Jump to content

Talk:American Civil War/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Third opinion

Can you all summarize what you want the third opinion on? Just talk about the disputed content (maybe with a diff link), we don't need the entire history. Gigs (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

- A diff link will not show my effort at collaboration here at Talk. See collapsed wikitables above with commentary.
- Rather than bounce the Article text around, I've been working here at Talk for 15 days. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Five paragraphs side-by-side

- Each doctrine should be explicated in one brief paragraph, with examples of people, documents or events related to each.
-WP editors should convey the import of the four doctrines without triple-length paean in #4 to one dead ten years at 1860.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

- In COLLABORATION, I can make the article copyedits for a database in the diff link called for by Gig@Third opinion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


- 36hourblock states I decline to "collaborate" with editors who fail to do so [use sources]. No fooling. -- see the box.6 "In the fourth in this quartet".
- Mocking as "spooky and macabre" a Virginian surgeon giving aid to BOTH Rebel and Union wounded, he misrepresented it and challenged me to repost my argument against "Recent developments" which would have reported, in this article, a 2012 online petition to peaceably remove Texas from the Union.
- To his 1964 article on Calhoun alone without Webster -- sourced at unaccessible JSTOR, but which I remember reading in a history graduate course in the 1980s -- I replied showing the 1988 Peterson book, The Great Triumvirate with comparative material on BOTH Calhoun and Webster.
His reply is "Goodbye, Mr. Bond..." [s. 36hourblock]]. Is that a reference to Bond chained to a ticking atomic bomb and lowered into a vault to die? Really? My copyedits are to be blown up because (a) my kinsman helped Rebel AND Union wounded? or because (b) I oppose Texas secession in 2012? -- Really? I think I will proceed with my copyedits in a couple of days. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, I will incorporate six perfectly good contributions from 36hourblock, editors are to take advantage of the strengths in others. There is no denying 36hourblock does have worthwhile contributions to make in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

To provide a balanced discussion of the causes of the American Civil War by including the information posted under "Clarification of Causes" on the wiki page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_of_the_American_Civil_War>: "When the Civil War began, neither civil rights nor voting rights for blacks were stated as goals by the North. They became important afterward during Reconstruction." I suggest placing in the section on "Causes of Secession". Rj davison (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.Pol430 talk to me 23:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
this is a negative statement (of what was not true) that is needed because lots of people assume otherwise. Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"the North" is a bit luminous and evasive, could we say "were stated goals by abolitionists"? (assuming that these goals never were stated by abolitionists, but I'm pretty sure they did favor some civil rights) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
immediate abolition of slavery WAS the goal of the abolitionists. But at the start of the war they were few and weak. Moderates like Lincoln were in control (and of course the Northern Dems --like Douglas--were also a factor and were generally opposed to civil rights for blacks). Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Expanding on Rjensen, Gary Gallagher at University of Virginia explains in his |The Union war, Northern support for freedman rights grew layering four sources of increasing numbers of support.
  • The impulse was begun by a) moral imperative including rights as understood by Abolitionists, enlarged 1860-1862 by adding those who believed the Union at war should b) fulfill the ideals of the American republic.
  • Then to get the majority in the House 1862-1863 for conscription and confiscation, adding those desiring to c) gain necessary manpower to suppress the rebellion (laborers, growers, pioneers, teamsters, railroad repair, soldiers in garrison and combat).
  • Finally to get the super-majorities in the Congress and from the states 1864-1865 enlisting those who would d) punish the aristocratic and financial basis of the rebellion by ending its wealth.
- Thus four steps of widening political coalition which would have been impossible without all four years of bloodletting, hence, McPherson's emphasis on contingency as referenced in Gallagher. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"Were not stated as goals" is a very specific and unambiguous description, being attributed to a very hazily defined agent, "the North". If somebody indeed did state these as goals before the war, then it is misleading and wrong to assert "were not stated as goals" before the war. Instead, we should pinpoint more specifically who did state these goals, and who did not (political parties, movements, factions, etc.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- and when. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mexico in the American Civil War

The link redirects to "Cultural Representations of Lincoln. Is this intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.218 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the redirect. Apparently Mexico in the American Civil War doesn't exist. Elfalem (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2013

It would be interesting to add to the list of Primary sources or under Soldiers

John S. Jackmann of the Orphan Brigade, Diary of a Confederate Soldier, Edited by W.C. Davis, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, 1990. It is a rare document on a soldier's life on the battlefield.

41.243.91.247 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you for bring this resource to our attention -Moxy (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
John S. Jackman; William C. Davis (1 March 1997 (Vol. 58, No. 3 (Aug., 1992)). Diary of a Confederate Soldier: John S. Jackman of the Orphan Brigade. University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 978-1-57003-164-9. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) JSTOR online edition

Filmography

Would it make more sense for the films to be listed in chronological order, rather than alphabetical? One of the historiography themes is how our understanding of the war and its causes has changed over the decades. The movies might make more sense in chrono order. For example, it's weird and possibly confusing to see "Amistad" listed close to "Birth of a Nation"; those films are far apart historically and philosophically. Jim Hardy (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"territories"

From the lead section:

In the presidential election of 1860, Republicans led by Abraham Lincoln opposed expanding slavery into the territories.

At this juncture it is unclear what "the territories" means. Which territories? 86.160.212.72 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh ... also, I think Abraham Lincoln should be linked when he first appears in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.212.72 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See Territories of the United States and related articles.
The map as of the election looked like this →
—WWoods (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The GOP platform of 1860 denounced the Buchanan admin for supporting the legal protection of slavery outside the South--in Kansas, on land and at sea: "5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest [ ie slavery], as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution [pro-slavery] upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest [ie slavery], and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people."


And Republican Congressional abolition or threat of abolition of existing slavery in the Territories was a reason given by pro-Confederate elements of the "Civilized Tribes" of Oklahoma Territory in their resolutions of secession. The tribes were likewise divided as the North and South. Plains Indians raided everybody on all sides. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln's policy

The "Lincoln's policy" section of this Wikipedia article contains this sentence about Lincoln:

He had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property.

I think something important was left out. In his inaugural address, Lincoln said he would use force not only to maintain possession of federal property, but also to collect duties and imposts. Here is the relevant extract from the inaugural address:

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

This is important because Lincoln implies that the Southern states must continue to pay their taxes to Washington or face an invasion. In fact, I think it's even more important than the possession of federal property. Therefore, I suggest changing the sentence to the following:

He had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain the collection of duties and imposts and the possession of federal property. Coldhotchoco (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Duties and imposts were collected at ports. Andrew Jackson threatened to use forts in Charleston Harbor for collection of duties at Charleston during the nullification crisis without invasion. No invasion of civilian areas was contemplated in 1860 as Lincoln early on was willing to wait two years until the next election cycle to return pro-union governors to appoint senators, or popular election of representatives to the vacated seats in Congress. Just as Buchanan had done, he avoided confrontation. He gave up post offices, arsenals with their armaments, treasury mints and their bullion, withdrew federal marshals of the courts. He only sought to garrison or re-occupy forts in harbors to collect federal revenues as directed the executive in law. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information. So Lincoln sought to re-occupy forts in harbors to collect federal revenues. The article mentions that Lincoln was willing to use force to maintain possession of federal property, but it does not mention why. This makes it appear as though the possession of federal property was an end in itself. The collection of federal revenues is what really mattered. The federal property was only accessory. In his inaugural address, Lincoln himself stated that he did not intend to use force as long as the collection of duties and imposts was maintained. I still think the article should mention that. Coldhotchoco (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It was a constitutional issue--Lincoln decided he had an explicit obligation to collect the revenue. It was not the money that was at issue of course (he collected little or none) but the question of national sovereignty. Lincoln made the point that the USA was sovereign in Charleston harbor. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I suppose it would have been hard to collect tariffs during the war. But the secession of the Southern states, with all their ports, apparently caused an massive reduction in federal tariff revenue. I find it difficult to dismiss this loss of revenue as a non-issue. Revenue is usually what governments care about the most. Couldn't it be one of the reasons why national sovereignty mattered so much to both sides the Union? (I'm genuinely asking. I see that both Rjensen and TheVirginiaHistorian know a lot more about U.S. history than I do. I am thrilled to have this discussion with such knowledgeable people.) Coldhotchoco (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Importantly, but secondarily for most of the first half of the 19th century, the U.S.G. received more revenues from land sales than tariffs. The first Lincoln administration saw Republican congress funding and initial construction west of the intercontinental railroad to open lands for future revenues. The loss in revenues in the south were made up for by increased trade in the northern ports amid the war effort. Additional funding came from war bonds, the first income tax.
The constitutional issue that Rjensen cites is foremost relative to the survival of the republican experiment in a world of monarchies, Congress of Vienna, Napoleon III. The constitutional issue is certainly why Lincoln kept a portrait of Andrew Jackson over his telegraph office desk at the war department. You can see the Jackson portrait hanging in the scene there in Spieberg’s movie 'Lincoln'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course they would have found alternative sources of revenue, but that doesn't contradict the idea that the loss of revenue was an issue. It's difficult to believe that the Union would have gone to war just because of the way they interpreted the constitution. Behind every war, there's always a struggle for control over real economic resources. Coldhotchoco (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It was the South that went to war....after it was blocked from expanding its slave -based economy either west or South (Cuba). That should be economics enough. Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If I get my facts right, following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. The U.S. refused to leave (President Lincoln was determined to hold all remaining Union-occupied forts in the Confederacy). Then South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter. One can interpret this as meaning that it's the South that went to war, but if one believes that South Carolina had the right to secede, then at this point the U.S. Army was an occupier.

Back to the economics: I understand that the main reason for the South to secede was to continue their horrible slave-based economy. There's no denying that, and the article explains it at length. As you say, that should be economics enough, at least for the South. It doesn't explain the economic incentives of the North. What I'm also interested in is why the U.S. government wouldn't simply allow the slave states to secede, why it was so hell-bent on preventing a secession, even defending forts inside the seceded states. All we get from the article is this vague noble desire to "preserve the Union". TheVirginiaHistorian says it's about the survival of the republican experiment in a world of monarchies. But a secession doesn't destroy the republican experiment, it simply turns one country into two. Coldhotchoco (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

this vague noble desire to "preserve the Union" is called patriotism/nationalism. You saw it after Pearl Harbor and the 9-11 attacks. Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The American people chose democracy as an organizing political principle. Those in South Carolina might have had a right to secede from the American people in the Union, were the American people in Congress to permit it. Congress did not, --- perhaps might have with a constitutional amendment passed by democratic procedure. In the event, the American people were not persuaded by threats of coercion or temporary violent overthrow of that Congressional government of, by, for the American people.
Read through Lincoln’s first inaugural. Easier to make laws among friends than treaties among aliens, two nations might war. If a southern state might self-dissolve the union, what would cement its national confederation in turn? Yes, the adhesive had an economic component, Atlantic shipping, Erie-canal-Lakes, Mississippi --- the first transcontinental railroad east-west began construction in 1863. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

now what they didn't say

and brother fouht aginst brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.80.16 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

someting they did not say !

the civil took alot of amarican lives than any other war in history. it so divided the people of the united states that in some families brother fouht against brother the war terrible bloodshed left a heritage of gref and bitterness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.80.16 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, and many agree. Like-minded editors are working at Operation Brothers at War.
The article 'introduction' section reads, It remains the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 soldiers[5] and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.
The article 'Memory and historiography' section reads, The Civil War is one of the central events in America's collective memory. ... Memory of the war in the white South crystallized in the myth of the "Lost Cause", which shaped regional identity and race relations for generations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
To bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.209.146 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I used the phrase "war of brothers" in one earlier draft, citing Coulter. Other scholars have used it. But the reference is now lost, a cost inherent the very nature of collaborative enterprise here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Slavery and the American Civil War Corrections

The topic of slavery in the first paragraph is not accurate.

Items of disagreement:
1) First sentence refers to "Southern slave states". It makes no reference to Northern slave states; and since there were slave states on both sides, this wording is misleading.
2) Second sentence lists slavery as the sole origin. There were many items that contributed to this war and it is overly simplified in this sentence in a misleading way.
3) Additionally, in the second sentence it mentions that at the conclusion of the war slavery was abolished. This is not true, as the thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery was not until Dec 18th 1865, well past the conclusion of the American civil war. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Under "Causes of secession", the lack of accuracy continues.
4) The entire first paragraph of this section lists the source as a single person's opinion. This is biased, and the author(s) of this section are clearly using words to demonize dissenting opinion. It is written as though the South went to war because they could not "spread slavery" -- where is the citation for this? This article is full of historical revisionism on the topic of slavery. While the topic of slavery was an important aspect, we should back up assertions with truth.

Mm479flarok (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

the grab-bag of complaints doesn't help much. 1) the Northern slave states are fully treated; 2) slavery was the sole origin of secession say the RS; 3) the "conclusion" of the war includes the end of slavery, not merely the fighting; 4) it is not true that a " single person's opinion" is used. it is based on the consensus of hundreds of recent (since 1970) historians. the new Republican party promised to stop the spread of slavery and when it was elected the deep south immediately seceded and both sides prepared for war.Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"a single person's opinion" - most Civil War historians share this opinion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
If not slavery the cause, then democracy. But democracy only because it threatened slavery expansion; for this southerners would go to war. That is what they told themselves, that is what they told others at the time. The South would not be bound by democratic decisions. The Electoral College awarded the presidency to Lincoln, Congress certified the election. No president had had two terms since Andrew Jackson. Democracy would work another choice in four years as it had for 30 years, but democracy was to be overthrown for the sake of slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Cotton

"Cotton oriented" is not quite right, I agree. What I think is needed in the lede is that a)the economic base of the Confederacy was cotton, and b) just about all Confeds believed in the power of "King Cotton" to help win the war (because it would bring in European allies). c) That was an important element in the belief they could win the war. How's this for a statement?

Cotton was the primary economic base of the Confederate economy. Southern leaders believed King Cotton]]” made the war winnable. They expected that an embargo on cotton exports would weaken the Northern economy and force Britain and France to enter the war in order to secure the supplies they needed for their Industrial Revolution. Rjensen (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The topic of King Cotton appears in the 2nd parag - that might be a good place to say more.--JimWae (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Talking about confidence re intervention regarding secession (before war started) is premature chronological connectivity, no?--JimWae (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Now the same idea appears twice in paragraph 2. It is possible they anticipated recognition because of "King Cotton", but this would not be best characterized as "intervene against the Union".--JimWae (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
But that is certainly as USG saw it, documented in dispatches to US ministers in England. The states with parties in rebellion asserting their secession were "our brothers" and never out of the Union in the frame of reference held by USG then and now. Any proceedings within the territorial US without USG permission would be intervention "against the Union". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Does no one else see the repetition within:

In the 1860 presidential election, Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, opposed expanding slavery into United States' territories. Lincoln won, but before his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven cotton-based slave states formed the Confederacy, confident that "King Cotton" was so essential to the European economy that Britain and France would intervene against the Union.repetition Outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan and the incoming Republicans rejected secession as illegal. Lincoln's inaugural address declared his administration would not initiate civil war. Eight remaining slave states continued to reject calls for secession. Confederate forces seized numerous federal forts within territory claimed by the Confederacy. A Peace Conference failed to find a compromise, and both sides prepared for war. The Confederates assumed that European countries were so dependent on "King Cotton" that they would intervene; none did and none recognized the new --JimWae (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Confederate States of America.

? - AND the first mention is with respect to secession, the 2nd about war. Calling recognition (by Europe) "INTERVENE AGAINST the UNION" is somewhat premature & misleading when applied to formation of CSA & applies better to later situation of war.--JimWae (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But, let's deal with the repetition first, Then, let's figure out how best to acknowledge that any European action after the war started would have been somewhat different than such before war started.--JimWae (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Rarely in modern international diplomacy do countries recognize "new" countries before they see how it is going to play out--JimWae (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the source for the South expecting European support and how reasonable was it? TFD (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There are three key points here. see the article on King Cotton 1. King Cotton meant that the industrialized areas of Europe and the North depended on the South's cotton for their economic survival. To lose it meant economic ruin in the North and it would force Britain to use its navy to get the cotton--ie go to war with USA. The cotton would be sold in Europe and pay for the war. 2. king cotton was a southern belief in how Europe would behave. It was not based on any evidence--just assumptions. SC etc & CSA did NOT send agents to feel out the Europeans. 3. The doctrine was not true--no one in Europe saw it that way. England needed wheat from USA to feed its people & owers had large stocks of cotton. The literature is very large, starting with Owsley [Frank L. Owsley, Sr. (1931). King Cotton Diplomacy: Foreign Relations of the Confederate States of America.] and all the books on the diplomacy of the war. Quotes: a) "Confederate diplomatic strategy centered on starving Britain and France of cotton and forcing them to side with the Confederacy." says James L. Roark; et al. (2011). Understanding the American Promise, Volume 2: From 1865: A Brief History of the United States. p. 406. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); b) CSA Sec State Toombs " believed that King Cotton was a weapon powerful enough to command European support." [see Paul D. Escott (2010). The Confederacy: The Slaveholders' Failed Venture. ABC-CLIO. p. 10.]; c) "Confederate leaders also expected the South's cotton-based export economy to pay for the war effort; in turn this depended on the Union blockade proving ineffective or on the British navy intervening to break it ('King Cotton diplomacy')" [Christopher J. Olsen (2007). The American Civil War: A Hands-on History. Macmillan. p. 181.] Rjensen (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's repeat it thrice in the same paragraph, then. Let's repeat it thrice in the same paragraph then. Let's repeat it thrice in the same paragraph then. --JimWae (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

no no no. twice is enough.  :) Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Diplomacy section

Would someone with a better grasp of the tone in the article mind adding bits to the diplomacy section regarding Russian and Moroccan diplomatic events during the war? Specifically Russia sending their fleets to New York / San Fransisco and the Union having two Confederate diplomats arrested in Morocco (which would go on to involve GB and France). Here's some relevent links Russian Empire–United States relations#American Civil War and Morocco–United States relations#1777 – 1912. Thanks much, — -dainomite   21:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

trivia. The idea that the Russian fleet bit was important was rejected by scholars 100 years ago. Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Map vs Painting?

I noticed that the image in the infobox was changed from a painting to a map. Why was this? Wouldn't a painting demonstrate the subject matter better? Most infoboxes of wars either show a painting or photograph, and/or collage, to represent the subject. This is the first time I've seen a map used in a war infobox. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Earlier editor meant to "represent a better context" but that context implies an abstraction and a coherence which was never achieved on the part of the Confederacy. The map is but a dream of the first days of secessionist mapmakers, state territorial integrity lost beginning in the first six months of conflict 1861 and continuously unravelling thereafter from all points of the compass, by land and by sea. At no time are fortunes reversed and lost territory permanently reacquired.
The reverted painting of the "High-water mark of the Confederacy" at the Angle at Gettysburg is most representative. Many of the Confederacy believed the Cause came to be personified in the Army, and the Army personified in Robert E. Lee, and his most successful point as a commander was Gettysburg. The Angle is before defeat and withdrawal on all fronts, England and France are still in play for recognition and military assistance, the Union blockade is not yet absolute, Union along the rivers have not split the Confederacy, Union conscription, arms, wagon and ship production is still half of what it would be by 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
High point??? Lee made a horrible mistake by being in Gettysburg--he was badly defeated and nearly captured in his quest for cattle & shoes. It was too late for British recognition to make a difference. The blockade had already ruined the Southern economy. And Vicksburg is already doomed (it surrendered 2 days later)--when Lee could have helped out maybe but lacked the strategic vision to do so. Slaves were being freed at the rate of thousands a month as the Union army advance. All in all it was a humiliation for Lee & the Confederacy as they started to realize their cause was hopeless. Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
When the campaign was launched, recognition was still a possibility, Napoleon III did not know of Vicksburg's imminent collapse several months before. Lee's plan included Beauregard bringing forward troops from the Carolinas and Georgia to assault the all but abandoned Washington defenses. The goal was probably not shoes, note the location of Lee's advanced elements at the time of the Gettysburg 'meeting engagement'. More likely the objective was gold of the Philadelphia Mint in the march to Washington to meet Beauregard's holding action (ref. Lafayette's holding action on Cornwallis prior to Washington's arrival at Yorktown). That is, Stuart's route of reconnaissance was sensible.
Lee could not have anticipated the SC fuses being non-standard, scheduled field testing was cancelled by Richmond's impatience. Artillery was ordered to provide munitions for rolling barrage from artillery batteries advancing with infantry, (ref. Prussian tactics) but Anderson disobeyed. Meade was the first Union commander to ever relocate artillery at night, he relocated most into the center. Union guns overrun could not be turned against the defenders because in the midst of counter-attack, Chamberlain's (!) relocated Maine regiment wheeled at 90-degrees from the line and fired point-blank enfilade to strip the angle of Confederates. "High-point of the Confederacy" is the conventional summary description for "The Angle" at Gettysburg in popular lore and scholarship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jdg71 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Why does the map show southern Nevada as part of Arizona? User:jdg71 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See History of Nevada (first map) for its changing borders after the civil war. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Confederacy Before the Lincoln Inauguration?

The second paragraphy of this article includes: Before Lincoln's inauguration, seven slave states with cotton-based economies formed the Confederacy.

Is this accurate? Was there a confederacy before the inauguration? The Confederate States of America article mentions that the confederacy was established in Feb 1861. dpotter (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, there was no objective cause for secession prior to Lincoln's inauguration or ever, no call for a revolution against the national government for a "long train of abuses" -- ever-enlarging over twenty years abusing fundamental individual rights -- as the founding fathers of the American Union could count off in the indictment against George III found in the Declaration of Independence.

Yes. In those days, although elections took place in November, Inauguration was not until March. (see Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

war on the water → naval war

Recent change from section head 'war on the water' is changed to 'naval war' as "more conventional", but does it clearly include riverine operations?

If the general reader does not confound 'naval war' with 'salt water' war, I'm good with it. Otherwise I'm open to "Blockade and river war" or other formulations which might be entertained. "Water war" (opposed to "land war") sounds like Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues under the sea to me, somehow, so it's (a) "Naval war" or (b) "War on the water" or (c) "Blockade and river war" as my preferences, so as to include salt water, rivers, river crossings and amphibious landings. Good Memorial Day to all if I don't get back here for a couple days. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Move

I propose that we rename this article to American civil war. In all the other civil wars, such as the Libyan civil war and the Syrian civil war, the words "civil war" are not capitalized. I feel that capitalizing this civil war is an example of treating this specific war as being more important than all of the other civil wars which have occurred throughout the course of history. In other words, it makes the U.S. appear to be more important than any other country. Therefore, I think that this article should be moved. SuperHero2111 (Talk) 18:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Except American Civil War is a proper name, unlike the two you referenced. For the record, both English Civil War and Spanish Civil War are stylized like this article is, but you apparently overlooked those to prove a point about U.S. bias. Hot Stop 03:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, going though list of civil wars, there is a whole host on conflicts styled as this one is. Hot Stop 03:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike what you mentioned, this is a proper name, and should be kept accordingly AppleJack 7 03:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Oppose. In US articles, use American usage, scholarship, assume USG legitimate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

edit request - H. L. Hunley submarine

Refering to the section "The War -> War on the Water -> Union Blockade -> Confederate Countermeasures" - The article barely mentions the confederate submarine H. L. Hunley. While I don't think it needs an extensive description, the current phrasing, "The Confederacy experimented with a submarine, but it did not work well," doesn't seem to do it justice. The same paragraph talks about the introduction of ironclad warships to naval warfare. While it's true that the submarine was experimental and killed 21 men in three sinkings, it also carried out the first successful submarine attack in sinking the USS Housatonic. It may not have functioned perfectly but it did fulfill its mission and earned a place in history as a consequence.

The entire sentence in question reads:

The Confederacy experimented with a submarine, but it did not work well, and with building an ironclad ship, the CSS Virginia based on rebuilding a sunken Union ship the Merrimac."

It's awkwardly trying to combine two events. I would suggest breaking it into two sentences:

The Confederacy experimented with submarines, ultimately deploying the ill-fated H. L. Hunley in the first successful submarine attack in the history of naval warfare. Additionally, the navy introduced an ironclad warship, the CSS Virginia based on the refurbished remains of the sunken Union ship the Merrimac..

Granted that might not be the most encyclopedic description ever, but it is an effort to keep it concise while still mentioning that it 1)actually sunk an enemy vessel and 2)didn't return with any sailors alive. Lime in the Coconut 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any other suggestions? If it sounds okay I'm going to go ahead and change it later this week. Lime in the Coconut 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The Hunley is featured by name under 'ships' section in Confederate navy. here it is important to note the technological innovations the Confederacy advanced to compensate for its lesser ability to wage war: from land mines, torpedoes to submarines and ironclads (not seagoing, but altered the battlefield for up to months on rivers and inlets).TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

cpnfused and need a little help

how do i find out about the importance of ft. sumter and the bull run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.140.22 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You might try Battle of Fort Sumter and Bull Run. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

True Goals of the Confederacy

The Confederate States of America was not only fighting for its independence. The ultimate goal of the Confederacy was to take over Washington, D.C. and oust the government of the United States of America. After taking Washigton, the rebels would then proceed to take over the rest of the Union. On October 25, 1861, Karl Marx published an article which reveals that the Confederates were not fighting a war of independence. Instead, they wanted to oust the U.S. government. Therefore, I do not understand why my edits keep being reverted, even after I had cited the source. SuperHero2111 (Talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013. (UTC)

  • I think that Marx as a contemporary of Dickens has little authority as a scholar, however insightful their sensibility of contemporary depredations upon humanity might be for 19th century industrial England. The fatal flaw in his logic was that he assumed since there was no reallocation of power among Parliamentary representation since William the Conqueror for 600 years, there would be none until the revolution.
  • The awful socio-politicl fact which destroys Marx's credibility, is that the powerful would rather see their grandchildren in top economic power than deny the vote to the working class, --- preferring to keep commanding national wealth to continuing the corruption of rotten boroughs --- or even the trick of increasing the House of Lords to get whatever the hereditary Monarch required.
  • So with electoral reforms in England, election districts with 500,000 were no longer equal to 5 residents with two males males voting employed by the duly elected member of Parliament, or whatever. With electoral reform, Marx's philosophical house of cards collapsed -- the British aristocracy remained in place, their grandchildren remained the richest of the realm. "Workers unite." well, maybe not.
  • Not much traction for the American Civil War article, where every ten years we constitutionally have a revolution of power based on inhabitants as counted in the census and reapportioned in Congress, --- power is not derived from hereditary titles, family fortunes, banking consortiums, sectarian militias or revolution, its just nose count. That's how no slave-state got admitted since 1956, and six free-soil states without a slave state were established before the Confederate States of American had a constitution to be promulgated. Democracy was going to overthrow slavery, by the ballot, then at rebellion, by the bullet, because where the people are sovereign, and the society has free speech and assembly, press, petition and religion, right makes might by the numbers . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Marx actually wrote that the Confederate Secretary of War, LeRoy Pope Walker, "prophesied that before the first of May the flag of the Southern Confederacy will wave from the dome of the old Capitol in Washington and within a short time perhaps also from the Faneuil Hall in Boston."[1] Since Walker actually said that, Marx's noting that he said that is unimportant. Marx does not say that that was the "ultimate goal" or even that it was a goal at all. He was merely showing that the CSA was the aggressor. Their primary goal, as Marx and other writers have observed, was the extension of slavery into the territories and perhaps beyond into Latin America. TFD (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
TFD, hellowa. More bad form and no scholarly sources. No points without a non-sequitur, heh? Superhero reported the Marx article appropriately, but TFD makes the non-sequitur, seeming to quibble with SuperHero, taking the bad premise as true. Marx is a contemporary writing in a periodical, not as a reliable source, and Marx only re-echos L.P. Walker, who did not last seven months in office, in an unverified quote from a Southern newspaper in the first months of the war. A magazine account of a newspaper account, that is interesting were it placed in context. --- Wait, we already have context, Jefferson Davis and the Confederate armies did not advance on Washington, it was just bluff and bluster that was never formulated into a plan, financed on the ground or effected in events. More unsourced TFD imaginary America. TFD gets a point for non-sequitur, but non-sequiturs are not sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No idea what you are talking about. Marx mentioned what Walker said. He did not say that "The ultimate goal of the Confederacy was to take over Washington, D.C. and oust the government of the United States of America." Any reasonable person can see that and they do not need "scholarly sources" to explain that. In fact you need scholarly sources to support your POV. Otherwise your comments on Dickens and Marx are just irrelevant comments that are not helpful to improving the article. TFD (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
What? eh? Did Walker get fired for what he said, or for what Marx said, or just incompetence? I do not think you know what you are talking about, again. The Great Rebellion was precisely to oust the USG from its jurisdiction in the South. Did no one say Confederates sought to oust the government of the United States of America in the South? You need scholarly sources to deny that. Just because Ireland was successful leaving the United Kingdom does not mean Texas can leave the US as your POV proclaims in your flat-earth non-sequiturs. Non-sequiturs are not sources. This is more from your imagination America to disrupt yet another discussion page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@SuperHero, the scholarly sources say there were Southern fire-eaters with ambitions to take over Latin America and the US, some in the secessionist conventions said they should adopt the US flag, because the North was no longer the legitimate embodiment of the Constitution, etc., all fine for getting rousing mobs to call for secession, but not to govern and certainly not to wage war on the ground. As this article is concerning the actual ACW, your information is more appropriately placed in the Fire-Eaters article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, VH, your comments above about another editor are over-the-top. At any rate you and TFD are both right in substance, on this, so there is no need for it. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see both TFD and TVH with your contrasting viewpoints tackle the Fire-Eaters article mentioned above, which is stale and (in its current form) relies excessively on a single source. The talk page, of course, has the usual complaint from a Confederate apologist blaming those eviallll abolitionists for everything and crying NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Touché. My contributions in intellectual history over the last two years are generally written out of articles as not being ‘real’ history, law, political science or sociology. Each WP page has its own invested factions with their favorite hobby horse. Here, concerning thinkers relevant to the ACW, one might imagine on another platform, just a mention of the important influences on the American mind of the 19th century and its conflicting views of an ideal society, --- to the extent of imagining one worth fighting for, --- including in no particular order: William L. Garrison and Thomas Ritchie, Harriet B. Stowe, Walter Scott and Charles Dickens, Jeremy Bentham and Robert Owen, St. George Tucker and Karl Marx. Unfortunately, admirable people are not always wonderfully effective at everything they undertake. That all of these great minds and important influences, were also indifferent politicians seems to irk the hero worshippers among us. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Acronym?

When is the Civil War ever referred to as ACW? Never in my experience. Unless a printed source can be shown, that should be removed.Wemartin12 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. I did a quick Google search for 'ACW' and the only results mention the Civil War referred to Wikipedia. Hot Stop 01:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead article image montage

Help me understand your choice for the montage that is used as the lead image for this article, as well as the caption below that reads « A House Divided ». One-half of the image shows a flotilla of fighting ships, giving the first impression (especially to readers who are not Americans) that the American Civil War was primarily fought on the water. The upper left image is a hokey painting of heroic general leading a brigade of uninjured soldiers on the left, and a battle field of death nicely uniformed soldiers on the right. And the other quarter image? What can I say... Is this really what you Americans think fairly represents this war? From what I have learned, it does not. --- Perhaps a new montage that includes 1.) dead soldiers at Gettysburg photographed by Brady - (in total, more than 620,000 soldiers died, a big number which is more than 12 times greater than American deaths in your War in Vietnam); 2.) an image of the city of Atlanta in cinders; 3.) an image of your war's root cause, Black slaves; and 4.) perhaps a cabinet photo of a uniformed Union and Rebel soldier sitting side-by-side, would make a better lead montage. --- And frankly, I do not understand "A House Divided" caption, which is not well explained in the article. Is this really the most common name for the American Civil War? --- On the other hand, since I am not an expert on this subject (only a general reader), if I am wrong and this war's root cause is really naval war history (I suppose from the image?), I apologize for my ignorance. -- This is merely a comment. -- Tchao. Charvex (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You're not wrong. The naval element was only one part of a larger war. The biblical "house divided" phrase was used by abolitionists, and later Lincoln, to describe divisions caused by slavery.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The caption should help you see where you are wrong. The montage represents innovations: a) civil war command, rifled artillery and wagon supply by horse, b) civil war steam power warships in rivers and at sea as well as expanded railroads, c) mass conscript armies on both sides converting to rifled muskets.
Your proposal for a) the dead does not illustrate the event, the death is caused in the event by the massed conscript armies charging into rifled musketry and artillery, b) no Union and all southern industry was not burned -- such Georgia's manufacturing center at Savannah, the South's major (50%+) commercial center at New Orleans. c) slaves are accounted for in 'causes', but the article is concerned with a narrative of the event, and in the event, slaves were freed.
In a fundamental way, the southern cause became the southern armies. The armies resisted until there were no more food to eat, shoes to march in, serviceable arms or ammunition. While it is commonplace to say the Confederate generals beat the Union generals, but the soldiers were never defeated, the say can be said of the American soldier in grey. The lack of supplies was due to successful command of the rivers cutting rail lines, and a blockade closing ports. No Union flank was ever turned when anchored by naval gunnery. I will be happy to elaborate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The montage is made from three separate sources, none of which was called a "house divided", so that caption should be removed as POV. Instead it should explain each picture as is done for example for the War of 1812. I do not like using paintings when photographs are available, unless they are seen as iconic. So I think we should rethink the pictures shown. TFD (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
That caption might be replaced using the example of the War of 1812. I would relate each image to the topic "American Civil War": a) command and artillery: advantage CSA for much of the war, b) mass conscript armies: match-up at point of contact for much of the war, and c) naval power, advantage Union in every theater. Photographs, like line drawings, etchings, prints and paintings are all illustrations of equal utility as image illustration.
My first choice is the iconic image of Gettysburg on the third day, which was removed. It marked "the high watermark of the confederacy". It pictured the Union counter-charge at "The Angle", recapturing the overrun artillery batteries at the stone wall.
It was replaced by a political map of the states that did not directly relate to the article subject, "American Civil War". The collage with suitable caption, or the "high water mark" painting are preferable TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

War of Northern Aggression

I'm curious to know whether the article's beginning should also be referenced as the "War of Northern Aggression." This is a title I've heard is still used in the South in some places, including taught in some schools. Desire Mercy (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe we looked at this a couple years ago. The phrase went out of academic fashion around 1880, and has not resurfaced.
Virginia Assembly in the nineteenth century passed legislation to call the late unpleasantness, the war of northern aggression, in part because so many Virginians opposed secession outright, and would fight in the rebellion only to expel the invader.
I believe early coffee table reprints of Harper's collected prints illustrating the American Civil War in the 1870s had two regional editions with title pages "The Great Rebellion" and "The War Between the States." -- all else the same. I do not think either "the great rebellion" or "the war of northern aggression" should be used in a modern online encyclopedia for a general international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias much?

This article is so biased, it is ridiculous. It is filled with inaccuracy, leading misstatements, bunny ear quotations, and more. I plan to begin Citation Needed throughout. 75.142.165.56 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you lost, but it's hard to rewrite history. Hot Stop (Talk) 10:21 pm, 9 February 2013, Saturday (1 month, 6 days ago) (UTC−5)
I just came here to read this article and the whole first paragraph has problems. If we are going to describe the southern states as "slave states" then we should describe the northern states as "free states." Considering that that wasn't true of all northern states, then we shouldn't be loading the whole article with a bias to identify all southern states as "slave states." In fact, the whole paragraph essentially sets the tone that the entire point of the American Civil War was to end slavery. I know that it is trendy to look at the belligerents through the self-righteous viewpoint of 21st century popular opinion, but that does a disservice to history. This is not about "The South lost nyah nyah nyah." This is about accuracy and NPOV. Saying that the American Civil War was about slavery is like saying that the American Revolutionary War was about taxes. It's an oversimplification. A.S. Williams (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
1) They were slave states. 2) Mainstream scholarship maintains with ample evidence that the primary national political differences were over this issue of its future in the 1850s, and in the election of 1860, and in the response to the election of 1860. 3) What you may see as oversimplification others see as summary of scholarship, which is the purpose of the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Alabama Ordinance of Secession: "...as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South..." Texas: " maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."; Virginia "...the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States..."; South Carolina "...in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States..."; Georgia "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." Mississippi "... a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization..." It sure does seem that the Southern states thought the war was mainly about slavery and the federal government's policies related to slavery... JoelWhy?(talk) 13:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Please specify what you see as bias.Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I have to agree. It's a "history written by the victor" look at the central question (still resounding in American politics today) of whether the federal government can exert over the states powers not expressed to it in the Constitution. There were African-American battalions that fought for the Confederacy and gross atrocities committed during Sherman's march to the sea and declaration of total war against Southern civilians. Like most wars, there was no good-guy versus bad-guy rhetoric like this article suggests. 174.53.223.53 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)CO

This is legally incorrect. The confederate constitution retains the supremacy clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the necessary & proper clause (See Art. VI & Art.I Sect 8). GBM
This article shows a bias to be kind. Unsourced rants generally get taken off wikipedia pages, as some administrator is sure to do, so before we disappear, The supreme law of the land is congressional statute, treaties and the constitution, Article VI. The Fourteenth Amendment takes protections of the constitution against the federal government and extends them against the states, for all the people in every state.
Some American politics today refuses to acknowledge the constitution governs them, but all state judges, governors and legislators swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the supremacy of congress and treaties, "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;" This is a problem only where the people are not God-fearing, where an official would swear one thing before God, then turn his back on his word and do another. I know of no such place in the U.S. of A. which meets that description, for all of its legislators, judges, and its governor too, do you?
The African-American engineering battalions were rented slaves building forts and repairing railroads. When union troops approached the rail crews escaped, debilitating southern operating capacity. Local Georgia histories show atrocities during the time of Sherman's March hundreds of miles away from his line of march by southern deserter-maurauders who would not die in the losing cause where rich men called their nephews "overseers" of escaped slaves to evade conscription, filling bloated "bombproof" bureaucracies in the state capitals of contractor corruption. The awful underbelly of the Confederacy is not exposed here out of regard for the brave men who fought in gray, whose personal valor in combat and mercy between battle was known and praised among the victorious union troops long after The War was over, see Richard Rowland Kirkland. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you would bring your religious beliefs into this discussion. I think it's inappropriate. Coldhotchoco (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I could not agree more! Lee Tru. (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What religious belief, there is an oath to uphold the US Constitution required for office in US state government. Do you say my "religious belief" is officers of government should be bound by their oath? Or is it my "religious belief" that persons who hold nothing sacred would be a threat to the republic? I have not revealed what I hold sacred. You only know from me that the Constitution is so written and explained in the Federalist Papers, the Union depends on officers of government, federal and state, who do hold SOMETHING sacred, and swear by it to uphold the US Constitution.

The Constitutional provision is enacted into law for US at 5 USC sec 3331 Oath of Office sacred books include family Bibles in use by various faiths and translations, Gutenburg facsimile, Jefferson’s Qur’an, West Point Bible, and a leather-bound copy of the US Constitution for the contemporary non-believer (not-atheist) Representative. The oath based on something held sacred is the thing --- intellectual integrity will do and rare enough to be prized in any case. The danger to the US republic is from those unhinged from any principles, without predictable character, absent ethical moorings, who while in office, would overthrow the US government.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but it would be illegal to enforce it against an atheist. When elected, they are entitled to a seat in Gov't. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Article VI, paragraph 3. (Incidentally there has been at least one open atheist in the house, Pete Stark) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.214.132 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The American Union was preserved, atheist in your view or not. Stark, regardless of his politics or his religious convictions, was an American who swore to defend the Constitution in the Air Force and as a Member of Congress. The current agnostic Representative swore on the Constitution, a sacred text to many. The atheist can be ethical and governed by high principle without being theologically God-centered: see Christopher Hitchens, btw opposed to Stark on the Iraqi War, so its not about politics, but possessing the ethical character to support a nation-state while holding an office and in its pay.
The atheist who would NOT take the constitutionally required oath that is provided by statute --- to uphold the constitutional government of the US --- cannot be lawfully seated. Those who cannot swear to uphold the government without reservation will not officiate its destruction. Sounds like our unsigned anon.132 is blinded by more 1859 misguided thinking. Tolerance born of a liberal education does not mean weakness, a point that pedantic ideologues neverendingly fail to grasp. The article is not biased --- it reflects the historical fact that the American Union was preserved. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

as the war to defend racism marches on. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses

I think the numbers need to be changed:

But J. David Hacker, a demographic historian, has used sophisticated analysis of census records to revise the toll upward by 20%, to an estimated 750,000, a figure that has won wide acceptance from Civil War scholars. If correct, the Civil War claimed more lives than all other American wars combined, and the increase in population since 1860 means that a comparable war today would cost 7.5 million lives.

Here is the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/150-years-of-misunderstanding-the-civil-war/277022/

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the top of the article and I looked at the table to the side. The top says that total casualties were 750,000, but the table has numbers for both sides that add up to only 625,000 dead. I've always read that total casualties were around 620,000. Shouldn't the top of this article reflect this? Emperor001 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done. Cautiously, one would put a range, but is Hacker's, really the "true" estimate now? Any caveats or responses to his work? I don't know. Hopefully someone can look into it? The Atlantic is an ok reliable sources but this kind of claim needs multiple RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"the Civil War"

"The American Civil War, also known as the War between the States or simply the Civil War..."

Needs to be amended to clarify that it is only called "the Civil War" in the US (obviously in any given country "the Civil War" normally refers to a civil war in that same country). As it is, it risks seeming US-centric. 86.160.214.119 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall page improvement

I've been contributing to this article for years and overall I'd say it is not the most accurate or encompassing in terms of why Civil War was fought. The slavery section is quite long and needs to be summarized a bit. We already have a variety of dedicated pages ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc ), that cover many aspects of slavery. Certainly we know slavery was an issue, but there were many others that led to civil war, including mass marketing of cotton to Britain and France, the proceeds of which were mostly if not entirely going to the southern entities and their banks, ones not generally associated with the European banks on Wall St. who for generations were already in bed with the US government, north and south. There were a lot of political issues on the plate, and involved many politicians, bankers and shippers, north and south, that had or wanted nothing to do with slavery. The Federal government, backed/propmted by the banking industry, were making alarming inroads into state business matters and was also effecting businesses that didn't use slaves. There were many. Even Lincoln at one point became alarmed with the system, and issued the Greenbacks that undermined the banking system with their extremely high interest rates. The States' rights section is quite short and largely presents slavery only. The Slavey section employs a variety of sources, which is good, while the very short States' rights section employs two, which is disappointing. -- Gwillhickers 19:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


While we're at it, the references and bibliography sections are a mish-mash of sources, in a number of different formats -- many of them online sources that go 'poof' sooner or later. They should be replaced with published sources whenever possible. The 'cite book' and 'cite web' templates are hardly used at all in the bibliography. Many of the source listings, many with external links, are stuck right into the text, in many cases making it difficult for a writer to come in and edit. Of all articles, it would seem this article would have achieved GA or FA status at this late date. As it stands a number of the sections looks like they're only edited by occasional drive by editors with no particular interest for the page as an article. I'm sure such editors are around, but it would be nice if a couple editors familiar with Civil War history came forward and presented some ideas in terms of improving the page as a unified article. Very difficult for one editor. A big step in the right direction would be to use a uniform reference and sourcing convention. All GA and FA articles are required to use a uniform bibliography and sourcing format, most of them employing the use of WP:Cite book and WP:Cite web. -- Gwillhickers 19:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
insert I found WP:Cite book format to be difficult to parse. It obscures the reference in code, making correction in one citation invalidate the coding in another citation of the same reference. Previous write up included passages which seemed to be cut and paste from an academic paper. Multiple WP:cite references at phrases in the same sentence to the same source in adjacent pages, etc. Occasionally, narrative was not germane to the source cited. Hard going in "slavery" section particularly. All notes should be open coded for an editor to read directly at the place. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
here! here! edits have to be made with the understanding that someone else will add or change or delete text, and we don't want the new changes to foul up old text. That means references have to be robust.Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

TVH, if you're saying the 'cite book' templates don't belong in the text, I agree. A 'cite book' entry is only needed once for any given source and should be placed in the bibliography. There the one source can be referred to, using different page numbers whenever the text calls for it. Just place |ref=xyz in the template and then use <ref>[[#xyz|Name]], p.123</ref> in the text. The same method can be employed with 'cite web'. -- Gwillhickers

We need to balance the reasons provided according to the weight historians provide them. I believe the main reason provided by historians was the extension of slavery into the territories. The South wanted the land to replace plantations as their capacity was depleted, while the North wanted the land for independent farmers who would grow food for the growing commercial and industrial cities of the North East. TFD (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with TFD here. Given the sources, slavery has the most weight. Alternative sources will modify the narrative, I just don't have access to them at hand. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Overall slavery was the issue only because it was the way the money was being made. The nation didn't go to war over the morality of slavery. Let's be clear on that. Slavery was largely the issue on the grass roots level and of course was the most visible. If cheap labor, prison labor, indentured servants, etc were used and the Wall street banks and their cronies in government (north and south) were still not getting their hands on the money the same issues would have emerged. There are a good number of sources that cover this though they usually don't show up in high school and college class rooms. And of course emotionally entrenched and embittered activist types at this late date simply lack the intellectual and emotional capacity to even acknowledge these sorts of realities. In any case, the page should touch on these things a bit more.-- Gwillhickers 17:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it was the economics not the morality that drove the war, although morality and other issues were major factors that drove supporters of both sides. But the plantation system, which the "Wall Street banks" did not want to see extended, and slavery were inextricably entwined. TFD (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-slavery varied in intensity and intent over time, apart from collateral economic determinants. The slavery issue changed from the onset of hostilities through emancipation and reconstruction. One can trace evolution from early adopters to majorities in related issues of blacks serving in combat, emancipation in rebelling regions, or abolishing slavery constitutionally.

The abolitionists seemed to be first driven by moral interest, without any economic, political or social considerations. The free soil advocates seemed to be first driven by a political theory of republics, including economic considerations for bankers and railroads and homesteaders. The nationalists, Republican and Democrat, seemed first driven by patriotism to maintain the union, whatever the cost in treasure, then blood, then lastly any extant peculiar institutions which might be forfeit to the cause, as long as the Union was preserved. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Free Soilers were an important group. They feared that rich plantation owners would move into a territory (like Kansas), buy up the best lands, use slave labor, and leave the average white man with slim picking in the hill country--as had happened in most of the cotton belt. The slaveowners would also use their $$$ to control politics. Rjensen (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This thread covers a lot of ground by a lot of knowledgeable editors. Thanks for all your comments. I empathize with but did not quite grasp the question of "Cite book" format by TVH. If a page number is used, then this invalidates further use of a named reference later with a different page. But this sort of thing might better be argued under those templates, if I understand it. And I might not understand it! I find template:sfns annoying, but those are not a problem here.
To answer the original complaint, there are several "true historians" editing here, which I will not name, who have an overall grasp of the history involved. I have a fairly good amateur's grasp, but am sometimes brought up short by someone more knowledgeable. Alas, I am not sure after six years of being on Wikipedia that aiming for GA/FA is truly worth it. I try to get out of the way, if someone wants to spearhead this, however.
As with any war, there were multiple reasons, but anti-slavery finally prevailed for the North. The country was not quite the democracy then as now. Nor were people as well-informed. If abolition could be used to galvanize the North, it was used. Not as fuzzy reasons as (say) the War of 1812 but not as clear as (say) the Mexican-American War which seemed more like a land grab.
As the captured Confederate related to a group of sympathetic Northerners in Gettysburg (1993 film), they were fighting for their "raghts". This sounded like "rats" to the perplexed Yankees, unfamiliar with the accent, who muttered, sub voce "Well, it takes all kinds!" The unspoken comment was "What right for this particular uneducated Southerner, most likely not from a slaveholding family, was being threatened?"
As a amateur, I find online citations useful since I can check them. I realize that those from the popular online media will vanish and will need replacement. But I have to leave it to the few of you to check hard copy cites, judging them only on their apparent merit and wording. Student7 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Abolition of slavery was not the goal of the Union government at the outset of the war. And areas of the south where non-slave-holding whites predominated supported the North. Where large plantations predominated, uneducated whites could find employment in plantations which gave them a privileged position. Many if not most of them believed that they too would one day be planters. TFD (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
@Student 7. WP is good for its references, and WP policy requires hard copy cites. Any text at a given view is of course problematical, sometimes editors impose a POV other than what the citation says, as has happened on this page. I agree there is great promise for the future of the online encyclopedia as a research platform where citations link to text, or more ephemerally, links to sources excerpted -- and these can be included along with the hard copy cites. Also, the ISBN convention in citation allows for multiple checks for online, library and pay access.
In Virginia, most of those in rebel ranks simply wanted to expel the invader, hence the official title, by Act of Assembly,"The War of Northern Aggression" -- which, btw, is useful only as an archaism. Despite sometime efforts here to add it, it is too arcane to be appropriate for an article intended for a general international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
West Virginia seceded from Virginia. TFD (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, West Virginia remained loyal, and so its people were recognized between their democratically elected convention and Congress, admitted as a separate state by Congress. Just as Congress has recognized Puerto Rico as a part of the US, although you WP seceded it. You are wrong on both PR and WV.
As you know I do not believe secession had any objective reason, and I believe in the political process of Constitutional Amendment if one were to have the impulse to secede. 'West Virginia' were the counties counted loyal to the USG, from which 20,000 served for the Union and 20,000 for the Confederacy. My phrase "war of brothers" taken from scholarly sources, -- was removed from this article's introduction. Perhaps not enough $$$ to explain why one's family knowingly joins in opposing uniforms, but I think that narrow $$$ perspective forfeits much understanding available in modern scholarship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Each person who joins a war does so for his own reasons, but that may not be the reason the war commenced. I do not see what this has to do with Puerto Rico which was part of the Spanish Empire at the time. The fact is that WV left Virginia and remained in the Union. If every state in the South had remained in the Union there would have been no war. TFD (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You have secession of places as an idee fixe, regardless of the people in those places. You suppose PR is not included in the US republic, but PRs democratically established Constitution makes it "loyal" to the US Constitution. You suppose "WV seceded from Virginia" when it democratically chose loyalty to the USG by constitutional means. West Virginia establishment was upheld by Congress, the Supreme Court, and subsequently ratified by eastern Virginia. Establishment in the Union is not "secession" from VA, Kentucky did not 'secede' from VA, loyalty is not rebellion, except in a contrived rhetorical sense, 'Rebellion against the rebels'. Cute and coy and clever --- but not proper use of the term, as your premise is there is no Union for American citizens, either then for WV or now for PR. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
On west virginia. There were TWO states of Virginia--Virginia-1 = Confederate one (in Richmond) and Virginia-2 = a US-State (that controlled the area near DC). WVa asked and received permission from Virgia-2 to break away, and Lincoln & US Congress approved. WVa did secede in friendly fashion (just as Maine had done in 1820 from Mass, and Kentucky did in 1792 from Virginia). Rjensen (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Although, in summary form, western Virginia was the locus of the government of Virginia-2, until during the formation of the new state, which it agreed to, and it moved to Alexandria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC) The constitutional terms under Article Four would be that the new State was "formed or erected"; so, secession would just be kind of a non-textual term. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
However we wish to phrase how one state became two separate states, the point is that the part of Virginia where plantations did not predominate saw no reason to leave the Union. TFD (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ok, it was a bit difficult to understand why you all were discussing those terms in such detail. For a study of a similar dynamic in Mississippi, see Jenkins, Sally, and John Stauffer. The State of Jones. New York: Anchor Books edition/Random House, c. 2009 (2010). ISBN 978-0-7679-2946-2 - Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
To agree with TFDs last point, the western counties with a majority of voters in Virginia were constitutionally discriminated against both in the Virginia Constitution of 1830 and that of 1850. Taxable property (slave population) was weighed along with population in three regions so as to permanently give a majority in the General Assembly to the Tidewater, regardless of population. Reapportionment occurred by population only within each region -- which is no way to build an inclusive political community, you see, sort of like Lebanon which was 50% Christian when the old constitution set legislature proportions in stone, regardless of subsequent Christian-Muslim population changes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That is, disenfranchised western Virginians --- felt no connection of political community to a democratically illegitimate Tidewater slave-based government --- which was attempting an illegal separation from the Union --- based on a rump convention and their "ratifying" referendum held in out-of-state rebel army camps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The War of Northern Aggression

Just Remember this. The Articles of Confederation first spelled it out. The "Several States" could simply "Opt Out" from the Union if their State's Sovereignty was damaged or threatened. Abraham Lincoln was falsely elected. He carried 62% of the votes in the North, but Only 12% in the South, so the Southern Delegates were simply Not Seated at the Electoral Convention. A. Lincoln was a Huge fan of Karl Marx and "Big Government". Jeff Davis told the Congress what would happen before it did. War is what Lincoln Craved. He Got it. The Southern States had plans already in place to end Slavery. The Northern States Did Not! That tells what the "Cause for War" REALLY was about. I can provide the complete bibliography, but it will take a lot of time in my library - 51 Year collection. NorthgoesSouth (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to post the details here. Your Facebook page is a better venue for that. Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The Articles Congress dissolved itself on convening of the Constitution Congress; that regime is done. Your library should include Article VI of the current Constitution explicitly enumerating the legislative, executive and judicial supremacy of the Union over states and their officials, confirmed in the oath of office required of each one. ---
A long train of abuses over 20 years led to the Declaration; 20 years before Lincoln's election, the federal legislature, executive and judiciary were dominated by the nation's slave-power. Before Republican majorities were seated in 1861 or a majority of Southern representatives had withdrawn, Lincoln's election was certified by Congress as Constitutional. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what parallel universe you're writing from, NorthGoesSouth; but in this universe, there is no Electoral Convention, and never has been. In this universe, the electoral votes were duly counted by Congress, which included the Southern Congressmen as well as the Northern, Western, etc; and the votes of the Southern states were duly counted as well as those of the rest of the country, before Lincoln's victory was duly certified. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. JoelWhy?(talk) 19:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry RJensen dont try to suppress/censor, if he has RS sources then that is notable enough to be here (note- im not saying were gonna change to highlight only 1 views, but we can add to other perspectives).
I agree with JoelWhy? that his is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion
On that known, here is a shcolarly article that I'm not sure if should be in the salvery or states' rights section? [2]

James Oakes

Here is an excerpt from james Oakes discussing the abolitionist plan inside the Republican party to create a "cordon of freedom" to call the fire-eaters bluff. Were they to attempt secession, the constitutional restraint protecting slavery would be lost, and immediate emancipation could follow. -- this from the abolitionist minority before wartime requirement of Lincoln's emancipation which could get a congressional majority in 1862-3. Seems to me that preservation of slavery is the determinant cause of the civil war in that fire-eaters did not trust democratic process in constitutional government to protect slavery, so they determined to leave the union to preserve slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The war of northern aggression by James Oakes. "I began by accepting the standard assumption that that the first Confiscation Act achieved nothing. But … I discovered that Section Four of the Act, the clause specifically authorizing the forfeiture of slaves, was written … as an emancipation clause. Indeed, it was understood by everyone in Congress to be an emancipation clause. …
Coming out of the 1860 election, Republicans declared that there were two possible policies. The first was to make freedom national and restrict slavery to the states where it already existed. … A “cordon of freedom” would surround the slave states. Then Republicans would offer a series of incentives to the border states where slavery was weakest: compensation, subsidies for voluntary emigration of freed slaves, a gradual timetable for complete abolition. – Each new defection would further diminish the strength of the remaining slave states, .... Yet because the decision to abolish slavery remained with the states, Republican policies would not violate the constitutional ban on direct federal interference in slavery...
But once [a state] seceded, all bets would be off – it would lose the Constitutional protections [of slavery] that it had previously enjoyed. The Republicans would then implement the second policy: direct military emancipation, immediate and uncompensated. Republicans said this openly during the secession crisis. And that’s what they were saying in Congress as they debated the Confiscation Act." ---end James Oakes quote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

VANDALISM

There is great fact to show the American Civil War was about lack of money (produce and products) not slavery. IM TIRED of NAACP making it a black white issue.

The South had every right to be angry at the North, the North the South as well. And Lincoln was one of the major proponents banging the war horn to settle differences the stupid way. That is what there is good historical record of. Lincoln was also a debter, having overspent his government pay.

Lincoln only used blacks because he desperately needed good troops and was short.

WHERE IS THE PROOF lincoln ever said anything good about blacks or would have helped them otherwise?

Thomas Jefferson put emancipation in the first constitution (there are two sides to every line in the constitution: the freedom side and the authoritarian side, in general. the autoritarian governors had Jefferson remove emancipation). Yet thomas wasn't the only one: many wanted to get rid of authoritarians in the time. Infact many in the day were against slavery and mistreatment of others

I'm sick of the NAACP whining. It was a long time ago and many or most of us weren't even born then and the places we are from had nothign to do with any of slavery either. i'm poor and injured and i got $0 aid and threats from government though i was owed. i sat through the mandatory awareness classes. your crying about descrimination and teaching your kids to is becoming a way to get on top and grant money and law suits and you all know it. naacp isn't helping me when i'm in trouble they are worse biggots.

whining is also how foreigners are getting in the usa free and getting foodstamps free (oh you must let me in my country is mean): noting the places they are from stole so much money they didnt' get it there and sent their poor here. and those states don't plan on repayment either.

you all are liars. i dont' want to hear a word of the crying. what i see is allot of money missing and biggotry and turf wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Insert : A word of advice. If you want people to listen, the first rule is, don't offend or insult them. When that happens they'll rarely listen to you, even when you're right. The best way to poison the dialog is to start using name calling. I would recommend that you put the anger aside, regroup, get some sources lined up, sign up and give yourself a user name, come back here and put your best foot forward. Anonymous editors are allowed to edit, but they're usually not taken seriously if their edits are radical or sweeping and particularly when they remain in the shadows and snipe at other editors on talk pages. -- Gwillhickers 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You can read the same documents historians look at, that are linked in the article. The reasons given by the Southern states for secession are documented in their own words, they did it because they were concerned about preserving slavery. It had been abolished in most of the Northern States, and they knew where Lincoln stood on the issue, so they left, and both sides were soon on a war footing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Preserving slavery was not the only reason. In the business and economic world there were other reasons which are often not given even cursory mention in the given sections. -- Gwillhickers 19:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying, it's virtually the only reason that the legislatures gave at the time. These are the links I was talking about: [3] [4] [5] [6] - What do you make of them? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : I see there are a lot of political issues the southern states took exception to. e.g.In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Taken from the source/link1 above. Many things related to slavery but clearly the issues were above and beyond slavery. This needs to be better reflected in the overall article. Since the views can differ considerably more perspectives, and sources, are needed. -- Gwillhickers 15:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That part you just quoted and everything else from these declarations can be summed up with just two words "preserving slavery", this was their reason. None of the slaveholding state legislators denied it at the time, and no serious historians do today. Ironically, the main document at the time denying that the fight had anything to do with slavery, came from the Northern side - the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Insert : That's an opinion, and one that dismisses the political and financial inroads the Federal government was making on the States. And it's best not to speak on behalf of all "serious historians" (as if there's a group of historians who are not serious.) No one denies slavery was the core reason, but this is not to say there were not many other reasons that were turning heads, even in the North. These advents need better coverage in the article. It wasn't just about preserving slavery, it was about stopping the Federal government and their banking buddies from getting their hands on all the money that was being made, esp from cotton sales to Britain who went way out of it's way to assure the flow of cotton continued throughout the war. I submit they were more interested in preserving the money flow, than they were about "preserving slavery". If this money was being made by cheap labor and/or indentured servants instead of slaves I'm sure they still would have objected just as vehemently. Follow the money. -- Gwillhickers 02:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@ GWhillickers: “political and financial inroads” is what sustained majorities do in a federal democratic republic. Hence free soil states IA, WI, CA, MN, OR, and after the north unites for the first time against slave-power domestic terrorism in “Bleeding Kansas”, Kansas in January 1861 before Lincoln’s inauguration in March. Slavery was not going to be extended into the territories because slavery as a political economy beggared most of the white population, --- recall in 1860 85% of whites BOTH North and South were family farmers --- so the political economy which could not support larger numbers was NOT going to rule the federal republic, even with a 3/5 bonus for nonvoting slaves. That’s what happens in a democracy. There is no moral equivalence on any grounds, not slavery v. indentures, not Senate v. democracy. The vast majority of Americans would not have slavery extended, it would not be extended by votes or by war, it turns out … six states to zero, then WV and NV, free states before the Civil War ended, then slavery abolished in rebelling states, then slavery abolished nationwide by votes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

follow the money

the Confeds imposed an embargo on cotton shipments to Europe in early 1861: they were the ones who STOPPED the flow of money to the South. In the North, bankers and businessmen did not want a war because it would be bad for business. (eg NYC bankers, Boston Cotton Whigs). Rjensen (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Another source of reasoning can be found in Confederacy diplomatic representations to foreign capitals ... a favorite narrative for the Brits was to draw a parallel to the 1848 national revolts in central Europe, or reference Greek fights for independence from Turkey for the French...but anything added to the article should be sourced; regrets, I do not have them at hand.
[aside] Of course, there was no objective reason for secession, no "long train of abuses" as in the Declaration of Independence that reads like a 20-years' indictment of specific governmental abuses imposed within the colonies. "Failure to promote expansion of slavery elsewhere" is not the equivalent by any standard. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Rj', they imposed an embargo as a means of pressuring them into compliance, since little cotton money was going into their banks in the first place. The embargo, and the following blockade, didn't effectively stop the flow. Britain was so intent on keeping it going (the lucrative textile industry in Britain and France depended on it) that they went so far as to design their own lightweight seafaring ships, blockade runners for the express purpose of outrunning Union ships on blockade patrol. In fact, the Confederacy was successful in not only exporting cotton (albiet not as much) they managed to supply themselves with guns and other ordnance, manufactured and imported from Britain, by running the blockade throughout most of the war. -- Gwillhickers 15:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The Union naval blockade was effective overall AND confederate army logistics were remarkable. I thought the flow of cotton from southern states was on the order of 10% of previously, another perhaps 10% export came out of Union-controlled fields and capture, and the European mills were kept running with expanded cotton plantings in Egypt and India. The private blockade running was infamously unconcerned with armaments and munitions, hence a CSA army-owned ships ... manned by experienced British sailors ... resulting in a remarkable logistics effort with effect at defensive points of contact for the Confederates in an ever-shrinking sphere of operations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This Ip's posting

This IP's posting is not appropriate and they have been warned numerous times for this kind of behavior. I would suggest ignoring it altogether. Radiodef (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Commemoration of the American Civil War

A new editor has greatly increased the size of the article with useful material on commemoration. It is important enough for its own separate article so I moved it all to Commemoration of the American Civil War Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Added Commemoration of the American Civil War to See Also section under General Reference. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Bloodiest" battle ?

In the "Eastern theater" section, the text reads: " … the Battle of Antietam[164] near Sharpsburg, Maryland, on September 17, 1862, the bloodiest single day in United States military history." A couple of paragraphs later, the text reads: " … the Battle of Gettysburg[170] (July 1 to 3, 1863). This was the bloodiest battle of the war"

How can the Battle of Antietam AND the Battle of Gettysburg be the "bloodiest" battle of the war?

Also, BOTH the Battle of Gettysburg AND the Battle of Vicksburg are characterized as turning points of the war. How many "turning points" can a war have?

(I see this liberal use of superlatives frequently in military history. In the Pacific theater of World War II, Wikipedia's article on the Battle of Midway characterizes that battle as a turning point in the war, whereas the article on the Battle of Guadalcanal also characterizes that battle as a turning point in the war.) Cwkmail (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Antietam was ONE day and Gettysburg was three days. The turning point of the war war was July 3 1863 with two great victories simultaneously in East & West. Rjensen (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree.
A war could have a number of turning points IMO. In WWII, retaking Africa was an early "turning point" for the Allies, battles had been mostly lost until then; the Normandy invasion would have been another; perhaps the destruction of heavy water plant in Norway. Not sure what the Allies reaction would have been to a detonation over London of an A-weapon prior to (say) the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. Student7 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems just like yesterday we were sitting in Professor C. Vann Woodward's office in the History Department at Yale, chatting about the "turning points" in the American Civil War. As "Ol'Vann" was fond of saying "quote from your sources, boys!"
Here's James M. McPherson on the topic: "After [Antietam], it became clear that the world was not going to be the same. [It] made possible the Emancipation Proclamation, it forestalled European intervention, it prevented the Democrats from winning control of the House of Representatives. After a series of Confederate victories, Antietam reversed the process. From the mid-summer of 1862 till the end of the year is a decisive period.” http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/02/mcph-f28.html
In Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, Mcpherson's analysis of the battle and its significance, he expands on this point. To declare flatly "the turning point of the war was July 3, 1863", i.e. the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, true or not, requires a source. Kindly provide it...in honor of Professor Woodward. 36hourblock (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
well I was in C Vann's office too (he directed my dissertation). Try 1) Gallagher on how most historians see it: " Gettysburg and Vicksburg usually appear in the literature on the Civil War as twin calamities that marked a major turning point in the conflict." Gallagher Third Day at Gettysburg and Beyond (1994) Page 2. [also see Gallagher, Gary W. (2013). Lee's Army Has Not Lost Any of Its Prestige:. UNC Press Books. pp. 4–5.] 2) a Textbook: "The twin disasters at Vicksburg and Gettysburg proved to be the turning point of the war." [Johnson et al. The American Promise]; 3) textbook subheading: "The Turning Point of 1863" Boyer, The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People (2011) Page 355 Rjensen (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd stay clear of Michael Johnson's textbook analysis, at least for the purposes of this discussion, as well as Paul Boyer's chapter title (from a textbook). Johnson reports these battles as "the" turning points, Boyer qualifies it: "...of 1863". That year, and no other.
The wise Professor Gallagher limits himself to calling it "a" major turning point. This, and Professor McPherson's remarks on Antietam, will suffice. As Student7 correctly observes, "A war could have a number of turning points..." Let's leave it at that. 36hourblock (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Gallagher says that the general consensus among historians is that the twin events of July 1863 marked the turning point. Our job as Wiki editors is to present that consensus. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"Gallagher says..." Where and what does he say? Where does he use the term "general consensus"? In what respect is it the turning point? "Says who"? 36hourblock (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Gallagher says that "Gettysburg and Vicksburg usually appear in the literature on the Civil War as twin calamities that marked a major turning point" he says he is looking at "the literature on the war" (which is what we are interested in) and uses "usually appear" in my reading to indicate the preponderance of evidence, as opposed to some minority viewpoint. Textbook writers try to capture the main lines of current thinking and so they are very useful when looking for the prevailing viewpoints of scholars. By the way where are the citations 36hourblock is using?? Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I provided the online source above, in which Antietam is described as the battle that changed the course of the war. Here is the interview with Professor McPherson, again, in which he makes that claim, quoted above. Is that the "citation" you are asking for? 36hourblock (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
yes there is a minority view re Antietam, although above 36hourblock insists that the sources must explicitly say "turning point." The problem is that the battle was a draw even though Lincoln used it like a victory, and its importance was that the Europeans did nothing -- it was rather an undramatic nonevent. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The twin events of July 1863 marked the turning point in two important respects: that a) Vicksburg closes the Condor strategy coil around the Confederacy, and b) Gettysburg ends the threat of European recognition for the Confederacy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sir, we are citing sources in this exchange. If you wish to participate, kindly comport to that prerequisite. 36hourblock (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a Talk page at Wikipedia where every statement need not be sourced. A graphic presentation of Union control in the South by late 1863 at Martis' "The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865", p. 48. No such dramatic change follows Antietam as a turning point. See page 44. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay @36hourblock. To rephrase the question, in what way CAN Antietam be a turning point --- apart from a military sense which is clearly Vicksburg-Gettysburg? It is a turning point of policy at Lincoln's use of it for a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The war aim of the North changes from simply 'Union and peace' to 'Union and abolition of slavery'. The war aim of the South necessarily changes from 'Independence and expansion of slavery' to 'Independence and preservation of slavery' --- terminals of the Underground Railroad multiplied to a) bleed Confederate manpower wherever Union troops advanced on land or established a beachhead from sea and b) augment Union manpower for soldiers, sailors, engineers, teamsters and food production in expanding permanently occupied areas. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to those worthy editors contributing to this thread, conversation here has wandered into the territory of discussing the subject rather than discussing the pagespace and methods to improve it. BusterD (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone asked how many turning points can there be in the article, my reply is there can be a military turning point (Vicksburg-Gettysburg) and a policy turning point (Antietam-Emancipation Proclamation). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Andrew Jackson celebration on both sides

USA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent USA 1863
CSA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent CSA 1862
Union celebrated Andrew Jackson the anti-nullifier; Confederacy celebrated the hero repulsing invasion at New Orleans

NOTE AMENDED CAPTION: Rjensen deleted the images of Andrew Jackson on USA and CSA stamps as, article is too long to include minor details only weakly related to the issues. The better image to delete is that of the NYC riots which were one-time and besides the point of the famed Irish Brigade. The inequities in the law that led to the riots were amended and NYC contributed draftees thereafter in a way that the unpictured Southern draft resistance could never overcome. Let's restore the image of Andrew Jackson - celebrated on both sides, and drop the one illustration of draft resistance for only one side.

Jackson cannot be seen as "weakly related" to the issues of Union as he promised to lead a conquering army to put down nullification, "I'll hang the first nullifier I meet from the first tree I see". Nor on the other hand, was Jackson weakly related to the issues of states rights for the white man as he conducted a policy of Indian removal, and was, after all, the Hero of New Orleans, defending the homeland from invasion against the victorious British veterans of Waterloo from the greatest empire on earth. -- (Lincoln kept a picture of Jackson above his desk a the army telegraph office according to Godwin's 'Team of Rivals', and it is pictured in Speilberg's Lincoln (2012 film).) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The RS on the Civil War give Jackson little attention and the Irish riots a lot of attention. Our job is to follow the RS. Rjensen (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Intellectual history often exposes difficult paradoxes in a history of layered meaning. But now it is dismissed as "minor detail". The proposal is that we follow the RS of one Irish riot as a "major event" related to New York recruitment outcomes, which no RS purports, and as it effected the outcome of the American civil war, which no RS purports.
The riot is a minor detail which our narrative accounts for, it needs no illustration -- at least not compared to an illustration of Jackson. Lincoln would end the secession crisis of SC, as Jackson did the nullification crisis of SC to preserve the Union. Jefferson Davis and his generals would not repel the invader as Jackson did the British. That is not a "small detail". One celebration proved prescient, the other tragically fatal. It is a difficult paradox... but without another editor's support, I would yield. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The intense dissatisfaction of the Irish Catholics was a big deal at the time. The Postmaster generals made up the stamps & putting famous faces on stamps is pretty common. There is no evidence provided that the "Union celebrated Andrew Jackson the anti-nullifier; Confederacy celebrated the hero repulsing invasion at New Orleans." Is that true??? Actually a large number of men over age 35 (say 50%) had been Jacksonian Democrats before the war---both N and S -- so it was an easy call. Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is true. You would like me to find the reference, then the images will be included? It is a recent read, within the last five years. I'll see if I can find it. But I promise the RS is not to be found in the personal papers of a postmaster confiding a personal opinion. The reference is in an RS narrative of the Civil War that treats American intellectual history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You should not introduce illustrations unless they illustrate something already in the article. For example the picture of Lincoln makes sense because he is mentioned in the article. So I would leave it out. You have explained why you think it is significant, but you need to first explain why it belongs in the article. I doubt you can do that. TFD (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The American Civil War was a war of brothers, inside a common culture appealing to the same God, but they asked for different things of humanity relating to African-Americans. Each ascribed to “Freedom” and “Liberty” as primary political ethos for nationhood, but they used diverging definitions.
They were both proud of an American military heritage that had brought independence in the Revolution and guaranteed it in the War of 1812. Both celebrated military heroes while mobilizing troops for the fight, the same men, George Washington and Andrew Jackson, but for different reasons. In this case, Unionist President Jackson ended nullification, Lincoln called on his nation USA to end secession. Slaveholder General Jackson repulsed the invader at New Orleans, Davis called on his nation CSA to repulse the invader.
The images of President A. Jackson on USA stamps and General A. Jackson on CSA stamps in the American Civil War – ‘Mobilization’ section illustrates one of the bifurcations in meaning and interpretation the Americans suffered in the mid-19th century which led them to and sustained them in Civil War. I’ll find the reference in a reliable source for you, if I can again, then I will have two editors for the images? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that this approach violates the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. We start NOT with the personal opinions of an editor but with high quality scholarship. As for the stamps, they are very hard to use at this level without reliance on a published scholarly study. TheVirginiaHistorian needs to show he has done this. Rjensen (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the NYC riots should stay in, IMHO a significant and unexpected result of the wartime draft, and a window into the feelings of citizens on the homefront far more illustrative than postage stamps. User:Rjensen should be able to easily produce the names and authors of several books which directly relate to the riots and their aftermath. While I'm generally in favor of mixing images up to get a good mix, the proposed stamp insertion is IMHO, implied synthesis. In contrast, I'd like to see several reliable book length sources which make the exact assertion implied by the caption above (that both sides respected Andrew Jackson?). Why is that assertion important, or even strongly related to the subject? Why not pictures/stamps of George Washington, whom both sides surely revered. Even if the "whys" are cited, this seems to be more appropriate for a "Stamps in the ACW" article than on the main page. I hope nobody takes offense at the following characterization, but this is trivial information when inserted in this mainspace. This is a survey article on an event subject vast in scope, and inserting tiny details not directly related to the causes, actions and consequences of the event seems to me, inappropriate. I generally see eye to eye with User:TheVirginiaHistorian, but this case, I don't. BusterD (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidential likeness is very common on US stamps. Looking at a lot of stamps at U.S. presidents on U.S. postage stamps I find no example of a 19th century stamp to mention president A in connection with a specific event X,Y,Z. (Washington & Lincoln are the exceptions but only in stamps made after 1920) It is a fallacy to say that the stamp-makers "really" had X,Y or Z in mind.Rjensen (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Certainly it is unsubstantiated without citation, and as I say, I count on two supporting editors in good faith with citation. It's on me, and if I cannot find it, I am happy to yield, as I said. Thanks for the patient hearing. It's good to be here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
To clear up a misunderstanding, --- the point of the two governments commemorating the same character (Jackson) is that they had different takes on the man's reputation to suit their own separate agendas, North and South in the ACW. It is not that they simply pictured past presidents. Lincoln referenced Jackson's presidential proclamation on nullification in crafting his first inaugural stressing union of the American people, he does not chose something jingoistic from wartime Polk invading Mexico, for instance.
The CSA government believed Jefferson Davis their first president, they did not consider President Jackson a) a previous CSA president, nor b) the model of what a CSA president should be to the Confederate states, but rather CSA viewed A. Jackson as c) the model of a general repelling an invader, as the citation I am looking for will make clear. Were I to find it, which I have not yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
(answering an older remark) Tend to agree with VH on Southern draft resistance vs NYC, the latter overhyped (perhaps), the former almost unpublished until lately, it seems. From 1863 on, the South was pretty disgusted with the results they were seeing and support for the war waned dramatically. Mary Chesnut seems to confirm this (though re-written/re-edited post war, not always sure whether to trust her or not for certain entries).
Jackson may be a great figure for both but have to agree with RJensen on the value of cancelled stamps as being photo-worthy. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I still need the citation. But I thought the stamps as an expression of government was unsurpassed for illustration, and something of a two-fer, a) representing the same icon for different purposes, and b) graphically showing the technological limits/disadvantages suffered by the Confederacy in direct comparison with the Union. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I would encourage TheVirginiaHistorian to consider partnering with User:Gwillhickers to develop an article specifically about stamps associated with the ACW. The latter user once found themselves in this talkspace opposed by several of us who disagreed with the insertion of large number of stamp images that user had placed in pagespace. The user's strong knowledge of sources and examples in this field could be of enormous help in developing a coherent and meaningful pagespace making some of the points intended by the user from the Old Dominion. (I'd like to point out this is the second time I've suggested creation of such an article.) BusterD (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
BusterD has presented an excellent idea. Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to be here on this page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Commemoratives

Stamps depicting/commemorating various individuals and battles of the Civil War exist on several other pages, but since there is section devoted to the 150th anniversary, (yet none for the 100th) and one for Hollywood with a long list of film-links, and a good number of paintings about the page perhaps one image would work well for the article in the Memory and historiography or other section. Or at least a link to an appropriate image. I would recommend this image, commemorating five different major Civil War battles, each stamp first issued in the town of (or nearest to) the battle, on the 100th anniversary of the given battle. -- Gwillhickers 19:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Monument to the Grand Army of the Republic, a Union veteran organization
Commemorative stamps at the 100th anniversary of each battle beginning 1961
The proposed commemoratives serve in the 'Memory' section. Perhaps as a dual image with the Army of the Potomac monument, but I would hate to lose either of the existing by substituting the commemoratives image. This is a bit far afield from my proposal above to use contemporary stamps as artifacts in the same way the article uses images of documents. But I am interested in the commemoratives image use at 'Memory and historiography' section. Too bad the horizontal commemoratives were not laid out in chronological order, they were issued on the respective centennial anniversaries, first-day covers at the respective place post offices. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Civil War 150

Hello, I represent a history class at the University of South Florida. We added a great deal of information about the Civil War Sesquicentennial that we hope you all appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apirok1188 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks for all the good work and fresh ideas! The additions are so important that they now form a separate article, which has now been expanded some. See Commemoration of the American Civil War Rjensen (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you, Apirok1188 (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting house slave image

Woman with her slave
New Orleans, 1850
Abolitionists opposed whipping as barbaric.[n]

[note] Miriam Forman-Brunell, Leslie Paris (2010) "The Girls' History and Culture Reader: The Nineteenth Century". University of Illinois Press. p.136. ISBN 978-0-252-07765-4. This famous 1863 photo shows a victim who likely suffered from keloid, according to Kathleen Collins, making the scars more prominent and extensive. See Kathleen Collins, "The Scourged Back," History of Photography 9 (January 1985): 43–45.

---

In the Slavery section, the image of a house slave alongside that of a field slave is deleted, with the explanation, "(Keep photo used in slavery debate -- remove generic photo of woman and slave child. This is not the place to make a 'statement' about slavery...) "

The 'statement' in the caption is an RS distinction between house slaves and field slaves. Double image format is a useful way of displaying disparate aspects of the same phenomenon. The images are contemporaneous. Please explain the objection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the image. Sounds like a candidate for an article on slavery in the US. I would think it would just confuse the issue here. The national issue was over slavery, whether they were all house slaves or all field slaves, seems moot IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the image makes any 'statement', but removing it might make one, and POV at that. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The source currently given in the inline citation after the photograph - the Forman-Brunell & Paris book - says nothing about either keloid or that "the guilty overseer was fired". I've tried looking around for the Collins source but I can't find the source itself and no reliable sources which refer to Collins make these claims either. Volunteer Marek  09:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, also discussed at [7] Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

images align right

I propose all images aligned right in accordance with WP:ACCESS policy.

It allows access to those readers with sight disabilities, including those who are legally blind in classroom settings. Computer screen enhancers magnify text in WP articles in such a way that it can be readily followed only with all images aligned to the right margin.

For articles using the WP:ACCESS convention, the student can actively participate in group projects and in-class research available through few other formats. Without it they are unnecessarily handicapped in their topic search to locate material and in their reading speed for text comprehension in real-time classroom participation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see this specifically in WP:ACCESS. There was a section on CSS compatibility but it did not emphasize sight disabilities. Shouldn't it be explicit there? Student7 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead sentence is "Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers." I'm not sure how to go about contributing the classroom emphasis. I thought only editors with big hats contributed to policy pages. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly right on qualifications for policy contributions! That would include you!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, all pics now align right for this article again iaw WP:ACCESS. Until next time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Upgraded image

In the Memory and historiography section I have just improved on this image:. (See File history section below image for comparison.) Hope it meets with everyone's approval. -- Gwillhickers 19:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Native Americans

There is no listing of the cleansing of several Native Tribes during the Civil War, including; Akokisa, Natchez, Choctaw, Atakapa, Teansa, Tohome, Adai, Tunica, Neniaba, Chitimacha, Ofo, Mobile, Houma, Bayogoula, Chickasaw, Avoyel, Pascagoula, Chakchiuma, Hasinai, Biloxi, Koasati, Tuskegee, Alabama, Eufaula, Coosa, Coweta, Chatot, Apalachee, Apalachicola, Sgwoktl, Kasihta, Hitchiti, Chiaha, Yamasee, Tamathli, Muskogee, Yuchi, Cosabo, Sewee, Santee, Waccamaw, Pedee, Wateree, Cherokel, Catawba, Woccon, Tuscarora, Ocaneechi, Nahyssan, Monacan, Meherrin, Nolloway, Tutelo, Erie, Susquehanna,Mascouten, Potowatomi, Wenro, Senca, Gauyga, Onondaga, Oneida, Cohokia, Tomaroa, Peoria, Moingwena, Kaskaskia, Maimi, Kickapoo, Fox, Sauk, Memomini, Tonkawa, Tawakoni, Waco, Wichita, Kichai, Wichita, Caddo, Quapaw, Osage, Kansa, Missori, Omaha, Oto, Iowa, Panca, Yankton, Wahpenton, Santee, Sisseton, Yonkonai, Medewakanton; and the placement of few survivors onto reservations.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Native American Tribes.

E. McCarty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.111.123 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, and it seems you have done substantial research on the topic, enough to contribute to the subsidiary article Native Americans in the American Civil War. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes.
For this article, craft a couple sentences to summarize the fates of a) military allies of the Confederacy, b) displacement of tribes rebelling against the federal government and c) state-sponsored Indian removal during the period. Where would you like to place those few sentences? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have added Native Americans in the American Civil War in the 'See also' section under 'Ethnic articles'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sectionalism

Under this chapter the article reads as follows :

"Historians have debated whether economic differences between the industrial Northeast and the agricultural South helped cause the war. Most historians now disagree with the economic determinism of historian Charles Beard in the 1920s and emphasize that Northern and Southern economies were largely complementary.[42]"

I think this statement needs alteration since the industrial nature of the northern economy and the agricultural nature of the southern economy strongly drove events. These two different types of economies imply strongly opposed views on how society should be organized and are at the core of explaining the American Civil War. 83.134.169.193 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Economic differences are described elsewhere including a chart. But while we are addressing differing economic analyses, that's another facet worth considering. What is the reference to source the material as representative of another school of economic thought? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

One question that strikes me is not if they actual were complimentary but how they personally felt about the issue in that day? Certainly they could've had a complimentary but what effects did the change in the northern economy have culturally? From 1800 to 1860 in the north farming dropped from 70% to 40% amongst laborers and slavery died out in the north with that drop. The northern climate favored smaller farming operations. There were more abundant resources in the north that favored industry. 75% of the nations wealth was situated in the north. The north had to adapt from agrarian to industrial as a means of progression. The south didn't. The Climate favored giant farms. I haven't really looked the reliability of this source but that's where that information came from. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/northandsouth.html

Economically they could been complimentary. But economics effect culture. Look at Detroit vs Memphis. Detroit is a alot more favorable to Unions than Memphis.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The article treats the causes of secession as 1) slavery, 2) states’ rights, 3) sectionalism, 4) territorial crisis, 5) national elections. Please read it, it's pretty informative, directly addressing your question, How they personally felt about the issue in that day? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
the business community, both North & south in 1860-61 generally was strong in opposition to going to war. They feared they would lose trade & face high taxes. It was indeed ruinous to most businessmen in the South and (at first) to many in the North esp cotton textiles, New York banks, exporters, & Mississippi River trades. Rjensen (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
When it says "economic determinism of Charles Beard", it should explain what that means. TFD (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Economic determinism is linked to Economic determinism in blue for any who are not familiar with the term. Wasn't Marx publishing critiques of the American Civil War contemporaneously. Wouldn't the article benefit from your working up some sourced contributions on the subject? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_16&oldid=1136315646"