Talk:American Civil War/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

A primer on "bulking up" your "sources"

From the "Slavery" section of the article:

"Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand, it would wither and die.[13][14][15]"

A "triple note", indicating three distinct sources, independently corroborating one another in support of the statement. Well, not quite. From the NOTES section we have this:

13. ^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pp. 241, 253.
14. ^ Declarations of Causes for: Georgia, Adopted on January 29, 1861; Mississippi, Adopted in 1861 (no exact date found); South Carolina, Adopted on December 24, 1860; Texas, Adopted on February 2, 1861.
15. ^ The New Heresy, Southern Punch, editor John Wilford Overall, September 19, 1864 is one of many references that indicate that the Republican hope of gradually ending slavery was the Southern fear. It said in part, "Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED."

I'm looking at the hard cover edition from 1988 of the "Battle Cry" (whatever that is, it's not the title)
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988 (1st ed.); 2003 (Illustrated ed.).

On page 241, there's nothing that supports the above statement.
On page 253, McPherson discusses the Crittenden Compromise of 1861, and Lincoln's response. Only the most oblique support for the statement above.

The next two notes - 14 and 15 - are original research. They are interpretations of original material by the editor to wrote and posted that statement. They require secondary sources to back them up. Wikipedia:No original research

I understand that most editors are assigned to "clean up duty" and seek Barnstar Awards by performing "carefully crafted tweaks". That's all well and good, but this particular article is a Wikipedia centerpiece, being the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War. Where is the oversight?

A modest request: rather than arguing on the Diss page, how about "tweaking" the reliability of the sources provided in the main article. 36hourblock (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

the cites are indeed poor. I rephrased the section and added new cites: Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand, it would wither and die. Lincoln said in 1845, "we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to prevent that slavery from dying a natural death — to find new places for it to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old [cite Cited in Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln: a very short introduction (Oxford U.P., 2009) p. 61 ] With tobacco and cotton wearing out the soil so fast, the South needed to expand to new lands [cite: Eugene D. Genovese, The Political Economy of Slavery: Studies in the Economy and Society of the Slave South (Wesleyan U.P,. 1988) p 244], and many slaveowners decided it was essential to reopen the international slave trade. [cite: Manisha Sinha, The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina (2000) pp 127-8]. Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, give this kid a Cleanup Barnstar. 36hourblock (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War ?

Why is this article not titled "United States Civil War" ? Was Canada or Peru, or any other american state, party to the conflict ? Did the fighting span the entire american continents ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SM527RR (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada and Peru are states now?! THAT'S AWESOME! Jersey John (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Kidding aside, I get the point you are making. I think maybe it's because general consensus goes with "American Civil War," also to call it "United States Civil War" would be, technically, inaccurate, as the states were not united. Also, I do know what you meant by "state." My jest was to show that "state" can have different meanings. The United States is a "state" insofar as, say, Europeans would call Germany a "state." But, in a particular context, the USA is made up of 50 "states" comprising a union. Jersey John (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No one calls it the "United States Civil War". We use a common name policy regarding article titles. See the comparison of the two names in reliable sources. Also American is the correct label in regards to the US.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Brits called it "the American War", as it was the major war going on at the time in the Americas. Peru’s “Chincha Islands War” 1864-1866 was both naval, and limited in scope. Although I was introduced to it through the Virginian Edmund Ruffin’s interest in fertilizer from those islands to restore soil exhausted by tobacco and cotton planting. And I have an interest in ironclads, so the the Spanish Numancia employed in that war is of interest, as it was the first ironclad to circumnavigate the world at the time that the USS Monitor was proven unseaworthy.

The British-backed French invasion of Mexico of 1862-3 was called the "Franco-Mexican War". It was, relatively speaking, of less impact on the internal politics of either the Northamericans or the Europeans. Lincoln supported Benito Juarez, they were correspondents, and when the Confederates sent an emissary, he was jailed by the Mexican government for a while, then sent home.

Those using "the American War" were sort of splitting the difference in the British tradition of "de facto" recognition of a government in sustained administrative control of a region and its population, and a government's "de jure" recognition of legitimacy. Their situation was complicated by textile manufacturing interests seeking the higher quality cotton from the American South on the one hand, British abolitionist antipathy to the Confederate practice of slavery, and British Empire subjects from Canada (America) enlisting for the Union, numbering about 100,000. The sheer scale of the conflict in numbers, over theaters of land and sea, and its incredible duration, all overwhelm any other consideration at the time.

The Harper's Magazine re-published their etchings throughout the conflict as an illustrated book in the 1870s, I believe. The front page of the edition for sales in the South was titled the "American Civil War", that in the North was titled "The Great Rebellion". Virginia by Act of Assembly titles the conflict the "War of Northern Aggression". Grandmother Susan referred to it as the "late unpleasantness" in mixed company, "The War" in the privacy of the family. I go with "American Civil War" here, a sort of three-way compromise, in a sense.

I apologize for any misunderstanding, all joking aside. But you see that Berean Hunter gave a response that is both respectful and helpful because he gave informative links to justify his position. You made a reasonable inquiry grounded in a hemisphere awareness that deserved better. Lo siento. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See Charles Girard's “Seven months in the rebel states during the North American War”. Voila, the French have it. But somehow I still want the title "American Civil War". My final defense hinges on the excuse that this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, so it should use Anglo-American usage. At the Ngram term-use comparison "North American Civil War" scores below "United States Civil War", however provincial that may be. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Returning to [|Ngram Viewer] out of Harvard University. It is addictive as advertised. Comparing “American Civil War” (ACW), set smoothing to 0, from 1860 in 50 year increments, from the corpus of English.

“The Great Rebellion” overtakes ACW only in 1866, then behind 7:1. It peaks in the 1940’s to within 2:1 behind, then falls off again.

“The War of Northern Aggression” overtakes ACW only in 1866, peaks below it in 1870, 1873, then falls to near zero permanently.

“War Between the States” has a 1938 spike, overtakes ACW only in 1944 and 1950, then spikes at 7:5 behind in 1952, 1956 before trailing off at 7:1.

Comparing “The Great Rebellion” (TGR) and “War Between the States” (WBS) shows lots of seesaw years, but the five-year trend line shows the North’s expression steadily dropping from 6:1 advantage, intersecting equal in 1883, then the North's TGR to a 3:1 disadvantage under the South's WBS. WBS greatest popularity was once 5 tmes more than today 1930-1960, but still way behind the WP article title ACW as noted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, paisano, see Raimondo Luraghi, "Storia della guerra civile americana" (Turin, Italy, 1966), for "American Civil War". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For a deep link to the ngram, see here. -Ben (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We call it what the overwhelming majority of scholars have called it since about 1860 something...if there's any legitimacy to such statements then it needs to be suggested in the initial claim. Shadowjams (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, since the 1880s, what he said. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm wrong on some dates. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite Error Tags

This edit [1] on January 5, 2012 caused three bright red "cite error tags" to appear at the end of the "Notes"section". Other than deleting the edit itself (the edit was probably an improvement), can somebody correct this? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox picture

The US Civil War, shortly after the Crimean War, was the first war to be extensively documented by the new technology of photography. Shouldn't the infobox picture reflect that, rather than a lithograph? I would edit it myself (and perhaps add this information to the article), but I am almost certain that there are editors who feel much more invested in this article than I do. --TimothyDexter (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

welcome to the page. I'd like to speak to the merits of your suggestion. By my count, the article as now written concurs in your editorial judgement, and acknowledges your emphasis by illustrations, 10-period photographs, 5-period lithographs, 2-modern paintings, 2-modern photographs, 1-period painting. Most WP American Civil War-related articles begin with an infobox featuring a period lithograph. Since lithograph was by far and away the vehicle most images of the civil war were conveyed to the general public, it seems appropriate to convey the spirit and atmosphere of the times with those images.

Your observation does suggest an additional section or the article to reflect the new technology in communication.

To your point, the advent of photography became technically advanced to become out-of-studio. Still seen as art, dead bodies were posed, muskets visually arranged. Photography as art was exhibited in New York City, then traveling galleries of unprecedented attendance including Chicago, considerably overshadowing the contemporary exhibits of painting or even circus and freak shows. The political import of seeing the dead of war was widely commented at the time relative to the impact on the growth of the "peace Democrats". Republicans lost ground in Illinois Congressional elections in 1862 and again in 1864; the exhibits fueled anti-draft sentiment leading to the New York draft riots.

The innovation of larger, steam-driven presses for publishing allowed for huge increases in circulation and illustration, mail handling innovations aboard trains expanded distribution. The cheap voluminous publication of religious tracts widely distributed fueled the remarkable spiritual revival in armies of both sides, effecting faith in action such as the Confederate "Angel of Mary's Heights" at Fredericksburg undergoing Union fire to give water to northern wounded under his wall until it was understood what he was doing, when he was cheered from Union lines.

The advent of insulated wire allowed for field application of telegraph. The North was connected by the speed of electricity. News was continuous and communicated within 8-hours nationwide. Lincoln directly listened in on commander to subordinate communications relative to combat, supply and administrative affairs in every theater of war. Grant laid telegraph lines to his division commanders every night in the Wilderness, allowing him to coordinate marching his army across the front of his deployed enemy within ten miles and successfully make river crossings across without disaster.

That is, a topic for anyone vested in this article with an interest in new technologies of communication. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

yes indeed lots was going on--you need an encyclopedia to cover them all. Happily we have one and all these topics belong in their own articles, not in the Civil War article. Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not an either or situation: an alternative might just be to create a collage/montage as is the case for the articles American Revolutionary War, World War I, World War II, and others, which might incorporate mixed media. A previous one had existed a few years ago, yet was found to be rather unsatisfactory, but now with the NatArchives and LoC dump, there are a load of new potential images to work with. Morgan Riley (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Parrott significance

Gmalcolms (talk | contribs)‎ edited without discussion, deleting the reference to Parrott rifles, explaining, “30lb Parrot rifles did not play that significant a role in the seige of Fort Pulaski relative to the 64lb and 84lb James rifles that were used.”

I would appreciate a citation to scholarly work which supports the claim that “Parrot rifles did not play that significant a role”. I have only had access to primary sources online. With respect, to explain where I am coming from:

Gillmore reported in the primary sources, “Good rifled guns, properly served can breach rapidly” at 1600-2000 yards when they are followed by heavy round shot to knock down loosened masonry. The 42-pounder James is unexcelled in breaching, but its grooves must be kept clean.

(a) the Army Records congratulated the brave efficiency of untrained and unpracticed infantry-as-gunners serving the rifled guns so well. They successfully made one penetration on the first day, knocking out the Fort batteries twice.

(b) the difficulty with properly serving the James rifles was that it was difficult to keep the grooves clean during continuous operation in the field. Explosive shells for the James rifles were not in sufficient supply. Regardless, any fires fires from the heavier James rifles served to knock down loose masonry -- critical to the effectiveness of the explosive shells from the Parrotts as both were required to make 7-foot penetrations for the first time in military history.

(c) the Navy Records note that in the morning of the second day, the gunnery crew from the USS Wabash manning the Parrotts knocked out the Fort batteries a third time and made two additional penetrations in a rising wind effecting fires. It was their shots striking the Fort’s magazine.

(d) In the event this was significant in that Olmstead reports in the Army Records that shots entering his magazine was the immediate cause for surrender.

• Gillmore, Q. A.,Official report ... of the siege and reduction of Fort Pulaski, Georgia, March and April, 1862.
  by Brig.-Gen. Q.A. Gillmore, Captain of Engineers, U.S.A., to the United States Engineer Department, 1862, D.Van Nostrand, NY.
• A compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series I, volume 12, Cornell University, Making of America.
• The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 1, vol. 6 chap. 15, Operations on the Coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Middle and East Florida, Aug 21, 1861-Apr 11, 1862. vol. 44, Vol. 14, Chap. 26. Government Printing Office. Cornell Univeristy, Making of America.
• Davis, George B., Leslie J. Perry, and Joseph W. Kirkley 1894 Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Originally published in 1891, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
• Dyer, Frederick Henry, compiler, 1979 A A compendium of the War of the Rebellion, Compiled and Arranged from Official Records of the Federal and Confederate Armies, Reports of the ... Several States, the Army Registers, and Other ... Two Volumes. National Historical Society with the Press of Morningside Bookshop, Dayton, Ohio. Originally published in 1908.

- - - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above position, but this is a bunch of discussion for a very small edit. I've reverted the change User:TheVirginiaHistorian refers to above, and suggested Gmalcolms take it to this talk discussion. Our common practice is BRD (edit Boldly, Revert changes we disagree with, then Discuss changes afterwards). Let's see if Gmalcolms wants to discuss this. BusterD (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(1)Regrets to all. I'll try to put a check on my enthusiasm. In the past, those who have not used both the official Army Records and Navy Records have been given scholarly credence, even though falling into a tragic flaw in American historiography: -- limiting research to what's in YOUR university library. The online access to both Army Records and Navy Records of the United States and Confederacy allow much more comprehensive narrative and better interpretive analysis of people and events than possible in the past, by Union and Confederate, in Army and Navy, on land and at sea.

(2)So on the loss of Fort Pulaski, local newspapers in the South loudly decried the perfidy and incompetence of Colonel Olmstead (C.S.A.) who gave up a major world-class fort overnight. This is all most accounts credit the man, even though he (a) ably carried out Lee's plan and the successor's orders, (b) three times reactivated fort batteries under fire and was allowed to keep his sword on surrender, (c) was effective in releaving the worst of his men's POW conditions by writing directly to the U.S. Secretary of War, (d) on release was detailed to contribute to the successful engineering of Charleston's seaward defense, (c) acquitted himself well in the western theater commanding regular Georgia regiments.

(3)The flip side of that coin, if one were to read only the New York Times available online, the great victory at Fort Pulaski was won slap dash by the untrained and untried volunteer New York infantry, gallantly overwhelming the blustery southerners as first-time artillerists. The 3-4 month siege conducted by the joint Navy-Army amphibious command is not mentioned in the two articles I found in New York papers, nor the naval participation in the battle. (4) Likewise, Commodore Tattnall's (C.S.N.) conducted an active defense, largely unappreciated in the popular press at the time, and also subsequently lost in the blame game of post-bellum veteran memoirs wars. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What ever else you choose to do, TVH, please do not put a check on your enthusiasm. It's great to have you working on Wikipedia, and I'm very happy to see your valuable contributions in this content area. BusterD (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

yes enthusiasm is great but original research using the OR is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the previous comment's relevance here.

• ON THE SUBSTANCE

-- The preeminent role of the "rifled cannon (30-pounder Parrott)" is so commonly understood and accepted in the literature that it is featured, described in some detail and illustrated in a graphic cut-away view with a 6-point legend in the brochure "Fort Pulaski: Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia" by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, published by the GPO 2010--357--940/80508 Reprint 2008.

-- The 30-pound Parrott rifled gun was also featured as the deciding armament in the brochure's predecessor, which can be found online at Pulaski, National Monument, Georgia by Ralston B. Lattimore, NPS Historical Handbook Series No. 18, Washington, D.C., 1954 (Reprint 1961). click on table of contents, then click on chapter, text search "Parrott" or scroll down reading.

• ON THE COMPOSITION

-- This reference is found in the article notes at Battle of Fort Pulaski with a link for the reader to access the text the information. At the time of the contribution, the copy found online did not show a reprint date, hence I dated it "about 1962" by textual inference. This is not original research. Wikipedia does not ban common sense, see WP:OR.

-- Generally I like to provide readers with online sources directly accessible by them without subscription, or to refer to widely held references available in hardcopy. These are not WP:OR original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sesquicentennial page?

Is there a page dedicated to the sesquicentennial of the Civil War? After all, there is one for the War of 1812 Bicentennial. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the only article on ACW anniversaries is American Civil War Centennial. You could be bold and start one. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Question for amateurs

Who can explain exactly how all the shooting stopped at roughly the same time in the year 1865, considering the widespread area of the fight? Thanks a lot, Til E... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this article which addresses the end after Lee's surrender? This may be what you are looking for.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Slavery and the Constitution

On March 8 user:Quarkgluonsoup deleted 2000+ words from this article in seven minutes, saying only there was "way too much detail" on slavery & the Constitution. That is false--these of course have been central topics for RS for the last 150 years on the causes of the war. Quarkgluonsoup seems get into edit wars a lot, so I suggest he discuss major changes here before he disrupts the work hundreds of editors have put into this article. Rjensen (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was too much detail on slavery for this article. It looks like the the editor who reverted my edits didn't even bother to look at them, but objected to the simple fact that a lot of work was done.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the edits and thought they were irresponsible -- primarily a massive deletion of blocks of solid information with no effort to discuss them, no sense of whagt is important or not. Quarkgluonsoup has to explain what RS he is using to decide on the balance of material -- he should read some of the main books as listed in the article. The idea that "There was too much detail on slavery" is nonsense--indeed the article has little to say about slavery & slaves & is mostly about the DEBATE over the role of slavery in the nation's future. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On June 4, 2012, Quarkgluonsoup returned to this site and re-deleted the section he/she removed in March 2012.

The Constitutional crisis over slavery in the territories provides essential background on the causes of the American Civil War. Arthur Bestor‘s essay forms the basis of the fully sourced section on the subject supported by Guelzo, McPherson, Krannawitter, Stampp, and William Lee Miller. The section in this article compresses his essay The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis to fit an encyclopedic format. (American Historical Review, LXIX, No. 2: January 1964).

I don’t mind when skilled and serious-minded editors make changes to the articles, but I think Quarkgluonsoup (or the person who controls a sockpuppet of that username) should do their own research before tampering with existing – and fully sourced – material. It smacks of vandalism. 36hourblock (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is so long it is nearly unreadable. Who is going to read this when it is so massive? The topics should have their own pages when they get to the length that the territorial crisis has reached. Can we move this material to pages specifically on the topic so the extreme length of this article can be reduced?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This topic cannot be reduced to a sound byte. If you wish to create a separate topic article for slavery, the Constitution and the territories, by all means do so. I'll work with you on that. Please do not engage in hyperbole. The aritlce is neither "massive" nor "unreadable", unless the editor is prefers getting his history in comic book format. 36hourblock (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Will you agree to work with me to reduce the size of the article?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Reducing the size of the article isn't always about removing information, but about being as precise and to the point as possible, and letting the sub articles go into greater detail. JOJ ^Hutton 19:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And that is fine, but I need some kind of promise that such edits won't simply be cold reverted. It will take a lot of effort to condense this information, and would still require deleting many words.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor wants me to "promise not to cold revert" a wholesale removal of text? Sorry, it "don't work that way". First, as a gesture of goodwill, let Quarkgluonsoup attend to his own edits by shortening the text and, and providing substantive footnotes and appropriate sources for the one and only article he has created, viz. John Quincy Adams and abolitionism. Refer to my comments on that talk page. Then, sir, we can proceed with shortening - without sacrificing adequate detail or fidelity to sources - this Civil War article. O.K.? 36hourblock (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

GA reassessment

I have nominated this article for a reassessment of its Good Article status due to its extreme length. (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2) Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

On the left bar of your screen there is a "Toolbox" toggle which features "Page size" at the bottom of the option list. This article is just over 13,000 words, "readable prose", so I would agree it is sort of at a history-biography article upper limit.

At Long Pages this article is listed at #876, viewed June 5, 2012. At around 160,000 bytes it is about half the size of #30.

I once more than doubled that reasonable length in an article before collaborative editors came alongside to help spin off separate articles and graft some sections as written onto existing articles. I so over-illustrated the piece that it was actually listed (I blush) in the top fifteen longest articles on Wikipedia. If an article takes a prohibitively long time to load, it defeats the very purpose of an online encyclopedia.

Now for over six months, we are still revising text there, rewriting remaining paragraphs more concisely, down to 11,000 words. This without wholesale block-deletion attempted by one drive-by fella who tried to summarily remove major points related to the subject from editor-writers by copy-edit only. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And the approach you are using isn't working. You have been working to shorten it for 6 months and it is only even more massive than ever. Normally an article so overly massive would have large chunks moved to specific articles. This article isn't GA worthy.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the lead is overly long and detailed. Some information is repeated. The info box has inaccuracies and the list of "commanders" isn't streamlined. It has Gideon Welles because he was Sec. Of Navy, but it omits Stanton.JOJ ^Hutton 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, forget the other article that went from 20,000+ words down to 11,000. Lets look at the infobox inaccuracies. below is my suggestion for flag change. Lets look at the commanders list of apples and oranges mix. Below is my suggestion for representation and balance in the list. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox flag

The “Blood Stained Banner” is not the flag of the leaders listed in the Infobox. It was an end-of-regime political resolution in effect for two weeks before the Confederate Congress adjourned from Richmond without a time or place to reconvene. In Jefferson Davis’ words, the Confederacy “disappeared”.

The flag chosen for an article concerning the Confederate States of America, the historical nation-state, should be a flag which is 1) adopted with a substantial duration, 2) widely displayed by contemporaries 1861-1865, and 3) frequently used in scholarly treatment of the subject. It should be apart from literary considerations found in mockumentaries. The choice should independent of modern entities of like name, conforming to the laws of the United States as incorporated in Texas, Georgia, etc.

The flag held in common by all Confederate Infobox leaders was the “Stars and Bars” of three horizontal stripes adopted for 750 days. The 13-star flags were official 500 days, versus the 150 days of the 11 star flag. The “Stars and Bars” was the flag of a Confederacy expanding its membership, victorious on the field of battle, hopeful of an international commerce to sustain its independence and expecting international recognition as a sovereign nation-state. That is the flag for representing the CSA government in the American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox. rationalize commanders

Here’s my start-point and rationale for the Infoxbox commanders list.

for each side, 2 politicos. 2 land commanders. 2 water commanders.

Lincoln = Davis for first political leaders as they were presidents

Stanton = Judah for cabinet “right-hand” men

Grant (east) = Lee (east) for eastern generals

Sherman (west) = J.E. Johnston (west) for western generals

Farragut (blockade) = Semmes (raider) for widest scope of action

Porter (river) = Tattnall (ironclads) for narrower scope of action

This way there is geographic distribution of theaters of action, conciseness in representation, balance of services and symmetry in the list of commanders. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. flag selected for CSA in use 1861-1865 for historical nation-state. Leaders in Infobox most prominent in their spheres of command. Links for leaders follow WP:SPECIFICLINK taking the reader to the specific topic in the leaders' biographical article. Balanced 2 politicos, 2 land commanders, 2 water commanders for both sides to reflect complexity, range and expanse of the conflict. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Introduction

The Introduction is rewritten to WP:LEAD four paragraphs in general language preserving references used by previous editors.

Readable text is WP:BETTER#Lead section reduced from 750 to 450 words. Specifics are covered in article sections below.

- Paragraph #1 introduces the topic as a civil war, identifying how it arose and its significance by international recognition of belligerent status to both sides.

- Paragraph #2 describes the onset of hostilities, and the relevant political elements found in the resulting Union, Confederacy, Indian Nations and the international community.

- Paragraph #3 discusses a definitive characteristic of the war, mass armies, their conscription and enlistment. Casualties are absolute and in context of the populations.

- Paragraph #4 surveys the modern aspects of warfare introduced on a continental scale and gives an outcomes segue into the next historical period. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

the current lede is much too short. It has to summarize the article (for people who read on) and summarize the war for people who will not be reading the main text. The article contains 7 main sections, most of which get ignored. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The current lede is almost too long. If it is much longer it will be excessive.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

@Rjensen. agreed, the Introduction does not cover everything it is required to at Wikipedia. Intro guidelines want some allusion to major controversies, which here means a nod to the historiographic dichotomy between the "Empire of Liberty" and "Lost Cause" traditions as featured in the article as written. A division which I agree is a good way to break it all down, so we need to reflect that in the Intro.

In my first draft-revision I did add in reference to the section on conscription. On the other hand, as written at your reversion, the Intro is not the place for a recap of Grant reshuffling his staff in the Wilderness Campaign. Though for readers who continue through the article, "Conquest of Virginia" is historiographically rich, a nod to Conway Sams and his three volumes, but this time different -- written in the yellow house in Norfolk, Virginia. You gotta know I'm lovin' it ...

I still want to pare the Intro down, but I agree there is actually more to be added in substance because it is required ... and I take it from your comment that the draft should include something on the actual course of the war, which the Intro now contains, but my first draft did not. Next draft will include course of the war and follow your guide to touch on more article sections now omitted in the Introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the lede is probably fine as it is. The first section that needs to be shortened is the slavery section. There is enough material in that section for a separate article on slavery. Do you want to try to take a shot at that?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

the lede has to summarize the entire article and should follow the article's outline. I think 1000 words is about right for an article of this major importance & length. Rjensen (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article is not accurate. There are several sources of credible and notable information that refute slavery as a cause of the civil war. Also, this article does not mention the anti-Constitutional behavior of Lincoln. Which would include his kidnapping of secessionist supporters, suspension of habeas corpus, extortion of political adversaries, manipulation of criteria for statehood candidacy, flip flopping between 10th Amendment references and the actual physical conflict launched by the north in the name of reunification (not slavery).

Further this article does not speak of the peace Democrats, and Lincolns suppression of them. It does not speak of Lincolns racism and the mixed political signals this sent, the northern states economic war on the South via tariffs and levy.

Overall, this article is not good due to it's willingness to avoid contrary evidence. It is obvious by censorship, that this is the case.

As a side note, the article's explanation that the civil war was fought over slavery (definitively) is evidence of it's bias. Does Wikipedia embrace the policy that it -not true historians- has the ability to make a "debate is over" conclusion? Quite the contrast to it's branding of being an "encyclopedia anyone can edit"...

The irony in locking this article to prevent new, and much more notable information from being added is that it is similar to the actions taken by the North during the civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.83.77 (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) Well. Yes, lets beef up the alternative sources. We have only one citation from Avery Craven’s “The growth of Southern nationalism, 1848-1861” (1955). Writing for the LSU “History of the South”, he is sometimes dismissed as a “pro-Confederate” writer. But his academic stature endures and much can be added to this article from his scholarship, and, for that matter, from the same series, that of E. Merton Coulter “The Confederate States of America 1861-1865” (1950) of which this article has no citations. He might be a useful WP:RELIABLE SOURCE to mine for specific difficulties that constitutional scholars have had with Lincoln’s administration.

(2) To your “slavery” point, I don't find the same conclusion. Let’s look at Craven, p.392: “The quarrel between the sections had developed largely around slavery—slavery as a thing of itself and then as a symbol of all differences and conflicts. As William H. Seward said, “Every question, political, civil or ecclesiastical, however foreign to the subject of slavery, brings up slavery as an incident, and the incident supplants the principal question. We hear of nothing but slavery, and we can talk of nothing but slavery.”

(3) While there may be abstract treatment of the Southern economy or what not, that indicates that slavery was not the thing for some aspect of the conflict, to understand the people of the time and events, it matters very much to look at the words that they said to one another, in public speeches and private letters, to friends and foes. A more recent historian of note from fifty years later is Stephen B. Oates. In “The approaching fury, 1820-1861” (1997) and “The whirlwind of War: voices of the storm, 1861-1865”, (1998) he weaves primary sources, the actual words of the actors themselves, juxtaposed to tell the larger events of the American historical narrative. Both are available in paperback.

(4) As the great Southern writer William Faulkner wrote, “I think that no one individual can look at truth. It blinds you. You look at it and you see one phase of it. Someone else looks at it and sees a slightly awry phase of it. But taken together, the truth is in what they saw, though nobody saw the truth intact.” Come back loaded for bear, bring a resource with your edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right in what you said 24.17.83.77 . I gave up on being able to contribute to this article a while back because of some of the reasons you mentioned, and I also recognize that this is not a very good article for some of the reasons you mentioned. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Originally, the war was NOT about slavery. Lincon was NOT an abolitionist. He said that he would leave to the south's slaves alone if the came back to the union. The only reason lincon issued the emancipation proclamation was to keep Britain and France out of the war

98.110.0.16 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)thechristiandude,5-20-12

Why was the south so determined to secede as soon as Lincoln was elected in 1860? Because they didn't trust him with their economy. Because what? Because his anti-slavery sympathies were already well known in 1860. Having said that, the point many people forget is that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves under northern control, or in Union slavery states like Delaware. It only freed slaves still under rebel control. And yes, it was mainly a political move to keep Britain from allying with the Confederacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This subject comes up over an over again, as overt or unwitting devotees of the Lost Cause find various Civil War-related Wikipedia pages and are confronted with the truth. It is ironic, in the highest degree, that these people deny that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. All that they need to do (but never seem to do) is go and look at the what the seceders themselves gave as their reasons for seceding. The various ordinances of secession, and the justifications of those ordinances published by the seceding states, repeatedly and proudly declared secession's primary cause to be the necessity of protecting chattel slavery and white supremacy, which the seceders considered to be the basis of Southern civilization (sic). The same opinions are to be found in innumerable letters and diaries from the period. This is why serious historians don't argue about the subject. So look, whoever you people are, you are insulting the memory of your (presumed) ancestors by making up some sneaking excuse for the war - they knew what it was about, and they stated it forthrightly. If you can't live with the truth, I can't say I blame you, but don't expect the rest of us to enter your fantasy world. Davidiank (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep; here's a link to make it easier for them to find: Declaration of Causes of Secession Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Til. Perhaps we need an FAQ to explain to the next person interested in making such a change why we're not going to allow for him/her to insert this revisionist history nonsense into the article. JoelWhy? talk 13:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsence? Hardly. And not really revisionist as if it is some kind of fringe theory. The fact that the North eventually made the war about slavery and about freeing the slaves is well documented. But to dismiss the South's reason for fighting the war as revisionist is absurd. Your not going to be able to persuade 100,000 non slave owners to fight a war so the rich people can keep their slaves. It was much much more to many of them. Most fought for their "Rats" (rights) and wouldn't give a damn about slavery one bit. That's why many southerers at the time, referred to the war as the "second war of independence". The fact that ending slavery was not a war aim until nearly two years after in began, can not explain why most Northeners signed up to fight. It was about preserving the Union. In the South, it was about their rights as states. In fact, the idea that the war was solely over slavery is most likely the revisionist theory.JOJ ^Hutton 14:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nonsense. Go back and read the reasons as declared by the States. It was about slavery from day 1. Or, you could argue it was a state's right issue -- the state's right to allow slavery. JoelWhy? talk 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is another page with links to key documents: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp. As for JOJ Hutton, all I can say is take a look at the documents, and for that matter read my comment again. No, it wasn't just about slavery: it was also about white supremacy. For the non-slaveowning white southerners that was clearly a powerful issue, and it was used to perfection by the slaveowners who dominated the economy and political power. Over and over again one reads comments in the vein of "your daughters led to the altar by the dusky sons of Ham, etc, etc." For that matter, more subtle versions of the same argument are still being used to persuade southern whites to vote against their own interests. No doubt JOJ Hutton you would prefer some different history, because the words of the seceders and the southern soldiers makes them look to modern eyes like racist barbarians (and pompous ones at that). But it is no use trying to expunge that history: those really were their words, and their reasons, and if you get rid of them there will really be nothing left. Your invocations of "rights" is ironic: in the old south, the right that mattered more than any other was the right to own and control slaves, and every other right (like freedom of speech, due process, etc.) was sacrificed to the right of property in slaves. That was one powerful motive on the northern side: many could see that the constitutional rights of all Americans were being suppressed just so that slavery would not be challenged, and they feared that the disease would spread. Davidiank (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My issue with the statements in the article is that the author speaks of The South as if the The South had one voice. It did not. To say the cause of the war was Slavery - well, what does that mean? Everyone one in the The South was committed to perpetuating Slavery? Have you read Davidson or Lee on their dislike of Slavery? I can't think of two stronger proponents of The South than its President and it's most valued General and both were anti-slavery as were notable generals Longstreet and Cleburn. That is not to say that there wasn't a view point that Slavery was justified. Just read the Confederate Vice President's speech that is now known as The Cornerstone Speech read: Cornerstone Speech. He rejects outright the Jeffersonian concept that "all men were created equal." In my opinion there is no "cause" of the Civil War. There was an existing cultural divide that was constantly getting aggrivated and that the split was inevitable because there were multiple cultural identities. If you need a reason, it is this larger conflict that is the real cause. Slavery was just one part of it.Pmmhistory (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

@ JOJ Hutton and Pmmhistory. I searched through the article by "slavery" and “cause” and did not find the bias you (pl., y'all) referred to.

- In reference to the men fighting, it is telling that Spring 1861 Jefferson Davis called for troops, 300,000 volunteered for secession before a fight and 100,000 were enlisted for national service. By spring 1862, over half of the veterans refused to re-enlist and the other 200,000 early enthusiasts did not reappear to fight for the Confederacy as a nation-state. That crisis in turn led to the first national conscription act in North America, "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." Varying desertion-return rates over the course of the war reflected a "vote with their feet". So agreed, the South was not culturally monolithic.

- The South was not politically monolithic, the article might expand on the Unionist pockets found in every Southern state, especially considering the Confederate martial law required in eastern Tennessee and patrols enforcing travel passes elsewhere on whites, drafting opposition newspaper editors and their staffs in North Carolina and Georgia while pro-administration were "bombproofed", and given that Secessionist Convention delegates from some districts were later denied their elected seats in the Confederate Congress from Missouri, Alabama and North Carolina.

- I agree that regarding slavery and slave-holding, the Cleyborne chapter is crucial to understanding the South, as is Jefferson Davis' insistence on freeing slaves who served in the army as in the American Revolution. But there was no majority in Congress for black emancipation, nor for black combat troops, although some 20,000 served as army teamsters, engineering and railroad laborers. His detractors said the Confederacy “died of Davis” but he said it died of a racial and states-rights “theory”. -->>- In this and other ways, the C.S. Government chose policies to maintain slavery over gaining independence, from beginning to end, and so the nation-state government can fairly be characterized as fighting FOR slavery.

@Davidiank and Joel.Why, it does NOT follow that Johnny Reb as an individual was fighting for the last gasp of North American slavery any more than the average conscripted Viet-vet fought for the last gasp of French colonialism. And, both fought well by any standard, but they were not well fought.

- There ARE additional threads to develop along the main points offered by JOJ Hutton and Pmmhistory -- there was cultural and political diversity in the historical Confederacy -- and these would make constructive contributions to the article. But, for now, could either of you (pl. y'all) point to the worst two specific passages that exhibit “bias” as written? We'll "fix" them, as we say in the South. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian

Revise External Links

• Link 1: This is just a link to more links at DMOZ, is this a better choice than the ACW Homepage? http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html, something to think about...
• Link 2: Link Outdated, Civil War Photos at the National Archives now located at: http://www.archives.gov/research/military/civil-war/photos/index.html
• Link 4: The Civil War Trust is an organization that promotes CW Battlefield Preservation, the link description should reflect that.
• Link 10: This is a link to Civil War Reenactment videos on Youtube, are Civil War Reenactment Videos the best tool for teaching the history of the American Civil War? This link should be moved to "American Civil War reenactment" instead.
• Link for Consideration: http://CivilWarTalk.com - Best Moderated ACW Forum today, secession, slavery, politics, battles, site is well suited to all levels of academic, as well as historical research and discussion.

--WVThomas (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Unhappy with accuracy of claim in lede

I'm not happy with this claim in the lead: "After four years of warfare, mostly within the Southern states, the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation."

Slavery was not outlawed everywhere in the nation until 1868, and I'm surprised the lede does not reflect that accurately. The 1863 Emancipation Proclamation specified the exact counties of seceded states not then under Union control, in which slavery was abolished by executive order. Since it did not apply in Union slave states like Delaware, nor in southern counties already occupied by Union troops in 1863, it was ironically said by the Southern government that Lincoln's order applied only in those areas where his authority did not extend. Slavery continued in Delaware and other Union slave states until these slaves were finally freed in 1868. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

13th amendment was ratified & effective in 1865. The abolition of slavery was clearly an outcome of the war.--JimWae (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm wrong, you're right. The last slaves were emancipated in Delaware and DC in 1865. For some reason I was confusing the 13th with the 14th amendment, sorry. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, on the same subject, I do find the sentence to be unwieldy and a bit sophomoric sounding. Probably should change "outlawed" to "abolished".--JOJ ^Hutton 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The C.S. government claim, "Lincoln's order applied only in those areas where his authority did not extend." -- is sometimes adopted in otherwise reliable sources looking at the territory irrevocably under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation. But there is more to the story.

- In the previously integrated Union navy, recruitment of black sailors increased to almost 20,000. For example, Fort Pulaski GA as an Underground Railroad terminal recruited over 500 black Georgian sailors, and their families grew food for the blockading crews.

- In the Union army, Democratic commanders ended the practice of holding escaped slaves to return to their owners. Every “contraband” entering Union lines was freed. A mass migration off the plantations, from regions outside Lincoln’s control, debilitated Confederate crop production, stripped their railroads of the skilled (black-only) repair crews, etc.

- The army recruited teamsters and guides who had travelled the region wherever the armies advanced. Two division’s worth of men, almost 200,000 fought in blue. In time, numbers of trained, well equipped, combat-seasoned freedmen had effect.

- Recruitment increased in abolitionist regions. Quakers participated in U.S. uniformed service for the first time (the second was WWII). Abolitionist Britain did not object to 100,000 of its Canadian colonials fighting in blue. As Napoleon is said to have irreverently observed, “God is on the side of the big battalions.”

Besides the principle of the thing which is significant in the American narrative, let’s not slight the Emancipation Proclamation here, because of its historical, measurable effect at the time in mass armies and mass migrations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Foner and the causes

Two editors have improperly referenced Foner’s work globally. Making a reference link to “Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War”, a collection of essays touching on (a) origins of the civil war, (b) ambiguities of anti-slavery, and (c) post-war land and labor.

- Editor A: attributes Foner without page reference: Some were motivated by anti-slavery only, most by a mixture of politics, culture, nationalism.

- Editor B: attributes Foner without page reference: “New political history” cannot see that slavery was central.

So, admiring everything Foner, I took a look myself at the link provided, and rewrote the passage with page citations for reference according to WP guidelines,

“Addressing the causes of the Civil War, Eric Foner sees an overarching tension between “virtue and commerce”, the legacy of republican ideology, and the expansion of capitalism, multidimensional political, social and economic variables, but in historical context (p.18-20).

The causes were several, united in a consolidating nationalism. A movement that was Individualist, egalitarian and perfectionist grew to a democratic majority attacking slavery, and slavery’s defense in a pre-industrial traditional society brought the two sides to war (p.21-24). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Territorial Crisis and US Constitution

The recent edits to this section contained some inaccuracies that required correction.

The editor wrote this: "Two of these doctrines emphasized federal power (and were typically cited by opponents of slavery) while the other two of these doctrines emphasized local power (and were typically cited by proponents of slavery)."

These statements are imprecise, and misleading. The "typical...opponents of slavery" is a strong phrase, especially without a source, and historian Arthur Bestor, whom the editor is piggy-backing on, never said it. And the matter of "local power" is not made clear: popular sovereignty and territoral sovereignty are not just "local" doctrines, and are quite at odds with each other. Ask Senator Stephen Douglas.

There's still lots of revisions and sources to be added at John Quincy Adams and abolitionism. That sounds like a great project for the editor who created it. 36hourblock (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick and Easy “Wiki” Recipe: "American Civil War and Slavery"

Utensils required: 2 quart culinary blender; mallet

Ingredients:

3 Cups Wiki articles: border states, Deep South, Republican Party, Know Nothing, Whig, Kansas–Nebraska Act, Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Wilmot Proviso, Mexican–American War, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Cuba, Second Party System, Kansas Territory, Bleeding Kansas, Sacking of Lawrence, Wakarusa War, Pottawatomie Massacre, Dred Scott decision, Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, manumission, Confederacy.

1 ½ Cups Wiki Biographies: John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Pierce, Charles Sumner, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Roger B. Taney, James Buchanan, Dred Scott, Jefferson Davis.

¼ Cup historical dates: 1865, 1863, 1860, 1957, 1858, 1850, 1820, 1787, 1492, 2003 (Last Living Widow of Civil War Veteran)

2 Tsp Conjunctions: “and”, “nor”, “but”, “yet”, “so”, “whether”, “either”….

Place ingredients in blender (use mallet to pound in particularly large, overblown articles). Blend at high speed for 3 minutes, until smooth and homogeneous. Chill in refrigerator. Serve in colorful and festive 40 ounce cups, decorated with Union and Confederate flags. Garnish with citations (optional).

Mmmmmmm, delicious! Happy Civil War Sesquicentennial! 36hourblock (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Very witty. Also extremely accurate. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:7599:EF15:4EFA:65F2 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

End of the Confederacy yet?

OUT OF SEQUENCE PREVIOUSLY -- JErikLarson broke up my post a month prior with the following entry. Welcome. Talk pages at WP follow chronologically. Lead name is editor addressed. signature follows post. Here is the new section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

JErikLarson. Just a factual note. As far as I know, the Confederate States of America ("the Confederacy") never did surrender to the United States of America at the conclusion of the Civil War. This, at least partially (and, perhaps, wholly), was because the United States of America never formally acknowledged that the Confederate States of America was, in fact, a country. Might it be better for the penultimate sentence of the paragraph to read: "After four years of warfare, various Confederate armies either surrendered, disbanded or otherwise ceased to fight against the federal government and slavery was abolished everywhere in the nation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JErikLarson (talk • contribs) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As is often the case at the end of a war of this kind, there was by the end no "CSA" to surrender; the entity in question merely dissolved into chaos and farce. Lee's surrender of the only substantial armed force loyal to the secessionist movement is generally regarded as the effective end of the Confederacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the Confederate government officially disbanded itself and ceased to exist at its last official cabinet meeting on May 5, 1865. See Jefferson Davis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@JErikLarson. There is no need for speculation or conjecture concerning the end of the Confederacy. Both the Governor of Virginia who fought commands in the defense of Richmond, then 1870s re-elected to state office, and the President of the Confederacy who published a post-war "Defense" and a "Short history", said that the Confederacy surrendered, whether couched in terms of "adopted the policy" of surrender, or peace, or "disappeared" into the history of the United States. You can read their words online at the links below.

-- Virginia Gov. William Smith held two unsuccessful conferences pressing for a policy of guerrilla warfare, the first with the Sec. of War at Danville, the second with Pres. Davis at Greensboro NC. Smith then undertook a tour “amongst the people … [to] ascertain their feelings and sentiments as to the guerilla policy and the further conduct of the war … he discovered the people adverse to any such purposes”, including mass meeting resolutions calling for a “policy of peace”. “Memoirs of Governor William Smith, p.64.

-- On Lee’s surrender, Davis removed to Greensboro where Johnston first proposed surrender, and supported by his “constitutional advisors”, Davis adopted the policy. (“Smith Memoirs”, p. 485-487). On reaching Charlotte 18 April 1865 Davis learned of Lincoln’s assassination. Davis approved of the joint surrender communiqué calling on their respective government authorities to enact the provisions, even though he doubted the U.S. government would agree. (“Smith Memoirs”, p.489-490).

-- Jefferson Davis' assessment in 1890 determined, “With the capture of the capital, the dispersion of the civil authorities, the surrender of the armies in the field, and the arrest of the President, the Confederate States of America disappeared ... their history henceforth became a part of the history of the United States.” Short History of the Confederate States of America, 1890, 2010. Chapter LXXXVIII, “Re-establishment of the Union by force”. p.503. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2012

The date in the following sentence is incorrect. Please change "Perceived insults to Southern collective honor included the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin (1854)" to "Perceived insults to Southern collective honor included the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852)"

Source of correct date: see, for example, the Wikipedia article on Uncle Tom's Cabin.

24.173.248.18 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

good eye. Generally we can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia, but whether the Wyatt-Brown citation has it as 1854 or not, 1852 is used in Aspects of the publishing history of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, 1851-1900 by R.D. Patkus and M.C. Schlosser found on Vassar College Libraries “Archives and Special Collections”. Viewed July 28, 2012. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Civilian Deaths?

James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom gives 50,000 dead as a likely count for civilians (see page 619). Please add it to the either the casualty box or text. 165.65.136.68 (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Names

I reverted an effort to add "War of Northern Aggression" and "War Between the States" to the article's first sentence. The first simply does not belong since it is rarely mentioned seriously. The second may be OK (although I'm not sure the modifier "often" is appropriate, but it leaves the wording awkward if we also retain "often referred to as The Civil War in the United States." I prefer the status quo, but if WBTS is added then "often referred to as The Civil War in the United States" would need to modified. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. How about, "sometimes called the 'War between the States,' especially in the South." Rjensen (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

- or --- The American Civil War (1861–1865), in the United States often the "Civil War", sometimes the "War between the States", was a civil war fought over the secession of the Confederate States. ---

- Sometimes scholars will use TWBS (a) to present an equivalency treatment, or (b) to signify a Confederate perspective, or (c) merely to vary phrasing.

- I am not much of a fan of parenthetical statements in the narrative as it now is rewritten. The sometime-mostly statement seems hedging, tentative, even WP:WEASEL. I believe some months back, the Talk archive will show a discussion on the term frequency, if it comes to statistically supporting the use of "often" and "sometimes" to denote relative frequency. The relative uses of the two terms in scholarly publication has remained relatively the same since the 1880s as I remember, with a WBTS spike in the 1930s that came up to 50% of 'Civil War', then receding.

- Use of War-of-Northern-Aggression went to near zero by 1870. Cousin Ludwell used it with tongue in cheek and a smile on his face since the phrase was then the official name for the "late unpleasantness" as enacted by the Assembly of Virginia. I do not know that the provision was ever repealed, but I for one would not dream of accepting WONA for usage outside the confines of the William and Mary campus in 1963. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For the introductory sentence -- alternative names --, I've chosen a 3:1:0 ratio rationale by scholarly usage over the last 20 years.

"Civil War" : 3x = often --to-- "War-between-the-states" : 1x = sometimes --to-- "War-of-northern-aggression" : 0x = no mention. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenic paragraphs

Why does each section sound like it was written by someone who is Schizophrenic? Take the following for instance

"The rest make no mention of the slavery issue, and are often brief announcements of the dissolution of ties by the legislatures,[117] however at least four states - South Carolina,[118] Mississippi,[119] Georgia,[120] and Texas[121] - also passed lengthy and detailed explanations of their causes for secession, all of which laid the blame squarely on the influence over the northern states of the movement to abolish slavery, something regarded as a Constitutional right by the slaveholding states."

Its like the writer started off making the case that the war had nothing to do with slavery but then did an about turn and completely contradict himself. I know the old adage "too many cooks spoil the broth" and this seems to be an inherent flaw with wikipedia but it looks very unprofessional so is there any way for wikipedia articles to have a unified theme and stick to it? At least paragraph by paragraph. Tcla75 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the information you quoted, what is your problem with it? It is about as accurate and neutral statement of the exact facts as we are going to get. Are you proposing any concrete changes there, objecting to this information being presented, or just grousing in general? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

- The objection may be to early 19th Century style. Contrast Edward Everett’s speech to Lincoln’s at Gettysburg Cemetery. Both hit the same main points in substance because both reflected of the literary structure found in Pericles “Funeral Oration”, but with wildly different styles and effect. See Gary Will’s “Lincoln at Gettysburg”. Also, WP:FOOTNOTES would not have multiple primary source citations breaking up sentences. One scholarly source is preferable. Informational notes can be added without encumbering the inline reading experience.

- rewrite proposal:

- - Draft #2 below now follows Til Eulenspiegel's editorial direction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

- Secessionists in each state chose their own mode of joining the Confederacy, as the new nation made no requirement for admission but its own Congressional joint resolution. There was no requirement for a regular state legislature, not for an elected secessionist convention and not for a popular referenda on the outcome. Rationales differed with eight states made brief announcements of the legislatures dissolving their ties to the Union on their own authority.[1] But South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas subsequently published lengthy explanations including northern Abolitionist threats to slavery.[2] Procedures seceding also differed as only Texas, Virginia and Tennessee passed state-wide referenda; the Kentucky legislature never called a convention.[3] The Confederate Congress ultimately admitted thirteen states and two territories.[4]

- Lots of good research shown here, we need to collaborate to write it up for the encyclopedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, your version is completely wrong. It was SC, MS, GA and TX who published the lengthy explanations, not Virginia or Alabama, which only mentioned the phrase "slaveholding states" in their ordinances of secession. And we need a source that TX, VA and TN passed referenda for secession. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Very well, SC, MS, GA and TX had lengthy explanations. Reference to TX, VA and TN referenda is found in Coulter, E. Merton, "The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865", Louisiana State University Press, 1950, 1962. p. 6. Texas famously sent a delegation at Montgomery which did not vote in Congress until AFTER its referendum. TN, VA, AR, MO and NC first conventions voted "'no'" secession. Virginia's delegation took its seat in the Confederate Congress and voted BEFORE its referendum. This might be woven later in the article.

And I filled some needful linking phrases for Draft #2. Our version is looking better. Practice makes improvement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The four states that passed the detailed explanations outlining their reasons for secession, made the argument that they considered the holding of slaves a constitutionally guaranteed right. I noticed your version drops (or whitewashes) this aspect of the quarrel. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

- I thought to omit the constitutional observation in the introduction as unnecessary, since the Constitutional right to slavery where practiced was not at issue. Lincoln and the Republicans were going for the Corwin Amendment to explicitly guarantee what slavers inferred. The fact that Abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass inferred [correctly] that the original document does NOT, meant that they did not support the moderate [and racist - the 19th C. stain on both societies] majority of the emerging Republican party. Abolitionists were the immediate threat, not Republicans Constitutionally governing the country.

- As it happened Fire-eaters framed the question for the Southern Democrats necessary for the 2/3 vote required, "Slavery with the Union, or slavery without it.". The South-Dems vacated their seats rather than vote for it. As Foner explains, defense of a feudal institution by the traditional, agricultural, slaver society would mean war with the egalitarian, industrial democratic one. I did not believe that acknowledgement to be "whitewashing", only that the introduction should only address the largest themes at issue, and the constitutionality of slavery was not at issue. The national government's power to govern the territories with a [an anti-slavery-expansion] Congressional majority should not have been at issue either, as practiced by the USG since the Northwest Territory begun by the Continental Congress under the [weaker] Articles of Confederation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's beginning to sound like you haven't actually read these detailed explanations of reasons for secession that were given by the SC, MS, GA and TX legislatures. (Obviously, since you had actually thought they were written by VA and AL). They do quite clearly make the point, that they felt the northern Abolition movement was a threat to their CONSTITUTIONAL rights to hold slaves. If you try to rewrite these documents and change their reasoning, saying 'no, no, that's not it at all', then you are engaging in revisionism. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

the issue was NOT the constitutional right to hold slaves inside their states--Lincoln &the Republicans agreed to that. It was whether they had a federal constitutional right to hold slaves in the territories or in a northern state. that was EXPANSION of slavery and that was the issue. Rjensen (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, we are not discussing what Lincoln and the republicans thought were the reasons for secession. We are discussing the reasons explicitly given by four of the seceding states themselves - GA, MS, SC and TX. Anyone can go and read those reasons, and I wish you would, because I would hate to have to post lengthy extracts from them here just to prove what they indeed do say about the main issue being "the right to hold slaves as property guaranteed under the [pre-1865] US Constitution". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the seceding states said the national government was hostile to their rights, specifically their right to hold slaves in certain places where they thought they had that right, as in Kansas or Illinois. Rjensen (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the "Declarations of Causes of Secession" from the four states do repeatedly bring up the point that they didn't consider their "constitutional right of property" lost if the slaves became fugitive in a northern state and they were complaining that their "property" was not being returned by uncooperative abolitionist states. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Til Eulenspiegel, You will find most editors here have read the documents you refer to, and none but you suppose a Secessionist in Spring 1861 referred to a pre-1865 Constitution. For my part, I apologized and corrected my misplaced cut-and-paste text edit.

- Democracy not only can have a tyranny of the majority, it has a tyranny of TIME. Socrates said in a democracy, silence is consent. In the U.S., the trending egalitarian impulse of democracy without the drag of self-exiled secessionists 1861-1865, accelerated its destruction of slavery. It went from limiting slavery's territorial expansion and imperfectly enforcing the fugitive slave act to abolishing slavery altogether wherever it existed. The unpassed 1861 Corwin proposed-thirteenth, transformed democratically into the 1865 thirteenth Emancipation Amendment under the tutelage of a bloody slaver-led rebellion.

- Boothe’s 1865 assassination failed. Congress had already sent the 13th Amendment out to the states. Once a democracy is aroused, it cannot be turned back by the loss of one life or 600,000. The Constitutional red-letter year you are grasping for is 1868 --- the 14th Amendment requires all the protections for individual rights imposed on the USG to be applied onto the STATES to protect individual rights.

- But to your point, Secessionist understanding of the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave law does not describe the topic at hand, how Confederate formation is important in the American Civil War. It becomes irrelevant. As Lincoln predicted, with separation, it is harder for aliens to make treaties than friends to make law. Fugitive slaves were not surrendered at all by the North [after 1863]… ([First Inaugural], at bartleby.com, Great Books Online, para. 27 viewed August 2, 2012.) I regret my error, now you please do re-read the documents: there is no reference to “before 1865”. Let’s help out one another collegially here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

TVH, obviously I am well aware that the 1861 documents do not refer to a "pre 1865 Constitution". That's why I had put the words "Pre-1865" in [square brackets] - to indicate that this was my own editorial qualification. The 1861 documents by the four southern states only refer to it as "the Constitution", naturally. Here we have are four of the states that seceded, speaking for themselves, in 1861, telling us exactly why they are seceding, and yet plenty of revisionists stubbornly do not wish to accept what these documents are telling us, because they want to rewrite all the reasons why the South seceded. All of the documents say in plain English that one of the major bones they had to pick with northern states, was that their escaped slaves were not being returned to them as property under 'full faith and credit'. Yet now we have a modern day "expert" who has pronounced this authentic complaint to be "not germane" i.e. inadmissible. The original documents speak for themselves, you aren't arguing with me so much as you are arguing with history. Then you tell ME to cooperate. On the contrary, I am now beginning to lose my feeling of tentative support for any of your proposed rewriting. And my writing style is not "early 19th century", thank you, it is clearly written, encyclopedic modern English. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ouch: "The original documents speak for themselves..." I'm afraid that Til Eulenspiegel is recommending a violation of a key Wikipedia rule which states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:PRIMARY. He's doing his own private interpretation of the secession resolutions and coming up with a very different interpretation than the RS. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

These four seceding states gave their explicit reasons for seceding in 1861, and they are crystal clear and have also been extensively covered in secondary sources. In what way to you wish to contradict them and invent new reasons that is not revisionist? It looks like (most unfortunately) that putting lengthy extracts on this page will be necessary after all, because there seems to be not some inconsiderable level of deliberate reading incomprehension at play here for whatever reason.Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No they are not crystal clear. They are political polemics designed to rally partisans. Note what SC says about Lincoln. Our job here is to follow the RS and the reason is that the experts read tens of thousands of documents, letters, (both published and unpublished) and newspaper stories, as well as hundreds of scholarly books and articles, before they come to any conclusions. They don't read 4 documents and announce their findings. Rjensen (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by 'crystal clear' is, they left no doubt as to the argument they were all making and repeating again and again, that they asserted [then] constitutional property rights over these people of African descent as their chattel and wanted it recognized by states if they went north of the Mason Dixon line. As unpalatable as that sounds today, it is the truth and we should faithfully report it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

well that's a novel theory but it does not comport with Wiki rules about being very careful and tentative about private readings of primary sources. The editors' job is to report what the scholars are saying, and one good way of doing that is reading a lot of them. Rjensen (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, there are all kinds of secondary sources that make thorough examination of the "Declarations of the Causes for Secession" if that's what you need. But remember, not all POVs are in agreement. There are also revisionist sources that ignore the "Declarations of the Causes for Secession" and substitute completely other Causes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The four documents contain useful information which might more appropriately be contributions to the "Secession in the United States" article. And note, by American consensus, the PEOPLE are sovereign, and the states are merely a legal fiction of their creation: (1) from colonies, smaller in VA, larger in TX; (2) from national territories acquired by state cession in OH, purchase in LA, partition in OR or conquest in CA; (3) from existing states on their own initiative in KY, and before state consent in WV. States have no substance apart from that which the people of the United States give them, and they are to be consulted by Constitutional means for any action relating to the states to have legitimacy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

An article Declarations of the Causes of Secession could also lay out and demonstrate exactly what various secondary sources have had to say about these 4 documents, and could be linked from here as well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And importantly, it could help the reader understand the conflicting currents of diversity that had to be overcome for the Confederate nation-state to be established at all. Coulter judged the nation-building task before Davis in the midst of war as greater than that faced by Washington in peacetime or Lincoln in a government established three-quarters of a century.

- Linking each argument to geo-politico-social elements among the people could be very useful. Secessionists in the Indian Territory could actually list the grievance, "abolishing slavery" in the territory, and they presciently charged the USG with intent to arbitrarily further reduce the size of tribal reservations yet again.

- The idea had to be sold in lots of different ways to lots of different people using lots of different reasons. Even on the slavery issue, the Border states secessionists knew they could not be persuasive among their people without a Confederate Constitutional provision banning the foreign slave trade, carried over the objections of the South Carolina and Georgia delegations, as I remember. Of course some slavers proposed solving the slave-supply problem for additional expansion by annexing slave-holding Cuba.

--- Spain abolished slavery in all colonies but Cuba, Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo in 1811, then ended foreign slave trade among them in 1817 for a price from Great Britain. Cuba saw slavery abolished in 1886 in the runup to the 1898 Spanish-American War where the USG sort of pulled a Florida redux, or, to put it in a decidedly unscholarly way, "take care of our problem in your territory --- (a) Seminole raids/hiding escaped SC and GA slaves or (b) brutal colonial governance in "our" sphere of influence --- or USG will take care of it for you by annexing the said territory by force" ... but I digress ...

- I would enjoy working on the research with you on an article, Declarations of the Causes of Secession . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Slavey section comprehensively recast

Following several editor critiques of the “Slavery” section, I tried to focus text in an encyclopedic summary style, place extraneous material in notes, and make citations open for ease of subsequent editors. This is not to take issue with the initial work by Quarkgluonsoup, whose cuts are mostly driven into the notes, which in turn should be copy edited generally following his lead.

As to substance, the previous editor’s narrative generally coincides with Sean Wilentz’ 2005 “The rise of American democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln”, which I admire, and the information as written matched my own understanding of the sources from McPherson, Potter, Freehling and Foner.

This was my procedure. The idea is to take a step and pass the baton in a collaborative way. [The London Olympics are great!]

- Step 1. Copy wiki text. Search on cite-terms to find open text references and notes. Cut and paste to replace coding, alternate cite words for same reference, same reference coded-words -9, -10, out of sequence of text or page number sequence.

- Step 2. Place multiple citations into same reference note for same thought. Wikitext prohibits nesting footnotes, I used the term “See also” with open text for multiple sources.

- Step 3. Copy text-only for initial rewrite. Bold sentences in Word for encyclopedic use. Arrange sentences into paragraphs by topic and chronologically, keeping notes and references associated with each sentence.

- Step 4. Place detail and background information into notes, use term “see” for additional sources to related material for documentation in information transfer into another article. Most of the multiple citations violate WP note style rules.

- Step 5. Rewrite paragraphs with transitions. Try out in my sandbox. Link “Cuba” to Cuba 19thC. History. Pair pictures in “double image” for WP:ACCESS sight impaired, tighten up captions to two-three lines for encyclopedic style. Boldly edit whole section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Causes of secession - reorganization

“Causes of secession” subsections are consolidated into four of more nearly equal length. Tweeked to follow WP style guide to max out at 3-4 words.

1.1 Slavery

1.2 Sectionalism

1.2.1 States’ rights

1.2.2 Protectionism

1.2.3 Slave power and free soil

1.3 The territorial crisis

1.4 Election and hostilities

1.4.1 Nationalism and honor

1.4.2 Lincoln’s election

1.4.3 Battle of Fort Sumter

No change to text. Portrait pics of similar format made similar size, aligned right per WP:ACCESS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

'Secession begins' reorganization

“Secession begins” and subsections reorganized. No text is altered. “Confederate States in the American Civil War” info box is found at Main Article site. Length of subsection text does not support its additional clutter. Prohibits aligning Davis with Confederacy; he is not directly related to SC secession as in previous edit placement. Removed “Roman Catholic Union army chaplain at Mass” as unconnected to a section without mention of New York or Roman Catholics.

2.0 Secession

2.1 Resolves and developments

2.1.1 South Carolina’s secession

2.1.2 Secession winter

2.2 States align

2.2.1 Confederate states

2.2.2 Union states

2.2.3 Border states

J. Davis portrait pic aligned with text per WP:STYLE, included versus CSA infobox to balance Lincoln portrait in section above. Aligned right per WP:ACCESS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

good work, keep it up! Rjensen (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep the history in the main text

In Wikipedia and every history book I know of, the main events are covered in the main text, not in the footnotes. So I pulled text out of the notes and into the main text. Also, we do not need multiple cites for well-known points. There is very little in this article that is so controversial it needs more than one citation. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

- Agreed. The article as previously written was too lengthy, too detailed. Reviewing editors who downgraded the article from GA suggested moving material to subsidiary articles. I am not yet comfortable doing that, so I put detail that I thought would best be relocated elsewhere in notes to allow the narrative in 'American Civil War' to flow in a summary style. The multiple footnotes seem to be from a contributing editor's term paper. They not only are excessively footnoted, multiple secondary sources are redundantly backed up with terciary sources, reinforced by multiple primary sources.

- Further, instead of writing sources in open code so that a follow-on editor can readily see what comes from where, the reference convention which our term-paper-writer used, hides sources. Primary sources such as a Lincoln letter found in an anthology or a multi-voume set of correspondence are not readily apparent. The same source is given severally named source tags. The same source tags are numbered out of sequence with the book pagination. All of this redundancy, chaos and misdirection is sidestepped by using open coding for sources, which I have done in each section I have copy-edited.

- insert - and the footnoting of each phrase inside the same sentence, phrase-by-phrase, for three, four and five sequential phrases makes it nearly impossible for the eye to scan over the endless blue-bracketed hurdles erected at each comma to stagger, reeling and exhausted, onto the by now, long-sought-after period.

- Allow me to pass the baton to you on the notes clean up. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

- The text Rjensen pulled out of the notes is text that I DO think is important history, only better suited in a subsidiary article. Our discussion can not be about whether any text now found in the notes is centrality to the narrative in American history. That's why I would not have it deleted, I do think that it is important history.

- The discussion here should be, How to write this article so that it can regain GA status. That includes editorial decisions about what text should be moved where. I think that the readable text count is now down around 12,000 words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

- the previously footnoted material deals principally, not about slavery as dividing North and South, but how slave-related legislation related to causing the Civil War. For instance, caning Sumner is hugely important in igniting Northern ferocity, but it did not occur among slaves or slavery. It was not an aspect of slavery, but of the national legislature deliberating about slavery, slavery in the territories. I'll try to work this important historical narrative into the Territory section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Old sources

I was dismayed to see heavy reliance on Admiral Bern Anderson, “By Sea and by river: the naval history of the Civil War”, 1962 -- a half-century old book that has been superseded by many modern studies. It also gives an overemphasis on the river war that few modern scholars share. Rjensen (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The title of the book is "By sea and by river". The point is to write up a section on the war on water since it was omitted in the article as previously written. The Grant quote is pretty compelling about something on the river war. No matter how many troops, without gunboat support, no success.

As you can see from my most recent contributions, I am making my way through John Keegan's 2009 "The American civil war: a military history". He is highly regarded among Marines, his volumes in print are currently available at the Marine Corps University bookstore at Quantico VA. Is he authoritative for historical assessment in military strategy, tactics and logistics?

What modern scholars should I be reading for naval history? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

- Many sources in this article are from the LAST CENTURY. Is there a standard for GA status that requires us to find sources to say the same thing found in scholarship that has "aged out", a relevancy expired date at -- 20 -- years?

- I suppose there is some Wiki-big-hat statistic that can tell us when the majority of our readers were born. I know from the high school classroom that anything written "before I was born" is dismissed out of hand. For this year's readership, that means no "old book" published before 1996.

- If I had a reading list of modern scholars superseding the old, I would be happy to read them and update source notes to qualify the article for GA status. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

- interestingly, Keegan's publisher, Alfred A. Knopf 2009, admitted books to his bibliography which were a half-century old, superseded by many modern studies, some of which appear in ACW as written here. Bruce Catton, David Donald, Douglas Freeman, Liddell-Hart, Alan Nevins, D.M. Potter, and Harry T. Williams. It may be that aging a half-century does not ipso facto disqualify a work among published studies by modern scholars. Nevertheless, in the spirit of Wiki-love and collegiality, if there is a successor to Anderson, I will be happy to read it, and make contributions here from the new, improved naval history of the ACW as recommended by other editors here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

war on water

- @ Rjensen. Thanks for your encouragement and patience. Welcome back.

- No union flank is ever turned with gunboats present under any circumstances, early war years or late, raw recruits or hardened veterans.

- Generally here and elsewhere, more needs to be said about naval gunnery off of the ships. It is Confederate naval gunners at Drewry's Bluff who turn back Union gunboats, Union naval gunnery at Tybee Island that succeeds on the second day's bombardment at Fort Pulaski. It is not OR to look beyond the puff pieces in the hometown Richmond and New York newspapers touting the local boys.

- Secondary sources with a horizon of the local library microfiche files of period newspapers, while ignoring ORA and ORN, cannot be considered authoritative on the subject. Along that line, I mean to write up a biography article on Charles H. Olmstead, given the fact that the Lost Cause historians were satisfied to malign his reputation for cowardice or incompetence based on local April 1862 Confederate newspapers with their indignant condemnations, and leave their research at that.

- Concerning your third edit, How is a source about raw recruits first time under fire used to delete a sourced reference to gunboat contribution in a battle treated from the ‘War on water’ perspective? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Gunboats are nice to have but the RS do not give them nearly so much emphasis. This is an overall article on the Civil War, so the tactical hour-by-hour details of specific battles are out of place here. Wiki rules require use of reliable secondary sources -- modern scholars examine thousands of documents and put their work in the context of other scholars. Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

- Agreed, no hour-by-hour accounting as might be found in a treatment of raw recruits in "Face of Battle". Again, as above, what naval historian examining thousands of documents of military, political and social history has SUPERSEDED Anderson in this matter?

- Gunboats are NICE flies in the face of RS who have put their use as essential to Northern army advance across rivers, transport into the interior, and resupply to avoid withdrawal. See the Grant quote. Victory could not have been had without gunboats, twice the men without gunboats could not have had victory. In the Valley of Virginia, it is said the Union could advance, occupy and hold only as far as the USMRR rebuilt the railroad from Harper's Ferry south. In the Western Theater, there was no such railroad axis of advance, only uncertain rivers. And those rivers were contested by Confederate guerrillas throughout the war, and more spectacularly, by flying artillery batteries that were placed overlooking underwater mine "torpedoes". Gunboats had to actively keep rivers open long after withdrawal of Confederate armies as reported in the New York Times.

- What RS says Grant had no strategic grasp of the Western Theater, so as to dismiss his assessment of the CENTRAL importance of gunboats? I have not found "thousands of documents" dismissing Grant's military conception of the war in my own reading. Indeed, most RS assessment ranks Lee higher as a tactician, Grant higher as a strategist, made possible by his imagination, troop strength, rail supply and naval gunboats.

- This is NOT "hour-by-hour account" of a single engagement, but an overall framework to adequately address the scope of the ACW. To remove war on water from the equation in the Western Theater is unsupported by RS anywhere. Where pivotal contribution is made by naval action, it should be noted. The rewrite now only makes note of the overnight cross-river bus service, as remarkably game-changing in the event as that ALONE may have been for the participants on both sides.

-Replacement wording seems to value BLOODSHED over all else. Effusion of life's blood is no virtue, not Lee's 2,000 in 20 minutes at Pickett's charge, not Grant's 2,000 in 20 minutes at Cold Harbor. Contemporaries and RS since have called the business "butchery" in both places. Shiloh took 10,000 Confederates at a Union loss ratio of 1:1, gunboats providing the platform for a second day and victory -- not the victory the Confederate commander telegraphed Richmond that first night. In the same theater, in the same week, a PLANNED joint operation netted 8,000 Confederates at a Union loss ratio of 1:100+. What is the RS scholarly calculus that says 1:1 losses is better than 1:100? Certainly no MILITARY historian as a reliable source can dismiss the CENTRAL difference, gunboats.

- Treating ACW should include how armies could advance over interlacing river systems across a territory approaching the expanses Napoleon's European theater, without meeting his fate at Moscow. Period scholars have documented that Confederates thought that any such attempt would meet the same end. Without recurring to hour-by-hour accounts of particular battles, something should be said about how that surprise in world history came to be, the gunboats according to General Grant commanding, and subsequent reliable sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The river war is worth a couple sentences and one reference. -- that is the proportion we get in the major surveys of the war. Yes it is possible to write 2000 words on the river war--indeed 200,000 words-- but not inside this article. We could also add 2000 words on Arkansas in the war. Howe about 3000 words on the cavalry. I suggest this article should include near-zero detail on how specific battles were fought. Our job is to give the big picture and regardas the 10 or so most important campaigns to mention very briefly why battle X is important and lead the reader to the article on X. Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

- (1) Disagreed on article length. I've got the article below 12,000, aiming for ten, I suppose. What is your characterization of including anything on the river war over two sentences -- 20 words?-- the assertion seems to be that any reference to Porter must necessarily lead to a 200,000 word article, when I have spent two weeks reducing the piece as written by 20% or maybe 3,000 words? Is the accusation a straw-man, or -- no-- violating Wiki policy with sarcasm? I don't believe it. you encourage me. you come to my aid in edit wars.

- (2) Disagreed on big picture. the comment above implies that treating war on the rivers beyond two sentences is equivalent to 2000 words describing maneuvers in trans-Mississippi Arkansas, supported by the major historical accounts of the Western Theater. WHAT are the reliable sources that say a gunboat on the Tennessee River had the strategic equivalent to Jesse James in an Arkansas cavalry raid? Please list your top five 'major sources' so editors here can do a little collegial graduate-assistant fact-checking.

- (3) Disagreed on reference to arms and support. One may reference the arms of combat and support without 2000 word detailed explications of how battles are fought, including 'infantry', 'artillery', 'cavalry', 'monitors', 'gunboats', 'engineers', 'supply', 'railroads', 'transports', and 'paved roads'.

-- Paved roads being ADVANTAGE for Union wagons with SHOED draft horses ('draught' ? I'm reading the Brit, Keegan), DISADVANTAGE for Confederate infantry because the gravel tore up shoe leather that could not be replaced, and they had not the wagons and horses to leverage the pavement. See J.T. Glatthaar 2008 "General Lee's Army". Tactical, I know, mea culpa. old supply officer. can't help myself. Won't put it all in ACW. I promise. Was Glatthaar at West Point when you were? Is "General Lee's Army" admissible as RS in its strategic assessments?

- (4) AGREED on most important campaigns. Campaigns occur on water, so major battle X on water must be mentioned. I will expand the war-on-the-rivers linking named engagements to article X as currently found on Wikipedia.

- (5) AGREED on mention briefly why X is important. Theater discussions now lack context of rail and water transport. Dismissal of naval fire support ignores that its application on land concentrates the firepower of an artillery regiment in every gunboat with lateral mobility at the speed of a steam engine AND its invulnerability to infantry attack. I am not sure exactly how to expand the theater sections as written to include the important water dimensions, but its worth considering.

-- Keegan has whole titled sections on the war on water in his 2009 treatment, as well as integrating naval operations into the land battle narrative, so I know MODERN scholarship includes more than the old days. You can't make Colonel anymore without some joint-service duty, never mind flag rank. All to the good to break down the old inter-service prejudice and antagonism that led to Pearl Harbor and other disasters. But I'm not ready for all services to use the same belt buckles like the Canadians do as a cost savings measure, though. Waste-fraud-and abuse, my eye, some things are sacred, and belt buckles is one of them, ask anybody at a competitive square dance.

- Thanks for your response. I'm still working on the territory rewrite. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

our job is to stick the reliable secondary sources on the civil war and not worry about promoting 21st century army-navy harmony. (When I taught at West Point our young twins would come from school chanting "Beat Navy!"-- indeed the cadets chanted that too. Furthermore the military history they learned pretty much left out the navy, marines & air force.) Furthermore we should be using the latest scholarship not one survey two generations old that very few scholars cite anymore. What we can do is provide short summaries (as in the Naval role at Vicksburg) with cites to the much more useful modern scholarship, which is much more thorough. In the Vicksburg case readers are now pointed to Ronald Scott Mangum, "The Vicksburg Campaign: A Study In Joint Operations," Parameters: U.S. Army War College (1991) 21#3 pp 74-86 online, which is online free and is far more useful to readers than a reference to a book that is not online. Rjensen (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

Under "Union Blockade", there's a part where it says "New Orlans". It's spelled "New Orleans". I love bad movies. I just love them. (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

fixed. Thanks. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN, Jesse James, 1865 forward is NOT Confederate, nor 'Reconstruction'

- Deleted, but unarchived the Talk section of 30 Sep 2012, "Jesse James is not Reconstruction" is lost.

- The image representing the last election of a bi-racial Republican election of Reconstruction in Missouri, 1883, has been removed with a photo of Jesse James to represent the third phase of 'Reconstruction' in the South after the Civil War. The description of the original document is accurate.

- Click on the cartoon, and read it. COMMON SENSE is not Original Research see WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Citations may be found in the LSU volume "Reconstruction" and in Virginius Dabney's "Virginia: the New Dominion". My personal library is not fully unpacked, but the entire section is so commonly understood as to hardly require documentation. Although, since it is now challenged, it will be comprehensively sourced shortly. The tag is not yet removed.

- While there were bi-racial Republican parties in every Southern state during Reconstruction, scholars do not characterize bank robbers and their bank robberies in the former Confederacy as shaping events of Reconstruction. Jesse James robbed small community banks in Missouri without any connections out of state, nationally or internationally. He was not a CSA “guerrilla” 18 years after Jefferson Davis said the Confederacy “disappeared”. There were no CSA guerrillas; so in Missouri or anywhere else, the CSA had no 'partisan ranger' service after February 1864. Reference page 338 of E. Merton Coulter’s volume on “The Confederate States of America 1861-1865”, ISBN 978-0-80-7100073 volume 7 in LSUs multi-volume 'History of the South'.

- Some gold-bugs up around Kansas City, Missouri, still feverishly seek hidden Jesse James treasure, believing he hid away half of all 'captured' monetary value for the CSA on its restoration, as though its pre-Feb 1864 legislation was still in force, and as though he were a legitimate 'partisan ranger'. Unfortunately, poor Jesse was unpersuasive among his own gang, they split and split again so as to avoid sharing half of all takings with the 'disappeared' CSA (Jeff Davis' term) and lost his life to one of the cowards he had once recruited into his disbanded mauraders.

- No counter-source is submitted. As the previous Talk page noted, Jesse James was never representing the CSA when he robbed Missouri banks independent of any Confederate command [after February 1864], ... whether he did so before or after the Confederacy disappeared. Without sourced objection, the election cartoon of Reconstruction will be restored. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

'Slavery' and 'Reconstruction' copy edits: (a) text, (b) image and (c) caption edits

-The posed picture of a few slave men and women working a family plot of sweet potatoes under the shade of a tree is now balanced with a family of woman, man and boy toting bags of cotton after a day's harvest. An image showing Slaves farmed private plots is balanced by an image showing slaves farmed master's plantation.

- The caption under the whipped slave is copy edited for context: the significance of slave welts is its contemporary characterization as "barbaric" by the abolitionist, not 19th century pamphlet distribution, not the welts' contemporary clinical diagnosis.

- In the Slavery text, redundant phrases 'anti-slavery' and 'anti-slavery' in the same sentence is copy edited for style. The article now uses the small-d "democratic", which in common usage means 'of the people' versus voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and rump assemblies, as a majority of Congress, Democratic and Republican united to rejected the LeCompton Constitution and so denied Kansas to be admitted as a slave state. The text is WITHOUT a capital [D] which is used for 'political party', which another editor misread in good faith.

- The Nast elections cartoon image now has a citation to represent the Reconstruction text describing elections during Reconstruction. The Jesse James image is removed as it is unrepresentative of Reconstruction and not referred to in the accompanying text.

- More complete sourcing for the section is forthcoming. Elections were a part of Reconstruction. The Jesse James photo has NO reliable source supporting that Reconstruction hinged on banks robbed throughout the South 1865-1877. African-American franchise was the issue, not banks robbed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

'Reconstruction' details and basics

- @RJensen has rewritten the ‘Reconstruction’ draft to “trim details and stick to basics”.

- General scholarship of Reconstruction in American historiography names the Reconstruction Amendments to include 13th, 14th and 15th, sources to follow. RJensen omits the 13th, of emancipation, ratified within a year, but by his estimation, it is not to be referenced in the narrative, and “too remote” from the Civil War to be illustrated with the Harpers’ “First Vote”. But such an image alone would not show the arc of Reconstruction beginning, middle and end in the Southern states. If there were to be only one image of Reconstruction, the Nast cartoon of intimidation would suit. Certainly not the 'Jesse James' another editor offered.

- Although the Freedman’s Bureau was established before the end of the Civil War, and was expanded under continued funding by “Reconstruction” Congresses, Rjensen would omit an illustration representing the Freedman’s Bureau as “too remote” from the Civil War, when it continued from the time of the Civil War.

- More difficult in a collaborative work of an encyclopedic article, seems to be whether the political assassination of the White Leagues 1865-1870 can be mentioned, sometimes more gently described in the literature as 'revenge killings', or the results pictured as of 1872 by Thomas Nast, now deleted as "too remote" from seven years prior, although Reconstruction scholarship of Foner and others includes it. (Foner still packed after my move.)

- Rjensen may still instead consider it something "remote", and not a continuation of the Civil War historiographically, which recent scholarship does -- but that may yet be an innovative view which has not yet met the "preponderance" tipping point. In this, without contrary information, I will defer to Rjensen.

- For now, the article can suggest that during the Grant administration -- which by the way, also began the impetus for civil service reform in the executive -- Grant had a successful Reconstruction, by “destroying the power of the Klu Klux Klan”, as Rjensen would have it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Reconstruction Era is very complex and has its own very long article and its own historiography; there is an overlap in terms of 1863-65, but that point needs to be brought in. there is no point in covering that ground here, especially in superficial fashion. I dropped the 13th Amdt because it had already been mentioned twice, but it can go back in. Rjensen (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I revised the Reconstruction section. The main reason we have it is to provide closure on the Civil War itself, so that is what I emphasized. We do not have 10,000 words here to summarize the 1865-1877 era. The KKK violence is mentioned in context. As for the historiography: historians have always separated the Civil War and Reconstruction as distinct topics. US History textbooks, for example, all (almost all?) have separate chapters. Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

- Your rewrite is much more concise. Meets the general coverage requirement. I like C. Vann Woodward as a source. My copy of "Reunion and Reaction" was a second-hand 1951 edition, were there revisions and updates for 1991 or was it just a reprint? I do not think textbooks -- is that our standard? -- yet have a bibliography or back-of-the-chapter "further reading" to include Eric Foner's "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877". 1988. ISBN 0-06-015851-4, winner of the Bancroft Prize, the Francis Parkman Prize, the Los Angeles Times Book Award, the Avery O. Craven Prize, and the Lionel Trilling Prize.

- It will be interesting to wait and see. Woodward's work is 61 years old, and we agree that is a good source. Foner's book has only been available to the general reading public for 24 years.

- In the article, I just broke the narrative into three paragraphs in the name of collaboration. On a personal note, thanks for saving me from an edit war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

C Vann Woodward was my dissertation advisor in grad school, so I followed his work; the 2nd ed of "Reunion" has a new preface but the maon text is unchanged from 1951. Foner is a good idea--and for this section his "Short history of Reconstruction" is what people should look at. Rjensen (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't give a tinker's damn who your dissertation professor was in grad school - or if you attended grad school at all. In future, please refrain from making unverifiable personal references, and stick to arguing from the sources. Wiki Rules require that you do so. 36hourblock (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

36hourblock if you can't be civil you should not be on the civil war discussion page. Rjensen (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

REDUX: Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave

- In the slavery section, the caption for a picture of an injured slave, editor Toby is intent on highlighting the publication and distribution history of the photo. But the accompanying text does not support that particular interest of his.

- The significance to the civil war is that abolitionists saw whipping as inhumane. Jacksonian reforms for the 'common man' in the 1830s-1840s led to the abolition of the whipping post for white men generally, leaving the punishment to slaves, soldiers and sailors. The same participants among abolitionists who would outlaw whipping for slaves also brought about its end in the U.S. Army, then later in the U.S. Navy. But the history of whipping is not the principal subject under consideration in the text.

- And Abolitionists did distribute photos of this slave in 1864-1865 and after in the run-up to passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, but the 13th Amendment is also not addressed in this section we are seeking to illustrate.

- It is of interest that the whipping took the man to bed for two months to recover, and the just master fired the abusive overseer who thus damaged his property and the man's productivity. But however interesting that may be, however related to the topic that may be, it is not supported in the text, so it also cannot be used. See WP:CAPTION.

- The "slavery" section in the American Civil War article is now illustrated with two photos from New Orleans, one of a older white woman and her slave girl, the other a slave with an injured back, captioned with concise descriptions to identify those pictured, the place and the date photographed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

- Tobby72 again, interested in 19th Century publishing rather than ante-bellum slavery in the South, adds the interesting and important note "Recognized as a searing indictment of slavery, Gordon’s portrait was presented as the latest evidence in the abolitionist campaign. ... Abolitionist leaders such as William Lloyd Garrison referred to it repeatedly in their work." See Frank H. Goodyear, III, "Photography changes the way we record and respond to social issues," Smithsonian Photography Initiative." Please come to the talk page.

- Again, William Lloyd Garrison was an abolitionist who did not own slaves. Maybe the section which already addresses the Southern reaction to John Brown's Raid should be expanded to include the slave-holder's fear that Garrison's Liberator publication would inspire slave revolt. It is said that Nat Turner of the 1830 slave revolt in Southampton County, Virginia, had a copy of an issue in his had when he was captured. Many of the slave patrols began after Denmark Vesey 1822 at Charleston and Nat Turner Rebellion, which fueled state expenditures for arming militias and motivated the volunteers to attend drills and conduct patrols, reactivated and expanded in the light of John Brown's 1859 Raid.

- Garrison's newspaper was burned by the postmasters appointed by the southern Democratic Congressmen in charge of the U.S. post office patronage in their districts. The illustration is useful in the American Civil War article only to describe "slaves and slavery" in the like titled section. Most slaves in the period before the Civil War did not subscribe, nor did a "tipping point" of them to bring on the Rebellion. Rather, Fire-eaters forced a confrontation, and the North responded to first save the Union, then abolish the slavery which was the economic basis underwriting the rebellion, and to free the slaves as men are everywhere born free, even those found in chains. The caption appropriate to the photo relates to describing an injured slave illustrating one of the conditions of slavery, opposite the child slave in the photo adjacent.

- What a great resource we have in the Smithsonian Photography Initiative. I remember the compelling power of "Wisconsin Death Trip", by Michael Lesy, an annotated 1973 photo album-book expanded from her Doctorate dissertation, now made into a movie. Great, good, powerful, legitimate history. But I think you may be missing my point about Garrison 1864 publication distribution versus "slaves and slavery". The section we are editing is not about "Abolitionism and its publications". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

- Without further discussion, the "famous" puffery business will be consigned to the notes, the captions of the two-image frame illustrating two distinct conditions of slavery will be aligned into concise two-line descriptions. See MOS:PUFF. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Canada is Proof that the American Civil War was Fought over States Rights

Canada was formed as a nation in 1867, right after the American Civil War. Canada saw what States Rights did in the USA--caused a massive Civil War, so Canada decided to give the federal goverment ultimate rights. Canada's national government is proof that the American Civil War was fought over States Rights. Hope this settles the matter, I think a huge national government has more "weight" than what some wag professors think. I'm sure there are Canadians out there who can clarify the matter even further. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:ACB3:1A9E:849E:945C (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that is a terrific oversimplification, but it's not really that simplistic. British North America, unlike the USA, was a territory controlled by the government of Queen Victoria. "Canada" didn't really "decide" anything. It is unlikely the British would have come up with anything like "States' Rights" for Canada even if there had been no civil war. But at any rate, speculation like this can only be used if you have some kind of published source to attribute it to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My source was actually a Canadian college professor I was talking to and I found the information very intetresting and illuminating. That's why I wanted some Canadian input on this article, since the Canadians would be versed in their own history and would be able to find published references to illuminate this matter. Countries are very egocentric about their own history, other countries have the advantage of objectivity. Look, they still have slavery in Mauritania but I don't see a bunch of guys from New England going over there to fight a war over it, so obviously there was a lot more to the Civil War than just "freeing the slaves". Especially when we all know that the North had slavery during the Civil War! So, any Canadians out there got some referenced sources we can use? Thanks. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "My college professor told me something and I believe it so it must go into Wikipedia" argument.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

States rights in Canada has nearly ripped the country apart--Quebec voted on independence twice (1980 and 1995) and the last vote was 49.4% yes and 50.6% no. close indeed--but they don't kill each other over these issues. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I referenced the Wiki article under CANADIAN CONFEDERATION and here's what I found under the "British North America Acts" subheading: "The form of the country's government was influenced by the American republic to the south. Noting the flaws in the American system, the Fathers of the Confederation opted to retain a monarchial form of government". Since this was right after the American Civil War, in 1867, we can easily spot the "flaws" (i.e. the American Civil War). And Rjensen is right about States Rights ripping Canada apart, but Canadians are too civilized to go to war; remember Canada is where draft dodgers went during the Vietnam War. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:C64:1E3E:F792:2A54 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a much more neutral shot at this subject than this article. This is the most biased article I believe I have ever read on Wikipedia. So the North were the completely innocent heroes in a war begun ONLY because of those evil Southern slavers! What a load of crap. History truly is written by the victor, even when the losing side exists within the same country, apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.142.184.51 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Canada’s development was “public enterprise”, top-down control and finance. While the U.S. followed Adam Smith and Thomas Reid’s principles of individual self-interest governed by common sense and a limited need for government. Canadians followed Dugald Steward, looking to government as a “resource for society’s progress, rather than a hindrance to it”. The 1789 U.S. Constitution enumerates powers of federal government, the rest lie in the states and people. The 1867 Canadian Confederation lists provincial powers, keeping the rest in national hands. (Arthur Herman, professor at Georgetown U., Catholic U., Smithsonian, “How the Scots invented the modern world”. p. 836)

The Quebecois only have to look to Louisiana to see the Code Napoleon alive and well in the U.S. federal system, with local state police powers, etc. Perhaps Quebec could enter the Union at the same time as Puerto Rico -- neither one would be among the ten smallest states. I think that Nova Scotia may have come closest to actual secession from Canada? Probably not happenin', and, some of my best friends are Canadian, heh? Nevertheless, much of war in the world is due to the tyranny of the majority exercised in parliamentary systems. Every man in the developing world wants his national border drawn so that his grandson will be the parliamentary majority “English”, whether 'Labour' or 'Tory', and each kinsman-group will fight to the death to ensure their posterity will not be consigned to the fate of “Irish” or “Scots” in parliamentary perpetuity. (To be fair, some Canadian-style autonomy was given Scotland after a half-millenium.)

Of interest in this article might be (a) any impact of the 1854 Reciprocal Agreement Lord Elgin negotiated with the U.S., (b) relevant provisions under development for John MacDonald’s 1867 Quebec Resolutions in British Parliament, and (c) complications in U.S.-British international relations from its occasional citizen interest in conquering Canada and aiding Irish independence. On the other hand, (d) Canadians numbering 50,000 are said to have fought in blue, along with (e) another 50,000 Canadian-born kidnapped/becoming U.S. citizens primarily living in New York and New England, ... among the Union soldiers French-Canadian notables, the author of “O, Canada” ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting--some 50,000 or more Canadians fought in the American Civil War? I've never heard of that before. I think it should be included in the main article. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:9C7D:CA9F:960B:BA2F (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Wiki article "Canada In the American Civil War" under the "political effects" section talking about the Canadian "Fathers of Confederation" when Canada was trying to form its own government: "Many Fathers of Confederation concluded that the secessionist war was caused by too much power being given to the states..." So again, Canada sees the Civil War as being caused by States Rights. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:BC7A:49FB:2BEA:9224 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think an additional 2,000 Canadians served in gray, mostly from New Orleans? and counting those on the blockade runners and cruisers in the 1863 C.S. Navy to avoid Union charges of piracy. And Canada was used as a Confederate base for spies, recruiting raiders/saboteurs, and securing sympathetic editorial press.

- Canada has never been monolithic among its populations any more than the States. It is, in its own way a democracy, untidy. --- In some ways, Canada is more "states rights" than the States, in the relative limits on suing local government, for instance. Or, the U.S. is unconcerned about base commanders influencing local elections. Unlike Canada in the 60s, it has allowed its military personnel to vote in local communities (coincident to federal subsidies for their children's education in local public schools). -- While a base commander does not run local politics, individuals do impact their communities -- Virginia's Byrd Organization school closings in its 1960s Massive Resistance to racial integration was first broken in the service-resident -retirement communities of Norfolk (Navy Base) and Alexandria (Pentagon). A touch of history as democracy and mass-migration -- untidy, eh?. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

- Canada in the American Civil War added to 'See also' section. National articles subsection separated from ethnic articles. Found Wikipedia's treatment of Mexico in the American Civil War under Lincoln statuary commissioned by LBJ, so linked readers there under the recognizable title to read treatment available. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

please consider a new external site/cite re War on the Water

• "The Egotistigraphy", by John Sanford Barnes. An autobiography, including his Civil War Union Navy service on USS Wabash, privately printed 1910. Internet edition edited by Susan Bainbridge Hay 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanKathleen (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Mike18xx

Mike18xx has recently returned to Wikipedia after a ban of a month for his disruptive editing now is making outrageous edits to a major article. He rejects the Wikiedia rule that the lede summarize the article and announces his amazing wrong personal POv that secession and the Confederacy should be dropped saying "The problem is that the listed motive was wrong (the war was not "fought over the secession" since the secession was already two months peacefully in-the-bag prior to Sumter; and the article states Lincoln had no intention to invade Southern states).)" This is utter nonsense and leaves the Civil war without any causation, contrary to every RS and textbook. Buchanan of course said secession was illegal but he declined to act. Lincoln announced on the day he was inaugurated that he intended to enforce the laws of the United States. Rjensen (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• My critics always lead with ad hominen attacks, among other logical-fallacies. Thanks for not spoiling their collective perfect track-record of disingenuousness.
• The article edit you prefer actually states of Lincoln: "He had no intent to invade Southern states" (prior to Sumter, of course) -- so you're refuted by your article version.--Mike18xx (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Be wary of revisionist propaganda

There is a not entirely miniscule cottage industry of revisionists out there attempting to rehabilitate the image of the morally repellant slave-owning Confederate aristocracy (and enjoying an "easy sell" in a contemporary setting of apparent runaway federal government excess); and their talking-points have an unseemly habit of percolating through public consciousness, and hence to Wikipedia. Some factual points to keep in mind:

• The war was not "fought over the secession" as a recent edit claimed. (The secession of the seven states of the "Deep South" had been declared by February of 1861 and was over two months peacefully in-the-bag prior to the attack upon Fort Sumter. With no army to speak of east of the Mississippi, the incoming Lincoln was in no position to invade the South, had no intention of invading the South, and faced intensely hostile opposition in Congress from the eight remaining pro-slavery border states.)
• Similarly, the war had nothing to do with "states rights" since the seven deep south state successfully seceded and enjoyed their own new country (albeit unrecognized) peacefully for over two months prior to Sumter. (Revisionists will argue that secession was not successful because it was not recognized by Lincoln, who maintained it was illegal, or any other country -- true or not, treat this argument as a red-herring, as all that is required for a secession to be successful is the departed entity permitting the departure...or at least not being in a position to do anything about it. E.g., Taiwan is not recognized by China, etc.)
• The war was not fought over slavery (in this the revisionists are right -- but that argument is seldom made, and even less seldom by credible historians). Slavery was the reason for secession (revisionists lie about that), but not the war itself.
• The war, plainly and evidently, began due to the attack upon Fort Sumter, and the Confederate States of America endorsing rather than admonishing the unilateral action of South Carolina in initiating the attack. Had that attack not occurred and Fort Sumter just ignored, it is very likely that the United States as we know it today would not exist. There was little fighting for a period of nearly a year after Sumter because neither side had an in-place army to speak of; during this time, war could still have been avoided and the Confederacy maintained had it swallowed its pride and attempted reconciliation for the attack on Sumter. (Of course we know it did not do so; and instead was certain of its military prowess relative to the North.)--Mike18xx (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

that's all nonsense -- no historian or RS has ever argued "Had that attack not occurred and Fort Sumter just ignored, it is very likely that the United States as we know it today would not exist." and many other strange and incomprehensible assumptions ("during this time [1861-62], war could still have been avoided and the Confederacy maintained had it swallowed its pride and attempted reconciliation for the attack on Sumter.") The problem is that Mike18xx has no support whatever for his personal POV and is obviously unfamiliar with the basic events of this period. He thinks the attack on Ft Sumter came out of nowhere and was some sort of accident that could be repaired as he says if the Confederacy "swallowed its pride and attempted reconciliation" Rjensen (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Really? I have no support for the notion that war might not have occurred without the attack upon Sumter? -- Well let me ask you a question: How do you explain the LACK of overt war PRIOR to Sumter? Lincoln certainly wasn't spoiling for a fight ("politician's lips moving" blandishments in re upholding the law to the contrary) what with a measly 16,000 troops sprinkled over dozens of outposts west of the Mississippi. How does he raise a giant army to invade the south, unprovoked? Do you think eight pro-slavery/Confederate sympathetic border states would have something to say in Congress about that? The deep south had seceded by February 1, 1861; and the north was impotent to do anything about it. Even after Jefferson Davis' proclamation to raise a 100,000 man army of the Confederacy (noted cradle of military colleges) in March, 1861, the only response in the north was a few states (Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts) mustering internal militias.
• I did not claim "the attack on Ft Sumter came out of nowhere" -- that's your fantasizing. Fort Sumter was attacked for two reasons: Southern pride in demanding 100% control of everything it considered in its territory as well as desire not to see an anti-slavery symbolic US flag snapping on a pole just offshore of a major port city in the heart of itself -- and, most importantly, Southern certainty of victory.
• Lincoln was freed to pursue to the war only after A) the attack upon Fort Sumter giving him the moral high ground and a groundswell of indignant public outrage, and B) the departure of the border state delegations from Congress (as they seceded to join the Confederacy).
• I suggest you peruse Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America by acclaimed Civil War historian William C. Davis. You may have heard of him: he's only written over forty books on various aspects of the subject.--Mike18xx (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Mike that there are a whole series of reasons for saying that the Civil War was basically about slavery, not e.g. states' rights. There are a number of interesting might-have-beens about the start of the Civil War, and one of them is what might have happened if the Confederacy had just turned a blind eye to the Federals holding Fort Sumter, allowed it to persist as a Guantanamo-type enclave, and concentrated on e.g. gaining diplomatic recognition. However I doubt if it would have made much difference in the long run. It's an oversimplification to say there was no serious fighting for nearly a year after Sumter. PatGallacher (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

An essential requirement of the "What if?" scenario is a greatly reduced level of bellicosity among the Fire Breathers of the Confederacy intent upon spreading slavery around the Caribbean and west to the Pacific. That's the point of a what-if: changing the "given" so alternative results become possible to otherwise seemingly predestined events. Similarly, one could maintain that the entire war might have been avoided if a single person with the ear of Jefferson Davis had had the foresight to realize, and impress upon him, the idea that logistics of industrial capacity and transportation networks are of paramount importance to military conflict in a post-Napoleonic era. (From our position of hindsight, it seems ludicrous to us that the South ever thought it had a chance of winning an armed conflict, but at the time they were initially very certain of it. In many ways their mentality was similar to the Imperial Japanese (who also should have known better) on the eve of their attack on Pearl Harbor.--Mike18xx (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

- @Mike18xx. To avoid adversaries from characterizing your posts as WP:SOAPBOX, it would help if you tried separating out your points of discussion under separate sections, and point to a specific passage to amend. That could convert adversaries to collaborators, there could be a coherent discussion on each point, instead of the scatter-shot approach used above. Then space them out over three days between each one, so that you do not overwhelm, or “monopolize” the Talk page, as they say. Each point might be its own section -- but let me try to answer some of your points here anyway.

- 1) Jefferson Davis in his “Short history of the CSA” and secondary sources say that the Confederate government attacked Ft. Sumter, not SC “unilaterally”. Without war there would have been no Confederacy. Southern courts and southern elections would have allowed civil restoration of the Union.

- 2) Lincoln had faith in the judiciary of the southern states. Throughout the South, where court houses, treasury mints, post offices, arsenals and forts had been seized -- all were to be uncontested until regular civil due process restored them to federal possession in the state courts. Lincoln suspended the federal courts where federal marshal enforcement might provoke mob violence [recall his take on mobs at the time of the 1836 Illinois lynching of abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy], he only proposed to administer the laws to collect the import tariffs collected at major ports, including Pensacola and Charleston, where forts might make it physically possible to do so without risking confrontations with the civilian populace, or losing in the state courts.

- 3) Lincoln had no intent to invade. When Lincoln came into office, southern sympathizers in the Buchanan administration who later joined the rebellion had caused the army and navy to be dispersed, arms were relocated south, and garrisons reduced, for instance, Fort Pulaski at Savannah, Georgia's largest manufacturing center, had two enlisted caretakers to face down secessionist militias. When Lincoln called for troops, it was to reoccupy only forts on coasts to collect revenues, without requiring any invasive march through civilian territory south.

-- [aside. Even before his March inauguration, Republican governors in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had mobilized three-month and one-year men to march at a moment's notice to defend Washington DC. Men also vote with their feet. After Sumter and even Bull Run, most of Lincoln's men re-enlisted for the duration. In the Confederacy, most one-year men did NOT re-enlist in Spring 1862, prompting the first nation-wide drafts in the Americas by Confederates, which Lincoln in turn had to match for the numbers.]

- 4) Lincoln had faith in free elections, which were scheduled to be held throughout the south in 1862. As he noted in his March Inaugural, given the check in Congress, he could do very little harm to slavery or slave-holding states since his term was only four years [and no one since Andrew Jackson had been a two-termer, Whig or Democrat, and it did not need to be said with Edwin Stanton present, in 1860 Lincoln was no Jackson.] Pro-union candidates were Lincoln, Douglas and Bell. The anti-union candidate warned of secession, the end of the nation if Lincoln were Constitutionally elected. The Constitutional Democrats for Breckinridge, his political operatives were overwhelmingly secessionists, then Confederate national, military and state leaders.

-- Anti-union presidential with 15 Representatives, 8 Senators: SC (6) 0-100%, MS (5) 41-49%, TX (2) 25-75% FL (1) 37-63%,

-- Minority-union presidential with 18 Reps, 6 Senators: NC (8) 49.5-50.5%, AL (7) 46-54%, AR (2) 46-54%,

-- Majority-union presidential with 15 U.S. Reps, 6 Senators: GA (8) 51-49%, MD (6) 54-46%, DE (1) 54-46%

-- Landslide-union presidential with 44 U.S. Reps, 10 Senators: VA (13) 55-45%, KY (10) 64-36%, TN (10) 55-45%, MO (7) 81-19%, LA (4) 55-45% . [insert] These landslide states are those which the U.S. Congress experimented with various forms of representation during the conflict. 81% Missouri and 64% Kentucky continued seating without interruption. 55% Tennessee maintained Senators without representatives. 55% Virginia and 55% Louisiana had partial representative delegations and senators in the 37th Congress, then Louisiana's and Virginia's were dropped at the creation of West Virginia for the 38th. 54% union Maryland and Delaware delegations remained seated without interruption, even during some members vitriolic attacks against Lincoln's administration and the prosecution of the war.

- 5) As to what-ifs, the wonder is that the Fire-eaters were able to plausibly promote a Confederacy of all 15 slave states, when the slave-South was pro-union by presidential vote state-wide of 59 to 33 Representatives, (back when reps were added to each state for every xx,000 population, not proportional as now), pro-union 2:1. Over time, the numbers of democracy prevailed. One-third of one-third of a self-governing, democratic people cannot destroy their government by force of arms, even if (a) they corner an international commodity market, even if (b) they are a wealthy social elite in a society without public education, even if (c) their power is based on coerced hereditary slavery. It just takes longer than the alternative -- replacing a political set of leadership by mid-term election. But choosing bullets instead of ballots CAN fail, even in a democracy. In 1860 I suppose THAT truth of democracy remained to be demonstrated to the world, and it would be shown as POSSIBLE in the United States, the majority can rule. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am "overwhelming" let alone "monopolizing" this Talk page -- given that October 2012 is my first appearance in it, and the page already has fourteen sections in archives. In any event, your rejoinder is as long as my remarks -- so are we tag-team monopolists here this evening?

(1) "Jefferson Davis in his “Short history of the CSA” and secondary sources say that the Confederate government attacked Ft. Sumter, not SC “unilaterally”" -- Well, that's awfully magnanimous of Davis to "take full responsibly" in his book for a horrific war which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, but the so-called "Confederate government" didn't even have a physical place of existence (in Richmond) until May, after the attack upon Sumter. If he authorized the attack ahead of time, please point to the speech or document of him doing so prior to the time the first shells were fired at the fort. The Wikipedia "Timeline" article doesn't list anything that sounds like a full-fledged or even baby-chick Southern government firmly at the helm of events prior to Sumter. Prior to Sumter (and even after for a time), the stage was filled with local actors who ran about the stage doing whatever they pleased. (Note that Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed using force against Fort Sumter.)

(2) "(Lincoln) only proposed to administer the laws to collect the import tariffs collected at major ports, including Pensacola and Charleston, where forts might make it physically possible to do so without risking confrontations with the civilian populace, or losing in the state courts." -- In related news, Lincoln wished for a pony after throwing a penny down a well, and was sadly disappointed when one did not appear beside him. He had precisely zero ability to collect such tariffs (and certainly not from Sumter, which ships could easily sail past miles outside of cannon range).

(3) You're mainly supporting my arguments, so not much to add. "When Lincoln came into office, southern sympathizers in the Buchanan administration who later joined the rebellion had caused the army and navy to be dispersed." -- Most of the army was already "dispersed" by reasons of necessity long beforehand; i.e., western territory forts were there due to Indians, whereas the Indians in the South had already been rounded up over twenty years prior. What southern installations remained in the late 1850s were largely staffed by Southerners (explaining the bloodless turning over of virtually all of them upon secession).

(4) "Lincoln had faith in free elections, which were scheduled to be held throughout the south in 1862..." -- You're supporting my argument that Lincoln was going to do nothing, a point the article already maintains (no intention of invasion, etc).

(5) "the wonder is that the Fire-eaters were able to plausibly promote a Confederacy of all 15 slave states, when the slave-South was pro-union by presidential vote state-wide of 59 to 33 Representatives" -- It's easy to say you're pro-union while you're still a part of it. I.e., "Hey, everybody; I'm a big-time congress-critter in that huge, white domed building on the Potomac -- ain't that awesome, or what"? ...but congressional representatives didn't "speak" for the south; the big slave plantation owners standing behind them did -- and, in that context, there's little reason for bewilderment at why things happen as they do. Then, as now, politicians are mouthpieces for power-brokers behind-the-scenes if they want to keep their jobs. -- Note how quickly Sam Houston was bounced from governor of Texas when he refused (on March 18, 1861) to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy (he warned them the South would lose if it declared war; did it listen to a man who'd already been through a war with a half-century of experience since 1812? Noooo...).--Mike18xx (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

- I like most of the above, even most of the parts that are not scholarship. Rjensen also has a habit of pinning back my ears whenever I stray off sourced material in my enthusiasm. Welcome to the club -- but he's good overall. You've obviously read more deeply into this subject than most, so you automatically have credibility here if you can be collaborative. A couple of points.

- The Confederate interim government begins in Montgomery. The move to Richmond was a v.p. Stevens promise to sweeten the pot to tip the Virginia convention after Sumter. That government, Davis in consultation with his cabinet, instructs Beauregard to attack. That's in E. Merton Coulter's "Confederate States of America 1861-1865", a volume in Louisiana State University's 'History of the South' series. He was a professor at Georgia -- go dawgs --, but he was not of the 'moonlight and magnolia' set, romanticizing the past with an unrelenting okey-doke take on things. you gotta read him.

- Now, the problem I have with much of the legitimacy of the Confederacy relates to elections in several respects. For one, Jefferson Davis cannot govern in the way he did without the solid voting bloc in the C.S. Congress made up of representatives of people who cannot vote, nor as the war drags on, to change their representatives or to alter the policies of government. Several states elected their delegations at-large, with most votes cast in army camps away from the regular voting places of the state populace, as in Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana. -- which I am sure you see, further supports your point of view, that a wiser Confederacy would have resulted in an alternative history, which is really fun to talk about. But that does not help us much under the eagle eye of Rjensen. noooooo.

- And by the way, thanks for reading through my little essay above and responding to it intelligently. See, we are more alike in our love of history than different -- well, compared to the general population. Also, at wikipedia I like to make a distinction between 'agreeing' on a point of dispute as a matter of judgment and 'concurring' with a passage as written to let it slide. Some of the big-hat editors like to use the three-forths meter. If you can give something a 75 or C+ you can live with it in a collaborative enterprise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno....I'm a pretty big pain in the ass about these sorts of things. ("It is an affront to treat falsehood with complacency!" -- Thomas Paine.) I really think my edits are better, as Southern complicity in "arms-racing" (by calling for a huge army first) and then firing the shots that started the war, is unambiguous -- and such is infinitely preferable to an ambiguous "fought over secession" sideways crab-scramble away from the real truth. (And a word about C+ grading: I loathe mediocrity more than outright failure, because while outright failure is usually quickly recognized and dealt with, mediocrity has an annoying habit of lingering for eons.)--Mike18xx (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I like to speculate too--but only on the talk page :) More and more the Confed Congress represented men who had lost their homes--(ie behind Yankee lines) and were willing to gamble everything on Confed independence. People who had real homes and farms and plantations (behind Confed lines) did not want to gamble everything they had left. The result was that hardliners more and more controlled Congress, making a compromise deal impossible (such as the one Lincoln offered in person in Feb. 1865: we will but your slaves for $$ if you come back to the Union now.) Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The war was going on a year old before any appreciable amounts of territory started changing hands. The implication of your argument is that hardliners were not already in control of the Confederacy at the moment they started the war.--Mike18xx (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

- This oldie newbie is not sure how breaks are properly done. See my reply in the "new section" below, CSA hardliners were already in control from the start.