Talk:American Civil War

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

Change "The war left between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers dead" to "The war left an estimated 698,000 soldiers dead, with the true number likely falling between 647,439 and 748,561"

Reference: Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121 Academic world 2020 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: It's not clear to me that this formulation is meaningfully more accurate or helpful to a general readership. Remsense ‥ 论 20:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I do actually think we should use the new data here; I'd meant to get around to reading the paper and figuring out how to present it. But it's clearly important new data, the NYtimes ran an article about it yesterday. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"The war resulted in an estimated 698,000 soldier deaths"

This formulation reflects the most accurate figure available to date. This estimate is based on the comprehensive analysis presented in PNAS. Also, the findings have been highlighted in a recent New York Times article.

Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/health/civil-war-death-toll.html 5.195.74.110 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I updated the lead and the casualties section. I didn't end up amending the infobox yet because its a bear, and this new source doesn't actually give precise "this is how many died on each side" numbers. Although with more work it might be possible to divine the number out of it yet...its just very dense. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Lincolns assassination in the lead

I didn't mean to cause such chaos by changing a this to a that :P My original wording of that phrase was intended to show that Lincoln lived to see Lee's surrender, which was the death knell of the confederacy. I.e. Lincoln lived to see victory, and then was killed shortly thereafter. It's a way to mention his assassination, which needs a lead level mention for sure, and to make it read in an interesting and helpful manner. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus @Slatersteven CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Summary checks

I've been working on the Attacks on the United States article and I wrote some summaries for the few Confederate campaigns against the Union (i.e. campaigns against the U.S.). Can someone who is familiar enough with the Civil War take a look to make sure (1) I didn't butcher any of the campaign summaries and (2) make sure nothing else is needed for the summaries? See (Attacks on the United States#American Civil War (October 1859–May 1865)). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln - "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Lincoln carefully noted that this represented his official position" - Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862 (Clipping from Aug. 23, 1862 Daily National Intelligencer, Washington, D.C.)

Hi! I would like to ask why this quote is not in the entire Wikipedia. It gives a completely different meaning to the character of Lincoln and the tone of the entire war. If there is something wrong with this quote, you could add it and give some annotations, because this quote is VERY popular in non-American media.

Very often, in media other than the American one, the basis of the war is more libertarian-economic, and only after a few years the Union added to the war the motto to free slaves, "just to encourage black people to join the war." and to "spread moral superiority".

This approach is mainly found in Poland, Germany and Russia.

And please don't delete it like last time, just reply normally because the answer "Some nationalist troll XD" is just pathetic. 2A02:A31A:C2AF:A900:2CCE:1385:3D14:E2C0 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Try reading this page Abraham Lincoln, and wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If there is an appropriate place for the quote in the article, and original research is not being done, then feel free to add it. Just10A (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

When a quote is provided, you normally need a quote to explain its relevance and what it meant. TFD (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln made it clear many times that he hated slavery but needed the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union. He wanted to prepare them to accept the military need for emancipation. If you add the quote you should add the full context of circumstances surrounding it and Lincoln's other well known statements about slavery, without cherry picking.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That approach is found in the former Eastern Bloc because the notion of the United States going to war to end slavery clashed heavily with Soviet propaganda needs. Furthermore, even after the Emancipation Proclamation there was great reluctance to enlist black regiments; it was a struggle even months later when the order was given, so suggesting that enlisting what became the United States Colored Troops was Lincoln's sole goal is risible. I suggest considering your sources. Rogue 9 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary Help

I have been working slowly over the past couple of months on Draft:Attacks on the United States, which obviously has several entries from this war (like the Maryland campaign and the Gettysburg campaign). If anyone familiar with one or several of the attacks against the U.S. during the war, feel free to help perfect the summaries or help by adding additional sources/references.

Any assistance is always appreciated! You can find the American Civil War section in the draft here: Draft:Attacks on the United States#American Civil War (October 1859–May 1865). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The first January 23 edit and its reversion

Reverting it was absolutely right. The edited version said, "However, the states rights ideas of South Carolina-based John C. Calhoun, which went beyond slavery and also concerned other federal policies which were viewed as not being in the interest of the Southern states, would also play a significant role in the buildup to the war as well." But its source did not support that.

The source starts in a way that appears to support that: "A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. A key issue was states' rights." But then, when it elaborates, it shows, perhaps unwittingly, that slavery was the sole cause of secession.

It says, "The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished." Note "especially laws interfering with [slavery]," with no other laws named.

It then says, "Another factor was territorial expansion. The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone." In other words, "territorial expansion" means "territorial expansion of slavery."

The rest of it pretends that secession was not about slavery by saying that Lincoln's having won the election was "a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence," so "Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war." But what precedes this makes clear that the Southern states' feeling that they had lost all influence and were excluded from the political system can refer only to the fact that Lincoln, who opposed expanding slavery into the territories, had won the election. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems a little preemptive, as the user who made the edit hasn't even come to the talk page yet (and he might not at all). But regardless, pretty much this whole thing is WP:OR. If the source says something as explicitly as you cited it in your 2nd paragraph, then the fact that you think it later contradicts itself doesn't really matter I'm afraid. We just go off what the source says. However, the original edit was awkwardly worded, had some other sourcing issues, and definitely needed some work, so the revert(s) were proper. Just10A (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Just10A (talk) If an editor quotes a source that contradicts itself, it can be intellectually dishonest to quote only one of its contradictory statements. It can be tendentious, in this case possibly an attempt to push the Lost Cause myth. I say "can be" rather than "is" so as not to impute motivations to an editor. He or she might have merely been sloppy and failed to read past the first sentence of the source or failed to read the source carefully. It's also wrong to use a source of this nature when one could quote numerous leading Civil War scholars, all of whom have written books that would disagree with the first sentence of the source. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree with your last sentence. But that's an undue/false balance issue, not an "I personally think the source is contradictory" issue. Just10A (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)