Talk:American Civil War/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Request to add an external link to EDSITEment's Civil War Feature and listing of lessons

Hello

I am requesting that the editor or administrator of this article add a link to EDSITEment's feature on the American Civil War and our index of lessons.

For over a decade, the National Endowment for the Humanties through its EDSITEment program has developed lesson plans, student interactives and vetted websites for K-12 teachers. Our lessons are based on primary sources, and use reliable internet resources. Last year, the American Library Associations picked us as one of 25 best websites for teaching and learning. Here is our feature http://edsitement.neh.gov/american-civil-war and here is our index http://edsitement.neh.gov/edsitement-lessons-slavery-crisis-union-civil-war-and-reconstruction

Please take a look and if you are happy please add us to your external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelcaprice (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The FAQ...stinks

Ok, so I get that Wikipedia wants to be politically correct. The Lost Cause is a view of the Civil War which has fallacies obviously, but so is the idea that "it was all about slavery." Many of us from the South feel that our viewpoint is not as accurately portrayed, because as the general rule goes, the "victors write the history." Can we atleast have a section that is titled: differing views of causes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the American Civil War. As such, we discuss the actual causes, as documented by reliable sources. Slavery was the most important cause of the War. There were other minor issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights. We discuss them as minor issues. Well after the fact, a number of people decided the War was actually about (in whole or in part) the "virtues of Southern nobility", states rights and Northern cultural and economic aggressions. They also decided that, come to think of it, slavery was a good thing. We present this post hoc argument in a separate, subordinate article, Lost Cause of the Confederacy. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SummerPhd. I was raised in the South, and could tell you some things about that region.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the North and I agree that slavery was not the main cause. According to the Constitution, the States were souvreign and the Federal gov't was not. The Civil War took that away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.27.56 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say. Where you are from, what you feel the main cause was (which you don't actually say) and your interpretation of the Constitution have no relevance to this discussion. The best historians agree that slavery was the most important cause of the war. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

---do you have any objective basis for separating the "best" historians from the others? The best ones I know support the idea that northern industrial labor demand outstripped the financial interests of the southern plantation economy, leading to a need to "relocate" slave labor northward. Most abolitionists weres till racist, just apposed to slavery per se. Anyway, sentences like "Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal" are plainly false, as the emancipation proclamation was literally an offer to PERMIT slavery if the confederacy rejoined the union. The Goal of that proclamation was to end hostilities and secession, and slavery was a bargaining chip (lincoln did campaign in favor of slavery). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Which specific historians say that "lincoln did campaign in favor of slavery"??Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow could we please discuss the issue instead of insulting the culture of the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derk Mcgerk (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a lie. The Civil War was very much impossible without the existence of slavery. The tariff could not have provoked a civil war on its own, as the South Carolinians found out in the 1830s. The issue of states' rights also takes on severely misleading tones when one realizes that for most of the 1850s the South ran roughshod over Northern personal liberty laws. Their claims of states' rights ring hollow after an entire decade of forcing on the North laws that the Notherners themselves vehemently objectied tpo. Battrarules 12:46, 12 August 2010. >>>So much to address so little time.>>>>>>Slavery was the most important cause of the War. There were other minor issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights. Now this simply manages to miss the point.People in the North of the country did own slaves as well. And anyone who has taken more than middle school history can tell you a war is never as transparent as one cause. The fact remains that the region felt threatened by alot more than slaves being taken away. Simplfying the cause of the war allows people to wrap it up easily with a bow.Its not quite that simple though.The way wikipedia portrays this issue is simple and short sighted >>> The Civil War was very much impossible without the existence of slavery.....I disagree and this is something usally wiki allows for.The fact remains that there are plently of articles on here that show mutiple viewpoints why cant this one? Its foolish that there is no place for breaking down the viewpoints that could be at fault.Sure the article points out other things as minor points but this thing reeks of being written by a high school history buff.Everyone who has picked up a book about the civil war era or any other war era knows that alot goes into it because no war is simple.All we ask wiki is to make an article that represents all the possiablighties not a northern centric and frankly racist perspective.Rember all americans where wrong to participate in the war not just the south.Wikimakesmart (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously slavery was a very major issue, but it certainly was not the only issue. There were other major issues. The majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, and the majority of Union soldiers did not really care about the institution. We are told by 'reliable' sources that the Union was 100 percent right because they were raised in a culture that glorifies that side. That does not make them 'reliable.' The only 'reliable' historians I would trust on this issue would be non Americans. They wouldn't have a regional bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Slavery was the most important cause of the ACW. There are other minor issues. There is a difference between "the victors write the history" and "surviving vanquished disclaim their earlier writings and attempt to re-write history". The first is a reasonable gripe about the historical process, the latter is a lost cause. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing a school project on this and thank you for everyone who disagreed with me on this. You are going to be my example that this viewpoint of the war is shoved down peoples' throats (the idea that the north was completely in the right). Thank you summerphd for giving us the answers you probably got from a textbook! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You started this topic in July. Now, well after the fact, you dismiss it as a "school project". A modern lost cause. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No I have personal interest in the Civil War but I am definitely quoting this to show belligerent and controlling viewpoints —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There could be a social explanation for the War. Not one President prior to the War and at the very beginning of the War challenged to end slavery, not even President Lincoln. Not one party proposed to abolish slavery. It was only after the War began that slavery was challenged. The nations were becoming separated by their own values. One set of values said blacks were inferior and they were born to be slaves. Another set of values said blacks were humans and deserved to be free from bondage. The United States was united in name only. Although the United States today is not devided over slavery, the race issue has never fully been resolved. Coupled with these opposing values America was a militaristic society. Both north and south strongly supported the militia stemming from the heritage of the Revolutionary era. These divergent social characteristics could only be settled by battles, armies, and navies, rather then political discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken...slavery was indeed an issue (and a big one at that) but the war was fought for a variety of reasons...as stated in the article.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 02:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To point something out, the FAQ section looked like this until I made this edit. The article did not give any weight at all to other issues which we all know helped to contribute to the war; yet no one here did anything to add them in. Those who wrote the majority of this article are in fact biased towards the Union and tend to downplay the other issues and uplift slavery as the "real" cause. To put it simply, I do not trust a large portion of this article more than I could throw it. The fact that Rjensen compares one editor to a "neo-confederate" is just further evidence that his editing patterns (among others) is that of a severe pro-Union bias. We are members of Wikipedia, supposedly a neutral content website but this article is just evidence to the contrary. I see this all the time, the Iraq War article, this article, the fact that there is a WikiProject Obama, even the neoconservative article, all offer proof that Wikipedia indeed does have a pro-liberal bias.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 02:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I must compliment those who have worked on this page since I last read it a year ago. To me a year ago this articles neutrality was highly Questionable. I commend the effort on the part of those who have worked on it since then. I do still hold the FAQ in contempt largely on the lack of source provided in it but having a FAQ I see can be beneficial to a number of individuals.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me put this to rest. Look at the secession documents:

• "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

- Second sentence of the Georgia secession document

• "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

- Second sentence of the Mississippi secession document

• "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas'] limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which [Texas'] people intended should exist in all future time."

- Texas secession document

• "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of [the General Government's] obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution... Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

- South Carolina secession document
There you have it, in writing. I completely understand the shame felt in the South over its social history, but attempts to mischaracterize it are revisionist.66.134.4.226 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The nullification crisis and it's results and the relation to secession.

Should this information be included? Before the nullification crisis the nullification's theory was a persuasive view. According to nullification's theory, only such a convention embodies the sovereign people of the state and therefore has the power to set limits on government. South Carolina used the nullification's theory to nullify the Tariff's of 1828 and 1832. Andrew Jackson in the “Proclamation on the Tariff of 1832” said of nullification that it was, "incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." He amounted such nullification to disunion saying, "Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent [the execution of the laws] deceived you; they could not have been deceived themselves... Their object is disunion. But be not deceived by names. Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the Government of your country... I adjure you ... to retrace your steps."

South Carolina was of course the first state to secede. Jackson's actions lead South Carolina (and perhaps numerous others who joined the Confederacy) to believe that disunion would be the only way to escape and federal authority that they disagreed with and with Jackson's words they found there would be little hope for peaceful disunion.

Charles Edward Cauthen said, "Probably to a greater extent than in any other Southern state South Carolina had been prepared by her leaders over a period of thirty years for the issues of 1860. Indoctrination in the principles of state sovereignty, education in the necessity of maintaining Southern institutions, warnings of the dangers of control of the federal government by a section hostile to its interests – in a word, the education of the masses in the principles and necessity of secession under certain circumstances – had been carried on with a skill and success hardly inferior to the masterly propaganda of the abolitionists themselves. It was this education, this propaganda, by South Carolina leaders which made secession the almost spontaneous movement that it was." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

who says it was a persuasive view at any time? check the article on Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions --no state agreed with Kty & Va and 10 disagreed. Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Any specific "Southern institutions?" If so, which one(s)?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, any specific "interests?"Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Charles Edward Cauthen, “More important than the tariff in nourishing sectionalism, states’ rights and disunion was defending a labor system which under the rise of cotton culture came to be regarded as essential to the economic well-being of the state.”Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Jensen different states agreed with the principle when it affected them. Northern states were all for it when it came to the fugitive slave act. They were as fickle with this as they were with the principles of states rights. If it helped further their views or at least their rights as states then it had their backing. Until Jackson there was only barking. He's the one that showed his teeth and put that baby to rest. Some of the states that disagreed with the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions later found the principles more like able later on. The current laws written in a number of states nullifying the insurance mandate of Obamacare bare a striking resemblance to the principles of nullification.

Mr Muldrow I feel the interests that Cauthen was suggesting were quite obvious. It seems more than obvious that he was suggesting that interest was slavery. If you remove the bias and look at it you will see he also mentions something about them having 30 years of preparation for 1860. What happened 30 years before 1860? The nullification crisis. What was the nullification crisis about? Slavery? No. What did it do? It took the option of nullification off the table and made it clear that the federal government has the authority and power to enforce federal law by force. South Carolina in "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" clearly pointed out they felt Lincoln was making a move to outlaw slavery. Without nullification secession was the only option they had. I so miss the reason why you feel the need to politicize this. I don't recall myself suggesting slavery was an issue that lead to war. I just merely suggested that the "nullification crisis" lead SC to secede as opposed to finding another option. South Carolina was the first and the other 6 followed them quickly after.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In 1860 there was no specific law to nullify. The South knew that Lincoln was anti-slavery, and opposed its expansion. To them, that was enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there was a law to nullify or not. It's more than clear that South Carolina felt Lincoln and the Republican were going to outlaw slavery. It also seems clear that South Carolina felt that other states were allowed to nullify the "fugitive slave act" and Article 4 of the constitution which states, "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This after South Carolina its self was denied such abilities of nullification. With out the ability to nullify a future law outlawing slavery (a law which South Carolina expected) the only option she had was to leave the authority of the Constitution. Regardless of the republican parties and Lincolns platform of stopping the expansion of slavery it seems more than clear that South Carolina believed they were attempting to to abolish slavery.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right on this point.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not an attempt on my part to diminish slavery's role in the American Civil War. I am merely trying to highlight other relevant factors relating to the American Civil War. I brought this information forward and I asked, "Should this information be included?" I could have put this in the article but I feel that somethings deserve discussion. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Secession Document Quotes

I posted this up above in specific response to one issue, but then reading down the page, it emerged that really the only issue anyone is debating here is whether the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. I propose that, to lay this ridiculous discussion to rest, the article include direct quotes from the four published secession documents.

• "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

- Second sentence of the Georgia secession document

• "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

- Second sentence of the Mississippi secession document

• "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas'] limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which [Texas'] people intended should exist in all future time."

- Texas secession document

• "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of [the General Government's] obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution... Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

- South Carolina secession document
The secession documents make extremely clear that the decision to secede was driven, overwhelmingly, verifiably, incontrovertibly, by the issue of slavery. There is no reason why this needs to continue to be a point of any debate; it is a matter of historical fact, and perhaps these documents will help convince those who wish to revise history.66.134.4.226 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually these documents prove that Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina causes. I'm sure that more than four states left the Union to join the confederacy. Since you want to put this debate to bed why not cover more information? For instance why did Tennessee join the confederacy. These four individual states reasonings are important for your incontrovertible proof. Isn't all the reasoning important? Further more was there any other documented discussion going on in any of the four states you choose to hand pick to prove your point? Didn't the Virgin government try make peace between the USA and CSA before they seceded? The secession of Virginia didn't take place until after Lincolns call for troops? Was Virginia alone in this? Should we look at the full picture or just the highlighted portions you have pin pointed?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Serialjoe-- Thank you for your response. This is not a selected reading; in terms of primary documents as issued by the seceding states, these are the only four documents that enumerated causes for secession. I suggest you read them in full, if you believe this is a "selected reading." The other secession documents were simply one or two lines stating that the state seceded, and don't provide useful context regarding causes for secession. To "cover more information" on the reasons for the other states' secession relies on secondary sources, the overwhelming historical consensus of which is that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. However, given that these are the only primary source documents listing causes of secession, and given that they all reference slavery, they provide useful and relevant context for the analysis of later historians.66.134.4.226 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable, verifiable, incontrovertible proof lies in those secondary sources. The overwhelming historical consensus is that secession caused the war. The line that the civil war was caused by slavery was dumbed down to it's current level based on the cause of secession as most of the states that did secede did so on the basis of slavery. Support for secession didn't gain enough ground for secession until after Lincolns call for troops. That call for troops was held as unconstitutional. Buchanan before Lincoln held that secession was illegal and going to war to stop it was to. It should stand reasonable to any historian that the last four states to secede were swayed to do so of the union going to war. Virginia above all others tried hard to avoid the war. As far as your complaint about secondary sources Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources -"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_21#File:Thomas Hines.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thanks. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_21#File:Basil_W_Duke_2.JPG

All opinions welcome. Thanks. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Tidbit

With the start of the Sesquicentennial on April 12, there'll be all kinds of interesting articles written and from today's April 10 Washington Post, here's an interesting item--on April 3 right before the Battle of Ft. Sumter began, the skipper of the schooner "Rhoda H. Shannon", a Joseph Marts, got lost in the weather and blithely sailed into Charleston harbor thinking it was Savannah and the Confederate batteries opened fire upon his ship, thinking he was a Union resupply ship for Ft. Sumter. So a blundering skipper almost started the Civil War. By the way Daniel Hough was the name of the soldier accidentally killed at the surrender ceremony when some gunpowder exploded and he was buried on the parade ground at the fort but nobody's ever found the gravesite. Some 3,300 cannon rounds were fired at the fort and it was hit 600 times, so the accuracy of the Confederate guns was 1 in 5. 66.122.182.154 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't seem all to obvious the cannon attacks were merely a show of force. They really didn't want anyone to die or to destroy the fort.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

More Marines info needed.

Wikipedia could benefit greatly from some more information on the Marines in the Civil War, at least the Union Marines should receive a comparable treatment to the Confederate Marines which have their own article. Absolutely tons of books exist on the most marginal aspects of the Civil War, so there should be more material on the Union Marines than the current five lines in the Marines article and none at all in this, even if their role was fairly minor. So if any of you Marine buffs or Civil War buffs could provide it I'd be very glad. -- 77.187.41.231 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC) There's very little to add other than what is already there. The reason there is an article on the confederate version. I mean you could add a small paragraph on the little they did during the war. The confederates marines did little as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

According To Abraham Lincoln The Civil War Was Fought Over The Right To Secede, Not Slavery

Since there's been much debate over the cause of the Civil War I went back to Abraham Lincoln's first inaugral address of March 4, 1861, to see what Lincoln himself had to say about it and lo and behold the cause of the Civil War was secession, not slavery. In the fourth paragraph Lincoln says, and I quote: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so". So slavery was not the issue, Lincoln pointedly saying so at the very beginning of his inaugral address. He then goes on at length, however, stating that secesion will not be tolerated. So there's the RS from Abraham Lincoln himself. The Civil War was fought over the right to secede. 71.154.158.5 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So what? That's one tiny trivial data point in a very complex issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Viewed as a chain of events, it's a causal chain. Trying to protect & extend slavery caused secession, trying to enforce secession caused the attack on Fort Sumter, which caused the war. A caused B which caused C; thus A caused C. Viewed as final causes - a chain of intentions - the same result --JimWae (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So Abraham Lincoln is trivial? As for causality, if we go back even further in the ABCD...slaves were imported originally to grow tobacco. So smoking tobacco caused the Civil War. Well, that's an interesting concept I can embrace. But I think the immediate cause of the Civil War was the right to secede, not slavery. So those adamant on enforcing the slavery concept should rethink their doggedness. Lincoln even insisted that the Union would not invade the South, that the South had to fire the first shot, which they did. Was Lincoln baiting the South, trying to get them to fire the first shot so that the war could be blamed on the South? Then we can all blame Lt. Farley for starting the Civil War, since he fired the first shot at Ft. Sumter. I think we all agree that slavery was an important issue, but it did not cause the actual start of the Civil War. If the South had not seceded there would have been no Civil War. 71.154.158.5 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No--Lincoln made that statement BEFORE the war started. We need a statment from him AFTER the war started-try his 2nd inaugural (March 1865), one of the greatest of all speeches. Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a great speech, all right, especially the well-known last paragraph. But in the first paragraph of his second inaugral, Lincoln refers to his first inaugral, saying "Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper". And the course to be pursued, as he stated, was that he would not tolerate secession, whilst he would tolerate slavery. His second inaugral is an "after the fact" speech. The war became a war over slavery after the war started. Wars morph, they change. Their initial cause recedes and wars take on a new meaning. Who knows where this current war in Libya will take us, for instance? The Afghan war started over Al-Qaeda, but now it's more about the Taliban, etc. 71.154.158.5 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Before the fighting started Lincoln's position was that no EXPANSION of slavery would be tolerated, and no secession (secession would violate nationalism AND allow the expansion of slavery). Rjensen (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln made no moves to stop the expansion slavery except in the states and territories of the United States.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He sent the US Navy to actively seek out and destroy ships carrying slaves (in cooperation with the Royal Navy) and built up the status of Liberia and Haiti.Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which only lead to end continent to continent slave trade. He never sent an armed brigade to Europe, Asia, or Africa. The USA Navy African Slave Trade Patrol was started in 1820. It wasn't formed to stop the expansion of slavery. It was formed to stop the Transatlantic slave trade. Lincoln wasn't the cause of this and other than being the Commander and Chief of the Navy had little to do with it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok on another note John Rolfe didn't come to America until 1609. in 1611 he was the first to cultivate Tobacco over here. Slaves were brought to this land before then. The first record of an African Slave in British America wasn't until 1619 but GB wasn't the only country that set up a colony here. As history holds those slaves weren't slaves. They were indentured servants. Some of the other indentured servants were white. The first slave (or individual held in servitude for life) that I am aware of is John Casor. His owner was Anthony Johnson a former black indentured servant. There may have been another slave before that in British America but I'm unsure. I'm sure that eventually slaves were brought here to farm Tobacco but history kind of goes to show that enslaved people are enslaved to to something. The Spanish imported slaves starting in the 1500's. The Dutch introduced Slavery to British America and also used them New Amsterdam.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And let's not forget that slavery in Africa is a custom that goes back thousands of years. African tribes would war with each other and the captives would become slaves, to work the land and increase the black victor's wealth. Africans would capture other Africans and then sell them to Europeans for the slave trade. So slavery was a long established custom in Africa. It was a way of life there. Mauretania didn't outlaw slavery until 2007. 71.154.158.5 (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to size that up but I do not know if I can call it more than an apologist view. My above contribution was merely to point out there wasn't one set of Bastards and that they were all bastards and to point out that Lincoln merely moved to stop the expansion of slavery in the United States and that he merely moved to maintain the status quo else where. But I'm in no way saying that slavery is ok because they did it in Africa to. Slavery is bad. It was bad in the Bible. It was bad in the age of Kings. It was bad in the Age of colonies. It was bad in World War 2. Outside of corrections it has no place and it only has a minor place there because even prisoners deserve basic rights.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Slavery takes many forms. There are very few jobs I've had that I didn't hate, because they were a form of slavery. While everyone here in America enjoys clothes, shoes, soccor balls, etc. made by people in a third world country that work for pennies, we forget that we are supporting slavery, it's just that it's out of sight, out of mind. Minimum wage jobs in a greaseburger joint are slavery. Schools where we're indoctrinated into government programs are slavery. Marriage is slavery. Men do 98% of the heavy construction labor in the USA and account for 93% of the workplace injuries. Men are slaves. We're all slaves. Will any of us ever know real freedom? What's real freedom like? I sure would like to know.71.130.237.157 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Working at a Fastfood joint isn't slavery. You can choose to work there or quit. Slavery refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master. Burger flippers can quit when they opt to do so.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly see your point, but on the other hand you just can't up and "quit" poverty. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Slaves couldn't quit being slaves. they couldn't attempt to quit being slaves. The poor are free to attempt to get out of poverty. Many who have attempted to do so have been successful. You can look at our history. People talk about how bad the hood is now. The hood was just as bad 200 years ago when it was filled by the Irish or later when it was filled by the Italians. You can get ahead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a real categorical difference between slavery - being legally owned by another human or an institution - and being forced into wage-slavery by poverty and lack of oppurtunity. But let's please dispense with the myth of 'upward mobility'; in our economic system there always has to be a pool of low-wage workers to perform the tedious low-wage jobs that we've become accustomed to. If everyone just up and moved into management there would be no-one left to do the actual work, so obviously that won't happen. Even though its possible for individuals to 'move up', the nature of our economic system dictates that its impossible for everyone to do so, so there will always be a limit to upward mobility, and therefor a permanent underclass which is composed of individuals who are in theory "free", but in practice constrained. Still, this is far afield from the purpose of the talk page, and if anonymous IP user above is using such arguments to suggest that slavery wasn't a cause of the Civil War I would certainly disagree. Volkodlak (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Who Did the Slave Work After the Civil War?

This may seem like an obvious question, but after the Civil War, when the slaves had been freed, who picked the cotton, the tobacco,etc.? How was this work parsed out? In an agrarian economy that depended on slavery, how was their agriculture able to continue? Did Reconstruction even address this issue? Was the demise of slavery the reason the South lived in poverty after the war? Any experts in this field got the answers? Thanks. 69.104.55.118 (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question. It was a major factor during Reconstruction. The ex-slaves (Freedmen) did the farm work on the same or nearby plantations after the war. The Freedman's Bureau set up systems for paid laborers and also for sharecroppers (who split the sales $ with the white land owners). However, the price of cotton was much lower, and so the region was now poor. Freedman had a sharply higher standard of living by 1870 compared to 1860. Whites in 1870 had more $ than blacks in 1870 but less than whites in 1860. [data from Ransom and Sutch, One Kind of Freedom] Vast majorities of both races were farmers. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand first that slaves didn't do all of the work in the south before the Civil War. Slaves were not cheap. Some states that had slaves weren't as densely populated by them as others such as the border states. Poorer farmers continued to due the same work them had done prior to the civil war. Some people before the civil war that didn't have slaves hired others. Then of course after the civil war practices like sharecropping took root. The demise of slavery really wasn't the cause of poverty after the civil war. There was a number of factors that lead to that. One of the major reasons was the souths unwillingness to adapt to changing times. The war it's self cut off the south from those it sold to. When they could no longer get southern cotton and ect they went elsewhere and places such as Brazil got a larger foothold in that market. When looking at this don't fail to forget the effects of the war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

External links pruning

The external links section seems a bit bloated. Am I alone in thinking that it needs to be pruned selectively? If anyone wants to be bold, I'd encourage them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have pruned this section. If you have any questions as to why a link was kept or discarded, please feel free to ask so that we may discuss. In general, if the link was not about the American Civil War as a whole then it was discarded ( i.e. California in the Civil War was not specific enough). If the link was nothing more than a card catalog but didn't allow our readers to see the assets themselves, it was discarded. Blogs were discarded.

I would note that some of the links that I removed may very well be good external links in other articles that are more specific to the topics that they addressed but since there needed to be some parring down, I was attempting to keep the creme de la creme.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Images and postage stamps

A lengthy debate over the use of a stamp just occurred at Talk:Abraham Lincoln in which the use of the stamp over other images was rejected by consensus. The civil war article contains so many stamp images (seven) it almost looks like an article about stamps. Surely there are more pertinent, more dramatic, images available to illustrate some of these points and the people involved. I would suggest some moderation in the use of the stamps and greater attention to the available illustrations, in general. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really an issue over MOS:Images and its related pages. Some points of the MOS apply here in several ways:

• • Placement of pics must have relevancy to where they're placed. For example the Lincoln Douglas debate stamp has no relevancy where it is now located but neither do the pics of Lincoln and Davis.
  • Crowding of too many pics together in one area. The same three pics mentioned above are doing exactly that as are other areas.

I'm sure there may be an area where a stamp pic is relevant but right now the whole article needs a MOS:Images overhaul. Brad (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I hadn't realized stamp-fever had spread to this article, or I would have said something sooner. There's no shortage of public domain Civil War images that are more relevant. --Coemgenus 20:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Alanscottwalker, yes, there is a fair amount of stamp images and if there is are overcrowding issues I am sure we can solve them. Presently there is plenty of areas where no images exist at all.

-- Brad, first, thanks for not singling out stamp images on that basis only and recognizing that there may just be an image problem, not a 'stamp stuff' problem. If 'any' image is not relevant, I will be happy to move it to a more relevant section, bearing in mind that most images are general in their presentation to begin with.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Coemgenus, the issue is overcrowding. Again, please curb personal remarks, your NPOV standing on the matter has already been compromised greatly and now undermines the weight of your consensus here. Such digressions don't address the valid issue that Alanscottwalker has brought to the table. Please make an extra effort to maintain a courteous and civil tone and to not divert the discussion into a personal and competitive dialog. Again, even though consensus on the Lincoln page leans is favor of images like Mt. Rushmore over a memorial stamp, it is appreciably split regardless, and was given on the basis of using one image or the other. If there is an overcrowding problem here, please treat every image with the same scrutiny. Each image should be weighed for its subject content, etc, not whether or not it happens to be pen and ink an oil painting or an engraving on a stamp, coin or other official document. If efforts are made to single out stamp images only by the same editors who have resorted to personal remearks and less than accuarte accounts of my activity and my intentions it will only raise other issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the posters who see the increasing 'stampification' of articles as a problem. Perhaps a couple of stamps per article, but when there are as many images of stamps as have crept into this piece on the American Civil War, then there is clearly a problem. Images should help illuminate, not distract. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I also have problems with the overuse of stamps in this article. I see no reason why of the 28 individual images on the page (not files, images), fully ten are stamps. Further, I see nothing personal in the comments by User:Coemgenus. User pointed out stamps were creeping into pagespace where they didn't belong, like a sickness. That may be colorful, but it's comment pointed at the issue, not the participants, so calm yourself, User:Gwillhickers. No one's talking about you, they're talking about the stamp images, and whether they belong. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Overuse of stamps" implies that the image is not appropriate simply because it exists on a postage stamp. The image, subject and other factors should be weighed foremost. On the note that there may be too may stamp images, I will remove some of them, as stamp images are somewhat unusual compared to paintings and photos and may cause concerns, bearing in mind that there were no such issues before this time, as there is plenty of room about the page and the images are relevant, though may be in need of better placement. As for personal remarks, there was a problem with this prior to this discussion and extends beyond the usage of "stamp-fever" which suggests my inclusion of the image was motivated by less than historical and encyclopedic concerns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not impressed with those arguments. Proportion and balance are equally important factors. One third of the images on the page illustrated with stamps? I assert this is a disproportionate number; overbalances and distracts from the content. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The concerns are for overcrowding and relevancy. Again, you can't judge the image simply because it occurs on a stamp, coin or any other form. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just looked back at page history. Now I understand why User:Gwillhickers thought the discussion was personal: of the 21 edits that user has made in this pagespace, the addition of stamp images (and moves thereof, with a link to a postal service history pagespace) have been that user's sole contributions to the page. It's just fine with me that a user likes stamps; when no other image is available, they make a fine change of pace, but I'm not going to further debate stamps on the ACW page. I see zero consensus for your assertion that 10 of 28 images is acceptable inside MOS:Images. I propose their removal. BusterD (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BusterD, 10 out of 28 is seriously excessive. Mightn't a better idea be to make a separate article about Civil War commemorative stamps? There are clearly a lot of them, and I think I saw some new ones last time I was at the post office. A separate article would be a good place to stick them. --Coemgenus 00:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree this would make a nice article or list. Maybe even a featured one. I suspect there's a richness of examples, but it would take the knowledge of someone who loves stamps... Dude! This is your moment! I would be glad to support and watch such an article. I suspect there are others.BusterD (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster. You might want to check out this page. There are hundreds of other philatelic (stamp related) articles. As you can see, many of the stamps/subjects link up to history articles: this increases the number of viewers and brings other editors to the page, esp since many serious collectors are historians or students of history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There were five images before my recent edits, one of the images having three stamps. -- Have removed several stamps, one clearly not relevant (L'D'Debate stamp). Images for Grant, Sherman and others still lacking. Many fine engraved images of these individuals exist on US postage. No reason why we shouldn't use one or two of them, esp when they commemorate the individual's birth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing boldly, I restored the two files I thought most illustrative, comprising images of five generals placed in some context next to descriptions of the successful activities of those figures. Knowing User:Gwillhickers does truly care about the composition and layout of this page, I'll leave it to that editor to tweak my rough cutting, and make the changes look good. In addition, I'll tip my hat to that editor, who actually made concessions and showed willingness to listen to consensus, despite a preference for own choices. Bravo. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While not a stamp enthusiast myself, I respect Gwilhickers's enthusiasm, and willingness to engage over the topic. This is how it's supposed to work. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is most important to me. Being treated like I was doing anything else other than trying to improve the article was rather unsettling. -- Buster, you restored the images I removed? Well, there's a switch. Okay, let them ride. I relocated a few other images also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's improved. Thank you. The article still could use review for other pertinent images from Commons in category:civil war or others places. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Civil War wasn't started as a war over slavery, it was just a cause

The civil war wasnt started over slavery, it was indeed about the southern states being mad about abraham lincoln being elected. The south seperated, because they were mad about the new president, not because of slavery. When lincoln was sworn into office he promised not to take away the south's slaves, but that slavery would not move west. But because of the war lincoln freed the slaves in the confederacy, not the border states or anywhere else, but just in the confederacy. ~A~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.106.105 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. Please see the FAQ. If you feel you can overcome the velifiable determinations in reliable sources presented there, feel free to present your case in those terms. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Secessionists certainly did complain about Lincoln's desire to overturn the Dred Scott decision and prevent slavery expansion into Kansas and other territories. Lincoln wanted to put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction." These and other issues are mentioned in the article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The underlying reason for the Civil War continues to be an ongoing topic of debate so I'll reference the movie "Gone With The Wind" (1939) in which Leslie Howard says "Most of the miseries of the world were caused by wars and when the wars were over no one ever knew what they were about". 71.148.52.156 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The south was mad about Lincoln why? Because he and his party opposed the expansion of slavery. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Slavery was not THE issue in the Civil War. It was an aspect of it. The War was because of succession from the union. Political motivations of the North at that time included making slavery economically unfeasible. However slavery wasn't the cause, it was an issue of state's vs. federal rights. You could take out slavery, and replace it with the farming of federally illegal drugs, and the situation could be the same. A few % of the population in the south actually owned slaves. The overwhelming majority was more concerned with the unfair taxes and regulations the North imposed on the South due to Lincoln and party's obsession with eliminating slavery. How else do you reconcile the vast majority of the South's army having no financial investment in the ownership of slaves. The slavery issue oversimplifies the complex set of issues that caused the war. And the winner writes history. Go outside of American history books, and look at the way other nations teach this part of history. They look at the financial and political interests because they're not emotionally attached to the slavery issue. -- Cflare (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

a majority of the Confederate officers owned slaves--and they controlled the political systen of the South. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Barely a majority, and they didn't entirely control the political system, whereas some of the officers held some political clout. There's also the argument that a large minority lived with slaveholders and/or did business with slaveholders. A few things to think about. If abolishing slavery was the goal of the Civil War, why wait until the south succeeds? Why didn't Lincoln issue an executive order, or Congress simply vote to outlaw it. Slavery was used as an excuse for the North to continue to use the South as a resource engine. If Slavery were indeed THE issue, the South would be a separate country today. I'm not saying that the North's pervasive assault against Southern slavery didn't cause the succession. I'm saying the North went to war with the South to prevent succession because of economical reasons. Lincoln never wanted to prevent slavery as a moral evil, he wanted to obsolete it. By attempting to obsolete it, he created economical climate that had the South decide to succeed, at which point the industrial foundation of the North would have caused economic collapse. He couldn't allow economic collapse. It was all about money. The anti-slavery movement in the North was nothing more than a social experiment to impede the spread of slavery. Without slavery being an economic advantage, Northern and Western territories would be more profitable, with the North gaining more financially by exploiting the South. It was NEVER a moral decision. Neither the government North or the South opposed the legality of slavery, the North opposed the political power of the South that it had by leveraging slavery. It was a power/economical war. This is how outsiders view American history. Only in America and Europe do you find this "moral issue of slavery" being the core of the Civil War. --Cflare (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In short, the North wanted to keep slavery in the South, keep slavery in check, prevent slavery from spreading into the North, and maintain the status quo in order to exploit the wealth of the south, while obsoleting slavery as an economical advantage. They never wanted to end the moral practice due to a measure of morality. --Cflare (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Marxist or non-marxist-economic materialist analysis, such as yours, which is certainly popular around the world is of rather limited explanatory power, as your claim that "illegal drugs" could have been the cause shows.(see eg. Cornerstone Speech) Also, it is perhaps lost on you, but you argue that slavery was not the cause but then go on and on about how the economics of slavery was the cause. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about Commanders and Leaders

I am wondering why TW Sherman and George Meade are not shown on the list of Union Commanders and Leaders given their critical roles in winning the war. Especially Sherman. Jpolichak (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)James Polichak

What is listed are the highest order commanders...Meade & Sherman are mentioned in the link within the box ...and others.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I presume you mean WT Sherman. TW Sherman (who did exist, by the way) was a much less notable general. (See Battle of Port Royal.)PKKloeppel (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of the Confederacy

It states in the article "No country in the world recognized the Confederacy." This isn't true considering the Vatican had corespondence with the Confederacy. Also, the United Kingdom was inclined to recognize the Confederacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.70.58 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article says no one "recognized" the Confederacy, not no one "had correspondence with" or "was inclined to recognize" the Confederacy. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

^True. Confederates also sought recognition from France. Seeking official recognition is not the same as winning it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth note that was not the Conferate nation granted adgitant status? This not being a legal recognition allowed certain rights to the southern delegation. But I will have to double check when I get home. I also am not a british legal scholar so the exact tenants fo this status are beyond me Sumthingwitty (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Did the South Start the War? FAQ

I see in the FAQ it says "The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina. Historians regard this as the incident in which the actual fighting began." under the question where it says "Did the South start the War? : Yes". I also see in the FAQ it even admits minority views on this article are stifled, non-existant, or plain disallowed from being edited in; even though the rule is to allow all relevant and cited minority and majority views on an article. But I suppose that's besides the point, and I understand that the folks in control of this article won't allow any changes to established "facts".

My quibble is that many wars start long before any fighting. Wars start long before any shots are fired. In some wars, there are no shots fired at all! So I find it quite hilarious that this article believes that a complex war such as the American Civil War -- also known by some as The War Between the States among other names-- only started when "The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina". It's just quite ignorant if you ask me. I think it would be much more intelligent, accurate, and certainly more verifiable if it said the South attacked first, or fired the first shots rather than a "But the South started it and it's all their fault!!" type of attitude that seems to be expressed by the FAQ. I just had to express my point of view.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For every period, you've got to pick some event to mark the beginning. For a war, the first shots fired is a reasonable choice. We've got a whole 'nother article on the Origins of the American Civil War.

—WWoods (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You could include secession, although the South not only fired "the first shot", but also seceded.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by Quarkgluonsoup

Extensive rewrites are unwise in a mature article thagt has been edited thousands of times by hundreds of editors. Reliance on a brand-new dubious source like Goldfield--to the neglect of mainstream ideas--violated the NPOV rules. (Goldfield emphasizes religious conflicts in the North, which no other scholar emphasizes one-third as much). The treatment of Europe needs to be based on the modern scholarship on Europe & the war which is massive. Otherwise mistakes are easy: Russia for example did not support the Union (it's an old myth) and Germany and Italy did not play roles. Britain was not sffering from Crimean war fatigue. etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)

Goldfield isn't a dubious source. Here is his bio [1]. If you object to any of the changes, flag or alter them specifically. Most of the changes I made were not citing him. There are plenty of other sources I could cite that say the same thing, notably McPherson. It is from McPherson that my point on Europe/Russia come from. Shelby Foote makes similar points.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The main significance of immigration is that it made Southerners feel more outnumbered. How much weight should this be given?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Goldfield is new to the civil wear field and his ideas have not been accepted by other scholars. The European section is not based on McPherson (who has three words on Russia and does not deal with the Crimean war, Italy or Germany in the ways Quarkgluonsoup claims.) Shelby Foote is a battle historian who is not an expert on diplomacy or the causes. The long treatment on inter-ethnic fights in the North has little to do with the South. Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Goldfield isn't the only one who makes these points. His book is a high level summary of events over a half century, and doesn't make controversial or dubious points. McPherson does mention Russia's support for the union, as do most other books on the matter. Herring, not McPherson, does go into the Crimean/Italy/Germany points. In particular, he discusses the role unrest in Italy and Germany had in distracting Britain and making British (and by extension French) intervention less likely. Herring in particular goes into quite a lot of depth on this, along with the other points on the international section of the article. The inter-ethnic fights certainly are relevant, as they get to the unstable cultural situation at the time.03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|Quarkgluonsoup]] (talk • contribs)

Goldfield's book came out in April and that's too new. The publisher emphasizes it's "provocative" and indeed it is, blaming the Protestants for the war. Quarkgluonsoup is very new here and has not learned the ways of Wikipedia or of historical scholarship. He needs to read the major histories before he jumps in with radical new ideas that have not been accepted. And misreadings--he makes strange claims about the Crimean war that no historians supports, not Herring or McPherson. No historian apart from Goldfield finds there was an "unstable cultural situation" or that it helped cause the war in some unexplained way. Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read his book? He doesn't blame protestants for the war, and McPherson also makes the point that the cultural instability of prior decades contributed to the outbreak of the civil war. That immigration leads to social instability, and that the 1840s and 1850s were a period of mass immigration and social upheaval isn't disputed. Certainly that point is commonly made in civil war histories. This tradition isn't confined to the civil war either, as historians like Gordon Wood build much of their careers around the cultural and sociological dimensions to important events (read his book "The Idea of America"). Herring makes the point on the Crimean War, as he would given the fact that his book is about foreign policy and diplomacy. Herring discusses the situation in Europe, and their reasons for doing what they did, in quite a bit of depth.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

yes I have read the book. He says evangelical protestants transformed America so as to make compromise impossible. He explicitly recalls the historiography of Avery Craven circa 1940, which has been a small minority -- even fringe--position for over 40 years. Herring does not discuss the Crimean war (he mentions it in passing on non-civil-war issues). Herring has a sophisticated treatment of France and Mexico which is dropped in favor of his half-sentence on Italy. Wood is a red Herring :) Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from this book [2] by no less an authority on the civil war than Eric Foner, the approach of looking at the socio-cultural aspects of the civil war, rather than just the political or economic aspects, it not new nor is it fringe. While it is certainly true that we can only say so much on issues such as the exact role played by groups like northern evangelicals, it is certainly also true that they played a role, and that the civil war was caused by more than just political/economic issues like slavery or states rights, and that this is not a new nor fringe view. The true "causes" are an inseparable mix of the political/economic and socio-cultural issues, among other things. Historians in the early 20th century too aggressively focused on the political/economic issues (like slavery and states rights) whereas historians in the mid 20th century (like Craven) swung too strongly in the opposite direction (socio-cultural causes). Over the last few decades, mainstream scholarship had reached a middle point, emphasizing both.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Foner is concerned with intellectual history, That is a very difdferent matter. Craven was not much interested in social history, His goal was to show it was a needless war and that a compromise over slavery should have been possible. (He never told us what that compromise would be like, nor does Goldfield). The compromise line of thought died out with Munich/appeasement of Hitler and WW2. Historians then realized that some wars were necessary, Goldfield was Craven's very last student and explicitly credits Craven for his thesis. Craven's is now a fringe thesis. As for ethnocultural politics, I've been collecting notes to write the Wiki article and I guess I should get started. Goldfield is not an ethnocultural specialist. All his writing and teaching until now has been on post-1865. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the stuff on immigration more focused on causes? For example, while anti-Catholicism and nativism were big and important issues, they didn't have much to do with conflict between North and South. However, the fact that immigration added to the Northern, anti-slavery part of the country is relevant to causes.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the large paragraph that Jimmuldrow is (I think)referring to:

The events that led directly to the civil war began no later than the 1840s. The Irish Potato Famine led to mass migration of poor Irish Catholics, mainly into New England. Anti-Catholicism and nativism had a long history in America, and "popish" conspiracy theories routinely led to anti-Catholic hysteria and disorder, such the belief among New England Federalists in the 1790s that the Democratic-Republican Party was in league with the Bavarian Illuminati to bring the French Revolution to America. Similar views prevailed in the aftermath of the democratic Revolutions of 1848, which further inflamed nativist and anti-Catholic hysteria since many believed that those revolutions failed due to the secret actions of Pope Pius IX and the Jesuits. One consequence of those revolutions was that European immigration increased. Up until this point, immigration had mainly come from protestant northern Europe, though after this point immigration was coming mainly in the form of disaffected Catholics, Italians and Germans, who migrated mostly to states that would later make up the Union; immigration into future Confederate states was quite limited. Following this, unprecedented crime waves and social welfare spending took place in many northern cities. Violent crime in particular skyrocketed, and this was seen as the natural consequence of all the recent immigration. Nativism and anti-Catholicism further skyrocketed, though as the southern states were largely unaffected, to them the northern states started to resemble a different country. This was further exacerbated by the acquisition of Texas and the territories won in the Mexican American War, as these events resulted in new holdings populated by people who weren't even European. As these problems were festering, a series of poor harvests in Europe, and most importantly the Crimean War, further exasperated anti-European hysteria. Economic chaos in the mid 1850s, most importantly the Panic of 1857, added further fuel to the coming fire. In his personal memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant notes that as early as the Election of 1856, the south was threatening to secede en masse if a republican won the presidency.

I fail to see how it relates to the origins of the Civil War. Even if it can be shown to relate, it needs to be cut down and placed in its own subsection in the manner that all the other topics are. As noted above, the material is entirely from one author and his views do not represent a consensus view among historians of the era (nor would he claim that they represent a consensus view) although the placement in the article and the failure to attribute the views in the text to Goldfield suggest otherwise to a reader.

Please discuss the matter here and obtain consensus before adding the material back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Tom. Beyond Goldfield no RS links these developments to the Civil War, apart from the point that immigration caused more rapid population growth in the North, leaving the South a smaller minority. Goldfield himself does not offer any chain of causality. Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern with the section on causes is that it only details the political/economic causes. As I illustrated in my quote above from the book by Eric Foner, mainstream scholars understand the causes to be both political/economic and socio-cultural. Even without Goldfield, plenty of other authors mention the same thing. Even assuming Goldfield focuses too heavily on the socio-cultural aspect, such as religion, plenty of other authors have written on these "silent" causes. The article as it is mentions only the political/economic dimension, mainly slavery, which is a weak and limited summary of scholarship on the matter. Mainstream scholarship recognizes these other factors, as I illustrated with Foner.

I think the "causes" section needs to be condensed, in particular the section on slavery (which should be cut down to about a third its current size), and that the "passions" (ie socio-cultural) that caused the civil war, not just the "rationalizations" (ie political/economic) need to be discussed. I would do it myself but don't really want to spend time on it only my work reverted again.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In the end, the important decisions that led to the war were political and there is a very clear record of how these political decisions relate to both prior political decisions relating to slavery and the moral and economic aspects of slavery. The documentation and analysis for these connections are not just "rationalizations" as you would apparently have us believe.

The material I removed fails to provide any analysis of how it connects to the decisions that led to war, let alone support the belief that these explanations are somehow superior to the consensus views. What are the connections, for example, between "anti-European hysteria" and the decision by either side to wage war?

The political repercussions of the Mexican War are pretty well established and they relate to how slavery would be treated in the newly acquired territory. Yet you claim that a factor is that "these events resulted in new holdings populated by people who weren't even European." Especially considering that the South was much more supportive of putting these particular foreigners within the borders of the U.S., how did the existence of these non-Europeans (rather than just their territory) lead to the Civil War?

You have not made the connection between the specific language you added and the subject of the article. Rather than vague generalizations about the need for "socio-cultural aspects" to be addressed, you need to show, on this discussion page, what actual influence these factors had on the beginning of the Civil War. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the article tells the "how" but not the "why" of what caused the civil war. This is why historians don't confine discussion of the causes of the civil war to those political decisions, and look at the broader issue of American society in the decades leading up to it. Without doing this, you cannot answer (beyond some conjecture) questions like, why didn't the civil war happen decades earlier or decades later? The article as it now is reflects the views of 10th grade history teachers, not the "consensus" of historians. My explanations are not claimed to be "superior" to the consensus view as you claim, they are the consensus view. I really don't care if the section you removed is restored or not.

What is the connection between hysteria and civil war? That is an easy one, and you only need to look to similar examples (such as the revolutionary war or the English Civil War) to see this illustrated. Civil war is the ultimate example of social unrest, and all civil wars in history have been caused partly by some intangible destabilization of the social order. The simple fact here is that events like war are not simply caused by people making rational decisions like some sort of city council. Decisions are reflective of underlying passions, which have many causes (social disorder is certainly one cause of such passions). It is well known that large scale immigration can lead to social disorder (this you saw with the Irish immigrants in the 1840s and a similar phenomena with the Mexican citizens living on acquired territories). The point on all of this is that these events caused wide spread social disorder, which had several other consequences than just the civil war, such as the fracturing of the Whig Party and the growing incidence of nativist conspiracy theories and nativist parties like the Know Nothings. You can just mention, for example, the Free Soil party as a cause of the civil war by increasing the level of abolitionist agitation. This is easy to understand but historically dubious, as the Free Soil party was not a cause but an effect of increasing abolitionism and increasing social disorder (since it was assembled from the pieces of the fractured Whig party). It can be understood within the larger web of American society at the time, though you miss this completely if you ignore the true complexity of a society and boil everything down into neat political decisions. Historical events are a complex web of circumstance, not a nice and orderly chain of causes and effects with a definite beginning and a definite end.

You are right, there should be an explanation of causes and effects, though such an explanation in the current state of the article is impossible, as the section is so sloppy and disorganized. The section should be broken into chronological sections, not issues sections. This way you can integrate the various issues, both political and social. This way you could better address events such as the increase in abolitionism, which was partly triggered by the increased immigration.

Even if you were going to leave all of this out, the causes section is still a complete mess. It is extremely long, has a lot of detail that really isn't necessary for this page, and most of the sections, like "slave power and free soil" are extensions of the slavery section, not a separate issue entirely. Thus there is no order at all to the causes section, and a lot of unnecessary detail.04:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarkgluonsoup (talk • contribs)

there is a VERY large scholarly literature on the civil war that covers all these issues. the editor's job is to summarize it. Goldfield's book doesn't do the job--he spends too much time on some issues (like 15 pages on Uncle Tom's Cabin and most of that on Mrs Stowe), and not enough on political parties. Goldfield's basic problem is that he buys into an Avery Craven theme that was popular about 1940 (needless war, bumbling politicians) but has found very little acceptance by the hundreds of scholars who have worked on the matrial in the last 40+ years. Concepts like "hysteria" don't take us too far and historians don't much use them. (was someone hysterical in Chicago/New York/New Orleans/Baltimore? who? so what?) Rjensen (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That is my point. The article doesn't summarize the mainstream literature, only part of it. You can keep Goldfield off, that isn't really my point.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In section "slavery" of "causes of the war," historian Chandra Manning is referred to as a he. Miss Manning is a female. Please change the gender? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.108 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

QuarkGluonSoup Edits

As of this date (9/27/11) very specifically, I think QuarkGluonSoup has made some thoughtful edits to this site. Just my own two cents, for what they're worth.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)--70.161.226.200 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Refusal to allow comment regarding keloid formation in picture of whipped slave

This picture shows the result of a brutal and unforgivable act. Noting that the poor man in the photo likely suffers from keloid does not detract from that. I don't understand why the same picture has carried the 'keloid notation' on the slavery page and elsewhere on Wiki for ages without any controversy yet here objections are raised. In fact, the same picture is used to illustrate the condition on the Wiki keloid page itself.

Again, allowing a medically correct addition to the article and picture does not detract from or, God forbid, condone, the barbarism of whipping. But, to censor it is contrary to everything that people fighting for freedom have strived for. Please do not censor it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaussgauss (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, and only to attest to the fact that I am informed about keloid and its appearance, and not to strut about, I will note that I am a Board Certified, and Royal College certified, internist. This is not medical esoterica,

Sorry,I forgot to sign before: Gaussgauss (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The editors who reverted the edition that included the keloid description alleged "original research". The book given as source indeed says that it was keloid (although that might have been simply the author's opinion). Reverting under the claim of original research is incorrect. However, I believe there is no reason at all to add the keloid description since it does not improve or help in anything the article. In fact, it might even lead a reader to believe that "well, the poor slave wasn't beaten so hard at all" which would be an absurd. In fact, this an opinion that an editor tried to place, that "The pattern of scarring seen here is highly suggestive of keloid formation and not necessarily due to a particularly brutal flogging". Well, keloid or not, the photo has a reason of being: to portray how cruel slavery was and still is. Any attempt to diminish the reality of slavery should be removed. --Lecen (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is attempting "to diminish the reality of slavery". That is an insulting allegation. Adding that he almost certainly suffers from keloid informs the reader that his particular flogging is NOT atypical. Don't you see? It adds to the opprobrium for whipping by showing he is not unique. Gaussgauss (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But there is still no citation to what appeared to be random speculation about keloid. If there is a cite from a reliable source, provide the citation! That's all we asked. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a page cite (from Google Books) where the man is described as having keloid scars: http://books.google.com/books?id=qtu2dXgubjMC&pg=PA216&dq&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Here it is again but showing it being cited in a website: http://www.historybroker.com/slavery/slave.html (3rd picture down). And, explicitly (for those preferring not to click on the links): Kathleen Collins, "The Scourged Back," History of Photography 9 (January 1985): 43-45. I hope this is sufficient. Thank you for being patient. Gaussgauss (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is trivia in the context of this article about the civil war, although it may find relevance in an article about the picture, or photographer, or person in the photograph. I propose it be removed. 65.79.14.40 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

An explaination, fully half of the caption, that the scars may be keloid is off topic here. Sure, explain that theory in Keloid. Here, at most, we might caption the article "Keloid scars of whipped slave. This famous 1863 photo was distributed by abolitionists to illustrate what they saw as the barbarism of Southern society." - SummerPhD (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, slavery and whipping are horrible, but slaves were very expensive, and damaging them seems counter-intuitive. Under what exceptional circumstance would a slave be whipped? I've never found any criteria. It seems to be based on whim. But whipping a slave would be like hitting your car with a sledgehammer. Does anyone know of the various forms and gradations of punishment to slaves, I assume whipping would be one of the worst, along with dismemberment and hanging. There seems to be a lot of sado-masochism involved--were these slave owners psychotics and S&M freaks? Ignorant overseers obviously whipped slaves in order to get them to work. And slaveowners having a fear of slaves rebelling would be another incitement to whip, perhaps whipping them and beating them was thought to keep them subdued, to keep them from rebelling and killing whites. It all seems sick. But remember, sailors in the British Navy were flogged and hung. So in light of the times, did whipping seem as barbaric back then as it does now? Anybody an expert on slave punishment back then to put this all in perspective? Remember, we're dealing with history from long ago. Perhaps if slaveowners had treated their slaves with kindness there would have been no Civil War. Thanks. 69.104.54.79 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question, but probably one that belongs more in an article about Slavery in general. I'm sure it wasn't seen at the same level of barbaric behavior as it is now. Some people consider spanking a child to be barbaric these days, which would not be a view shared by our ancestors; I'm pretty sure that sums it up.

Besides this article is in full control of the current and past editors, and if they don't like what you have to say it will be deemed original research or in contempt of some other rule that allows them to dictate what appears in this article.YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining why the article is mostly hogwash. I could tell that the "fix was in", until now I didn't understand the mechanics. Revisionism about the reasons for the War began shortly after the War ended, and it is this revisionism which modern commentators cite to validate their own un-history. I call it "Revisionism Cubed." The truth about the reasons for the War have always been there. One just needs to ignore the ideas of "historians" born a half-century AFTER the War.

Mnpd (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

End of Slavery in the North

The article states that all northern states had ended slavery by 1804. This is incorrect. New York, for example, passed an ordinace for the gradual end of slavery in 1799. This law freed slaves born after 1799 when they reached their 28th birthday. Slaves born before 1799 were not freed until another law was passed in 1828. (This law changed the slaves into indentured servants.) In addition, slave owners could enter the state with their slaves under the "Nine months law" until that law was repealed in 1841. And as far as outlawing the slave trade, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America did that, but obviously the Confederates still had slavery. This article needs to be changed to show that slavery in the North happened gradually and much later than the early 1800's. Source: Leon Higginbotham, Jr., "In the Matter of Color: Race & the American Legal Process" Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.179.45 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article says, "By 1804 all the Northern states (states north of the Mason-Dixon line) had passed laws to abolish slavery gradually."

Passing laws by 1804 to abolish slavery gradually is not "ended slavery by 1804". The article conforms to your good research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Industrialism - out of sequence discussion

Thanks for sharing. I had no idea that King George I possessed a time machine with which to import slaves to Virginia 95 years before he acceded to the throne. -Ben (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and dangerous theories proposed. The Civil War was caused by slavery since the Southerners wanted to expand slavery. The Industrial Revolution was well under way at the time of the American Civil War, and not one Southern state abolished slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made it virtually legal for the South to invade the North, looking for "runaway slaves". Slavery was the main cause of the American Civil War. The British allowed ships to be made for the Confederate Navy in British ports that did tremendous damage to U.S. shipping known as the Alabama Claims. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in North America was older than the constitution. On your theory the civil war should have happened in the 17th, not the 19th century. The industrial revolution is indeed what caused the civil war, and I can cite multiple sources to that effect. It was the North that changed. The south's refusal to adopt to those changes is what lead to the divergence between the political leadership in the north and the south, and hence to the civil war. Carinae986 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The South changed. Slavery was going extinct until the industrial revolution in cotton, expanding production, exhausting native soils. Cotton gins were as large as barns, ganging three to five hoppers each as big as tobacco-curing sheds. Edmund Ruffin and others were forbidden by slavery interests to import fertilizer to allow small farmers to match the yields of slave plantations.

The South changed. State statutes allowing various forms of self-emancipation were outlawed. Even sacred wills instructing emancipation by the deceased were overturned by state statute. The South changed, absentee owners spent their lives in port city townhouses, leaving management of plantation workforce to hirelings paid by increased crop yields by weight, not quality.

The South changed, refusing to continue internal state improvements of canals, railroads or harbors unless directly benefitting those with plantations along navigable rivers. The South changed, restricting industry to benefit planation owners whether by not protecting intellectual property (Eli Whitney's cotton gin) or not allowing manufacturing (Cyrus McCormick's mechanical reaper).

The South changed, it would not accept majority rule in the House, in the Senate, or in the Electoral College, and hence the civil war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson and Slavery - out of sequence discussion

Notes from Virginia ... The colonial Assembly of Virginia tried to stop importation of slaves, but the Hanover Kings (Georges I, II, III) perpetrated it until independence. Hence Jefferson’s condemning phrase in his draft Declaration, though it was struck out in Congress. 30 October. Posting broken with:

Jefferson is not to be taken at face value when he speaks on the subject of slavery.... for reasons which I suppose are obvious.Carinae986 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson freed the slave children of Sally Hemmings, which I take it you would believe were his. Okay, for discussion, Jefferson said he hated slavery, and would not allow his children to suffer under its regime in Virginia. Would that all slave holders had emancipated all of their children. The literature is full of examples of children resembling masters and their color, boys and girls, being sold off into the deep south by the master at the insistence of their white wives. Charles Sumner was nearly caned to death on the Senate floor for calling another Senator a "slave breeder" in that double meaning.

First lady "Martha" Jefferson was Thomas Jefferson's daughter. Jefferson was a widower who had promised never to remarry at his wife's deathbed. Sally Hemmings had the same classical Parisienne education as his own daughter and spoke fluent French with Jefferson in the presence of his guests. Her voice was said to be indistinguishable from wife Martha Jefferson's, having been raised in the same household and herself being Martha's kin.

Of course, Jefferson is to be taken at face value when he speaks of slavery. There is no reason not to, unless we are to exclude all widowed men who marry their deceased wife's cousin. (Seven years' cohabitation in Virginia is common law marriage.) By what authority is that any "obvious" standard to disallow Jefferson's thought? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Causes of the war"

This section is far too bloated for a summary article and needs to be trimmed drastically. Slac speak up! 06:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Force Bill of 1833 should be included in article

I think the article should mention the Force Bill of March 2, 1833, which authorized the use of Federal troops to invade the South to help collect tariffs in South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis. This is an example of the Federal government invading the South with troops 30 years before the Civil War and underlines the festering animosities between North and South. Whatever was going on between the North and South, it was just one thing after another. Secession and Civil War seemed inevitable, it's surprising war didn't erupt much earlier. The concept of Nullification was very strong in those days and probably had a lot more to do with the Civil War happening than people today realize, since today we assume it is normal for States not to be able to nullify Federal laws which States consider unconstitutional. It was a different way of thinking back then. 64.169.154.82 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for the Civil War between the states of the United States of America

Sir,

Let me first begin by pointing out that slavery started in the "colonies" at the behest of King George of England. A paradox perhaps as the English like to sing "we shall never never never never b e slaves". The golden triangle, a formed cooperation between the king and international bankers, introduced slavery to the colonies for financial gain. Those English colonial subjects growing crops and cotton were force, by royal decree to plant at specific times and utilize slaves. Though it was morally repugnant that slavery should have continued after our war of independence, financially the newly formed union could not have, at first, continued to exist had all economic concerns been disrupted. That slavery was the cause of the Civil War is false. Nearly half of the southern states had or were in the process of abolishing slavery before the war had begun. Abraham Lincoln was very much concerned that hostilities might not begin before slavery had been eliminated and thus he would be unable to enlist the support of England. Again, a paradox that those who created slave states should oppose those existing in them. The common southern people and numerous public officials in the southern states were responsible for forming the "underground railroad", something you hear nothing of today. If the civil war had not come about and the southern people did not abolish slavery, slavery would still have been eliminated due to industrialization. Steam tractors and the cotton gin would have made slavery economically impractical. Still, slavery is immoral. The English people, those zealous abolishers of slavery, can look to their precious royalty and their connections to international banking for a villain and perhaps the black power advocates should campaign against certain banking cartels and British royalty. The true cause of the civil war was states rights. The northern states opposed the importation of industrial equipment to the southern states for the economic advantage it gave the northern states to have a captive marked. The south rebelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.153.221 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I had no idea that King George I possessed a time machine with which to import slaves to Virginia 95 years before he acceded to the throne. -Ben (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This comment is self indulgent and misleading, it has no place in this discussion. King George ordered that slavery not be abolished (Dec 10,1770) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.83.77 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting and dangerous theories proposed. The Civil War was caused by slavery since the Southerners wanted to expand slavery. The Industrial Revolution was well under way at the time of the American Civil War, and not one Southern state abolished slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made it virtually legal for the South to invade the North, looking for "runaway slaves". Slavery was the main cause of the American Civil War. The British allowed ships to be made for the Confederate Navy in British ports that did tremendous damage to U.S. shipping known as the Alabama Claims. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in North America was older than the constitution. On your theory the civil war should have happened in the 17th, not the 19th century. The industrial revolution is indeed what caused the civil war, and I can cite multiple sources to that effect. It was the North that changed. The south's refusal to adopt to those changes is what lead to the divergence between the political leadership in the north and the south, and hence to the civil war. Carinae986 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes from Virginia ... The colonial Assembly of Virginia tried to stop importation of slaves, but the Hanover Kings (Georges I, II, III) perpetrated it until independence. Hence Jefferson’s condemning phrase in his draft Declaration, though it was struck out in Congress.

Jefferson is not to be taken at face value when he speaks on the subject of slavery.... for reasons which I suppose are obvious.Carinae986 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Over half the 1860 southern states were against importation of slaves from Africa, but that's not the “process of abolishing slavery”. Colonization legislation followed ideas of Va George Wythe, James Monroe and Henry Clay. They made little progress, although spearheaded by Va Joseph Jenkins Roberts in Liberia. These efforts bore little fruit. Free black land ownership was nigh impossible, even for a planter’s own son, see Va first black U.S. Representative, John Mercer Langston.

Before faceless bureaucracy, corporations were chartered one at a time by Act of Assembly for those with political pull. Va Cyrus McCormick invented a mechanical reaper but production could not obtain a charter in Va. He moved to Illinois, where the Va Edward Coles had transported his freed slaves. As the second governor, he achieved laws prohibiting slavery. Illinois was friendly to business start-ups such as McCormick’s.

The way west in Va lay up the James. The Va Assembly hired Napoleon’s brilliant civil engineer Claudius Crozet to supervise the construction of the James River and Kanawha Canal. With railway improvement, he argued to stop canals and switch. He lost. Va law required local purchase of a majority slave population before investors funded each county west. NY did not do the same for the Erie Canal, construction per mile was less expensive.

Va choices for slavery caused population to plummet as a percent and absolute numbers. Its percent of the U.S. went from about 15% in 1800 to 10% in 1820 to 4% in 1860. NY respective percents were 12%, 16%, 13%. At secession Va was the largest in the Confederacy, got a three rep bonus, and went from 4% in the old to 15% in the new. I’m not sure if that helps. But it’s not all about northern economic imperialism, however much that was also true. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777 got this one right: "The Civil War was caused by slavery since the Southerners wanted to expand slavery." I submit my section on Territories and the Constitution, based on the famous analysis by historian Arthur Bestor. 36hourblock (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason that people constantly pose queries as to what actually caused the Civil War is that it's ridiculous to assume that all the white guys in the North (aside from rabid Abolitionists) would put their lives on the line just to free some black slaves in the South that they could care less about. There had to be other contributing factors of a considerable nature. They still have slavery in Mauretania but I don't see a bunch of white guys from New England going over there to have a war over it. 64.169.155.134 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason mothers in the north would send a husband, and a first son, and a second son to die for Union may have been the influence of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. That is not the 'Uncle Tom' of shuffling, half-wit, self-denegrating black-face minstrel shows of the 1880s. The Uncle Tom's Cabin of the 1850s was a morality tale. It was the first blockbuster, outselling everything, including the Bible, for years.

Traveling companies of actors would put it on as a sure-fired way of getting opening night attendance. Then they would put on productions of current playwrights and Shakespeare. The good Uncle Tom character gave up his life to save his friends. Slave-holding states banned the book. Their U.S. postmasters burned copies sent through the mails.

The book transformed the American mind, like Common Sense, or The Jungle, or Silent Spring. Before Uncle Tom's Cabin, northerners believed slavery to be a problem, but it was the South's problem. After reading the book or seeing the play, they believed that slavery was their problem. Certainly to start, Lincoln could not keep Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland or Delaware in the Union unless he stressed Union above all. But the "states rights" that the Fireeaters clamored for were not for local education, local education was in the north, the "states rights" sought after were for perpetuation of hereditary slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that "mothers sent their husbands and sons" to fight the Civil War. There was a draft, with hundreds of thousands of deserters. But I assume you may be using the term in a rhetorical sense. I think Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel inflamed the ire of Northerners, but with hundreds of thousands of deserters I don't think everybody became an ardent anti-slavery zealot. I just don't think people back then realized the havoc the war would create--remember, the war was supposed to be over in 90 days. Only General Winfield Scott predicted the enormity and length of the war. I'm assuming more people saw the numerous versions of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" on stage than read it, since we didn't have mandatory education back then and a lot of people couldn't read. There were supposedly 200 versions of the stageplay going around the country (just like today with so many Hollywood movies being stolen, copyright protection is a myth). The book is a piece of hack work, supposedly ripped off from the memoirs of a slave. So maybe Harriet Beecher Stowe didn't cry copyright theft because she herself had stolen the work from somebody else. I believe the war was fought over secession and States' rights, slavery being just one of the issues. And no, I'm not a "neo-Confederate", I was born in New England. I think the Civil War became a war over slavery AFTER it started, to inspire the troops and make everything simple. But I think it started over States' rights. Secession was certainly the trigger. Did Stowe's hack piece of melodrama cause the war? I certainly think it helped precipitate it. And was "Uncle Tom's Cabin" Melodrama or Romanticism? --I suppose literary wags will have to argue that. 64.169.154.82 (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)