn (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Hi

I nominated the article to be reassessed as a Good Article because I feel it has some weaknesses with regards to neutrality. Namely, it should not have "Slavery" listed as the only cause of the war, when secession was the more immediate driver.

Here's another example that violates neutrality requirements for the assessment:

(I just realized I've got my discussions confused and this passage is in the Abe Lincoln article, not ACW. mea culpa. the ACW article could do a better job of explaining that the Emancipation Proclamation explicitly left slavery intact in some territories, though.)

I also question the representation in this passage:

Lincoln had already published a letter[100] encouraging the border states especially to accept emancipation as necessary to save the Union. Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[101] Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

I've included its context to highlight what a complete non-sequitur the bolded statement is. additionally, the actual context of the Lincoln quote is from his second inaugural address:

These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow the cause of the war.

beyond the difference between "slavery" (as attributed) and the "powerful interest" constituted by slaves, here is the definition of "somehow":

Main Entry: some·how Pronunciation: \ˈsəm-ˌhau̇\ Function: adverb Date: 1664

in one way or another not known or designated : by some means <we'll manage somehow>

i.e., even that statement from Lincoln casts slavery as peripheral.

67.171.145.192 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

just 'cuz we're here: the link for reference #27 is dead.67.171.145.192 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

this passage is also inaccurate/non-neutral:

Alexander Stephens said that slavery was "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"

from the speech:

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery�subordination to the superior race�is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

...The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"�the real "corner-stone"�in our new edifice.

he is not saying that slavery is the cornerstone of the confederacy. the cornerstone he refers to is the idea that it is the negro's place under God's plan to be inferior to the white man. the result of this divine inferiority is that slavery is a natural condition. but slavery is not the cornerstone here; the cornerstone is the idea that the races are not equal. the error he mentions others making is assuming equality of the races, i.e., not questions of slavery vs. emancipation.

in fact, that whole paragraph is of questionable neutrality.

67.171.145.192 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

this assertion regarding the 1828 tariff is decidedly non-neutral/inaccurate:

"the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846,[14] and even the tariff issue was related to slavery[15])"

A) what does the italicized portion even mean? is it supposed to say "lowered" or something? does the fact that tariffs were higher in '46 somehow nullify the opposition to the '28 tax? i don't understand why that passage is there.

B) the conclusion in the bolded portion is not supported by its citation. the tariff of 1828 itself says nothing about slavery.

John Calhoun's Exposition and Protest (direct response to the 1828 tariff) doesn't even contain the word "slavery."

The source referenced (#15) for the claim that "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" quotes a John C. Calhoun statement from 1930, two years after the tariff of 1828 and Calhoun's Exposition:

I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things.

Calhoun introduces 3 ideas here:

there exists a present unhappy state

there exists an occasion (marker) of present unhappy state

there also exists a separate, "real cause" of present unhappy state

Reading the rest of his quote, it breaks down like this:

present unhappy state = north/south tensions, trajectory towards dissolution

occasion (marker) of present unhappy state = the 1828 tariff

real cause of present unhappy state = the southern states' agrarian economy threatened by their minority status re: congressional representation

This is not a Calhoun declaration that the tariff issue is all about slavery. The South perceived this tax as bullying by the abolitionist north and a breach of trust by the federal government - they felt that sides were being taken and that their interests (most of the tariff did hit them disproportionately) were not being represented. Calhoun's main point is that the tariff favored the north and its industry at the expense of the South and its farming. The only mention of slavery is tangential:

the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry

i.e., slavery and the fact that the south evolved an agrarian economy with it

has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union

i.e., the southern states are an outnumbered minority as far as economic interests being represented on congressional matters, e.g. tariffs

All he said about slavery in this passage, basically, was that they're in the minority for supporting it. The bigger concern was that the South's minority status in congress made them vulnerable to the whims of the other states regarding a variety of issues, including slavery, tariffs, etc.

In a nutshell, he more or less ranted about tyranny of the majority - that the South (and her agrarian economy) would be forever outnumbered in Congress and would be powerless to stop whatever tariffs and all else the majority states felt like passing. He was NOT saying that slavery was some "real cause" of the tariff dispute, or whatever "even the tariff issue was related to slavery" is supposed to impute.

peace

67.171.145.192 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

::The Emancipation Proclamation, announced on September 22, 1862 and put into effect on January 1, 1863, freed slaves in territories not already under Union control.

in letter, it's accurate enough, but not in spirit. for the article to maintain a neutral POV, it should explain that the EP retained slavery in some territories under Union control. there were explicit exceptions for loyal border states and union-controlled parts of the Confederacy.

It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free a single slave, it fundamentally transformed the character of the war.

the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves and the article doesn't quite make that clear. the reader is allowed to assume that the EP effectively ended slavery on the spot, which is not the case.

there's also heaps of neutrality discussion on the article talk page under "opinion." peace

67.171.145.192 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

This article does not meet the neutrality guidelines, as evidenced by the current discussion ongoing about the page.

• Keep - Is this about the article's discussion page, or the article itself?Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to guess what this is about. The last discussion page comment was very long and ends as follows:

"lincoln did not withdraw federal troops or the flag, so SC fired on it.[3] Nothing to do with slavery there - it was a response to the U.S. federal presence on SC's sovereign land."

98.232.243.146 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Two problems here.

1) It is a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to say either that South Carolina was "sovereign" (the South's point of view) or to say that South Carolina was part of the United States (the North's point of view).

2) As to the "nothing to do with slavery" remark, both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis said a great deal about slavery before the war. They downplayed the slavery issue when the war began because, as historian James Ford Rhodes explained (History of the Civil War, 1861–1865, page 49), Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union, and Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular.

The long version of the comment was basically a Lost Cause version of the war, which is not a good reason for this review.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

a) i started this page because i thought i was flagging the article as questioned neutrality. if i've gone about that wrong, please halp. the site is kinda confusing like that.

b) when i said "nothing about slavery there," i meant that firing on ft. sumter itself had nothing to do with slavery. that resulted from SC's declared sovereignness and the presence of federal troops. i.e., they did not fire on ft. sumter over anything to do with slavery.

c) if "SC was sovereign" violates neutrality on the basis of being SC's POV, then the idea that slavery was the only and ultimate cause of the war is also in violation of neutrality, because that's somebody's POV, but not Lincoln's or the Confederacy's. Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union; the South fought for the right to secede. It was NOT about slavery, even though slavery influenced secession. there's a quantum leap difference to jump from there to "the civil war was entirely about slavery." From the famous letter to Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

To list only slavery under causes of the civil war is woefully inaccurate and flies in the face of the known thoughts of both sides' leaders. Neither side believed slavery, one way or the other, was their cause. again, the Ft. Sumter example - they didn't fire on the fort for any question having to do with slavery. they fired on it because they perceived themselves to be sovereign and it was an unwelcome federal presence.

to dismiss all the questions about states' rights and the banking laws and tariffs the South felt disadvantaged them is not an honest reckoning of events.

yes; lincoln spoke at length about slavery and personally opposed it. but he only ever spoke against its expansion. he didn't think it could easily be eliminated and also didn't think he had the authority to abolish it. and if his goal was abolition, why did the emancipation proclamation only apply to the southern states? slavery was left intact in the border states. if he was willing to sacrifice abolition for political ends (e.g., france, britain and border-state support), it really couldn't have been his primary goal - that would be the political ends for which he sacrificed abolition. the EP was introduced, largely for the reasons you state - he thought it would enlist the support of france and britain and swell the union ranks with freed slaves. but its goal wasn't abolition for abolition's sake, as evidenced by its exceptions.

peace 98.232.243.146 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

It's true that Fort Sumter was not fired upon because of slavery. Secession was the issue. But what caused secession? What the best historians have to say is the same thing you see by reading through documents written by the secessionists themselves. It's easier to find secessionist complaints about slavery that omit the states' rights issue than to find secessionist complaints about states' rights that omit the slavery issue. See Causes of the Civil War for details. Read the article FAQ for more details. And the best historians do like to point out many inconsistencies with Lost Cause descriptions of causes.

As to the comment "the idea that slavery was the only and ultimate cause of the war is also in violation of neutrality, because that's somebody's POV, but not Lincoln's or the Confederacy's", while the article doesn't mention an only and ultimate cause, Lincoln did say (in his Second Inaugural Address) that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war." Davis led the Southern fight for alleged Southern rights to slavery in the territories in the years leading up to the war.

On the discussion page you added, 'what the South realized was that the "gradual emancipation" in prohibiting slavery's expansion to new states would leave them woefully outnumbered in Congressional debates regarding slavery and that they would then be economically vulnerable to tyranny of the eventual non-slave majority.' That is pretty much the sentiment expressed by a number of secessionists, although many of them put the matter in more forceful words than that. So we agree pretty much on why they seceded.

Also, the article does mention the influence of Thomas Jefferson's ideas on both sides (not just the South) and does mention the biggest tariff dispute, although that happened three decades before the war.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. The way to handle neutrality issue 1) is to qualify the remark so that it is clear whose point of view is being reported, and that Wikipedia is not asserting it. My first impression of the article is that it is very good, but there are some statements in the later stages of the article that need citation. An example is "However, Lincoln was angry that Meade failed to intercept Lee's retreat, and after Meade's inconclusive Fall campaign, Lincoln decided to turn to the Western Theater for new leadership." Geometry guy 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't think the above is a good example of a statement which absolutely requires citation, Geometry guy. The statement is not likely to be challenged and it's far from counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, it's best if editors err on the side of including citations. Majoreditor (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But the article does "mention an only and ultimate cause":

Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

1.1 Slavery

2 Secession begins

"Slavery" is the only entry under "Causes of the War." But the war was fought over secession, regardless of what motivated secession. The South engaged at Ft. Sumter because they perceived their sovereignity was threatened (secession not recognized - something Lincoln had asserted) by the federal presence and Lincoln responded in kind to preserve the union.

I've made heaps of other comments at the discussion page itself that address some of the other points you raised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War

yes; in his second inaugural address, Lincoln did state that "These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war"

Main Entry: some·how Pronunciation: \ˈsəm-ˌhau̇\ Function: adverb Date: 1664

in one way or another not known or designated : by some means <we'll manage somehow>

even that statement from Lincoln casts slavery as peripheral.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

So we agree pretty much on why they seceded.

slavery was absolutely a huge factor behind secession, but not for its own sake and it wasn't the only factor. the monied interests in the South clung to slavery because their livelihoods depended upon it; it was a means to their monetary ends. so anticipation of ever fewer slave states influencing policy in washington directly threatened their South's economic interests, to their thinking. and by the time the civil war actually broke out, south carolina had felt for decades that they (and the south) were not getting a fair deal by the federal government. the lengthy backdrop of tariff disputes cannot be discounted as an influence on secession. it's not like SC woke up one day in 1860 and explored the idea for the first time; they had discussed it since the '30s, notably in response to the nullification crisis.

anyhoo, the concerns of the South (at least those for whom slavery was paramount - several of the states didn't secede until the fighting started) were not slavery itself, but what the institution of slavery afforded them; the perceived attempts to shackle (no pun intended) their economy; and what they felt was a breach of the federal government's constitutional duties to states. to the southern slave-owners' mind, slavery was the fulcrum point the north could manipulate to its industrial advantage over the South's agrarian economy; this perception played a huge part in their defense of it - they wanted to maintain king cotton and felt the north/feds were biased against them.

peace

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn