Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

A reevaluation of the map

I realize now there are two issues to be considered, and both are thankfully objective: Representation in congress, and actions of the legislature. One can lag behind the other, so I need to consider both.

It seems we need to have different colors for:

• States solidly the U.S.
• States solidly in the C.S. (indicated by having a legislature and a delegation firmly aligned with the C.S.; this is TX, AR, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, and at varying times, LA, TN, and VA)
• Officially seceded states (indicated by having the recognized legislature secede; these ignore representation)
• Unofficially seceded states (indicated by having an unrecognized legislature secede; these ignore representation. This applies only to MO and KY. This is a necessary and important entry in the timeline, since it goes directly to accession to the C.S. and thus cannot be omitted)
• States whose official legislatures are aligned with the C.S. but with some U.S. representation (at varying periods, VA, TN, and LA)
• States whose official legislatures are aligned with the U.S. but with some C.S. representation/claim (at varying periods, MO, KY, and WV)
• Territories solidly in the U.S.
• Unofficially seceded territories (AZ)
• Territories whose official legislatures are aligned with the C.S. but with some U.S. representation (Indian)
• Territories whose official legislatures are aligned with the U.S. but with some C.S. representation/claim (AZ)

I think that handles all the variations. Unfortunately, that enlarges the number of colors we need, which means my goal of staying away from garishness may be impossible; the increased number of shades becomes impossible to easily tell apart.

So, thinking out loud, there's four fundamental states of being: U.S. state; U.S. territory; C.S. state; and Seceded. There's a fifth category of 'other' to catch the unusual situations of Indian and Arizona Territories. So the coloring needs to be in degrees of this. So, looking at the list again, here's my suggestions:

• States solidly the U.S.: Keeping the beige currently used
  • States whose official legislatures are aligned with the U.S. but with some C.S. representation: 75% beige 25% green [just to give an idea of how pale I want it]
• States solidly in the C.S.: Use a darker green for more shading possibilities
  • States whose official legislatures are aligned with the C.S. but with some U.S. representation: 75% green 25% beige
• Territories solidly in the U.S.: Keeping the light brown currently used
  • Territories whose official legislatures are aligned with the C.S. but with some U.S. representation: 75% green 25% brown
  • Territories whose official legislatures are aligned with the U.S. but with some C.S. representation: 75% brown 25% green
• Officially seceded states: Keeping the red currently used
  • Unofficially seceded states: 75% beige 25% red
  • Unofficially seceded territories: 75% brown 25% red

I think this could work. I'll whip up a version using these colors and see if they're distinctive enough. The text will offer even more nuance about the secessions of MO, KY, AZ, and where there governments go to and when. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We should include Virginia in the Confederacy because the Confederate Congress recognized its secession, (a) established using reliable sources from Kenneth Martis, (b) without asserting a POV one way or the other in the matter of the legitimacy of its secession.

We should include Virginia in the Union during the 37th and 38th Congress because the Federal Congress then recognized Representatives and Senators chosen in elections it recognized, (a) established using reliable sources from Kenneth Martis, (b) without asserting a POV one way or the other in the matter of the legitimacy of their election.

@Golbez. To concur with your four point color scheme, using a slightly different rationale: The colors required for Confederate political geography should be ONLY those based on reliable sources, (a) WITHOUT imposing a point of view as to the legitimacy of elections, legislatures, any state or either cause, (b) WITHOUT assessing degrees or kinds of sovereignty by changing military occupation, tax collections, conscription effectiveness, election returns or emancipation achieved:

(1) in the Union uncontested by the Confederacy, states and territories.

(2) with a secessionist resolution recognized by the Confederacy, states and territories.

(3) admitted to the CS Congress, states and territories.

(4) admitted to the CS Congress and the US Congress, states and territories.

(5), or color (2), former Confederate states not admitted to the US Congress.

Occam's razor. select a paradigm with the fewest assumptions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with conferring legitimacy upon certain legislatures; that Mesilla, Bowling Green, and Neosho were splinter governments rather than the federally- or constitutionally-recognized capitals of their regions is not in dispute. Virginia's Confederate claim was stronger than its Union claim since its pre-war civil government had seceded, so it will be shaded appropriately. --Golbez (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of collaboration, I can concur without full agreement. I defer to your color scheme. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Map update

So I made frames for everything up to the accession of West Virginia, and I ran into a problem: Where to put the border? It was solidly around the whole of VA; then the Restored Government of VA seceded from Confederate VA, but I kept the border on the north side; then I moved it to the south side when WV became a state. But why? VA already had representation in both Congresses at this point. What signifies the border moving?

So... I'm starting to agree with people who say we shouldn't have a border, but for different reasons. Either we use it to signify ALL CSA claims - which would include MO, KY, and WV - or we don't use it all. Otherwise I'm just using my own random decisions to decide where it goes. And then there's the matter of Arizona Territory - after it declared itself a territory but before it was acquired by the CS, what was it? Independent? Where does the border go?

There's also the thorny issue of Louisiana. It maintained representation in both congresses almost throughout the entire war. So it seems off to give it CSA coloring the whole time.

Gif 1

Gif 2

Next frame

Here are two GIFs of the first two segments of the timeline, as well as the first frame of the next. These are just for comment, these aren't necessarily final. They run at 2 seconds a frame so you can get through them quickly to review. The first GIF should be pretty solid, it's the start of the situation to the formation of the CSA, and the second GIF is from there to the finalization of the CSA. The very next frame is my experiment in illustrating Virginia as a disputed state, since starting July 4 1861, the Restored Government of Virginia was seated in the U.S. congress. Please let me know what you think. --Golbez (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And as an aside, I'm starting to wonder of the pre-Confederate Mesilla government should be mapped. As a territory, can it really be independent? You're either part of a country or a country or owned by a country, and as an independent territory they don't match any of the above. Were they a [self-proclaimed] U.S. territory petitioning to be part of the CSA? --Golbez (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I would make Virginia green like the rest of the Confederacy, perhaps putting a dot where Wheeling is and saying on July 4, 1861 that the Restored Government of Virginia, in Wheeling, is recognized by the Federal government as the government of Virginia. I would hesitate to denote the boundaries of West Virginia until June 20, 1863 when it becomes a US State, as the boundaries of the state went back and forth for a while. And I wouldn't fiddle with Jefferson and Berkeley Counties, just put them in with the rest. It makes it all too complicated. Dubyavee (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Except it wasn't just the mountain counties that had representation in Congress. I guess they followed the Wheeling government, but it was also areas in Northern Virginia as well. So all of Virginia technically, as far as this map is concerned, has the same status as Missouri and Kentucky. The Restored Government, based in Wheeling, claimed to represent (I believe) the whole of the state, not just the mountain counties. Two competing governments, two sets of representatives, varying levels of control. And I agree, I gave up on mapping WV being split. I think noting the Restored Government regaining representation is sufficient until statehood. --Golbez (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So, here's my idea: To use colors to indicate congressional membership. That way, it's different than all the nuances of who controls what, etc. It's the objective fact about representation:

• Yellow = U.S. only. (all U.S. states)
• Brown = U.S. delegate only. (U.S. territories, DC)
• Green = C.S. only. (TX, AR, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, VA until the formation of the Restored Government, LA until the Union captures New Orleans)
• Light green = Both. (TN, MO, KY, WV, VA after the formation, LA after fall of New Orleans)
• Dark green = Both U.S. and C.S. delegates. (AZ, IT)
• Red = Neither. (All C.S. states during secession and reconstruction)
• Light red = Two governments, one U.S., one none. (MO and KY between secession and accession)

Because you can't be in a congress if you aren't considered part of that country, except for Indian Territory. So this handles the whole border issue, and we can rely on text to explain the nuances.

I'll work on this and see how it turns out. --Golbez (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks very good. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, too --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can there be three tones of green, so deepest is C.S. only, middle is both US/CS states, and lightest green is both US/CS territory (AZT and InT). The brown for U.S. only territory and DC should have the same value light brown as the lightest green used for "both US/CS territory". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. No, I take it back. This is getting harder, not easier. Thank goodness for Golbez. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I still have a problem with captions that assert states seceded, or is this just a working caption?--JimWae (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything is a working caption, a working line, and a working color. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"MO and KY were indeed admitted to the CSA" - Golbez found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trav%C3%BCrsa

The problem is that they didn't secede from the Union, but the animation claims they did.

If secession is not declared by the democratically elected congress--the official law makers of a state--then it does not count as the state seceding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War#Elections_of_1861 Kentucky, at least, did not vote to secede.

Not only that, but they also never voted to rejoin the Union, so either one of the following must be true: A) They never seceded B) Missouri and Kentucky are the remainder of the CSA today.

Since B) isn't true (by international agreement that both Missouri and Kentucky are part of the sovereign USA), the only other option is A) (unless there is a third option that I have not considered).

Rational for change: Until the "new" version is completed, the current version at least needs to show factual accuracy.

Rational for change: Seeing as on the "talk" page on Wikipedia for the file "CSA states evolution.gif" has the discussion "Any plans to fix the problems?" more recently than the discussion "Kentucky joined the Confederacy?" AND "Any plans to fix the problems?" was last modified almost 4 years ago (so nobody has objected to the proposed changes in 4 years), my version most accurately reflects the talk page.

Actions taken: Removed the animation from the CSA page. "Animation removed until a concensus has been reached."

Travürsa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

Self-proclaimed governments in KY and MO seceded; this is not in dispute. Those governments were admitted to the CSA; this is not in dispute. The legitimate governments on KY and MO did not secede; this is not in dispute. They must be labelled in some way on the map; this should not be in dispute. Both our versions, thus, are inaccurate, I would say yours even moreso than mine. I'd love to move forward on this one but I have yet to receive feedback from those more knowledgeable about congressional representation, do you have any input on that? --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps tell what country controls a certain area. Since the CSA never controlled a square inch of Kentucky, it's not useful to pretend otherwise. Missouri--the CSA had raids going on but never established a CSA-government inside the state. Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the redone map not include Kentucky? If not, then I'm not sure what this statement is for. (Also it appeared to control at least the region of Bowling Green for a short period) --Golbez (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

leave Kentucky out. There are two types of control -1) an army is present (maybe just for a raid). 2) a civil government is in control with elections, local & state officials, courts, militia, taxes, etc. The map is about form 2). The CSA never had and civil control of Kentucky or Missouri (nor Maryland, nor, I recall, West Virginia [there might have been some CSA civil control in part of West Va] . Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky will not be left out. The only way to concretely say "This is what the countries were" is to indicate which countries claimed which areas. Kentucky was claimed by both, except its CSA claim was weaker than the rest. A comprehensive map cannot possibly omit this. According to the Confederate Congress, Kentucky had representation there. Same as Missouri. But not Maryland, and, after a time (maybe from the start) not West Virginia, but that's irrelevant because West Virginia was indisputably part of Virginia for several years after the war stated. Kentucky and Missouri's (and Virginia's and West Virginia's and Louisiana's and Tennessee's) statuses will hopefully be made very clear by the map and accompanying text. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

careful: using original sources is illegal OR -- you need reliable secondary sources, none of which say that Kent was in the Confederacy. Nor did the Confed Congress-- the Ky representatives in Richmond represented the Kent SOLDIERS then in the Confed army, not the people of the state (who never elected them). Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Using first party sources may be frowned upon but it is not "illegal", nor is it at all original research, unless I were the first party, and I'm pretty sure I'm not Jefferson Davis. I'm sure I could find myriad third party resources that would confirm that there were seats in the Confederate Congress set aside for Kentucky and Missouri (not to mention Indian Territory and Arizona Territory), and that these seats were filled. To omit Kentucky and Missouri without comment would be to create an inaccurate map. They will be included as represented by both houses, with a note that it was a splinter government that seceded (just as the Wheeling Convention was a splinter government in Virginia) and the Confederacy never held control over the bulk of their states. --Golbez (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

. OR is strongly frowned upon: WP:OR You're "sure" there are reliable secondary sources (that's what we need, not "myriad third party" stuff) that support you but you have not found them yet???? That kind of stuff gets erased fast. The problem is that you're using not maps to represent the geography on the ground but an imaginary "geography" (names of seats controlled by Confederate units from Kenty etc) that had no basis in reality--yet readers will be misled into thinking the maps represent what was on the ground. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware OR is strongly frowned upon, I'm not new here. However, this isn't OR, which you would know. What do you mean, haven't found them yet? What makes you think I've even looked? You're taking my lack of action as a vindication of your statements. And uh, yes, this is obviously a map of political geography, as most maps are. The map of the reality on the ground and the political map are many times at odds with any country, let alone this very complex matter. I've said in other sections that I would enjoy doing a map of the congressional districts, showing which ones had representation at which times, as a more detailed treatment of the matter. But fundamentally, as a political map, it can't show all of the realities on the ground. It's not going to show troop movements. It might mention, for example, that the Confederate governments of Kentucky, Missouri, and Arizona evacuated their areas early on, but that doesn't change that they were still claimed and represented. I'm starting to wonder just what your complaint here is.

This map is an animated timeline political map of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. It ignores the U.S. territories largely for conciseness, and because it's focusing on the CSA. Drawing a solid border between the two countries didn't work because, as you say, who belongs on which side was fluid and not easily done in a neutral way (the USA would say the border ran south of Kentucky, the CSA would say it ran north; the USA would say it ran through Virginia, the CSA would say it ran over; and of course, really, the USA would say there was no such border at all). The next best idea was to illustrate based on representation in their respective congresses. In this case, at various points in the conflict, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona, Indian, and Louisiana were represented in both congresses. They are colored equally on this map, because it would be POV for me to decide, "Well, this control is more than that one, if we're working from this purely objective methid." The text of each frame of the map will then elaborate: It was a splinter group readmitted to congress from Virginia, it was the captured area around New Orleans readmitted to congress from Louisiana, it was a splinter group admitted to the Confederate Congress from Kentucky, half of Tennessee wasn't at all Confederate held and thus retained US representation, etc. To follow your idea of completely ignoring Kentucky in a political map that, by its own definition, is not following the day-to-day troop realities on the ground, just doesn't make sense to me. What I am building here is a political map of two countries, made difficult to accomplish because one country didn't think the other existed; because of this, to include both POVs equally is impossible. To say "The entire Confederacy was created, admitted these states and territories, and then was dissolved" without mentioning the fact that it admitted Kentucky would be a falsehood, plain and simple. Kentucky will be included in this map; I challenge you to present a better way than has already been stated. If one exists I am of course open to it, but based on the discussions I have had elsewhere on this page, coloring it the same as "represented in both congresses" and elaborating in text on how little on-the-ground control the Confederacy had is the best solution for a political map. If you want a military or control map, that's not here. (Also, why is it relevant? According to the U.S., Alabama was part of them, yet they didn't control it for four years. According to the C.S., Kentucky was part of them, yet they didn't really control it for four years. If you're going to accept the U.S. point of view on Kentucky then why not on Alabama as well?) --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

the OR question remains very serious--you seem to be synthesizing material from primary sources and not using any reliable secondary source. But to the substance, this is an article on the CSA not the USA, so the political map should ONLY show the claims of the CSA and be clearly marked as to political claims made in Richmond that does not necessarily correspond to any reality in the actual states. I recall years ago going to an ethnic food fair in Chicago--dozens of European ethnic groups had booths and were giving away food & wine and they all had a map showing their territory. Add the maps together and you get about twice the actual area of Europe. The CSA never claimed any political control of Kentucky or Missouri and it claimed all of Virginia, and you have to label the map so that readers understand that or else the map has a negative worth. Rjensen (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have, in another section down below, a work-in-progress map I've been doing purely of the world from the CSA's perspective. I don't think it's remotely proper to have that as the only map of the CSA, though; that would be considered wildly POV. I do think it's valuable to have as an additional product, though. I believe a full understanding of the CSA in a political map can't be done without showing its context with the United States. And yes, the CSA did very much claim political control of Kentucky and Missouri, hence giving them representation in Congress. They certainly knew they didn't actually have political control, but that didn't stop them. They were making a point. (Also, you seem stuck on this OR issue, yet you realize this very article says multiple times that Kentucky and Missouri were represented in the Confederate Congress, yes? If there's a problem with OR it didn't start with my map.) The colors of the map will be based on the most objective, simple thing possible: Representation in congress. This is definitely more objective than the border, because it can be illustrated without giving preference to one side or the other, or duplicating itself. As stated above, there are several variations on this: US, CS, US Delegate, CS Delegate, Both US and CS, Both US and CS Delegate, Neither. The text accompanying each frame of the map will then elaborate on the nuances (such as how it was a splinter government in Kentucky that seceded, and that it retreated to Tennessee on this date, etc.) My dream is to eventually create a map of the Confederate congressional districts themselves, and show how control/representation of them changed hands throughout the course of the war. I think that could give a pretty good indication of the flow of things. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"wildly pov"? that's an odd statement to make about Confederate claims. As for OR, Wiki rules are that RS have to do the judging, not Wiki editors. Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misjudged my comment. I meant, to have the map from the CSA's perspective be the only political map here would be wildly POV. I think it could be quite valuable as a tool, but not the only tool. It would create many comments like yours wondering, why are Kentucky and Missouri and West Virginia included? Likewise, having a map from the USA's perspective would be flat out useless. So this is the compromise. I don't know what your third sentence is about. --Golbez (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What you have is a map of seating in the Confederate Congress. That is useful enough and non-POV in an article on the CSA. Portraying the map so that readers might well assume it refers to actual territory will hurt the article. I see no need for a map of representation in the US Congress, which is not part of this article. Rjensen (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Self-proclaimed governments in KY and MO seceded; this is not in dispute. Those governments were admitted to the CSA; this is not in dispute. The legitimate governments on KY and MO did not secede; this is not in dispute. They must be labelled in some way on the map; this should not be in dispute. Both our versions, thus, are inaccurate, I would say yours even moreso than mine."

The old map clearly said that Kentucky and Missouri seceded when they did not. That is the dispute. I will grant that the CSA claimed the territory. The map should not label them as seceding when they did not secede.

Why can't the map just show Kentucky and Missouri in the union and be claimed by the CSA? That'll show that the legitimate governments voted to not secede and show that the CSA did claim them. The rational for the claim would be described in the article.

Travürsa (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your concern that KY and MO be shown (a) in the U.S. (in the U.S. Congress) and (b) claimed by the CSA (in the C.S. Congress) is reflected in the legend found in "Beta.2" proposal below (Both C.S. and U.S. Congress). The map as titled with legend does not address whether secession occurred, only whether the Confederate Congress recognized a government and seated a delegation in their Congress by the rules of apportionment it applied to all other member states. That is the rationale for picturing it on the map. And that is how KY and MO are pictured in reliable scholarly reference (Martis). Also, concerns about legitimate government and secession can be addressed in a note as proposed below in "secession proclamation legend" proposal below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Why can't the map just show Kentucky and Missouri in the union and be claimed by the CSA?" Because, for one thing, that applies to all of the states, not just MO and KY. Second of all, parts of TN, VA, and LA were held and represented by the Union; if they are colored differently, it makes sense that MO and KY be colored differently. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian. The problem was that File:CSA states evolution.gif did identify Kentucky and Missouri as separating. The only point of me being injecting in the discussion is because Golbez reverted that file. Perhaps I should have just reverted his revert under the argument that my version more accurately displayed the consensus of the talk page.

@Golbez The distinguishment of secession from the Union is, under my knowledge "The official Legislative branch of a state creating documentation declaring secession from the Union." You bring up a good point: We shouldn't bother with identifying Kentucky and Missouri as even having been claimed by the confederacy since this map should only bother with states who seceded in actuality--and thereby showing the actual sovereign territory of the two countries. West Virgina notwithstanding, seeing as they did not seceded from the Union, but from Virgina and the Confederacy. Also File:CSA states evolution.gif should be either updated or replaced on other Wikipedias if the new version is made.

Travürsa (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@travursa. Thanks for responding. I seem to be in some sort of time delay status which limits my contribution on this Talk page.

See “secession proclamations” for the elements to secession that the creation of the Union required in 1787, and which, by my understanding, any subsequent legitimate dissolution requires.

You posit the scholarly view which locates sovereignty in the legislature of each state. This is essentially the upshot of the British “Glorious Revolution” where Parliament seats William & Mary as monarchs. When the Albany Convention wished to form a security confederacy it petitioned the “sovereign” by this view, the Parliament, not the colonial legislatures charted by Acts of Parliament, not the people made British subjects by Acts of Parliament.

This “legislature is sovereign” view would exclude Virginia from the map, as its “official legislature branch” did not authorize secession, indeed did not believe itself competent to do so, nor did the second secessionist convention. Hence its requirement of referendum, though Virginia’s delegates were recognized and seated by the Confederate Congress before that referendum.

Golbez proposes to use the legitimacy of each state secession by its recognition of the national legislature, the Confederate Congress, as documented by the scholarship of Kenneth Martis. Your view is fully represented by giving those states still seated in the U.S. Congress a distinctive color related on the pallet. That is, state, U.S. and Confederate legislatures are accounted for without adopting a POV. Can you see your way to agreeing? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

From my understand, Virginia's legislature delegated the decision to the people of Virginia, and thereby, the people's decision became the decision of the legislature. I guess that's a stretch, but Virginia's legislature most certainly did not object to the decision.

The problem I have with using the Confederate Congress is that Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia are all represented in the 38th United States Congress. Naturally, a state can not be part of the Union AND the Confederacy at the same time, and this fact--that the 38th United States Congress and the Confederate Congress both have representation--means that a Congress can not be a adequate metric to determine which sovereign State owns each state. The 17th amendment was not ratified yet, so I assume that's why Golbez neglects to include Virginia in the debate (as they had no representatives in the house).

Tl;dr: Why can't we use the 38th United States Congress's House instead of the Confederate Congress? Travürsa (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've neglected to include Virginia in the debate? I guess because it's a settled issue - I don't think anyone here disagrees that Virginia was not only represented in both congresses, but had various regions controlled by both militaries. The same applies to Louisiana and Tennessee as well, at various points in the timeline. I suppose I can see one concession - to shade areas that seceded with a government other than their federally-recognized legislature (Missouri, Kentucky, and Arizona) a further separate shade, to indicate that their claim of a legitimate secession is even less so than the rest of the Confederacy. But if I'm going to use military control to say that we don't show Kentucky and Missouri, then we can't show Arizona for most of it, the bulk of Georgia disappears in 1864, etc. But I have neither the ability nor will to create a day-to-day map of the military shifts; this is a political map only. Note that, for the full timeline, I also intend to state when the various legislatures fled their areas, to indicate the shifting sands of military control in a political context (like when Mesilla fled to El Paso, or Bowling Green fled to Tennessee). I'll probably be able to put some work in on the map this weekend to incorporate some of these ideas. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And to respond to your tl;dr: One reason I can think of is, if we only go by the U.S. congress, then there'd be no mappable difference between a seceded state and a state that's joined the CSA. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Virginia did not have voter representation in the 38th United States Congress--only senate seats. The only representation they had was illegitimate.

About the military holdings: The German held areas of France in WW1 were still part of France proper at the time, so the Confederate held areas of he Union are still part of the Union. To the same effect, the seceded sated were still part of the Confederacy until they voted to re-join the Union. Also, this map is intended to show the states that joined the Confederacy.

About the tl;dr: The 38th United States Congress and the Confederate Congress agree on all but 2 states: Kentucky and Missouri. Those two are also the states that "seceded" but didn't join the confederacy (as per the old map). I put seceded in quotes because the didn't secede as I stated earlier, seeing as they never voted to re-join the union. Using the United States Congress' House of Representatives will represent more closely what happened at the state-wide level. Travürsa (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Virginia: I know its representation in the U.S. congress was on-and-off, as was Tennessee's and Louisiana's. The map will indicate when it was represented in either house. I don't know why we should go only by the 38th congress, since it started midway through the war and thus was irrelevant before a certain point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Re tldr: I wasn't referring to MO and KY; I was referring to, say, Alabama between the moment it seceded and the moment it joined the Confederacy. If we go solely by U.S. congressional representation, there would be no difference between the two. You should check my new section at the bottom of this talk page where I'm working through these issues. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Travursa. You misunderstand what Virginians thought Virginians were doing. You anachronistically apply a theory of sovereignty generally held there in the 1600s to the people living there in the 1800s. The Virginia Assembly of the 1800s, and continuously since before there was a “United States” of any description, held that the People are sovereign. The people delegate to the Assembly. The Assembly makes no delegation to the people, on the subject of secession or any other matter.

To recap the sequence of events related to the formation of the U.S. Congress in 1787-1789 based on the people and their representatives in legislatures:

(1) A Constitutional Convention met including delegations from legitimate, complete state legislatures from twelve of the thirteen states in union. A delegation was selected from mass meetings to represent Rhode Island; it was not seated but its petitions were received. (2) The Articles Congress endorsed the Convention's uniform procedure for ratification found in the draft Constitution, required it of all member states intending to form a new nation-state, and transmitted the proposed Constitution to the state legislatures.

(3) A state convention was called by each state legislature according to each state Constitution for the sole purpose of ratifying the Constitution. (4) State legislatures expanded their electorate in several ways, by (a) abolishing property requirements for ratification delegate elections and (b) increasing the numbers of proportionate representation in the convention.

(5) Elections were regularly held after extended campaigning and exchanges in newspapers in each state and around the country on the subject of the Convention, creating a separate nation-state out of the existing Articles Union. (6) Conventions met and voted ratifications in eleven of the thirteen states, and these were duly recognized by the Articles Congress.

(7) A concurrent majority of the people in three-fourths of the states was achieved by regular procedure. (8) The Articles Congress endorsed the new government and dissolved itself without coercion. The new Union was formed unanimously in two years versus the five years required for the Articles of Confederation.

No such sequence was followed to establish the Confederacy. Indeed, there were five different ways to “secession”, and the only thing which they had in common was their recognition by the Confederate Congress attempting independence from the United States. Regardless of scholarly considerations of legitimacy, resolves of secession were important because they inspired regiments (thousands) to enlist and fight in the Confederate Cause. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky and Missouri never did vote to rejoin, so that makes your world a little awkward, with two nations enclaved by the USA, but I don't even care anymore. Go ahead and make anyone you want joint the confederacy. Even add Maine if they had a tiny separatist movement that was allowed to be at the CS congress. And if the people are sovereign, and the people voted to be in both the 37th and 38th congress (house), why are Kentucky and Missouri declared as "seceeded"? But you get my go-ahead. Travürsa (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The map is to show Kentucky and Missouri as recognized and seated in the U.S. Congress AND in the C.S. Congress. WE do not have to determine whether either "seceded" or whether either "rejoined". There is no awkwardness other than the requirement for an historical understanding that the two groups (congresses) met simultaneously, and that each had historical significance enough to merit an article in the encyclopedia. The disjunction in the 19th Century world arose because they each disagreed as to the extent of the other's sovereignty, and consequently upwards of half-a-millions perished sorting out their disagreement, resulting in the abolition of slavery in the United States, an alteration in its governing federalism, its decline from world supremacy in maritime commerce, and the restoration of the southern United States as a reliable, uninterrupted source of the highest quality, lowest cost cotton to world markets.

The student of history is neither required to adopt the POV of one, nor to dismiss the POV of the other. An editor is only required to accurately and fairly represent them in their own terms so that each would recognize themselves, and in a way that allows for admitting descriptive evidence and interpretive narrative for all sides: Federal loyalists and Copperheads, Southern secessionists and Unionists, Indian nations and Europeans, Latin nations and Caribbean colonies.

note: I believe in the 37th KY and MO had House seats, and in the 38th, the House did not seat those presenting their credentials from MO, but paid their travel expenses and their stay in DC while they were awaiting determination of their elections. KY and MO have "resolutions of secession" and "membership in the CS Congress" for the purposes of a map of political geography of the Confederacy only because scholars in reliable sources report that the CS Congress recognized their resolutions and delegations, and it seated their representatives under the same rules of apportionment and status as representatives from every other Confederate state in their Congress. They participated in roll call votes as equals, of which we have authenticated documentary evidence. Their votes made majorities in the CS Congress supporting the Davis administration, bringing about actions in the conduct of the Civil War which would not have occurred without their votes, in the face of opposition of Representatives from North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In the Confederacy: Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia

Editors have previously focused on scholarly theories of secession and union as a central determination of how to treat Kentucky, Missouri and western (West) Virginia. For the purposes of a map of political geography, we should focus on the historical Confederate States of America. There were resolutions of secession, and membership in the CS Congress. For the purposes of evenhanded representation of events without assuming a POV, we should represent status prior, during and after the Confederacy, as represented in the article's Infobox, by showing representation and vacancy in the US Congress.

In the historical events related to the Confederacy and its history:

(a) Resolutions of secession recognized by the CS Congress brought regiments (thousands) into Confederate armies from Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia. These in numbers that altered the composition of the US Congress: too few voters vacated seats even with proper elections. On the battlefield, regiments from these places precipitated, sustained and altered the course of events.

(b) In the CS Congress, delegations from Kentucky, Missouri and western (West) Virginia participated in roll call votes as equals. Their votes made majorities for the Davis administration, precipitating, sustaining and altering the conduct war over the opposition of representatives from North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama (Martis).

The discussion for this article "Confederate States of America" should encompass historical aspects of events from fall 1860 through spring 1865. There should be evidentiary and interpretive consideration of history, beyond considerations of scholarly debate over the political theory of statehood sovereignty which might more appropriately contribute to edits at Secession in the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think a subsection dealing with the contributions of the border states would be appropriate, it tends to be ignored. What points should be addressed? Dubyavee (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dubyavee on points to be addressed in a separate section on border states.

(a) strategic description of river net, railroad connections and commercial centers. Recall pre-war Southern commercial conventions in the border states with reps from throughout the South. Establish largest pre-war commercial outlet for midwestern agricultural production was New Orleans, eclipsed by New York City/Philadelphia only during the subsequent Civil War.

(b) volunteers in Confederate regiments from which sections/counties. Early on, Jefferson Davis did not attempt to extend conscription enforcement to Kentucky, Missouri and western Virginia where there was no civil or military enforcement possible. (It would appear kidnapping, perhaps?)

(c) participation in which sections/counties for the "district" and "at large" C.S. Congressional elections versus army unit elections and governor-appointed Representatives.

(d) substantial material support from border regions to the Confederate armies, especially in the west. Until the rivers were closed and the fords effectively patrolled Union-captured St. Louis and Memphis were said to supply Confederate armies more than Bermuda, Bahamas or Havana.

(e) depredations of Confederate "rangers", who received half the value of grain, supplies, infrastructure which could be turned to enemy advantage behind Union lines. These units were disbanded due to protests of loyal Southern men. Calvary raids superseded them in 1863-64.

(f) guerrilla activity protected by local populations raiding the entire supply network of Union armies advancing into Confederate territory.

(g) depredations of Union "provosts" upon civilian populations responding to guerrilla activity.

(h) Confederate flying artillery raids on Union river traffic, coordinated with Army "torpedo department" laying river mines.

(i) escape routes for Confederate POWs comparable to the Underground Railroad.

I offer these only as a starting point for discussion. I have a favorite four to begin: a. background, b. volunteers, e. rangers, h. artillery raids. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The c.s.a. not the u.s.a.

Rjensen, a substantial editor on this page, makes an argument against inclusion of a map of Confederate political geography with any reference to U.S. representation. But the treatment of the Confederacy should not be narrowed to a semantically defined focus, rather it should address the major issues scholars deal with when addressing the Confederacy. Otherwise, any map of political geography would be unnecessarily restricted to the Infobox map, a snapshot of early fall, 1861.

The constituent elements of the Confederacy by its own terms were “sovereign states”. Those states should be accounted for in the article, span significant events, include beginnings in winter 1860 to endings in spring 1865, and in recent decades, American historiography now treats Reconstruction as an extension of the Civil War and the states of the former Confederacy in it. In this case, there seems to have been a misapprehension based on a beta-draft map without a legend or notes. The proposed map is based on the historical research and political mapping of Kenneth Martis, a reliable source of scholarly contributions widely used throughout Wikipedia legislative articles for years.

The focus of the map of political geography under consideration is ante-bellum, then, (a) State proclamations of secession, (b) State representation in the Confederate Congress, (c) concurrent State vacancy in the U.S. Congress, (d) state administration by U.S. military, then post-Reconstruction. There is no map as proposed with a focus on the U.S. Congress. As Jefferson Davis observed, the history of the states of the Confederacy were the history of the United States, and “thereafter, the history of the United States.”

The scope of the article as established in the Infobox has been Preceded by United States and Succeeded by United States. The article, its maps and its illustrations should encompass the scope cited in the Infobox, edge to edge. Like many subjects of historical analysis, much is lost if the narrative is reduced to a semantics of (1) It is A, (2) It is not-A, (3) It is A. The Infobox now shows more nuance featuring flags of state independent republics recognized by the Confederate Congress and one another, though they are not Rjensen's categorical c.s.a. = A and only A. In the case of the states in the Confederacy, there are nuances which can be economically captured by acknowledging the scholarship of Kenneth Martis in a map of political geography based on his work as a reliable source. In the proposed map, Martis is used as a reliable source for states of the former Confederacy in the U.S. Congress, their secession resolutions, admittance to the Confederate Congress, U.S. Congressional vacancy, and U.S. military administration to readmittance to the U.S. Congress.

Consider Texas, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian Territory, Arizona Territory, Louisiana, Virginia, West Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Texas does not hold a referendum to ratify secession until after Nebraska entry into the Union as a free state to its north. The map of political geography places Texas timing in a context unavailable without reference to territorial developments nearby, however remote they may seem to Charleston Harbor. Kentucky, Missouri, Indian Territory and Arizona Territory have representation in the U.S. Congress, but they all concurrently have state and territorial governments officially recognized by the Confederate Congress. They are each and severally given representation in the Confederate Congress by the same rule of apportionment used for other delegations for its entire existence, regardless of fluctuation or degree of military control, tax collections, or conscription in those places. The map of Confederate political geography does not enter into these aspects, only what is reported by reliable sources. Louisiana does not have a delegation seated in the 38th Congress when the U.S. military governor determines that Confederate nationalism is so strong that 90% of the state’s voters, those in New Orleans, are to be banned from participation in Congressional elections. The U.S. Congress does not seat them, Representives or Senators. The map of political geography shows the vacancy, no more. Virginia does not have a delegation in the 38th Congress in part because Confederate control of Virginia limits Congressional District turnout to 10%, and the U.S. Congress does not seat those so chosen because they cannot be said to be representative of the population living there. West Virginia does have a delegation in the 38th Congress in part because well over half the voters (including Union soldiers registered in WV) do vote. Much has been made over military control POV. The map of political geography shows only what is demonstrable in scholarly reliable sources, the people and territory named WV are represented in both the Confederate Congress and that of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a map mixing the USA and CSA produces series confusion in the minds of many readers and should be avoided. Rjensen (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rjensen

(a) The initial map of Confederate territorial claim, representation, recruitment and taxation as of Spring 1861 is well illustrated by the map featured in the article Infobox. There is no serious confusion on this point of departure. But from the initial introduction, the reader’s understanding can develop while reading the article.

(b) A map illustrating the text discussing secession and the formation of the Confederacy’s representative government could benefit from an animated map that portrays both the changing extent of representation between the C.S. Congress (by states) and the U.S. Congress (by populations). The colors proposed conform with the consensus states and territories found in the existing Infobox map. For those who cannot make the visual distinctions among the Wikipedia colors, WP:ALT alternative text for illustrations should be incorporated in some way.

(c) A map which represents the Infobox time span, “preceded by United States” to “succeeded by United States” as represented in the U.S. Congress, 1860 to 1870, is clarifying and should be encouraged. In addition to the information conveyed in the Infobox map, it will picture time from state secession resolutions to Confederate representation, 1860-1861, and it will picture time without Confederate representation before reseated the U.S. Congress, 1865-1870.

(d)The general reader can comprehend, as did Jefferson Davis by 1890, that there was a difference between two claimant governments for a time in several states before their histories were again joined as the history of the United States. It is a long-standing feature of the article’s Infobox. It is the general consensus of historians. There is no serious danger of confusion on this point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth C. Martis not OR

In discussions relative to the Civil War and the Confederacy, editors have objected to references in articles and on discussion pages to the work of Kenneth C. Martis as “original research”. He has been cited in Wikipedia articles without objection for years. Kenneth C. Martis is a Professor of Geography at West Virginia University. The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865 was published1994. This book is the first non-military, nonbattlefield atlas of the American Civil War. In includes thoroughly sourced historical narrative. Non-military aspects of the Civil War should be admitted on Wikipedia pages.

There are scholarly historians such as cousin Ludwell H. Johnson who dismiss Education as an academic discipline and refuse to acknowledge the degree as an introduction into the scholarly community. Before masters and doctoral work in Geography, Martis did earn an undergraduate degree in Education. Nevertheless, the “Congresses of the Confederate States” received the Outstanding Academic Book Award of 1994, American Library Association, Choice Magazine. Martis was recognized 2007 by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), Washington, DC.

Martis has received support from the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Science Foundation, Association of American Geographers, Everett McKinley Dirksen Congressional Leadership Research Center, Huntington Library, and the Newberry Library. References from his work should be discussed on the merits, without objections to WP:OR original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox flag

Anon*131 chose the “Blood Stained Banner” for the Infobox to conform to that used at the American Civil War. The change here led to its replacement with a more appropriate, but not entirely satisfactory “Stars and Bars” banner of 11 stars. The flag chosen for an article on the historical nation-state, the Confederate States of America, should be

(a} one of those authorized by the Confederate Congress 1861 – 1865 and 1) with a substantial duration, 2) widely adopted and displayed among adherents, and 3) frequently used in scholarly treatment of the subject.

(b) independent of literary considerations found in mockumentaries.

(c) apart from modern entities of like name, conforming to the laws of the United States as incorporated in Texas, Georgia, etc.

• Among “Stars and Bars” flags of three horizontal stripes adopted for 750 days, 13-star flags were official 500 days, versus the 150 days of the 11 star illustration.

- This was the symbol for 26 months of the Confederacy which was expanding its membership, victorious on the field of battle, hopeful of an international commerce to sustain independence and expecting international recognition as an independent nation-state.

• The “Stainless Banner” adopted in May 1863 was authorized for 100 days fewer than the “Stars and Bars” and was less widely displayed among contemporaries than the former flag had been. The army battle-flag now represents the nation in the canton, not state-stars in perfect constellation. The solid white field replaces three stripes of the three regions of the South's economic diversity and political division.

- This was the official flag of a government which lost its territory, commerce and population, in defeats at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Mobile, in the Wilderness, Lookout Mountain and Atlanta. Trade stopped, the currency crashed, three pockets of goverance protected less than one-third the nation’s population.

• The “Blood Stained Banner” was adopted for two weeks before the Confederate Congress adjourned for the last time as it packed up to leave Richmond without a time or place to reconvene.

- This was the banner which saw final hopelessness, mass desertion, defeat and ruin. In a brief time, the civil government was dispersed, the armies surrendered and the President was captured. The historical nation-state Confederacy “disappeared” in the words of Jefferson Davis. This is not my choice of rememberance for the Confederacy as the historical nation-state.

The only flag that meets the criteria for historicity, longevity, contemporary use and scholarly convention is the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg, so that’s my proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"This was the symbol for 26 months of the Confederacy which was expanding its membership, victorious on the field of battle, hopeful of an international commerce to sustain independence and expecting international recognition as an independent nation-state.....This was the banner which saw final hopelessness, mass desertion, defeat and ruin. In a brief time, the civil government was dispersed, the armies surrendered and the President was captured. The historical nation-state Confederacy “disappeared” in the words of Jefferson Davis. This is not my choice of rememberance for the Confederacy as the historical nation-state."

What the heck does any of this have to do with anything, other than one editor's blatant POV-pushing? Multiple articles across Wikipedia have adopted the 3rd National Flag as the general symbol of the CSA, from the main article on the American Civil war to biographies of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to the article on the song "Dixie". 139.76.64.66 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm split: While I would typically say "Go with its final flag", that was only its flag for several weeks. Still, that can be indicated in the text, and if someone wants to see the previous flags, there's a link right there. No one is likely to be confused no matter which flag is there, as long as it's not the Southern Cross. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The only “POV pushing” going on, is by those whose reading of history does not perceive an end to the Confederacy of Jefferson Davis. Hence, the “since 1865” at the flag page, rather than “ending 1865”. Long-standing errors on Wikipedia can be corrected. This article is about the historical nation-state that existed 1861-1865, and the “Stars and Bars” which flew there, then for the years 1861-1865, is the only flag that serves the purpose of an unbiased encyclopedia on the historical subject.

There are modern U.S. citizens along I-95 displaying a huge holiday flag of the “Blood-stained Banner” which had to cost thousands of dollars to erect. I believe that they are protected as an association under U.S. statutes to conduct interstate business, lawfully pursuing their American Freedom of Speech. They may be pursuing resolutions passed by a modern-day corporate Board of Directors chartered under the laws and permitted by zoning ordinances under the State of Georgia. But regardless, the State of Georgia itself is today a political entity made up of citizens who freely, honorably participate in U.S. elections and serve in U.S. offices, serve in U.S. uniform and pay U.S. taxes. Hence the modern-day I-95 “Blood-stained Banner” used for an article on the historical nation-state is POV.

But as a banner, the I-95 flag referenced to indicates to historians a design adopted by a rump of a national legislature left behind by the majority fleeing for their lives, unable to protect even one-third of their population or hold their Capital. Were any flags of this design actually fabricated at the time? Did any fly for as much as a week outside the city limits of Richmond-Petersburg? “What the heck does this have to do with anything?” The historical nation-state of the article and its flag, for the article, rather than pushing a modern POV along I-95. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what this I-95 story has to do with how we pick the flag. There's only really two options: Do we use the final flag, or do we use the longest-standing one? I prefer final, just as for the U.S., if its flag changed yesterday, we would have that on there instead of the one from two days ago. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We do not use the U.S. flag from two days ago. During the American Civil War, 1861-1865, the “Stars and Stripes” grew from 34 stars with Kansas 29 Jan 1861 through West Virginia 20 Jun 1863 to Nevada 31 Oct 1864. (Likewise for the Confederacy, we should use a flag used during the war 1861-1865 the “Stars and Bars” which grew from 7 to 11 to 13 stars.)

The point of the I-95 story is that there are respectable people in the modern era who do not choose their flags along the highway based on historical usage 1861-1865, based on an historical nation-state. There is no call for them to do so, whether they display the "Blood Stained Banner" or a 50-star "Stars and Stripes" because they enjoy Freedom of Speech.

But an encyclopedia article about a nation-state spanning four years in the 19th Century should picture a flag that was used there for that duration of time. Likewise, if the U.S. changes its flag in the 20th Century dropping the stripes for a solid white field, we should (a) keep the historical "Stars and Stripes" of the 19th Century for the article "American Civil War", and (b) in such an event, no Currier and Ives prints on Wikipedia should be photo-shopped erasing all the stripes on Union flags in the way one editor changed a Edourard Monet painting of a Confederate ship on a sea of grey into a painting of Union blue. There is a danger of "presentism" in historical discussion, as pictured in the novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes its difficult to find what your actual point is. I don't know what you're talking about Currier and Ives prints, or someone editing a Monet picture. All that matters is: What was the flag of the Confederacy? Its last official flag would make sense to put at the top of the article. Not one person has remotely suggested "photo-shopped erasing", nor has anyone suggested that all the flags of the Confederacy not be listed on the appropriate page. But for the infobox at the top of a former country, we usually use its final data or maximal data, so that leaves us with either its final flag or the flag it spent the longest time with. The longest time would appear to be the Stainless Banner; however, as pointed out, the Stars and Bars was used longer, but in different forms as per the states joining the confederacy. But you say "used during the war 1861-1865"; according to our article, that flag ceased to be used in 1863, replaced with the Stainless Banner. Unfortunately, I cannot find or think of any example where a flag was changed mere weeks before the dissolution of the country, so I cannot site any precedent one way or another. Perhaps this should be expressed in simple terms for an RFC? --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The article does not say it was replaced, only that there was a successive Congressional resolution on the national flag. It is my understanding that the Stainless Banner was not generally displayed 1863-1865 outside of the sight of Jefferson Davis, and the Blood-Stained-Banner was not fabricated until after Congress adjourned. I'd like to know more about it all.

- After a few moments searching, I found WP editors successfully handling the level of sophistication I am calling for to avoid "presentism" at WP article Battle of La Prairie of 1691. There, the flags pictured are those used by THEN Bourbon French flag with a solid white field, NOT the modern French Republic "Tri-color" flag of 1792. ("Bourbon" Democrats "redeemed" Virginia following Reconstruction.) They used the flag of England THEN on that field, not another one found in London at the time, and NOT the modern Great Britain "Union Jack" of 1801. There must be more such articles for our guidance so we can dodge anachronisms of the "current" flags suggested in discussion above.

- Regardless of the flag resolutions passed in Richmond in 1863, I do not recall the Stainless-Banner or the Blood-stained-banner representing the Confederacy except as a footnote. Wikipedia should not be the place of ground-breaking corrective scholarship, elevating the footnote into a defining image for the article's subject in the Infobox. The Stars-and-Bars are used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865. There is an interstate highway display of the Blood-Stained-Banner in a respectable modern Freedom of Expression. But that should not govern a page on the historical nation-state, with a flag page link proclaiming that the Blood-Stained-Banner represents the Confederate States of America [Inc.] continuously "Since 1865", toggle down for other flags of historical interest. -- So, yes, let’s open this up for an RFC. Sorry, I'm so newbie I'm not sure how to do that ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of the tricolore there would be entirely anachronistic, so it makes sense that editors would use the right one. Whichever flag we use in this case, it would not be anachronistic, so that argument seems to have no relevance. Again, I don't see what modern freedom of expression has to do with what flag we use to represent a country that ceased to exist 147 years ago. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing it ceased to exist. More to discuss as we do not yet see eye to eye on flag choice. On another front, a Google search gives us this Wikipedia entry as the top search. Scrolling over the text, we see the article illustrated by a mocumentary United States Marine Corps statue of the flag raising at Iwo Jima, with black and white flag in the proportions of either a Confederate naval ensign or a Klu Klux Klan banner photo-shopped over the 48-star Stars-and-Stripes. The capitals are listed as Richmond, Montgomery and Danville. The consensus of WP editors here is that there were two Confederate Capitals: Montgomery then Richmond. Currency is listed as CSA currency, which is the tip-off it is a joke, not some sort of sinister take-over plot to misrepresent careful research, composition and editing which is the norm found here and generally at Wikipedia.

- Point of personal privilege. Although the Confederacy ended in failure, its participants can still be taken seriously. Just because an enterprise does not end successfully does not mean that there may not be at the time, in the place, participants behaving honorably. Ask any Vietnam vet. In much the same way most men in American uniform were not there fighting for "the last gasp of French colonialism" per se, as one scholar put it from his perspective, most men in Confederate armies were not fighting for the last gasp of North American slavery, per se. But I digress again. Sorry. But respect for honorable people in the past, in the context of their past, is all related to me -- being an old man with a past, you see. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Flag choice.1

I refer to Brief History of the Confederate Flags at “Mississippi History Now” online Mississippi Historical Society. by David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi. Includes a discussion of the development of the battle flag and the national flags. Viewed June 10, 2012.

The second national flag was adopted in Congress May 1, 1863. The “Stainless Banner” was first used to drape Stonewall Jackson’s coffin at burial. By fall 1864 the search was on for a replacement. At Five flags over Fort Sumter, viewed June 14, 2012, the National Park Service reports Colonel Rhett, commander of Fort Sumter, raised the Stainless Banner as a battle flag “a large white sheet with the crossed bars of the battle flag as the union” behind two others facing the enemy a month before its Congressional adoption on April 7 1863. (A non-conforming flag was also used by an Arkansas Volunteers parade flag in 1863.) Although one is known to have flown over the Confederate Capitol in Richmond after Congressional adoption, the official banner was modified so that it would lift in the wind. None other use throughout the Confederacy is cited in Sansing's article after its adoption as a political banner -- only the one non-conforming standard in Richmond, Virginia. Confederate Memorial Hall, Washington, D.C. viewed June 14, 2012, reports that the "Stars and Bars" was used at Atlanta during the siege of Atlanta, July 22, 1864, apart from Congressional statutes in force. The original banner is preserved there on display and pictured online at its website.

The Confederate Congressional statute specified a flag with a length double its width. That will not fly properly. The white “table cloth” as Southern detractors called it, drooping permanently from a flagpole looked like a flag of surrender. Its replacement was of practical dimension, but Sansing observes that the “Blood Stained Banner”, the third national flag, was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” The quote is sourced to the Southern Historical Society Papers. SHSP, 24, 118,

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”. On page that the 119, he concludes that the “second official flag did not prove to be satisfactory”. It looked like a flag of truce, drooping it looked like a tablecloth, it was easily soiled. A third one was adopted “within a month of collapse”. Related to relative prominence in our own time, the Stars-and-Bars is the flag used to represent the Confederacy by museums, at historic sites and in reliable sources.

I propose using the Stars-and-Bars for the Confederate States Infobox because it was widely used there 1861-1865. The only sources I have available at hand show that the second national flag and the third national flag were not used by those at the time in the place by the people then of the Confederacy. For an article on the historical state, we should adopt a flag used at the time by the participants, regardless of documentary histories rehearsing Confederate Congressional statutes. My preference is for the 13-star Stars-and-Bars reflected in the official recognition of 13 state governments, and practiced in the roll call votes taken throughout the Confederacy's existence by 13 seated state delegations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC Infobox flag choice

RFC Infobox flag choice

What Confederate flag best represents the Confederate States of America 1861-1865 for the Infobox?

a.) Stars-and-Bars with 7, 9, 11 or 13 stars; official 750 days. Adopted and flown “everywhere in the Confederacy” (Coulter, p. 116), citations in the discussion from Davis Inauguration 1861 to Siege of Atlanta 1864 (CMH).

b.) Stainless Banner with battle flag union, white field, official 650 days. After adoption, only sourced atop the Confederate Capitol, Richmond, Virginia (Samsing), once at Fort Sumter during a monitor attack, a month before adoption (NPS). The 2:1 ratio flag did function, it did not fly on a flagpole, and it was seen as truce or surrender (Samsing). For the Confederacy at the time, it was “not satisfactory” (Coulter).

c.) Blood Stained Banner with battle flag union, white field, red vertical stripe; official 14 days to Congressional adjournment, less than a month to “collapse” (Coulter, p. 119). Reported by scholarly Confederate authorities after the war as “never” seen (Samsing).

End RFC. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The present controversy arises over flag selection to represent an historical nation-state, one a flag sourced as flown “everywhere”, one a flag sourced as “never” seen at the time. Some detailed discussion appears in Talk sections above. Editors await additional scholarly sources to make an informed decision in an appropriate selection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stars and bars as the most common flag, flown the longest, and in the most places. I suspect it's also the largest in terms of surviving flags (I saw one in a cousin's house many years ago). Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A better option is to leave the flag image out of the infobox altogether. The Wikipedia guidance on flag icons says "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.". Furthermore: "Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all." Given that it is controversial which flag is appropriate, best leave the image out altogether. The infobox also contains "preceeded by" and "succeeded by" flag icons, and it would be better to omit those as well. The article contains entire sections on the history of the flags, including images, so they don't need to be duplicated in the infoxbox. The box is big enough already. On a final note, taking out all the other flags gets rid of the US flag that appears to the right of "1861 - 1865", which is probably for the best in this article.Coastside (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That infobox guideline is about using the flag icons, for birthplace, location, etc. It has nothing to do with including the image of a flag (rather than the tiny flag icons) of a country in the infobox about the country. Your argument is predicated on a faulty reading of the guidelines. --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The top of the section says "For the purposes of this section of the guideline icons refers to flags and similar images unless otherwise stated'.'" Coastside (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's referring to the tiny flags. You honestly cannot tell me you think the infobox guideline is suggesting articles about countries should not include the flag of said country, especially considering 100% coverage for existing countries and near-100% coverage for former countries with flags. If that's the case, then the guideline is wrong, not everything else. But the guideline isn't wrong, because it's referring to flag icons. --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The section "Clarity" says "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." Given that it's controversial, it's better to remove the flags. Regarding the policy being "wrong", you're welcome to change it although I recommend getting consensus on the talk page first. Coastside (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If the the policy applies to country infoboxes - which it does not - then it is demonstrably wrong. I have no reason to wait for an incorrect policy to correct itself, I can simply continue to ignore it. But, again, it doesn't apply to country infoboxes, it applies to using the tiny icons in things like personal infoboxes. (It mentions these as examples several times, but not once does it mention the country infobox - doesn't that seem like an odd omission to you?) And in this case, I don't think which flag we use is necessarily controversial, we're simply wondering what the best one is. Is every discussion over what to do a matter of controversy, or are we simply seeking consensus? --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment "it applies to using the tiny icons in things like personal infoboxes", the section "Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance" includes several examples of flags, e.g., Flag of Europe in an infobox where it is the only image, and it's not a "tiny icon", but a full size flag, just as used here. Regarding the topic not being controversial, I offer you the comment "What the heck does any of this have to do with anything, other than one editor's blatant POV-pushing?" (see discussion above) as evidence that this debate could be interpreted as at least somewhat controversial. Coastside (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy arises with disputed sources. To date, one asserts there is an historical nation-state “since 1865” without source. Perhaps misunderstanding from an error on a flag page. Sources here report the “third national flag” was never seen by anyone there, then. Sources are required for statements such as, say, “Blood Stained Flag statutes are followed and flown by the folks then and their generations ‘since 1865’.” Otherwise it is substantively no different than the drive-by contribution, “I am bored.” Only with sources can there be WP controversy, without, there is no “controversy” as Coastside otherwise may suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stars-and-Bars TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "there is no “controversy” as Coastside otherwise may suppose." You posted a Request for comment (above) and introduced the debate with: "The present controversy arises over flag selection... [emphasis added]" Please try to avoid indirect criticism. Coastside (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. apologies. [minor amend:] I would now replace "controversy" with "dispute" to more accurately introduce new readers to the page. I should not have named "Coastside" to identify a comment in an RFC ... although here the Scottish/Southron idiom can ramp up to the pointed @named.editor form of address pretty quick, with no real offense taken by either party. More generally I suppose RFC "wiki-love" should prevail in all exchanges. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll yield on that one too. That said,

• Stars and Bars. I finally find compelling the arguments that the other two flags weren't used terribly much. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stars and Bars on the grounds that is the one that represented the CSA most widely. Bevo74 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Stars and Bars, I guess; although bluntly, I want to say Battle Flag - because frankly, this is by far the most widely used and recognized one for many decades now. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC) (proud heir of Tennessee loyalists who gave two of their three sons to fight secessionist treason)

The Battle Flag is very commonly used to refer to the CSA, but it would be inaccurate to call that the flag of the country, it never was. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blood Stained Banner Throughout the article we treat the CSA as if it was, for a brief period of time, an actual nation. If one of its last acts was to change its flag, then this article should respect that decision. I would suggest that we include, in the infobox, a footnote referencing earlier versions and provide a link to Flags of the Confederate States of America. I also think that Virginia Historian's earlier suggestion (see Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 9#Proposal to move "flags") that the Flags section of the article be moved out of the article into the other article. Too much space is dedicated in this main article to a subject that, while interesting, is rarely covered in such detail in even book length histories of the CSA. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on the flag-section transfer. For the Infobox, I wonder at the appropriateness of selecting a flag that nobody living under the Confederacy of Jefferson Davis ever saw. Who voted for the statute? Did the session have a quorum? It is my understanding that most of the Congress had fled Richmond. Generally Martis asserts that occupied state-delegations such as Missouri and Kentucky voted a strict pro-Davis line in all role-call votes. Did Jefferson Davis fly Blood-Stained-Banner at Danville, Virginia? I remain open to additional sources.

- Atlanta did not fly the last-enacted flag, nor its predecessor, it flew the Stars-and-Bars. Why use a flag or any of its variations that no one then used? There are statutes on the books in Indiana, I believe, that require a horse to proceed every car through a town, but no such image is used as a symbol of that community to my knowledge, then or now. Representing a nation given belligerent status by the international community of the time should not be represented by a banner no one then ever saw, required by a statute passed that was never published according to the sources available to us to date.

- I guess I still have a real problem with the "since 1865" insisted upon by editors here advocating Blood-Stained-Banner for a nation which "disappeared" in 1865, if we can allow Jefferson Davis as a credible witness, according to our sources available here to date. I of course have no objection to respectable U.S. citizens practicing their Freedom of Expression pursuant their corporate charter, Confederate States of America, Inc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On this talk page, the phrase "since 1865" has been said only by you, so I don't know if there really is a huge issue about that. --Golbez (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(b) Stainless Banner. My stance is for the second national flag of the Confederate States to be shown - it was in use for a significant length of time from 1863 to 1865 and it has the common Confederate "X"-cross symbol with stars in it, that is commonly associated with the CSA. As such in combination of its significant length in use and its use of the famous Confederate "X"-cross symbol, it is the most promiment of the official national flags used by the CSA, and that's why I support its use.--R-41 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What goes? An editor on 8 June 2012 commented: "if someone wants to see the previous flags, there's a link right there. No one is likely to be confused no matter which flag is there, as long as it's not the Southern Cross." The referenced flag link that explains all on this subject at Wikipedia says, the Blood-Stained-Banner has been in use "since 1865", but I object to its use in an historical article. Now we have the Southern-Cross flag "on a sheet" as one source called it ... what could a Southern historian in Mississippi have meant by that phrasing ... ... Again, an editor says that the authorized Stainless-Banner was "in use" for a considerable time, but our sources at hand say that it was not used by Confederates in the Confederacy of 1861 - 1865, and where it is noted after statutory enactment the two, one Arkansas regimental parade flag and one atop the Richmond Capitol, are both non-conforming because the statutory flag literally, physically, does not fly. By our sources, only the Stars-and-Bars were widely used in the Confederacy of Jefferson Davis which this article purports to describe. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-Americans here, like myself may review what this is about and not be completely familiar with the flags. I was not completely familiar, so I reviewed it. But I will remove the image.--R-41 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Source: At the restored “Beauvoir”, post-war residence of Jefferson Davis that is maintained by the Mississippi Sons of Confederate Veterans, the flag flown by Jefferson Davis after 1865 was the Stars-and-Bars. [Scroll down about half-way on the link.] Source: Heritage Auction offered the original Stars-and-Bars flown by Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir “since 1865” until his death, 1867 – 1908. He was the only man not allowed U.S. citizenship under general amnesty, he flew the Stars-and-Bars. The Stars-and-Bars is the flag symbol of the Confederacy and Confederates 1861- 1865 according to reliable sources during and after the American Civil War. Where are other, countervailing sources? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

God, I just posted my perspective that the second flag of the CSA - that was indeed an official flag - represents a balance of both that it was used for a significant amount of time and that it bears the commonly-known Confederate "X"-cross symbol with stars. You, TheVirginiaHistorian, need to read Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers, because I am not going to make any further contributions here with the combative attitude being shown by you.--R-41 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. and Stay with it. Two years ago Northshoreman deleted my first newbie-contribution to United States Constitution which was not in error, just lacking the scholarly citation from Pauline Maier's “Ratification” versus the improper primary source, "Federalist Papers". He and I can be at odds as you see here, but he has backed me in other disputes and restored my contributions deleted by editors elsewhere, when the contributions were properly sourced. “Assume good faith.”

- At Wikipedia, WP:RS, “Sources should directly support the information … Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible … When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• The infobox, by design, shows readers a single flag. If the situation is more complex than that - if more than one flag had some level of official endorsement, or if other flags were widely flown - then showing any single flag may mislead readers. bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Coulter is our source that there was only one flag widely flown "everywhere" in the Confederacy. -- the Stars-and-Bars. No contrary source is available at this page to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You said that when opening the RfC. But sources do say that other flags were flown, yes? bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not say flown, but "official", as in authorized-by-C.S.-Congress. I then provided sources in the RFC discussion with reference to the discussion on this talk page above, which demonstrate that only the Stars-and-Bars were flown generally in the Confederacy, with but two exceptions in Arkansas and Richmond, never the Blood-Stained-Banner, then since 1865, when there was only one non-U.S.- CSA citizen left, Jefferson Davis flew the Stars-and-Bars.

- I pointedly asked for contrary Wiki RS - reliable sources other than OR - original research mining the statute books of the Confederate Congress. To date, there is none contributed to this page. To date, here, we have (1) 1940s scholar E. Merton Coulter, (2) 1990s scholar David Samsing, (3) Contemporary Confederate Memorial Hall at Washington DC, (4) contemporary Mississippi Sons of Confederate Veterans at "Beauvoir" MS, all -- all -- sourced as indicating Stars-and-Bars was flown by Confederates in the Confederacy 1861-1865 and since then, 1867-1908, when the last Confederate, non-U.S. citizen died.

- To date, we await sources indicating any flag other than the Stars-and-Bars for the historical Confederacy, versus say, a modern like-named corporation which chooses the Blood-Stained-Banner.. A statutory history of the Confederate Congress is not the subject of this article. Until there are any sources to the contrary, Stars-and-Bars serves for the historical Confederacy 1861-1865 by Wikipedia standards. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Apart from an appeal to sources to substantiate information in an encyclopedia, this may help an international reader on the cultural context here.

- A modern corporation (a) asserts the Confederacy never surrendered, (b) proclaims the U.S. Government illegitimately occupies the South, and (c) calls for the lawful election of state officials to vote for secession. They elect a "Confederate" shadow government. Their flag is the Blood-Stained-Banner, “since 1865”.

- For a recent example of the perspective, see Confederate171 contribution on the Article page history, reverted by Jim1138.

- Alternatively, throughout the American South there are heritage organizations made up of descendants of the historic Confederacy, maintaining important museums and historical sites. They display a bumper sticker of the Stars-and-Bars with the legend, “Heritage, not hate.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you have said far more about this "modern corporation" on Wikipedia than anyone else has. It's best to completely ignore them, rather than present their opinion as something to fight against. This new user is obviously not here to discuss and I suspect they will be blocked soon enough. --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Confederate heritage organizations still commemorate and tend cemeteries of both the Blue and the Gray throughout the South where they did fight, die and were buried. Dr. Finch, Dean of Cornell Law School, penned the poem The Blue and the Gray, which my grandmother could recite, as could many of her generation who as young children had been bounced on the knee of those long-gone veterans.

"No more shall the war cry sever, Or the winding rivers be red; They banish our anger forever When they laurel the graves of our dead!

"Under the sod and the dew, Waiting the judgment-day; Love and tears for the Blue, Tears and love for the Gray."

- For the international reader, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Danville as Capital

Sorry about replacing Danville, but we do have a problem as I did check Danville, Virginia and it goes into detail, with illustrations, about it being the last capital, so I'm not clear why we have two articles saying different things. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit, I didn't know there was a former declaration, I was under the impression the government or the president had simply evacuated to there. VirginiaHistorian, thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be that we can set up a “frequently asked questions” section? Rjensen has concurred with listing Montgomery and Richmond only in the past, based on the rationale that the Capital of a republic is where the legislature formally sits, as addressed and illustrated in this article. We omit both Danville VA and Goldsboro NC as a “Capital”, though both places saw Jefferson Davis write executive dispatches. This sort of goes to the question of reliable sources again. I followed the inline reference link found at the Danville VA article in March, and found not a scholar but (WP:RS : caution) a newspaper:

- The Richmond newspaper featured a "stringer" feature-vignette meant to be entertaining, not scholarly. A sweet little old lady wrote to say her home had been the last Confederate White House and Danville the last capital of the Confederacy, because Mr. Davis was her houseguest during his stay. There is a very long, steep hill rising from the railroad station up into the nice residential part of town then extant. When the temporary offices of government were moved back down the hill to the home of the other sweet little old lady, Mr. Davis did our correspondent the honor of remaining her houseguest. He even refused her offer of her family stash of $1000 in cold hard Yankee dollar gold pieces, back when $1000 was real money, back when gold was real money. She offered the largess without her dear departed husband's permission, but she knew he would not object to her patriotic gesture.

- You can visit the historical landmarks to the Confederacy when you visit Danville, Virginia, where serious historical preservation does go on. The "capital" bit is not literally true, as they explain there when you visit: Danville "served as the capital" where Jefferson Davis wrote Robert E. Lee in the final days before The Surrender. It was later a center of tobacco recovery, the tobacco warehouses are still extant, a part of Washington Duke's tobacco kingdom. (yes, "Duke" like Duke University). Why not add Goldsboro, North Carolina as a fourth capital? Well, as Grandmother S. used to say in these matters, “Pity poor North Carolina, a valley of despair between two mountains of arrogance.” -- meaning Virginia and South Carolina. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A cursory search shows no evidence that Danville was declared the capital, but a number of reliable sources saying that it was the capital. I think it looks odd to have the Danville's article saying it was the capital and ours not and editors are likely to add it in good faith. It certainly served as the capital for a very short time, legislature or no. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

To be a national capital is a big deal. (Camp David today is not a national capital when the cabinet meets there over a weekend.) It needs legislation. The Confederate Congress never met there & neither Conf Congress nor Pres Davis designated it as a capital. (The Danville article has been fixed.) Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think this is something we can decide, shouldn't we be using what reliable sources (in this case historians) say about this, even if we present more than one opinion? Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If we have no official (first party) documents stating something, but have many third party documents saying it happened, that doesn't mean it happened, that just means a lot of people say it did, and it should be presented accordingly. So, it would seem that Davis himself designated Danville a capital, but the legislature itself did not, and presumably authority lies with them? I don't know. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Davis never called it a capital. He did write from Danville, "We are arranging an executive office where the current business may be transacted here, and do not propose at this time definitely to fix upon a point for a seat of government in the future." [see Varina Davis (1890). Jefferson Davis: Ex-president of the Confederate States of America. p. 585.] Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha, quite true - he says "withdrawal of the Government", rather than redesignating a capital. Unlike Libya in 2011, where Sirte was specifically designated the capital for a few days, this is more of a government withdrawing and later acting in exile. No one would say, for example, that San Antonio was capital of the Confederate Arizona Territory for much of the war, but that's where its government had evacuated to. --Golbez (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Governor [William] Smith of Virginia had left Richmond with the Confederate States government, and had gone to Danville. Supposing I was necessarily with the army at Burkesville, he addressed a letter to me there informing me that, as governor of the Commonwealth of the State of Virginia, he had temporarily removed the State capital from Richmond to Danville, and asking if he would be permitted to perform the functions of his office there without molestation by the Federal authorities." The Civil War Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, Forge Books, 2002, pg. 496. Dubyavee (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Governor Smith did not see Danville as the "Capital" of a republican state government.

- Evacuating Richmond, Lee's surrender made Lynchburg untenable, and Smith followed Davis to Danville where he said, "I opened my office as Governor of the state." He issued a “Proclamation by the governor, state of Virginia, executive department, Danville, April 20, 1865, calling on the Sheriffs and civil officers of localities to organize locally to preserve order. See Memoirs of Governor William Smith. Viewed July 21, 2012, search on “Danville”. p.64.

- With Jefferson Davis, Danville does not acquire the stature of "Capital". Occupation of Danville was not expected to be permanent along a new river defensive line set up to receive Lee's retreating army. Rooms were obtained and "departments resumed their routine labors". On Lee’s surrender, Davis removed to Greensboro where Johnston first proposed surrender, and supported by his “constitutional advisors”, Davis adopted the policy. A short history of the Confederate States of America Jefferson Davis. Viewed July 21, 2012. p. 485-487.

- Grant’s memoir passage was also in a speech at the Lincoln Club in Martinellis NY for Lincoln’s 71st birthday. ("Memoirs of Governor William Smith", p.111-112) It is likely that Grant on the dinner-lecture circuit was using civilian "Capital" as a parallel to military "command post", a place where executive orders issue forth. This, like the newspaper vignette where a home "Jefferson Davis slept here" becomes the "Last White House" and Danville ipso facto its "last capital", is not scholarly usage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't this primary source validate the claim that Danville was the new capital?--Tilden76 (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Davis certainly was in Danville but that did not make it a capital. The Congress was never there. Legislation was on the books that Richmond was the capital and that legislation was never repealed or changed. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

- The DOCUMENT says, Robert E. Lee found it necessary “to uncover the CAPITAL, and thus … the withdrawal of the Government from the city of RICHMOND.” The enemy’s “failing resources” require them to abandon the war. The document says Union forces will be “baffled and exhausted” by a Confederate army “free to move from POINT to POINT”, because it was to be “relieved from the necessity of guarding cities and particular points”.

- NO CAPITAL, only undefended transient POINTS in the Confederacy's foreseeable future, by Presidential Proclamation at Danville while moving from point to point. This does NOT make Danville a new capital, nor does it make the next point, Greensboro NC, so. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)