Talk:American Civil War/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018

The comment concerning the actual death count being higher in the Vietnam war is so laughably wrong that I can't imagine how it ended up here. The link (#15) directly contradicts the statement. Ignorant. Remove it. If you don't know what you're doing, do not edit the page.

Sincerely, the rest of the entire internet. 174.76.156.140 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll need some sources to back up this claim otherwise there's no way that readers can verify this. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

IP, I think you've misinterpreted what it says. It doesn't say the death count was higher in the Vietnam war, it says Civil War casualties were "a higher number than the number of U.S. military deaths in all other wars combined (at least until approximately the Vietnam War)." Mojoworker (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That wording was a bit awkward, so I've simplified it to "more than the number of U.S. military deaths in all other wars combined (at least until approximately the Vietnam War)." Mojoworker (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Two Secession Maps contradict each other

The first one refers to West Virginia as a seceding state, while the second one refers to West Virginia as a border state (non-seceding slave state). Which one is correct?

Evan Huang42 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Evan

They are both correct. In 1861, West Virginia did not exist – it was part of Virginia. It then succeeded from Virginia and West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a new state on 20 June 1863. See West Virginia in the American Civil War. Mojoworker (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Civil War starts December 20, 1860

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The actual start date of the Civil war is December 20, 1860. South Carolina declared open rebellion and seceded from the union on that date. The rest followed soon after.

Did the SC legislature hope to go peacefully, and if so, should its isolated remonstrations and declarations at the time be counted as war any more than the previous Nullification Crisis -- or was a conspiracy to rebellion and civil war explicitly held and widely understood from the very beginning of Secessionist maneuvering in December 1860? I thought secessionists in December 1860 protested a Constitutional right to secede in peace as cover to gain support in the border states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The declaration of war was followed by 100 days of training for the new Confederate forces. They then proved they were serious by attacking Fort Sumter. If you plan to separate without fighting you don't call men to arms in December of 1860 and train them to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:65E7:C691:CB96:15D1 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Without a doubt the start of the Confederacy and open rebellion to the Union is December 20, 1860.

John McQueen, the South Carolina commissioner to the Texas legislature on February 2, 1861 suggested that "six now independent, sovereign, Southern States” then existed — without war. On April 29, 1861 Jefferson Davis addressed the Confederate Congress declaring the Lincoln Administration was making war on the Confederacy.

Any "new Confederate forces" would have to await the creation of a Confederate States of America in February 1861, and the Jefferson Davis call up of 100,000 militia -- prior to Lincoln's 75,000 call up to restore federal property constitutionally seceded to the U.S.G. by Southern states, but never legally revoked by the two parties in each case, whether forts, naval yards, armories, customs houses, court houses or mints.

There certainly were conspirators who sought to provoke war in South Carolina maneuvering in December 1860, and in Virginia, secessionist militias unlawfully occupied both the Harpers Ferry U.S. Armory and the U.S. Navy Yard at Gosport nearby Norfolk in April 1861 --- without consent of the sitting Governor, the General Assembly or the Convention met to consider secession. Several delegates in Convention objected to making war on the United States before the people of Virginia ratified secession in a plebiscite.

Is there a scholarly source dating the American Civil War from a time when Charleston, South Carolina militias paraded unmolested at The Battery? Usually wars are said to begin by a contested force of arms or a legislative action declaring war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The legislative action was December 20,1860 when South Carolina declared open rebellion to Lincoln's Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:DB7:6186:AD7F:28 (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Even the most critical view has to agree the Confederate government of six states was active and in rebellion against the northern states in February of 1861. The would also have to agree that the Confederate government created a army to fight the North. They would also have to agree that the Confederate flag was created and flown by troops on March 4, 1861. Well before the firing on Fort Sumter . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:DB7:6186:AD7F:28 (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not only are your repeated postings anonymous, your purported editorial "view" is anonymous, whereas we are trying to build an encyclopedia based on reliable, peer reviewed scholarly sources generally accepted in the academic community. The "preponderance" of reliable sources date the beginning of the Civil War at the opening of hostilities at Fort Sumter, --- Please come up with an author and publication to substantiate your proposed December 20 date to begin a sourced discussion. It is not enough just to be argumentative based on your own authority. This is true even for WP editors who are published in their field of study. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I could care less about being published. As for posting scholarly sources that is impossible as the article is blocked by unqualified people running this site. Articles are blocked from being published in the Civil war area. Only in this "talk Area" are people allowed to talk. As for being anonymous once articles are released in the Civil war area and people are allowed to post freely without interference then I will register. As long as only "special people" in the dictatorship are allowed to post I will remain an anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:7837:603E:A42D:DA8C (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually user 2601 is quite correct the Civil War started on December 20, 1860 when South Carolina declared open rebellion . It ended on August 20, 1866 By order of the President of the USA. With that order all the Confederate hold outs stopped fighting. They risked being hung after that date because amnesty for Confederate rebels ended on August 20, 1866 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:FFC0:F:C98D:AE8A:C1F2:C442 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this is great

wikipedia is great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.33.45.173 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Issues that ignited the civil war

Slavery was NOT the only reason for the civil war. The north was more industrial and the south was predominantly agricultural. The north imposed tarrifs on the south for import/export of commodities..

Also, Abraham Lincoln did not appear on a ballot in the south but was elected anyway...

There were many reasons besides slavery... this is important!! I wish this didnt always have to turn into a racial debate instead of being studied for the history in its entirety DonBazeJr (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The south was predominately agriculture based on slavery. The South (not the North) wrote the tariff to promote their agriculture based on slavery. The South kept Lincoln off the ballot because they viewed him as anti-slavery. Moreover, the south split Lincoln's opposition based on which of their candidates was more pro-slavery. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"The South kept Lincoln off the ballot because they viewed him as anti-slavery. Moreover, the south split Lincoln's opposition based on which of their candidates was more pro-slavery." In the United States presidential election, 1860, Abraham Lincoln received 39.8% of the popular vote, "popular sovereignty" champion Stephen A. Douglas received 29.5%, pro-slavery champion John C. Breckinridge received 18.1%, and supposedly neutral John Bell received 12.6%. None of Lincoln's rivals managed to attract as many voters as he did. The main problem was that the Republicans had a party platform that appealed to industry and workers, people interested in joining the colonization of the Western United States and farming their own homesteads, those interested in expanding the American railroad system. Probably a majority of the population in the "free states" belonged to these categories. Breckinridge had little appeal to anyone outside the slave states, and Douglas and Bell were trying to appeal to "moderates".:

• "The Republican victory resulted from the concentration of votes in the free states, which together controlled a majority of the presidential electors. Lincoln’s strategy was deliberately focused, in collaboration with Republican Party Chairman Thurlow Weed, on expanding on the states Frémont won four years earlier. New York was critical with 35 Electoral College votes, 11.5 percent of the total; with Pennsylvania (27) and Ohio (23), a candidate could collect more than half (85) of the votes needed. The Wide Awakes young Republican men’s organization massively expanded registered voter lists, and although Lincoln was not even on the ballot in most southern states, population increases in the free states had far exceeded those seen in the slave states for many years before the election of 1860, hence free states dominated in the Electoral College."
• "The split in the Democratic party is sometimes held responsible for Lincoln’s victory, however, despite the fact that Lincoln won the election with less than forty percent of the popular vote, much of the anti-Republican vote was "wasted" in Southern states where Lincoln was not even on the ballot. At most, a single opponent nationwide would only have deprived Lincoln of California, Oregon, and four New Jersey electors, whose combined total of eleven electoral votes would have made no difference to the result; every other state won by the Republicans was won by a clear majority of the vote. In the three states of New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey where anti-Lincoln votes did combine into fusion tickets, Lincoln still won two and split New Jersey. If the opposition had formed fusion tickets in every state, Lincoln still would have received 169 electoral votes, 17 more than the 152 required to win the Electoral College." Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

All fine points, none of which, however, change any point I made. The slavery issue was at the bottom of keeping Lincoln off the ballot and splitting the opposition, but the point was not that the opposition was split or that he was denied access to the ballot, but that the reason for the split and the southern suppression of Lincoln balloting was slavery, and who was more pro-slavery. Your argument is apparently that even if Lincoln was on the ballot in the south and the opposition was not split, he may have won but that still relies on counter-factual, nor does it address slavery. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Due to a smaller number of registered voters and (consequently) electoral votes, the Southern United States were less politically influential than before. It was unnecessary to secure their support to gain victory in the elections.:

• Lincoln came first in (by order of most to least successful) in Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and California.
• Douglas came first in Missouri.
• Breckinridge came first in (by order of most to least successful) Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Georgia,Maryland, Delaware, and Louisiana. South Carolina also awarded all of its electors to Breckinridge, but they were selected by the state legislature. No voting took place in this state.
• Bell came first in (by order of most to least successful) Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia.
• The efforts to keep Lincoln off the ballot affected too few states to have the intended result. They were Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Added to these 9 was South Carolina, which did not have popular elections anyway. Lincoln was on the ballot of every other state, including several which he failed to win: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Virginia. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. However, none of that changes or addresses the points -- the reason he was off the ballot in the South was because he and his party was seen in the South as anti-slavery. The reason the opposition was split was over who was more pro-slavery. Slavery is still at the bottom of it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

Change "As a result of the long-standing controversy over slavery," to "As a result of the long-standing controversy over federal power," because the Civil War was did not break out because of the controversy of slavery. It broke out because the southern states believed that the federal government had too much power over the states, thus the southern states seceded because they believed the states should have more power. 128.84.127.138 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Factually incorrect; see question 1 in the FAQ atop this page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I cant find the page that is being referred to. The posting party here is correct... slavery was barely an issue if at all... try looking at the politics of the times. The fact that the article written here proclaims that the Civil War was started "as a result of the long standing contraversy over slavery" this is incorrect and shows a blatant political slant. I like to believe that wikipedia is still one of the very few unbiased sources... please change that line if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of this source DonBazeJr (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Protecting the integrity of Wikipedia is the name of the game here. On tariffs, that was a Northern grievance --the South wrote the tariff in effect in 1860. Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Its interesting to me everyone calling this out yet it still states slavery as the only reason... Cadden 3rd (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

harpers weekly is the authoritative source on this matter as the newspaper of record for boston at the time. it's true that slavery is repeatedly mentioned as an issue. however the two dominant parties at the time represented the two dominant views on the subject at the time. the democrats argued not against slavery but that america was god's gift to white men and therefor all slaves should be released so that they could be returned to africa. harpers weekly records the absolute horror of the idea of the populist lincoln being elected. the other viewpoint was that states should retain autonomy and never resort to the sword in order to settle disputes. The south was willing to cease slavery however the north refused to offer any concessions or solutions which wouldnt drive them into poverty and demanded they keep paying the same taxes and supplying cheap goods and raising tarrifs to force the southern states to purchase only northern manufactured goods instead of cheaper goods from europe. the southern states were being vassalized which represented the death of the great dream of the federation. like every war, it was about cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.74.178 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

In the section titled Battles--McClellan's Peninsula Campaign the text states that "Johnston halted McClellan's advance at the Battle of Seven Pines, but suffered a would which resulted in his death..." This is inaccurate. Johnston was severely wounded, but he lived until 1891. He also returned to command later in the war. Joe Johnston may have been confused with another Confederate general--Albert Sidney Johnston who did die of his wounds during the Battle of Shiloh. 70.120.20.10 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2018

The paragraph referencing the Battle of Seven Pines states that confederate general Joe Johnston was wounded and later died. This is incorrect: Johnston was wounded, but recovered and served throughout the war. This is common knowledge. Paragraph should be edited to omit reference to Johnston's death. 71.88.33.122 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Since he lived for over 25 years following the end of the war it's a stretch to say that the wound he suffered at Seven Pines resulted in his death, and in any case that's not important to this article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies to the user who made the largely identical request above, as I didn't interpret the request correctly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

In the 4th sentence of the article, the word Union has a capital I in it instead of lowercase. 24.55.138.151 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I couldn't find the offending text. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018

2601:603:4940:1F5C:D5B7:4A13:22CB:AE47 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Blank request ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 08:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Overview paragraph on constituent elements of the Confederate States of America

I enlarged upon the existing "Introduction" section statements on the formation of the Confederate States of America to better reflect the historical processes engaged by secessionists to foment rebellion against the United States Government.

"Among the 34 U.S. states in February 1861, secessionist partisans in seven Southern slave states declared state secessions from the country and unveiled their defiant formation of a Confederate States of America in rebellion against the U.S. Constitutional government. The Confederacy grew to control over half the territory in eleven states, and it claimed the additional states of Kentucky and Missouri by assertions from exiled native secessionists without territory or population. These were then given full representation in the Confederate Congress throughout the Civil War. The two remaining slave holding states of Delaware and Maryland were invited to join the Confederacy, but nothing substantial developed."

Thought I should post here in the event additional sources are required to carry the copy edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Founding Fathers

change ((Founding Fathers)) to ((Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers))

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Should the Cherokees be listed in the Belligerents for the Confederates?

Mexico battle, talks about Cherokees fighting (mercenary or not). Thanks, Marasama (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article on Cherokee in the American Civil War. Several of them were slave owners, who did not want any emancipation of their slaves. Part of them had already assimilated into Southern United Culture, and most of the Cherokee were blaming the Federal government of the United States for the Trail of Tears. So they viewed the Confederate States as a better ally. General Stand Watie (a Cherokee) "was the final Confederate general in the field to cease hostilities at war's end."

Following the war, the Federal government forced the Cherokee to accept their former slaves as tribal members. "The Cherokee were forced to adopt their slaves into the tribe". Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Stand Watie was not a co-belligerent--he was a full fledged Confederate soldier. Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But the question was whether the Cherokees should be covered in this article. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If you include the Cherokee, you will need to include the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole.-Topcat777 19:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

"There were numerous technological innovations during the Civil War that had a great impact on 19th-century science."

Please reduce wordiness by changing this to "Numerous technological innovations during the Civil War had a great impact on 19th-century science." 208.95.51.53 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 21:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Financial cost

I think it would be informative if the article listed an estimated financial cost of the war effort by both sides. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Speculative and biased

The American Civil War was over politics and money; not slavery. The President signed a slavery document coming into office which shows the support for slavery.

This in it's entirety is only used to maintain and persuade false truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.174.205 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, slavery was only used as a moral weapon to put the South in the wrong in the international view. Bobafett5204 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Balance at Forced into Glory

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Forced into Glory § Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics.

The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't you need to pass at least primary school to post to Wikipedia?!

What uneducated 1/2wit wrote and 1/4wit editor permitted the copy? Zero tolerance for dumb-arses (not asses, an ass is a donkey, dumb-arses... An arse is what you sit on) there should be a law against...

Even in Singapore and Australia - where I lectured in/at universities (sorry, not striving to 'big head' myself) it is well known amongst the educated people (high school pass) that the North American civil war of the 19th century was purely an economic war. The rights of slaves, skin colour, et al, was never ever a factor. Check the fact books (probably not Wiki), As evidence, the majority of the United States right up the mid 20th century openly and expressly practiced bigotry, discrimination and prejudices. The U.S. civil war was never about rights, et al. Please see this travesty of public disinformation is fixed on/at/in the Wikipedia page on the 19th century U.S. civil war.

/Dave Berryman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveberryman (talk • contribs) 05:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that support the claim that the civil war was in no part about slavery? Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't even know how to use a comma, Dave. I pity your students. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7C64:2DA:559A:4840 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

1: Read this speech by the Confederate President, who explicitly explains his reasons for declaring independence.

2: Try step 1 again, just to be sure. If it helps, look for the letters s, l, a, v and e adjacent to one another. You can even search for it using your browser’s search function. [Speech explaining the CSA’s declaration due to slavery http://www.civilwarcauses.org/davis.htm] Vision Insider (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

There is no citation given for the cause of the civil war primarily being the enslavement of black people. This is a common explanation, though also contested (e.g. states rights as a principle), so the article should cite at least one source. 2606:A000:ED86:5400:226:5AFF:FEE7:A302 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are actually many citations in the body that discuss slavery as the main cause of the war. The lead does not cite generally cite sources, as such sources can be found in the body of the article, the lead is only the summary of the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

The "Union victory and aftermath" section refers to Shelby Foote as a "historian". I think this should be changed to "novelist" as he has no academic qualifications and is not considered a historian by qualified academics. 69.30.187.166 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

negative--the presumption is false--(1) see this recent scholarly book from a university press: Robert L Phillips, Shelby Foote: Novelist and Historian Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2009. -- in which he is "Called the greatest Civil War historian"; (2) Wirt Williams, "Shelby Foote's" Civil War:" The Novelist as Humanistic Historian." The Mississippi Quarterly 24.4 (1971): 429-436. (3) James Panabaker, Shelby Foote and the Art of History: Two Gates to the City (Univ. of Tennessee Press, 2004). (4) a 1976 review of vol 3 by John F. Marszalek = "The total effect is impressive — a massive synthesis of Civil War scholarship as presented by a master of words....Shelby Foote has written a book that, despite weaknesses, will be long considered a major interpretation of the military history of the Civil War....Twenty years of dedicated labor have resulted in a literary masterpiece which places Shelby Foote among those very few historians who are authors of major syntheses....this history will long stand with the volumes of Bruce Catton as the final word on the military history of the Civil War." Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

73.110.35.253 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

can you copy and paste it

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Title

It says in the description of the war, "Fought over slavery", but there's a lot of disagreement on this topic, whether or not it was about slavery or state's rights. Bobafett5204 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's actually not. See the FAQ at the top for further reference. --Yhdwww (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of historians disputing the cause of the civil war. A quick search for "disputed cause of civil war" yields an abundance of books and videos on the subject. As this is an encyclopedia, the task at hand is to chronicle and organize information at large, not present your individual interpretation of some subset of that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED86:5400:226:5AFF:FEE7:A302 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only use information from reliable sources, and only the most reliable sources should be used. In this case, the most reliable source for the cause of the war would be historians, and the majority of historians do not dispute the fact that the primary and paramount cause of the American Civil War was slavery. A Google search will yield many results, but not all of them can be considered reliable. Keep in mind that the source of the book or video that you are referencing matters. Sure, you can find books that dispute the accepted consensus, but who wrote those books? What are their qualifications? Is their opinion accepted by other equally or more qualified individuals? This has apparently been discussed before in previous discussion threads. It is advised that you look at the archive, which will show said discussions.Crazymantis91 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020

Added because other numbers dont match have 3 sources all dif...this is the worst of them"

Somehow I think "3 sources all dif" is a great description of an insolvable problem, and a very good reason to _remove_ the languishing tags. No one is going to be able to substitute betterisher numbers that others won't object to. These numbers are 'inaccurate', and the same can be said for "all the others" proposed.

The desire for a definite answer is commendable up to a point. When none can be supplied then the tag becomes noise and noisome. I say remove the tag unless there is a prospect of agreeable resolution within N weeks.

Otherwise, well, they are still arguing about the Battle of Actium and someone just now came up with yet *another* possibility. So... {{Better source|date=October 31 BC}} ? Shenme (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection here. BusterD (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Protectionism and States' Rights

Protectionist tariffs were a huge issue of that time. The North was increasing tariffs on manufactured goods imported from Europe (Tariffs of 1816, 1820, 1824, 1828-Tariff of Abominations, 1832, "Black Tariff" of 1842, and the Morrill Tariff of 1861). The South, whose economy was primarily agrarian (i.e. cotton, tobacco, etc.), was dependent on trade for these manufactured goods, of which Europe could provide at low cost. Therefore, the South had but nowhere to turn but the North for these same goods, who could now charge outlandish prices because the South had no other options. Georgia listed these issues in their Articles of Secession. "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States."-Charles Dickens. The majority Northern House and Senate passed the Corwin Amendment, which would have permanently banned government interference in slavery, and yet the South still seceded. What could possibly have been the motive? The South wasn't upset because of the abolition of slavery; they were exiting the Union because the North was bent on destroying the Southern economy, which produced approximately 75% of the nation's income. Most of these profits were spent on infrastructure and protectionism in the North.

I would also like to point out that Articles of Secession are simply the reasons that each State left the Union, not their cause for declaration of war. This is a point that most people ignore. Most southerners did not want war, and assumed they could peaceably secede, since it was a legal act. The Constitution did not prohibit it in any way. The only way it would have been illegal according to the Constitution would have been to form an alliance of the States while still in the Union. The South peacefully backed out of the Union, then formed a new government amongst themselves. It was actually the North who committed the offense then, if they maintain that the South couldn't secede from the Union, for they formed an alliance between the non-slaveholding states which was against the CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SECT. 10, PARA. 1. Also, for an interesting read, compare the Texas and Cherokee declarations of secession. They list some things that history likes to ignore.

"The Constitution forbade states to contract alliances among themselves or to make treaties. Southerners' inborn respect for legalism made them resort to secession rather than to radical revolution. Secession, they argued, was constitutional, for it had not been forbidden by the Constitution." THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA 1861-1865, E. Merton Coulter, p. 14.

On 22 July, 1861, the U.S. Congress issued a statement as to the cause of the War: "...this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease."

The ultimate goal of the South was to maintain the government as brought forth by the founding fathers. They believed that, "The central government ought to be so conducted that 'it's citizens, so far as their personal interests would be thereby effected, would not even be aware that we had any Government'" (Coulter, p.64). Slavery was an issue only because it was, at the time, a right, and was yet another right that the North sought to infringe upon to ultimately damage the Southern economy. The idea of secession had been building for 50 years leading up to 1861, and it hadn't been over slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy0511 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid this argument is original research. You'll need to find modern, scholarly sources that say as much for us to say so. And as is, many many sources say the cause was slavery, so slavery will remain in the article as a main cause of the war. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So, the the tariffs issue was about the South increasing their profits from slavery is what you are arguing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"American sivil war" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect American sivil war. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#American sivil war until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

The American Civil War was primarily fought because of the federal government of the Union exercising full authority over the southern states with disregard to those states rights, subsequently adding the enslavement of African Americans to the list of reasons for war, 2 years later when Abraham Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation. Jay266 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason for which the Civil war was fought on this page was not entirely wrong, but was not primary reason for war, as states rights, over taxation on agricultural products, were at the fore front of congressional arguments in the years prior to the war, the abolitionists did not gain traction for the movement until well into the war, and was not recognized as a reason by the Union until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Jay266 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sources and facts that support the real reason for the Civil War are already present on this page you just need to read it. You don't want the truth known by the masses that's why you refuse to educate yourself properly on the cause of the Civil War! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:E145:5100:153C:7959:9D5B:24B2 (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"Slaver Rebellion" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Slaver Rebellion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 10#Slaver Rebellion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The Civil War was definitely about slavery

The Civil War was definitely about slavery and, thank God, the right side won. Those who whipped Kunta Kinte were Southerners, not Northerners. - Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.84.137 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Amen brother. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

The PRIMARY controversy and reason for the American civil war was State's Rights, not slavery. Change the wording of that second sentence. Substitute "the enslavement of black people" to "the rights of individual states to supersede that of the union". You are trying to rewrite history to fit your views. 38.29.179.183 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This sort of comment has been heard and rejected many times over Wikipedia's years. The preponderance of scholarship (both over time and currently prevailing) points out that the "states' rights" argument is a revisionist assertion and not supported by over 150 years of evidence and scholarly analysis. The "states' rights" argument largely asserts the right to continue the ability of slaveholders to own human beings as chattel, treat them like livestock, and consider them as property. That position did not prevail in history. BusterD (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It was about slavery and expanding slavery which the Southern States made very clear when they succeeded. It had virtually nothing to do with state rights except the state rights to own slaves. You stated the Confederacy said secession was about "the rights of individual states to supersede that of the union" when the Confederacy actually said "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science." GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Facts about why the Civil War was actually fought not slavery are right here on this page all you have to do is read them. You don't want the masses knowing the truth that is why you are the one revising history and erasing the truth not us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:E145:5100:153C:7959:9D5B:24B2 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read a book about the Civil War. My personal recommendation is James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom", which won the Pulitzer Prize. It excellently examines the causes of the war, and rightly concludes that slavery was the key factor behind the war. Most other books by historians have come to the same conclusion. Was slavery the only cause? Of course not. Was it the "but-for" cause? Absolutely. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and let me add that McPherson sits on the board of Encyclopedia Britanica, so I cannot think of a more reliable author or work. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Lost Causer, not sure if you're indoctrinated (see WP:COI) are subtly racist (see WP:NONAZIS), but it is you who are ignoring the facts, engaging in blatant revisionist history and accusing everyone else of doing what you are guilty of. A tactic very similar to your friends who engage in holocaust denying. Tell your friends to either take a history course or a racial sensitivity class, and then maybe you will see how unhinged you seem to the average viewer. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism that needs to be reverted

Someone vandalized the article in June 2020 under the guise of "Updated language," which was code for ridiculous Marxist activist Newspeak being imposed on the article. I suggest the article be restored to standard English. This type of activist-speak makes the article sound absurd and neurotic to the average reader. I assume Wikipedia is intended for the general public, not political activists or über-PC academics?

While I find your reasoning atrocious, and it clearly wasn't vandalism, I do agree that "enslaved people" instead of "slaves" reads a bit odd. Its not standard English. Now for "Black" v "black", it looks like there has been a general shift in English towards capitalizing Black, see for example the AP style guide [1]. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2020

The Civil War was not intentionally a moral deed, the civil war was never about slavery in the first place it was just so the that the United Sates does not divide and keep the union intake. It was Frederick Douglass who convinced the president to make the war about slavery. You can really see that slavery was indeed a major concern until a African American spoke about it, the dehumanizing of certain race you can really see just how cruel our history can. Yet in the end slavery was abolished but discrimination was on the rise. --20:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)73.77.13.160 (talk)

 Not done Its unclear what changes you want made. Please suggest changes in a "change X to Y" format, and provide a reliable source that back up your claims. I note that the article says "Abolishing slavery was not a Union war goal from the outset, but it quickly became one", which is cited to McPherson's rather excellent work on the subject. If you have a source that mentions Douglass as the catalyst for the shift, please provide it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

„The American Secessionist War”, not „The American Civil War”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A civil war is a war in witch the sides fight for power in one and the same state, in one and the same nation. It is not the case of the so called „American Civil War”, in witch one side has fought to splitting the state and the other one to preserve his unity. It was a secessionist war, not a civil one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read the answer to question 7 of the FAQ at the top of this talk page and/or the article Names of the American Civil War. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to read this answer or the article. I know already the arguments for "The American Civil War", but... they are all wrong. The american historians don't like the term of "war of secession", because this denomination stresses the separatist character of the war. Instead, the name of "civil war" remind that USA is one indivisible nation and that's why the war was "civil". Technically, though, this term is wrong, because the South wanted his own state, not the power in the USA. "The American Civil War" is a name preferred for propagandistic purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a specific change, please provide reliable sources that back up your claim. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no illusions that I will get changes, but my sources are the logic itself and the European and Latin-American historiography, that speak mostly about "war of secession", not about "civil war". But again the European and Latin-American historians don't have propagandistic purposes. You are the only ones who speak about "civil war". Please read only the titles of these pages:

1) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_de_Sécession

2) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_di_secessione_americana

3) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sezessionskrieg

4) https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Secesión — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No shame, that was a wp:good faith suggestion. Those of us who have not studied a foreign language -- which is not required for a G.E.D., or for most high school diplomas in the US any longer -- are unaware that there can be linguistic variations of meaning and usage among foreign languages. In English the insect "fly" is universally perceived in American dialect as "black", whereas other cultures and languages, such as some regions of Spain in Castilian Spanish, see the same insect "fly" as "silver".

In this case, although there are common word root origins for the English and the French words "secession", a quick browser look up shows, the French: "Guerre de Sécession" is translated into the English: "Civil War". Don't quit history research, there is more to learn. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is also an element of WP:COMMONNAME. In the US, everyone knows it as the Civil War. If you said "The War of Secession", they wouldn't know what you are talking about. Basically every source we have calls it the Civil War. Thus we use the name that is in common use in our language, even if it isn't 100% correct. For example, World War I was hardly the first global war, but its the first one that is called a world war in common speech. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"In this case, although there are common word root origins for the English and the French words 'secession', a quick browser look up shows the French: 'Guerre de Sécession' is translated into the English: 'Civil War'."

No way. It's nothing of the kind. The translation you mention is an automatic one, not a translation in the true sense of the word. The reason for this automatic translation is very simple and became obviously if we read the Italian page on Wikipedia about the american war of secession: "La guerra di secessione americana, nota negli Stati Uniti come guerra civile americana etc.". This means: "The american war of secession, known in the United States as american civil war etc.". So "war of secession", in an European language, is "trasnlated" as "civil war", in English, because in that way is known this war in the United States. But it's a false translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If the point was to make a true translation from Italian, you would be right. I do also get your point about it being a secession war. However, in this instance I believe the common name should be used, as the vast majority of people know it as the Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhdwww (talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

the leading French specialist is Stève Sainlaude. His two major books in French are Le Gouvernement impérial et la guerre de Sécession (1861-1865), l'action diplomatique (Paris, 2011) and La France et la Confédération sudiste (1861-1865), la question de la reconnaissance diplomatique (Paris 2011). He combined them and published them in English as France and the American Civil War: A Diplomatic History (Chapel Hill, USA, 2019) see excerpt online. We follow the reliable sources--so when we publish in French we use one term and in English another term. This is the English Wikipedia so the rule in use here is the proper one. Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the point about the common name, the adaptation to the English term and so on. But the English term is wrong and is not sacred, it can be changed. The international common name can be adopted. There is no age limit to learning. For individuals and peoples/nations alike. So, why don't begin with Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipedia is not here to "right great wrongs". Nor is Wikipedia here to publish "original ideas" of people on the internet. Learning is probably not done well by just saying whatever comes into one's head -- for example you were asked early on for reliable sources but you then offered none, so apparently you have never studied any reliable sources on this issue -- instead you offered an unusual theory of using languages-not-English (which does not appear like it can possibly work, in English writing). More fundamentally, because you do not demonstrate you have studied from actual and good sources, on the various uses of the English words "civil war" -- it appears you begin with a baseless conclusion about what several types of conflicts the words "civil war" may encompass (leaving open the possibility you have perhaps failed to consider, that anything "wrong" is actually coming from your assumptions). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again. On every possible plan. I don't say whatever comes into my head. And it's false that I have not offered any reliable source. Are false also your allegations about "an unusual theory" and about "my assumption". The issue is very simple. I don't speak from my head, based on my assumption, I only make this simple observation: that all non American historians speak about "secession war", not "civil war". They are my reliable sources. It's not from my head, it's not my assumption, it's not an unusual theory. It's the general international point of view. So, you see, your aggressivity doesn't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

So you are confirming your personally held unusual and unsourced theory, that makes no sense. And again you cite no sources. What anyone in any other language calls anything has nothing to do with writing this article in English let alone understanding English words, and you provide no reliable sources that make such a bizarre argument. You explicitly made the basis for your argument an unsourced assumption that you have a personal narrow understanding what "civil war" in English means, all unsupported by any reliable sources that "directly" make that argument with respect to the war in issue. You built your argument on unsourced assumptions, that when examined don't work at all, apparently because you have not researched nor studied any reliable sources that make your argument that non-English language matters in writing and understanding English on this topic (apparently no such reliable sources exist). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"So you are confirming your personally held unusual and unsourced theory, that makes no sense. And again you cite no sources."

You don't try hard enough. What do you think the articles from Wikipedia in European languages, titled "The War of Secession", are based on? On writings of European historians, of course. And if you consult these articles, you may find these writings, like on the French page, for example, where is a list with "Ouvrages en francais" ("Works in French"). Also, somebody mentioned right here "the leading French specialist Stève Sainlaude. His two major books in French are Le Gouvernement impérial et la guerre de Sécession (1861-1865), l'action diplomatique (Paris, 2011) etc.". Please make a little effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. In this Wikipedia, we put a given subject matter under the name by which it is commonly known. You are ignoring this fact in favor of your own theory that the entire Anglophone world should follow the lead of one or more scholars who write in other languages. Ain't gonna happen, bud. C'est cheval, il est mort, m'sieu. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

1) https://www.amazon.com/American-Army-War-Secession/dp/1340894408

2) https://www.amazon.com/American-war-secession-1863-Chancellorsville/dp/B0041Q38ZI

3) And so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finally at least indicating some sources, but it is no surprise you did not provide them earlier because they do not support your personally made-up arguments: none of them argue as you do that because a source uses the French words "la guerre de Sécession" that that prohibits calling it "civil war" in English (to the contrary when the French work was translated into English it was translated as "Civil War"), nor do they argue as you do that there is narrow restriction on the English words "civil war" that somehow preclude this topic being a "civil war" in English. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"...none of them argue as you do that because a source uses the French words 'la guerre de Sécession' that prohibits calling it 'civil war' in English..."

I'm not argue that neither. I have not used such words like "prohibits" or something like that. I have said only that would be a thing of good sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected on French translation. However,

@Alanscottwalker: to agree with him, Look at the French historians' national provenance. Napoleon III had hoped the Confederacy would be an ally in reconquering Mexico, just as members of the Confederate Congress proposed on the floor of both House and Senate. Regardless, on the other hand, US President Lincoln was diplomatically an active correspondent and supporter of Mexican President Benito Juarez of its Liberal Party, and US Union forces received material support from the Mexican government in the Texas-Mexican border region and offshore to the US Navy.

- For his part, Napoleon III took the stance that the British had to jump in to declare war on the US first, then he would follow. The Royal Navy had to sign up to sink the mass-produced iron-clads successfully used in the Federal blockade of Southern ports first, before another French invasion attempt in Mexico (reference Cinco de Mayo). However as a military proposition, the sinking of US wooden warships in the Hampton Roads by the CSS Virginia in March 1862 argued against that proposed forward deployment of the wooden Royal Navy into the teeth of US Monitor-class ships inside US coastal waters.

- Problem was at the time, (a) there was a European wheat crop failure throughout the early 1860s, and the expanded Midwest horse-pulled mechanical sowers and reapers on free family-sized farms created bumper crops of wheat that sped to US North Atlantic ports on newly standardized railroad gauges to feed not only large mass armies in the Southern states, but to meet the increased demand in starving Europe as well. (b) With more enfranchisement in Britain since the 1830s (and abolitionists), it was harder for aristocratic Liberals and Conservative Opposition to persuade voting Britons to support the slave-based Confederate republic, and (c) at the same time shut off the British 'release valve' for mass immigration by the starving Irish (over a dozen Irish exiled by Queen Victoria for 'risings' became Union Brigadier Generals in the ACW. (Aside: in the 1960s, the Australian transcontinental railroad was not yet a standard gauge coast to coast.)

French historiography is certainly to be weighed and accounted for in Wikipedia articles. But on a subject of national interest such as the American Civil War and its title, as editors here have given me to understand, a 'Napoleonic III school of historiography' in modern French scholarship seems to remain sympathetic to the Confederacy as though it were then competent to secede without a US Constitutional Amendment --- but in a Texas case, the US Supreme Court held that unilateral Secession by a state from the 1789 Constitutional Union was not legitimate --- notwithstanding any previous 'states rights' held in during the Articles of Confederation, and notwithstanding the Emperor Napoleon III and his "la gloire" French nationalism sitting on the sidelines.

That failed POV cannot be allowed to be determinative for another nation's history article, a nation with its own competing schools of historiography, independent of any imperial partisanship and pro-Confederate nationalism held among others. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

European historians of the 1860s focus on the diplomatic dimensions of the war, especially the real possibility of British and French intervention, as well as the French role in Mexico. Their attention thus is necessarily focused on the two national governments. American historians have a somewhat different perspective, with much less attention to diplomacy until recently and much more to the fighting and the internal war in key States. Most of the fighting took place in Virginia and Tennessee, along with Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. In each case there were two rival state governments fighting for control. Virginia simultaneously had three state governments and two national governments in operation. Hence for American scholars “Civil War” (for control of each state) works. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is certainly noting preventing this article from covering diplomatic issues, that was not the issue raised. The still unsourced proposition was that because non-English European languages use their own words, that somehow that makes the English words "civil war", "wrong", or calling it something else in English, a "good idea", but still no reliable sources have been provided that directly make those "wrong" or "good idea" arguments based on non-English-language phrases. Nor have any reliably sources been provided that narrowly restrict the English words "civil war" to not cover any conflict where people in part renounce their allegiance and seek to overthrow by force of arms the government in any part. If there is a linguistic history for the adoption of the French term in French, or for any of other non-English languages, that seems pretty irrelevant or undue to this article on its face, more importantly as no reliable sources have been provided for such linguistic history, the matter is moot, regardless -- as we all know, the way forward is always to discuss what reliable sources say, not our own thoughts of claimed 'good ideas' on 'wrong'. (Also, as many have pointed out, the titling of this article has its own particular demands for reliable sources, not governed by personal ideas.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Virginia Historian, I'm sincerely impressed by your erudition. Yes, I know that the Second Empire of Napoleon III was the ally of Confederacy, but your thesis that in our days we still have a "Napoleonic III school of historiography" (despite of the fact that, in France, Napoleon III is seen today like a tyrant and a fool responsible for the 1870 Sedan disaster) and that's why the French historians prefer the denomination of "war of secession" seems to me somehow exaggerated. I posted links not only to the French Wikipedia page on the "American Civil War", but also to the Italian, German and Spanish pages and all of them are titled "The War of Secession". I don't think that, in all these cases, we can "blame" Napoleon III, neither that all these countries have an "historical" interest to sympathize with the Confederacy.

Anyway, I don't want to start any controversy. I only expressed a point of view. I thank you all for your opinions.

Alanscottwalker, anyone who counts how many times you wrote "reliable sources", in your commentaries, realize that you have a fix idea. You miss entirely the point. You demand on and on "reliable sources" in English to prove that one English generalized denomination is wrong. It's illogical, it's stupid. It's a contradiction in terms (contradictio in adiecto). The whole point is another: except you, Americans, all historians name the conflict "war of secession". The majority rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

False, that you imagine a contradiction that is not in anything I have said is a failure of your reasoning. You have not only missed the points, your argument lacks all logic on its face. The non-English European language sources are decidedly not writing in English, they are not using English words (no matter how much you imagine they are), including the English words "war of succession" -- they are eg, writing in French (or Italian, etc.) using French (or Italian etc.) The phrase "la guerre de Sécession" and such phrases in other languages are not English. The beginning of your poor logic is, you see non-English words like "la guerre de Sécession" and from that you build a house of cards based on how you think English should be written.

But that's not the end of your compounded failures: you have provided no reliable sources in any language, including French, Italian, English etc. that argues your personal argument that non-English phrases should govern or guide the use of English words in this matter, nor any reliable sources that some particular translation of those words should govern or guide here. You simply have made up your argument out of your head.

And that's only, at most, half of your failures here. You have also provided no reliable sources for your narrow interpretation of the English words 'civil war' with respect to this subject. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The English words, "civil war"

"Nor have any reliably sources been provided that narrowly restrict the English words "civil war" to not cover any conflict where people in part renounce their allegiance and seek to overthrow by force of arms the government in any part."

Again, it's illogical and stupid to demand on and on such "reliable sources" (American ones), since the historiography of the wining side - the North - coined already, from over a century and a half, the definition of the civil war that cover also "any conflict where people in part renounce their allegiance and seek to overthrow by force of arms the government in any part". And it made this (the historiography of the wining side) for propagandistic purposes (like I explained above): the term of "war of secession" stresses the separatist character of the war, instead the name of "civil war" remind that USA is one indivisible nation. That's why the war was "civil" and that's why the southern states had no right to secede. The Virginia Historian wrote above about a Napoleonic III French historiography, that coined the term of "war of secession" in France. Well, in USA, the historiography of the wining side coined the term of "civil war", for subjective reasons. Now, to demand on and on American reliable sources that contest this term is illogical and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary, the 1828 edition, defines "civil war" as "a war between people of the same state or city; opposed to foreign war," making none of the distinctions you attempt to add about vying for control of an entire state, etc. On your point about "majority rules," the majority of scholarly sources about the Civil War are written in English, and call it the "Civil War." Finally (although I understand your claim about its characterization in other languages), your claim that all of these English-speaking scholars are calling it this because of a political motivation to make the war appear a certain way (or that they have fallen prey to a Northern propaganda campaign) is completely baseless. Your logic based on the definition is flawed, and besides, all of the logic you use here is irrelevant for this article because you are making original claims about the definition. Alanscottwalker calls for reliable sources because Wikipedia requires them, and it turns out that the preponderance of reliable sources are American and call it the American Civil War.--MattMauler (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Alanscottwalker calls for reliable sources because Wikipedia requires them, and it turns out that the preponderance of reliable sources are American and call it the American Civil War."

One can't give sources from a system that criticize that system. Give me some reliable Soviet sources that state "communism is wrong".

The difference between "civil war" and "war of secession" is more than language, it is more one of mindset. The American neo-Confederate, or European Napoleonic III historiography, are as their name-sakes, foolish advocacy for racist tyranny, just as our visitor Anon-227.20 indicated. ‘If the shoe fits, wear it’.

- Mindset #1. If your frame of reference is orderly democracy of individual liberty where ballots can rule the streets instead of bullets, then your ideal government is “the nation-state in a republic ruled by a democracy of frequent fair elections”. Your appeal can be widespread to people of goodwill all around the world. So in the United States, flawed yet improving as it may be, English Anglicans and Irish Catholics, African descendants of Bantu-, Swahili- and Arabic-speakers, Mid-East Sunni and Shiites, Asian subcontinent Muslims and Hindi, East Asian Buddhists and Shinto, all do live in peace and prosper in their families and faith there as self-governing individuals with constitutional rights and immunities.

- Mindset #2. If your frame of reference is autocratic government by kleptocratic elites living off of natural resource world markets without reference to the resident population, then your ideal is a nation-state or failed state, with power administered in a militarized police state of personality cult. Your appeal must be more narrowly focused on those who believe their own extended families will be either the ruling elite or their immediate financial beneficiaries.

- Mindset #1 accepts the Great Rebellion in the US 1861-1865 as a “Civil War” because the premise of its worldview is biased towards self-governing individuals in broadly-based governance by democracy. The Union was to stand or fall on those principles, so Lincoln held a free and fair election in 1864 allowing a popular war general to run against him, and permitted Confederate sympathizers to publicly campaign for McClellan. Congressional districts and states occupied by the Union army with less voters than 1860 were not given seats in Congress from 1862 or 1864 elections, nor did they have Electoral College votes in 1864. Lincoln's majorities in both House and Senate shrank in 1862 and again in 1864; and he could have lost the 1864 election as it was free and fair.

- Mindset #2 requires that the Secessionists in that conflict to be given a legitimacy in every discussion of events, a parity with those loyal to the Constitution, with moral equivalence attributed to both causes in our collective memory. Its bias is towards only materialistic utilitarian grounds. Accumulating wealth for the kleptocratic elites is the standard, as opposed to individual liberty and self-determination. In the Confederacy, all state governments removed Antebellum Jacksonian reforms expanding the vote, and most did not allow the men enlisted in their armies to vote. A majority for President Jefferson Davis in the Confederate Congress was maintained by allowing exiled Secessionist governors encamped in Confederate armies to appoint their full state delegations for both House and Senate, and all voted as a bloc to support the Davis administration throughout the duration of the war.

Our visitor Anon-227.20 refers to a hypothetical “majority” by his browser search, I suppose, but Wikipedia is based on the preponderance of scholarly, peer reviewed sources, allowing points of view to be given their wp:due weight for every topic in each article. The Wikipedia system allows for Communist Chinese, Communist North Korean, and Communist Cuban sources. Self-identified neo-Confederates contribute to the Talk pages, and several of their recommended sources have been adopted in ACW Project-related articles.

- I am not aware of any Soviet-style movement to purge the encyclopedia of all Mindset #2 scholarship. I’m not sure what the point of the last post by Anon-227.20 can be. Perhaps Anon-227.20 can provide a link to an article where this may be going on. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"I’m not sure what the point of the last post by Anon-227.20 can be."

I wanted to say just what the words say. That one can't give sources from a system (any system) that criticize that system. So, obviously, I can't give American reliable sources that criticize the American historiography. It make no sense. It's like someone would ask reliable Soviet sources, from the Soviet historiography, that state "communism is wrong".

That's the point. It is not Wikipedia's job to criticize the sources, but to show what the sources say. Most English speakers, as well as most English-speaking sources, call it "Civil War", so that's what we're calling it, too. I'd strongly suggest letting the matter go now. As Orange Mike pointed out two days ago: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Yhdwww (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you quote Orange Mike, can I quoted myself? "I have no illusions that I will get changes".

And a final message to The Virginia Historian. When I read this: "If your frame of reference is autocratic government by kleptocratic elites living off of natural resource world markets, without reference to the resident population, then your ideal is a nation-state or failed state, with power administered in a militarized police state", I thought for an instant that you speak about the United States and their attitude towards the countries from Latin America, Asia, Africa, Arab countries and, more recently, Eastern Europe. How foolish of me. :)

Break

Virginia Historian: To the extent it's a language issue, it's because the Anon-227.20 contended his or her unsourced argument was based on seeing words like "la guerre de Sécession" and then making his or her personal unsourced leaps to something like a conspiracy theory among historians. Among Anon-227.20 latest extension of this unsourced theory is that anyone, particularly me, requires "American" sources. That is false and not based on reality. What I required is reliable sources in that "directly" make Anon-227.20 argument per WP:V. (There is a separate requirement in Article Titling policy for only-English language sources (not just American), but that's not even what I was asking for.)

Not only can scholarly writers in French or Italian, etc., write about the English words "civil war" in French or Italian (by writing "civil war" and then going on to discuss those words in French or Italian) but French and Italian scholars regularly publish in English, too. In part, I keep asking for reliable sources that directly support the claim, because Anon-227.20, suggested way up in this discussion that: 1) he or she does not have to read anything; and that 2) he or she knows their personal arguments can't persuade anyone. So, it's important to stress one does have to read and provide those reliable sources to have any hope of having a useful discussion.

We need reliable sources that directly state Anon-227.20 arguments because, inter alia, a) There is no 'a priori' reason why non-English words would guide the use of English words. b) There no evidence that every French scholar who writes the words, "la guerre de Sécession", thinks it "wrong" or "bad" that that may be understood or rendered as "Civil War" in English (same for Italian, etc.); c) there is also no evidence that the English words "war of secession" can never be a "civil war"; d) finally of course, there is no evidence provided for the Anon's scurrilous charges made against historians -- Anon-227.20 seems particularly unethical there, without bringing the reliable sources that directly make that case. Wikipedia is not for making unsourced charges against people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"In part, I keep asking for reliable sources that directly support the claim, because Anon-227.20, suggested way up in this discussion that: 1) he or she does not have to read anything; and that 2) he or she knows their personal arguments can't persuade anyone. So, it's important to stress one does have to read and provide those reliable sources to have any hope of having a useful discussion."

Please oblige me by answering at a very, very simple question that I addressed you above: on what do you think that are based all the Wikipedia pages in European languages titled "The War of Secession" (and I posted above links to four of them): on "the unsourced ideas from my head" or on European historical works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that I must quote those work with copy/paste, for your understanding:

Frédéric Naulet, Antietam ; Le jour le plus sanglant de la guerre de Sécession, Economica, 2005

Stève Sainlaude, Le Gouvernement impérial et la guerre de Sécession (1861-1865), l'action diplomatique, L'Harmattan, 2011

Jean Lamarre, Les Canadiens français et la Guerre de Sécession, VLB, 2006

André Jouineau et Jean-Marie Mongin, La Guerre de Sécession, t. 1 : L'infanterie, Histoire & Collections, 2000

André Jouineau et Jean-Marie Mongin, La Guerre de Sécession, t. 2 : La cavalerie, l'artillerie, les services, Histoire & Collections, 2000

Robert Lacour-Gayet, La Vie quotidienne aux États-Unis à la veille de la guerre de Sécession, Hachette, 1957 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I already addressed this above and I'm sure we already discussed this several time, seeing the words such as "la guerre de Sécession" used does not make a direct argument for the theoretical leaps you make about anyone's use of the English words, "civil war" (interchange Italian, etc.). Direct support is scholarly sources that state the argument entire, each step in the reasoning and evidence laid out in scholarship building the theoretical argument to the conclusion. That anyone uses the words "la guerre de Sécession" is just and only that, they say "la guerre de Sécession" -- that's an observation, not an argument, nor a theory. As for what I personally think -- worse than irrelevant, we are not here to write my personal thoughts. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I only said that, on international plan, the majority says otherwise and, in general, the majority is right. You answered something about "my personally held unusual and unsourced theory" and so on. You write a lot, but with little sense. I give up. The dialogue with you it's useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I quoted the works from above and I asked you a simple answer to a simple question: do you still maintain that the name of "war of secession" is an "unusual and unsourced idea from my head" or not? The manner in which you avoid the obvious answer it's ridiculous. I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.101.227.20 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The civil war was fought over the enslavement of black people"

The quote "The civil war began primarily as a result of the long-standing controversy over the enslavement of black people" has no reference or source.

The Civil War erupted from a variety of long-standing tensions and disagreements about American life and politics. For nearly a century, the people and politicians of the northern and southern states had been clashing over the issues that finally led to war: economic interests, cultural values and the power of the federal government to control the states were major factors that sparked the Civil War Nachoz01 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead of an article is not usually sourced, as a lead merely summarizes the article. Within the body, there is a great deal of sourcing that slavery was the key issue. Sure, other issues may have been at play, but slavery was the primary and key issue. If states rights were being questioned, it was only in the context of slavery. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, but I think you might be a Lost Causer, giving you a WP:COI issue with this article. Every issue you listed "economic interests, cultural values and the power of the federal government to control the states" can all be attributed to slavery. The South's biggest moneymaker was slavery and they were economically reliant on it while the North wasn't. The massive cultural differences between the North and South were again, Southern states were slave states. The state rights issue can be answered easily. State rights to do what? Continue and expand on slavery without intervention from the federal government. The South made this very clear when they seceded. Unfortunately for lost causers everywhere, they blatantly said "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations,". Immediately after secession, the South attacked federal forts which led to the war. With the introduction of the Emancipation Proclamation, the end goal of the war was quite clearly to end slavery something that angered many northerners and southerners. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect my friend. For instance the State of South Carolina attempted to secede in 1832 due to the illegal and exploitative tariffs that took advantage of the South. You have an agenda to push that is the only reason you say the primary reason was slavery. Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were quoted saying the war was not over slavery! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:E145:5100:153C:7959:9D5B:24B2 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:50D4:80D0:4E9F:767D (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're Lost Causer, and those types of are barred from editing Civil War articles because of WP:COI. Also, your argument has been rejected by historians everywhere. The Morrill Tariff was not enacted until after the Confederacy was formed and Southern states began seceding. Lincoln made it clear the war was not about slavery (even though secession was unequivocally about it), but after the emancipation proclamation, both Northerners and Southerners understood that if the South were too lose, slavery would be ended pretty soon. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There is actually a big problem here: Though modern ( leftist) scholarship oversimplifies the Civil War and ties it exclusively to the issue of slavery, there is also the issue of 'Secession.' 'State's rights' does not only mean " the state's right to own slaves," but also the " state's right to nullify the constitution should the federal government overreach and become tyrannical," as well as " The state's right to leave the union, or secede." This was a massive issue at the time and can be seen in the writings and speeches in Congress dating back to the 1830s, most notably those of South Carolinian Senator John C. Calhoun, as well as read in the "Articles of Secession" themselves. It is SO prominent that "Secession," as an idea could be seen independently as a major cause of the Civil War. Had, for example, the south Seceded exclusively because of "taxes," the Civil War might still have happened due to the legal questions of "Secession."

I suggest a revision of the article, not at all to exclude 'slavery,' but to also include 'secession' as a major cause of the event.

To the smaller pieces of causation: It was not only the Radical Republicans' avowed opposition to slavery which threatened the southern aristocracy's wealth, but also The Republican plans to repatriate the slaves to Africa forcibly, as well as subsidize northern industry with taxes on the southern yeoman farmer class--which drove even the poorest of southerners to ally with the wealthy planters in their plans to secede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5580:8500:981D:5586:1587:34 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War article

Per the "Publicizing an RfC" guidelines, this RfC notice is addressed to the ACW Talk page . At wp:TITLE, it notes that when there is a strong national interest in a subject, the appropriate English dialect and usage should be applied. In the case of the ARW, the 'American Revolutionary War' topic is one of American national interest to the general reader there, imho. I have added a SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION chart that may help explain the interest that editors may share in the RfC here.

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

- continuity - used at this WP article and sisters for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with their respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - 15 Pulitzer history winners

- modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

"War of Northern Aggression" not "Civil War"

Welp CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

All through history, wars around the world, where a citizenry rose up to oust the seating govt., remove them and replace them with their own has been referred to as a "civil war". Indeed, the Latin term "Bellum Civile" was coined in 60AD. And again referred to in the "Roman Civil War" in the 2nd century. The English term "civil war" was first used in 1651 to refer to the "English Civil War". Since then, almost every country has experienced an actual "civil war. The Russian civil war, the Irish Civil war, China, Brazil, Austria, Spain, Yugoslavia, Greek, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Lebanon, Salvador, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Nepal, Afghanistan, Iraq and am dot recently, Syrian Civil War. ALL of those is where the citizens fought to overthrow the seating govt and replace it. So the worlds agree that that term is a specific action, as opposed to a rebellion or revolution or secession, such as the Spanish War of Secession in 1701-1714. That is NOT what happened in North America in 1861. The war there began over the outrageous tariffs that the American govt, put on the Southern cotton growers. By the mid-19th century, cotton had become America's leading export. Since they felt that the tariffs were highly excessive, outrageous, and unfair and that they weren't getting proper representation from the North, they refused to pay the tariffs. Lincoln sent military ships to Southern ports and blocked Southern ships, laden with cotton from leaving. The fact that the Southern powers decided to secede instead of fight, was indicative to avoid a "civil war". When Lincoln got word of the secession, he considered it an insurrection and sent military troops to squash the insurrection. THAT is what started that war. CLEARLY as a direct result of Northern aggression. The Confederate States of America had NO intention to overthrow the American govt. and replace it, as had been the common practice in all other "civil wars" in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchgn01 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Cchgn01, Not gonna happen. See Names_of_the_American_Civil_War for more. It is known by many names, but almost all books refer to it as the Civil War, and most people know it by that name. Also, the war was chiefly about slavery not tariffs, as is discussed in the article at some length, and at great length in the seminal works on the subject, such as McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom". Unless you can show that a preponderance of reliable sources call it by a different name, it shall remain that way. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Well, then everyone is going to continue to be ignorant and wiki is perpetuating that condition. Btw NO, the war was NOT chiefly about slavery. Slavery didn't even come into the war until halfway through it when Lincoln was up for re-election. He was very unpopular and was losing, so he needed a hail mary. He came up with the Emancipation Proclamation and suddenly it became about slavery. Lincoln himself wrote that Africans were inferior and had no place in Society. So anyway, I will no longer use wiki and advise against it and let everyone know how y'all like to remain in ignorance. FYI, THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY, TOO MUCH IGNORANCE AND NO INTEREST IN SEEKING THE TRUTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchgn01 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

change 'say' in 'because they say it as inherently against the ideals of capitalism' to 'saw' (this seems like a typo) 38.87.4.162 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Yhdwww (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

In the "Casualties and losses" table, the Confederate column is missing the "accident/disease deaths" entry -- should be about 169,000. Jafaucett (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"They faced secessionists of the Confederate States in the South, who advocated for states' rights to uphold slavery."

This is embarrassingly waffling. Only one "states' right" was in question. Recommend editing to "They faced Southern secessionists who advocated continuing slavery."72.68.108.107 (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree and have changed it. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Rename the subsection describing the advantages of the Union

Rename the subsection describing the advantages of the Union to "Advantages of the Union" or "Explaining the Union victory". The current title "Union victory and aftermath" wrongly advertises that it's a description of the events surrounding the Union victory rather than a retrospective explanation of why the Union was victorious because of its advantages. —Jade Ten (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Jade Ten, I like "Explaining the Union Victory" and have renamed accordingly. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the article lists video games, what about tabletop games?

For example, 1863, A House Divided, For the People, etc. ?138.88.18.245 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Corrected typo.138.88.18.245 (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you give me a list of board games about the war that also have Wikipedia articles? If we did include, they'd have to have articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Civil_War_board_wargames I see A House Divided is on the list, but not the others I'd mentioned. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

civil war was initially to "fight to preserve the Union" and launched into the the abolishment of slavery after Antietam and the Emancipation proclamation was written 71.33.145.139 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: If you read the body of the article you will see that distinction is discussed, see American_Civil_War#Emancipation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

Lee surrendered on April 9. May 9 is incorrect if not arbitrary 47.40.118.229 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Lead and articles indicates that Lee surrendered on April 9. May 9th in infobar is based on when President Johnson officially declared an end to the insurrection. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

citation to James Downs should specify it is a *blog* post, not OUP peer-reviewed

This citation is referenced at least twice. The citation should be clarified: it is justa *blog* post by James Down, on a blog at Oxford U Pr; it is *not* an Oxford University Press publication. The difference makes all the difference. There is no peer-review of blog posts, even at OUP. It is therefore not a 'reliable source.' "Color blindness in the demographic death toll of the Civil War". TruthSum (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

France sent limited aid to the Confederacy, add this to the belligerents list (not as a full belligerent)

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civil_War#France "The French expected that a Confederate victory would facilitate French economic dominance in Mexico. Napoleon helped the Confederacy by shipping urgently needed supplies through the ports of Matamoros, Mexico, and Brownsville, Texas." 100.6.158.213 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also Wikipedia itself is not considered a WP:RS per WP:NOTSOURCE Run n Fly (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Paragraph 1, sentence 2: spelling error in 'states'. Change from 'ststes' to 'states' required. Chargz (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

@Caustic3: Hello! I am glad to see you editing leads, something that is sorely needed on Wikipedia. You have certainly walked into a controversial lead here :) Before I lay out my problems, I'd like to introduce you to an idea we call WP:BRD: "Bold, Revert, Discuss". When someone makes a bold change, as you have, someone else can revert it. Instead of re-reverting, you should come to a talk page like this to discuss the issue. Alright, with that out of the way, here are the issues I have:

• The debate on slavery was raging since the nation's founding. It was only when the federal government explicitly outlawed slavery's expansion westward that prompted the South to secede. The first sentence is true but poorly worded. I would make it more encyclopedic, such as "The issue of slavery had been contentious since the nation's founding, and had been left poorly resolved at the signing of the Constitution." For part two, thats not true. The South seceded when Lincoln was elected.
• With regards to the second paragraph, the new version does not provide the most accurate accounting. It attempts to get at the nuance and fails. The prior paragraph was concise and accurate. Splitting it into two has made the lead too long anyway (leads target 4 paragraphs, sometimes 5).
• "Combat officially ended on April 9"...except that it didn't. The last shot was fired June 22. The previous wording was chosen carefully.

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you captain

I want to thank you for reading my work and providing constructive criticism. I value your feedback and I genuiely appreciate your response. I am still relatively new to editing here so please forgive me if I am not familiar with all the protocols involved. That said I am a fast learner and I look forward to working with you in the future.

15:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Caustic3

@Caustic3: A few more things. So, you keep trying to claim that it was northern outlawing of the expansion of slavery that caused the war. But the immediate cause of the war was the election of Lincoln. I know I did mention better wording about the constitution, but ultimately I think that is something better explored in the body, not the lead. A lead is a short and fairly simple summary of an issue that must understandably drop some of the nuance. But the body makes up for that. If you have further ideas for lead changes I suggest you note them here so they can be workshopped. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to nose in here, encouraging User:Caustic3 to continue to edit boldly, but also pointing out editing the lead on an article of this high visibility is a challenging place to start. I know because I re-wrote the lead myself about 15 years ago and was complimented for my changes, but within a month my work had been completely lost except in page history. Hundreds of editors have contributed to this page and many still watchlist it. Not all of us oldtimers are as kind and helpful as User:CaptainEek. It was suggested to me and I found it good advice to find early success working on ACW stubs, sourcing them, improving their leads, and advancing them to B-class pages. This gave me the chance to work largely uninterrupted and develop my own wikivoice. My experience in those arenas allowed my involvement on this page more sophistication and gave me the preparation to find consensus (argue constructively) when editors disagreed (as we inevitably will do). I like that you value feedback; demonstrating one can disagree respectfully (as the captain has demonstrated) is a sign of an editor who may be successful here. If you need any help, I'm happy to oblige. BusterD (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Caustic3, This is now the third time that you have added the incorrect claim that the South seceded in response to the prohibition of slavery. That's simply untrue. Slavery had been somewhat limited in the decades running up to the war. But slavery was still fully allowed in the south in 1860. Lincoln didn't even take office until 1861, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which did end slavery in the south, occurred several years into the war, in 1862/1863. The South seceded in response to the election of Lincoln, starting with South Carolina in December 1860. James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" dedicates a good two chapters to the issue, Chapter 7 takes a look at the election of 1860, and Chapter 8 looks at the secession movement that occurred directly after Lincoln's election. I am unsure where you are getting your claims from, or what exactly you mean by them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I apologize for not being clear as I should have been. All I am trying to say is that the reason the conflict erupted in 1861 is due to the new coalition of abolitionists gaining control of the federal government, most importantly the presidency in the form of the Republican party. Lincoln did not argue for abolition in the states where slavery was practiced from Missouri to Texas. He did argue and attempt to implement halting the expansion of slavery. Meaning any new state going into the Union from Lincoln's presidency onward irregardless of location would have to be a free state. The south now seeing how they were outnumbered in the federal government and having issue with more radical party members in the party like Thaddeus Stephens and Charles Sumner. Uncertainty and bitterness dominated the south as they feared Lincoln would go beyond his position from being against slavery's expansion to being against the institution of slavery itself. Ergo they left the federal union initially to form their own nation but began war became inevitable when Lincoln refused to surrender federal property in the south and hand over weapons and money accordingly.

I also wanted to say that in the leading section of the article contains an opinion. "The Union of states is permanent.". I do not believe that a non-cited and quite frankly inaccurate statement should be displayed in the leading section as not to confuse our readers. Those were the only changes that I stand by in support of. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"compromise too lenient" - wasn't it too harsh?

Where it says: "This compromise was too lenient in the eyes of the south", I thought upon initially reading it, that "too lenient" as in "not harsh, severe, or strict" (Merriam-Webster) means that the abolition of slavery wasn't enforced in a strong enough manner.

However, I later read how the southern states with cotton industry were proponents of slavery. What I mean to say is that the phrasing of "too lenient" seems misleading to me. Moritzslz (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Moritzslz, Thanks for pointing that out, I have restored the previous version. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Civil War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Modussiccandi (talk · contribs) 18:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Caustic3: I saw this topic on the nominations list and was impressed to that someone had taken the time to improve such an important article. Having read through the article, I believe it isn't close to being a Good Article. Numerous passages of text are unreferenced and I suspect a closer look would reveal many unsubstantiated claims. For example, the entire "Lower Seaboard theater", and much of the "Western theater" section do not have a single reference. What is more, there are still a number of maintenance tags pointing to more issues I haven't yet discovered. Such problems should be addressed before a GA nomination. It would take even experienced editors a long time to fix an article of this length. I will therefore quick fail this nomination. @CaptainEek: I'm pinging you out of courtesy because I've seen that you've tried to tell Caustic3 how futile this nomination is. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree this is futile. As is, it immediately fails criteria 5 as there is an ongoing lead dispute. I have had my eye on taking this to GA for a while, and am working to get there, but I expect it will take me some months of work at a bare minimum. I have given Caustic much advice on the matter and hope they take it. Otherwise, I suggest that this quickfail or be withdrawn. Much of the article remains un or under-sourced, and it is on the long side. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you both, I personally have only proofed the lead. I did notice that the article was once a good article but since lost its place and I am really curious as to why it did. Thank you both for your time and valid criticism as well as explaining the criteria of this page. Hasta la vista Caustic3 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GAN

@Caustic3: I appreciate your enthusiasm, but suggest that perhaps you should get a little more experience under your belt before trying to take an article to GA status, especially one as enormous as this. I have been slowly working on this article and other civil war articles for years, and do not personally think this is anywhere close to being GA worthy. Generally, it is discouraged for an editor who has not significantly edited a page to nominate it for GA. I would be more than happy to help you with a less monumental task, perhaps taking a single battle of the war to GA, or a single unit or person. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Caustic3: I know you mean well, but you still need more experience before you try to take an article like this to GA. I ask that you retract your nomination for the time being. Furthermore, I ask you to discuss your lead changes here before making any more changes. As you can see in the compromise discussion section below, your wording is not very accurate and has confused readers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

African Americans in the Civil War

I could be missing it, but the article doesn't seem to cover the important question of whether African Americans should serve in the war - and ultimately how they played a part in the winning of the war.

I am just seeing a See also link to Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War

Am I missing something?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You are not missing something. Or better, I agree that something IS missing. Such an expansion would improve this page greatly and it is a topic central to the article's importance. The page is enormous right now and without a core group of motivated editors it's unlikely to face any significant pruning any time soon. Would you be willing to work with me to create such a draft section, say three to four paragraphs, perhaps based on assertions and sourcing already present in the linked article? Over a given period of time? I could be available this next week--I'm deep into a page creation at this moment. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. If you look at Camp Greene (Washington, D.C.) it covers some parts that seem good to cover that seem to be good to cover here (with better sources):

• local, state, and federal groups
• perhaps Canadian troops (former slaves)
• decision to have African American troops / timing with Emancipation Proclamation
• the difference between treatment white and black soldiers received
• key battles

How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: It looks fine. I'm sorry my attention has been drawn elsewhere. I think we should build this in sandbox space, keeping it spare as possible. This discussion spurred me to ask how the WWII article got pared down to a reasonable size. I'd like to create a working group dedicated to doing something similar with this unwieldy beast (the entire massive article, not your section idea which I like immensely). I've got a bunch on my plate right now, cleaning up some old ACW-related messes I created myself. If you'd like to start drafting in a agreed-upon location I'd be happy to chime in. BusterD (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

How to make this reasonably sized has been high on my list and may require some creativity on our part. Admittedly I've mostly been making it bigger, not smaller...there is a lot of redundancy in the article that can be fixed though. I think we do need to reduce the page by 10-20kb of readable prose. We can definitely use summary style more effectively. In some ways, I think ensuring the sub articles are high quality will go a ways to make this better. Having B or GA quality articles to link to for sections allows our sections to be tighter. That is something I am working on right now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that well-anchored pagespace tends to stand up to well-intentioned addition better. This is off some people's radar but Marilyn Monroe uses summary style in a very successful way. I came to that high-visibility page expecting pop culture drek and came away with a bunch of respect for the page-shepherd there. Performing a summary transition on this page would require a group of willing volunteers. Several editors come to my mind. I would be happy to help. BusterD (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Change The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865) to The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – April 9, 1865) 2A01:CB0D:261:FC00:E84D:F341:9BC0:B643 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Need for an "Overview" section

The "Overview" section essentially acts as an abstract to the article, but isn't that the purpose of the lead? The entire section, especially the last paragraph, sounds like a conventional lead with some details here and there. FredModulars (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

FredModulars, Agreed. I had been meaning to disperse it into the article for a long time, thanks for the kick in the pants :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that's because much of that was the lead, at one point, but then editor(s) split it and then editors(s) resummerized again in the lead. A 'tragedy of the commons' if you will with no one in charge :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

With the overview gone, the article is 3kB shorter, along with my other cuts, leaves the article at 95kB readable. Still pretty big, my goal is 80 or 85 if I can. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No Whitman?

I'm genuinely surprised that the "In works of culture and art" section doesn't mention Walt Whitman. His poems about the war were influential during Reconstruction, and helped frame American cultural identity and patriotic rhetoric for the next century or more, to the extent that his work was distributed as propaganda during WWII. I understand that with an article like this, one has to choose from a huge number of references, and not everything will make the cut-- but Whitman should be mentioned, if anybody is. I suspect more people have read (or heard) "O Captain! My Captain!" than have played any of the videogames listed here. Maybe somebody who's a real editor can add in a reference to Leaves of Grass? 2601:200:C000:9500:ED8D:9384:9872:F597 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point, added. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Abolitionists: When did the public debate begin?

In Causes of Secession / Abolitionists it seems there are two competing statements:

1. That abolitionists were linked to the puritans, and Sewall's writings in particular. And thus abolitionist causes in America go back to... 1620? 1700? 2. "Slavery, which had been around for thousands of years, was considered "normal" and was not a significant issue of public debate prior to the Revolution. The Revolution changed that and made it into an issue that had to be addressed."

I can't resolve these things in my head. On the one hand abolitionism goes back about a century before the revolution and on the other hand there was no public debate about it until the revolution?Palehose5 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

June 19,1865 end of civil war.

By recent federal mandate . The date of June 19,1865 is recognized as the end of the Civil war . The last area where slave owners in Texas who held slaves were ordered to free all slaves . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.16.77.182 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) It is also known now under federal law as juneteenth a federal holiday proclaiming the end of slavery in the USA and the end of the civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.16.77.182 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a link to said mandate? Or press coverage of it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden just signed the legislation as of 4:05 pm 6/17/2021 it is on both cnn and fox news.

Reading the bill it merely makes it a national holiday, it does not declare it as the end of the Civil War. [2]. The NYTimes notes that Juneteenth occurred *after* the end of the Civil War [3]. This article also goes into the matter in some depth, providing surrenders, noting the various last shots fired, and the time of the end of belligerent rights, which is generally taken as the close of the war. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I said CNN and fox nothing about the New York times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.73.57 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Look whoever you are I listened on the news channels. They directly said in one of the broadcasts that June 19,1865 marked the end of slavery and the surrender of the confederate forces in Texas ending the Civil War. Believe it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.77.154 (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have just read several Fox and CNN articles and neither mention the date as the end of the Civil war, merely the end of slavery. Can you provide a URL to the article you refer to? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is some logic for you if there are active confederate forces owning slaves fighting up to June 19,1865. Is the war over? Would a union general have to send a proclamation announcing the freeing of the slaves? According to the the emancipation proclamation they were freed in 1863? As no surrender document document was ever signed by the confederate Government surrendering the confederacy this is the date June 19,1865 when the confederacy ended. Some people may say June 23,1865 when the last confederate General surrendered. But the confederate General was already preparing to surrender by June 19,1865. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.77.154 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That is what we call original research. Unless you can present a reliable source that states that's when the war ended, it won't change. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

CNN and Fox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.77.154 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, either would work, but I need a URL link to the article, and it needs to explicitly say thats when the *war* ended, not just slavery. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The May 9,1865 claim of the Civil war being over is an obvious sham as well over 10,000 Confederate forces were still fighting and thousands of black people were still enslaved and controlled by confederate slave owners. Look i watched it on TV there is no URL link for live TV.

By that flawed logic the war didn't end until 6 November when the CSS Shenandoah surrendered, but RS don't support that fringe view. Mztourist (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The war (any war) ended when RS say it did, not what our own wp:or says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The reference "proclamation" is defined as part of the ref list in the Citation section. However it's no longer in use and is causing a cite error, see the end of the citation section. The reference should be commented out or deleted. Thanks 92.5.2.97 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Necessary Deletion

@CaptainEek:, I understand that you have reservations about my removal of a paragraph in the lead section. Here I would like to summarise my points and offer a counterargument to your brief edit summary worries. Firstly, I am an Australian, I have no stake in this, but I do want to make this behemoth of an article at least partially editable (which currently my computer is struggling to do). Secondly, the lead paragraph general rule of thumb is to have 4 paragraphs, while this article currently holds 6. Even to an article this important to one country, I think we can do with 5 paragraphs. Thirdly, and my counterargument, if you want to summarise the war, do more. What I mean by this is that (I believe) 4 of the 6 are dedicated to context and general overview (not too much specifics). 1 paragraph is dedicated to the legacy of the war, and that leaves the last paragraph which is dedicated to the more specific overview of a 4 year war. Essentially my argument is this, that paragraph is covered in the article, is too out of place in the lead without converting another paragraph, and the article is generally uneditable with the amount of bytes it contains. Thanks with being courteous with my out of the blue reasons. If anyone else wants to comment, please do.IronBattalion (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I personally think this paragraph is important to keep. The battles are such a major part of the Civil War and without this paragraph, only Fort Sumter and Appomattox are mentioned in the lede. I would prefer to combine the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd paragraphs into one or two paragraphs instead. In particular I think the sentences about the Confederacy and foreign governments can be dropped. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

IronBattalion, I still believe the combat paragraph is key. I agree that the lead was on the long side, and so have tried a slightly different tact of cutting it down while keeping the core details intact, see my latest edit :) I also quite welcome attempts to shorten the body, as we could have better use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, you seem to have read my mind. Wondering if the "King Cotton" sentence could be removed as well. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

CWenger, Good point, I have also removed that CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Leonard, 1999

• Leonard, Elizabeth D. (1999). All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-3930-4712-1.

Free to read (with registration). Could be useful for building the article, specifically § Women. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Missouri state gaurd

@Judeobasquelanguage Do you have a source that claims the Missouri state guard was one of the belligerents? Even if it wasn't part of the Confederate army itself, it was still fighting on its behalf. No need to confuse our readers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC) yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_State_Guard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judeobasquelanguage (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Judeobasquelanguage Wikipedia pages are not in and of themselves sources. Do you have a reliable source itself which says that the Missouri State Guard was a top-level belligerent? I have numerous books on the civil war, and not a one singles out the Missouri State Guard as a separate entity which was a major party. It was merely part of the Confederacy, in spirit even if not by strict legality. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Please replace: The central cause of the war was the status of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery into territories acquired as a result of the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican–American War. (since it is inaccurate) (found on page URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), with: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1EC0:3FE0:6855:3056:3AA9:5928 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC) The main reason for the occurrence of the civil war, was not due to the issue of slavery. President Lincoln declared war on the Southern states because they (the southern states, confederacy), wanted to succeed from the union and create their own country. Lincoln's act of freeing the slaves was a strategic move he made that was done to cripple the south since most of the south's labor force was slave labor. 2600:1700:1EC0:3FE0:6855:3056:3AA9:5928 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - still not done, because this would contradict everything we know about the war, AND introduce the illiterate "succeed" in the place of the word "secede" on top of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Who fought the Civil War

I had changed that the war was fought “in the United States” (which goes without saying — the entry is titled the “American Civil War,” after all) to that the war was fought by the United States, which it was. It was fought by the United States as an entity, not by the states individually. Likewise, the rebellion was by the Confederacy as an entity. It was not a war between the states, and that is true apart from the fact that “war between the states” is used by advocates of the myth of the Lost Cause.”

I am Maurice Magnus. I don’t know how to sign this from my phone. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole concept of a civil war is that it is a war fought between multiple parties within a sovereign state/country. If you imply that the United States (the country) is fighting another party you are implying it is not a civil war but a war in general. The Confederate States of America was not a sovereign state (no official recognition from any other sovereign state), therefore it was a party within an already existing country which is the United States. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll give you that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state, but the United States was, and the United States, not the Union states, was doing the fighting, as a single entity. Your formulation echoes the Lost Cause advocates' label "the war between the states." I hope that you find acceptable the edit I just made.

I find that saying that the war was fought "in the United States" is silly, because it conveys no information that any readers are unaware of. But it is not inaccurate, so I won't remove it. But I hope that you will.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree it being silly because if you had replaced the term "civil war" with "insurrection" or "rebellion" the same logic would still apply, e.g. "The American Rebellion was a rebellion fought in the United States between the Union states vs the Confederate state" vs "The American Rebellion was a rebellion fought between the United States and the Confederate States". When stating the country as a whole is fighting together it implies that there is an external party and therefore is no longer a rebellion/insurrection by definition. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not true that "stating the country as a whole is fighting together ... implies that there is an external party." The reason that it is not true is that the country as a whole WAS fighting together; the Northern states were not fighting independently of one another. I have changed "Union states" to "Union," but I have not put back "United States." I hope that that is an acceptable compromise. The first sentence of Union (American Civil War) reads: "During the American Civil War, the Union, also known as the North, referred to the United States, governed by the U.S. federal government led by President Abraham Lincoln."Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

America is a continent not a country, the definition of America is offensive to all American countries, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Brazil. Calling it the American Civil War is disrespectful to all the American countries that have also been revolutionized. The name must be changed to United Stated of America Civil War. 186.18.45.201 (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:COMMONNAME Cannolis (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)