Talk:American Civil War/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

RfC: When did the Civil War end?

As historian Neff notes, the Civil War lacks a precise end date: "In practice, the war was brought to an end on a piecemeal basis, by way of a welter of specific measures by the Union government." But since we remain in the business of conveying information, how should we communicate the end date in the infobox? Please peruse the above sections, with excellent research by Donner60 and company. The following dates stand out, but your solution needn't be limited to those listed:

• April 9: Lee surrenders at Appomattox Courthouse, setting in motion a wave of surrenders. The earliest possible date we could claim.
• April 26: Johnston's large force surrenders. John Wilkes Booth killed.
• May 5: Effective dissolution of the Confederate government.
• May 9: The disputed, but status quo ante version. Refers to Johnson's proclamation that belligerent rights are at an end.
• May 10: Confederate President Jeff Davis captured.
• May 13: Battle of Palmetto ranch, last of the war.
• May 26: Edmund Kirby Smith's forces surrender, last large force surrender. Later argued as the end date by the Government.
• June 2: Department of the Trans-Mississippi ordered to stand down.
• June 19: Juneteenth, the slaves of Texas are freed.
• June 22: Shenandoah, unaware of Lee and Johnston's surrender, fires the last shots of the war.
• June 23: Stand Watie is the last Confederate general/land force to surrender.
• November 6: Shenandoah surrenders in the UK, the last naval surrender.
• August 20, 1866: President Johnson declares the insurrection suppressed. The last date we could claim. Supreme Court declares this as the end date for legal purposes.

Other possible approaches include:

• 1865
• Spring 1865
• April-June 1865
• April-May 1865
• May 1865
• [Date] (disputed)
• [Date] (exact end date disputed)
• [Date] (debatable)
• [Date] (exact end date debatable)
• [Date] (effective)

The topic is also covered at Conclusion of the American Civil War, though the above research has exposed the article as rather lacking. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• support April 9, 1865. I think this option is the best. Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 9, 1865 though I have to admit I don't know the difference between Johnson's executive order on May 9 and proclamation on May 10, and the 'Confederacy surrenders' section only discusses the latter (although there is a reference for the former). –CWenger (^ • @) 20:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• support April 9, 1865 per Sm8900.Historyday01 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• Outside of the USA June 2, 1865 is the date in textbooks with a note saying somthing like "the final Confederate armies officially surrendered". That said April 9, 1865 is what you will see in American publications. @Rjensen: our resident American historian ....Rjensen what have you writen about this...what date would you pick? Moxy- 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support April 9, 1865. In my experience, I typically see the Appomattox Courthouse surrender used metonymically to refer to the end of the war. As mentioned in the second half of the proposal, I think it could be useful to include a "(disputed)" note or something similar as well; if such a tag is used, I'd also recommend that the word within the parentheses link to Conclusion of the American Civil War. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe these fellows know?

• Support somewhere between April 26 to May 9. I live in North Carolina, so in school emphasis was always placed on Johnston's surrender. Whatever the case, I think Lee's surrender is just too early, and doesn't encapsulate the full collapse of the Confederate cause. The engagement at Palmito Ranch is too late, as historian Richard Gardiner says: "There was no Confederacy in existence when the 'battle' occurred." Naturally I agree with the link to the conclusions article, and of course if sources point to a common date we should use that. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• May-June 1865. The reason I say this is because (based on the list) that is the time when things were dying down. I don't think it's best to put an exact date because it really is debatable. SWinxy (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• support spring 1865 even though it is rather non-specific. I think the April date came into common use because of the older focus on the eastern theater of the war (in no small part because of the Lee fixation). As historical coverage broadened to include the western theaters (and the reevaluation of Grant as a commander) the end date started to slip from that focus. June 2 would also be acceptable. Intothatdarkness 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 26, Smith's surrender. (June 2, the date Kirby Smith formally signed the surrender of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi is OK too.) This was the date of the last large Confederate force's surrender, and the Confederate government had dissolved earlier in May. Stand Watie's force, from the little information I can find on it, was a cavalry regiment of well-under 250 men. I agree that Lee's surrender on April 9 was the beginning of the end of the war. However, what would have happened if by some miracle Johnson would have had a major victory over Sherman, or Kirby Smith would have had some big victory out west—would the war have continued? Does the count of total casualties for the war stop on April 9? Whatever is decided, all of the significant dates should be discussed in a surrender section. The end date should link to the discussion. TwoScars (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 9 In all technicality, the actual war, like all wars, ends when the people fighting those wars lose their "beligerant" status. That would be May 9. I'm not sure who would continue to advocate the false notion that the war ended when Lee surrendered. That is one of the biggest falsehoods about the ending of the war that no serious historian would agree with.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support May 26 or Spring 1865 if that can be accepted by most The largest number of historians in the thread that I posted support May 26, the date of Joseph Johnston's surrender as the date. May 9 is not the date of the proclamation (which was dated May 10 despite publication in the New York Times on May 9) but more importantly did not end the "belligerent rights" of the Confederacy. The order does not mention belligerent rights and the Union only recognized similar rights through the Lieber code, General Orders No. 100, on the laws or rules of war which was published earlier. I recite key items from it in a new thread on belligerent rights to be posted presently below. The May 10 order only applied to Confederate cruisers, not to the land war, or overall war, and was only addressed to the belligerent rights or privileges extended by neutral nations to those cruisers, not to any rights granted, however grudgingly, by the Union to the Confederacy or its combatants. The Union military orders by Halleck, Grant and Bussey after the surrenders in which further actions or hostilities were continued became criminalized, because of the end of combatant status as organized armies, show that the surrenders were the key to the end of the war. In fact, the Halleck order, approved by Grant and Stanton, was actually issued before May 9 as I will recite. The May 9/10 proclamation did not end belligerent rights of the Confederacy in the war as a whole, could not end the privileges granted by neutral nations (and didn't because England delayed in withdrawing them), nor could those nations force the combatants to end any rights or privileges extended between each other. All of this backed up by explanation and citation in the new thread below.

I am sorry that I have not had time to finish up the analysis more quickly before this thread got under way but real life, and some more research to soundly ground my position, intervened. I found only limited support in one historical work for May 10 as the end date, supported in large part because Jefferson Davis was captured on that date. I am posting below a thread on belligerent rights which I hope will convince everyone of the exact nature of Johnson's insurgent cruiser proclamation and the lack of effect it had on the end of the war and historical interpretation. In suppport here, since I realize this may continue to be disputed and some reasons may need to be given immediately in this thread, I will cite one of my additions to the historians section here and Jefferson Davis's later comments on belligerent rights as an initial indication that the May 9 (10) proclamation has no verifiable support, only a New York Times headline:

• Finding the Ending of America's Civil War by William A. Blair (Professor at Penn State University) The American Historical Review Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Vol. 120, No. 5 (December 2015) [1] "More that four decades ago, historian Avery Craven made the bold statement “The American Civil War did not end at Appomattox, adding “Until the Negro's place in American life was fixed, the war was not over.” But he remained a minority voice, as the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war." "Footnote 25: ...For the argument against war continuing beyond the surrenders, see, for instance, Gary W. Gallagher, The Confederate War: How Popular Will, Nationalism, and Military Strategy Could Not Stave Off Defeat (Cambridge, Mass. 1997), 206, "n.1....The literature as a whole remains tilted toward the war ending with the surrenders....”

• Davis, Jefferson. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Volume II. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1881. OCLC 1249017603. Chapter XXXI, Page 257. “It is a remarkable fact that the Government of the United States, in no one instance, from the opening to the close of the war, formally spoke of the Confederate Government or States as belligerents. Although on many occasions it acted with the latter as a belligerent, yet no official designations were ever given to them or their citizens but those of "insurgents," or "insurrectionists." Perhaps there may be something in the signification of the words which, combined with existing circumstances, would express a state of affairs that the authorities of the Government of the United States were in no degree willing to admit, and vainly sought to prevent from becoming manifest to the world.”

If May 9 (or 10) continues to be used, Wikipedia will persist in a misinterpretation or error which is easily refutable by an overwhelming number of reliable, verifiable sources and cogent arguments that support May 26 or spring 1865. I can't support April 9 because while Lee's surrender undoubtedly set in motion the string of surrenders and events which ended the war about six weeks later, no one could have predicted it at the time. The Union authorities and military certainly took seriously the threat of the war continuting by the remaining Confederate armies. April 9 is only a viable end date with additional explanation. It has only become more often cited in recent decades because the surrender at Appomattox gets such prominence and it is cited by internet sites with little reason to rely upon as sources with complete accuracy or completely accurate scholarship or internal verification. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900, CWenger, Historyday01, Rjensen, Moxy, Indy beetle, ModernDayTrilobite, CaptainEek, Jojhutton, SWinxy, TwoScars, Intothatdarkness, SteelerFan1933, BusterD, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, Peacemaker67, and Gog the Mild: I ask that before final opinions are given and the thread is closed, that all who have already commented and those who may comment consider my post just above and the new, and yes unfortunarely lengthy but necessarily thorough, thread that I have just posted with respect to belligerent rights in the American Civil War and criminalization of post-surrender hostilities. This thread mostly quotes the research and comments of historians and legal scholars and the recitation of various documents from the Civil War period itself. Also I would ask for consideration of my previous thread on historians views on the end of the war posted on this page if comments are made before I add to the items on that list. I will be adding additional items to that thread and probably will repost it below within the next few days. I have already researched and gathered these items, some of which date as far back as 1865 and will get them posted as soon as I can. With any luck, I won't be delayed as I have been in recent weeks. I will make an additional ping when I post the expanded thread. I will appreciate keeping the thread open long enough for consideration of this information and of further comments or changes to existing comments. I know this has become long and involved but I do think it is an important subject and perhaps can be fully considered now and put to rest after consideration of rather full research. I do think I have come up with some interesting research for everyone's information. I appreciate everyone's patience and consideration. Donner60 (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Late to this I know, but perhaps the complexity and divergence of views is such that the best approach is to put "See Surrender section" in the infobox and flesh out this above discussion (and the diverging views of the academic sources) at length in that section. I have found this an effective approach with other elements in the infobox that are disputed or unable to be encapsulated in a single line or sentence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I will defer to Peacemaker67 and Gog the Mild on this. whatever they decide, is fine with me. i propose that we delegate them to handle this specific item. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Concur with Peacemaker67. Intothatdarkness 15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This conforms with the preference I expressed earlier, as the end date is disputed among historians. Mojoworker (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker as to the infobox. We still need to determine whether to change the first sentence of the article. I had said that I would have no problem with a similar ending there as well but I think the exact date of May 26 is preferable; see the Historians views thread on this page. If we need an exact date, I think it needs to be changed from May 9 (or 10) which has no support among many sources that I have researched; it is only mentioned by a small minority of them and only perhaps 2 or 3 can even an insinuation of the date as an end date can be gleaned. Morevoer, the belligerent rights thread below clearly shows that it is being misinterpreted as a general proposition. I have made the postings that I originally said here that I would make and I think there should now be no doubt as to preferable date. Original post was 4 July 2022 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the best option. There is a lot written by Donner60, and that is commendable effort. SWinxy (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read Moxy- 01:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I am having difficulty seeing the actionable outcome, here. I draw your attention to what is currently in the infobox, which already suggests the date is not so fixed:

"April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865 (exact end date debatable)

(4 years and 27 days)[a][1]"

Also, of additional problem then is the first line of the article:

"The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865; . . ."

How is all this to be harmonized? Noting that to me, to get a quick take on the war (infobox style) I think that it was roughly 4+ years, is a really very helpful piece of the info, perhaps the most helpful piece.

I think, right now, my take is the present is 'good enough', but I'm open to it being better, but I would like to see what is being proposed precisely to each of the above 3 lines? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

But May 9 has no support among historians and a close reading, plus the analysis of historians and legal scholars that I posted in the thread on belligerent rights, shows that May 9 can not possibly be right. See my comment to Peacemaker67's suggestion as well; later modified based on the historians view thread. Donner60 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

But it's not wrong, if we are saying the end is Spring 1865 (every day between March 21 and June 21), because that date is in that period, and when the U.S. president declared, the war was “virtually at an end.”

But what I really would like to know is what is the proposal for all three lines, I lay out above?Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

SPRING 1861-SPRING 1865, is a suitable placeholder in the Inbox for the beginning to end dates of the American Civil War.

(a) It embraces the Great Rebellion’s beginning in the ‘unauthorized’ but Secessionist-coordinated state militias in southern state locations seizing US Government (Federal) forts, naval yards and lighthouses, armories, and treasury mints with gold and silver on deposit. Thes parcels of land were secured by Congress in a mutually agreed-to contract with majorities in BOTH each State Legislature and the US Congress prior to transfer of the property within state boundaries for Federal development and future use in the common defense or for the general welfare, as provided explicitly in the US Constitution.

(b) It includes the date the Confederacy as a de facto republic ended due to its dispersed national government without a stated reconvening time or place, and the end of an army-in-being to defend it at the seat of government, past, present or future, April 9, 1865. (Unlike the Continental Congress removing itself from oncoming advance by British forces.)

HOWEVER, I would like to argue that for the sake of WP:BALANCE, Editors here should craft a footnote at "Spring 1861-Spring 1865" referencing a brief rationale for 3-5 alternative ending dates as can be reliably sourced.

The oft used Inbox template has items such as exact date and duration computations that simply are NOT appropriate to this article, as these discussions amply show.

DISCUSSION: Any remaining un-surrendered units after April 9 were without any presumed civilian authority on their part of that of the members of the former Confederate constitutional officers. Unsurrendered Confederates were rather like the isolated marooned soldiers at radio stations on Pacific atolls following the Japanese WWII surrender and the dissolution of a Japanese Navy to recover them; the last of the WWII maroons surrendered in the mid 1960s. I would argue that the Empire of Japan Infobox should NOT date it from 1866 to 1967 or whenever the last atoll radio station surrender occurred.

Likewise, in December 1865 Stan Waite headed a treaty delegation of three (3) for surrender, very unlike Lee’s Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia as a military event in the American Civil War. To make them alike is just another false moral equivalence from our partisan 'Lost Cause' brethren.

As Jefferson Davis put it in his memoirs and speaking tours to Confederate veterans for decades after the American Civil War, "the Confederacy just disappeared" as he fled away from Richmond and then removed himselfj as their onece Commander-in-Chief, far away from any remnants of un-surrendered rebels under arms --- just as far as he was physically able, in an effort to flee the North American continent to then slave-holding Cuba or Brazil before his foreseeable arrest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My take is based upon Peacemaker67's response and the timeline. Since April 9 is the beginning of the end and by June 23 all slaves were freed and military engagement on U.S. soil was completed, I recommend:

• Infobox - April 9–June 23, 1865 See surrender section.
• First line of the article April 9–June 23, 1865 with a note that states that there was a sequence of events that led to the end of the war. On April 9, Lee surrendered at Appomattox and by June 23, Stand Watie was the last confederate general to surrender. By that date, all slaves had been freed. See surrender section.
• Years and days - calculate up to June 23, 1865.

I think that it is preferable to use actual dates than to say "Spring 1865" because it's nebulous.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Captain Eek: I agree that it is difficult to fit this situation into this infobox format. I had thought that Spring 1865 was a good (second) choice for an end date but that makes it difficult to calculate an exact length of time for the war, assuming that is really useful under the circumstances. I had thought when I first proposed a change of end date that since Stand Watie was a commissioned Confederate general, the surrender of his force was the last genuine surrender. However, there are admittedly some differences with his situation; and his force was not going to carry on the war when all other Confederate forces were out of the field and most if not all tribal leaders were against it. The more general reason not to use that date is that May 26 (or surrender of the armies, which amounts to the same thing) is the most often used end date by contemporaries and later historians - as I show in my revised thread on historians views now posted below. My belligerent rights threats shows definitively and detail why using the insurgent cruiser proclamation is incorrect (and the date is really May 10).

As a result, I now support using May 26 (debatable parenthetical) in the infobox, calculating the length of the war to that date, and using May 26 in the first line of the article. The appropriate explanation of the various theories on the end date should be in the text or in a footnote (or both, especially as to the infobox). Donner60 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added the revised and expanded thread on historians/contemporaries views of the end date of the American Civil War below the belligerent rights thread. Readers will see that May 26 is easily the date most often cited for the end of the war. I trust my reorganization of it in date order makes sense. I am well out of time tonight to do further commenting. It seems that I did not address User:Alanscottwalker's last question and I am not sure it has been answered. I will look at it again as soon as I can; perhaps I missed what he was looking for, especially if it was addressed to me. There are some other very thoughtful and good recent comments. I have no time tonight but I will see if I can add or respond to any of them. I am not sure whether to ping about the further thread listed below but perhaps I will later today as it is now as a courtesy to anyone who might otherwise want to see it but might not look back again. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900, CWenger, Historyday01, Rjensen, Moxy, Indy beetle, ModernDayTrilobite, CaptainEek, Jojhutton, SWinxy, TwoScars, Intothatdarkness, SteelerFan1933, BusterD, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, Peacemaker67, and Gog the Mild: As further information, I have posted the revised and expanded views of historians and contemporaries as to the end date of the Civil War. Sixteen entries cited May 26, 1865 or the equivalent "surrender of the armies" as the end date; most of the others cite "Spring 1865" "total of events" or simply recite several events including the surrenders; four or five entries are shown due to relevant information but show no specific end dates; three are shown as no end date when one might be expected, and there are others like those. This will be might last research thread on the topic, though I may add a few items to the timeline. I think I can make this the last ping on this since I am sure those that are interested will continue to look at the page until the discussion is concluded. Donner60 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

While I do not support using the date of the "insurgent cruiser" proclamation as the end date of the war, please note that the date of the proclamation is May 10, 1865, as shown in the Official Records and the Andrew Johnson papers. It was published in the New York Times on May 10 and the few sources that include it date it May 10. Only the dateline of the New York Times article is Washington, May 9. I surmise that it may have been released to the press a day early so that it would be published on May 10, the date on which it was "done at Washington." Donner60 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Busy at work so can only leave a quick comment, but would prefer something nonspecific or, if a date must be used, Kirby Smith's surrender as the last major field army to surrender. I don't see Watie's surrender or even less CSS Shenandoah giving in as widely supported by historians. Given that historians favor various dates and that there wasn't a single peace treaty for all of it, I'd recommend against trying to pin a specific date. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hog Farm. However, as I noted in a reply that I have just added in answer to the previous query about an end date and calculation of the length of time to that end date, I now also favor May 26 if a specific date must be used to satisfy consensus. Donner60 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the use of May 26, 1865 as the end of the war. I also understand that it is not necessarily the final completion of the war. How about using May 26th as the end date, with a comment (or a note) that there were some post-surrender activities that extended into late June:

June 2: Department of the Trans-Mississippi ordered to stand down.

June 19: Juneteenth, the slaves of Texas are freed.

June 22: Shenandoah, unaware of Lee and Johnston's surrender, fires the last shots of the war.

June 23: Stand Watie is the last Confederate general/land force to surrender.?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That would suit me, as I have nearly simultaneously posted just above that it would be my preference for the best date based on historian and contemporary views if a more general date range is not suitable. Donner60 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should use May 26, 1865 in the InfoBox. I'll bet there are casualties in the casualty count that happened after April 9. The article needs a section called "End of the war". It would be a paragraph or two that summarizes Conclusion of the American Civil War, and would replace the Confederacy surrenders section. It would start with Lee's surrender on April 9 being the beginning of the end. Other significant dates would also be mentioned, such as Johnson and Taylor's surrenders, Davis dissolving the Confederate government, Johnson's proclamation, and the last major battle. Edmond Kirby Smith's surrender would be listed as the virtual end (or something like that) of the war, since this was the last major Confederate army to surrender. Watie and the CSS Shenandoah could also be mentioned, and the additional Johnson proclamations, but they are insignificant. Watie and the Shenandoah were small groups of people. We would have therefore "covered" any possible end date, given credit to the significance of Lee's surrender, and justified the choice of May 26 as the virtual end. Nobody could say we missed something or picked a wrong date. TwoScars (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

See, American Civil War#Confederacy Surrenders that section is already in the article. I'm fine with 'May 26 1865 (exact end date disputed)' in the infobox. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying replace the Confederacy Surrenders section with an "End of war" section, and cover all possible ends. No need for an "exact end date disputed" in the InfoBox, all possible ends will be covered in the "End of war" section. TwoScars (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems we are approaching a final answer on this. I have been offline for most of the last two weeks due to a family member's surgery and a few other real life chores. I will propose something definite along the lines of the later comments and the research after I give it a little more thought. There are good proposals here but they differ slightly, so I think someone needs to not only put up a definite final proposal, but ping the others who have been pinged or have participated earlier to be sure that no one wants to seriously disagree. Donner60 (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900, CWenger, Historyday01, Rjensen, Moxy, Indy beetle, ModernDayTrilobite, CaptainEek, Jojhutton, SWinxy, TwoScars, Intothatdarkness, SteelerFan1933, BusterD, Maurice Magnus, GELongstreet, Hog Farm, Djmaschek, Mojoworker, CaroleHenson, Alanscottwalker, Kevin Murray, TheVirginiaHistorian, Peacemaker67, and Gog the Mild: With apologies to any who have had their say, do not have a comment or position or are opting out. Since I hope this will bring the matter to a conclusion, I wanted to be sure I did not leave out anyone who might wish to come back to the topic.

I will take the bull by the horns to try to finish this matter since I started it. If I had to do it over, I would have anticipated differences of opinion and done the more extensive research necessary to come to a conclusion before commenting began. I have paid attention to other comments and tried to take them into account, but I think that the research, and opinions expressed mostly after I posted the research, point to the most satisfactory resolution. I state that in the next to last paragraph of this post.

I will list below the authors of the detailed research which support my conclusions with little additional comment here. The research with quotations is posted at length in the threads Talk:American Civil War#Belligerent Rights in the American Civil War; Criminalization of Post-Surrender Hostilities and Talk:American Civil War#Historians/ Contemporaries Views on the End Date of the American Civil War. The full range of the research and quotations is only in those threads. I will add fewer citations here because the statements can be verified below. I believe I will nonetheless will be adhering to Wikipedia guidelines such as "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Wikipedia does not publish original research."

I think the best starting point for this summation is the 2015 article Finding the Ending of America's Civil War by William A. Blair (Professor at Penn State University) in The American Historical Review,. Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association Vol. 120, No. 5 (December 2015) [2] Professor Blair wrote: "More that four decades ago, historian Avery Craven made the bold statement "The American Civil War did not end at Appomattox", adding "Until the Negro's place in American life was fixed, the war was not over." But he remained a minority voice, as the sheer weight of scholarship has leaned toward portraying the surrenders of the Confederate armies as the end of the war. "Footnote 25: ...For the argument against war continuing beyond the surrenders, see, for instance, Gary W. Gallagher, The Confederate War: How Popular Will, Nationalism, and Military Strategy Could Not Stave Off Defeat (Cambridge, Mass. 1997), 206, "n.1....The literature as a whole remains tilted toward the war ending with the surrenders...."

The overwhelming majority of contemporaries and historians that I have found, and these include many prominent scholars and works, who expressed an end of the war date use the surrender of the armies in general and May 26, 1865 specifically for that date as the thread below that quotes their writings shows. This does not deny that other dates are sometimes expressed and should be noted in some way but explanation is needed. But the date of the insurgent cruiser order is singularly inappropriate for use as a key date. The use of the surrender of Lee's army at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 is expressed by some but this is almost in the context of directly or occasionally indirectly, noting that it inevitably setting in motion the chain of events that led to other surrenders and the collapse of the Confederacy. By indirectly, I mean that the authors went on to recite those later events.

In addition to Professor William A. Blair, using May 26, 1865 (effective surrender date of E. Kirby Smith's Trans-Mississippi Department, the last large Confederate Army) or surrender of the armies generally as the end date, include: George Templeton Strong, Elliott G. Storke and L. P. Brockett, Horace Greeley, Jefferson Davis, Major General John A. Logan, Charles Carleton Coffin, Charles A. Dana (somewhat indirectly by noting that the last Confederate Army, Smith's, was still unsurrendered when Dana went to talk to General Miles about Jefferson Davis at Fort Monroe), Wood W. Birkbeck and Major J. E. Edmonds, Frederick H. Dyer, Ernest Nys, Nathaniel W. Stephenson, Arthur Ponsonby, Wyndam L. Walker, James I. Robertson Jr. for American Civil War Centennial Commission, Bruce Catton, Robert B. Murray citing US Attorneys argued in 1869 that war ended May 26, 1865, a jointly authored book by Gary W. Gallagher|, Stephen D. Engle, Robert K. Krick & Joseph T. Glatthaar, Steven R. Taafe.

Those expressing the end as the total of events including the surrenders or by listing the events including the surrenders include: U.S. Army and Navy Journal, Volume 3, New York, August 26, 1865, Evert Augustus Duyckinck, James M. McPherson, Stephen C. Neff (also cites, however, " with the formal surrender of the various Southern armed forces to their union foes"), Professor E. B. Long states at the end of May 1865 section of The Civil War Day by Day that the war was over. Spring 1865 is cited by Gary W. Gallagher in one book and May 26, 1865 in a jointly authored book. James L. McDonough also uses Spring 1865 as an end date.

Only three authors that I reviewed even mention the insurgent cruiser order but each goes on to list other events. Eight books about the war at sea that I list do not mention it. I note a few others that do not mention it but there were others that I thought would be superfluous to add to a long list since most, if not all, mentioned no specific date.

The lack of use, and the widespread omission, of the date of the "insurgent cruiser" proclamation (which is how it is referred to in the Andrew Johnson papers) as the end date of the war is shown by an explanation of what "belligerent rights" meant at the time of the American Civil War, when the term first came into use (Walker, 177), as most fully explained by Professor Stephen C. Neff, Professor Quincy Wright, Professor Wyndham Legh Walker and earlier by Richard Dana. I will recite here some, but not all, of the quotations and analysis in the Belligerent Rights thread, at greater length than I would really prefer, as important to show the limited meaning and extent of these "rights" at the time of the American Civil War.

In his 1967 paper, [3] International Law and the American Civil War Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 61 (April 27-29, 1967), Professor Quincy Wright explained belligerency at the time of the American Civil War at page 53: "'Belligerency'" was held, on the one hand, to imply that foreign states must assume the obligations of neutrality involving impartiality as between the recognized government and the rebels, abstention from official aid to either, and prevention of private military expeditions from their territory to aid either side. On the other hand, belligerency implies that both the recognized government and the rebels enjoy the belligerent right to visit and search merchant vessel of all states on the high seas, to capture them if there is probable cause from evidence found on the vessel to suspect that they are of enemy character, or are carrying contraband, breaking blockade, or engaging in unneutral service, and to submit them to its prize court for condemnation if such suspicions are supported, according to the canons of international law." [Comment: Thus, as between nations and belligerents, belligerency involved naval or maritime matters. International law did not concern the rights of belligerents, or combatants, between themselves or give the neutral nation any right to determine those rights and when they might begin or end.]

In 1866, Richard Henry Dana wrote "But this case raises a general question of the utmost importance, to wit, what is the intrinsic nature of neutrality laws, and what is the effect of their passage? Plainly they are enacted, not to impose new obligations upon a nation, - for this no nation would voluntarily do, - but to codify and to put into fit shape for practical use those previously existing obligations, which already bound the nation simply as a member of the universal society of nations, and by virtue of unquestioned and unquestionable principles of international law. Neutrality laws are solely for the use and aid of the people by whom they are passed. They are simply a very useful species of machinery, created and employed to assist the government in performing its duties to foreign governments."

Wyndham L. Walker stated at page 206: "What recognition does is not to operate as a grant of rights of war, but create at most a species of estoppel. The neutral State estops itself from denying that a true war exists.....The actual form of a proclamation of neutrality seems more in favour of the view that the third State is merely acknowledging the existence of a fact than that it is purporting to grant a privilege to anyone...."I have laboured the point that recognition of belligerency is the acknowledgement of an existing fact, not the conferring of a status, still less a privilege (even those who adopt the status view point out that it is given for the benefit of the recognising State's own subjects, not for that of the insurgents).

Walker then comments concerning the British proclamation of neutrality: "Now what does that document actually do? In what sense does it create rights, or grant belligerent rights to anyone? It sets forth certain notorious facts, and announces a policy of [page 205] strict neutrality in the war that has already broken out. It does not in its form make any grant of privilege to anyone."...."We may be told that, by implication, by the creation of a status of neutrality, it in a sense creates belligerent rights. But a duty arising from the principle of non-interference in a domestic struggle prescribes an attitude of strict impartiality, the substitution of a similar duty derived from neutrality would appear a change of form rather than substance." Walker also observed that the existence of war or no war cannot depend on the wishes or interests of third States.

In Volume 2 of his book on the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, quoted at greater length in the thread, Jefferson Davis stated at page 257: “It is a remarkable fact that the Government of the United States, in no one instance, from the opening to the close of the war, formally spoke of the Confederate Government or States as belligerents."

The code of conduct or combatant rights for the American Civil War was adopted in General Orders No. 100: Laws of War for the American Civil War developed by Professor Francis Lieber ("Lieber's Code") and committee in 1863; Relevant excerpt: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 3, Volume 3, page 148 [4]. As noted above, the belligerent rights with respect to Confederate cruisers and interactions with other nations had nothing to do with the combatant "rights" accorded to the Confederates by the Union under the 1863 General Orders.

Note that the insurgent cruiser proclamation does not refer to or use the term "belligerent rights" (it's only in the NY Times article headline), does not state that the war was over ("may be regarded" as "virtually" at an end is not the same thing), was aimed at nations which harbored Confederate cruisers, especially England, and was ignored or had a limited positive response from England for several months as shown in the thread, did not "criminalize" further actions by Confederate forces from that date, was little noticed within a day or two after its release and was not really different from President Lincoln's April 11, 1865 proclamation, which was equally ignored. Professor Neff noted that this proclamation was also issued to show that neutrality of foreign nations was to come to an end or the United States would restrict their access to its ports.

The orders of General Halleck (May 5, 1865), approved by Secretary of War Stanton and General Grant and preceding the insurgent cruiser proclamation, General Grant (May 11, 1865) and General Bussey (June 2, 1865), quoted in their entirety in the Belligerent Rights thread, which "criminalize"certain continued hostilities after the surrender of the armies do not mention and are not based on the insurgent cruiser proclamation, but on the surrender of the Confederate armies, and gave effective dates for the criminal sanctions weeks after the date of the cruiser proclamation and sufficient to give notice of their issuance.

Along the way, I have expressed the opinion that certain general phrase compromises may be satisfactory. I am sure of one thing: the use of May 9, 1865 (or May 10, the actual date of the proclamation) is not supported by historians or research or a proper interpretation of belligerent rights and the insurgent cruiser order as the end of the war date. It is, to put it directly, not debatable, but an error to use either date as the end of the war date even if a few other dates have some basis for at least mention.

Based on the research, I now think that the date at the end of the first sentence of the article and in the infobox should be May 26, 1865, that it should be supported by citation of a brief explanation and at least six sources and that a short note should be made which states not that the end date is debatable but to see the "end of the war" section to see the various dates pertaining to the end of the war. That section of course also refers to the more detailed Conclusion of the American Civil War article which is also appropriately explanatory. After posting this comment, I will make the changes within a day or two to allow any last minute comment, although I wish to be clear that I am not trying to limit comment or later participation.

I ask that anyone who has some further research that would contradict this analysis or lead to a different conclusion under Wikipedia verifiability and sourcing guidelines and/or the weight of authority, to please post it here or in a new thread if necessary and to ping me and other interested editors. I would prefer this post to end the matter because I think the research shows the resolution is now obvious. Of course, I can't foreclose some last minute persuasive argument for modification although I think I have a sound basis for my conclusions. I believe the insurgent cruiser proclamation's date, much less the New York Times dateline date and headline, is not the proper basis for a statement of fact about the end date of the American Civil War so I do wish to rule that out. I will reply to any comments which appear to call for a reply and if necessary, weigh in further to do what I can to have removed what I am convinced would be a continuing and easily refutable error of an important stated fact in an important article, which unfortunately, has spread to other web sites. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with May 26, and I agree that all of the important dates should be discussed in some type of "End of war" section. Also the Conclusion of the American Civil War article should be modified to agree to this date. TwoScars (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the extent of this discussion, I would be in favor of April–June 1865. May 26 or June 2 would be fine also, but I see no reason why we need to nail it down to a specific day. I am very opposed to April 9 as that is far too early. I also advise against Spring 1865 as it adds another layer of ambiguity (and potentially confusing for anybody in the Southern Hemisphere). –CWenger (^ • @) 15:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I will need at least a few careful and extended footnotes to accompany the changed text. I have started on this, as well as diverting myself to finding a few last minute additions to the talk page threads here. I have been delayed not only by a little more work on the threads for completeness and the start of writing appropriate supporting footnotes but also by unexpected real life matters requiring immediate attention. Unless I have other unexpected delays and finishing the drafting takes more time than I expect, I should have the changes and notes up before the end of the weekend. I note no further advance comments above after a few days since my last post. I will work in the comments as best I can in the footnotes. Although I have already posted more than sufficient sources and explanations to support the change and reject the currently stated date, I searched around just a little more. Ironically, I found that the misinterpreted New York Times headline including the words "belligerent rights" with respect to the meaning of the insurgent cruiser proclamation, which does not include those words or the extending meaning given to them, is not the end of the story concerning the New York Times headlines and text about the end of the war. There is this from May 29, 1865 edition of The New York Times: :"END OF THE REBELLION.; THE LAST REBEL ARMY DISBANDS. Kirby Smith Surrenders the Land and Naval Forces Under His Command. The Confederate Flag Disappears from the Continent. THE ERA OF PEACE BEGINS. Military Prisoners During the War to be Discharged. Deserters to be Released from Confinement. [OFFICIAL.] FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GEN. DIX. [5] The New York Times; May 29, 1865. Page 1. "WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1865...." I wish I had been able to add this earlier. I have added to the research threads below for future reference. Donner60 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I finished the changes and additions, with many citations, on July 31-August 1. Since they have been holding and there are no further comments, I think the task is done. Thanks to subsequent editors for some cleanup, especially to @CaptainEek, Maurice Magnus, and Alanscottwalker:. Unfortunately, I have had a severe leg muscle injury and am not likely to be online much for a few weeks at least as I recover and get therapy (in addition to "real life") in case I am slow to reply to anyone here or on another page. Donner60 (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I hope you feel better. Thank you for your serious and detailed research. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence has become practically unreadable (as have the first two citations), with four uses of parentheses!! I have absolutely no expertise in this topic, so do not want to change meanings by altering it. I would be most grateful if others could attempt tackling this. Aza24 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done I removed the parentheses, tightened up paragraphing, and used parallel construction for percents-of-population, white and black.

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE ARTICLE INTRODUCTION now reads:

The American Civil War (April 12, 1861– May 26, 1865) was a civil war in the United States between the United States, the Union or "the North", who were about two-thirds of the white male population, and the Confederacy or "the South", who were about one-third of the white male population. In 1860, four million of the 32 million Americans or about 13% were enslaved black people, almost all in the South. The central cause of the war was the status of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery into the western territories.

Rationale for white male proportions: The total 1860 popular vote among the white males eligible to vote in all US states in the Electoral College, among three candidates for Union totaled two-thirds of all votes cast: two presidential candidates publicly avowing to fight for Union against secession (Lincoln & Douglas), and a third presidential candidate (Bell) asserting any unilateral secession by a state would be illegal without a Constitutional Amendment.

A fourth presidential candidate (Breckinridge) campaigned on "states' rights to secede", receiving about one-third the national popular vote. As Buchanan's Vice President, Breckinridge chaired the Joint Session of Congress to certify Lincoln's Constitutional election as US President in 1861, and then he tried to organize a constitutional secession of slave-holding states from the Union. However, neither the House nor Senate found a two-thirds majority for an Amendment. He subsequently resigned as a US Senator from Kentucky (serving from March 4, 1861), to accept a commission as a Confederate General in the Army of Virginia, until his 1865 appointment as Confederate Secretary of War. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The white male population is not relevant in the first paragraph, nor does it make it any easier to read. The slave population is included because it logically follows from slavery being the central cause of the war. But the white male population does not logically follow, and opens a can of worms that is far too large for the lead to tackle. Also, the lead has never talked about the white male population before, and we are attempting to simplify it, not make it more complex. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I've tried to tweak the lead a bit to try to solve the issue. I removed all citations except for the slave population, since everything but the slave population is cited in the body. I also removed the footnote about the declaration of war, since its not exactly the most important point, nor even remotely necessary for understanding. I have solved the parentheses problem by just breaking the first sentence in two. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian You claim that "evolving consensus is that 1860 demographics do not belong in the intro." but I'm not sure where you get that from? My view is that white male population isn't relevant, but that the slave population is. But at any rate, I don't like the replacement wording either: The central cause of the war was the dispute over whether slavery would be permitted to expand into the western territories or be prevented from doing so, setting it on the path to ultimate extinction. At that rate, I'd rather just simplify it to: The central cause of the war was the status of slavery.. Or keep the status quo wording 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. On the eve of the Civil War in 1860, four million of the 32 million Americans (~13%) were enslaved black people, almost all in the South. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

The lead paragraph need not address the demographics of either slave or free, blacks or whites. My parallel construction to show the relative demographic weight of white Union voters to States-rights-to-secede voters [on the topic: Civil War], simply balanced the sentence showing the relative weight of slave to total population [on the topic: slavery]. I argue for the one, only if the other is present: the Lincoln administration's war goal was first Union, then Union and Freedom.

While one could properly refer to the 2-1 split in white population during the Civil War without accounting for the slave population, it would be mistaken to mention slaves alone, without mentioning whites in the "American Civil War" first paragraph in the introduction. Most of the fighting and dying was done by the whites of both sides, so a parallel demographic statement for whites in the percentages related to the Civil War is called for, if slaves are to be mentioned as a demographic component of American society as a percentage.

The Wikipedia article is for international readers with a general interest in each topic. The international context of slavery was addressed by the actors at the time, such as Jubal Early (Franklin County) on the floor of the Virginia Secessionist Convention - slavery was being abolished by the "Christian nations" of the world, and joining the Confederacy with an enslaved labor force would therefore isolate Virginia in international commerce - only by staying with the North leveraging its wheat exports to Europe, could Virginia protect its own manufacturing interests -- which were at the time, larger than the entire Confederacy combined. (The British had already begun large plantings of cotton in Egypt and India following Bleeding Kansas 4-5 years earlier...the Deep South cotton Secessionists "telegraphed their punch", so to speak.)

However, when the Virginia Convention voted secession, Early joined to fight for "his country" (Virginia homeland) as most Americans understood "my country". Both sides organized regiments based on state-by-state recruitment and their replacements for a political reality in the 19th century; it wasn't just for administrative convenience.

The international context for the American Civil War, can be fairly represented in the Intro first paragraph this way: The central cause of the war was the status of American race-based slavery remaining the the South during a time when the Western World had largely abolished it.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"Cockpit of secession"

The following article text should be restored in full:

However, President Lincoln was determined to hold all remaining Union-occupied forts in the Confederacy: Fort Monroe in Virginia, . . . and Fort Sumter-located at the “cockpit of secession” —located at the cockpit of secession in Charleston, South Carolina.

User:Maurice Magnus Deleted "cockpit of secession." Without discussion here at Talk, and in doing so, he fell into an unnecessary error, which I hope to correct collegially here. His rationale was:

His rationale: "Let's not get poetic. Charleston is where the war started, but Columbia was the capital of S.C. (the first state to secede), so the decision to secede must have been made there." No, it did not.

Let’s not get counter-factual.

(a) Maurice Magnus does have this correct, there was no lawful meeting of the SC legislature in December 1860 outside of the South Carolina Capitol where its records were stored, and it was acknowledged to be so -- contemporaneously by a senior South Carolina jurist.

- The South Carolina Declaration of Secession was merely a mass meeting held in Charleston SC; it was subsequently renounced as unconstitutional by state law in South Carolina by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court – because the meeting was a mass meeting held apart from the legal seat of the South Carolina legislature, Columbia SC.

(b) The mid-19th century romantic mind (Victorian Era) was indeed poetic, seances were popular among the cultural elite. Editors here, should not arbitrarily sterilize the period writing style into a sort of telegram shorthand. stop.

- Contemporary newspaper accounts in December 1860 of all persuasions repeatedly described the political situation in Charleston SC as “the cockpit of secession” – unlike New Orleans, Richmond or Nashville – a reference to the then well-known, feathers-flying “cockpit”, as in the pit dug into the ground for popular “cockfights” between male chickens trained to fight to the death, the feverish side-wagers on the sidelines as a part of the period amusement.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The opening

The phrase I deleted ("and asserted claims to two more") used to be covered by this sentence: "Secession was also declared by pro-Confederate governments in Missouri and Kentucky, but those two states remained in the Union," which I had added, having derived the information from Secession in the United States. It was in the paragraph beginning "Fighting broke out," which CaptainEek deleted. If we want to include the information that the Confederacy asserted claims to two more states, then we should do so with my sentence, not with the unhelpful phrase "asserted claims to two more." One way to return my sentence would be as a footnote to "The Confederacy grew to control at least a majority of territory in eleven states (out of the 34 U.S. states in February 1861)." But we've been trying to keep footnotes in the opening to a minimum. Another way would be to insert it somewhere in the text of the opening. Or we could simply omit it as insignificant. Any thoughts? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Confederacy never "grew", because it was never established, though "claims" were made by spokesmen.

- Here it is useful to recall that its claims were never recognized internationally to have "controlled at least a majority of territory in 11 states". It was only recognized as a "belligerent" agency fighting the US federal government.

- At Wikipedia it is bad editorial practice to quote Wikipedia articles. For the ever-shrinking occupation of US territory mapped, available in many university libraries and available online, see Kenneth C. Matis, 1994 The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America 1861-1865 Provisional Congress, page 16+, First Congress, page 43+, Second Confederate Congress, page 52+.

- The Rebel attempted secession from the US Government failed in the attempt 1861-1865. They all, everyone, received a blanket pardon for their activities during that time, and many local offices were subsequently filled under the US Constitution, giving their oath of allegiance to support the US Constitution prescribed in Article VI for their universally acknowledged honorable service as state executives, legislators, and jurists, for an example of a US Senator, see the chapter on Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (II) in John Kennedy 1956 Profiles in Courage.

- And all county government administration under Rebel occupation was formally acknowledged as lawful and binding within the US, such as marriage licenses and civil criminal convictions.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Did the Southern states secede?

I think that they did, and successfully for four years. Lincoln denied it, but he did so as a matter of principle and politics. In reality, he treated them as a belligerent power, as by blockading their ports and exchanging prisoners of war. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should say they did. Pretty much any significant work on the war will use that language. Hog Farm _Talk 01:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No. Lincoln did so as a matter of their unconstitutionality (cannot be done by an American state), ". . declared secession" is the proper language, not only was the rebellion unsuccessful, seceding was null and void ab initio (from the beginning), see, Texas v White. Lincoln's prosecution of the civil war was use of the constitutional war power to put down violators of the Constitution, in rebellion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

When I wrote that Lincoln denied as a matter of principle that the Southern states had seceded, I meant that he thought that secession was unconstitutional. And, in Texas v. White, eight years later, the Court agreed with Lincoln. But that doesn't mean that the Southern states didn't secede. It means that they seceded in violation of the Constitution. We can look at it either way, as Slatersteven suggests. This subject might deserve a section in the article, but, in the opening paragraph, let's keep it simple. Maurice Magnus (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they did not secede, they tried to secede, and they failed to secede. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes as they did "withdraw formally from membership of a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization.", No in that it was not ultimately Succesful. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If I may be presumptuous, I think that Alanscottwalker would say that the point isn't that it was not ultimately successful; the point is that it never occurred, because it was unconstitutional. But what if the Confederate States of America had succeeded in becoming a separate country? Would we still say that they hadn't seceded? Their success wouldn't retroactively make secession constitutional. That's the problem with denying that they seceded. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not one or the other, it is both. They did not withdraw formally, because they could not withdraw according to proper constitutional form. They attempted to withdraw formally (declared secession) in violation of proper form, and failed with much attendant misery. That they tried to withdraw (declared secession) and failed miserably in doing so are reasons they did not secede (they are not a separate country), it is not one or the other. They did not secede in form or in fact. We are not writing counterfactual history, the actual history is already written, but had they won, it would not make their secession constitutional in 1860 or 1861, it would have made their seceding part of a successful revolution, against the Constitution. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I notice that you say that they did not withdraw "formally." Doesn't that imply that they might have withdrawn "informally"? Yet you also write, "They did not secede in form or in fact." Here I think that you use "in fact" to mean "in form." They did secede in fact; at least that's the way we speak of it. I'm sorry to nitpick. I'm just glad that "seceded" remains unqualified in the first paragraph. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I use formally because the sentence I was responding to used "formally". The first sentence is now a misrepresentation of history, they did not secede in form or in fact. In form, because they could not do so within the form of their constitutional existence, in fact, because they failed. And the actual distinction I am drawing is not formal or informal, it between secession, and attempted secession, between seceding and attempting to secede - they tried to secede and they failed, constitutionally, legally, and failure, in fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Aren't you begging the question of whether, from 1861 to 1865, they succeeded in fact, even if they ultimately failed? Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No. 60 to 65 was their attempt. They failed, despite the attempt. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that our difference turns on our having different definitions of "secede." To you a criterion of secession is permanency; to me it is not. Again, suppose that the South had won the Civil War at the end of 1865. You'd say that their attempt at secession had succeeded. I'd see no difference in the South's status between 1861-1865 and post-1865; the difference would be that post-1865 the North would no longer have been challenging their status. What I'm talking about here, again, is secession in fact, not in law. In law, from 1861 to 1865, U.S. law said that the South had not seceded, whereas Confederate law said that they had. This is a pointless argument, actually, and I probably should not be participating in it. But it's fun to think through. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather, the nuance is between attempted secession and secession, just as there is nuance between attempted anything and that thing being fulfilled. In fact, it does mean the attempt was not made, but despite the attempt, it failed, in fact. As for your guessing at my purported analysis or your analysis of 1860 to 1865, if something else had occurred, no one knows, that is not history. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's say I rob a jewelry store and walk out with the jewels. As soon as I exit the store, the police arrest me and take the jewels that I've stolen. Is that a momentarily successful robbery, even though it was ultimately unsuccessful, or is it a mere attempt? Now suppose that I am arrested one year after the robbery and the police take the jewels. (I haven't fenced them yet.) Was that a successful robbery or a mere attempt? Of course, there is no answer to these questions. That's why I said that this is a pointless argument. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No. You gave the answer: " . . . I rob a jewelry store . . .". But if you did NOT rob the jewelry store, but still took overt acts to do so, that is attempt. As for whether history has a point, the course matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A mere attempt to rob a jewelry store might consist of breaking into the store but getting caught before exiting with any jewels. A mere attempt of a state to secede might be a vote by the legislature to secede, and then the federal government's taking over the state government before any further action occurred. In 1861, further action occurred with respect to 11 states. They formed the CSA and went to war. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

They formed a failed state/confederacy, failing in rebellion/war, failing in secession of any part of the United States. Attempt was made but was a failure, they surrendered in the attempt. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just counter-factual speculation. Perhaps you could write a book on your premise, "If the South won the Civil War". But it would not be the reliably sourced scholarship from peer-reviewed academic journals that is called for in a Wikipedia article. Let's keep it simple.

(1) In the opening paragraph, there is no need to refer to a state "seceded". Yes, there should be a section on Lost Cause historiography.

 Done See American Civil War §§ Memory and historiography​ and Lost Cause. The attempt at secession failed. Modern scholarship does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Confederacy, participants are universally referred to as "Rebels".

- Lincoln did not acknowledge it; it was unconstitutional and he had sworn before God to uphold the US Constitution. The Roman Catholic Pope (the Bishop of Rome) did acknowledge the Confederacy as a belligerent power -- however, he no longer had a Roman army of any international significance.

- Modern scholarship does not recognized the legitimacy of state secession -- apart from the Lost Cause publishing niche (academic fringe). In 1860, the notion of unilateral state secession as an Amendment failed to reach the two-thirds Congressional requirement in the House (We, the People) and Senate (the States in perpetual Union).

(2) Only Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas held referendums to "formally withdraw" after a state Convention or Legislature resolve. A state legislature or Convention does not have any legitimacy to act apart from the people voting there, and even secessionists in VA, TN, TX understood that in the crisis. [Without Virginia with the South, there was no industrial base to wage a war and win it, so the Confederate Capitol was moved to Richmond, Virginia; its defense was a military priority.]

- Further undermining secession's legitimacy for the Confederacy, the Unionist ballots west of Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains were lost (uncounted) in the referendum; no totals were reported, nor where they came from. There was only a triumphant Secessionist newspaper report of a "margin of victory" in Richmond City, already occupied by Confederate garrisons from out-of-state, and placed under martial law. There was no freedom of the press, no voice of dissent as there was under United States administration, with New York newspaper distributions nationwide in the 100s of thousands daily by rail throughout the war by the NY Tribune and especially the pro-Democratic (South-leaning) NY Herald.

(3) The Chief Justice of South Carolina publicly stated the mass meeting in Charleston "resolving" secession was not a legitimate (formal) action under the South Carolina Constitution; he then isolated himself on his plantation away from public view.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

"Secession" in the WP Editorial voice

I was not aware that the definition included "legally" or "constitutionally". Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We should be looking at what actually secondary sources say, instead of trying to read our own nuance into Lincoln's words. Ed Bearss Fields of Honor p. 23 "South Carolina seceded from the Union in December 1860". James M. McPherson Battle Cry of Freedom p. 234-237 most certainly states that the southern states seceded. Eicher's The Longeest Night generally only refers to "ordinance of secession" but then refers to Virginia in the brief period between the ordinance and joining the csa as an "independent entity" (p. 52). I don't know much about about Eicher's personal views but McPherson and Bearss sure ain't Lost Cause. Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

1. The use of the term "secession" in a colloquial way conveys a different meaning than the political events in US history. In 1860-1861 Secessionist cabals in several slave-holding states sought to forcibly remove the duly elected state representation in the 37th US Congress by force of arms.

- That is not "secession" by anyone's definition by nation-state constitution or international law. “Secession” can formally happen in a confederation, but that regime ended for the United States in 1789, and so it is anachronistic except to impartially relate Romantic visions of Secessionists who imagined themselves in a "Second American Revolution". The Wikipedia editorial voice must be kept neutral, without adopting the Rebel terminology to replace that of the Constitutional democratic-republic. So, it should not be used in the article introduction related in the editorial voice of Wikipedia.

2. "Secession" is also used as a shorthand among American historians when writing for a popular American domestic audience. But the purpose of a Wikipedia article for the international reader is not the same as a (credentialed) author with an eye for the NYT best seller list, including reportable book sales in the Atlanta metro area.

- McPherson is indeed a reliable source when publishing in academic journals, but the “secession” short-hand misleads the international reader. - And, although credentialled as a Park Ranger, none surpasses Bearss for “you-see-it-now” descriptions of the soldier’s war. Semper Fi. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Wikipedia should be based off of what the RS say, and the arguments for not including that are largely borderline original research. Do you have a secondary academic source (preferably a recent one) supporting why we shouldn't mention secession? We could also follow Eicher's language and use "ordinance of secession". Every reputable academic source I have ever read on the war uses some variant of a reference to secession, so because Wikipediahas to be based on what the RS say, this needs to be addressed upfront unless a compelling case using other secondary RS can be put together.

P.S. - I wonder if the "ordinance of secession" language may solve the international reader concern, to make it clearer that this was unilateral by the states. Hog Farm _Talk 17:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hog Farm. Rather than the back and forth about what secession really means, whether it was complete, legal, constitutional, etc., we need to describe it as RS do (i.e., rely on RS to determine whether the actions actually undertaken by the rebelling states should be called "secession"). The majority (I think) say that the Southern states seceeded precipitating the War, so that's how we can describe it as well.--MattMauler (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thus, I proposed for lead summary, ". . . declared secession", that is unilateral. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agree to "declared secession".

- (1) An unconstitutionally declared 'ordinance of secession' from legislators in a mass meeting from the "cockpit of secession" away from the SC state Capitol does not initiate war. Nor do a minority rump of MO legislators who meet in a Confederate Army camp out-of-state. These are merely 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

- (2) War is not begun when unauthorized county militias act without the direction of the sitting Virginia governor to seize the Federal Armory at Harpers Ferry, the Navy Base at Gosport, Norfolk VA, or when Rebel militias seize Fort Pulaski GA, without resistance on the part of the garrisons placed there by Secretary of War John B. Floyd, a former VA governor and Secessionist who will be commissioned a Confederate General. The half-dozen garrison placed in each place surrendered without resistance.

- In the first place, those instances are a state problem of resident unlawful activity, one which the respective Governors are authorized to ask Federal assistance to respond to 'invasion or insurrection' in the US Constitution. Likewise the theft of hundreds of thousands in US gold and silver bullion from US Treasury Mints in Georgia and Louisiana.

- (3) The 'Great War of Rebellion' was initiated when Confederate forces successfully occupied Fort Sumter, ceded by the South Carolina legislature by statute, and accepted by an Act of Congress for the national defense of Charleston Harbor and to enforce the administration of Congressionally enacted tariffs to be collected there.

- Only after the seizure of Fort Sumter, did Lincoln call for 75,000 volunteers to retake Federal property at coastal forts, a somewhat fewer number than the 100,000 Jefferson Davis had called up for Confederate Armies of rebellion several months before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'll also note that "declared secession" is the way the Confederate States of America article has it in lead summary, so why not harmonize. I know that this American Civil War article lead has had many different iterations and I believe the present bald, "which was formed by states that seceded" is relatively recent formulation. The edit to, ". . . which was formed by states that declared secession" is minor in form (the Secession article is still the target but without the pipe) but is of import, as discussed above. It was a civil war, not a war between nations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Opening in the Intro

To avoid litigating the Constitutionality of "secession in the United States" in the Article and here at Talk, my last edit for the article was reworded:

"The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865; also known by other names) was a civil war in the United States. It was fought between the United States (the Union or "the North"), and the Confederacy ("the South"), which was formed by by Secessionists and their armies from thirteen states represented in the Confederate States Congress.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Note [f] in the second sentence of the introduction

I deleted "but where Secessionists failed to persuade U.S. congressional delegations from those states to withdraw from the U.S. Congress. Nevertheless, Missouri and Kentucky were given full state delegations in the Confederate Congress for the duration of the war." This level of detail does not belong in the introductory paragraph. Regarding "Secessionists failed to persuade U.S. congressional delegations from those states to withdraw from the U.S. Congress" (or, as it said until my edit, "Secessionists failed to withdraw state delegations in the U.S. Congress for Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware"), do we know anything about communications between secessionists (which secessionists?) and the congressional delegations from those four states? Also, the fact that Missouri and Kentucky were given full state delegations in the Confederate Congress is not significant enough to be in the introduction. Both these assertions -- that secessionists failed to persuade the four states' delegations to leave the U.S. Congress and that the four states had delegations in the Confederate Congress -- demand footnotes, but footnotes (which in this case would be footnotes to a footnote) would be inappropriate in an introduction. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Cut it out:' @Maurice Magnus: you deleted text in a Note, and you were self-aware enough to title this section "Note (f)" and then you dissimilate to assert, "This level of detail does not belong in the introductory paragraph". Straight off, international readers should be made aware that both Kentucky and Missouri maintained full Congressional delegations in both U.S. and C.S. Congresses.

The detail is omitted to support the statement, because it seemed to me to be so widely known: The Union fought for self-government in a Constitutional democratic-republic of "We, the People", founded on democracy, that is, "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

- Detail (a) To qualify to seat a Member of Congress in the U.S. voters were required to be residents within state borders. For the election winner to be seated in the U.S. Congress, the combined district vote had to exceed 50% of the 1860 presidential vote. Federal troops were given furloughs to return home to vote beyond immediate supervision of their officers; Confederate troops were not. Historians have determined Lincoln gained almost 80% of the soldier vote in 1864 against the "negotiate peace" Democrat General McClellan, but the Confederate regiments standing information together voted in a bloc for the Jeff Davis endorsed candidate for C.S. Congress (no C.S. presidential election in 1864.) Two Members of C.S. Congress were expelled for suggesting a "peace" study committee to be formed at different points in the Confederacy's decline.

- Detail (b) The initial KY and MO delegations were either Secessionist Governor appointed or voice voted in state regiments standing in formation before their officers among Confederate regiments out-of-state. By the 1st Session of the 2nd C.S. Congress, the same voting method was used in four additional state delegations with a majority of population under Federal garrison: TN, AK, MS and LA, or 56 of the 106 in the C.S. House. All those elected there favored the Davis Administration pursuit of war, unlike Members elected by civilian populations, especially those from GA and NC.

2. Cut it out: Don't misrepresent the material you delete. Of the four (DE, MD, KY, MO), only two (KY, MO) had full delegations in the C.S. Congress. Yes we know what was communicated among the parties in 1860-61, not only in private letters incorporated into ACW historiography, but Secessionists also publicly explained the reason for their withdrawal on the Floor of the US Congress, and there invited other members of slave-holiding delegations to do likewise. Search on the name of your chosen Secessionist MoC, go to LOC, "Browse Debates of Congress" here. There, to read “practically verbatim” transcripts of floor speeches recorded by 1860, go to here, and click the box in the grid that is labelled “36th 1859-61” and "37th 1861-63" to read them yourself here.

3. Cut it out. Don't open a discussion on Talk, then within 24 hours, declare no one answered, therefore all must agree. Uncharitable fellow editors can read that behavior as wp:bully. I prefer a more collegial process, myself, relying on the wp:good faith I find among many editors at WP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1. If you mean "dissimulate," then you've made an ad hominem attack for which you have no basis, because you can't read my mind.

Detail (a) and (b) and 2. I am not going to discuss the issues you raise here because, accurate or not, I don't believe that they belong in the introduction. Likewise your statement in 1. that "Straight off, international readers should be made aware that both Kentucky and Missouri maintained full Congressional delegations in both U.S. and C.S. Congresses." I'd question whether that fact is significant enough to be in the article at all, let alone in the introduction. But, if it were later in the article, and footnoted, I would not remove it.

3. I didn't wait for others because the presence of the material I deleted started to bother me more. But I do not assume that all must agree. My making an edit does not prevent other editors from expressing their views or editing my edit. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1. No mind reading required: the factual basis for applying "dissimulation" is that you posted "A" concurrently with "~A", a logical dissimulation. Nothing more is needed, unless you believe "you can't see me" like a gansta rapper committing a crime in his wanna-be lyrics. The evidence is in your post above in this thread, online, forever.

2. "Accurate or not", indicates to me that for this thread you are not accepting new information for you passed along from a reliable source conveyed from Kenneth Martis, 1989 for US Congress, 1994 for CS Congress, nor are you showing in this thread that you can independently evaluate germane information presented here to you at Talk, while to the contrary, the WP Foundation is committed to knowledge, including for articles published online at Wikipedia.

- In most civil wars familiar to an international reader, each place has a substantial population on one side or the other. In the ACW the international reader is mislead in the case of 1861 KY and MO, 2.3 millions free population ("Without Kentucky the game is lost." - Lincoln) or two-thirds of the four Border States, and by 1863 additionally Border State WV, and Mississippi Valley states TN, AK, MS & LA, with a majority of their populations garrisoned by Union forces (according to the 1860 U.S. Census, and the 1861 C.S. Congressional District apportionment @ Martis, 1994).

-Lost Cause advocates construct a-historical maps of 1861, 1863, and ACW maps 1861-1865 -- you may have been mislead yourself -- assuming a "moral equivalency" on both sides for graphing convenience by adopting an unqualified assertion from Rebels which is accepted at face value. They represent Loyal states of Unionist population majorities as part of the Confederacy. Historiographically, Lost Cause partisans hold that view only because Jefferson Davis wished it so, and got his wish in the Confederate Congress to run his war without resident-representatives interfering with his administration of it as he imperiously wished, from day to day (see J. Davis correspondence as C.S. President).

3. Since (a) you have not yet explained any meaningful grounds for deletion, your retort that a confusing point of ambiguous representations in the ACW "does not belong in an Introduction or buried in a Note there" -- is not a meaningful statement, and as yet there are no named reliable sources to justify your deleting edit, and (b) there is for mine, and (c) you aver, "My making an edit does not prevent other editors from ...editing my edit." So, I trust you will not begin an edit war with others following sourced, discussed amendments to the introduction text to follow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Second new Intro paragraph.

The central cause of the war was the dispute over whether slavery would be permitted to expand into the western territories, leading to more slave states, or be prevented from doing so, which was believed would set slavery in the course of ultimate extinction. Decades of political controversy over slavery were brought toa head by the victory in the 1860 U.S. presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, when Fire-Eater Secessionists seized the political initiative by force of arms in state after state during the “Secessionist Winter” 1860-61. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Maurice Magnus:, Revision incorporated in text is italicized above, accepting your edit here, but maintaining this paragraphing. Removed previous text: The central cause of the war was the dispute over whether the US Congress would allow slavery to expand into the western territories leading to more slave states, or was it to maintain territories as free-soil, leading to more free-soil states until the super-majority for an Amendment could eventually abolish slavery constitutionally, as Lincoln believed and 1860 Secessionists feared. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Fifth new Intro paragraph.

[The prominent Confederate army surrenders with battlefield paroles and later universal amnesty restoring U.S. citizenship to the participants effectively] ended organized Rebel resistance to Constitutional authority. By the end of the war, much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed, especially its railroads. The Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished, and four million enslaved black people were freed. The war-torn nation then entered the Reconstruction era in a partially successful attempt to grant civil rights to freed slaves. Post-Civil War America became an industrial giant surpassing Europe in the Industrial Revolution by 1900, but at a social cost that engendered substantial labor unrest.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Several problems. First, you got rid of the carefully worked on wording surrounding the end of the war. Second, the explanation of post reconstruction America is so unnecessary. Folks can go read the reconstruction article to learn about the next chapter of American history. Third, I am thoroughly opposed to quoting Jeff Davis in the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done @CaptainEek: J.Davis quote removed from Intro. as Jefferson Davis’ memoir pronounced, “The Confederacy …disappeared. …[Each States’] history henceforth became a part of the history of the United States.”[Davis|1890|p=503] * Davis, Jefferson (1890). A Short History of the Confederate States of America. New York: Belford Co. ISBN 978-1548791285. Retrieved September 4, 2022..

1. The carefully worked end-of-the-war essay belongs in the Section "End of the War". It is indeed well done, and needs no detailed repetition at the Introduction. See our discussion for 'new Intro para-4'.

2. The quote from Jeff Davis is duly struck from our draft.

3. The reference to Reconstruction is a direct carryover from the previous Intro, with only a correction of factual error.

By the end of the war, much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed, especially its railroads. The Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished, and four million enslaved black people were freed. The war-torn nation then entered the Reconstruction era in a partially successful attempt to rebuild the country and grant civil rights to freed slaves.

No, there was no "partially successful attempt to rebuild the country", the industrial and agricultural growth of the country exploded 1865-1900. Hence the necessary revision made here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The South was not fully reconstituted during the Reconstruction era, and lagged behind the north for decades. Thus the attempt was only partially successful during the reconstruction era. The wording stood for a considerable length of time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 14:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Fourth new Intro paragraph.

During 1861–1862 in the Western Theater, the Union made significant permanent gains in the Mississippi River Valley along its great rivers and captured New Orleans by sea. The Union victory at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862 repelled Lee’s invasion of the North at Maryland, and Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation [substantially increasing Union manpower from freed slaves and their families]. In 1863, The Union Blockade of Confederate port cities was effective, Vicksburg fell giving Union control of the entire Mississippi River, [and] Federals turned back Lee’s second invasion of the North at its Gettysburg victory. The year 1864 saw Atlanta fall and Sherman’s March to the Sea; capturing Charleston SC cut off the Gulf States from Richmond. In Spring 1865 Petersburg and Richmond fell, and the Confederate armies fleeing south in Virginia and north in North Carolina surrendered. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Bleh. Aside from the grammatical issues, this exemplifies my main problem with this lead revision: bloat. The things you've said here aren't untrue, but are they key for understanding? We're trying to distill the most important aspects in a concise summary. I just don't see how the additions here are that important. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please underline the apparent "bloat" in the "Fourth new Intro Paragraph", which has replaced this more "distilled" passage?

During 1861–1862 in the war's Western Theater, the Union made significant permanent gains—though in the war's Eastern Theater the conflict was inconclusive. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in states in rebellion to be free, which made ending slavery a war goal. To the west, the Union destroyed the Confederate's river navy by the summer of 1862, then much of its western armies, and seized New Orleans. The successful 1863 Union siege of Vicksburg split the Confederacy in two at the Mississippi River. In 1863, Confederate General Robert E. Lee's incursion north ended at the Battle of Gettysburg. Western successes led to General Ulysses S. Grant's command of all Union armies in 1864. Inflicting an ever-tightening naval blockade of Confederate ports, the Union marshaled resources and manpower to attack the Confederacy from all directions. This led to the fall of Atlanta in 1864 to Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, followed by his march to the sea. The last significant battles raged around the ten-month Siege of Petersburg, gateway to the Confederate capital of Richmond. The Confederates abandoned Richmond, and on April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant following the Battle of Appomattox Court House, setting in motion the end of the war.

- Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my commentary was not as well directed as I would have liked. I meant that you were sacrificing the detail here of the course of the war, which still has only one paragraph (much less than most books or other articles do), instead using that space to write about topics that I do not believe warrant coverage in the lead, like Jeff Davis, America after reconstruction, and so on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

First new Intro paragraph.

The American Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865; also known by other names) was a civil war in the United States. It was fought between the United States (the Union or "the North"), and the Confederacy ("the South"), which was formed by Secessionists in various procedures declaring U.S. state Ordinances of Secession.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'll try again. "formed by states that seceded" is simpler and more straightforward, and therefore better for an introduction, than "formed by Secessionists declaring U.S. state Ordinances of Secession." "Secessionists" is also misleading, because it refers to individuals rather than states, and it was states that seceded. Of course, human beings ran the states, but that can go without saying. It can also go without saying that Secessionists declared Ordinances of Secession -- that's redundant. Who else would have declared them? Finally, the fact that the states declared Ordinances of Secession is not appropriate for the introduction. It matters in an introduction only that the states seceded, not in what documents they declared that they were seceding. One more thing, which I admit is not an argument (I think that I've provided enough arguments): "formed by Secessionists declaring U.S. state Ordinances of Secession" sounds awful, at least to me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: Thank you for the collegial reply.

-1. States are authorized in the U.S. Constitution as administrative units for "We, the People" to represent US citizens in elections for US Representative, US Senator, US President, and for national (Federal) Court jurisdictions. New states are admitted on the same footing as the first 13.

-2. Secessionists acted to remove US citizen representation in the U.S. Congress illegitimately, even on state-only terms when they held mass meetings of Secessionists-only without a statewide representative Convention to deliberate on the single purpose of Secession. But states were no longer a state-alone as of the nationally consolidated government formed in 1789. Gone were the "sovereign states" of the Articles of Confederation; lawful secession from the new regime that was to be "more perfect" than the Articles "perpetual Union", required a Constitutional Amendment to do so, as held subsequently by the Supreme Court shortly after the rebellion was put down.

- The South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice declared in 1860 that the Charleston Secessionist mass meeting was illegitimate. Secessionists in VA, TN and TX at least held referendums however questionable they may have been, as discussed in another thread. Elsewhere Secessionists making up the Confederacy did not even bother with the pretense to appeal to the voters of each state.

- So "states-as-citizens-voting" did NOT in any way Constitutionally secede and for the most part, Secessionists could not even engineer a statewide Convention or statewide referendum to ratify the single proposition for Union or Secession.

-3. The ONLY expression left to encompass most (77%) of the Confederate states represented in the C.S. Congress is "Secessionists declared Ordinances of Secession" for each place, because the voters in each state by their state laws did NOT do so in any form, legal or illegal while Secessionists "declared secession" without them in state-after-state during the Secessionist Winter 1860-1861. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This distinction is lost on me, which means it will certainly be lost on our readers. Sources say the states seceded, so should we. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is written for the international reader in Ukraine, for instance, or the nation-state of Georgia with foreign-occupied self-declared independent republics out of their sovereign territory -- the very fear of the Founders in Constitution Hall, were the Union ever to be broken into regional republics -- three were suggested at the time, New England, Middle Atlantic States, The South, three were suggested in 1860, The North, Upper and Lower Border States, and the Deep South. And so the Constitutional distinction must be made here.

- In other contexts, "Sources" such as popular histories meant to have brisk sales in Atlanta, or Houston, or those meant to be adopted in the public schools of Cochise County AZ, have a different audience than Wikipedia. That one requires "moral equivalence" for the Lost Cause to clinch the sales in educational and commercial markets. Those "sources" do not require any attention to the Constitutional nature of the Great Rebellion that failed to overthrow the US democratic-republic, but a Wikipedia article for international readers does. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, that is still no reason to use some complex description of secession. For all intents and purposes the Confederacy did in fact secede for a period of 4 years before being brought back into the fold by a bloody war. The distinction is lost on the reader, who has no idea what the difference between secession and declaring a state ordinance of it is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 14:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no complex description for vacant seats in the U.S. Congress. Secessionists took on state authority with Ordinances of Secession. Secessionists who were Members of Congress resigned or were expelled when they participated in a Rebellion against their oath to God to support the U.S. Constitution. Unionist Members of Congress relocated their families to DC and continued to serve. At the 1862 elections, if their districts did not have 50% voters of the 1860 presidential election, Congress did not certify anyone to hold a seat from there. Slaveholding states sent a full delegation to the 38th Congress from DE, MD, WV, KY and MO.

- No, the 13-state Confederacy does not last 4-years. By the end of 1863, there was NOT a "seceded" Confederacy in KY, MO, TN, AR, MS, LA, and WV where nearly a majority of Virginia's free population lived. The territory was garrisoned by Union troops. That's 6 + of the 13 states represented in the C.S. Congress. AND their populations paid taxes to the U.S. Treasury, not the C.S. Treasury.

- Voting white males as 1860-1861 historical actors in Southern states sanctioned no state-constitutional secession statewide for in 77% of the C.S. Congress, VA, TN and TX excepted. Why adopt "states seceded" here when Confederate States of America uses secessionists "declared secession". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sixth [last] new Intro paragraph.

The Civil War is one of the most studied and written about episodes in the history of the United States. It remains the subject of cultural and historiographical debate. Of particular interest is the persisting myth of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. The American Civil War was among the earliest to use industrial warfare. Railroads, the telegraph, steamships, the ironclad warship, and mass-produced weapons saw wide use. In total the war left between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers dead, along with an undetermined number of civilian casualties. The Civil War remains the deadliest military conflict in American history. The technology and brutality of the Civil War foreshadowed the coming World Wars.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, I'm going to ask you to self revert here while we discuss. You have rewritten large sections of the lead that we worked hard on to get consensus wording for. The onus is on you to show why those changes are necessary, not on us to tell you why they're bad. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Get consensus for these changes before reverting back to them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This paragraph is unchanged, there is no reverting to be done in either direction.

- Two of the previous drafts are altered to conform to the comments made.

- Unchanged portions include a 9-day Talk section that stood without objection, and is still not objected to here, because Editors see none to bring forward here at Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to get a consensus for your preferred text. If you have been reverted (you were) there is no consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• The bottom line is I don't agree with any of these edits. Nor does it appear does anyone else. I am not replying further unless other folks show that they have appetite for your changes. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

- You are mistaken, we will discuss this further if you will allow it. Maybe we can craft a series of RfCs together. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Third new Intro paragraph.

Initially Secessionists in seven southern slave states withdrew their US Congressional delegation and declared themselves a Confederacy. Though US property in each state had been lawfully ceded to the US by local statute and accepted by Acts of Congress, partisan militias seized U.S. forts, armories, and Treasury buildings. with caches of gold and silver bullion. From the early days when the Confederacy claimed [thirteen] states from the Union, Rebel armies fought well. But over the next four years of fierce fighting they successively lost [territory and taxable population] in the Mississippi Valley, the State of West Virginia, the Gulf Coast states, and the Eastern Seaboard. The last resistance in regiment-sized units then finally surrendered in isolated pockets [remaining] in Virginia, North Carolina, and Texas. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, I think the original version was much more concise, and most importantly: engaging. Much work has gone into making this lead good to read. Not just factual, but a well crafted lead at the FA level. This change makes the lead repetitive and just full of unnecessary detail. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's do a word count, and underline the repetitive detail in phrases and clauses, so we can address them together. I think that would be a useful editorial procedure going forward. Please let me do the mark up . . . I've tried to keep your notes preserved in italics above, [replaced] words in brackets, and struck-through some verbiage in an effort to write more concisely.

- This version drops the convoluted account of multiple various kinds of surrender(s) across geographically dispersed regions around the hemisphere. It is useful launch into historiography for us history buffs, it is adequately addressed later in the article, and yes, it took a lot of work and it is well done -- at the "End of the War" section.

- The assassination of Lincoln is not creditably attached to the C.S.A. war effort, though a cottage industry in the popular press lives on, sort of like that of John F. Kennedy. An account of it here belongs in the "Works of culture and art--Literature" for this survey article on "American Civil War" -- and not in the Introduction, in my humble opinion.

- Our favorite Generals are called out by name previously as hagiographic references -- too much for an Introduction. In a grand-strategic and political sense, for the North, the extended parade of "Lincoln's Generals" do not belong in the Introduction. Neither the Grant-Meade duo in the Wilderness nor the mercurial Sherman ever matched the ACW significance of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, which came to represent the Confederacy's fight for independence because it fought well, and it had regiments from every region of the 'new nation' -- as no other ever did.

- It became especially important politically for continued Rebel resistance through the 1864 defeats and civilian deprivations, especially in the final months of 1865. But we can drop Lee's name in the Intro at your suggestion, that is certainly acceptable on my part, for 'conciseness'.

This paragraph-3 might be used to replace 'new Intro Paras 4' for the most part, were more conciseness called for. The important 'take-away' to convey in the Introduction is that from the beginning of the ACW as a war, Rebel-controlled territory and taxed population shrank in every 6-month period of the conflict -- variations of cavalry raids around DC and pot-shots at Lincoln notwithstanding.

Topic choice in the Intro

For the FA level, we will want the Intro to follow WP style guidelines for the Intro, and limit it to 5-7 paragraphs, which the 6-paragraph 'new Intro' does comply with, so I present this framework for further discussion. Let's do a word count, and underline the repetitive detail in phrases and clauses, so we can address them together. I think that would be a useful editorial procedure going forward. Thank you for your thoughtful critique(s). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• I do agree the surrender could be shorter, but I'll also point out the absolutely massive discussion above about how to cover the end of the war, which established the current carefully worded section.
• The assassination of Lincoln is non-negotiable in my view. It is one of the most important events of the war, as established by the wide amount and depth of coverage. Lincoln's death shifts the outcome of reconstruction in a massive way. It currently has a single, short sentence, which is appropriate.
• Every source I have goes into great depth about the various generals, and focuses on the top ones. Why we wouldn't is beyond me.

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Three editors have attempted to reduce the bloat, all three are reverted by one editor without discussion at Talk, including one who initiated a discussion section for the paragraph before the third revert by the same editor. It is good to see progress towards a new consensus, the current wording is not set in stone, CaptainEek: "I do agree the surrender could be shorter."
• The assassination of Lincoln is not germane to the ACW article; perhaps better suited to Reconstruction era.

- No wp:reliable source reports the assassination as war policy in the C.S. Government. There is only speculation based on guilt by association.

• Good editorial policy in an encyclopedia for the general reader does not begin with the longest Intro paragraph detailing long lists of undifferentiated names listing our favorite Generals without any strategic context and without locating the battles in commonly known regions for reader reference.

- We should not turn away new readers with a lengthy paragraph cataloguing our favorite Generals and Battles without locating the progress of the war by sequencing well-known region by region, and engaging them with strategic significance such as Confederate Army access to Texas cattle.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Davis

Kind of difficult to follow the debate here, but I did notice one glaring omission in the lede. First let me say, I have a strong Union bias about the Civil War -- i.e. the south fired on the American flag and sought to divide the Union so it could keep the institution of slavery in place. This bias, however, would not effect any writing I would do in the article. Having said that, I noticed that Jefferson Davis is not mentioned once in the lede, while Lincoln is mentioned three times, as he should be -- but Davis, the president of the Confederacy, at least has to be mentioned once. I haven't seen any viable reason why his name doesn't occur there. All major topics need to be summarized in the lede. Leaving Davis' name out of the lede will only invite neutrality issues and raise serious questions about the quality of the authorship in the article overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Good catch, see [6] CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Good to see you can collegially revise an opinion after our earlier discussions. I was beginning to think you reverted my contributions as a personal attack, without any reasoned explanation, only asserting a preemptory dismissal. "[I object to] using that space to write about topics that I do not believe warrant coverage in the lead, like Jeff Davis, America after reconstruction, and so on." CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 11:22 am, 6 September 2022; "I am thoroughly opposed to quoting Jeff Davis in the lead." CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 6:30 pm, 5 September 2022.

Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian I fear we've gotten on the wrong foot here. We have worked together collegially on this article for years. I'd like to see that continue. I appreciate your efforts to improve the lead, but disagreed with your latest round of edits for the various reasons I've discussed, key is which the upset of various hard won consensuses. But otherwise I think we're doing a good job following Wiki policy. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold change to the lead, it was reverted, and now we're discussing it. I know we both have this articles best interest at heart, and I hope to continue working with you on it in an understanding manner. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

- Then, perhaps only the offending Intro paragraph #4 should have been reverted rather than all my contributions blanked without discussion. To summarize the recent exchange,

• Talk section "Secession in the WP editorial voice" ran 9:01am 27 Aug. to 8:14am 28 Aug with a consensus by Alanscottwalker, Hog Farm, MattMauler and myself that Secessionists in the Southern states used "Ordinances of Secession" to precipitate war, and the term “declared secession" accurately conveys the unilateral belligerency of the Secessionsts against the constitutional succession of President A.Lincoln certified by Joint Session of Congress chaired by Vice President John C. Breckinridge. The consensus was unanswered for 9 days.
• TVH used “declared secession” consensus |here 17:59 Sep 5 with the Note: "Per Talk, term 'declared secession' to align with WP Confederate States of America article. …unobjected to for 9-days. Prior to any revert, discuss at Talk to find consensus there, without an Edit War here." That was the Note at the post, ignored by all reverting parties subsequently, without discussion at "Secession in the WP editorial voice" or elsewhere on Talk.
• This passage was then reverted twice without discussion at either instance, blanking all TVH contributions indiscriminately in the Intro, and TVH got a Revert Warning with an article-bar threat --- without specific links to any offending TVH revert; there are none identified to date. This sequence did not appear to me to be wp:BRD at first glance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I was not a part of any consensus that change is needed. Allow me to clarify: "Declared secession" is accurate, sure, but my earlier comments make clear that I do not believe there is any need to avoid using the simple term "seceded" in the article. RS use it, so we can too. I don't know if I would have reverted it (Maybe. I would have to look at the diff more carefully), but since there is virtue in keeping wording that has long been agreed upon, I do not see a need to change it just to avoid "secession in the WP editorial voice". It doesn't mean "declared secession" can't be used anywhere; I am just saying that we certainly can't change all instances of "seceded" because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of the word that differs from RS.--MattMauler (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC draft elements

@CaptainEek and Gwillhickers: To maintain collegiality, perhaps an RfC is required in order to formalize the Talk Page consensus of 28 August, with the following 3 elements:

- (a) It is better Editorial practice and better historiography to name historic actors participating in an event (Unionists, Secessionists, Republicans, Democrats, voters) rather than inanimate abstractions (social forces) or political fictions (states) -

-- Note: After Jacksonian Democracy with universal white male suffrage was adopted in the states, voters were understood to be the sovereign people in each state, and only three: VA.TN.TX had referendums to ratify state secession. Therefore 77% of sitting delegations in the C.S. Congress were not representing the People in each "state", but the Secessionists there, alone. According to the language of the time, the Confederate government cannot be fairly described as made up of "states"; it was made up of Secessionists...unless the counter-factual, a state law ending universal white male suffrage. None was passed to my knowledge, although in Virginia, men in uniform were barred from voting by law, so Jefferson Davis never got a "soldier vote" in VA for Congressional support as Lincoln did in KY.MO.WV.MD.DE slaveholding states, Davis allies had Secessionist votes only in VA; Unionist voters were jailed in the Confederacy, unlike Southern sympathizers voting for Democrat Gen. McClellan and anti-war U.S. Congressmen. The two examples of anti-war C.S. Congressmen were expelled.

- (b) The WP Editorial voice here should remain wp:neutral without signaling "Constitutionality" for one side or the other throughout the article, and

- (c) The ACW article should align with the terminology used at Confederate States of America, such as "Secessionist Democrats declared secession in thirteen States” to send delegations to the Confederate Congress who then unanimously appointed Jefferson Davis its President for five years.

- Example alternate phrasing: (a) Secessionists in thirteen States declared Ordinances of Secession, or (b) At their Ordinances of Secession, Secessionists in thirteen State assumed State offices to withdraw the state-elected delegation from the U.S. Congress wherever they could. Post-Civil War, Congress restored vacated state delegations as each state conformed to the amended U.S. Constitution, ratifying the 13th and 14th Amendments to free slaves and grant citizenship of the soil to all.

Any suggested RfC wording? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis and the end of the Confederacy

The existing passage needs revision. At end of the Intro paragraph #3 relating the course of the war, the first half of paragraph #4 should summarize the end of the conflict.

The level of convoluted historiography and laying out alternate dating details do not belong in an Introduction. "A wave of Confederate surrenders followed. President Lincoln was assassinated just five days after Lee's surrender. As a practical matter, the war ended with the May 26 surrender of the Department of the Trans-Mississippi, but the conclusion of the American Civil War lacks a clean end date. Land forces continued surrendering past the May 26 surrender date until June 23."

A more suitable revision, to include Jefferson Davis’contribution to healing the nation by his acceptance of the U.S. Constitution comprised of "We the People", replacing the Articles of Confederation among "Sovereign States":

"With the major rebel armies surrendered by the end of Spring 1865 with field paroles, and the 1868 universal amnesty to restore U.S. citizenship for all participants in the Confederacy, organized Rebel resistance to US Constitutional authority ended; as Jefferson Davis’ memoir pronounced, "The Confederacy …disappeared. …[Each States’] history henceforth became a part of the history of the United States." Davis|1890|p=503

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Direct quotations should be used sparingly or not at all in the lead paragraphs. I know discussion took place recently about including mention of Jefferson Davis, but quoting his 1890 memoir to characterize the end of the war seems unwarranted IMO.--MattMauler (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with MM above. Direct quotations don't generally belong in leads unless they're super focused and kept quite short, and I don't think quoting Davis in the lead is particularly useful. Hog Farm _Talk 13:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah: when I added Jeff Davis, it was because mentioning him as the president is an important fact. But using a pretty reprehensible man with an obviously biased opinion as the only direct quote in the lead? No. Further, this revision entirely undoes the careful compromises and phrasing written as a result of the end of the war RfC. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Hog Farm: Intro quotes must be "super focused and quite short". AGREE with Hog Farm on the principle. The proposed Davis quote is 'focused and quite short'.  Done

2. Matt Mauler: "Direct quotes should be used sparingly; AGREE with Matt Mauler on the principle. The proposed edit is meant to be 'the one quote' in the Introduction.  Done

3. @CaptainEek: As a summary statement for the Intro, how does Davis describing the Union preserved and State histories going forward as U.S. history violate the article's wp:BALANCED account of the course of the War?

The sentiment in this Davis quote is NOT "obviously biased". If you believe an historical character to be "reprehensible", consider not commenting on, or reverting, anything on the subject. There is a danger of becoming wp:DISRUPTIVE with that self-acknowledged mental approach to history in this instance.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the most written about subjects in American history. There must be many better sources we could quote than Davis himself. Davis is not inclined to give a neutral accounting of the Confederacy, and is a primary source. Surely we could find a secondary source if we were going to use a quote in the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: Lincoln's assassination, "is one of the most written about subject in American history." is an interesting speculation on your part, but it is NOT germane to the Article topic here: the American Civil War.

- You must know that few if any reliable sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals attribute Lincoln's assassination to the Confederate Government's prosecution of the war, Spring 1861 to Spring 1865.

- The assassination takes place a week after Lee surrenders and while J.Davis is fleeing south incommunicado. Apparently some Secessionist sympathizers in the DC theater scene had previously accepted payments from Confederate intelligence operatives to spy on U.S. officials attending theater productions, but there is yet to be found any C.S. Government directive to assassinate ... despite decades of popular speculation-fiction.

- If I am mistaken, please report a reliable source on the subject -- that conforms to WP standards -- to confirm the C.S. Government authorized Lincoln's assassination in pursuit of its war aims, so it can be connected to this ACW article as somehow relevant in the Introduction, as opposed to say, Reconstruction era. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

?? You have just twisted my words. As to Lincoln, the only thing I have said is The assassination of Lincoln is non-negotiable in my view. It is one of the most important events of the war, as established by the wide amount and depth of coverage. Lincoln's death shifts the outcome of reconstruction in a massive way. It currently has a single, short sentence, which is appropriate. My use of most written about refers to the Civil War as a whole, and why we shouldn't use a Davis quote. The death of Lincoln was inexorably linked to the Civil War, even if it wasn't the Confederacy that pulled the trigger. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom's last chapter finishes with a discussion of Lincoln's last speech, and the last line is At least one listener interpreted this speech as moving Lincoln closer to the radical Republicans. "That means N---r citizenship," snarled John Wilkes Booth to a companion. "Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make." pp851-852, followed immediately by Lincoln's assassination in the epilogue, along with the end of the war, on p. 853. It has a very short sentence in the lead, its a very big event. It is a useful summary. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

WEASEL “territory” misleads the reader

wp:ERROR: The link provided above in this thread by @CaptainEek: to here goes to a passage that misrepresents the continuously shrinking Confederacy when from its first months, it purported to represent 13 states. It continued to do so throughout the entire course of the conflict, as graphically depicted in the maps for Union control of the South in Martis 1994 “Confederate Congress”.

As the Intro now reads, the passage misleads to infer an expansive popular support and territorial control that did neither exist, nor persist for four years: ” The Confederacy, under President Jefferson Davis, came to control at least a majority of territory in eleven out of the then 34 U.S. states. Four years of intense combat, mostly in the South, ensued.

1. This partisan wp:PUFFERY will mislead the international reader. The weasel first of all drops the case of 1861 KY and MO, two-fifths of the five Border States, or 2.3 millions free population ("Without Kentucky the game is lost." - Lincoln) – HOWEVER, the C.S. Congress maintains full delegations for all 13 states claimed over the course of “Four (4) years of intense combat”, so how can WP Editors NOT include them as the historic Confederacy did by an Intro misdirection using wp:WEASEL: “came to control (sic) at least a majority of territory in eleven (sic) out of the then 34 U.S. states”?

2. The reference to territory is wp:PUFFERY to the modern reader. Texas is THEN a large territory with a small population comparable to modern Maine. In 1860 it has 2-Representatives, making it larger than 1-free NB and 1-slave FL, but smaller than 3-VT and 3-NH (now 1-Representative states).

3. "Four years of intense combat…mostly in the South, ensued" misleads, because over half of the populations represented in the C.S. Congress, by 1863 had become Union garrisoned: Border States MO, KY, WV, and Mississippi Valley states TN, AK, MS & LA, along with FL ports (according to both the 1860 U.S. Census, and the 1861 C.S. Congressional District apportionment @ Martis, 1994).

The passage should read,

"The four-year Confederacy never controlled the entire territory of its expansive claims. Throughout the conflict it shrank. Every port captured became a terminal on the Underground Railroad, every Union advance brought more scouts, cooks, farmers, teamsters, railroad labor. By 1865 pockets of Confederate resistance remained in Virginia, North Carolina, and along the Texas frontier, numbering fewer than the Union's black soldiers and sailors who served."

See Archives accounting here. Texas was a “frontier” state by the U.S. Census definition of population per square mile. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd ditch the third sentence about "every port" and "every Union advance". I've taken enough article through higher levels to know that that sentence will be challenged on encyclopedic tone if this is ever taken to GA or FA, and it provides the impression that every Union advance brought about useful things for the Federals. Also, your final sentence is inaccurate, ignoring things such as Mobile, Alabama (surrendered in April); Columbus, Georgia (Battle of Columbus in April); Charleston, South Carolina (abandoned/captured February); Shreveport, Louisiana; Camden, Arkansas; etc. It would be better to simply mention that the Confederacy had lost most of its claimed territory by 1865, without attempting to name regions. Hog Farm _Talk 13:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: See subsection "ports benefitted" below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Loser 'eventually' (sic) loses territory

What would this version achieve that the current lead doesn't? The third paragraph already details the course of the war and how the Confederacy quickly shrank. It is not shocking to the reader that in wars, the loser will eventually lose territory. I don't see how we are misleading by stating that at the outset of the conflict, they controlled 11 states. Obviously by the end they didn't control all 11 anymore. The paragraph is engagingly written though, I think it might fit fine in the body somewhere, but not the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: 1. There is nothing "eventually" about it. In TWO (2) short years, the time of a freshman one-term Congressman's term, the Confederacy loses control of half of the population represented in the C.S. Congress -- for the 4-year duration of the war.

- If it is obviously TRUE that the 13, and not 11 (sic), represented in the C.S. Congress were NEITHER resident taxed NOR militarily controlled by the Confederate Government for four (4) years, then there should be NO objection to removing the wp:PUFFERY asserting "four years of heavy fighting in 11 (sic) states, yes?

- As it stands in the Article, the partisan overstatement is wp:ERROR in this way: "The Confederacy, under President Jefferson Davis, came to control at least (wp:weasel) a majority of territory in eleven out of the then 34 U.S. states. Four years of intense combat, mostly in the South, ensued.

NO. By the end of two (2) years fighting, in 1863, over half of the South is garrisoned, without any further "heavy fighting" to be had over the remaining course of the War. As discussed previously these garrisoned states include all, or the majority of population in MO.KY.WV.AR.TN.MS.LA, over half of Jeff.Davis' C.S. Senate by my reconning considering the enfranchised free white males who were the Southern people, voting; by Feb 18, 1864 opening 1st Session, 2nd C.S. Congress, Confederacy House had LOST 40.6% 'Union occupied', 9.4% 'Union disrupted'. (Martis 1994, p.51)

SOURCED CONCLUSION: In the first two years of conflict, fifty percent (40-50%) of the Confederate population was lost to the Union progress of arms. That is worth a subordinate clause of description in a wp:BALANCED article Intro. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

- The WP Editor consensus at a search for "The South (U.S.) is found at Southern United States. The region is comprised of the 13 "Old Confederacy", plus DE.MD.OK. The reader familiar with the WP use of South will be misled by the overstated wp:PUFFERY which in the case amounts to wp:ERROR "over four years of intense fighting, mostly in the South" of 13 represented Confederate states, or 16 (sic) states to the eyes of the modern reader familiar with WP editor consensus.

2. See subsection intro para surrender sequencing below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

For one, I'm not thrilled that you separated my comment out into a new section and then put a (sic) after eventually, which as far as I can tell spelled right. Second, the wording is "four years of heavy fighting ensued, mostly in the South", not "in the 11 states". And again, the entire third paragraph details the course of the war, and how the Confederacy shrank throughout the war. Third, not sure why you're fighting over this, since your version of the lead keeps the four years language, and only changes "heavy fighting" to "fierce fighting"? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I for one, am not against coherent discussion.It is customary at Talk to separate different discussion topics by subheads, as each deserves distinct consideration. It shortens subtopic areas to allow Editors to see them with a quick glance at the Table of Contents, then each can choose which element they wish to chime in on, coherently in a way that others can follow without parsing through the entire screen(s) top to bottom searching by Editors posting rather than subsection topics of discussion.

"Eventually" is not misspelled, it is substantively incorrect. In the first two years of war, half the Confederacy's population represented in the C.S. Congress (13 states as sourced, not Editor-POV 11) is lost to it --- by February 1864, at the convening of its 1st Session, 2nd Congress (Martis 1994, p.51). In just two years, catastrophic loss was suffered, and NOT wp:puffery "eventually" (sic). Without geographic references to regions familiar to the general reader provided in the Revision, a new reader of Civil War history will NOT understand the cities listed as lost by the Confederacy mark a continuous, accelerated shrinking of its military reach and popular support.

Yes, the revision keeps the "four-years fighting" text. You must have noticed, each of the five paragraph revisions keeps most of the previous text and substance. I am not sure why you are fighting over this, since so much of the existing Intro text remains unchanged in the proposed revisions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Union garrisoned forts benefitted the Union

1. @Hog Farm: Beginning with Fort Monroe, name one Union garrisoned port that did NOT receive escaped slaves to farm for the garrison and blockading ships' crews, enlist as sailors even before emancipation, and as soldiers thereafter, etc.?

- I do not understand how An imaginary counter-factual will never be used to successfully challenge an Article from achieving GA. To wit: Administrator: "I imagine it is possible that there may have been a Union garrisoned port where enslaved blacks nearby did not find sanctuary, but no such example exists, therefore Good Article status DENIED based on my imaginary notion: revise and repeat the application."

- If that is NOT so, to help me better understand WP Administrators, based on your extensive experience here at Wikipedia, please name one (1) example of an Administrator reasoning that way, among those (many) "enough article(s)" you've taken "through higher levels". Likewise for the point about escaping slaves sought sanctuary within every Union offensive, even when it subsequently withdrew, as in the Union Valley campaigns.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree on the ports - any Union-held port would have attracted escaping slaves. The Union advances likewise generally brought escaping slaves although stuff like Streight's Raid brought about no ultimate sanctuary. If you can find a source that does support the use of every here, then I have no objection, but I'm worried that attempts to make the writing more forceful will unintentionally stray from sources. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Intro surrender-sequence by region

2. @Hog Farm: Thank you for the constructive input. A regional account is appropriate rather than the extended kinds of detailed enumeration we see in the present Paragraph #3, which is inappropriate for an Introduction, and also too long as an Intro paragraph as it stands. But I have found accepting information into Notes meets many Editor concerns, and I propose to collegially do so here, to acknowledge your good input.

Critique Answered: "[Y]our final sentence is inaccurate, ignoring things such as..." see Note below in REVISION #1:

By 1865 pockets of Confederate resistance at the Army Corps level remained in Virginia, North Carolina, and along the Texas frontier, numbering fewer than the Union's black soldiers and sailors who served.

- Thank you for the collegial input, your revision is ACCEPTED as a "friendly amendment". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: - I guess when in 1865 are you wanting to refer to? See, for instance, File:Civil war 1861-1865.png. At the outset of 1865, the Confederates still controlled most of the Carolinas, part of Virginia, and chunks of the Deep South and the Trans-Mississippi. By the time of the major surrenders, it was closer to the original phrasing, although, among other things, the Union never viewed taking over Florida as much of a priority. I still think it's best to go vaguer in the lead, to avoid opening this sort of can of worms. A simple statement that the Confederates had lost the vast majority of its territory by, say April 1865, would be the level of detail a lead needs to go into, and the blow-by-blow detail of territorial losses can be done in the body. FWIW, I'm much less familiar with the events out east, and am primarily interested in the Trans-Mississippi West. 15:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)