Talk:American Civil War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 60 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the American Civil War.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Should slavery be presented as the most important cause of the war? (Yes.)

A1: Yes. Slavery was the most important cause of the war. Wikipedia requires that we rely on the best officially documented research available, without any original research or undue weight to fringe theories.

After the war, some movements sought to advance Lost Cause interpretations, arguing that the Confederacy was not primarily fighting to defend slavery. While these have been popular in some quarters, the vast majority of historians do not support these interpretations, including best historians (McPherson, Nevins, Freehling and even the better Southern historians such as Potter). Ironically, during the crisis that led to the outbreak of war, Confederate politicians openly presented preservation of slavery as the central issue, in their own words. They mentioned fears for the future of slavery many times in their declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials. Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say:

"You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub." - From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Dec 22, 1860

"We at the South do think African slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right. This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race. You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it wrong." - From Stephens' reply to Lincoln, Dec 30, 1860

It is true that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both downplayed the slavery issue after the war began. As historian James Ford Rhodes explained, Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular, and Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union. This is why in statements like the Crittenden–Johnson Resolution, northern politicians argued they were only fighting to preserve the Union. Similarly, Lincoln's sole justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was military necessity. Holzer, Striner and Brewster note that Lincoln needed to portray the emancipation in a way that was acceptable to the border states and War Democrats.

Q2: Were tariffs and states' rights similar in importance? (No.)

A2: No. The tariff issue and states' rights were factors, and there were others. These are all included in the article. However, no issue was as important as slavery.

The original secessionists were not very careful in separating states' rights from the slavery issue. They defended both states' rights (such as secession) and federal power (such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), depending on which suited slavery with each controversy. South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession is one example out of many. However, Lost Cause historians did subsequently portray the Confederacy as consistent defenders of states' rights.

The tariff issue had been a much larger issue three decades before the war, and even then John Calhoun, who led South Carolina's attempt to nullify the Tariff of 1828, said that the tariff issue was related to slavery. In his March 6, 1860 speech at New Haven, Lincoln had said that the slavery issue was more important than the tariff or any other issue.

Q3: Did Lincoln propose to immediately abolish slavery in the South when elected? (No.)

A3: No. Lincoln combined moral opposition to slavery (calling it "a monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual program of action. Lincoln, like most Republicans, believed that compromises of the Constitution (a three-fifths clause, a 20 year extension of the African slave trade and a fugitive slave clause) implied constitutional recognition of slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln would not compromise on preventing any expansion of slavery in the hope that this would put it "in the course of ultimate extinction."

Q4: Did Lincoln believe in racial equality? (Mostly.)

A4: In the context of the 19th century, being seen as a "Black Republican" abolitionist would be politically damaging. Lincoln was inconsistent on the equality issue during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, partly in order to deflect this charge. However, the things Lincoln said in favor of equality were many (including Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address and his Cooper Union speech), while the things he said against it were few, and those few were combined with a great deal of political pressure. While Lincoln and other northern politicians did not always advocate equality, this should not be given undue weight, especially as they wanted to give far more rights to black people than the Confederate politicians. At a July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago Lincoln said, "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist."

Q5: Should the article refer to the states that allowed slavery as slave states? (Yes.)

A5: Yes, because their politicians referred to them as slave states, and because slavery related concerns were by far the major complaint mentioned by secessionists. After the outbreak of war, the slave states became divided between the Confederate states and the border states.

Q6: Did some slave states fight for the North? (Yes.)

A6: Yes, the five border states. These states had less slavery and more support for the Union than the Confederate slave states. They opposed emancipation at first, but largely accepted the military need for it eventually. Kentucky and Missouri had more slavery than the rest, and had loyalties that were more divided than the rest. For example, Missouri's Governor Claiborne Jackson was a southern sympathizer, but was prevented from seceding by Union Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon. Missouri saw some of the worst guerrilla fighting of the entire war because of its divisions over slavery.

Q7: Should the title be American Civil War? (Yes.)

A7: Yes. The title "American Civil War" is used only because it is the most common international name for the war. It is used in order to be understood, regardless of whether it could be better. The title does ignore the South's point of view, and it ignores the fact that Central America and South America are also America, in a sense. The other names should be mentioned, but not in this article. They are mentioned in Naming the American Civil War. The main article links to this.

Q8: Did the South start the war? (Yes.)

A8: The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina. Historians regard this as the incident in which the actual fighting began.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

American Civil War was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 10, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 4, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 26, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 10, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 22, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
March 28, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
April 21, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
October 14, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
November 5, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 10, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 23, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
July 28, 2012	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 30, 2014	WikiProject A-class review	Demoted
December 12, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
May 25, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2004, December 20, 2005, and December 20, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Old West / Civil War / Military history / History Top‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as High-importance).
	American Civil War portal This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.

African diaspora Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by geraldshields11, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 15, 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Daniel Nasaw (4 April 2012). "Who, What, Why: How many soldiers died in the US Civil War?". BBC.

Other talk page banners

Section sizes

Section size for American Civil War (63 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	17,057	17,057
Origins	5,475	6,943
Lincoln's election	1,468	1,468
Outbreak of the war	24	21,320
Secession crisis	10,720	10,720
Battle of Fort Sumter	3,314	3,314
Attitude of the border states	7,262	7,262
War	681	25,939
Mobilization	5,807	5,807
Prisoners	778	778
Women	2,035	2,035
Naval tactics	3,250	3,250
Union blockade	1,305	6,577
Blockade runners	1,788	1,788
Economic impact	3,484	3,484
Diplomacy	6,811	6,811
Eastern theater	757	11,353
Background	19	3,022
Army of the Potomac	527	527
Army of Northern Virginia	2,476	2,476
Battles	7,574	7,574
Western theater	604	8,496
Background	19	1,221
Army of the Tennessee and Army of the Cumberland	846	846
Army of Tennessee	356	356
Battles	6,671	6,671
Trans-Mississippi theater	95	5,133
Background	802	802
Battles	4,236	4,236
Lower Seaboard theater	91	3,876
Background	446	446
Battles	3,339	3,339
Pacific Coast theater	476	476
Conquest of Virginia	2,169	6,831
Grant's Overland Campaign	1,346	1,346
Sheridan's Valley Campaign	1,267	1,267
Sherman's March to the Sea	1,292	1,292
The Waterloo of the Confederacy	757	757
End of the war	10,473	10,473
Union victory	10,553	10,553
Casualties	9,231	9,231
Emancipation	2,929	14,744
Emancipation Proclamation	11,815	11,815
Reconstruction	4,446	4,446
Memory and historiography	2,545	11,988
Lost Cause	2,133	2,133
Battlefield preservation	3,492	3,492
Commemoration	1,765	1,765
Technological significance	2,053	2,053
In works of culture and art	1,002	4,481
Literature	1,022	1,022
Film	1,134	1,134
Music	362	362
Video games	961	961
See also	645	645
Notes	46	46
References	14,997	39,692
Bibliography	188	15,966
Sources referenced	15,778	15,778
Web sources	470	470
Further reading	6,302	6,302
Soldier life: North and South	1,957	1,957
External links	2,758	2,758
Total	216,481	216,481

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

August 13 to 19, 2017 (21st)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

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

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Too long still

The article at 16,000 words readable prose size is still 1,000 words above the size guideline. It's probably worth cutting down the causes section as there's a whole sub article on that. any help would be greatly appreciated, Tom B (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a whirl in about a week when I've got more time. It was long on my to do list! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Tom B (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the unverified claim in Eastern Theater. This was supposed to be removed a month ago. Someone add a claim about twice the number of troops or remove it!

{{}} 64.189.18.28 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the talk page thread where this was agreed please. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what here is the claim what talk page McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.^{[citation needed]} 64.189.18.32 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I added a reference instead. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove this senatcne as there is no source to verify it! remve it alredy! McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.[citation needed] 64.189.18.32 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I added a reference instead. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Origins" section

The "Origins" section is, I believe, drawn from the lead section in Origins of the American Civil War. Check out Talk:Origins of the American Civil War#WP:WEASEL wording in the first sentence of the lead. and recent changes to the lead over there to make the meaning more clear, and explicitly opposed to "Lost Cause" myths, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the student editor who will be working on this article over the next couple of weeks. I plan on utilizing the content guide to make sure the article follows the structure of the Military History articles. In addition to the style, I want to help with making the article more concise as it is currently longer than the recommended length. Jessicabreen (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make any major changes it might be a good idea to run them part here first, this is a highly controversial topic, and getting reverted can be discouraging. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Thank you for letting me know, I do not want to step on any toes and am excited to help out! Jessicabreen (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL (soapbox warning) you are gonna step on someone's toes whatever you do, but if you read wp:consensus and make sure your edits have that, you should be (within policy) fine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox results nuances

Hi there @Remsense,

I wanted to comment on a revert you made. My understanding of WP:DECISIVE is that "See Aftermath (or similar)" can cover both military nuances (i.e. specifics of battles that were previously described as "decisive" or "pyrrhic" victories) and political nuances, as is the case for World War I and World War II, which have their own aftermath articles: Aftermath of World War I and Aftermath of World War II.

In the case of political nuances, some that were previously covered in the Results section as bullet points, such as the abolition of slavery in the immediate aftermath of the war and the reintegration of the former Confederate States are thoroughly covered in the Reconstruction era article, which essentially is the article for the aftermath of the war. Pave Paws (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, thanks for asking. I think that neither the military nor political events of Reconstruction significantly nuance the description of "Union victory"—while there is much to say about Reconstruction versus the aims of the war, civil wars generally have to reincorporate the losing side somehow. Does that make sense?

We could add a link, though. I'll try experimenting with how it could be presented. Remsense ‥ 论 20:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of the Reconstruction article I think a link to the American Civil War#Union victory and aftermath section further down might suffice in explaining exactly why/how the Union won. Pave Paws (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would oppose linking to Reconstruction in lieu of this section, but since it exists I think it's the right move. Adding! Remsense ‥ 论 21:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infox box is a summary of a summery, Nuance is for the body. Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right—we have the Aftermath setionlink convention for a reason. Remsense ‥ 论 21:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that we should link Reconstruction era as the aftermath of this war, but that is not a substitute or synonym for "Union victory". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also next section of talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Union victory and aftermath" is almost entirely historical counterfactuals

The Union victory and aftermath section is almost entirely composed of counterfactual discussions about if the South could have won, whether they could have kept on fighting, whether a Union victory was inevitable, and so on. Is this kind of discussion appropriate for an encyclopedia? I can't find any policy anywhere that specifically forbids it, but I don't recall ever seeing this kind of thing elsewhere in Wikipedia, especially outside of some kind of dedicated historiography article. The section seems well-referenced, but I don't see how any source in the world could be considered reliable enough to make statements on historical events that didn't happen or say whether events that didn't happen could have happened.

On top of that, the section has very little detail on either the Union victory or its aftermath, largely because it's full of speculation about if the South could have won. If counterfactuals are allowed and we wish to keep them in the article then I think this section should be renamed based on that content, otherwise I think a lot of this should be rewritten to actually provide detail on the Union victory and its aftermath. I'd potentially be willing to help with a rewrite but wanted to see what others think first. Any thoughts?

(This is partially related to the above discussion on this same talk page, but unrelated to anything about the infoblox specifically so I figured I'd start a separate topic.) Rovenrat (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine to limit it to "Union victory", as this is straightforward and does not require further nuance. Remsense ‥ 论 04:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your new concerns: I think this content is pretty over-represented, but this is merely overshooting the mark in this particular context. A lot of ink has been spilled in this vein, so we should represent it to some degree, though cards on the table I don't find much of it particularly illuminating myself. Remsense ‥ 论 04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my mind there are three separate topics here:

Did the South lose the war?
This obviously belongs in the article as it is a matter of objective historic fact, but is mostly covered by American_Civil_War#End_of_the_war since it's really just a matter of the peace deal and who surrendered to who.
Why did the South lose the war?
This is hard to answer in a purely objective manner, but as you said it's a topic covered in detail by a lot of reputable historians so it can make sense to include it here as long as it is framed as the opinion of those historians and not as objective fact. These opinions can also be supported with relevant data like what is already there in the "Comparison of Union and Confederacy" table. This is probably what American_Civil_War#Union_victory_and_aftermath is meant to be and to some degree already is, but it's really only half this topic and half the third one I'll mention, and has very little to do with any aftermath of the war.
Could the South have won the war?
In my opinion this really has no place in an encyclopedia, at least outside of the historiography section where it could be discussed as a topic debated by academic historians and within broader American culture or whatever. Like I said, I can't find any specific policy against this so maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen this kind of thing discussed this explicitly in any other "war" article, and I don't think it's valuable to spend much if any space in an article about any historical event discussing things that did not happen.

Also, I'll go ahead and rename the section to just "Union victory" based on your comment and the changes by Alanscottwalker since it seems like there's some agreement that this section is unrelated to "aftermath" in any way. I might go back later and try to flesh out the "Reconstruction Era" section since that seems like the appropriate place for any detail on aftermath of the war, for obvious reasons. Rovenrat (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the section is trying to illuminate the Union victory (and the Confederate defeat), so relative positioning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the aftermath link out of the infobox, as it is not a good link there, which is 'military victory', not aftermath or analyses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I found this on CitationHunt and my account isn't old enough to directly edit. I don't care about the Confederates (derogatory) but I did find reputable citations that I'd like to offer:Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]

Encyclopedia Virginia states that this guy's defensive stand in Chickamauga earned him the nickname "the Rock of Chickamauga" which I believe directly addresses the latter part of that section. (https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/)

To address the former part of the second sentence, I believe it should be reworded with this section reading:

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga.

Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[citation exists in article: [1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[proposed citation above: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/]. Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east)[I can also provide a National Park Service Historical Handbook citation for that: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/25/hh25e.htm]. Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keslambo: Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you summarize this into a "Change X to Y" format, preferably in a reply to this message? — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course and I will do that in the future. Thank you for the tip @BerryForPerpetuity!

Please change [The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]] to [Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[2] Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east).[3] Keslambo (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]