Talk:American Civil War/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about American Civil War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

FAQs

I would like to raise two points about the Frequently Asked Questions section at the top of this talk page. First, rather than the endless rehashing of the slavery issue with lengthy explanations and arguments to every newcomer to the article, it would be useful to answer "See the FAQ." Second, I am interested in Q8:

Q8: Should McPherson be used extensively for references to individual battles? (Yes.)

A8: Yes, because he is concise, which is better for encyclopedia purposes. For extended explanations of battles, see one of many books devoted to them or Shelby Foote's 3000 page trilogy.

I do not think this is worthy of taking up space in a limited list of questions. I cannot recall anyone asking this question (recently at least). The most useful place for such extensive McPherson references is in articles that need to footnote background sections. Very, very few of the Wikipedia articles about the battles themselves make much use of his work, although he is often valuable for a lively quotation about the importance or aftermath of a battle. Similarly, Shelby Foote is rarely referenced in these articles except for providing color commentary. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This article gets over 10,000 hits a day, and I think many users will appreciate advice on what to read. McPherson and Foote are very good places for them to start, and are very widely available in libraries and (inexpensively) in book stores and online.Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was referring only to their use as sources for citations, not whether we recommend people read them. Both are quite readable, I agree. Whether they are the best source for details in battle articles (versus more focused and more richly cited books) is the issue at hand in this FAQ answer. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

McPherson Battle Cry is listed because the book a reliable source for the information in the preceding sentences. Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to the subject of developing consensus on the FAQ: I agree with Hal that this particular Q8 has lots to disrespect. While the question would be perfectly legitimate if several series of threads had been spawned because of the subject, I don't see that here. Further, the response sounds flippant, and disrespectful to the reader: "If you don't like it, go look it up yourself, or reference this ACW epic" BusterD (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be User:Jimmuldrow's edit. I'm wondering if Jim has an opinion. BusterD (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Q8 can be deleted. There were a few comments about this years ago. I will go ahead and remove it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It's only taken 3.5 years for me to find an edit of yours I take issue with. Thanks for the speedy resolution. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ is problematic, but the article needs work, too

(Forgive me for moving this discussion, but it deals with both the FAQ and the article and was out of place in the discussion about just the FAQ)

First of all, the FAQ suggests that slavery was the reason for the ACW, which it was not. Slavery was one of the reasons for secession. These are not interchangeable; in fact, the article does not examine the causes of the ACW as it purports to, it examines the causes of secession. Even if one can see the connection between slavery being one reason for the secession and the secession being the reason for the war, this is not at all encyclopedic. An encylopedic entry about the Civil War should work in the opposite fashion, focusing on the factors which contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War instead of the way slavery relates to the war. Yet the "cause of secession" section does the latter, focuses on slavery and how it relates to the war. Blanket statements in the article like "the issue of slavery probably would have let to conflict" are neither sourced, nor objective fact. Secondly, this section should examine the Union's reasons for not recognizing the secession.--188.102.229.179 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

the text is clear about the role of Ft Sumter as the immediate cause of the fighting. Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "probably" (as in "the issue of slavery probably would have let to conflict") does not even appear in the article. The issue of states rights is discussed early in the article --JimWae (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

this is the sentence I was referring to: The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict likely, if not inevitable....which is both subjective and unsourced. It reads like an attempt to justify why the following paragraphs focus exclusively on slavery's relation to the war instead of examining the causes of the war as it should, the way the article "origins of the American Civil War" does. In the referenced article (origins of the American Civil War), there is no attempt to try to convince the reader to overlook all issues other than slavery, contrary to the "causes of the secession" section of this here article. The focus should not be trying to prove that slavery/anti-slavery attitudes made "conflict likely", but rather, examining the factors which contributed to the outbreak of the war. "Causes of the secession" should be renamed "causes of the war", because that is the subject we are dealing with and this article is about the ACW, not the secession. This section should then discuss how Bleeding Kansas/John Brown/the rise of the Republican Party led to secession. It should then examine what happened as and after the first few states broke away - namely, that the South demanded the Union abandon its federal posts in Southern state territory. The article should discuss the fundamental change that the transformation from Buchanan to Lincoln was, that, regardless as to whether he believed challenging secession was legal, Lincoln was going to challenge it...whereas Buchanan, a doughboy, was not. Thus, the secession was not accepted by the Union, and when the Union failed to withdraw from federal sites in the South, the South attacked. That leads me to my next complaint about the article: hostilities technically began after federal forces were fired while trying to supply Fort Sumter...and this was before the attack on the fortification. It is POV, by the way, not to note that the engagements occured after last-minute negotiations between the South and Union failed to produce tangible results - that is, the Union turned over several federal posts in the South, but not Sumter. The causes of the war section should mention Sumpter specifically, why the South attacked...and why Lincoln retaliated to preserve the Union, demanding the raising of armies (without congressional consent).

Under the topic Slavery (see above), I have discussed that "threat of foreign intervention" is also inappropriate for the article.

Generally speaking, the tone of this article and its focus while presenting facts reflect a pro-Union bias visible to all but those who are indifferent enough to ignore it.--188.102.218.205 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Most good Civil War historians certainly describe slavery as the leading cause, including Potter, a Southern historian. Maybe the Threat of international intervention section should be renamed. Any suggestions?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ issue

Show me were John C. Calhoun says South Carolina's nullification was solely tariff of 1828 was solely related to slavery. Lincoln may have felt that slavery was the bigger issue? Great. Wonderful. Lincoln interest in the civil war do not void all or any southern interests in the war. Licoln's views at best show the unions motives in the war but for a war that the south started (as you will note in the article) wouldn't it be best to show their motives. How can neutrality be maintained when you choose a historian to side with? Labelling anyone as the best historian can't be considered neutral. You are siding with McPherson but he has opponents. Two organisations that uphold the the lost cause (scv and udc) he offers conspiracy theories to show their motives. Both sides can seem to be manipulating for their own personal motives. Perhaps we can remain neutral here and find the facts. We could take the lost cause for example and review it for facts. Any fact found can be used and any thing false or that can't be proved can be excluded. We could review John C Calhouns statement on how the tariff related slavery.

Further more the FAQ is utterly useless. The faq was written to cover the many questions that have been answered but very little source information is sited if any at all. You are giving them answers but noway to verify that you are telling the truth. I see no problems with an faq and I think that it can be very helpful but not without sources. The lack of sources makes the reader have to believe the author or go on a wild goose chase to verify it. Source need to be cited or it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Most references are in the article, although Lincoln's March 6, 1860 speech at New Haven and historians (James Ford Rhodes and others) are mentioned in the FAQ.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I should laugh or run. To use John Nevin's opinion to invalidate states rights as a cause to the civil war is preposterous. How come John Nevin's opinion isn't used on the wiki page about the tariff of 1828? He's used as a source on that wiki page but his opinion on the root of the nullification crisis being tied to slavery isn't mentioned. Actually strangely enough there is this large absents of any mention to slavery altogether. But why would it be? His opinion to things before his life time aren't historical relevant only the historical facts that he uncovered are. I really want to assume in good faith that his opinion wasn't put in the article for manipulative purposes but in good faith I can't say that. I'm scared to look to close at anything else because the more I look the less neutral this article becomes.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Further more your misrepresenting the sources you have offered with the faq. You don't have a source that says," The tariff issue was 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." Where is the source that says that? Where is the source that shows John C Calhoun said that? There isn't one. You have a quote from the author. A quote of the authors opinion. It's actually funny that you use the authors opinion instead of Calhoun's actual description of the tariff issues. What's the deal with that? Is Calhoun's description written in a way that only with the eye's of one of the best historians could a person come to such a conclusion? Oh wait. He's John Nevin. He's not on your list of best historians. What's the criteria for best historian? Do they give out gold stars. Hell the cornerstone speech is used to discredit to the idea the south fought for states rights. Did anyone care to actually read it? No we just went for and used Stampp's opinion? Good work. Surely none of the things in it that don't refer to slavery don't have anything to do with states rights. I guess that in making the point that states rights wasn't an issue in the civil war it was also not important to mention what Jefferson Davis said on 2-2-1860 "Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State." I mean though it's on the wiki page about states rights why should we mention what the president of the CSA has to say about states rights? The Vice presidency was a higher office any way wasn't it? And really some of the issues that are in the cornerstone speech not related to slavery are reminiscent to what Jefferson Davis said in the quote I put above so if we put that in the article then the cornerstone speech will seem like it was talking in some parts about state rights and if that happens what Stephens said after the war might not be in such striking contrast as what he said before the war. Let's compare what Davis said there to what Stephens said such as his state of Georgia building a railway to South Carolina and paying for it themselves. They understood South Carolina didn't need the rail. They new the rail was primarily their need so they paid for it. Where as the United states Government would take money from the common fund to complete such a service for a member state while not doing it for another.Such a rail would.

Wait stop. I'm sorry if I continue I might bring up facts that might effect the neutrality of this article. It might actually become neutral. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually CAREFULLY read the article you are criticizing? If you had, then you would realize that Calhoun actually said the following:

"I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness.

You can go on all you want about historians that you don't agree with, but the bottom line is that Wikipedia is based on reliable, secondary sources. You, of course, are more than welcome to introduce any such sources that you think should be included in the article. Your personal take on the significance of a quote or two is of little relevance to the editing of this article. From the Wikipedia policy of No original research

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Otherwise, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the rules on neutrality Tom?

Further more The statement above does not conflict with his views on states rights. Have you read the constitution?

Section 2 of Article I provides in part: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." I wander what's that's talking about?

What about section two clause 3? See there's talk in this article about non slave states rights to not enforce the fugitive slave clause. How in the hell is it possible they can have that right? They were arguing for rights they didn't have. Rights they couldn't have. They ratified the the constitution. They agreed to it. Not enforcing the fugitive slave cause and writing any laws to not enforce it would have been unconstitutional.

Why can't.. You know what nevermind.. At this point I don't know if this article can be made unbiased. You got your best historians and holy hell ones even from the south... Oh by the way Tom I did no original research. Most of that information besides my opinion where from various items used as sources already on wikipedia. This article should be checked for neutrality. Neutrality would mean that other views would be listed if other historians had any other views on the civil war. But that would require neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialjoepsycho (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor POV issues

Things like "Both sides raised armies as the Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade", "In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, and dissuaded the British from intervening", "Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won battles in the east, but in 1863 his northward advance was turned back after the Battle of Gettysburg and, in the west, the Union gained control of the Mississippi River at the Battle of Vicksburg, thereby splitting the Confederacy" and "and brought changes that helped make the country a united superpower" put too much emphasis on Lee as well as portray the north as both the agressor who is out to conquer the south and the victim who is out to defend human rights. While I am very much glad that the north did win, I would expect that Good Articles would have gotten rid of this kind of wording. Any suggestions as to how to fix this?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

the statements quoted all seem exactly accurate and appropriate. Lee's role gets a half sentence--hardly "too much emphasis." The aggressor/victim business is not in the article. Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with these italicized sentences. They don't seem to make me think the north is the aggressor from my reading them. They seem to be just statements of facts. Unless you can show that any of these are factually inaccurate I don't see any reason for removing them.Chhe (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I too do not see any POV language in there. If it said the intent of the EP was to dissuade the British from entering, that would be different. Someone might read it that way as the dynamics are pretty ambiguous, but such a reading is not supported by the text --JimWae (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the North was not the aggressor in starting the war, and to say Lee won some battles but not all is true.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I see that consensus has formed to show that they are indeed not POV but bad judgement on my part. Thanks for the comments anyway.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Q8. Did the civil war affect slaves?

Yes it did by making them free and giving them basic rigghts such as the right to vote, and the right to be free. It also socialised them by making them get jobs and monay. So the civil war realy affected slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeak (talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Results of the war

Our article only mentions that it abolished slavery, however, other sources such as history.com also say:

The war expanded the authority of the federal government, with the executive branch in particular exercising broader jurisdiction and powers than at any previous time in the nation’s history. The U.S. Congress, meanwhile, enacted much of the legislation to which the South had objected so strenuously before the war, including a homestead act, liberal appropriations for internal improvements, and the highest tariff duties in American history to that date. Economically, the war encouraged the mechanization of production and the accumulation of capital in the North. The needs of the armies in the field resulted in the mass production of processed foods, ready-made clothing, and shoes, and after the war, industry converted such production to civilian use. By 1865 the U.S. was on its way to becoming an industrial power.

I believe our article should mention this. -- penubag (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It does mention the Homestead Act, Land Grant colleges, a tariff, and the fact that the US became a superpower as a result.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.--Germangirl22x (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Note a discussion about deleting an article related to U.S. history, including a section on the Civil War period. Additional comments or suggestions could be helpful. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe this article to the American Civil War should be deleted. It's author obviously has a bigoted agenda against people of the South. It is an inaccurate article and should not allowed to pervert the idea that it is informative.

Wikimedia map

I found this map at wikimedia commons helpful. Not sure where to add it yet--JimWae (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

US Military Installation, Slavery, NPOV violations

"Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a US military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina."

Why is it said that this was a "US military installation"? From the Southern point of view, it was a fort that was part of South Carolina after the secession, holding federal troops because the Union refused to abandon it. The South viewed the secession as legal, the Union did not...if the secession was legal, then all property leased to the federal government that belonged states was again the property of the states. This article therefore is assuming that secession was not legal and is a violation of NPOV. Just because you have scholars from the South cited in the article, does not mean you have taken into consideration the Southern point of view.

The "threat of foreign intervention" section has been changed to "Blocking international intervention", which is pretty much reveals the same thing - the North is our narrator. And if not the north, people who have taken up the North's opinion. From start to finish, this article is a gross violation of NPOV. It assumes that the cause of military action and bloodshed was the slavery issue and it was not. Slavery was (one) cause of the secession - go ahead, say it was THE cause of secession, it doesn't matter. Why? Because it was the secession which led to the standoff over Sumter, which led to Lincoln's decision to attack the South after the South had attacked federal property..--Germangirl22x (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Attempts at foreign intervention" would be a better title for that sub-article? Just a suggestion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any violation of NPOV in the current section title. The South wanted intervention, the North actively opposed it, and the Europeans rejected it. The Union succeeded and the CSA failed -- the section title most accurately captures the significance of the diplomatic events. If the South had been successful, then a title such as "CSA achieves European involvement" would be appropriate. The title is EVENT DRIVEN rather than POV DRIVEN.

As far as Fort Sumter, there certainly were differences of opinion. It was the CSA, however, that chose to wage war over it -- the USA, for the time being, was prepared to simply preserve the status quo and see what future events unfolded (i.e. Southern unionists making their opinions felt, the results of the scheduled border states convention). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

POV sticker

I would like to nominate this article for a POV sticker, because it is locked, the complaints on this page are ignored and there is no other way to address its problems or even tag this article. I am doing this for the reasons I've mentioned above, as well as this article's concentration on the Causes of the Secession rather than the Causes of the War - namely, what turned a dispute/secession into a war. Slavery was important because of its relationship to the secession; the secession was important because it caused the duel over what should be done about Sumter. However, slavery didnt cause the dispute about Sumter; nor did slavery cause the South to attack Sumter. The South attacked Sumter because the South believed Lincoln was going to keep reinforcing the fort. The South believed Sumter was South Carolina's property. Lincoln decided to raise an army and go to war to preserve the Union after the South attacked what he held to be federal property, as well as federal troops. The focus of this article is Slavery's relation to first the secession, then the war and then, the outcome of the war. The article needs to focus on the war itself and the consequences of the war, which extended far beyond slavery.--Germangirl22x (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

all these issues are covered in the article. Thanks for your interest. Rjensen (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states (boldface added):

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

All of the information in the article is supported by reliable sources. The article violates NPOV only if there are reliable sources inadequately represented in the article. So, while it is generous of you to share your OPINION as to the direction the article should take, what is missing from your argument is any evidence whatsoever that there are RELIABLE SOURCES that share your view. To make your case, we need much less of what YOU THINK and much, much more of what RELIABLE SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY.

Before resorting to tags, please note what Wikipedia:NPOV dispute says:

"Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

So exactly what specific reliable sources (i.e. book or journal article title, author, page numbers) have not been considered in this article? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In Laymans terms this article is the way it is and you don't have to like it but they won't allow it to be changed no matter how compelling your argument is.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is problematic that Wikipedia wants to set of standard of academic rigor requiring meticulous citing from reputable sources (e.g., peer-reviewed academic journals) instead of a free-for-all of anybody's personal opinion as truth. I for one, would rather prefer that history and truth be the stuff of what I personally came up with. For example, I'm pretty pissed off that I can't allow alternative views for how gravity works since gravity is just a theory.Abadgaem (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One cause of Civil War?

Slavery?

There were many causes of the American Civil War. This is not a very good article or tells the whole story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgvalenti (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

They aren't trying to tell a whole story. They are attempting to erase history.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is atrocious the fact that it is locked tells us that it is not a legitimate article for the author/s are afraid that actual history may be updated here. This is the reason Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone reading this article would feel that the sole cause,reason, and result of the civil war is slavery. Slavery was the economic engine of the South along with the rest of the world. Lincoln knew that in order to crush the South he would have to dismantle the economy, thus freeing the slaves. This begs to question then what was the start of the civil war? Too bad the writer of the article isn't interested in facts.

I have to say I'm glad this FAQ was made

Any doubts about the bias nature of this article are completely wiped away because of it. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Q4: Should the article refer to Confederate states as slave states?

"As to whether issues of right and wrong were part of the controversy, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say about this:

"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"

What does that have to do with the question? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Should these historians be used or are they not the best Historians?

John Shipley Tilley or Lyon Gardiner Tyler. I could search and would likely find numerous others but before I even waste that time I just wanted to ask If these two guys were the best or the worst historians.

http://www.scv.org/pdf/confederatecatechism.pdf for little writing by Tyler

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=John%20Shipley%20Tilley for some of the works of Tilley.

Now please do be neutral. Are they the best or worst historians?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

worst. Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

seems that first link is broken. http://www.scv.org/history.php (read the confederate catechism)

Lol worst? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

worst. see Monroe's 2003 analysis of Tyler:

"Tyler's fact-finding consisted of cobbling together every negative Lincoln fragment, anecdote, tale, and story he unearthed, without any sense of balance or critical weighing of veracity. He may have thought he was a truth-seeker, but he was really a polemicist. Tyler was not interested in a truer and therefore stronger and more impressive version of Lincoln's life. He sought only to destroy, to vilify, to tear down, and in this endeavor his zealotry damaged his own reputation." Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So essentially if I find an article that talks ill of Dan Monroe does that make Tyler a good historian again? And you made no mention of Tilley.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

right: for you to rehabilitate Tyler you will first need to find a long attack on Monroe in a scholarly journal. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I will find a worthwhile historian who would touch the subject of Monroe in a scholarly journal.He defends some of Lincoln's attitude with speculation. "Tyler never considered, as have recent scholars, that Lincoln used humor as a safety valve, as a way to ease the intolerable stress of [End Page 34] occupying the presidency during bloody civil war, or that humor was the inevitable remedy for melancholia." It's no shock that he is defending his statesman but instead of trying to personally attack Tyler he could perhaps attack Tyler's work and refute every piece of it with facts. his attacks are meant to simply keep anyone from reading his works. Instead of trying to prove that Tyler is bias (which anyone who has read anything by Tyler will realize) he could disprove everything possible in Tyler's works. Instead he's another Lazy historian whose strongest tool is fallacy.

"Tyler is biased. Everything Tyler wrote must be wrong."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC) i like the civil war in bed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.240.188 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Civil war causes.

1. The Tariff. 2. Slavery 3. State rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.55.126 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In this day and time nothing more than slavery is important to mention. History... truth... We don't have time for it. Peoples feelings might get hurt. You don't want to hurt peoples feelings do you? No! Don't mention anything but slavery.70.15.191.119 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The civilwar

What is the civil war? The civil war is a war between fractions which is in the same country.

How were the people affected by the civil war? They humans were affected when the food or cargo was on the boat and it couldn't make it through.

How long did it last? It lasted for 4 years.

What was the result of the civil war? The end result of the civil war was that it was afterwards written into the law that no state could leave behind there union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.75.93 (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavery

Is it just me or doe's this article deal too much with slavery? It is a Civil War article not a slavery one. Moreover, It seems like it is written by someone who isn't even an American, as most Americans know slavery was only one of the many issues and not necessarily the most important. Obviously I know that slavery is wrong on many levels, but the editors of the article made it seems like the Civil War was some Morally fought war to end slavery and make all men equal, which is just insane. DWood 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

If "most Americans know slavery was only one of the many issues and not necessarily the most important" then "most Americans" are tragically misinformed. Perhaps this and other Wikipedia articles can help educate them. (And, although anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, my guess is that most edits to this and other Civil War articles are made by Americans. Most foreigners probably don't care enough about the nitty-gritty of our history to really get into editing articles like this, beyond maybe correcting obvious spelling mistakes.)

Beginning in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, continuing with the Compromise of 1850, then the Kansas-Nebraska Act and "Bleeding Kansas", there were a whole series of sectional debates, all over slavery issues (mostly regarding the application of the Fugitive slave laws in free states and the question of the expansion of slavery into new areas in the West). With the election of Lincoln, a number of slave states seceded; several of them published "declarations of causes" with very clear language indicating that the primary issue they were seceding over was slavery, which is also backed up by various other Southern declarations and statements, newspaper editorials, and political speeches.

The next paragraph is all wrong; the Union states wanted the Southern states to pay more taxes, as the South was the largest regional producer of indigo, cotton, tobacco, and other goods. The Southern states didn't take to kindly of the tax talk, and seceded, forming the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclaimation, while being one of the greatest acts of humanity in our history, was more about strategic and political gain; the freed slaves would bolster the ranks of the Union Army, providing the numbers needed to best the southern states. However, despite the military advantage the south had, and the sheer numbers of the North, both sides had seen horrid amounts of heartbreak and bloodshed; It had to end. The two sides were at a stalemate. Lee handed over his division, and the Confederacy, out of decency and humanity. Let it also be known; Lee freed his own slaves at the start of the war, helping them head north, and out of harms way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.208.174 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the war being a war fought to "end slavery" and "make all men equal" is more complex. Everyone knew Lincoln and the Republican Party were opposed to slavery, which is why the Deep South seceded to begin with. Nonetheless, Lincoln was at great pains to emphasize that he was not fighting a war to end slavery, but to preserve the Union. However, secession and the formation of the Confederacy were clearly all about defending slavery, and by 1863 the logic of preserving the Union by making a direct attack on the institution--slavery--which had brought about a war which threatened the Union was clear. And it's not some kind of coincidence that once the war was finally over, slavery was abolished throughout the Union. 68.219.44.14 (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your bending of civil war issues to somehow involve slavery a huge stretch. You can bend the facts and truth to involve anything. It is pretty offensive and downright wrong on some of this misinformation you just said. Take a look at the broader aspect of the war. This article seems to state that the North were moral crusaders and were only in the war for good nobles reasons. I would say it was mostly economic. They freed the slaves just for spite. DWood 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, only 10- 15 percent of Southerners even had slaves, so it would seem foolish to concede their ambition in joining the war as a slave issue and not more of a state right's issue. DWood 00:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

The "North" did not have ending slavery as a goal when the war started. The South's main goal in attempting secession was preserving slavery. Other factors (such as states rights) had relevance, but they were linked to preserving slavery. The North's first goals were to retake the seized forts, put down the rebellion, and preserve the Constitution and the Union. Later, freeing the slaves and making slavery illegal became goals of the Union. Slavery was the main cause of declarations of secession, & the attempted secessions were the main cause of the war.--JimWae (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may add, I my belife is that the civil war started as a congressanal dispute and mushroomed, and the origanal dispute was was the missouri compermise which drew the line to determan the domain of slavery and freedom, the problom was that there was a lot more land ear marked free than slave and so the slave states were worried that all the land coming in free would tip the balence of power in the favor of the free states, which it would have.--In adition the emanceapation proclamation was a tool used to hirt the south's economy because if the slave runaway north means freedom then the south looses its primary source of labor so less labor less farming less food and cotton less goods throght the blockade less food for the army —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.72.72 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not get what you mean by preserving the constitution... Lincoln destroyed the constitution. He declared a suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland. Also, if they were following the constitution then the state would have been allowed to secede, as they were originally allowed to do if they so chose to. DWood 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

There has never been any article of the Constitution that grants any state the right to secede. Article 4, section 4 requires the federal gov't to guarantee a republican form of gov't within each state (tho it has been contested whether this applied). Viewing the Constitution as a contract between states, contracts cannot be legally rescinded without the expressed agreement of other parties. (The Articles of Confederation, as an example, were even explicitly perpetual -- and explicitly required the assent of EVERY state to end them.) Southern forces started seizing federal properties and firing on federal forces. If Cuba fired on Guantanamo and seized it, should the US just say "OK, you can have it"? (Guantanamo is leased from Cuba, so there is not even a dispute about who the rightful owner is.) Breakups of countries do happen, such as with Czechoslovakia, peacefully, after long negotiations. Lincoln took an oath "to preserve, protect & defend the Constitution", and people who viewed the Constitution as a binding contract expected him to take steps to quell the rebellion. But this is taking us away from your original query about the role of slavery. --JimWae (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet you said nothing about how lincoln tore the constitution up, as with suspending habeas corpus. Hell, he famously said the constitution is not a death pack. That alone suggest his contempt for it. He let West Virginia secede illegal and unconstitutionally. SO again, I do not see you point. I also find you constitution understanding flawed. The constitution does's not have to give the state right's to secede. Read amendment 10. It states that if its not listed on the constitution then is it up to the states to decide. Therefore, The state can decide if they want to remain in the union. DWood 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

Only a small minority of constitutional experts would agree with your interpretation of Amendment X. Unilaterally voiding a contract is not generally considered a "power" under that contract. SCOTUS has ruled no state has any "right" to secede unilaterally. --JimWae (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously they would.. they want the power. I am a strict constitutionalist thought like most of the people who actually created the constitution. Also the supreme court did that ruling after the civil war, so it is kind of moot. DWood 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

You stated the states were "originally allowed to do [secede] if they so chose to". That is not a statement of fact. --JimWae (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution specifically allows for suspending habeas corpus in times of rebellion. The question of whether secession was a states' right is moot given that the Confederates began the war in the first place by attacking Ft. Sumter and illegally annexed parts of Kentucky and Alabama that wanted to remain in the Union. -- LightSpectra (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Many things either side did in the Civil War was illegal. As for Ft. Sumter, it was apart of South Carolina and the southern troops gave them the option to surrender it. Sense the did not, anyone could make an argument that the north started the war, as that can been seen as a declaration of war. Honestly, history is written by the winners, but I would think it impossible to put all the blame on the Confederacy, just like how all the blame for WWI went to Germany. DWood 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some in Quebec who want to secede from Canada. They want to take all the lands from Canada that were added to their province, and they want to take all the federal lands within the province as well without the consent of the rest of Canada. The South also claimed all lands within their borders, but that does not automatically make it theirs. Nobody disputes that Guantanamo actually does belong to Cuba, but were the Cubans to bombard it, what would you think if the US just surrendered it? --JimWae (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ft. Sumter didn't belong to South Carolina, it belonged to the U.S. government. Just because secessionists arbitrarily claimed that such and such now belonged to them doesn't mean it did. They illegally attacked federal property. Even before they did this, they arrested soldiers who pledged allegiance to the U.S. and attacked civilian ships. Trying in any way to pin the war on the North is absolutely insane. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Ft. Sumter belonged to the U.S. government because South Carolina allowed it to, as long as South Carolina was part of the Union. The powers of the federal government were given to it by the States - and so it governed ONLY by state consent and used resources of the state ONLY with state consent. But whatever, your own views - which are the only thing that is "absolutely insane" - color the article, and I have better things to do than argue and get into a revert war with spin doctors who protect a site that doesn't have a legitimate reputation, anyway. For the record, the issue of whether state secession is legal or not was later resolved in the White case. --188.102.251.141 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. The Fort was not under control of the Federal Government only so long as they had "the States' consent." I suggest you read the actual document where South Carolina seceded the island of Fort Sumter to the United States government, which reads:

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory.

Furthermore it states:

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

In other words, even if they did have a valid claim, they legally signed it away. They agreed that they could never ask for it and the government would be obliged to give it back.

It's "spin doctoring" to say that people who violently rebel against a government logically shouldn't have their rights protected by said government? Whether or not secession was legal is irrelevant because the Confederates attacked the U.S. government and U.S. civilians. So you say that my views are "absolutely insane" -- if that's the case, then refuting my position should be rather easy. Please do so and set me straight. -- LightSpectra (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it spin doctoring? Well, at the very least, it is highly opinionated. Please visit the article on the White case if you wish to see the argument over the legality of secession. As for "absolutely insane", I was merely borrowing your terminology. However, after reading your last post, yes, since you asked, IMHO I do feel your views of the government's powers are "absolutely insane". The government does not give citizens rights, citizens HAVE rights...and one of those rights is the right to elect a representative government. The government only exists WITH THE CONSENT of the governed - it has no other purpose than to protect the property of the people.

Spin doctoring: promoting the idea that the secession was about slavery more than it was about protecting state rights and preserving representative government so as to prevent unbalanced taxation, unapproved legislation and government intervention in the private sector to limit the spread of slavery. It has all been said before - and ignored. I understand everyone has a point of view. However, it is hard to assume good faith when I read an article like this, particularly when one finds "language from the sub-conscious" which gives away the position of whoever wrote this article. I turn your attention now to the section: "threat of foreign intervention" -- Wait...was this "foreign intervention" a threat to the South? No, only to the Union, since foreign intervention would have meant a European power becoming more than just a trading partner of the South and perhaps entering the war. But actually, I'd rather the article remain colored by obvious subjective language, because at least it helps us recognize whose opinion of the war it is that we are reading. So do feel free to ignore my comment. --188.102.251.141 (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not dispute the existence of natural rights. Please notice that I specifically said "have their rights protected" as opposed to "be given rights." Given that the citizens of the Union had no problem with the U.S. government, I think it's rather fair that they protect their democratically-run country from violent rebels attacking or harassing their citizens.

It's been said before, and it's been answered -- it's not correct, and thus has not been incorporated into the article. The CSA acknowledged less states' rights than the Union government did; for instance, the President of the Confederate States of America was granted a line-item veto and a six-year elected term. The only right they cared about was the right to own black people. It wasn't about tariffs because they did not begin a civil war every time the Federalist Party or Whig Party controlled the government, and it wasn't about encroaching federal authority on account of the fact that Lincoln hadn't even become president yet when the secession happened. The slave states withdrew from the Union because they feared that their newly-elected abolitionist president would interfere with the institution of slavery. It's as simple as that; the Vice President of the CSA has admitted as much. Now, as to your comment about the diction of the section "threat of foreign intervention" -- you're seeing bias because you want to see bias. One could just as easily interpret this section as meaning that Britain and France were threatening to intervene, not that their intervention would be a threat to the Union. -- LightSpectra (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not as simple as that...I sure hope you don't say this stuff in public as people will probably think you are slow...

Primary education teaches all American school children that the Civil War was about way more than slavery. Adults only tell very little children it was about slavery because they are too young to fully understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

LightSectra, please do not break up my entries as you have done, it makes the thread hard to follow.

No, it has not been answered, and you have not answered it, either. You have argued that it couldn't have been about state rights because the President of the Confederacy served a 6 year term and enjoyed powers which were similar to those of the President of the United States; not only does this one-punch attack ignore the rights relegated to states, but it also overlooks the fact that, even if the seceeding states had had the same limited powers in the Confederacy that they had had within the United States, the South was in control of its destiny. State rights offered this, as had a Southern-dominated federal government. But a fed. government stacked with representatives who neither came from, understood, supported or worked for Southern interests, did not. Independant, the South was free to decide what would be done in the South in terms of tariffs, federal taxation, state power, extension into the private sphere. This is particularly important when one considers the changing face of America due to immigration, the South's unique Baptist culture, lifestyle, upbringing, social climate, economic structure, Old English heritage and the pressures from Abolitionists up north. Nobody wants to be ruled by someone considered to be representative of someone else's interests...taxation/funding unpopular imperial expenditures/underrepresentation were enough for the colonists to rebel against Britain. Today, the thought of "democratic deficient" EU overlordship is enough to make many Europeans cringe. And no, there is no red button issue like the government elites regulating an institution which had become a staple part of the Southern economy.

Ok, so let's pretend "threat" wasn't implied and "threatening" was; who were they threatening, then? One could easily interpret it as you have, but the point is nobody writes an article and uses such terminology if they have an interest in neutrality. It is a dead giveaway...just like stating outright that the secession was about slavery, rather than about sovereignty (particularly because of the issue of slavery). Stop trying to make the issue as simple as you want it to be. --188.102.229.179 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you generalized my first point, thus removing its meaning. The president of the Confederacy not only "enjoyed powers which were similar to those of the President of the United States," but was given more, that is a line item veto which is an incredible amount of authority. So powerful in fact that the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional when Congress attempted to give it to Bill Clinton. Nevertheless, your point seems to be that by seceding, "the South was in control of its destiny." Yeah, and they used that power in order to attack the Union government's property and arrest its citizens. Fairly simple, really. They caused a war, they lost it. You can yonder on about how the secession was for national sovereignty or what have you but the fact is that the only reason southerners cared about this was so that nobody would interfere with their right to own black people. There were other issues but they are minuscule compared to this for the reasons listed in my previous response. You can see this in the social trends of the seceding states: the ones whose economies were mostly firmly connected to slavery seceded first and with the most ferocity, like South Carolina, and the ones whose economies had little stake in slavery seceded last and reluctantly, like Kentucky. But while we're on this issue, do you really think the Confederacy was fighting for national sovereignty when they violently repressed peoples in Kentucky and Alabama that wanted to remain in the Union? Heck, if they're fighting for their own destiny, it seems implausible that they'd oppress their own peoples like that. -- LightSpectra (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The slave-owners supported states-rights only when it suited them. For example, they opposed any right of Northern states to ignore the Runaway slave laws. Sure, "states-rights" was part of the rhetoric of the time, but it would be misleading (& unencyclopedic & POV) to say it was a cause of either the attempted secessions or the war. Listing sectionalism as a cause of secession attempts would be far less misleading, and more accurately express what was happening than "states rights" would. Still, trying to preserve slavery was the main reason for the secession attempts, as the declarations of secession & the speeches of the time overwhelmingly show.--JimWae (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

JimWae, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. The War was about the collection of tariffs imposed by the North, which were mainly paid by the South. Some tariffs reached well over 40 percent, sometimes more than that. They disproportionally hurt the South and benefited the North, which is why the South decided to stop paying them. In his very first speech as President, Lincoln said that he'd invade the South if they didn't collect the tariffs. And so he did.

And about the Constitution and the right to Secession. The Constitution is not a contract between the states, which bind them to the union. It is a contract between the states and the federal government. The union was supposed to be voluntary. No state would have entered it, had they thought it was binding for all eternity no matter what. This whole article on the War is ridden with fallacies, omissions and out right lies. I guess you're one of the main authors.Misessus (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lightspectra, I ignored it because it was a moot point. The South was interested in representative government one way or another and, as long as representatives who understood the South and fought for Southern interests were in Washington, the South was treated favorably, taxed "fairly" and was happy. Most importantly, the South found itself able to protect its institutions, as well as safeguard the means by which it generated wealth. "State rights" were just one approach wherewith the South attempted to maintain that same power and thus, remain in control of its own destiny. Other examples of securing self-representation: the 3/5 compromise, attempting to expand its bloc power westward and later, pressuring states into joining the Confederacy so the South would become larger/more powerful. Securing slavery meant securing power...securing attitudes towards slavery were just as important. It all boils down to power; why else do wars break out?--188.102.218.205 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread has devolved into a discussion about the subject itself, not about citation or how to move the page forward. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I've heard some good points here but one of the big things is differences of opinion. The civil war was to preserve or remove slavery.why don't we drop the opinion part of it as much as possible and build off fact as much as possible. First and for most there is the fact that a few states on the union sides of the war were slave states. Slavery ended after the civil war in those states. States rights were an issue. It's an issue held way before the civil war and one held today. This may not be a view that is well liked because one of the primary rights states wanted upheld was their right to slavery but today in some circles the states rights to Legalize medical marijuana is controversial. States legally have the right to allow for medical marijuana while at the same time the federal government have the right to ban it even for medical use. During the times civil war slavery was legal though the federal government ability to decide over the states themselves whether slavery would be legal there. The Missouri compromise and a few others were the deciding factors of whether a state was slave or free when admitted into the union. A power grab like that would cause a shake up in todays time. If it is legal the federal government shouldn't be able to pick and choose where it should or shouldn't be allowed. For example Alcohol is legal. The federal government shouldn't be able to say alcohol is now illegal in Alabama but it is legal everywhere else. 10th amendment anyone? furthermore 4 states succession can be attributed to other things than slavery. Four states seceded only after Lincoln called on the states to send troops. That could have been a reason also tied to states rights. There were alot of issues and not just very few. This article reads like the civil war was solely about slavery.70.15.191.119 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is too focused on slavery being the cause of the war. I find it extraordinarily uninformative anyone seeking actual cause of the war should look elsewhere.

The Lincolnarchives Digital Project

The Lincolnarchives Digital Project, located at www.lincolnarchives.us is the first digital project to provide access to all of the federal records created during the Lincoln administration, which are housed in the National Archives and Records Administration. Once completed, this online resources will provide access to the millions of Civil War records from the comfort of your desktop. There are over 8000 documents currently online, as well as newspapers, maps, photographs, political cartoons, and podcasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.94.99 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole article should be deleted

First of all, the so called Civil War was no civil war at all. I doesn't meet the criteria. A civil war is a conflict in which two or several factions are trying to gain control over the central government. The South had no interest in gaining control over Washington and rule the North, they just wanted out. It was no more a civil war than the American Revolutionary War.

Second of all, the main cause of the war was the Tariff. The slavery issue didn't come actually come into play before Gettysburg, when Lincoln used the emancipation card to prevent European powers to enter the war on the South's side. Lincoln himself was a white supremacist and stated several times that slavery was not an issue for him, preventing secession and collecting tariffs was his aim.

The States' rights principle pre dates even the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, even though these documents codified them, so to speak. It has nothing to do with slavery, it is a means to check the power of the federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Those old guys sure said a lot of hysterical things about slavery, by coincidence or chance.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

need help

what is sectionalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.79.225 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See [1]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

what did the people think in 1860-61--all they talked about was the slavery issue. There were many attempts to forge a compromise and they all had to do with slavery--none with issues like the tariff. Nobody thought a compromise on tariffs (which was possible) would avert a war. Actaully, the tariff annoyed the NORTH because the South had imposed low tariffs and the Northeast (esp Pennsylvania) did not like that. Did Pennsylvania secede? No. Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The south in fact didn't like it and they did try to secede. Great fallacy though.70.15.191.119 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Politically correct revisionist POV recap

207.237.230.38 (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) [2]"There is a blatant over-emphasis in this article on the importance of slavery in the American "civil" war, stereotypical of those taught history with a bent for statism and oppression..."

Trentc (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)) [3]"Seems this article is making the sole assumption that slavery was the whole cause of the war and secession".

98.232.243.146 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2008 [4]"I didn't suggest adding anything to the article. What I suggested was that the "Causes" section of the Contents shouldn't list only slavery."
Contents [hide]

1 Causes of the war

1.1 Slavery

2 Secession begins

172.162.44.57 [5] "You cannot pawn off someone's views as authentic and unchallengeable when those views have been distorted by the article in the first place. Slavery was not the cause of the Southern secession!"

Sentinel1701 21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) [6]"Having slavery listed as the the major cause, and implying it was the sole reason for secession is both a one-sided and extremely misleading statement."

74.129.172.121 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC) [7]"This article seems to claim that the reason for the Civil War was slavery.The reason was control of cotton!! Very disappointed in Wikipedia's article in misinforming the public!! "

Wikiguy1020 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [8]"Does anyone else feel that this article relates to closely to slavery being the only cause to the civil war, and the south opting to leave the union? There were many other financial, and sociological reason for the war..."

Trentc 01:22, 25 February 2009 [9]"I agree others should be included rather than just slavery. If slavery was the only real reason, then the Corwin Amendment, which President Lincoln fully supported, should have appeased the South enough."

Matteo 10:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) [10]"So, I think the article is severely biased and largely false, pushing the illogical narrative approved by the victor of the war. this article appears to directly break the Neutral Point of View requirement when discussing the causes of secession."

Wpeditor55555 19:13, 13 June 2009 [11]"Non-slavery related causes of secession do exist."

Sentinel1701 00:08, 6 January 2010 [12]"At the very least said fear should be mentioned as one of the major causes.While I agree economic reasons other than slavery were involved..."

Repiceman89 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [13]"Is it just me or doe's this article deal too much with slavery? It is a Civil War article not a slavery one."

188.102.229.179 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC) [14]"the FAQ suggests that slavery was the reason for the ACW, which it was not. Slavery was one of the reasons for secession."

95.181.12.52 15:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC) [15]I'm no expert in history, but it struck me that: 1) Slavery is covered too much, as if it was the primary cause for war, which it weren't...

Germangirl22x 12:59, 23 February 2010 [16]"The focus of this article is Slavery's relation to first the secession, then the war and then, the outcome of the war. The article needs to focus on the war itself and the consequences of the war, which extended far beyond slavery."

Sgvalenti 16:42, 23 February 2010 [17] "Slavery? There were many causes of the American Civil War. This is not a very good article or tells the whole story"

Serialjoepsycho 10:06, 28 February 2010 [18]"Any doubts about the bias nature of this article are completely wiped away because the FAQ was made."

65.80.55.126 21:18, 28 March 2010 [19]"1. The Tariff. 2. Slavery 3. State rights"

Duchamps_comb MFA 03:40, 10 May 2010[20]"It is just down right shameful and a disrespectful to all those who gave their lives (on both sides) to simply give an 8th grade hyper-simplified answer, s-l-a-v-e-r-y."--Ducha mps_comb MFA 04:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be, hence why this article is more than a single word long. -- LightSpectra (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to feel you must answer every single statement above that is just rampant Narcissistic personality disorder. The above is to simply illustrate that MANY editors feel there is a slavery slant/bias to the page. Apparently it has had some problems for some time, with a few editors that have attached ownership. I have read sever times the battle cry "give us reliable source". I don't think RS is the answer rather a major revision adding subsections. As user 98.232.243.146 has mentioned over two years ago. Some of the possible sub heading could be: Slavery, Nullification Crisis, attack on Fort Sumter, States Rights, sectionalism, Tariffs, Etc... I think this could be a solution that many people could get behind, and improving the article greatly.

I do take issue with things like using, "Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions to defend slavery," That is a total POV. As well the complete glazing over of state's rights, tariffs, and the attack on Fort Sumter (you will not find more than a single sentence given to each topic). Even tariffs are editorialized with "even the tariff issue was related to slavery"--Ducha mps_comb MFA 07:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't like the responses given to your query? Just delete them and then insult the person giving them: that's definitive proof that you're making a solid argument. (Check the history of this talk page to see what I'm talking about.) -- LightSpectra (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point. None of these editors you cite have provided even a single reliable source to back up their claims. You say "I don't think RS is the answer". That's another nice opinion, but it flies in the face of one of the keystones of wikipedia. Personal attacks on other editors' motives is not a substitute for providing REliable Sourcing for your claims.

You object to the phrase in the article "even the tariff issue was related to slavery". The problem is that this phrase is totally supported by the three footnotes associated with it. This is what those notes say:

(23) Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, p. 297; Willentz p. 388 – On March 13, 1833, Rhett said, "A people, owning slaves, are mad, or worse than mad, who do not hold their destinies in their own hands... Every stride of this Government, over your rights, brings it nearer and nearer to your peculiar policy. ... The whole world are in arms against your institutions … Let Gentlemen not be deceived. It is not the Tariff – not Internal Improvement – nor yet the Force bill, which constitutes the great evil against which we are contending... These are but the forms in which the despotic nature of the government is evinced – but it is the despotism which constitutes the evil: and until this Government is made a limited Government... there is no liberty – no security for the South."

(24) As early as 1830, in the midst of the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun identified the right to own slaves as the chief southern minority right being threatened: "I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness." – Ellis, Richard E. The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987), p. 193; Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816–1836. (1965), p. 257; Ellis p. 193. Ellis further notes that "Calhoun and the nullifiers were not the first southerners to link slavery with states’ rights. At various points in their careers, John Taylor, John Randolph, and Nathaniel Macon had warned that giving too much power to the federal government, especially on such an open-ended issue as internal improvement, could ultimately provide it with the power to emancipate slaves against their owners’ wishes."

(25) John Niven, John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union, p. 197 – The author said the following about Calhoun's description of the tariff issue: "Finally, the root of the nullification crisis was exposed. What had begun as a reaction to a depression in the cotton states, a slump that had been particularly severe in South Carolina, had rapidly resolved itself into an all-encompassing fear on the part of a majority of the planter elite class that the growing industrialization of the North, expressing itself politically through the majority will, would eventually demand emancipation, heedless of the social consequences."

So exactly why is your opinon, unsupported by ANY reliable sources, more significant than the opinions expressed by FIVE influential Southerners who lived it and the four historians cited that have analyzed it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me reiterate for those that suffer from myopic vision. Something like this is what I am suggesting:

   * Contents
     1 Causes of secession
          1.1 Slavery
          1.2 Attack on Fort Sumter
          1.3 State's Rights
          1.4 Tariffs
          1.5 Sectionalism
          1.6 Abolitionist movement
          1.7 1860 Election of Abraham Lincoln
   * 2 Secession begins

-That is as simple as I can put it...--Ducha mps_comb MFA 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Any credible reason you may have had for your opinion is burnt to the ground by your consistent insults, refusal to provide credible sources for your position, deletion of text by the people you're talking to and simply ignoring what other people have said. Editing this article again will result in being reported. Good day. -- LightSpectra (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That proposal would require expanding a section of this article that is already covered by a large and comprehensive article on the origins of the war. Your suggestion that we equate Slavery, States' Rights, and Tariffs runs counter to WP:WEIGHT. From that section:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. ...

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.''

The secession issues in the article are treated in the same manner that they are treated by reliable sources. From the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, where most general works start their countdown to secession, the overwhelmingly dominant issue is slavery. The South seceded over those issues -- not over the Tariff of Abominations or the abstract concept of states' rights which, as the article clearly and accurately shows, BOTH SIDES claimed as their own. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PS I just noticed that you added the following, w/o any sourcing to the Origins of the American Civil War article:

The tariff issue is greatly undermined by revisionist historians. The tariffs were double what the Northern states payed, the collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads and building light houses, five times the amount of money that was spent on southern project.

The lack of sourcing, the lack of accuracy, and the lack of relevance (Southerners made it clear when they seceded or when compromise was attempted what the real issue was) are bad enough. However the link you provided regarding the majority of historians of the subject over the last 60 years refers the reader to an article related to Holocaust Denier types. How can you reject so blatantly the legitimacy of the sources that this article MUST be based on and still hope to cotribute constructively? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New Sections

Have been added by myself and User:Rjensen (a PhD from Yale) a historian (with numerous books in print) in attempts at expanding the page. Please work with us to improve the wiki project. I really do not see why adding subsections and revising the Causes of secession is met with so much resistance and Wp:Divisiveness. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 17:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the "revising the Causes of secession" that presents the major problem. While I prefer the old format, I have participated in the expansion rather than edit warring. Of course, what has NOT changed is the extent that slavery is related to each new sub-section. I have moved material around to insure that all of the relevant material regarding Tariffs, States' Rights, etc appears in those sections. Wikipedia:Layout discourages short sections so each should be at least a couple paragraphs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually short sections are needed here and they link to long articles on the special topics. People need a summary they can remember and this is the place for it. If they want details they go to linked articles--this is similar to the way battles like Gettysburg are handled: Short summary in this article. Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually sections are not needed at all. If anything, we should go back to the morning version of this article and start trimming that. Using WP:SUMMARY as a guide, this whole section should serve as a summary of the Origins article. Short summary in this article, more details in the Origins article, and then great detail in the third level makes the most sense. Most of my edits have been shuffling material rather than adding new material. I think at this point we may both be approaching 3RR violations.

My concern is that by creating stand alone sections, the interconnectedness of the various factors is being lost. If you quit deleting my edits, I will be glad to look at what the final product looks like in a day or so before adding anything further. If other editors don't throw the article out of balance, I doubt that you will. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nullification DuChamp has added back the following two statements that I believe both I and Rjensen have removed:

Under "States' Rights" -- "The Southern position was that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. According to this position, the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it and that if the federal government assumed such powers, acts under them would be void. This view would then justify states deciding the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions embody many of these ideas."

Under "Tariffs" --"The Tariff of 1828, was a high protective tariff or tax on imports passed by Congress in 1828. It was labeled the "Tariff of Abominations"^[1] by its southern detractors because of its effect on the Southern economy. The 1828 tariff was repealed after strong protests and threats of nullification by South Carolina."

Of course, nullification had nothing to do with the South's reasons for secession -- it was no more policy in the CSA than in the USA. We either need to remove these references or add back the sourced material that clarifies its relationship to slavery. I can go either way but would prefer more feedback from others. This is what I would add back (it has been part of the article for a long time):

Part of the uproar over the tariff was related to slavery.^[2]During the crisis, South Carolina's John C. Calhoun identified the right to own slaves as the chief southern minority right being threatened:

I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness." ^[3]^[4]

Along the same line, reference is made to the "compact theory" of the Union. While my opinion is that this is both too specific and irrelevant to the CAUSE of secession to be included in this article, if it is left in then the alternative majority opinion also needs to be added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The way I'm reading WP:SS we are adding sections that are correct in short summaries with links to main articles. As every other sub has done, the section now has more balance. I think it is important not to have Wikipedia:Main article fixation. World War II is at 169 kilobytes American Civil War is as 118 kilobytes, so with both of these topics having such an immense value to US history how do you split due to the "size rule"? Not me, good luck with that. It may be possible to trim/move the intro of Causes of secession to subs.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the circumstances are different here. The assumption is that the sub sections are summaries of a larger more detailed article. In this case, there is one specific article, Origins of the American Civil War, that is the sub article of "Causes of the Civil War" from the main Civil War article. This Origins article should be the "middle man" between the main Civil War article and the individual articles. This serves the intent of summary style by providing multiple layers of detail for the reader (this is after all about the reader). In fact, if someone is truly interested, for example, after reading the man article in the relationship of Tariffs to the Civil War, they SHOULD NOT be directed to the Tariffs in United States history article which has very little that relates directly to tariffs and causation. The same situation, to a slightly lesser degree, exists with respect to States' Rights. Several subsections have no relevant sub article to point to.

Reducng the main article "Causes" section to 8-10 paragraphs (instead of the current 29) would provide one level, the breakdown into sections in the "Origins" article already provides a second level, and from there if more detail is required there would be the individual articles. Ths provides the same level of choices as does the main body of this article concerning the war itself. For example, the section "Eastern Theater 1861–1863" provides an overview, the article Eastern Theater of the American Civil War provides a second level of detail, and the articles on the individual battles provide the most detailed information.

The issue of WEIGHT also needs to be addressed. Why should there be a subsection on Tariffs when there is no subsection on the far more significant events such as the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott Decision, or the Wilmot Proviso? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of Origins Section

Go back to this edit [21]. Keep the section directly under the heading "Causes of secession" -- this, in 10 paragraphs, provides a chronological listing of the events leading up to the Civil War that directly relate to causation. All the issues we've discussed are mentioned here.

Eliminate the subsection titled "Slavery" since it mainly only provides further details on the issues in the chronological. These details, as well as details on all the issues mentioned in the first section are covered in the Origins of the American Civil War article. That article, rather than this one, is the proper place for hammering out the details. Thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. Good idea tho. The sections would read like this:

  * Contents
   * 1 Causes of secession
         
   * 2 Secession begins
         2.1 Secession of South Carolina
         2.2 Secession winter
         2.3 The Confederacy
         2.4 The Union states
         2.5 Border states
   * 3 Overview
         3.1 The Beginning of the War, 1861
         3.2 Anaconda Plan and blockade, 1861
         3.3 Eastern Theater 1861–1863
         3.4 Western Theater 1861–1863
         3.5 Trans-Mississippi Theater 1861–1865
         3.6 Conquest of Virginia and End of War: 1864–1865
         3.7 Confederacy Surrenders

--That would mean a breakdown in the subs, as well deleting the links. Better I think to delete the first paragraph and merge into more subsections/summaries. IMHO --Ducha mps_comb MFA 01:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is what it would look like -- it would be one of three sections with no sub sections. Why would this be a problem? Any appropriate links can easily be added to the text of the single section.

What I am proposing is EXACTLY what was done with the articles on World War I and World War II. In both there is a section with no subsections on the Causes (labelled Background) of the war (seven and six paragraph respectively) with a reference to separate articles Causes of World War I and Causes of World War II. With the American Revolutionary War there is NOTHING on the cause -- this is all relegated to a sub article American Revolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend subsections on Origins. This stuff is very complicated and confusing and readers need help. Istrongly recommend keeping the Origins here--that is the way people study the issue. (The separate Origins article can include much more material.) Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Kansas-Nebraska Act deserves more weight than most issues, including the tariff and states' rights. Secessionists at the time seemed to agree.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The election of Lincoln is up there as well, not because he was an abolitionist, but because he won a majority vote (in the North, at least) for an anti-slavery party platform. The historian Potter and many others agree that this is important.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Potter's "The Impending Crisis" is an excellent guide if we do retain the subsection model. If we match subsection titles with his chapters we would have subsections on the following:

The Mexican War and Wilmot

The Compromise of 1850

Kansas-Nebraska

Bleeding Kansas

The transition to the Third Party System

Dred Scott

Lecompton

Lincoln- Douglas Debates

Harper's Ferry

The split in the Democratic Party

The election of Lincoln

States' Rights and Tariffs would be incorporated in the above to the extent that they were applicable. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Giving undue attention to minor issues by creating separate subsections for them increases confusion. A cursory look at the article suggests, incorrectly, that Tariffs and States' Rights were significant causes of secession. If someone wants to "study the issue" from this article they need more than a single sentence on the Wilmot Proviso, the Comromise of 1850, the Kansas- Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, Fugitive Slave Law enforcement, etc. All of these issues have stand alone significance that warrant their own subsections under the Slavery heading if all of the other subsections stand.

I'm suggesting that the place to study the Origins of the Civil War is the article [[Origins of the American Civil War]. The American Civil War article will have done its job by providing a chronological narrative that identifies all of the significant events leading to the war and directing the reader to the detailed article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the above. However, I think the fact that several (not just one) historians noted the correlation between density of plantations and support for secession should be included, along with the effect of the fading of slavery in the border states.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

^ [22], Office of the Clerk [23]
^ Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, p. 297; Willentz p. 388 – On March 13, 1833, Rhett said, "A people, owning slaves, are mad, or worse than mad, who do not hold their destinies in their own hands... Every stride of this Government, over your rights, brings it nearer and nearer to your peculiar policy. ... The whole world are in arms against your institutions … Let Gentlemen not be deceived. It is not the Tariff – not Internal Improvement – nor yet the Force bill, which constitutes the great evil against which we are contending... These are but the forms in which the despotic nature of the government is evinced – but it is the despotism which constitutes the evil: and until this Government is made a limited Government... there is no liberty – no security for the South."
^ Ellis, Richard E. The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987), p. 193; Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816–1836. (1965), p. 257; Ellis p. 193. Ellis further notes that "Calhoun and the nullifiers were not the first southerners to link slavery with states’ rights. At various points in their careers, John Taylor, John Randolph, and Nathaniel Macon had warned that giving too much power to the federal government, especially on such an open-ended issue as internal improvement, could ultimately provide it with the power to emancipate slaves against their owners’ wishes."
^ John Niven, John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union, p. 197 – The author said the following about Calhoun's description of the tariff issue: "Finally, the root of the nullification crisis was exposed. What had begun as a reaction to a depression in the cotton states, a slump that had been particularly severe in South Carolina, had rapidly resolved itself into an all-encompassing fear on the part of a majority of the planter elite class that the growing industrialization of the North, expressing itself politically through the majority will, would eventually demand emancipation, heedless of the social consequences."

[1] [22], Office of the Clerk [23]

[2] Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, p. 297; Willentz p. 388 – On March 13, 1833, Rhett said, "A people, owning slaves, are mad, or worse than mad, who do not hold their destinies in their own hands... Every stride of this Government, over your rights, brings it nearer and nearer to your peculiar policy. ... The whole world are in arms against your institutions … Let Gentlemen not be deceived. It is not the Tariff – not Internal Improvement – nor yet the Force bill, which constitutes the great evil against which we are contending... These are but the forms in which the despotic nature of the government is evinced – but it is the despotism which constitutes the evil: and until this Government is made a limited Government... there is no liberty – no security for the South."

[3] Ellis, Richard E. The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights, and the Nullification Crisis (1987), p. 193; Freehling, William W. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina 1816–1836. (1965), p. 257; Ellis p. 193. Ellis further notes that "Calhoun and the nullifiers were not the first southerners to link slavery with states’ rights. At various points in their careers, John Taylor, John Randolph, and Nathaniel Macon had warned that giving too much power to the federal government, especially on such an open-ended issue as internal improvement, could ultimately provide it with the power to emancipate slaves against their owners’ wishes."

[4] John Niven, John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union, p. 197 – The author said the following about Calhoun's description of the tariff issue: "Finally, the root of the nullification crisis was exposed. What had begun as a reaction to a depression in the cotton states, a slump that had been particularly severe in South Carolina, had rapidly resolved itself into an all-encompassing fear on the part of a majority of the planter elite class that the growing industrialization of the North, expressing itself politically through the majority will, would eventually demand emancipation, heedless of the social consequences."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]