Talk:American Civil War/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Bleeding Kansas, NOT Ft. Sumter!

It is quite clear that the Ft. Sumter demarcation as beginning of the conflict is absolutely incorrect and Union ex-post facto propaganda of triumphalism, like when Henry VII of England declared Richard III of England to have been the villainous traitor, even though Richard was technically the only one with the Crown, regardless of merit, on the day leading up until his death, Henry only being crowned on the who cares?????? was split in half, Kentucky was internally divided (between the Northwest and Southwest Territories), then Missouri as well, followed by Kansan pioneers besieged by Abolitionist foreigners whose stock in trade was filibustering, then the wish of Arizonans to achieve independence from New Mexico and Union neglect.

The sgoogle up d'etat which caused the War. It was socioeconomic engineering on their part for a utopian world of their own imagining which was the main drive in the conflict, for the South never insisted the North live according to their way, only that each do their own thing without molestation. The situation was relatively the same as the English Civil War, with the Puritans out for Anglican blood, only this time, it was Massachusetts vs Virginia, William Lloyd Garrison vs Robert E. Lee.

I just pointed out how anti-Americanism on the part of Northerners with disgust for Southern elections in the White House ELEPHANTS CAN FLY !!!!!!!!! Northerners care for their hearts, rather than their minds, or at least get priorities straight?

What I am asking for, is a dedicated collaboration of editors with a history steeped in Americana to counter systemic bias with at least the simple matter of Southern Kansas vs Northern Nebraska as the official beginning of organized armed conflict, yes on the part of Northerners...no, I am not expecting a rectification for all the lies spread about. This will do for now. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bleeding Kansas controversy is mentioned in the article. The war began after the Fort Sumter crisis.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? It is called a Civil War for a reason. Citizens and not the military, were the first to strike blood. You people define the war as between capitals, like Washington and Montgomery or Richmond, when that was just a further development of the ongoing conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You are also tunnel-visioning the issue to the Nullification Crisis, rather than looking at the very first expression of violence, without regard for the specific issue as determining the overall warfare. You also do not explain yourself. You simply repeat the propaganda of "official history", without even any details. Grade F in my opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What source are you using for this?..and back off with the "you people" stuff unless you want to be ignored. Respect is a two-way street.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Berean...if you're going to come at us with some left-field revisionist history, you need to provide some pretty compelling references, rather than an argument of logic. Oh, and Berean, thanks for your work to clean the redundant copies of that post. AKRadecki^Speaketh 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather, the issue should be convincing people that it is appropriate to pretend that Bleeding Kansas was not violence and that Ft. Sumter was violence. You are promoting the view of Southern aggression, without a look at the abolitionist subculture of the North that wanted to force the South into submission for its "sins" by enslaving other men. Well, if the Southerners were being aggressive, you might be right in their use of the Federal Government to enhance the cause of slavery by continually opening the Western territories to either stipulation for slaves south of some point, or referendums possibly resulting in new territories having slaves. The South is on record for being the aggressor towards Mexico, on behalf of slave power. You must admit that I am not revising history here, but that you are whitewashing the North's hostilities with the War by trivializing Bleeding Kansas and putting all the weight upon Ft. Sumter. It would be much easier to point out that Bleeding Kansas was caused by Northerners without Federal power (then in the Democrats' corner), but that the Southerner's response, also without Federal power (then in the Republicans' corner), was the attack on Sumter. Why focus on simply a fight against the Lincolnian Republican administration on part of Southerners? It is widely written of Abolitionist hate for the Democrats' promotion of slavery and the Whig failure to do anything about it. That's what John Brown was about. But no, go ahead and blame the South for aggression against the North and blame Lincoln's election for the War. Is this the revisionist compromise you are advocating? If it is, then it is just too late for reality. You already have all the academic references at your fingertips, but your perception of these events is skewed. Onset of hostilities couldn't be Sumter, because that was the second stage of violence. Otherwise, why even include Kansas? The Wikipedia presentation doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory. The War was not simply about secession and confederation, so South Carolina's move was a result of earlier events, just as John Brown and his ilk had inspiration from earlier events to justify their violence against Southerners and the Southern, Slave Power stranglehold on the Federal government at the time, with such people as Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan being the opposite of Abraham Lincoln. What kind of myopia cannot see that the status quo of the establishment changed with the election of Lincoln, but that the warmongers in the North were edging for Abolition long before, personified in Brown best of all? Furthermore, Wikipedia makes it seem like Missouri was the aggressor in the Kansas affair, when the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company went way out of the way to send its filibusters (to Kansas from places far away) to destroy the Lecompton Constitution by invading Kansas, a territory that had the support of the Democratic Federal administration. It fails to mention the natural westward movement of people into the location of Kansas from the east, before the Emigrant Society sent its filibusters. The whole reason to send emigrant filibusters, was because native Kansans (the ones who were there because they pioneered in the original Missouri territory which became carved into separate territories, for instance, Kansas) were promoting slavery in their own territory and were receiving recognition and support from sympathizers in the Federal government, many of whom were Southern, but the Presidents were Doughface Northerners. As it turned out, the "martyrdom" of Brown led to a Republican coalition stronger than people in South Carolina could tolerate, so that resulted in not only the Democratic evacuation from the Federal government, but the secession of the South. You want references from me about this? I have not edited any of these pages on Wikipedia, but they all point to this data I present here. I'm not looking at other websites or books at all. So, your demand that I provide "evidence" is fallacious. I'm finding all kinds of holes in the logic of Wikipedia's self-contradictory presentation of all this, so when you defend it, you must be the ones to substantiate your positions. All I asked for, was some people who have the materials, to repair the nonsense written here. I'm not about to do it myself, because this is all the trouble I am going to get into on behalf of Wikipedia. Because you promote and defend obvious falsehoods, you must have agendas. You are apparently profiting from misnomers and any request from you to improve these articles will result in nothing good, but maybe strengthened propaganda to make it worse. What a waste of time, but confirmation that your sentiments are nefarious. If you had a clue what it is I am stating, then we would not be going on like this. Your objection makes me not trust your objectives. Countering systemic bias is something you must have no interest in, as it would hurt your goals or comfort in lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From the very beginning, you showed no interest. Any claim that I'm being unreasonable, is trumped. You simply didn't care to begin with to rectify anything. I'm pretty sure you don't want me touching the articles anyways, because it would interfere with your control of the information. So, I'm exercising prudence, rather than engaging in edit wars with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RANT. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I see lots of words and still no references. I've no problem with the concept of countering systemic bias, but if you'll read the wikiproject guidelines, systemic bias is countered not by yelling from a soapbox, but by finding legitimate references that balance the viewpoint. That is where you are lacking. All argument, no support. Oh, and as for your statement "You are apparently profiting from misnomers..." dang, profiting? From Wikipedia? Where was I when they were handing out the checks?AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is self-contradictory and you want references? Look no further than your own editing! It is thoroughly amusing to be pointed to the Soapbox guideline, when the very nature of the POV pushed in Civil War articles is against the letter of that "law" and certainly no where close to the spirit, but there are numerous loopholes you lot have exploited to push your anti-Southern bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Watch who you're calling "anti-southern"...I was born in Texas, thank you. Bottom line, provide references. Period, end of story, end of argument. Show me a couple of reputable historians or history-related publications that say what you're saying, and I'll personally add the material. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Article size is the main problem with adding anything big. The article is almost 100k. A brief mention of the 1856 Pottawatomie Massacre could be added, but then it would also make sense to add mention of violence (including a few murders) and massive vote fraud perpetrated by Missouri Border Ruffians. I don't think the overall addition would make anyone happy. The article currently links to Bleeding Kansas and John Brown for those who want to know more. If Wikipedia contradicts itself, give us some specifics. Other details of the Bleeding Kansas controversy that would appear to be anti-South if they were added include the 1855 Wakarusa War, the 1856 Sacking of Lawrence, the 1856 Battle of Osawatomie and the 1858 Marais des Cygnes massacre. Be careful what you ask for.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

At least you are now paying attention, Jimmuldrow. The other person is purposely avoiding the issues. Jim, since the fighting began under Buchanan's administration, it should be presented as the onset of the whole War. Sumter is nevertheless, a very important sequence in the overall violence and represents a major turning point in the status quo, for it was no longer a slippery slope for the Slave Power in Washington, but an indication that they were shut out by the Republicans and South Carolina took it the whole way. Of course, the Border Ruffians were an initial group of people who were fighting the rush of abolitionism in the South by outside forces and their fight with the Yankees--an appropriate name because they were from Massachusetts--characterized the rest of the War. Brown's people were operating outside the law, but according to their sense of moral dictates and had no government sanction, unlike the Border Ruffians, who were enforcing Buchanan's administration for Kansans. The major shift with Sumter, was the change in the Federal government, for it then did a completely 360 turn and that's probably why so many people look at Sumter as the beginning. Many want to denote the secession as a revolt against absolutism in Washington, but the conflict is on record as beginning with the invasion of Kansas by anti-slavery activists, who were just as wrong with the Federal government then, as the secessionists were five years later. It would be better to show the origins of the Civil War to be the failure of the Whigs to satisfy the people like Brown, who took matters into their own hands, just as the Southerners were later to do with Sumter. The outline of the timeline leading up to the war, should concentrate generally on Southern Manifest Destiny and Northern Abolitionism, which ended up clashing in blood at Kansas and being the whole reason why the violence wouldn't stop. In essence, it was no isolated instance, but the result of built up tensions that were fully flared under Lincoln. It is erroneous, but most Civil War presentations focus on Lincoln-Johnson, rather than Buchanan-Lincoln, as the nexus of all this. It was with the transition of Whig to Republican that the most fervent war cries were made. Brown was the voice of the newfound Republicans, for they considered the Whigs to be too lenient. All I'd hope for is a balanced POV on this. Lee refused to lead the Union Army because he knew that Washington was going to invade Virginia to enforce Republican legislation, just as Brown had attempted to force his sense of righteousness in Kansas. The shoe was on the other foot with Sumter, that's all. Brown's kind was in power then, although they were the ones working outside of Federal sanction beforehand. The dynamic of this shift should be explored more, but I hardly think that's a controversial sentiment to raise, unless of course, the people reading this are just Scalawag Union apologists from Down South. Let me tell the guy before you, that Texas ain't the place for born and bred Southrons at heart so much as he'd think. Republican Eisenhower was the product of Carpetbagger parents, just as the Republican Bushes are Carpetbagger oil men in Texas, although Bush 43 is somewhat of a Doughface like Pierce and Buchanan because of his mother Barbara Pierce. In any case, I wasn't wanting to alter any material myself on any of these articles, but just mention the lack of consistency with the POV being pushed about how the War went on. I also am not contradicting the majority of the material already at Wikipedia, only hoping that some of the myopia can be expanded and the focus to cover the period as between the Invasion of Kansas until the Fall of the Freemen. The structure could be done with three sub-periods, with the entrance of the Yankees to Kansas, to the secession of South Carolina, to the start of Reconstruction. There is the long series of events before Kansas and the long series which led up until 1965, but those are not as central to the War itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The side issue that needs to be explored, is the nature of the population of Kansas. If not for the Emigrant Society formed by the Yankees, Kansas would have remained Southron, with or without slaves. It was the Free-Soil movement which tried to make Kansas along the lines of the Northwest Territory, so now, most people in Kansas are 19th century German immigrants rather than American. This is important to understand the nature of the violence in Kansas. Even if the point of Kansas (as opposed to Nebraska) emerging as a territory of its own, was to provide more slave land, it does not erase the fact that Southrons were there first. The statements written about Kansas seem to overlook or diminish this, most likely because of the slave issue and the fact that the Northerners won Kansas through bloodshed, but not through legislation. Lecompton was a legitimate constitution by the first Kansans, regardless of slavery. It was deposed by the immigration of non-Kansans who have since steered the state away from its Southern and specifically Missourian origins, much like the origins of Arizona upon the Gadsden Purchase as an originally Texan offshoot. Arizona's first administrators were born in Tennessee and Kentucky, moved to Texas and they were chosen by the people who lived in Arizona, but that state is usually not accounted for as Southern outside of country music today, even though it has a whole lot in common with Texas. So, unofficially, places like Kansas and Arizona experienced their own forms of "Reconstruction", but due to the very short lifespan of their Southern origins, their identities are glossed over by subsequent migrants. Consider the current issues with Kansas and the teaching of evolution in public schools, vs creationism. Creationism would likely still be taught there if not for the Reconstruction of that place by German immigrants on behalf of Massachusetts people, who were all Unitarian Universalists and very liberal then, as now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, more detail was added about Bleeding Kansas. It would add too much to the article length to add more, but there are links to a number of other related Wikipedia article. Wiki-linking makes a huge amount of detail easily available.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one with a brain around here. Thanks Jim! There is another idea that would be workable: scale down and condense the rest, so there is the beginning Kansas period, intermediary Sumter period and the following KKK period. This is the full extent of the violence associated with this War. I would only include a few sentences about annexationism and abolitionism in the introduction. I'm sorry to have to ask anybody for help with this, but I'm not particularly adept at composing professional essays. In addition, I am afraid that any editing of the articles will simply be blocked as "tendentious editing", when all I mean is to improve and increase the scope of the War. I tried to put my message all around the primary articles' discussion pages, in order for a "reconstruction" to really come to place on the subject. Nevertheless, your assistance is very much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it!Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

About Games

Would anybody be upset if games are moved to List of American Civil War battles?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That article would be off-topic for games. Why not List of American Civil War games? No objection to moving them out of this article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of the See also entries probably could be fit into the text and linked, eliminating the need for a lot of them. Also most of the media could easily be removed, perhaps to List of American Civil War movies and such. Kresock (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As the one who first added the list of games, I have no problem with this, especially since movies and so forth also have been moved to other pages. I do hope, though, that no one will again try to delete the games simply because their personal sensibilities are offended by the idea of games based on the Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil1970 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't offense...they simply do not belong here. Pop culture fancruft litters and detracts from wiki articles. Unless an article subject itself is based on pop culture, there should be no such sections. FWIW, I have nothing against games (Sid Meier's Gettysburg was/is a heluva lot of fun!) but the virtual world should not convolute the real.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"dissuaded the British from intervening" ?

I am curious about this statement in the lead. Why would the British have wanted to be involved in an internal conflict in the USA in the first place? Surely they/we would been more concerned with maintaining the Empire? Can someone explain this please? (I am British btw.) SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

perhaps some felt dividing the US in two would weaken one of Britain's major economic political and military competitors. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Britain was indeed very interested in what was going on, as they imported a lo of... hmm I think it was corn or cotton or both, from the southern states, yet they looked down upon the Confederacy maintaining slavery, something Britain abolished decades prior. Jersey John (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Britan did indeed import large sums of cotton from the south. The reason Britan was involved was becuase someone always makes large amounts of money from trading weapons and other sorts of suplies to a desprate buyer they can charge more for their goods. They simply cashed in on the south's desprate neeed for suplies.=}$£♥--209.66.200.43 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

95% of the SOuth's exports of cotton and tobacco were cut off by the Union blockade. The Brits depended heavily on wheat from the North for the basic food supply. They could survive without cotton but not without food. Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm very good point Rjensen!Jersey John (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

American Civil War vs. United States Civil War

Which title is more popular? 98.119.177.171 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

American Civil War —⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

74.238.191.22 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also called the following: "War of Northern Aggression" "War for Southern Independence" Grumman581 (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

American Civil War is preferable to United States Civil War since the name United States Civil War is actually a contridiction. Civil wars take place between parties fighting for control within a sovereign nation-state. The antebellum United States were a union of individual sovereign states, not a single sovereign nation-state. As such, both names using "Civil War" are errant and biased as they declare (or at least suggest) that the southern states were part of a nation-state with the northern states. The nation-state arrangement that we currently live within is a result of the northern victory rather than a condition that existed before or during the war. It would be more accurate to call our post war country the United Provinces of America as we are no longer individual states but a single nation-state. The name "War of Northern Agression" reflects the fact that the north invaded the south for the stated purpose of preserving the empire and indeed were the aggressive party. While much more accurate than "civil war" this name smacks a bit of bitter bias on the side of the south. "War for Southern Independence" sheds this bitter bias but also seems to suggest that the southern states needed to fight for independence (soveriegnity) that they already had under the constitution. Personally, I prefer the "War of Northern Aggression" but for the purposes of intergrity and objectivity I believe that "War Between the States" is probably the least biased and most accurate name ever used to describe that god awful war whose ghosts still haunt us all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex burnette (talk • contribs) 10:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

I read the little warning about "don't request a npov sticker" and I think that's nonsense. 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!

If the states had the freedom to make their own laws or if something had been done to alter the level of Southern representation in Washington in favor of the South, then no secession would have occured. The Southern people wanted to be in control of their destiny, and that destiny, at the time...included slavery and considerations which the South had to make because of its slave population (the North did not have the same considerations, obviously, because it did not need slavery economically/have a black slave population that was larger than the free white population).

To be more honest, this article should break down the "causes of secession" into two headings: concerns over federal representation and states rights. The content of both sections should go into detail about slavery and pre-war considerations...not post-war considerations. Slavery was critical to the Southern economy, but slavery itself was not the reason for the secession, and Potter NEVER suggests otherwise.

By the way, it is "anti-slavery", not "antislavery". Who wrote this stupid article? 172.162.44.57

The slave states did have a great deal of "freedom to make their own laws." Republicans made no attempt to end slavery in existing states before the war, and since each state has two Senators regardless of population, the South had enough Senators to block pro-North legislation including a transcontinental railroad, land grant colleges, a proposed homestead act, and high tariffs before the war. The three-fifths clause gave the South the extra votes needed to pass the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854, and to prevent proposed emancipation of Missouri slaves around 1820. A coalition of Southerners and Northern Democrats allowed a minority region to elect mostly pro-South Presidents before 1860. Pro-South Presidents selected mostly pro-South Supreme Court justices, who were responsible for the pro-South Dred Scott decision. Southern states had enough clout to cause Northerners to complain about the alleged aggressions of the slave power.

Also, Potter made it clear that slavery was the most important cause of the war, and that other causes became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it.

I wrote most, but not all, of the part of the "stupid article" you object to.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your history is right on! It is true that the South played quite a role influencing the country's direction up to 1860. However, "they did not have the freedom to make their own laws", acknowledges something completely different, that federal power overrides state power, so if the South no longer sent the majority of reps to Congress or controlled the White House, ultimately Southerners would be tied to an entity that had more pull to decide the South's fate than the South. In other words, the South would be subject to decisions made by those who did not have the same considerations. All CW historians contend that Lincoln represented such a threat to the South, which is the main issue.

Due to the immigration explosion and the reality of increasingly more states entering the Union, the South was in danger of losing the representative power that gave it the power you mention. To say different views of slavery caused the secession is misleading, like pulling a carcass from an animal and calling it the animal. The South wanted to be in control but felt things were changing and that it was losing power. Because of the article's narrow focus on the North as anti-slavery and the south as pro-slavery, this is lost.

Do I really have to go hunt down my college textbooks to show to you these considerations are not my own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.28.55 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Causes mentions control issues, which certainly did exist. The South did have fears of losing control over the federal government. A large part of this fear was, as one Southerner put it, the fear that preventing slavery expansion would surround the slave states with "a wall of fire" that would squeeze slavery out of existence.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is what we have for headings:

1. 1 Causes of secession

• 1.1 Slavery

Considerations about slavery certainly loomed in the air, and made losing representation particularly important to the South. But the North was by no means anti-slavery, though the article tries to prove the opposite, as it is necessary to do so if we are to believe that a general disagreement over slavery led to secession.

To what degree does the article try to do this? Let's look at the first sentence (unsourced): "The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict likely." Was the North "increasingly anti-slavery?" Note that anti-slavery is taken to mean Abolitionist, not "not pro-Slavery", which would be a more accurate assessment. To what degree was Abolitionism a reflection of the North's will? And how did the actual state of affairs make "conflict likely"? The SPREAD of slavery into new States of the Union where it was utterly useless...now that was something the North did not support. But the North was dominated by Abolitionist thought?

This is why the article fails to prove that slavery was the cause, because that would require "an increasingly Abolitionist North" increasingly opposed to slavery, which the first sentence only assumes there was. Beyond that sentence, the article tries to create this illusion that the North was anti-slavery by noting the quotes of a few anti-slavery ideologues, as well as the comments made by the leading brass of the South about how important slavery was. The article then suggests that all other, more accurate assessments as to why the war was fought (all concerning the south's fear of losing representation, the lack of state representation) are null and void because people who said it was this once said it was about slavery. Southern wealth was attached to the legality of slavery, which makes the conflict over slavery the dominant issue; BUT slavery was attached to the South's ability to carry out its own will, either by state law or continued federal representation...not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.190.201 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Antislavery is not the same as only abolitionist. The article mentions economic, moral and political opposition to slavery, and all three did exist. Northerners who opposed both slavery and slaves believed in the Free Soil idea that slavery was bad for the economic prospects of whites. Other Northerners feared the alleged aggressions of the Slave Power based on the belief that slave owners, who were autocratic towards slaves, were also a threat to republicanism for whites. Moral opposition was only part of the equation, and existed beyond a small and unpopular group of abolitionists. For example, the three largest religious denominations split mostly over the slavery issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, "anti-slavery" links to the "Abolitionism" page, so it is implied that "anti-slavery" means one thing when in actuality, it means several things - and, as you mentioned, Abolitionism was probably the least influential of all of them.

Slavery was not the cause of secession...your own words demonstrate what I have been arguing all along: that the secession was the result of a power struggle between Republican aspirations and the aspirations of the Southern Landed-classes, thus breaking the US into two factions along a North-South divide. Yes, Southern prosperity depended on an institution which the North did not want in the North, but everything centered around power and destiny. I think we are arguing the same thing here, but the article does not head in the right direction. The article's focus is elsewhere. "Causes of secession" focuses on pro(South) and con (North) slavery opinions, and "1.1 Slavery" offers more of the same. Why two sections that cover the same thing? Again, "causes of secession: slavery" is misleading, for all the reasons both you and I have indicated here.

By the way: "Threat of international intervention" - ummm, "threat"? Yeah, this isn't written from a Northern point of view (SIC)...Britain was an important industrial supplier to the South, so "threat" is not only highly pov, but also inaccurate. Again, yet another reason why this article needs a pov sticker, regardless of the self-aggrandizing tone of the FAQ.

I agree about the international intervention title. "Power and destiny" sounds fuzzy, though. Power to do what?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

in school we are learning that these battles were very important even though they were small . i think that they should list every battle that is recorded in this article. try listing important facts about each one and then they should list they generals for the union in order because they had many. that would be even more helpful. thanks Savannah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.0.34 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the article is that regardless of what people at the time said in speeches, there were more problems and disagreements between the south and north than just slavery. The fact that border states were pro-union AND pro-slavery is evidence of this fact. The article needs to address these issues. It doesn't need to diminish the role slavery played, but it needs a more holistic approach. If the content in the FAQ is accurate, then article needs to incorporate that information. 66.249.100.228 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the info in the FAQ is in the article, only people sometimes overlook it. This includes what you said about the border states, and the likely explanation for it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple case of history being rewritten for some political purpose. The cause of the Civil War was the desire of southern states to be independent of the existing federal government primarily because of southern states lack of representation in the federal govenment. One example of this was the southern states paying 85% of all federal taxes while being a minority in Congress. Hence the battle cry came from taxation without representation, the same reasoning behind the American Revolution. Slavery was an issue and not a cause. It pains me to see history rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.65 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how many history books leave out such information. Also, the South had quite a bit more than its share of representation given the smaller size of its population.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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. The insult is compounded by also saying that the terms "Confederate states" and "slave states" are interchangeable again implying that the driving ideology behind the creation of the Southern Confederacy was not only the protection of slavery but the expansion of it as well. If that was the case, why did they draft a Constitution that not only banned the importation of African slaves, but also would prohibit the introduction of slaves into any Confederate State or Territory ?Sentinel1701 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the tag for splitting the article

I thought that the point of this article was to unite material that many other articles explore in more depth. I don't think it would make sense to split the article, unless someone has a well thought out plan for doing so, and can explain why it would be an improvement to do it that way.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the content of the article, it's the size of the article. The page is 101KB long, which causes a few issues, see: Wikipedia:Article size for a detailed explanation.Funandtrvl

Ok, but that's not the way the WWI, WWII and Vietnam wars are done, and most people expect to see an American Civil War article in an encyclopedia. Also, how could the thing be broken up and still cohere?Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WWI is definitely not a good example! WWII is better organized. There are some helpful guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style. One may look at Category:American Civil War to see the nine sub-categories and articles, then one could go thru each section in the main article, taking information and adding it to each sub-article, so that those would be more detailed than the main article, using {tl|main}} under each section on the main page to point to the corresponding sub-article. Is there a topic outline of the American Civil War, that could be followed? --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So where would people who want to see one overview of the American Civil War go? Also, the sub-categories you mentioned each point to a list, so the total is much more than nine. As it is, none of the details of the battles are mentioned because they are mentioned in other articles. Very few of the causes are mentioned in detail because links to other articles are used for that purpose. And most people expect some coherent overview of the war as a place to start. A great deal of the space is from references, which are needed. Also, can the article be fragmented in a way that would result in a Good Article? Probably not.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article is a GA, but there are a few things that could be done to pare it down a little. First, combine the references that are somewhat duplicated by using ref names, i.e. for McPherson, instead of listing each page as a separate note, combine and put pgs. 284-297. See: WP:CITE. Second, are there any e-books that could be cited and linked, instead of using detailed explanatory notes? Third, in the external links section, if any of those links were used as refs, move them to the ref list with the proper citation style. If I have a chance I can work on this; however, I'm not a prof. historian. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I've replaced split-apart with citation style, hopefully, this will work better for this article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.172.121 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Southerners made a huge fortune from cotton during the 1850s, so they weren't oppressed on that issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Currency/Monetary Policy

This article makes no mention of how monetary policy was affected. It doesn't mention the northern greenback or the southern currency during the civil war. This is of major significance as many southerners lost their fortunes when the civil war ended because their currency was literally worth the paper it was printed on and nothing more.Smallman12q (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

True. But that applied more to the end of the war and Reconstruction. A small mention is made in the article of hyperinflation in the South, and of Northern economic policies such as a tariff increase, a Homestead Act, Land Grant colleges and so forth.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Written by Carlie Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.38.70 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Causes of the civil war

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, disputes over the direction of Western expansion for one. I would like to see a section that delves into some of the other causes, does anyone disagree that this would be a useful section. Wikiguy1020 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Useful, as long as it is thoroughly sourced to reputable academic scholarship. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is now a link to non-slavery related causes of secession. Western expansion was too connected to slavery (the annexation of the slave state Texas, the Bleeding Kansas issue and so on) to be included.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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. (Trentc (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

The Corwin amendment was too late to appease the South, and Southerners didn't trust that it was sufficient protection of slavery.Walterego (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

An explanation of the Corwin Amendment was added.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Scholars have noted many different causes, but one I reacall from undergrad that i found most interesting was that era politicains uneccessarily exploited societal cleavages for their own political gain, and in doing so divided the nation far beyond anything that could be mended without war. I am into political psychology so this makes perfect sense to me. I am not saying we need to add that, but maybe we can make a page on causes of the war. I can write up that section if needed.

--24.210.221.242 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have often read and heard people make vague assertions that there were different causes, but on closer inspection this consistently turns out to be untrue. Either the cause is tangentially related to slavery, or else it was not a significant motivation for secession. Notice that the section non-slavery related causes of secession doesn't really contain any genuine causes for secession that aren't related in some way to slavery. It discussses the transcontinental railroad, which had nothing to do with secession apart from the fact that it led to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which inflamed the conflict over slavery in the West. It mentions the crisis over Ft Sumter, a crisis that was created by the threat of secession, not a cause of secession. Southerners had no problem with US Army troops on their territory until after secession led to those troops being viewed as a threat to put down secessionists. Tariffs have long been discredited as a significant cause of secession when it occurred in 1860. (The rest of "Non-slavery related causes" are so vague. That section needs to either be improved or removed.) So what else is there? Walterego (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• False false false! the primary cause of the civil war was the tax burden (in the form of a tariff on most European goods, which forced the south to buy inferior american products as well deprived Europe with the dollars needed to buy goods from the south. In 1828, the "tariff of abomination" was passed, which put a tariff of 20-30% on all imported goods, and when Lincoln entered office, he passed the Morrill tariff, which simply pumped up the tariff of 1828) placed squarely on the south by the north. To quote John C. Calhoun "

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

" . The south was put under undue financial strain, motivating Calhoun to move for secession of his state, South Carolina, as the government had become tyrannical and the declaration of independence strongly gave the right to throw off a tyrannical government. Lincoln didn't want SC to peaceably break off, so he began moving troops and munitions to forts adjacent to the south in an effort to cause the south to believe the North was about to wage a war. Slavery was not an important factor in this war. Lincoln even offered to allow the 4 border states (delaware doesn't count) to maintain slavery if they joined the north, so clearly the war wasn't fought to end slavery . Even Karl Marx, communist philosopher and contemporary historian, saw this, and wrote of it in articles. A poignant quote is "

The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty. Finally, even if justice is on the side of the North , does it not remain a vain endeavour to want to subjugate eight million Anglo-Saxons by force! Would not separation of the South release the North from all connection with Negro slavery and ensure for it, with its twenty million inhabitants and its vast territory, a higher, hitherto scarcely dreamt-of, development? Accordingly, must not the North welcome secession as a happy event, instead of wanting to overrule it by a bloody and futile civil war?

" .

So, I think the article is severely biased and largely false, pushing the illogical narrative approved by the victor of the war. Sorry, the ridiculously simple garbage we were taught in 2nd grade regarding the civil war is not only wrong, but illogical, inconsistent, and a score of other evil things, not the least of which was applauding Lincoln for absolutely crushing the notion (and STRONG precedent) that this was a free country. Matteo (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Morrill Tariff was passed several months after secession began.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

to quote the page on the Morrill Tariff,

Morrill's break came in early 1860 when the Republicans succeeded in electing pro-tariff Rep. William Pennington of New Jersey as Speaker. Pennington appointed a Republican majority to the committee and a new chairman, Rep. John Sherman of Ohio. Sherman's appointment cleared the way for Morrill's proposal to come to the House floor during the Spring session of 1860.

so this was a bill that was clearly going to pass and was in motion in the spring session of 1860, prior to the secession. When it passed was irrelevant, as the involved parties knew it was going to pass.--Matteo (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] By the way J.Muldrow, well written article overall, since you seem to have made the bulk of contributions to it. Walterego (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tariffs have long been discredited as a significant cause of secession

By who?--Sentinel1701 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DR JOHN ORDRONAUX

Please see my small addition to the text about this army medical advisor which I hope won't conflict with your editorial plans. Ref details to follow. Regards, Wfm495 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any one doctor being mentioned in the lead has to be WP:UNDUE Even if he/she saved millions this is the whole war in a brief summary, there are hardly any battle details so the good doctor doesn't warrant mention, especially in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand this. However, I think you might consider a section on the contribution of military medicine to the War as Ordronaux had a similar effect to Florence Nightingale in the Crimea. No article about the Crimean war is complete without the contribution of medics. DR O was no ordianary medic, he wrote whole military medical manuals. Also, I have been asked (by WIKI admin) to make links from other articles to the one about Dr Ordronaux because it has been flagged as "orphan status" now removed. If not in this article, do you know another article that deals with medicine in the Civil war? Thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the good doctor, the wikipedia article on John Ordronaux doesn't mention him as encouraging surgeons to wash hands or sterilize medical implements before surgery. 19th century medicine wasn't much to brag about.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well there may be a case for expanding the detail of his medical innovations in the main text of the Dr Ordronaux article. But his contributions are clear from the full text of his military medical manuals which are online and quoted in the external links section. The originals of those books sell for up to $3,000 today. I am very new to Wiki (since early Feb 2009) and am only doing what I have been asked to do by Wiki admin. Wfm495 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I am going to undo the reversion, because I have been asked to add back references by Wiki admin, and also to continue the discussion on this important aspect of the Civil War. Wfm495 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Will please don't do that - it would be edit warring and unconstructive. I have added Dr Ordonaux to List of people associated with the American Civil War - I think that's an acceptable compromise. – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I have self-reverted the text to its previous version, Sorry!! Wfm495 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil War?

Was it really a civil war if the South had seceded? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is the North won the war and since the US Government never views the Confederate Government as legitimate but only as states in rebellion it is considered a Civil War. Had the South won the war it might have been viewed differently but who can really say? OptimumPx (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider the definition of a civil war:

A civil war is a war between organized groups to take control of a nation or region, or to change government policies.[1] It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars result in large numbers of casualties and the expenditure of large amounts of resource. A civil war involves two-sided violence; for example, a massacre of civilians by the state is not a civil war. Similarly, less intense forms of societal conflict, such as riots or social movements, are excluded from the definition.[2]

I don't think you could say the American Civil War didn't meet those criterion. (I know, don't cite WP, but I'm sure other sources say the same thing) Soxwon (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the battles were fought in Virginia and Tennessee--which had competing state governments. That is they were fighting over who controlled those states. (Likewise Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas). That's civil war by any definition. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, (And I love PRIMARY SOURCES) the Civil War causes have "become a matter of history....the causes were three in number,: 1. The jealousy on the part of the South, occasioned by the overshadowing political importance, wealth, and prosperity of the North, West and Northwest, 2. The doctrine of States’ rights, or the reserved powers [3] of the several States not granted to the General Government; and 3. The question of slavery.[1] This is a primary document pertaining to the Civil War prepared by Wardwell G Robinson of the 184th on June 5 1895. If you could get any more accurate than the people who fought (and died) you would be fabricating information. BFritzen (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved in these discussions, but your statement struck me as one of the most historically naive I can imagine and deserving of recognition as such. Perhaps Wikipedia has a barnstar for such a thing. And the construction (paraphrasing) "If you could be any more accurate you'd be lying" is priceless. :-) We don't use primary sources for issues of judgment like this. See WP:PRIMARY. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

lulz. That is hilarious. You aren't serious, are you? Any encyclopedia worth its name uses primary sources. The above quotes are directly taken from the people who fought it. Historically naive? You don't make any sense. A direct quote from the people who FOUGHT in the American Civil War of Secession for States' Rights (or however people wish to Whitewash it) is histroically naive? No. It is a historical document and primary source. It is priceless because you can't find anything more accurate than a primary source. It isn't an "issue of judgment, it is the reason why these men chose to fight. I can sling all sorts of barbs your way, but I won't. Maybe you need to read the source. I fail to see how this is anything but a straightforward statement as to the reasons for fighting the war.BFritzen (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you claiming that a primary source by the people who were there is inferior to a source produced generations later by someone who read something from someone who might have been there? (Just a note: When paraphrasing you still must have the intent accurate.) I asked my colleagues about the difference betwixt the two and they unanimously concurred that a primary source by people who were there are the the superior of the two.BFritzen (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see we come from two very different schools of history. Primary Sources have their place, but time and distance from the issues gives perspective and helps give a better picture of what's really going on. As each generation progresses, we see different thoughts on the event and are able to see all of the angles. When doing things like numbers and dates, primary sources are great. But events and reasoning are subject to spin. Consider the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, which side is correct? You need distance from the event to give neutrality. At least that's my opinion. Soxwon (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. What side is ever correct in war, but the victor? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. "History is written by those who've hanged heroes." I think that is my point entirely. Interpretation of primary sources is what is important and allowing those future generations to come to their own conclusions rather than one clouded by the ideology of others. So, if I am reading about the Civil War, and I read a source that is chock full of "spin" it doesn't really convey what happened. But if I am allowed access to original sources, I can come to my own conclusions because those sources (even spun) can be analyzed to show the thoughts of the day. Use of the N word on TV and Radio was commonplace until recently, but I should still view the older (read: primary) source in order to determine for myself what that era was like. Reading someone's account of the N word's use in older media is inherently biased based on ideologies. That is why primary sources trump most everything else because they give an unadulterated picture into the past for us.BFritzen (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said, even those involved have differing viewpoints. Like the example I quoted the primary sources provided two entirely different interpretations of events. Which is correct, which is to be believed? Are we to offer two viewpoints on how events occured and make a person ignorant of the subject interpret facts w/o an idea of what is what? Unless you witnessed the event and what led up to it first hand, you will always encounter bias. However, I believe you find the most bias closest to the event by the people who were involved and may have emotional, political, or other attachments that hamper their views. Can someone who doesn't know all the intricate details of the subject matter decipher all of this? Soxwon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Such is the double blade of education. Should we not expect people to be able to analyze and determine for themselves? Should we not expect them to understand the mindset of the historic figures during a certain event? The purpose would be to see into their minds. For instance, in this article, a large debate rages for "the Causes of the Civil War." Yet, if we view primary sources, we see that, for the North it was differing reasons than for the South. In other words different points of view. There was (and still is) separate world views in many of these same states. So, to come to an accurate representation of events, including the reasons the soldiers and generals and presidents went to war, side by side, so to speak, would allow for a more open interpretation of the causes. If I were given this when I was in grade school, I would have had a better understanding of the southern mindset and the northern mindset. And a better understanding of the world at that time. IMHO, I'd rather not have my thinking done for me, rather to determine on my own. Of course, no man is an island and our own personal pedagogy and ideology will certainly come into play when trying to interpret things, but such is the folly of man. It is like when eye witnesses are questioned at the scene of a crime and the descriptions are as various as the "witnesses." Every man interprets, internalizes, and makes meaning based on their own prior learning. Historians, no matter how well intentioned, are prone to this as well. BFritzen (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with primary sources is that there are many thousands of them and they contain many different interpretations. That is why Wiki insists on using secondary sources written by experts. Professional historians make it their job to spend years reading and evaluating those thousands of primary sources--many of them unpublished and sitting in archives. Anyone can teach themselves to do this; it's not rocket science. However it does take a few thousand hours of your time. What's more the professioanl historians put their work on exhibit to other scholars who review, critique and evaluate quality. Wiki depends on this sort of quality review done by scholars. The journal Civil War History is a very good place to start to see what's has been done on the part of 1000+ scholars in recent decades.Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna say that! Thanks for stealing my argument. Soxwon (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, and certainly applying a scientific norm to this encyclopedia is a great ideal. I just come from a more "Eastern" (I guess you can call it) approach. It is precisely that the primary sources have differing interpretations. Honest question: What historians are able to give an NPOV and show many sides. The quotes I included above are from my ancestor's regiment. My ancestors went to war in order to free the slaves. Does that make the war completely about slavery? No. But it did (does) to my family because we were abolitionists. We fought against the immorality of slavery (mind you, these were Native Haudenosaunee; Oneida to be specific.) I guess my point is that any given event will not be recorded perfectly neutral. Think of the Rodney King tape. Many people (and I feel) rightly felt outrage at the beating. Yet others would paint a different picture. These events are recorded on video, what would seem a neutral source, and yet there were people of completely differing opinions about that incident. What would be a better source? The people who were there and the video, or someone who learned of it after 1992 and wrote about it? Let me explain "Eastern" so you get what I mean. In a collectivist society like China's there is no citation in academic/ intellectual work because (and this is the idea) "If you are smart enough to read what I am about, then you should know who I am referencing and know the subject matter well." It is precisely this that drives me back to the primary source. Think of the Bill of Rights. I believe the 2nd Amendment is pretty straight forward (I am a big fan of the Bill of Rights as is) and yet people "interpret" it differently. IMO it is all the gun control we need, but that is another argument for another day. Unfortunately, too many people aren't aware exactly of what that amendment says but jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, and shout "gun control" from the tops of their soapboxes as loud as they can. Now, if I were naive of said amendment, which is better for me to read: the Bill of Rights or, someone's interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I think that best explains where I am coming from. Like I said, I don't like someone doing my thinking for me. BFritzen (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

...and the point? It sounds like you are skirting along the synthesis line. This talk page isn't where you try to convince other Wikipedians to change policies, right? What do you want? Back to the article at hand, please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 09:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

....and yours? This is certainly about the article. "Causes of..." This discussion is about inclusion of various viewpoints (not on behalf of the editor) of the people who were there v historian point of view. For instance, the soldiers of the 184th volunteered to fight the Civil War in order to end slavery. This may not be considered a cause for the war, however, it was for these soldiers (no matter their personal ideologies.) A southern soldier may have fought due to state's rights, does that not validate his reasons for going to war despite his own personal ideologies. Thanks for joining the discussion, but as you said "This isn't where you convince other Wikipedians to change policies." What exactly are you adding to this discussion of the article? BFritzen (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that you're trying to build an argument to convince the editors here that we should ignore the usual Wikipedia policy regarding primary sources... in that last paragraph you managed to mention a handful of loose tangents: Rodney King, gun rights, China, your appropriation of "Eastern philosophy"....looks more like soapboxing or prelude to a rant. The viewpoints of those who fought in the war are included through secondary sources.

You are pushing this view (as quoted from your comments above):

"That is why primary sources trump most everything else because they give an unadulterated picture into the past for us."

Should we use Libby Custer's writings to help define how "the evil savages" committed their crimes at the Battle of the Little Bighorn? Doesn't matter that she wasn't there...still a primary source. Should we use Jubal Early's description(s) of negroes in the article on African Americans? Can you see how their usage might cause problems?

I do agree that primary sources may be used in the correct context when they are presented at face value and without interpretation (that is policy).

Would I be wrong that you are making a WP:IGNORE argument?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is precisely my argument. The primary sources should be put forward without interpretation. That is what I have been saying all along. Tangents? No. Just examples that can be used to compare various viewpoints. And yes, the "Eastern Philosophy" is that if you don't understand what you are reading, you will have to learn more and it isn't Wikipedia's job to teach. If Libby wasn't there, then that is not a primary source except in historiography. Wiki isn't a "history of..." Anyone using those sources inappropriately would be in violation of wikipedia guidelines. I have seen it happen here quite often, unfortunately. I don't have a solution to misuse of primary sources as it occurs quite often. However, as I (we) have said, the primary source need be available without interpretation. Using Libby Custer in an article about that battle wouldn't be inappropriate if only to point out what she said, as in "Libby Custer defines the natives as 'the evil savages.'" That is following guidelines and it should be placed accordingly. But when someone uses it as hate propaganda, well that violates NPOV.BFritzen (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true that someone looking to draw their own conclusions could consult the primary sources. But that's not what an encyclopedia is. Our job is to present an NPOV account drawing on the work of mainstream professional historians to simplify life for the reader. Anyone truly interested could of course go dig up the primary sources and come to their own conclusions, but Wikipedia isn't the place to include them. -Oreo Priest ^talk 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Historically, the term Civil War is a very general term. A more accurate title would be A [Revolutionary War between the Northern and Southern States] of America: [Conflict, Succession, and Reconstruction] [1855-1870]. The whole war period actually lasted 15 years. The violence in Kansas is the beginning of the conflict. Succession began with the first state to succeed was [South] Carolina in 1860 and ended with the last state to reenter the Union was Georgia in 1870. The war spanned 4 Presidents: Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant. The Civil War could be argued to have ended under the Grant Administration when all of the states were reentered into the Union in 1870. Why was it a revolution? It was because a whole new nation proceeded from the conflict, a nation without slavery, and a nation where African Americans gained citizenship and the right to vote.(66.249.175.194 (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)} When did reconstruction begin? The Emancipation Proclamation effective in 1863. In fact the seccession and the reconstruction period of the war are mixed together after the Emancipation Proclamation. West Virginia entered the Union in 1863 as a free state. Conflict, succession, and reconstruction were all intermixed at the same time.{Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)}

Actually, South Carolina was the first state to secede. It says so right in the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. South Carolina. That was fast. I did not have time to make the change. Correction noted. Good job.{Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)}

States Rights

Any decent article on the Civil War is going to mention the tug of war that took place between the North and the South for years before they started fighting. Where is the states rights argument in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.94.220 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Try looking again. There is a link to Origins of the American Civil War under the Causes of secession section.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 08:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Causes section itself briefly mentions states' rights among other things.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That might be because the States' Rights argument is left out of an encyclopedic argument as one of conjecture. There are biased opinions as to why "state' rights" is the cause. Can you provide a primary source that confirms it was states' rights. No one has as of yet and thus will be left out of an encyclopedia.BFritzen (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, States Rights are a reference to Article X of the Bill of Rights. BFritzen (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also primary sources claiming many from the north would not have fought if it was simply over slavery. There were other complicating factors, not just slavery. Soxwon (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Title?

Is it not inherently incorrect to call the civil war the "American Civil War"? In the Americas there are 35 different countries. By claiming "America" to be the United States is that not some what unintentionally arrogant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.239.207 (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's arrogant to assume that people in Mexico, say, call themselves American. They do NOT call their civil war the "Mexican American Civil War." Rjensen (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are major problems in trying to make "United States" an adjective (United Statesian?). For this reason, the adjective "American" is used. It's not arrogance, it's practical and grammatically necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like this articles' title is referring to a civil war encompassing the whole of the American continent and not the civil war of one country located within it, this title is obviously POV. 86.161.221.97 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your right. They said the Civil War was mostly over slavery. A few states in the North had slaves, too. It wasn't just in the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam c.333 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Most people call it the American Civil War rather than the United States Civil War, so I think changing the name could cause confusion. JayLeno175 (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, there are grammatical problems in English with converting "United States" into an adjective. Furthermore, it is just plain silly to say that something is "United States of American." Besides, the Canadians call us Americans as do the British. Obviously the Spanish origin word "America" in the name of our country was a reference to the New World but no modern native speaker of English thinks of anything other than the USA when they say "America." And we certainly do not intend to belittle anyone when we speak. So how are we arrogant?

As for the complaint that the title seems to refer to a civil war which encompassed "all of the American continent"...you are obviously unaware that in American English there is no continent called "America." There are two continents, one properly called North America and the other South America. Perhaps you were also unaware that the Mexicans refer to us as north americans (norteamericanos.) Do you suppose they mean to imply that the USA occupies all of North America?

No I am not unaware of the two continents located in that part of the Earth, one called North America and the other South, as you so relevantly interjected. Some French use the word Europe to describe their country, this is frowned upon by others since Europe is more than simply France, the same argument against that applies to "America" yes? It is an inherently US-centric stance that you choose to defend. This is the English language Wikipedia , not the "US" Wikipedia. Of course I know the title won't change today, but it is obvious that nationalistic sentiments are more important than neutral factual content in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.109.154 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential incoming vandalism

I see this article is already semi-protected, but watch out anyway. Bo Lindbergh (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Style inconsistencies

There is an odd thing happening in the early paragraphs where Lincoln is alternately referred to simply as "Lincoln" with a link or "Northern politician Abraham Lincoln". I do not think a house divided in terms of reference against itself can stand; so therefore I ask: which one should it be? Should there just be a link with familiarity assumed, or in the interests of time neutrality, do we have to introduce him with some sort of descriptor? Slac speak up! 05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Lincoln" with a link sounds better to me of the two.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed user requesting change

{{editsemiprotected}} In the last sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction it says, "and brought changes that helped make the country a united super power." Please could "super power" be changed to "superpower", as superpower is one word? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) AdmiralKolchak (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Civil war fought

"The American Civil War remains the costliest conflict in American history, claiming the lives of over 600,000 Americans - and absolutely devastating the entire nation. What were the causes leading to the crisis of the American Civil War -- specifically, the political causes? And could the Civil War have been avoided?

Much has been made of the issue of slavery as the leading cause of the Civil War. Certainly, slavery was the trigger that caused the secession of the Deep South, but the war itself was fought over a significant, political difference, That difference came down to the following question: Do the states retain their "sovereignty" and thus their right to withdraw voluntarily from the U.S. Constitution?

State "Sovereignty" in the Founding Era The seeds for the standoff over sovereignty were planted during the American Revolution, when the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the thirteen colonies to be "free and independent states" and clumsily forged a confederation that guaranteed sovereignty to the states, while trying to bind them into a "firm league of friendship."

From the founding era, there was a fundamental disagreement over how much authority the national government should have on the one hand and how much sovereignty and independence the individual states should retain on the other.

What followed was a clumsy and unworkable arrangement whereby the states tried to coordinate a national war effort, a national economy, and a national government without sacrificing their individual sovereignty" suite101.com

{{{As you see above states have the right to secead under the constitution. Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people}}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.89.195 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

however if california enters as a free state then it upsets the balance created by the compromise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.200.238 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Confederate Flag

is the image of the confederate flag just a poor image, or is it a glitch, because it doesn't take up the entire box it's allocated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.213.217 (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the last flag of the Confederacy, which differs from the previous flag only in that a vertical red bar was added to the right. The original Confederate battle flag (as opposed to the flag displayed in the article) was a soldiers flag, not the flag of the entire Confederacy, and unlike the modern version it was square.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Civil War.

Closing. Not helpful to the encyclopedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay. I have a huge social studies test tomorrow. Need basic facts about the civil was and events in the 1850's. So far I think I have most of them. Any Suggestions?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.127.106 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Study?Agathman (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In order to have a war soldiers are a neccesity, meaning without them there would be no war. The collective memory of the soldiers who fought in the war are white men who fought. The memory of this even fails to mention all the leisure time the soldiers had, the effects the war had on them, and not to mention that whites weren't the only men who fought. African American soldiers fought just as well as the whites even though they were less populated. These men have excessive leisure time. Yes, they did practice drills, cook, and make clothing articles for themselves but they also got to play games, write letters home, fish, or do just about any other activity that they saw fit as a recreation. They knew when it was time for business and when it was fun time, and they kept the two as seperate as possible.

The war had an enourmous effect on the lives. Before the war these men had to prepare their families for the absence that they were about to endure. While gone the women had to take the role of the male because they was no longer anyone there to play the role. They had to get jobs and take care of their familes, causing them to build a stronger household without the father figure. Upon returning home, for the some who do, they find their families doing just fine without them and not needing the help that they once provided. For the ones who come home uninjured its not as hard to built up the life they once had, but for the ones who come home with a disability they are now dependent on the wifes to continue to take care of the family. Stressing the fact that these men did more then just fight in a war,they made history and lost a lot of things along the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasz.nae (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

source-

Civil War Museum Kenosha, WI

www.nps.gov/archive/gett/soldierlife/cwarmy.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasz.nae (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Civil war

is there a timeline of the american civil war if not there should be--198.236.11.107 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't, but that would make a fine article. JayLeno175 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Union population

The box lists the Union's total population as 22,000,000; while it lists its free population as 21,567,414 and the border state slaves as 432,586. These numbers are extremely suspect because the latter two add up to exactly 22,000,000, which is clearly a rounded number to begin with. I strongly suspect that somebody took one number and subtracted it from the rounded 22,000,000 figure to get the other number, with an inappropriate level of precision. I'm not sure if it was you Jimmuldrow, because you seem to be the primary author of the article, but it would be nice if you could check which are stated exactly in the census or whatever and which is an inappropriately exact inference from subtraction. If you're curious as to how arithmetic is supposed to be done with rounded numbers, see Significant figures.–Oreo Priest ^talk 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1860 census should help sort some of this out --JimWae (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• CSA: 8,312,027 9,103,332
• border: 3,136,961
• Union 19,734,594 18,943,289 - not including border
• Union (all) 22,080,250

--JimWae (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual edit that changed the number in the table was this one [2]. It seems like it would be better to take the several minutes necessary to zero in on the change rather than speculate on who needs to be lectured about Significant figures. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I was lecturing about sig figs was that my first attempt to change it was reverted. In any case, is there any objection to putting the rounded figures up? -Oreo Priest ^talk 20:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, why not use the actual census figures since they are available? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. But I'd still like to round at least to the nearest thousand to make the numbers easier to read. What do you think? -Oreo Priest ^talk 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated, and rounded to the nearest 10,000, using the official census source. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

More casualties than all other US wars combined?

The article says "The war produced about 1,030,000 casualties (3% of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease.[148] The war accounted for more casualties than all other U.S. wars combined.[149]". Nonetheless, WW2 alone had over a million US casualties; see WW2_casualties#Casualties_by_branch_of_service. Having said that, 620,000 deaths is enormous, but still not more than the 20th century wars of the US. WW2 + WW1 + Korea + Vietnam is 420,000 + 120,000 + 40,000 + 60,000, which is 640,000, again edging the Civil War. So the claim is not true, and needs to be changed. It is a staggering number of losses, so I think it should be put in the strongest language possible. I though "all previous wars combined" was good, but if you have another idea I'd be happy to hear it. –Oreo Priest ^talk 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the claim regarding the comparative number of deaths, the claim is properly sourced and the source supports the article. I would think that the mere fact that the accuracy of THIS ARTICLE's numbers are in dispute would make one wary on relying on other wikipedia articles to make claims concerning what is "not true." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another possibility: note that the claim is "The war accounted for more casualties than..." rather than "The war accounts for more casualties than...". It could be that the quoting author meant that this was true at the time of the Civil War. In any case, official statistics for number of soldiers KIA in the other wars shouldn't be too hard to come by, and on top of that, those are only 4 wars of the many America has fought in its history. With others added in, the total would probably rise even more. Thoughts?- Oreo Priest ^talk 19:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual quote from Woodward is, "And in the final reckoning, American lives lost in the Civil War exceed the total of those lost in all the other wars the country has fought added together, world wars included." I do wonder whether or not the statement might have been true at some point before WW II and historians have just carried the claim forward without bothering to check. In order to change the article it would seem what is needed is either a reliable source that makes a contrary claim or a compilation of individual reliable sources that would lead one to question the reliability of Woodward's statement. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll probably get to checking the sources later, but for now, would there be any objection to changing it to "...accounted for more deaths than all..." which seems to be the claim that is referenced, and that has any hope of being borne out? -Oreo Priest ^talk 00:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So I've found some data: [3](Plus the Coast Guard is another 2000 total from all other wars.) The total deaths from the other wars is 405 + 37 + 58 + 117 + 13 + 10 = 640 thousand. (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, WW1, Mexican, all others pre-2000) It lists the Civil War as 365+133+31 = 529 thousand (Union + final report of the Provost Marshal on Confederate deaths (likely incomplete) + Confederate prison deaths). So it seems at least somewhat likely that the Civil War had fewer deaths than all others together. Assuming the number of total deaths in the Civil War is 620,000, the total from the other wars is still more.

Having said that, it still seems to me that a reasonable person, with a slightly different estimate of total deaths could still probably find that there were more deaths in the Civil War than all others. So at the very least, the claim should be tempered to "By some estimates, the Civil War accounted for more US deaths than all other US wars combined." or something like that. I personally would be more in favour of not making the claim at all, but I think it's important to have consensus on this. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a point.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Size of the Confederate Armed Forces

Where does the number 1,064,000 come from? That number is on the high side of modern estimates. The size of the Confederate military is rather controversial due to the destruction of Confederate records at the end of the war. In James McPherson's Pulitzer prize winning history of the war "The Battle Cry of Freedom" he cites several estimates in the 41st footnote of chapter 9 on page 306-7. The largest estimate is Thomas Livermore's (1901) estimate of "something over one million". Edward Channing (1925) estimated that 800,000 fought for the South. E.B. Long (1971) estimated that 750,000 wore the gray. McPherson himself points to the 1890 census as the basis for the most accurate estimate of the size of the Confederate military. In that year the number of Confederate veterans equated to 42% of the number of Union veterans. Applying that ratio to the accepted number of Union troops (2.1 million) gives a number of 882,000 Confederate soldiers and sailors. Given that Southerns died at a higher rate during the conflict that actual number was likely higher, how much so is unclear. It would seem however that an estimate of roughly 900,000 is most reasonable. —Preceding Tim811 comment added by Tim811 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias about the causes of secession

This article appears to directly break the Neutral Point of View requirement when discussing the causes of secession. One clear example is the following sentence:

"Non-slavery related causes of secession do exist, but have little to do with tariffs or states' rights."

The sentence implies that the correct view of secession is that tariffs and states' rights had almost no role. That may be the most popular view, but there are plenty of historians that believe tariffs and states' rights played an important role. Most of them don't say tariffs were more important than slavery, but very important nonetheless. That is an important point of view that should be given a balanced explanation.

As an example, here are two places (from my very quick search) that stress the importance of the tariff:

Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War by Thorton and Ekelund (there is a book review online at here ) They explain that an important factor in succession was that Lincoln and the Republicans supported high tariffs. The South had been subject to “tariff uncertainty” for many years with wide swings in rates. The South was afraid there would be a “politically driven return to high protective tariffs on manufactured goods.” (p. 23)

A Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt by John V. Denson (text ) “One of the essential reasons the South wanted out of the Union was to avoid economic exploitation by the North, and one of the main reasons the Northern political and economic interests refused to allow the South to secede was that they wanted to continue this economic exploitation.”

The bias of this wikipedia article can even be seen in the Q&A about the article: “Q1: I read somewhere that the war was caused by the tariff issue, or states' rights, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with slavery. So I'm going to have this article reevaluated for neutrality right now! A1: Please don't. Wikipedia requires that we rely on the best officially documented research available, without any original research. The best historians (McPherson, Nevins, Freehling and even the better Southern historians such as Potter) don't support Lost Cause interpretations of causes.”

Actually, in the Neutral Point of View article, Wikipedia says “None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as ‘the truth’”. I believe that choosing which are the “best” historians contradicts the Wikipedia’s policy. “The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.” Advocates of the Lost Cause are not the only ones to support the idea that tariffs and states’ rights played an important role in secession. There are many reputable historians holding that view and they should be presented fairly.

Wpeditor55555 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Wpeditor55555

I think it would be impossible to name three prominent civil war historians of the last 40 years who consider tariff a major cause. As for "states rights" -- the issue in 1860 was whether the states had the right to protect and extend slavery, versus the Republicans who wanted to use the national government to contain slavery and prevent its expansion. There were no other states rights involved for the south except slavery. Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't agree that there is a POV issue with the wording of the sentence, I would just like to pint out Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson pg. 221. A major part of the Republican platform were tariffs. One Southern disunionist at the time decribed the platform as "contemplated treason". Contrary to popular belief, the Republicans did use slavery as a campaign issue in 1860.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I Googled on Thornton and Ekelund. They appear to be libertarian Austrian school economists, although it's surprising that economists would downplay the single largest economic factor causing the war, which was slavery. Not saying the tariff wasn't a factor, only that 90 percent of the South Carolinians that led the South in secession were slave owners. Also, slavery represented more money than the tariff in terms of pure economics alone, even ignoring other factors. Perhaps the article could mention that a few libertarian economists place more importance on the tariff issue than most historians. Thornton and Ekelund correctly point out that, despite the talk about states' rights, Southern states had authoritarian tendencies.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One has to look at the Tariff issue from a larger perspective. Sure it was part of the reason that the South left, but the reason it was a problem leads back to the Slave issue. The South's reliance on plantation agriculture and their dependence on northern goods due to their slow pace of industrialize can all be traced back to the Slave system and its impact on the Southern economy. Tim811(talk)

Belligerents

Shouldn't the Russian Empire be added to the Union side, since they provided naval support in later periods of the war? -- LightSpectra (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Russians didn't do much.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Russians didn't do a lot, but they still assisted the Union, so I think they should still be included. JayLeno175 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Twice I've added a note about Russian participation but it's been removed. Please explain why it's somehow damaging to the article that it be noted that the Russians sent two ships, even if their motive wasn't pure altruism. -- LightSpectra (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

foreign warships pay courtesy calls all the time--it's not noteworthy unless the fleet somehow helped the U.S. Historians agree that did not happen; the newest diplomatic history (Herring 2008) does not even mention the fleet. See Bailey 1951 article Rjensen (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not disputed that the sole purpose of the ships was not a goodwill tour. Nevertheless, Russia was openly hostile to the Confederacy and those two ships could have seen action, so I see no reason why not to include the footnote. -- LightSpectra (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus Act

I think it would be good to reference the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, under the Reconstruction or Results heading in this article. Maybe someone with the juice wants to? Thanks. TwasBrillig (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Total War

This sentence should be corrected: "This was total war not in terms of killing civilians but rather in terms of destroying homes, farms, and railroads."

Instead of homes this should be war related industries or some such term. Homes sometimes got burned by troops for various reasons but that was unusual and not a part of the policy. Asiaticus (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you although i think there was probably some civilian casualties involved.(some being intentional) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernilsanddeer (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Slavery really the main cause and not fear of Northern dominance due to Industrialization?

Isn't that fact that several territories and states that had slavery fought on the Union side a sign that maybe fear of Northern dominance due to Industrialization was more a factor then slavery was?

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, saying that states like Maryland and Kentucky stayed in the Union by choice is like saying that a man was willingly sitting in a chair that he was tied to. Federal troops made sure that those important border states stayed in the Union (I believe the phrase was, "Lincoln hoped God was on his side, but he had to have Kentucky). So that's not really a good argument to make that slavery wasn't a factor (now the fact that they were allowed to KEEP slavery while occupied is another story). Soxwon (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the entire Maryland legislature was arrested under Lincoln's orders before they could even vote on the secession issue.--Sentinel1701 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

to be a little more exact, the Kentucky government decided to be neutral and was until it was invaded by Confederates. In Maryland the only folks arrested were men who in wartime said they supported an enemy country. Instead of hanging them, Lincoln held them a few weeks then set them free. Rjensen (talk) 10

24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

California a northern state?

San Francisco has the same latitude as Richmond, Virginia, and California goes as far south as Dallas. If one says that all the free states of the Union were in the North, then asks someone if California was a free state or not, it is quite clear that they would have grounds for confusion. Even if one could find sources from the time that identified California as a "northern state" or even a "Northern state", its present identification as a WESTern state (and NOT a northern state) makes calling it one now misleading. If, for some reason, someone cannot stomach saying about the free states "most of which were in the North" then we could say the free states were in the North, the Mid-West, and the West (which gives even more context). --JimWae (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

the text says that the free states were in "the north". In the 1860s "the north" = one side of the contest and that was the side California was on. It rejected and fought against "the south". Likewise in political, economic and cultural and demographic terms, California resembled the northern states Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dred Scott

Ok, so I added some info on Dred Scott.

What the article seems to ignore is that not only did the Dred Scott decision establish that slaves had no right to sue in courts, but it also overturned the Missouri Compromise. It stated that the prohibition of slavery north of the line was not constitutional.Dr. Clutch (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Southern cotton funds war

This section was deliberately deleted. There was a legitimate source. Wikipedia is suppose to present all sides of History, not just one side. If we can't objectively evaluate the Civil War, then the war really has never ended. The Southerners did attempt to get Europe involved in the Civil War. That is a fact. Why can't it be posted?

the South's failed diplomacy is covered. The big story is that Lincoln kept Britain and France from getting involved, while cutting off their cotton supply.Rjensen (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln did stop England and France from getting into the war militarily. However, the Southerners, did get money from loans in Europe to fight the war. That was my whole point. Cotton was the security for those loans. Europe was involved in the War financially. I even gave money values and a legitimate source. In fact, Lincoln gave permits for cotton speculators in the military zones. There is nothing in Threat of international intervention section that states Lincoln cut off Cotton Supply ships to Europe, unless cotton was on the ship carrying the two Confederate agents. Was there cotton on that ship? (66.249.175.194 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Lincoln cut off over 95% of the cotton--a little Confederate cotton got through mostly via Mexico and blockade runners. there was no cotton on the British mail ship from Cuba that carried Mason and Slidell. Most of the cotton that Britain received during the war came from new York--Lincoln's Treasury people bought it from southern plantation owners who had need for money. I suggest a reading of "King Cotton Diplomacy by Owsley.Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

True. Also, while the loan to Confederates did exist, the Confederacy still ended with hyperinflation and bread riots, so the loan should not be overstated. Also, the loan did not imply official recognition of the Confederacy by a foreign government. The loan could be mentioned briefly with those qualifications. Basically, some European bankers made a bad business decision when they gambled that Confederate victory would allow cotton to pay the loan. Specifically, Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment denied US payment for any Confederate debt.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have some source or specific instance where Lincoln or the Union specifically cut off a cotton ship going to Europe or Mexico. Europe did have a financial investment with the Confederacy in this war. That would make them involved in the War. The European money propigated the War and gave the Confederacy much need currency to pay for the Military, even at inflated prices, until eventually the Confederate money was worthless. Buying cotton from the South funded the Confederate war effort, even if it was sold through New York. I know that it could be a touchy subject about Lincoln giving permission for traders to by Southern Cotton. Even if the banking decisions are bad it does not make the European bankers less culpable. Even Grant and Sherman objected to the permission of the trade. Grant made a huge blunder with the anti-semitic General Order #11, in a failed attempt to stop the cotton trade, a subject that needs to be addressed in this Article. {66.81.240.84 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)}

1) the Confederates sold bonds to private bankers in Europe, promising to redeem the bonds with cotton AFTER the war. They used the gold to buy warships in Britain like the "Alabama"; 2) the Confederates made an amazingly bad decision in early 1861 to stop shipping all cotton to Europe; 3) by the time cotton was allowed to ship, the Union blockade was in effect and all commercial shipping ended. (there was no insurance possible and the US fleet intercepted and seized all commercial ships). 4) blockade runners were small very fast ships and did move a little cotton out of the South; 5) most of it piled up and was seized by the US Treasury in 1865. Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cival War was not started by Slavery.. Industrial growth in the South ment jobs in the North were deminishing and the Northern people were getting less money and trade. New ports in the south were opening up. The was new progress for the Southern states. Voteing precentage in the North were greater, leaving more electorial votes in the the North. Rich business men told Lincoln either do something about the Southern business, farmers , expanding industrial advantages in the South or he would not be elected for a second term. Freeing the slaves was a great propaganda move by Lincoln. He new the South could not survive without the Slaves to bring in the fields. He didn't need the votes in the South because the South carried little voting power because slaves could not vote and the white population was small. So the electorial votes were not needed to put him in office, but he needed the Northern States electorial votes. So he did what the the Rich northern business men wanted to be elected. New cotton gins, textile plants, shipping ports in the South were meaning great success and economic growth in the south.. Lincoln levied a tax on railroads and shipping at first. Also export and import taxes.,but did not effect the Southern people. After the civil war even the North didn't want the Slaves to live there. They didn't even get any rights till hundred of years later. Finally in 1968 they got their civl rights. They were used, and it worked well. Again political stupidity and greed caused thousands of lives to be lost and the Nation to split. Never think for one minute slavery was the issue. The deminish of salvery was used to bring the South to its knees and break the back of the Southern people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.135.6 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Maps and Nevada

I think that someone should edit the maps to reflect the fact that Nevada did not become a state until 1864. 68.83.90.94 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT

In paragraph 1 why does he similarize the civil war with England it makes no sense wat so ever to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernilsanddeer (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation and "Goals" of the War

At issue is the accurate characterization of the emancipation proclamation. The article as written uses the term "goal", whose definition is, e.g. (from the Based on the Random House Dictionary via http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal):

1. the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.

2. the terminal point in a race.

Lincoln's Proclamation of War sets its goal as remedying the South's obstruction of the laws of the United States (recognizing that at the time slavery was supported by Federal law and was no such obstruction). The firing on Fort Sumpter in support of South Carolina's secession did, however, form such an obstruction. The exact wording of the declaration of war (from Harper's Weekly, April 27, 1861) is, in part:

"Whereas, The laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law:

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations ..."

Nowhere is a goal of elimination of slavery presented.

In the emancipation proclamation of September 22, 1862, itself, there is also nowhere a mention of the emancipation as a war goal. The proclamation begins: "I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, etc, hereby proclaim and declare, that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States and the people thereof in which States that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed ...", and is followed by a statement of intention to offer to pay restitution for slaves freed. The slaves of owners in rebellious states are then declared to be free at the beginning of the next new year in areas coming within the control of the United States. This is again not stated as a goal, but as the fact of law that it was. The prolamation also contains "... the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled, "An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate property of rebels, and for other purposes," approved July 17, 1862, and which sections are in the words and figures following ...", again establishing goals such as ending the insurrection, without explicit mention of a goal of ending slavery.

Taken together, these descriptions of the goals of the military action nowhere indicate that the abolition of slavery in the South is treated as a "goal", as defined above. Under these circumstances, a citation is needed to justify the assertion that the Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal.

However, in an attempt to retain the value of existing material, also used as a jump to including a description of its effect on British reaction, I tried to preserve the reference to the emancipation proclamation's role with a citation indicating its tactical role. The text I suggested is "In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared the end of slavery in the South as a means of undercutting the Southern war effort, referring to his statement that "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." with a citation to: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

The changes I proposed were removed, with the description: "Lincoln's ambiguous statement; he said that regarding policies BEFORE the Em. Proclamation". Perhaps that is appropriate. I am interested to learn in what sense the statement is ambiguous. It was made after the proclamation, not before, but perhaps there is context in the letters suggesting it was no longer his view?

However, I have no special interest in providing support for an alternative phrasing of the sentence, and would be happy to remove the original entirely if it can't be clearly substantiated. I have tagged the assertion as needing a citation. The citation must support the claim that the Emancipation Proclamation made the abolition of slavery in the South a war goal, by those conducting the war. (Obviously, many different people had their own views of what the goals of the war were or should have been. But the sentence attributes the sentiment to official goals, which means that later inferences or projections about those goals are insufficient.) So we need a primary statement by the President, Secretary of War, Congress, etc. at the time, about the intent of the Emancipation Proclamation. In the absence of support, the claim must be regarded as POV, and removed.CSProfBill (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln sent the Greeley letter a month before he announced the Emancipation proclamation. Events were happening--especially the failure of Lee's invasion of the North. Most--practically all--historians say the war goal of ending slavery was added in 1862 to the original goal of preserving the Union. Here are 4 recent quotes by scholars--they are all in books.google.com : 1) "Lincoln announced his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and established the destruction of slavery as an official Union war goal." [Sheehan-Dean, Why Confederates fought: family and nation in Civil War Virginia (2007) Page 98]. 2) "necessity and ideology made emancipation a primary northern goal." [Boyer et al. The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People‎ (2009) p 338; 3) "The end of slavery thus became a national war goal" [Heidler, Encyclopedia of the American Civil War (2002) p 1189]; 4) Emancipation "began to replace Union as the war goal". [Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era (2009) p.133]

The Slavery during the war sub-section attempts to address this issue, although perhaps some clarity was traded to keep it from being even longer than it is. Here's the problem with adding one very long quote from Lincoln: Lincoln said many things about the slavery issue, whereas some would like to present Lincoln's letter to Greeley (perhaps omitting his personal wish that all men could be free) to replace all the rest, and the political context, and so forth. Maybe some relevant material from historians (McPherson, Oates and others) could be added as well. Long story short, Lincoln combined idealism with politics and gradualism. He said he hated slavery many times, but winning a war is the overriding objective in any war. The border states and War Democrats opposed emancipation, but gradually (mostly) accepted it as a military measure. Lincoln's letter to Greeley served a political and military purpose, and also separated Lincoln's view of his duties as President from his personal wish, a theme he would return to later. It's likely that Lincoln's letter to Hodges (part of which is quoted in the article) better sums up Lincoln's overall approach to emancipation.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your improvements to the "Causes" and "Slavery" sections later. But the claim made in the opening sentences of the article is still unsupported. The citations mentioned above here indicate several historians later interpretations of events (without primary documentation), all different:

• that Lincoln did two things: announce the emancipation proclamation and add the destruction of slavery as a goal
• that necessity and ideology made it a war goal (but not that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did so)
• that the end of slavery "thus" became a war goal, and
• that emancipation began to replace Union as a the goal of the war.

None of them claim that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the freeing of slaves a war goal. (e.g. By its own terms, if the Southern states had ended rebellion before the January 1 deadline, the emancipation would not have gone into effect and the war would still have ended - this is the opposite of making it a goal.) If there's a primary reference for the first point, as the need for citation calls for, we should add it. Unfortunately, the Sheehan-Dean reference merely establishes this as their view rather than that of Lincoln's pronouncement of the Emancipation proclamation. And, while I would not dispute these statements as their interpretations, the sentence doesn't simply say that Lincoln "proclaimed the end of slavery in the South and some historians[cited] see in this a recognition that emancipation had become a goal of the war", or some-such, but that the Proclamation itself made it a goal - which Lincoln didn't say in the proclamation. Hence the need for a proper citation that he was adding that to the set of goals in the original declaration of war.

In careful reading, the later discussion on slavery properly notes that slavery was a major underlying cause of the Civil War and that Lincoln thought it was the most important issue of division in the nation, and even that Lincoln did not support slavery, but it makes no case that it was a war goal for which Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation during the middle of the war, which is the claim that needs a citation.

The statement still needs a citation, a rewording, or a removal.CSProfBill (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not misunderstand Wikipedia's mission in history articles: we report the consensus of scholars (or if there are several opposing interpretations we report that too). We do NOT do original research based on primary documents, which is what CSProfBill seems to call for. To my knowledge all historians see the Emancipation Proclamation as making the end of slavery a war goal in addition to saving the union. I cited some recent historians who say that; I have been unable to find ANY serious historian who disagrees or has some alternative reading. Even the neoConfederates who hate Lincoln agree. Anyway, to keep CSProfBill happy I added a citation. A further point: what is the goal of a war? that is a historians' question and the answer is "what historians decide on." Rarely is there a single unchanging goal that is stated unequivocally in official documents. (What is the single unchanging goal of our war in Afghanistan that has been going on for 8 years now? How about Iraq? Vietnam? Korea? etc etc--in each case there are many goals mentioned in the official documents and the historians have to sort them out)Rjensen (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There was clearly no claim on my part about Wikipedia's mission nor any claim to introduce original research. Such claims are not implied by tagging material as needing a citation, or even by being "unhappy" when they aren't addressed. In fact, such tags are a conventional part of the process of improving the accuracy and verifiability of articles. But the policy on WP:V is clear, especially as it relates to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (WP:ASF). A citation is needed to support claims made when there is serious controversy. I am probably far less familiar with "neoConfederates" than Rjensen, and although I have no evidence for it, I do not dispute that many modern historians hold the view that the war's goals includes the abolition of slavery. Had the sentence attributed these views to them, I would be "happy". I accept Prof. Rjensen's claim that he has tried to find historians of any time period who think otherwise and failed. (Over my long lifetime I have seen consensus views in many fields change over time, and often early writers fail to mention or rebut interpretations discovered or invented by later writers so that, as is said, "absence of evidence cannot be construed as evidence of absence".) The point is exactly as I mentioned and Rjensen also mentioned - anyone can have a set of goals. The concept of "the goals" of a war is always an opinion, and falls under WP:ASF, and in the absence of qualification, the sentence as written providen no attribution and implies that it was the goals held by the propounders of the Emancipation proclamation. The question is not essentially a question of historical consensus, but a call for a statement to be made precisely. I do not call for original research, but for proper attribution. It is claimed that the added reference contains more that just its author's view. If so, I shall be able to find there his citation that justifies his view. If not, it would be appropriate to revise the sentence to read "It is the view of many (or most?, or even all, though that might be harder to prove) modern historians that ...". Under the usual procedures, the added reference should have substantiated the statement, not be a reference to somewhere else where an author substantiates the statement. Even more unfortunately, I cannot find the content of that reference online. Although it would be usual to simply reject the reference as not relevent in those circumstances, I will first see if I can obtain a copy. It would have helped if the relevent citation had been brought forward directly. I would appreciate someone's extracting the citation from the cited material if they have it.CSProfBill (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that CSProfBill is quite unfamiliar with what history is all about, indeed, including his own history here. Two days ago he demanded primary source research and issued a threat. He said on Oct 22 (above): So we need a primary statement by the President, Secretary of War, Congress, etc. at the time, about the intent of the Emancipation Proclamation. In the absence of support, the claim must be regarded as POV, and removed. That of course is an illegal request for original research in primary sources. Now he has dropped that demand and instead wants the history statements to be tagged with something like "according to the consensus of scholars". I suppose he wants every sentence of the article tagged, so the solution perhaps is to insert that tag once, in footnote #1. Even better, Wikipedia should state somewhere that all statements in all historical articles "reflect the consensus of scholars". So if the administrators will please put that on the home page or somewhere, CSProfBill can go back to computer science and stop fretting about what historians say about the past and how they phrase it. It would be wise to study the rhetorical phrasing in standard history textbooks and history treatises. They say "XYZ happened." They avoid saying: "According to the consensus of scholars XYZ happened." Rjensen (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia rules do try to "reflect the consensus of scholars." The next sentence of WP:ASF after the one CSProfBill quotes is By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.". I trust RJensen when he says that "To my knowledge all historians see the Emancipation Proclamation as making the end of slavery a war goal in addition to saving the union. I cited some recent historians who say that; I have been unable to find ANY serious historian who disagrees or has some alternative reading." So there appears not to be a "serious controversy." It is not necessary or usual to find and cite a statement of the existence of consensus to support that something is a fact, wikipedia would be impossible to write then. Once we have a cite and an unsuccessful good faith search for alternative views, the burden is on the challenger to show that there is a real controversy. It would be nice for us if Lincoln had been thoughtful enough to say somewhere that the Emancipation Proclamation made abolition a war goal; it would probably be allowable usage of primary sources, but it is not necessary. [4] is the second cited page of the reference, the first is not in the gbooks preview.John Z (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is sometimes the case that conclusions drawn by some authors too often become assertions by wikipeida. It is something I watch out for myself. In this case, however, the Gettsyburg Address makes it clear that "a new birth of freedom" had become a goal of the war as far as Lincoln was concerned. Without the EP (or something very much like it), such a claim by Lincoln would have been hollow. With the EP (part 2), emancipation became an intended outcome of Union victory.--JimWae (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Map

In the section titled "Secession begins," there is a map showing the status of the United States from 1864 to 1865. However, the map uses modern-day borders and does not correctly reflect how the western territories were organized at the time. Compared to a map from Territorial evolution of the United States, the differences are obvious:

• 
  Map from this article
• 
  Map from Territorial evolution of the United States

This error should be corrected. Andy120290 (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The problem with the map on the right is West Virginia, which should be the same color as Kentucky and Missouri.Dubyavee (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia are border states, and should be grouped with Kentucky and Missouri for this article, as is done in the current map (left above).Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about the colors of the map, I am talking about the borders. Especially those of the territories and Nevada. Andy120290 (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The map on the left has many problems. I'm pretty sure I removed it from the article some time ago. The legend on the map on the left calls AZ & NM &OK "Border Union States, permitting slavery" They were not states. By Dred Scott, it is not clear whether any territories could "not permit" slavery. Also, Kansas should be dark blue. This is the only article that uses that map. The left map should be deleted from wikipedia --JimWae (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC) OK - I see this article has adjusted the legend slightly, and that there are 2 slightly different shades of yellow. The map still is not worthy--JimWae (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Draft and Conscription

• There are no references to the forced military servitude done on either side. The draft riots in the north should also be mentioned.

• This article seems focused more on slavery than on the war itself. Include more information on the home front and on specific battles and significant events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.65.43 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This Line

I believe this line to be wrong: "The war accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined" as I added the American deaths from The Great War, World War 2, and Vietnam and the total is greater than 620,000. Needless to say, I didn't add the deaths from The Revolution, Mexican, Spanish, Philippines, or Iraq War. Is it that the line isn't up to date, or it's just a mistake?