Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 5

Map at the top of the page

I don't mean to criticize, but I think the map should include the northern portion of NM/AZ like this map does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_CSA_4.png Cameron Nedland (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Archived Page

As the talk page was getting ridiculously long, and most of the debates were long dead, I decided to archive them. I kept the most recent addition above. SiberioS (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Missouri - rump or non-rump legislature versus State constitutional convention

The way that Missouri's secession is described, as a powerless declaration of a rump government is not entirely right. A rump government is one where a minority of elected leaders and other individuals (mostly radical ones) make a declaration or decisions for an entire government, in the U.S. case a state, even though it is powerless in every aspect. A rump government usually exists along side the traditional government and has no real power towards or over it. This is the case for Kentucky’s secession and the creation of West Virginia. However, in Missouri’s case its secession was not done by a rump government but a government-in-exile. The rightly elected officials of Missouri’s executive and legislative branches were expelled by a ruthless union general who violated Missouri’s neutrality, which was guarantied by the legal Price-Harney Truce. After the Union general Lyon subverted Missouri’s government authority and basically caused a military coup, the government fled the capital, voted for secession, and created a government-in-exile which sided with the Confederacy. This is way it should be said that Missouri secession was done by a government-in-exile rather than a rump government. The true rump government was the puppet government setup by the Union army later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.27.144 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true. The state government did not have a mandate from the people of the state to secede and therefore exceeded their constitutional authority. That power had been vested in the Constitutional Convention elected by the citizens of Missouri. It was not a Union general but this Convention whose executive committee reconvened and nullified the offices of the current office holders. So the character of the secessionist govt. is intermediate between rump and in-exile.

You also entirely misunderstand the Price-Harney truce. It could be repudiated by either side at any time--such is the nature of a truce. The new commander did just that after giving notice. Red Harvest (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The state government of Missouri would only exceed its constitutional authority should it require the Missouri Constitution to be totally rewritten. It is debatable whether or not secession would require an entirely new constitution, since much, if not most, constitutional law throughout the Confederacy was based on the original U.S. Constitution.

Lyon did not just give notice. He declared war on a neutral state because they requested his troops leave the state and respect their neutrality. His forces included the paramilitary Wide Awakes, which Lyon had armed. He declared he would rather see every man, woman and child in Missouri dead than to concede a single point to the Governor. You give the impression that he simply did what was his right, but the man was an openly Radical Republican and acted wholly inappropriately.

One must also consider the constitutionality of the Convention removing elected officials from their offices. A referendum was passed to authorize a Constitutional Convention to discuss the relationship between the Federal government and Missouri. I don't see how this referendum gave the convention authority to remove elected officials and appoint others in their place. This is especially true when 1/5 of the members elected to the original Convention were not present for any of the subsequent sessions. Lyon ran roughshod over the state, and pro-Unionists abused their power.

The article should be rewritten to at least point readers to the various articles on the subject. The governor-in-exile and legislature-in-exile were most assuredly not a rump government. They were in exile because they had been invaded over whether or not they could remain neutral in the coming war. Anyone trying to present Lyon and the Radical Republicans as reasonable and/or rational in the case of Missouri has no understanding of this complex issue. This particular situation really brings to light the entire issue of States' Rights. Lyon, as a Radical Republican, told Governor Jackson in no uncertain terms how he felt about the issue:

"Rather than concede to the State of Missouri the right to demand that my government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the State whenever it pleases, or move troops at its own will into, out of, or through the State; rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter, however unimportant, I would see you, and you, and you, and you and every man, woman and child in the State, dead and buried. This means war. In an hour one of my officers will call for you and conduct you out of my lines."

These are not the words of a rational individual. Missouri as a sovereign state wished to remain neutral. Lincoln demanded they provide him with 4 regiments to invade the South. Nathaniel Lyon had Federal forces in the state. He also had strong ties to the paramilitary Wide Awakes, and he took it upon himself to arm them from the Federal stores. If you try to deny the rights and constitutionality of the rightfully elected government, you try to present Lyon and the Radical Republicans as having operated within the bounds of the law on the opposite end of the spectrum. That was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.30.155 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The governor had illegally obtained arms from an enemy entity for the purpose of attacking a Federal installation. This was clear treason, violated the U.S. Constitution and was documented (an arrest warrant had actually been prepared if memory serves.)

The majority of the state wanted to remain neutral, but neither the governor nor Lyon wanted that. As was normal for slave states, the majority of the legislature expressed Southern Democratic views toward slavery and secession. Their view was not in line with the expressed opinions of Missourians as shown by the election for the convention.

As it was, Lyon could take what actions he deemed necessary against a governor building a force for the purpose of treason, and he did. Lyon cut through the smokescreen and got right to the point. It wasn't very diplomatic, but Lyon was not a diplomat. He did not see any purpose of continuing the truce.

It's interesting that you didn't mention Jackson's irrationality and duplicity. He had expressed similar comments about Kansans. Jackson was beaten at his own game.

At any rate, Missouri did not follow the secession process that had been mapped out--a key feature being an elected convention taking the action, not the legislature. The state government attempted to override the will of the people of the state on the matter. They ended up being ejected from office while a new government was formed by the convention, not the Union army as you claimed. Frankly, the spin you apply gets old, I've seen almost the same falsehoods repeated nearly verbatim over and over again. Red Harvest (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The following section was in the article:

Two more slave states had rival secessionist governments. The Confederacy admitted them, but the two pro-Confederate state governments soon went into exile and never controlled the states which they claimed to represent:

1. Missouri did not secede but a rump group proclaimed secession (October 31 1861).
2. Kentucky did not secede but a rump group proclaimed secession (November 20 1861).

I added the following links:

Missouri in the American Civil War

Missouri secession

Missouri Constitutional Convention (1861-63)

Making it be as follows:

1. Missouri did not secede but a rump group proclaimed secession (October 31 1861).
2. Kentucky did not secede but a rump group proclaimed secession (November 20 1861).

Then later someone modified it to:

1. Missouri did not secede but a rump group proclaimed secession (October 31 1861).
2. Kentucky did not secede but a rump, unelected group proclaimed secession (November 20 1861).

Then the section was entirely deleted.

Reasonably, I don't think that the sentence on Missouri accurately describes it. The problem is that the situation in Missouri is so complex however, that I am not sure if it can easily be summarized in a short sentence. The problem with deleting the entire section, however, seems to imply that these border states did not exist during the war. This article is after all, on the Confederate States of America. 4.242.177.66 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some things I'm not sure of

In the first case, the map caption is formatted incorrectly, the 1st line is illegible.

Secondly, since several states were admitted during the war (Kansas and Nebraska I know), shouldn't the "next flag" on the infobox have more stars (I don't know the precise number, so don't want to change it myself)?

Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of parsing out the United States from the CSA...

Obviously, when it is written "the rest of the United States", it is clear that the CSA was not, in a defacto sense, a part of the United States by virtue of the war. That said, awkward language use aside, the point of mentioning "the rest of the United States" is to illustrate, especially how its used in the article, a very cogent point; the tariff introduced by the CSA, no matter how much smaller in absolute terms, would have significantly raised the tax BURDEN on everyone in the CSA, by virtue of redefining the boundaries of the domestic market. I quote:

"The image of a South devoted to free trade, however powerful at first glance, [End Page 334] ignores a crucial point that was not lost to contemporaries: the Confederacy lowered tariff rates, but vastly increased the number of dutiable goods by changing the geographical scope of the nation-state. 3 Under the Confederacy, Northern goods once considered part of the domestic trade suddenly were redefined as foreign goods. A Confederate tariff, no matter how low, might result in a radical change in trade patterns; hundreds of millions of dollars of Northern goods would be stopped at the Confederate border, stored in special warehouses, inspected by Confederate customs officers, and then taxed a specified percentage of their value. How did Confederates view this potentially massive disruption of trade between North and South? Did Southerners fear the consequences of altering long-established trade relations, or did they see it as an opportunity?" Imagining "A Great Manufacturing Empire": Virginia and the Possibilities of a Confederate Tariff Jay Carlander and John Majewski SiberioS (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This presumes that the Confederacy would continue to focus domestic consumption on goods from the Union. This was most likely never going to be the case. The Federal government had continued to impose high tariffs specifically to prevent the importation of more affordable goods from Britain and France. If the Confederacy no longer had to abide by the high tariffs imposed by the Northern-controlled Federal government, they could then import goods as they had done in the past. These imports from Europe were always at a lower cost than Northern goods, so a Confederate tariff would obviously be less of a burden in comparison.

South Carolina almost seceded in the early 1830s based on the Tariff of Abominations. The Federal government at the same time passed the Force Bill to allow the use of any military force necessary to enforce tariffs. This case highlights that the Civil War was long in coming and was largely unavoidable. Union tariffs were protectionist policies for the North, which needed to make sure the South had to buy their goods. Why would the Confederacy continue buying more expensive goods from the Union when Britain and France were waiting in the wings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.30.155 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken in two things; that the North "needed" the South to buy its goods. This is demonstrably untrue; there simply wasn't a significant base for consumer goods in the South, which is one of the reasons why industrial development was retarded. Economic stratification, and the keeping of millions of potential consumers in a serf like state, contributed to the warped development of Southern industry. The North mostly built its own industry on the protection of NORTHERN consumers, not Southern ones.

Second, that the trade relations that the South had could be continued unabated, even without the war, and presuming some sort of peaceful secession and recognition. As indicated by the the ability of other colonial possessions to buoy up the textile industry during the Civil War, the South had made the very mistaken decision that it could not be replaced, or at the very least substituted. By 1860, demand for cotton in the textile market had softened. While the price of cotton had hit the roof in London, this was due mostly in transport costs, and was not reflected in the prices actually paid to farmers. Thus the increase was due mostly to externalities, not to an actual rise in demand. SiberioS (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Relations, CSA's End, Slavery, and Religion

I invite both these editors (Sceptik and Coviepresb1647 - CP1647) to make their case on this discussion page regarding their material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Relations

Sceptik added unsourced material relating to how Great Britain reacted to the CSA with respect to Canada. I have reverted it based on relevance -- it describes a purely British reaction that involved no participation by, or interest in, the Confederacy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

North Shoreman, which relevant and specific article do you suggest for the material I added? Sceptik (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that your material be moved to Canada in the American Civil War. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CSA's End

He/she has also twice changed without explanation the reason for the end of the CSA from "military collapse" to dissolution. Finally, this editor has added material relating to the Presbyterian Church in the North that appears to be irreleevant to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He/she has also twice changed without explanation the reason for the end of the CSA from "military collapse" to dissolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

However, military collapse has no substantiation. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Coviepresb1647

I invite North Shoreman, RainbowOfLight, AND Red Harvest to support their assertion on the end of the CSA as "military collapse". --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Coviepresb1647

Gary Gallagher in the widely cited "The Confederate War" (p. 157)makes the case for military collapse:

The Confederacy capitulated in the spring of 1865 because northern armies had demonstrated their ability to crush organized southern military resistance. Soldiers laid down their arms at Appomattox and Durham Station when brought to bay by imposing Federal forces under the resolute command of U. S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Civilians who had maintained faith in their defenders despite material hardship and social disruption similarly recognized that the end had come. ... [M]ost Confederates knew that as a people they had expended blood and treasure in profusion before ultimately collapsing in the face of northern power sternly applied."

As you note three different editors have reverted your change which you have still not bothered to justify. I will restore the term and add a footnote -- I suggest you don't change it yet again without obtaining a consensus on this page to do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I let the military collapse vs. dissolution question rest, what makes Gallagher a reliable source? What other reliable sources would agree with him? Yes, per your true allegation, I elected to delay my justification until I have heard the other view. I am more concerned on the spiritual paragraph than the end of the CSA. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For Gary Gallagher’s credentials, check out [[1]]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how you could classify the end of the Confederacy as anything other than military collapse. The main army that had defended the govt. had been defeated in the field and surrendered. The capital, the primary arsenal and manufacture were gone. The remaining armies soon followed suit in surrendering. They recognized the military collapse for what it was. The part I reverted called it "dissolution." I've not found any support for that assertion and it appears to be sheer fabrication. The goverment did not dissolve itself, the army did not even dissolve itself. Instead the field commanders surrendered their forces. The states did not individually leave the CSA at the date listed. Red Harvest (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having checked Gallagher's credentials, I agree that he is a reliable source. Hence, I concede the point on CSA's End. However, the citation provided in the main article is not sufficient. Since "Gallagher, p. 157" does not show in which book (of Gallagher's 20+ publications) the page 157 is. I put that as a notation. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is simply looking argumentative. Gallagher's work is listed in the bibliography section of the article and is mentioned in North Shoreman's post above. Therefore, I see no need for a poorly placed tag in an infobox. Since only one Gallagher title is listed it is assumed that is the same one. (If not then the reference should say so.) Frankly with the sort of nitpicking going on in many articles, bibliographies make little sense, but since this one has one, and has a proper note, the reader can be expected to make the connection. Red Harvest (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Wiki's "Referencing for Beginners", the referencing example includes the title, author, and page, not just the author and page. Hence, the note is not in compliance with Wiki's Referencing procedures unless you settle for inferior standards. If someone strains gnats with me, I will strain gnats with him/her and hold them to the same high standard lest the other person follows a double standard.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not the person who added the Gallagher reference, and yet I was able to determine from the information given in the article that the reference is specifically to page 157 of Gary W. Gallagher's The Confederate War, published in 1997, with ISBN 0-674-16055-X. There are a bewildering variety of reference styles out there, many of which are used in various Wikipedia articles; the form here used ("AuthorLastName p. xxx", with the full listing of author's name, title, and other info on the book in question in a separate bibliography at the end of the article or even book) is one I've seen before and seems to me as valid as any other. 74.224.162.41 (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Coviespresb1647, You've just admitted you are edit warring. The reference is valid. It's not my favorite format, but I've seen it before. It is ridiculous that we are having to provide such a detailed reference note for something (two words) that is so patently obvious in the first place. Nevertheless, it has been done, so knock off the edit warring! Red Harvest (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, sir. I have not admitted anything regarding edit warring and deny such false accusation. Sorry, but I cannot knock off what I did not do. I do admit to non-warring reverting, and I gave my reasons (a citation that is not patently obvious and remains in non-compliance to a Wiki Standard). In the light of 74.224.162.41's comment, I have dropped the issue. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have! I quote: "If someone strains gnats with me, I will strain gnats with him/her" That is edit warring in its purest form. The only "false accusation" was what you've said about the note so far. Red Harvest (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not! I deny and will continue to deny such accusation which is not true! The quote, that you do not understand correctly, is not the full picture and is not connected properly with the whole context. You are isolating the quote and taking it out of context. Sorry, no false accusation on my part regarding the note. Until this discussion returns to civility, please expect no further reply or attention from me. Good day, sir.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been tracing this discussion with interest as I don't see any reason other than military collapse. However, that is not why I am posting this comment. Before the "discussion" between RedHarvest and Coviepresb1647 gets further heated, I would encourage both sides to step back since continuing the discussion will more than likely produce further heat and not be beneficial for them or anyone else reading this discussion. Although coviepresb1647's action may appear to be edit-warring based on the quote of coviepresb1647 and RedHarvest is right to raise the concern, it is not good or beneficial to accuse a person without asking questions of what he meant or did. Just based on the quote, edit warring may seem to exist on the surface, but I believe that edit warring is not conclusive since that is not all of what coviepresb1647 did or said since the rest of coviepresb1647's action or words. Now, coviepresb1647 should use more caution and greater clarity when writing so as not to be potentially misconstrued by another person as edit warring. Again, I believe that you both should suspend discussion until you both cool down and can think clearly.--72.75.71.77 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I still deny that I edit warred, I do publically apologize to RedHarvest for my angry tone in my latest response to him. "Straining gnats" was meant to allude to a higher standard towards perfection. The Pharisees were condemned for swallowing camels and straining gnats (overlooking the more important things). The context of my statement is slightly different as toward perfection, we are to strain camels and gnats. That is further allusion to King David of Israel when he said, "As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another." Hence, my comment was entirely meant as helping someone towards perfection. In other words, if one helps me toward perfection, then I intend to return the favor of helping him towards perfection. I should have used another metaphor since not all people are familiar with biblical metaphors. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

After having reviewed Coviepresb1647's actions and words in their entirety for a 2nd time, I strongly agree with Coviepresb1647 and will maintain that he did not edit war.--141.156.239.222 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Slavery

Coviepresb1647 has twice added the statement "Slavery was only a small part of the cival war" as if it were supported by an already existing footnote, which it isn't. Nor can it be supported by a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Though it is a false accusation on what I did and why I reverted (NOT added), I do concede on the point of slavery being a major part of the war though indirectly. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Coviepresb1647

Indeed, that Coviepresb1647 added something twice is a false statement since reversions are not additions. --141.156.239.222 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user 76.5.41.66 added that statement on 5/Aug/08, and I have invited the person to elaborate on her case here. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mabee this issue would be furthered by a statement of where you are from, seeing as how i rather suspect the ones "claiming slavery as the major cause" are from the north!!! S. Kays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.151.53 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Wikipedia editors are from Mars. What matters is whether they can back up what they say with good references. -- 139.76.64.66 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To say slavery was a major cause of the war is quite a stretch, I think. It implies that the issue had direct bearing on the motives of both North and South. I have doubts about this as Lincoln mentioned nothing of ending slavery in his first inaugural address, and even more importantly, Article 1, Section 9 of the CSA constitution banned the importation of slaves.Sentinel1701 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Slavery was the main reason why the South seceeded. No secession, no war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cause" is sometimes used ambiguously in historiography. It is used to mean "goal or purpose" and also as "circumstances that led to". Ending slavery was not initially a goal for the Union, but preserving slavery was initially a goal for the CSA, mentioning "slave..." ten times in its constitution, including "negro slave..." twice (and negro one more time). Slavery was the key issue that "led to" declarations of secession--JimWae (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

...even more importantly, Article 1, Section 9 of the CSA constitution banned the importation of slaves.

And Article I, Section 9, paragraph 4 of the Confederate Constitution guaranteed the "right of property in negro slaves" against any action of the Confederate Congress; Article IV, Section 1, paragraph 2 guaranteed the right of citizens of any of the Confederate states to "transit and sojourn" in any other state of the Confederacy "with their slaves and other property" without having their property rights in those slaves being impaired; and Article IV, Section 3, paragraph 3 stated that the institution of slavery must be protected by the Confederate and territorial governments in any territories the Confederacy might acquire. -- 139.76.64.67 (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion in the South (NPOV Dispute)

Finally, this editor has added material relating to the Presbyterian Church in the North that appears to be irreleevant to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The material on the Presbyterian Church is not irrelevant as it relates to the original Presbyterian position (i.e, Covenanter position which is not necessarily Northern US but Covenanted Presbyterian which is not confined to a nation or region) that has been held not only by the original Prebyterians but of Presbyterians in the USA and CSA although perhaps a minority in the CSA. Some Presbyterians in the South had partially defected from true Presbyterianism and therby Apostolic Christianity from espousing slavery, instrumentation in worship, and hymns. Other Southern Presbyterians were faithful to true Presbyterianism and Apostolic Christianity by speaking and preaching against slavery. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Coviepresb1647

As far as the Presbyterian material, I will wait for others to weigh in. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Without the additional material on Christianity in general and Presbyterianism in particular, the spiritual paragraph would not present an objective view of Christianity and Presbyterianism in the CSA. In light of today's evils, I strongly intend to keep that section objective instead of biased/subjective period. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the source is on the statements about opposition to slavery by Southern religious leaders. We now have two references, one to a page with several sermons from the era by Northern Presbyterian leaders arguing against slavery; the second source is "Conversation with FCSC Presbyterian Minister and Historian Reverend Isbell 10 August 2008" which I'm not sure is really adequate. By contrast, for the statements about Palmer we have a link to the primary source (the text of the sermon itself).

For the statements "...other southern religious leaders opposed secession and slavery....However, in contrast to Reverend Palmer, other southern religious leaders, even Southern Baptist and Presbyterian Ministers and Elders (e.g, Archibald Alexander), decried slavery as an evil abomination from their pulpits and also publically" it would be good to have links to or references for the primary sources; and ideally some secondary sources to try to put all this into perspective: Was this really a case where half the Southern ministers supported slavery and half were against it (or one third for, one third against, and one third made no statements); or was Palmer an outlier and most Southern ministers were anti-slavery; or was Archibald Alexander the outlier and Palmer represented the mainstream of Southern religious leaders of the time?

I also have to say the issue is not who was correct about what Christianity ought to say about slavery, but rather what Southern white religious leaders in 1850 or 1860 actually did say. -- 139.76.64.67 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What I did was a starting point. Obviously, I intend to improve upon what I wrote. You have very good suggestions. The case is that regardless of the race of the religious leaders, some religious leaders were for slavery and some religious leaders opposed slavery. I am only familiar with what various Christian leaders said. Other religions of the South (minor indigenous religions, Catholicism, etc.) I would defer to the adherents of those sects as they would know more about their religion than I would. However, it is also an issue to not confuse defective Christianity and defective Presbyterianism with true Christianity and true Presbyterianism. Hence, the Covenanter position, followed by a majority of Northern Presbyterian and a minority of Southern Presbyterians. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged several parts of your additions where your source does not support the material you added -- you have provided nothing that addresses what southern ministers were saying that was anti-slavery. It is also necessary to have a reliable, secondary source to characterize Palmer’s speech as a violation of Presbyterian canons. I also have questions about the source “Conversation with FCSC Presbyterian Minister and Historian Reverend Isbell 10 August 2008". Is this a published item or simply your recollections of a conversation you had with Isbell? If it is the latter, it is not a proper source for Wikipedia and constitutes original research on your part. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On the conversation with Rev. Isbell, I admit that it is original research. I was unaware of Wikipedia's "no original research" policy until this afternoon. I am sorry for my ignorance. Now that I am aware, I have removed that notation in the article. I refer you to what I said to Anonymous User 139.76.64.67. What I wrote is a start, and I am improving it. To better serve those who use Wikipedia, I have removed all of my editions and then add my final edition later (hopefully within 2 weeks depending on how work is). Hence, the article is not objective, and I have noted that just above the paragraph.

The secondary source (that I provided on the covenanter.org site) of the Covenanters demonstrates that the Covenanter position is the same as the canonical Presbyterian position and hence, Palmer's violation of true Presbyterianism. The canons of Presbyterianism are defined by the entire Westminster Standards and the Standards' subsequent renovations. For the United States, the subsequent renovations include the Original Judicial Testimony of 1761 and the Act, Declaration, and Testimony of 1876.

Your tone in your responses is coming across as generally uncivil and full of destructive criticism. Note well that your tone differs with the civil tone of RedHarvest and Anonymous User 139.76.64.67. My desire is to work together to improve the article and is not to oppose you. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that, as far as the issue of Northern and Southern religious leaders taking different positions on slavery goes, this would be better addressed in the "Religious conflict over the slavery question" section of the Origins of the American Civil War article (in a NPOV and properly-sourced way, of course). -- 139.76.64.67 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I may address it in that article you suggested. However, that would not relieve the bias/subjectivity in disputed paragraph on the CSA. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I created a separate section and expanded it with sourced material. Contrary to allegations made earlier, there is no evidence that I am aware of that as the Civil War approached there were any ignificant number of southern preachers speaking from the pulpit for emancipation. I will leave the NPOV tag up to give people who believe otherwise to provide documentation for their claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the quotes I've seen of southern ministers in the lead up to war were very pro-slavery (many of them Presbyterians). The few exceptions were typically run off or shunned, similar to the treatment of newspaper editors that considered emancipation. There was a great deal of "paternalism" at the time and it was anchored/rationalized through religious institutions as well. If there was extensive evidence that southern ministers were preaching for emancipation in 1860, I'm not aware of it. There were certainly divided views in many border regions. Red Harvest (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as I implied from the beginning, there indeed was not a majority (i.e, significant number) of southern ministers that spoke against slavery and/or secession. I was not alleging that there were a significant number. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the CSA. The disputed section seems to focus mostly on "southern religious attitudes toward slavery". While it is appropriate to include, in this article, some mention that southern religious leaders supported both slavery and secession, the details included make the article wander from its main topic. There is also at least one "quote" which is unsourced. Additionally, the "Seceding States" section should not be a SUBsection of this section - the specific identification of which states are "included" in the CSA should come even before the "Causes.." section. Besides the several grammatical problems in the section, the text wanders between treating the issue chronologically & denominationally. I do not think the topic merits its own section. It definitely should not be so close to the top, and even if moved way down, would still need to focus more on the religious attitude towards secession (instead of wandering between secession & slavery) While "religious attitudes toward slavery" is an important topic, without a focus on "religious attitudes toward secession" instead, an entire section on it is misplaced here. --JimWae (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The section was created as the direct result of an attempt by another editor to add a very specific POV to the article -- namely that there were some signficant number of southern preachers publicly opposing secession. I would rather have sourced material already in the article before other editors return with more poorly sourced POV stuff. The section starts with a generalization about the role of religion in the sectional division, and the other paragraphs support that. The reason that slavery and secesion are so linked in the article is because that is how they were linked in real life. The quotes provided in one way or the other relate to secession or the breakup of the Union. The religious sectional split is important and needs to be included and described in the article. The "Seceding States" was left right where it's always been but certainly should be moved. If you provide the specific info. on which you feel are unsourced I will provide the source. I have no problem with moving it -- if anything it should probably be expanded to include the role of religion during the war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other editor (JimWae?) put the "citation needed" where you talked about Old School and New School and at other locations. In addition to what you may provide, I added 2 published sources to support the sentence and to clarify that it was the largest denomination (PCUSA) of the Presbyterian Church and not the entire Presbyterian Church that split into Old School and New School.

No, that was not my attempt or my allegation, which has been misconstrued by another editor. To reiterate, my fundamental allegation and NPOV dispute from the beginning has been that there are 2 views in the South, leading up to and/or during the Civil War, by Christian ministers and not having and/or acknowledging both views skewed the article into bias and away from an NPOV. The section before today's revision only represented one view (that some supported slavery and/or secession) and never acknowledged or presented the contradicting view (that some opposed slavery and/or secession). That, in my opinion, renders the section as not having a NPOV per wiki's entry/guideline (Wikipedia, "Neutral Point of View") on bias and undue weight. Per the same entry, both views are to be presented with the major view (that some suppored slavery and/or secession) having greater proportion though not the sole proportion. Hence, my putting the NPOV tag. My sole attempt has been to bring that section into a NPOV. As I implied by "minority" and "some", I was not asserting that a significant number (i.e, majority) opposed slavery and/or secession but that a minority opposed slavery and/or secession.

It still my intention to provide additional information to the section, but unlike retirees, I have been busy with work and a two other higher priority things in life. I also gave an estimation of when I would post again.

I've no issue with moving the section to make it more suitable to readers. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Today's excellent revision, primarily by NorthShoreman, confirmed and then immediately answered my NPOV dispute/concern/allegation, in a satisfactory manner, by adding the anti-slavery/anti-secessionist view in a way that presents both views in proper proportion instead of leaving a biased one-view section. I no longer regard the section as biased or having undue weight. If it is agreeable by a consensus, I would recommend that someone remove the NPOV tag at the top of the section. If I do find other reliable sources indicating a anti-slavery or anti-secessionist view during the war, I will share them. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no objection to the removal of the NPOV tag that I placed, I intend to remove it on 18/Aug/08 at 23:00 UTC and mark the NPOV Dispute Resolved.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a new NPOV (Undue Weight) claim by JimWae. Hence, I am postponing the removal of the NPOV tag that I placed. The removal of it falls under MY responsibility as I volunteered to remove it.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The POV/Undue Weight claim is now concering too much weight to Presbyterianism. I agree with JimWae as it not only gives too much weight to Presbyterianism but also Christianity. Christianity was not the only religion in the South, and those other religions are not represented. Hence, I further agree with JimWae that it should be more general. For starters, I am wondering if we can delete the sentences about the 1818 (PCUSA) General Assembly since that is not as much a notable event as the Old-New School Split AND then make the 1837 Split more concise. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored the material you deleted -- one sentence doesn't make a lot of difference at this point and I find it odd that you picked a sentence that reflected negatively on Presbyterians. If we are going to include material on the complex issue of secession and religion, then it is going to require more than a single paragraph. The section was very general before you got involved -- if you want the other side of the story, then it requires material that shows what led to the circumstances existing in 1860 when the only voice coming from the pulpits was pro-slavery and pro-secesion.

As far as the various fact tags added, in all cases the quotes are covered in the next footnote which is usually a sentence or two removed from the quote since the intervening material comes from the same quote. It makes no sense to include three separate footnotes for three consecutive sentences when they all come from the same source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Before and when I got involved, the section was not general nor NPOV as it only focused on the Presbyterian denominations and not the other prominent sects (Southern Baptists, Methodists, etc.) in the South at the time. The other side requires material from 1860 and before. Since you already provided it (with the Old-New School split and other anti-slavery and anti-secession statements prior to 1860), then I see no need to at this point. That the 1818 statement reflected positively or negatively did not factor in my deletion decision at all. I chose the most notable event in Presbyterian history (the Old-New School Split) to keep. As JimWae said (and I agree), the section needs to be more concise and general as it reflects too much on Presbyterianism and hence too much Presyberian information. Hence, my deletion of the 1818 events.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are edit warring. You and another editor have tagged this section for discussion, yet your idea of discussion appears to be to simply implement your preferred deletions without regard for others input. If you're actually serious about discussion, then wait for a consensus to develope before further reverts on your part. What stays and what goes is the topic for discussion and we are now zeroed in on a particular sentence -- it should stay until a consensus developes to remove it and nobody else at this point has weighed in on it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I did not edit war, I will wait for further discussion before making any more deletions. There are two sentences (whether to keep or delete the 1818 statement and how to make the 1837 Split more concise) and maybe more (depending on what JimWae elaborates). --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coviepresb1647's denial that he did not edit war since he did not meet the 3RR (3 revert rule - 3 reverts per 24 hour period) in the Wikipedia article "Edit War" and did meet Wikipedia's BRD cycle, which also allows for change/revert and THEN discussion. His attitude strongly appeared to be non-confrontational and earnestly desiring to improve the quality of the article while not disregarding others. --141.156.239.222 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On third read of the information that you restored, I am now agreeing to keep the 1818 information because it reflects more positively than negatively on Prebyterianism. However, still, as JimWae initimated, there is too much focus on Presbyterianism in that section. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Check out WP:MILMOS#CITESTYLE. It states clearly:

"A single footnote may be used to provide citations for any amount of material; while they typically apply to one or a few sentences, they may also cover entire paragraphs or sections of text. In cases where the connection between the citations and the material cited is not obvious, it is helpful to describe it explicitly (for example, "For the details of the operation, see Smith, First Book, 143–188, and Jones, Another Book, chapters 2–7; for the international reaction, see Thomas, Yet Another Book, 122–191")." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What other religions? With the exception of Judaism, there were not, generally, other religions in the South. No doubt there were other denominations, but other religions? Where? With the exception of a handful of Chinese Mississippi migrants, and Muslims who filtered in and out of port cities with ships, there is no one that asserts that the Christianity was not the dominant religion in the South at the time. Trying to shift things to "other religions", which were almost miniscule in adherents, is also undue weight.SiberioS (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking mainly about the non-Christian religions of the slaves.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What non-Christian religions? Most slaves were Christians, being baptized and generally brought up as such. What animist beliefs slaves might have had when they were first transferred from Africa to America, by the time of the Civil War, had long been lost. What slaves were nominally Muslim had also been submerged, or at best, fused with Christianity. Its this "loss" of native religions that inspired the foundation of the Nation of Islam and the move towards pan-africanism in the early 1900's. Kwanzaa, and the injection of Carribean and Rastafarian beliefs into African American culture during the 1960's, was another wave of this kind of "back to Africa" movement. Slaves were overhwelmingly Christian, albeit in a way that often offended and scared their slave owners. SiberioS (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, many slaves were not Christian from a theological and social standpoint. In response to your theological implication, being baptized and/or raised in a Christian church or home does not make one a Christian. However, that is another discussion well beyond the scope of this article. According to Dr. Matthews of Wake Forest University as well as the Journal of American Folklore, many slaves were not Christian but Voodoo and Hoodo even before and during the Civil War. Dr. Matthews also notes that, though historians may differ on how successful the Christian conversion of the slaves were, Historian John Blassingame mentioned and provides significant evidience that as a result of resistance to "white evangelicalism" and slavery, the slaves held to their native non-Christian religions even more. That American Journal also noted regular Voodoo practices among the Southern blacks as late as 1881.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is way more detail in this article on the role of religion (& specifically Presbtryianism) than there is in the Origins of the Civil War article. This article should contain only an overview of the origins/causes - not more elaborate detail than the branch article. --JimWae (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seceding territories under the CSA

I have added a new sub-section moving the seceding territory under that. The secession of the Arizona territory on March 16, 1861 is historical fact. The capital was Mesilla. This is documented in these other clarifying wiki articles:

• Arizona in the American Civil War
• Arizona Territory (CSA)
• Mesilla, New Mexico
• Arizona (see history section)
• History of Arizona (see section on the Civil War)
• Arizona Territory (see The Civil War section)

So please do not edit out this sub-section on the main article, with radical or uniformed claims that the Arizona Territory was not an official territory of the CSA. It was. This is historical fact, not a POV. There were official governing bodies and sessions of government, and the westernmost battle of the war was fought there. The only difference was that the Confederate Arizona Territory ran east-west to Texas, while the later-formed Union Arizona Territory ran north-south to Utah.

Regards, The Gray Ghost (Grayghost01 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

• Stating that ANY state or territory actually/formally seceded is not WP:NPOV. The NPOV "fact" is that the area was "claimed" by both sides. --JimWae (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Arizona seceded from the Union in March 1861. The U.S. did nothing about it until they established control in 1863. Now, according to your logic, since the U.S. "claimed" all the southern states, the NPOV would be that no one seceded. That's fine. You can make the argument that since they all lost ... all the secessions of all the states were null and void, since they were all claimed by the U.S. the entire time. In that case, if that's the "NPOV", then empty the list on this article. Don't forget to go into all the articles above, and change all the history sections of all those pages, which all talk about the Arizona territory seceding and joining the Confederacy (who accepted it in early 1862 as I recall). However, I believe the norm is that we are covering the history of what happened. And what happened is that a bunch of states and one territory all held government conventions and meetings, and issued secession statements ... Arizona included. Grayghost01 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Arizona territory is listed in the infobox. Also listed are the informal status's of the Indian Territory (Oklahoma). This entire article, the infobox, the separate articles on Arizona in the American Civil War, even the animated graphic showing Arizona territory coming into the CSA all fly in the face of both your argument ... and your pointless vandalistic editing, so please cut out the shenanigans.Grayghost01 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your charges of "pointless vandalistic editing" ignores the numerous positive contributions by JimWae to Wikipedia, including this article. What is certainly "pointless" is your effort to pass off the opinion of former CSA officer Jedidiah Hotchkiss as a NPOV reliable source on Abraham Lincoln! Equally pointless are your efforts to treat the CSA version of this issue as the only acceptable issue --while Arizona "was formally part of the Confederate Arizona" according to you and Jeff Davis, it was just as "formally" still part of the USA's New Mexico Territory according to the Union. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost01, the graphics are not references but instead visual aids. Two say claimed. The other animated graphic is flawed and the creator has not edited as he said he would six or 7 months ago. There has been some discussion of removing it for that reason, now might be the time. It is unfortunate but probably necessary. Red Harvest (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gents, first, I notice a large horde of Wiki-authors all hailing from northern climes busily banging away writing Southern history. We have denials that Arizona seceded and joined the confederacy, denials that Lincolns movement of troops into that south is properly called a military invasion, and it just seems to me this is all a bunch of baloney. I'm sorry, but I've been re-checking the Confederate Military History, only the Virginia Vol3-Part1 mind you, and I've come across invade or invasion at least 30 times. And then many pages on Northern cities and areas all calling any occasion that John Mosby spit into the Potomac an "invasion". Wiki is a source to GET FACTS, gents. If someone wants to know what Arizona did, and when the did it ... for crying out loud, why can't they come to Wiki to just find out the facts? These articles simply need to state what happened and when, and perhaps how, and a little bit of why. Go bang away on the Union page, gents, and give your POV there. In the meantime, the southern Confederate articles are going to cite history references, give the facts, and tell it like it was, and yes ... they will give, to some degree, the Southern take on what happened, per Southern historians, who are just as valid, in fact, even more so because how does Grant or anyone else have the diary of what was happening in the south? If you want a new page to discuss the theories and views on things, then start a NEW article on that topic. Meanwhile, Arizona representatives met ... they seceded, and Arizona was accepted into the Confederacy. Those are real historical events. And the graphic, yes, it needs to be updated. Virginia's secession was on 23 May, and the results were held secret from the public and Washington, to give Stonewall time to destroy half the B&O and other such raids. Yet this article was going on the secession convetion. Listen ... Virginia did it differently. But that subtlety, and many others, gets lost on the various Ohioans and New Yorkers who are taking it upon themselves to force their own view of the history of the Confederate States of America. So can the graphic, get a new one, and let's document the facts as they were. Good day. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost01, anyone is free to edit any Wikipedia article if they follow our principles -- male or female, Northern or Southern. Please remember WP:CIVIL, and don't use people's backgrounds to attack their editing. And all articles are subject to WP:NPOV, which does not allow different articles to be written from the POVs associated with each subject. Finally, please remember that the standard is verifiability, not truth: it doesn't matter for our purposes whether your arguments are correct, all that matters is whether you have sources that are reliable (which generally means, among other things, that they not be a century old). --Allen (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If I disagree, it would be with the statement that "sources over a 100 years old" isn't a problem per se, as obviously a good deal of primary sources and even secondary sources are obviously above that age, and alot of great scholarship on the civil war was produced in the 20's and 30's. making it damn near a 100 years old. Obviously it should be buffered and contrasted with newer scholarship, but the reality is, as years go by, there is LESS of that, though certainly there are still people taking fresh approaches and overseeing ever larger surveys of primary sources that were either unavailable or simply weren't looked at years ago. SiberioS (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that when century-old secondary scholarship is still recognized as the best available, we should use it. I'm not a historian, and perhaps that's more often the case than I'd imagined. --Allen (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This border stater doesn't agree with the Southern revisionist history Grayghost wants to present. Southern revisionism has two major problems: fabrications and strong POV. There is a recurring theme in ACW of Southern partisans inserting highly subjective wording into wiki articles. Southern revisionist history should be left to the SCV sites. Red Harvest (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If folks think that I am fabricating the secession of the Arizona territory, and the recognition and acceptance of that territory into the CSA ... please ... by all means ... give this due diligence, read the other half dozen wiki articles on that topice, crack open your history books ... and inform yourselves. Secondly, don't give me all this NPOV hype, when referenced small edits are made regarding this topic. There is zero "southern revisionist history" going on here, because a referenced small edit is made pointing out the Arizona territory secession, which is described beautifully, with colorful graphics, throughout other wiki articles. It is what it is, and for the life of me, why are folks so up in arms because Arizona seceded? Who cares? I use these wiki articles as great history notes, and I add to them as I see details that need to be polished. Go give me a break with the rhetoric.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Check the "Geography" section of this very same article showing the Arizona territory aforementioned. So let's keep the article in congruence with itself, and give in the TOP portion the mysterious and previously unknown "secession" date by which the Arizona territory, depicted in the geography section, made the jump and saw the light. Else ... readers will be confused by the accurate map below ... while the date of secession is not rendered above. Well ... assuming that factual secession dates are being given, of course. I wouldn't want to make up "revisionist" dates for when Arizona did anything, God forbid. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Hotchkiss is not a neutral source in this matter. What you inserted about the secession crisis is POV laden rather than fact. What Lincoln did is to call "forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections" (from the O.R.) as a direct result of Fort Sumter. This is an indisputable bit of recorded history, and it is not necessary to load it with POV. Hotchkiss' opinion is not relevant to those facts. 2. The second part about the states seceding as they considered implied coercion as a violation of Constitutional law might make sense to add, if you can support it with appropriate references. I'm not unaware of their general positions, but saying "suppressing insurrection" violated Constitutional law is problematic at best. This was afterall a chicken or the egg problem. 3. The "formally" part just doesn't fly for Arizona, it is prejudicial language (POV). Arizona wasn't even a territory, New Mexico was. The land ecompassing the self-declared Arizona Territory was not a state, so "secession" itself is not even a valid concept according to states rights doctrine. The territory it belonged to, New Mexico, did not secede, a portion of it declared itself independent. The one part that might make sense to reinsert when the dust settles is the date of the Mesilla convention's declaration. One of the problems with the Arizona aspect is that there are way too many semi-parallel articles and that creates inconsistencies. Red Harvest (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What's worth keeping in the following?

* [[Arizona]] Territory ([[March 16]], 1861)< ref>Bowman, p.48</ref>

A portion of modern [[Arizona Territory (CSA) | New Mexico]] south of 34 degrees north was formally part of the Confederate [[Arizona in the American Civil War | Arizona Territory]]. Later on [[February 24]], 1863 the Union created the [[Arizona Territory]] with [[Fort Whipple, Arizona|Fort Whipple]] as the capital.

Problems:

1. section begins with a bullet (list of one)
2. The "modern [ [Arizona Territory (CSA)|New Mexico]]" link is an Easter egg - Arizona Territory (CSA) is not modern NM. Arizona Territory (CSA) included southern parts of current states of NM & AZ both.
3. "Formally" implies legitimacy that cannot be established. The land in Arizona Territory (CSA) was also "formally" part of the USA. NPOV fact is that some residents of NM (USA) territory held a convention & voted to join CSA. Whether the process was even as legitimate as the process in SC (not implying that was fully legitimate) is open to question. The date in the bullet might be worth keeping - but it gives a very incomplete picture of what happened when. On March 16, there was some kind of convention - dates of first secession conventions are NOT used as dates of "secession" for the states, why should it be so for this territory
4. The Union did not create the new territory until it retook military control

What is there to dispute in the following??

The Confederacy also claimed portions of modern [[New Mexico in the American Civil War|New Mexico]] and [[Arizona in the American Civil War|Arizona]] south of 34 degrees north as the [[Arizona Territory (CSA)|Arizona Territory]], with [[Mesilla, New Mexico|Mesilla]] serving as the territory capital.<ref>Bowman, p.48</ref> The Union regained military control of the area, and on [[February 24]], [[1863]] created the [[Arizona Territory]] with [[Fort Whipple, Arizona|Fort Whipple]] as the capital.

--JimWae (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest changing "south of 34 degrees north" to "south of the 34th parallel," to improve readability. Altgeld (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hotchkiss, Arizona, reason for 2nd group of secessions all explained

If you look back through the history of the page edits, I did some very minor editing on two items: (a) I corrected Virginia's secession date to the May popular-vote ratification election, to make this consistent with all the other ACW pages on Virginia. Please examine these other pages on Virginia to see what I mean.

Then, (b) I noticed the section on the territories was nominal and did not clearly explain that Arizona territory had seceded on a particular date, and did not clearly indicate it's difference in status relative to other territories (such as Oklahoma) which did not exist in the CSA on the same legal status. Thus I performed minor editing again.

But this page is as it was originally, per the diligence of User:JimWae. The same gent who at first claims that the Arizona secession date was not allowed because the article split dates on the "March 4" lincoln date. So I moved it to the second grouping. Then he deletes that, and re-writes the prose to talk about an "April 12" split and "confederate attack" as the grouping pardigm. At this point, the article is blatantly off fact, because the second grouping of states did NOT seceded because of an "April 12" "confederate attack". Thus User:JimWae has bascially driven the article into the ground. I tried one last time to put in a cited reference for why those last states "claim" they seceded, per the Hotchkiss book reference, so we can have the right basic understanding, the correct two groupings, and then get Arizona's secession date (March 16 by the way) somehow in there, and I put in in new sub-section on territories, thus treating it differently.

Then you step in and remove the clearly incorrect graphic. But not before User:North Shoreman also steps in a deletes all the changes too (another user that does not like my Winchester in the American Civil War article, that is one of the better articles of the ACW on Wiki.

So ... I created an UNDO that fixed it all, and left your proper graphic edit in. And thus ... I have put my dispute tag on. I have better things to do. It would have been nice to have the framework of this article correct, so it could be used for reference, including my own.

I don't know what else to say. The bottom line is that the 2nd group of states seceded for a very specific historical event, which was neither April 12, nor March 4 events. Secondly, Arizona seceded on March 16.

And as far as Hotchkiss not being a "neutral" historical source for reference books, that's a comment that's completely out of line. Hotchkiss' book, maps and contributions to the history series are all used by historians. His Winchester map is a key feature on the 2nd battle page. He kept a meticulous diary. I have been combing through Wiki, and have now found invade or invasion as a military term in many ACW articles, all of which have nothing to do with Hotchkiss. Historically the 2nd grouping of secessions was centered NOT on Lincoln's taking of office ... but specifically on his call to raise and army and proceed through the border states to get to the deep south states. Thus, states which would have been Union allies (e.g. Virginia, North Carolina, etc) all seceded. The reason was that they protested the military movement through their states to get to the others. Call it by what word you want, but that was the issue. Grayghost01 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Southern historians not quotable?

Grayghost01, that is a misrepresentation of what you have done and how other editors have responded. You have tried to insert POV language using a clearly biased source. "Formally" was fabricted out of thin air. Hotchkiss' maps and opinions are useful, but as a primary participant his opinions about the aims of others are anything but neutral. It is not out of line to reject his summary as POV'ish/biased. (It should be removed from your other articles as well.) Red Harvest (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting "N"POV you have on the famous Hotchkiss. He's generally well-respected among historians, but apparantly not here. I wonder, then, what you think of Lee? Should all wiki citations, reference and quotations of Lee be stricken, too?Grayghost01 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You've resorted to strawman arguments. His opinion matters no more than Jeff Davis or Robert E. Lee's opinion on this matter. The record is clear and is based upon timeline and facts, not somebody's opinion. That's where you are getting into trouble with your editing. Red Harvest (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Harvest: So, let me see if I have this straight. All southerners who wrote any history of the war are automatically considered opinonated and are not citable ... particularly the most truthful, revered and kind ones like Lee and Hotchkiss ... in your opinion. Yet, as North Shoreman said elsewhere, we should be quoting Lincoln's speech. And then for me to have pointed out all this, I am resorting to "strawman" arguments? Presumably, of course, a strawman argument would be something I'm suggesting which is to be purposely shot down. But I'm not suggesting citations of Lee should be shot down, nor Hotchkiss. And you are doing the shooting down. Thus as the shooter-downer, you would notionally have been the one setting up the strawman. Meanwhile ... the secession date for the Arizona territory and its acceptance into the CSA is not cited in this article ... the reason I came to this page to begin with. And upon not finding that information, and then looking it up, I then returned and added it. And the article is tagged as being in bad shape. If nothing else ... I've discovered why the article is in bad shape.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost01, you don't have it straight, instead it appears yet another bare attempt by you to insert POV by quoting someone's opinion. There is a pattern of unreasonably subjective wording in your comments on Lincoln, etc. I've seen your style of scorched earth editing before and consider it reprehensible. Red Harvest (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Who entered Virginia?

• First Union troops into the South I can find is to Grafton, (now WV) May 30 in preparation for Battle of Philippi (West Virginia). By then 3 more slave states had already declared their secession. It was Lincoln's call for troops from ALL the states that led to more slave states deciding they would not provide troops against their neighbors. While they may have been able to predict in advance that Union troops would have to eventually move through their territory, such passage is by no means an "invasion" unless one considers that territory already to be outside the USA --JimWae (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Before these troops entered VA, Richmond had already been declared the capital of the CSA. Previous to that, are you under the impression that any state had some right to refuse movemnt of federal troops within it, anyway? --JimWae (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Without using Southern history reference books ... it's probably difficult to reconstruct a timeline of what ole Virginny was doing from February to May of 1861. And as far as refusing federal troops, there is a document you may have heard of, called the United States Constitution which did not allow such executive power. Once saner and cooler heads prevailed following the assassination of the great law breaker, a more permanent and clear message was fixed, to notionally prevent any more Great Unpleasantness and slaughter of millions of our own: Posse Comitatus Act. Even Rome knew for awhile that Legions are best used against foreign enemies only. Rome had probably burned all her Hotchkiss-equivalent books in her wiki-town-plaza's by 49 B.C.

On the contrary, the Constitution gives the Federal government power to suppress insurrections; this was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the document. I'll check the confederate one to see if they retained this power.  ;) By the way, what were all those pre-war southern militias for? Fear of a foreign invasion? DMorpheus (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, it's one POV, perhaps, to call the whole affair an insurrection. Kinda like the one Col. Lee helped put down, right? Now, isn't an insurrection a revolt against established government? But what was it called when we declared independence and created a government? And what if that same process is followed again? That is, declare independence, write a constitution, establish a government, and so on? The last I checked, the secessions of the various States were not referred to or labeled as the "insurrections" of the states ... not even on this highly biased wiki page. Perhaps you need consult Wikipedia:NPOV a bit. It's hard to believe your good faith, when you call the southern states insurrectionists. Can anyone verify whether the southern states actually seceded and established governments or not? Need some help here. How about Arizona? Did they historically and factually secede? Did the CSA government recognize that and make them a territory? Heres a quickie verification of some text at: [[2]] Is this text real, or a web hoax?

The objective historian recognizes the Southern view that the Northern states were violating the constitution, and reports that as such, and as the reason for their secessions. The non-objective historian pretends that only allowable view in print is that the North erred not, and that the south was wrong in their accusation. Again ... both views are explained objectively. One view is non-allowed unobjectively. We have one wiki article on the Union. We have one wiki article on the CSA. A beautiful place to discuss the historicity of both views, from both angles, in both places.

However ... that would be the ideal-wiki way. Perhaps that is how other task-force wiki writers do it? But not on this page. And to raise the point is to have my "POV" questioned. But I will not allow the clover to be put in the boiling beetlenut juice. I stand firmly on my position and points, namely:

1- Arizona seceded 2- the CSA recognized and incorporated an Arizona Territory 3- The second-wave of secessions centered around the disagreement and view of legality of raising a federal army and moving it across what should be sovereign states

I believe the historical record is clear, verifiable and true on that account. Therefore let the CSA page objectively give this information, and explain the CSA viewpoint on why, in their minds, they did what they did. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Union acquisition of Arizona

Does anyone besides me find it odd that my small edit of when the CSA Arizona territory seceded and joined the CSA in 1861/1862 has been deleted ... yet the sentence I had also put with that on when the Union took and added the territory in 1863 is still in the article. Does anyone think one side of that historical point is being shared (POV) ... or would we rather give all the information (NPOV)? I'm highly entertained by this whole affair. Where is President Tyler when you need him?Grayghost01 (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consult WP:NPOV a bit. It is hard to believe in your good faith when you acknowledge this is entertaining for you. DMorpheus (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really harder when a simple historical fact on a secession date for the CSA is kept deleted off the page, but the part which might be good for the Union page is left on here at the exclusion of the first. Where should people go to find out when Arizona seceded and joined the Confederacy? Maybe answers.com. But for now ... not wiki. Therefore I vote that we put the history on the CSA history page.Grayghost01 (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just notice all the bad-tags and categories this page has. Does anyone here wonder why? It certainly wasn't me that put this page in the categories of:

"needing attention to referencing and citation"

and "former good article"

and "articles needing review"

Well ... a reviewer is here ... being rebuffed when adding a date of "March 16, 1861" to Arizona's secession, but having only the Union admission date left intact.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

With no further comment coming forth, I will create (and put here in the next couple of weeks) an improved secession table of the states and territories, with edited and improved prose, and show it here for preview and comment, and then move it in place of the curren secession section. For the sake of the contributors with the bias toward having only Northern historians for citations, I will do all I can to research notations from those types of sources. Normally I have no interest in contributing to this higher level articles, as I am focused on documenting raid operations for the CSA, but I will spend some time on this, because this article is in such dire shape, and bad need of better writing. So, anyone opposed to the documentation of what happened with the Arizona territory, please discuss it here. Now is your chance to air your views on that. I happened to be reviewing this topic in the vein of CSA raids out west, which is what led me to even look at this page to begin with ... and finding the lack of historical references and information on that. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have already remarked on this re Arizona (that the process was less thorough by that date than in other places that were claimed by the CSA). Editors have repeatedly remarked that the date you have presented could find a place in the article - the issue is how it is presented - just what is supposed to be a fact by tha date. Have you responded to that? I may have missed it mixed in somewhere with your soapboxing. Try inserting just that one fact without all the other POV about states seceding BECAUSE the Union invaded the South & see what happens --JimWae (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The separate topic of WHY the 2nd group of states seceded is well documented. The events of April 12 through 15 are what caused Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina to secede, and Kentucky to call a Convention of Border states, and a riot/massacre in Baltimore. These states were NOT upset that Fort Sumter was bombarded. They WERE upset at Lincoln's call to raise an army and move it through their lands down to those deep south-7 that had formed the CSA. This History-101 of the Civil War is so well known, its de facto. Your rhetoric that this is not why the 2nd group seceded is your POV and is the soapbox. The real question is why is that so offensive to you, that you actively seek to eliminate it from historical wiki articles on the Civil War? Hundreds of other historical websites cover that, even other wiki articles that, apparently, you have not gotten to yet with your revisionist keyboard. You have a clear emotional bias and conflict of interest in trying to re-wicker "why" the second group of border states all seceded. But don't worry. We'll get all this straightened out eventually. All the dates, secession documentation, convention papers, the whole shebang will be sourced in Wiki, and we'll have a secession timeline that is historically accurate and fully referenced. Then ... if the bandit-deletions keep occuring, I will lead the effort to get the protection necessary.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Its kind of bizarre to describe the second round of states reaction as an example of anger over moving troops "through their lands". Federal installations and units had been stationed and moved through all the states in America before the Civil War, or Lincoln's call for raising troops, in response to a variety of military situations, especially in fights against Indian tribes. So clearly it wasn't the mechanisms of the plan to attack the deep South that infuriated those in its upper part; it was the whole idea of responding militarily to secession. As the situation moved faster and faster towards outright war, attempts at moderation or neutrality were distinctly abandoned, and individual states were left to decide which side they were to be on. SiberioS (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since you obviously have either not been reading or not comprehending what I have clearly stated (& which you now seem at least partially to agree with), I will not bother to finish reading the above --JimWae (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Well, I read it anyway. So, do you still want to maintain that an invasion of "the South" took place between Lincoln's call for troops & the other states declaring secession? Yes, Lincoln's call for troops from EVERY state led to more states deciding to side with the CSA rather than against them - I have always supported that presentation. Do you still maintain that moving US troops through a US state is invading that state? --JimWae (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Arkansas Newspaper Article from 1861

Here is one of but many many historical documents of the reasoning for why all the pro-union states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina) seceded. The Fort Sumter response (not the battle) is what upset these remaining states. Lincoln ... who could have conducted action against the Deep South 7 ... provoked a much larger fight and all out war. Again, the remaining states did not give a hoot about SC firing on Sumter. That is not why they seceded. The issue was Lincolns "call" ... an act seen as insurrection in-and-of-itself against the US Constitution, which the border state had heretofore been complying to.

To be clear ... April 15th is the key date in history, by which the remining states begain re-convening conventions, and causing Kentucky to call a border state convention. The view of the border states, documented over and over again, is that they viewed this call as a course of invasion needing to go via their state borders, without authorization constitutionally or by the states. That, in the minds of many previously pro-union delegates in those 4 states, constituted an act of war.

The question here is whether this simple point, plastered on the annals of history, can be clearly and succintly explained in this article on the CSA. Perhaps in the USA article, the reasons, in Lincolns's mind, of why he thought he was doing the right thing can be explained there, and a "see for more info" link can be a bridge to that. But IMHO, the CSA article needs to cover CSA history, what the CSA did, why the CSA did what they did, and how they did it.

Arkansas Leaves Union for Southern Confederacy LITTLE ROCK — Delegates to the Arkansas Secession Convention voted to leave the Union and join the Confederate States of America today, May 6, 1861. The State House was packed full of noisy spectators who cheered loudly after the final vote was taken.

W. P. Grace of Pine Bluff introduced the ordinance of secession. Convention president Judge David Walker of Fayetteville called the roll. The crowd became solemn. Just two months ago this same group of men voted not to secede.

Since that time there have been major changes in the national situation. The Republican Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated president on March 4, the same day Arkansas voted not to secede. Then military forces of the new Confederate States of America, only seven Deep South states at that time, demanded the surrender of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

When Lincoln sent additional supplies to the Federal troops in the fort in April, the Southerners fired on the fort which soon surrendered. Lincoln then issued a call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the "insurrection." So today’s Arkansas vote comes after a state of war exists between the North and the South.

Today’s secession vote was 65 for and 5 against. The crowd jeered the five delegates who voted no. Although there were Unionists in attendance, secession supporters in the room were more numerous and louder. After quieting down the crowd, Judge Walker said that for such a serious and important matter, the vote should be unanimous. Roll call was taken again. Four of the five delegates who had voted "no" changed their votes to "yes." Only Isaac Murphy, a farmer and lawyer representing Madison County, remained firm. He said, "I have cast my vote after mature reflection, and have duly considered the consequences, and I cannot conscientiously change it. I therefore vote ‘no’." The final vote was 69 to1.

The room filled with angry shouts of "Traitor!" and "Hang him!" In the midst of this, a bouquet of flowers was thrown towards Murphy and landed at his feet. Onlookers said that it was Mrs. Frederic Trapnall, the widow of a Little Rock attorney and merchant, who threw the flowers as a sign of appreciation for Murphy’s stand.

As of ten minutes past four this afternoon, Arkansas is a member of the Confederate States of America. The future is unclear. Convention delegates plan to meet again, perhaps to write a new constitution.

Throughout the state people are choosing sides. Some men are forming companies and preparing to fight. It appears that the military forces of the free and slave states will meet soon in battle, perhaps in Virginia or Missouri.

Grayghost01 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, as I wrote in response above, I don't think its the mechanism by which Lincoln sought to suppress the rebellion (the call for troops, moving federal troops through states) that infuriated people, especially as the CSA rushed to cobble together a Confederate military, but that the military option was on the table at all. Theres nothing in the article you cite above that indicates that delegates found Lincoln's troop call "unconstitutional" (and what then would you say of the CSA's conscription acts a mere year or so later?), but rather they recognize that you were either with the South or not, and they decided to fight with the other seceding states. I don't think such abstract ideas ever really entered the equation; the train for war had already started to leave the station, and people were merely deciding whether they were going to get on it or let it run them over. SiberioS (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AZ Territory (CSA)

Here is what Arizona Territory (CSA) has to say for dates:

In March 1861, the citizens of Mesilla, New Mexico, convened a secession convention to separate themselves from the United States and join the Confederate States of America. On March 16, the convention adopted a secession ordinance citing the region's common interests and geography with the Confederacy, the need of frontier protection, and the loss of postal service routes under the United States government as reasons for their separation.[1] The ordinance proposed the question of secession to the western portions of the territory, and on March 28 a second convention in present day Tucson, Arizona, also met and ratified the ordinance. The conventions subsequently established a provisional territorial government for the Confederate "Territory of Arizona." Owings was again elected as provisional governor and Granville Henderson Oury was chosen as a delegate to petition for the territory's admission into the Confederacy.

On March 16, Mesilla adopted a secession ordinance. Part of that ordinance was to put the question to Tucson - which ratified it March 28. SUBSEQUENTLY (who knows when) a provisional territorial gov't was established. Not mentioned is any date for the petition and presumed acceptance of that petition by the CSA --JimWae (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would bother to read either further down this article, or in various other Arizona wiki articles, most of the information is there, helter skelter. Constantly editing out minor updates on Arizona's secession information is inappropriate for you to do. If historical events don't fit your pre-conceived view, you may need to step aside and allow the historical information to remain. Your propensity for edit-wars is not appreciated. Your constant insertions of material on Lincoln or Fort Sumter are not always warranted, either, and the secession section of this page is missing much key information due to your slash-editing. Please refrain.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• You are the one consistently getting the facts wrong or conveniently omitting them, then addng you own POV. And now you are removing further facts about details you have added. It is also you who has often added material on Lincoln to these articles. Take your own advice--JimWae (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are a master of spin. You and your partner systematically change these broad-topic pages to suit your POV. Meanwhile, Arizona seceded, ratified it's secession, instituted a military governor, send a delegate to the CSA congress, and legislation was passed admitting the territory, with a sign-off approval by President Davis. Why you feel compelled to keep this deleted out of this article on the CSA is beyond me. Your partner inserts all the Lincoln proclamations and Fort Sumter materials. Conceptually, the two of you don't seem to understand that the 2nd group of seceding states were not moved to secession because South Carolina conducted that battle. They were moved to secede because of the call to raise an army. That is well documented historically. Concurrent to deleting the secession information for Arizona, the two of you routinely chain-edit as a pair, and in this case the Arizon material was deleted, and the Fort Sumter material inserted in your orchestrated edit.Grayghost01 (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The history of this period is not as simple as you make it out to be. You ignore the fact that the majority of folks in the second wave of secession had never been anything other than conditional unionists. As long as they felt that slavery was protected in the Union and the USA and CSA were at peace, there was no need to make a choice. Once the CSA started the shooting war, they had to make a choice. Their issue, same as the rest of the South, was slavery -- without slavery they wouldn't have seceded anymore than Wisconsin or Maine would have. To quote a Southern born historian who made his reputation at UVA, Edward Ayers writes of Virginia's decision:

"The decision came from what seemed to many white Virginians the unavoidable logic of the situation: Virginia was a slave state; the Republicans had announced their intention of limiting slavery; slavery was protected by the sovereignty of the state; an attack on that sovereignty by military force was an assault on the freedom of property and political representation that sovereignty embodied. When the federal government protected the freedom and future of slavery by recognizing the sovereignty of the states, Virginia's Unionists could tolerate the insult the Republicans represented; when the federal government rejected that sovereignty, the threat could no longer be denied even by those who loved the Union." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Demographs: "Slaveholders" vs. "households".

The census data doesn't say "households", it says "slaveholders". Now, in the 19th century, it may very well have been the case that there would only be one property owner per household or family (in which case the percent of slave-owning families in some Confederate states may have been as high as 49%), but that's an assumption. Trying to stay away from original research here, the only assumption made is that slaves would not be owned by other slaves (which seems pretty solid), so we can divide "slaveholders" into "total free population" (both categories from the census data). Of course, 5 year olds probably didn't own a whole lot of slaves either. And I think that in general women wouldn't own slaves either--but I'm not an expert on 19th century property law; I think a widow might own property. And even in the case of a married woman, again, ISTR that although her husband controlled her property, that didn't mean that in the strictest sense he owned it--certainly a lot of men in those days married women who brought substantial property (including slaves) into the marriage; and although the husband would then (as I understand it) control that property, I really don't know one way or the other if a 19th century census would show such a household as having one "slaveholder" (the husband) or two (the husband and the wife, even though the husband would have control over his wife's property).

What we really want, of course, is the percentage of white males at least 21 years old who owned slaves since--and I don't think this constitutes original research here--only white males at least 21 years old would be voting on secession (or on anything else). Even in the North, only men over the age of 21 would be voting (I believe in some Northern states at least some blacks could vote). Even a very wealthy widow with many slaves who actually controlled her own estate would have no political say-so.

The particular information--What percentage of white males at least 21 years old owned slaves? or in other words What percentage of the electorate owned slaves?--may very well have been figured out by some scholar somewhere, in which case that would of course be a highly relevant statistic to include. -- 67.34.10.133 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• US censi are done by household. The head of each household is listed first. There is no place on the form to list which persons owned a slave. The only realistic possibility done to DERIVE the number of slaveholders would be to count the number of households that included slaves in them. The data at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/start.php?year=V1860 includes breakdowns by numbers of slaves owned. IF the data were reliably entered in the first place, it would be possible to determine how many adult white males lived in households that owned slaves - HOWEVER, there would be no way to tell WHICH of them actually owned slaves, no less HOW MANY each owned. (Suppose there were 4 slaves & 5 adult white males, or 1 slave and 3 AWMs, or 100 slaves and 3 AWMs.) It is entirely impossible to do what you suggest - no scholar would be able to get this data from any census reports (no less the 1860 one which had significantly less reports included) because the raw data would not include this kind of information. The only realistic interpretation of the data regarding slaveholders is that they are counting households that owned slaves. To derive a percentage in any other way, would be to presume that an impossible task has been accomplished. I have contacted the websites to attempt to get them to state clearly the methodology they used - but it could not be as you suggest --JimWae (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I have to eat some of my words. I found a form that was used in 1860 census to count slaveholders. Still an issue with entire fmily of a single owner being bound up in ownership of slaves, tho - http://c.ancestry.com/pdf/trees/charts/1860Slave.pdf. will revise my edits now --JimWae (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Relations?

It says the CSA did not have diplomatic relations with European countries. What about others? Cripipper (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cripipper ... bear in mind that much of the material in this Wiki-article is made up Neo-Yankee baloney. The Europeans didn't have Foreign Relations with their CSA buddies? Yeah, right, because they were too busy shipping them Enfield rifles, building their Commerce Raiders, shipping them goods via the blockade runners, providing ammunitions and harboring their vessels and folks overseas in cities and ports. The Germans typically offered the CSS Alabama Christmas Dinners when in town (Simontown, South Africa), the French helped by offering safe harbors for the refit of the CSS Alabama, and the list goes on. Queen Victoria held pep rallies, and the Pope, himself, weaved a Thorn of Crowns (no kidding) for ole Jeff Davis. All the Native Americans who'd been "talked" out of their land were falling over themselves to aide and abet, and were the last allies to surrender on behalf of the CSA. Of all the allies of the CSA (practially the world) ... many payed through the nose later. We all know what the U.S. Army did to the Indians from 1865 to 1900. Even the British were sued for building the commerce raiders. Just like the Pre-Napoleonic France was the France we "once knew" but went away ... so the Southern States of America were the "united States" the Europeans "once knew" but went away. Thus seeing what the Northern States did to the Southern States ... the world has lived in fear ever since, and the Northern historians like to pretend as if no one was a friend to the CSA, because it makes them feel better about themselves.

But for what it's worth allies (by actions and deeds of support) of the CSA included:

• Cherokee Nation (including famous Brigadier General Stand Watie
• Choctaw Nation (fought for the CSA)
• Chickasaw Nation (fought for the CSA)
• Creek Nation (fought for the CSA)
• Seminole Nation (fought for the CSA)
• Shawnee Nation (fought for the CSA)
• Seneca Nation (fought for the CSA)
• Great Britain (incredible amounts of money, arms and help, #1 fans)
• France (helped tremendously)
• Oklahoma Indian Territory (did what it could)
• Arizona/New Mexico Territory (fought battles, gained recognition)
• Germany (sent Christmas cheers)
• Australia (ditto'd Great Britain)
• Canada (built forts south of Quebec to repel Lincolns mad army)
• Singapore (assisted CS Navy)
• India (offered to help fill the need for cotton production)
• West Indies (aided CS Navy, gave supplies)
• Brazil (aided blockade running, CS Navy)
• Martinique (safeguarded CSN tenders)
• Azores (aided CS Navy)
• South Africa (free Christmas dinners to CSS Alabama)
• Portugal (our celtic buddies)
• Spain (aided CS Navy)
• Jamaica (harbored many CS vessels)
• Bahamas (virtually another Confederate State)
• Cuba (many blockade runners from here)
• Mexico (see Bagdad, Tamaulipas) and many Confederates fled there)
• Bolivia (many Confederate fled there)
• Uruguay (same as Bolivia)

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Neo-Yankee Reconstruction is everywhere these days...

/

West Va. Constitution of 1872

• I reinstated the phrasing on the WV Constitution of 1872, which accurately reflects the reasons for a totally new Constitution when the old one wasn't even 10 years old. The Constitutional Convention of 1872 was run almost totally by ex-Confederates and Union Democrats. From Charles Ambler "In October, 1871, seventy-eight delegates were elected to a proposed constitutional convention, only a dozen of whom-humorously known as the "Twelve Apostles"-were Republicans. The Democrate majorities and accessions of strength came largely but not wholly from former Confederate strongholds." Later "As a consequence of these changes, for more than 20 years West Virginia was allied with the "Solid South"...It gave West Virginia the laws and institutions that best reflected the sentiments of her people." The phrasing I reversed made it sound like simple bureaucratic change. There is a reason that the Constitution of 1872 is called the "Bourbon Revolution" and the language should reflect that. Anyone interested should read the linked thesis at the end of that paragraph "A Constitution of Our Own". Since the 13th Amendment ended slavery I didn't think it necessary to say the new constitution outlawed it also.Dubyavee (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Many states had several constitutions in this period. None of those others are mentioned. Mentioning WV AND THEN saying it was modelled on the old one seems to be hinting that this has some special meaning. It might be OK for those very familiar with US history to not say that slavery was still outlawed -- but an international audience would need at least that. HOWEVER, this is far too specific to WV (which was not even unique) to include in this article. It belongs in the history section of WV. Its relevance to "Rise and fall of the Confederacy" has not been established, and there is not yet any section on the "resurgence" of the Confederacy --JimWae (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Jim, you are right. I will remove the info on the 1872 Constitution.

But you are not correct about the nature of WVs discarding the 1863 constitution. All the others were merely amended, as far as I know. The 1872 Constitution was a radical act which I don't think is found in any other state.Dubyavee (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Secession (11-6-2008 edits)

I have reverted a number of edits made by an IP that largely consisted of unsourced material that appears to be ether inaccurate or misleading original research. I have included the material removed in italics below followed by my indented explanations.

From the time of the US Constitution's composition, state's rights and the right to own slaves had been hotly contested by the Founders of the United States. It was based on these very concerns that the Bill of Rights was passed into law in 1791, providing the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th Amendment is blatant:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The core issues regarding the Bill of Rights in general and the 10th Amendment in particular were individual rights, not states’ rights.

As for slavery, once more the issue was hotly debated during the Declaration of Independence discussions in 1776, as well as during the Constitution and the Bill of Rights' framing. To this end, Article I, Section 9 had delayed ruling on the slave trade until 1808, just to ensure all 13 existing states would approve the Constitution and form the United States of America.

Slavery was not “hotly debated” as part of the DOI other than the consideration of blaming the existence of slavey on the British as one of the colonies grievances. A far as the slave trade during the Constitutional Convention, this is relevant only if there is the intent to make this article a complete rehash of the Origins of the American Civil War article.

With a majority vote in Congress, international trading in slaves was prohibited on 1st January 1808. However the owning of slaves remained commonplace in all states throughout the US; it became a matter of conscience and faith for some, however, who questioned the presumption that Africans were inferior or lacked souls. Throughout the 1830s, pressure built to outlaw slavery; this pressure increased when the UK abolished slavery in 1837.

Misleading and/or inaccurate. Slavery in the North was already on the sharp decline by 1808. The abolition movement did start to gain momentum in the 1830s as did the Southern justification of slavery as a positive good. The paragraph does not adequately or accurately frame these two competing positions nor is it relevant to this article.

What split the States was the Northern manufacturing/ industrial base and the more agrarian economy of the Southern states. Heavy influx of immigrants provided cheap labour for the Northern factories; however few immigrants travelled South, thus cheaper farm labour continued to be supplied by slaves.

This says nothing more than the South had slaves because they needed them. Cause and effect are confused -- it is probably more accurate to observe that immigrants preferred the North because they didn’t want to compete with cheaper slave labor.

Any law that outlawed slavery required a majority vote in Congress, and this was never forthcoming. As the States expanded, and more and more territories applied for statehood, many Northern politicians set up additional criteria about whether the new State would or would not permit slavery. The Southern politicians considered this an affront, breaching the Constitutional law that outlined the only criteria for new states' acceptance into the union.

This is an oversimplification of the events from the Missour Compromse to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The statement about the “criteria” for admission of states is a vast oversimplification of the constitutional issues addressed in the Dred Scott decision.

The British Parliament and Prime Minister were heavily supportive of the Southern States, until the intervention of Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, who was steadfastly against any military intervention on either side. He maintained the British Raj, specifically India, could supply the cotton needs of the Coventry based textile industry.

This vastly overstates the role of Prince Albert whose sole contribution to US -- British relations was limited to the Trent Affair. If he had some bigger role, then the material needs to be sourced.

Yet even Davis was aware that slavery could be ended in the Southern States. Indeed, Davis sent Duncan Kenner to France and England in 1864 with an offer to emancipate Southern slaves in exchange for recognition of the Confederacy from France and Great Britain.

This is addressed later in the article and does not really relate to events leading to secession.

Bottom line -- if there is a consensus that this article should contain a detailed discussion of the background of secession going all the way back to the founding, then the section should be expanded with sourced material that covers specifics. The material added by the IP appears to be a well intentioned essay, but it creates more problems than it resolves. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Secession

There is a long discussion of this above. Originally there was a one paragraph summary of this subject, but it was greatly expanded when material was introduced that attempted to (1) claim that even in 1860 there was a significant division among Southern religious leaders regarding slavery and (2) expand the significance of the Presbyterian Church's pre-1850 position. This information was countered by adding material that showed that (1) religious opposition to slavery had largely disappeared in the South by 1850(2) the Presbyterian position was more nuanced than alleged and (3) Methodist and Baptist information was also relvant.

While I have no doubts that the current section is both accurate and properly sourced, the question as to the relevance of a detailed history of Southern religion to this article is valid and has resulted in several tags being placed o the section. I would propose that all of the material be replaced with the following that seems to be an accurate summary of the section (footnotes would be added from the existing section to support each sentence):

As the nation divided over slavery, religion exacerbated the sectional differences. Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians in the first half of the 1800s expressed reservations about slavery, but by 1850 John C. Calhoun would note that “already three great evangelical churches had been torn asunder” over slavery. By the 1850s, as sectional tensions over slavery were heightened, more and more ministers in the South “who openly resisted southern evangelicals’ accommodation with slavery found themselves silenced or driven out of the South.”

Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is of some importance and should be put in its own section in this article. Gensanders (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even after several months, you still misconstrue the attempt and material introduced. Again, my intention was not to introduce a POV, overemphasise the Presbyterian positions, or bring strange claim but to bring it into a NPOV. As a result, you countered your own straw man and further pushed the section into a greater POV relative to the POV that the section originally was before I started to bring it into NPOV. Your false accusation notwithstanding, I do like your summary and would give my full assent to your proposal. --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Religion, slavery and secession" still has two tags (for both lack of neutrality and undue weight). What exactly needs to be done to achieve consensus on this? Are there more references needed, or what? -- 68.217.101.58 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I replaced the entire section with North Shoreman's proposed revision from above, as it seemed to have achieved a reasonable degree of consensus. Someone should check my references though, because I don't actually have those books so I was sort of winging it there. -- 68.217.101.58 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Last capital?

I know I may be nit picking a bit, but why is Danville, VA listed as the last capital of the CSA when Jefferson Davis' article states that he proceeded to Greensboro, NC, then met with his cabinet a final time in Washington, GA? Greensboro's article actually claims to be the final capital, while both Davis' and Washintgon, GA's articles state that Davis and the CS Cabinet dissolved the government there.

I know that Danville has traditionally been counted as the last capital, but it's claim is supported only by the fact that Davis and his Cabinet met there (they also did in Greensboro and Washington). Does anyone know if there is a specific reason why they were excluded? If not, should they be included? York1066 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

After Davis left Danville, they were little more than fugitives on the run...claims of Greensboro or wherever being the capitol vanish when you realize that they were barely in charge of themselves let alone a nation (..there was no more Confederacy and they had no more real power). Any claim would be a farce on their part. Danville was the last actual capitol – and a weak one at that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

POV's on Secession

There must be a half dozen or more articles on secession, reasons for secession, Lincoln, and etc. Contributing editors have riddled this article to a point of looking like Swiss Cheese, with mostly one-sided POV selective citations. Let's remove the radicalism to those pages devoted to that topic. May I dare suggest that this article simply document the history of the CSA, and leave the politcial arguments and second-guessing to those other articles. Many reasons went into the seceding acts, not just the Neo-Yank ones. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to User:North Shoreman's deletion (here) of the good faith contribution of another editor, eliminating, reducing and/or restricting a balanced presentation of historical materials, I have added tags to Confederate States of America#Religion, slavery, and secession, and ask that the materials that were deleted be restored and discussed here. Overall the entire article is extremely antagonistic in tone and language toward the history of the Confederate States of America, and a neutral balance view is not presented. Citing historical references of one POV does not balance the article. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly how the article read after it was edited by an IP and repeated by Ghost:

By 1860 sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the taxation and tarrifs imposed on the south and southern exports such as cotton|last=Faust |first=Drew Gilpin |authorlink=Drew Gilpin Faust |title=The creation of Confederate nationalism : ideology and identity in the Civil War South |origdate= |origyear= |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year=1988 |month= |publisher=Louisiana State University Press |location=Baton Rouge |isbn=0807115096 |oclc= |doi= |id= |page=59 |pages= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= }}

You can't blame the IP for screwing up the text on his/her initial edit, but there is no excuse for an experienced editor like Ghost to do the same thing and then even bring the issue to the discussion page. Quality aside, it is not GOOD FAITH to replace material covered by a footnote and delete it, with NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER, and replace the material with an unsourced claim.

In any event, this is how the section originally read and now reads:

By 1860 sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the maintenance or expansion of slavery. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that, "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence." [followed by a footnote to Faust pg.59].

Seems preferrable to the edit that Ghost is promoting. In fact, since the intent was apparently to leave the footnote in, this would have resulted, intentionally or unintentionally, in the falsification of a source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PS As a point of some very BASIC information, Ghost and the single-edit IP should note that tariffs were never imposed on "southern exports such as cotton". Under the Constitution, tariffs could only be imposed on IMPORTS. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Northshoreman, it's hard to track all the deletions you make on good faith contributions by others. I've been watching this article for several months now, seeing quite a few you've done merely on this page. The previous one you made on this article was here. You cut direct quotes, previous contributions, and dozens of lines. Should we go through this article and tally the quantity and quantity of deletions like this you have made? In the prevous single IP edit, it was not clear at first glance that there was any error in the edit, and so you have a valid point in that regard, and I stand corrected there. But this previous deletion, and so on back in the history of this article show substantial editing and deleting on your part. On just your previous deletion here it the actual text you cut out:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

- - As for slavery, once more the issue was hotly debated during the Declaration of Independence discussions in 1776, as well as during the Constitution and the Bill of Rights' framing. To this end, Article I, Section 9 had delayed ruling on the slave trade until 1808, just to ensure all 13 existing states would approve the Constitution and form the United States of America. - - With a majority vote in Congress, international trading in slaves was prohibited on 1st January 1808. However the owning of slaves remained commonplace in all states throughout the US; it became a matter of conscience and faith for some, however, who questioned the presumption that Africans were inferior or lacked souls. Throughout the 1830s, pressure built to outlaw slavery; this pressure increased when the UK abolished slavery in 1837. - - What split the States was the Northern manufacturing/ industrial base and the more agrarian economy of the Southern states. Heavy influx of immigrants provided cheap labour for the Northern factories; however few immigrants travelled South, thus cheaper farm labour continued to be supplied by slaves. Any law that outlawed slavery required a majority vote in Congress, and this was never forthcoming. As the States expanded, and more and more territories applied for statehood, many Northern politicians set up additional criteria about whether the new State would or would not permit slavery. The Southern politicians considered this an affront, breaching the Constitutional law that outlined the only criteria for new states' acceptance into the union. - - By 1860 sectional disagreements between North and South revolved primarily around the maintenance or expansion of slavery. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that, "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence." - - Within the framework of the Constitution, if a State didn't agree with what the Federal government was doing, they had the right to secede, e.g., discontinue being part of the United States. This right had been threatened by many states over the decades for many reasons, though none were on record as having actually seceded (it needed a 2/3 majority vote in the State level Congress). However the election of 1860 was extremely divisive, bitter fought by the newly formed Democrat party of the South and the fledgling Republican Party represented by the Northern states. - - The immediate spark for secession was the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election. He had made it a campaign pledge to maintain the States' unity, even by force. Civil War historian James McPherson wrote:

---

Yet even Davis was aware that slavery could be ended in the Southern States. Indeed, Davis sent Duncan Kenner to France and England in 1864 with an offer to emancipate Southern slaves in exchange for recognition of the Confederacy from France and Great Britain.

---

On the other hand, the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee, a war hero who was first offered the command of the Union troops. He declined, after much thought, saying he was a Virginian first, an American second. Personally he was opposed to slavery and had made provision not only for the reduction of slaves on his holdings but also the freedom of all his remaining slaves in his will. For Lee, clearly State's rights was more important than the rightness or wrongness of slavery.

---

Although in denial, the repercussion of these events inevitably created the destruction of disillusionment imposed by the federal government. In later years, it was proven that blacks were very much respected throughout the southern states.

That's quite a hefty deletion you made, wouldn't you say? What's interesting is that the material deleted (above in small) all had balanced the article by explaining the Southern view and reasons for establishment of the CSA. All that material is now gone. Thus the article is not balance, and reflects only a particular point of view from only a portion of the historians. Does the POV of the article reflect your own POV? If not, what was the reason that you made this deletion? Grayghost01 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

More personal invective from you. The reason I made the deletion is fully explained on this very discussion page in the section titled Cause of Secession (11-6-2008 edits). Every word of the deleted material was reproduced in this section and I specifically addressed the problems with the material. The clue for you to look in this discussion page was my edit summary that very clearly said, "revert to last edit by Unpopular Opinion -- see discussion page. That's why we include edit summaries -- so people can understand why edits were made. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PS You also accused me of deleting direct quotes. A CAREFUL reading of the DIFF for the edit shows that no quotes were deleted -- they existed before my revert and after my revert. No quotes had been added by the IP editor other than the language of the 10th Amendment. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with some of this text above: On the other hand, the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee, a war hero who was first offered the command of the Union troops. He declined, after much thought, saying he was a Virginian first, an American second. Personally he was opposed to slavery and had made provision not only for the reduction of slaves on his holdings but also the freedom of all his remaining slaves in his will. For Lee, clearly State's rights was more important than the rightness or wrongness of slavery.

---

Although in denial, the repercussion of these events inevitably created the destruction of disillusionment imposed by the federal government. In later years, it was proven that blacks were very much respected throughout the southern states.

Show me where this material is in the article now? I can't seem to find it. Notice that phrases like "State's rights was more important that rightness or wrongness of slavery" and "disillusionment imposed by the federal government" from the text above are now NOT in the article. They clearly articulate what many historians agree are typically Southern views on creation of the CSA (references on these views are easy to find). Yet, you have, indeed, deleted these. Therefore you re-included SOME of the material above, perhaps, I guess, but when I do a spot check I find that your explanation is very misleading since backing up and looking at the these two paragraphs, I find they are entirely absent! Therefore, it appears that Southern views on the creation of the CSA have been deleted by you (a fact, not invective). We can go through the edit record, and perhaps show this to be a routine methodology of deleting. Should we examine that question further? If I'm misunderstanding this, please explain your deletions, and how those points are addressed in the article?

Grayghost01 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Slow down and read what has actually been written. You accused me of deleting “direct quotes” (Your actual words were “You cut direct quotes, previous contributions, and dozens of lines). I told you that you were wrong. The text you have reproduced is not a direct quote, is it? What I deleted was unsourced, irrelevant, and/or inaccurate and I have already explained my reasons in the section of this discussion page that I referred you to.

As far as actual substance, if you want to about defending nonsense like “In later years, it was proven that blacks were very much respected throughout the southern states”, be my guest. Show us some reliable sources that argue that the “myth of the happy slaves” has been “proven”. Show us a reliable source that supports the claim that Lee provided for “the freedom of all his remaining slaves in his will” -- a pretty absurd claim since slavery had been illegal for quite a while when Lee died. Also you might explain what relevance Lee’s personal opinion about slavery had to do with the events leading to southern secession since Lee was not a political figure at all prior to secession and did nothing to shape those events. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Reading slowly, we'll take the first sentence, and go line by line:

• The Deleted Material by Northshoreman: On the other hand, the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee, a war hero who was first offered the command of the Union troops. He declined, after much thought, saying he was a Virginian first, an American second.

Did you delete this because you think its false, or because you cannot find a source for this? Grayghost01 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, but the onus is always on the person defending the unsourced assertion or quote to provide reliably sourced citation. Any editor can remove any assertion which lacks sourcing. Usually a casual attitude is at work, but in the case of dispute, sources always prevail, and unsourced assertion is always up for deletion. The statement the Ghost highlights above is filled with assertions, and none of them are sourced (and there's no quotation, only a retelling). BusterD (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BusterD and Northshoreman: as I look at this first piece of deleted material, the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee, a war hero who was first offered the command of the Union troops. He declined ..., I am simply hard pressed to see how this is an unsourced assertion? Since usually 4 of 5 sentences in Wiki are typically not notated, this does not strike me as unusual. I do not read in this first example anything that Northshoreman is talking about. What I want to know is why has Northshoreman felt that items like this are unsourced assertions and Lee's personal opinon? Again, please explain why material like this is getting deleted. In another line State's rights was more important than rightness or wrongness of slavery, is the premise that this concept cannot be sourced to any historian whatsoever, and that no one in the South had this view for the formation of the CSA, to be used in this article on the CSA? Or, like the line about Lee, is this common knowledge strictly found among Southerners and virtually unknown to contributing editors from elsewhere? I can easily find such sources if it is really necessary. Is that necessary? Once I understand this deletion (which I still don't), then let's press to the "myth of the happy slaves" that Northshoreman is talking about. I cannot find that in the article or in the deletions. Are you making a strawman argument, Northshoreman, or am I to take you literally? What is the "myth of the happy slaves" that you refer too, and how does that connect to your deletion of the unsourced assertion that Lee was a war hero (of the Mexican war) who was first offered command of the Union troops? Grayghost01 (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's read slowly, shall we? "On the other hand (problem with the transition--where's the first hand?), the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee (what leader? what unit? and when?--Lee didn't become commanding general of the ANV until mid-1862), a war hero (writer's judgment) who was first offered the command of the Union troops (true fact, but must have citation). He declined (true, needs cite), after much thought (another uncited assertion), saying he was a Virginian first, an American second. (paraphrasing an actual quote, so you need a cite for that too)" In this one sentence, the writer(s) blended true facts, fuzzy facts, opinion, and paraphrase. If you can find one citation which covers all of these assertions, you can restore the passage. And that's just this one sentence. The whole paragraph was like that. Virtually all the edits Tom made at the datestamp when this sentence was deleted were of a piece with that paragraph. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what all things Northshoreman has deleted from the article or what sections of the article he's deleted them from, but there are multiple reasons why something might be deleted or an edit might be reverted. A sentence like "In later years, it was proven that blacks were very much respected throughout the southern states" is profoundly in need of a citation. As for "Although in denial, the repercussion of these events inevitably created the destruction of disillusionment imposed by the federal government"--to be honest, I don't know what that even means. Concerning the question of Lee's previous war record, or his well-known opposition to secession followed by his decision that his loyalty to Virginia outweighed his loyalty to the United States, we start to get into questions of relevance. It's not as if the article as it stands doesn't identify Lee as a major military leader of the Confederacy (complete with a picture); it notes his previous service in the Mexican War; and mentions his public support of the recruitment of black infantry units. This article also includes multiple links to the article on Robert E. Lee himself, where Lee's personal views on slavery can be discussed in detail. Not every true fact belongs in every article on Wikipedia. -- 68.219.192.80 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Let me use your language to reiterate a point that Ghost has missed, "Concerning the question of Lee's previous war record, or his well-known opposition to secession followed by his decision that his loyalty to Virginia outweighed his loyalty to the United States, we start to get into questions of relevance. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We also get into POV issues of course. "Lee the war hero" and "Lee the slaveowner" are both easily cited facts that carry very different messages. For that matter, "loyalty to Virginia" can as easily and truthfully be stated as "traitor to the United States". Just saying. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay gentlemen, let me see if I understand this correctly:

• the leader of the Confederate troops - is invalid because BusterD says "what leader", "what unit" and "when"? Is that correct? And so it was tossed out.
• a war hero - is invalid because DMorpheus says that is a POV issue? Is that correct? and its invalid because NorthShoreman says it get[s] into questions of relevance? Is that correct? It's a POV and not relevant to cover that Lee was torn in loyalties, and turned down Union command and offered his sword to the confederacy? What if this is mentioned elsewhere in Wiki, will it also be a POV there?

Yet ... the IP User states It's not as if the article as it stands doesn't identify Lee as a major military leader of the Confederacy (complete with a picture); it notes his previous service in the Mexican War; and mentions his public support of the recruitment of black infantry units.

So, what the IP User is suggesting is that perhaps the material was duplicative? Northshoreman, did you simply delete it because it was duplicative, but you're having problems communicating that? Or is it really POV and irrelevant? Which is it? I'm not following the logic, and I'm still not real clear on why the deletion. Northshoreman, in simple terms, why was this particular example sentence of the example paragraph, of the entire example section of your many deletions ... deleted? (a) Duplicative, (b) irrelevant, (c) POV, (d) Other (with explanation)

Thanks, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly where in this article did this particular sentence appear? ("On the other hand, the leader of the Confederate troops was General Robert E. Lee, a war hero who was first offered the command of the Union troops. He declined, after much thought, saying he was a Virginian first, an American second.") Certainly in the article on Robert E. Lee a discussion of Lee's own sense of divided loyalties makes perfect sense. Equally obviously, it would be silly to drop a sentence about Lee being torn between the Union and his "native country" of Virginia into the middle of a discussion of navigable rivers in the Confederacy. -- 68.219.192.80 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. 68.219.192.80, this example sentence was in the section called Causes of secession. Thus, it related. Oh, by the way, this section Causes of secession currently goes like this:

• Paragraph 1: "expansion of slavery"
• Paragraph 2: "threat to slaveholders"
• Paragraph 3: "superiority of the white race"
• Paragraph 4: "euphamism for slavery"

Do you get the picture? The swirl of "contributing" editors who basically "guard" this article ensure, by thoroughly deleting any other materials, that only ONE point of veiw is allowed to exist here. These one-POV remaining elements composing the article are certainly and unquestionably well-sourced. No argument there. But ANY other views or explanation or history which do not fit the paradigm of the "swirl" are systematically eliminated point-by-point. Any true bona fide historian has no interest in such one-sided skewing of facts and perspective. But one side is about all you will get on this article. And as you can see, I pulled just a very simple example of a sentence deleted about Robert E. Lee ... and you see the cacophany of excuses asking, he was the leader of what? what unit? when? Who?

This article is a complete joke and a sham. It's ashame that a Wiki article cannot neutrally present all the facets and viewpoints on history. This could potentially be a good article, but there are very few people running check on this stuff. If most or all of the editors are of like mind, then Wiki "guidance" is meaningless. So, for now, according to this article, the CSA existed mainly and expressly for the purposes of protecting slavery. But no one who has even the most basic knowledge of this temporary nation would agree ... unless ... your own POV so overwhelmingly blinds you to the facts, that you feel compelled to systematically delete what you don't want to face or hear. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

But if Lee opposed secession, why would it make sense to discuss his personal views in the section on secession? Since Lee was anti-secession, there's no reason to think his views would be representative of the views of the people who supported and worked for secession from the start. Or do you have some evidence regarding the views of secessionists in 1860 that you think should be incorporated in the "Causes of secession" section of the article? (Something in addition to the secondary sources--the statements of historians--and primary sources--the declarations of the seceding states themselves.)

"So, for now, according to this article, the CSA existed mainly and expressly for the purposes of protecting slavery. But no one who has even the most basic knowledge of this temporary nation would agree ... unless ... your own POV so overwhelmingly blinds you to the facts, that you feel compelled to systematically delete what you don't want to face or hear."

What "basic knowledge" about the CSA do you think is being omitted from the article? Not just assertions: What "facts" are being suppressed? I'm assuming of course that you don't want to suppress facts in support of your own POV. -- 68.219.192.80 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I see there has been no real response or answer regarding the massive quantities of deletions of reasonable and historical materials, such as that on Robert E. Lee. Additionally, no one has tried to make the argument that the material was not appropriate for this page or section. Furthermore, the deletions were made without discussion. Therefore, this is one EXAMPLE of many deletions systematically made in this article, which remove material in a manner so as to SKEW the overall tone and material in the article. The POV and other tags in the article are well justified.

Second, as to Lee being opposed to secession, his personal view WAS indeed typical of his countrymen, and the elected representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia had already met in convention and voted NO to secession. The NO sentiment was very strong. Lee's view, and dilemma were typical, and as the General-In-Chief of the CSA, and it's #1 military leader, his example was a key. His example in surrendering was ALSO a key. This article on the CSA is devoid of such materials because of the systematic and unjustified deletions (as seen above in this section). That is one reason it makes sense to discusss Lee's views.

Third, there are AMPLE historians discussion causes of secession and giving reasons OTHER than "slavery", being the primary view pushed in this article. Instead of adding these in, and getting whacked and deleted by the systematic POV effort, I have chosen to discuss this subject here first. That way when corrective material starts to be added and applied, in the effort to remove all the tags, and make this a truly good and balanced article ... the systematic deletions can, perhaps, be thwarted by the group following this page, having had their consciences seared toward compliance with wiki guidelines and the desire to correct and improve the article.

Fourth, what "basic" knowledge is being omitted from this article? Not just "asserstions" but "facts"? I do not suppress "facts" in pushing any POV. Thus you will rarely, if ever, see deletions on my part. One example is the material in this article on Arizona, saying the CSA "claimed" Arizona on Feb 14, 1862. So such "claim" occurred. I possess a copy of The Confederate Invasion of New Mexico and Arizona written by Robert Lee Kerby, 1958. This book thoroughly documents what did happen. I already tried to insert the material on what did happen. It was deleted by the same contributing editor who chose to delete the materials outlined in this section. So the facts regarding the admission of the Territory of Arizona into the CSA are not here. Rather, it reads as if some sort of a claim was made, on par and akin to the Indian territory of Oklahoma. Another item is the outline I made above which shows how the section on secession is PRIMARILY focused on slavery, which is highly skewed, that is, not balanced by a brief summary of ALL the other causes of secession. Some of the cause of secession are actually make and given by several of the northern states! The material on the CSA's #1 military leader, Lee, as discussed here, is also absent.

In summary, the article is highly skewed, unbalanced, expressing a clear POV, with certain uncitable claims, and in major need of repair. That repair and movement toward a good-article status cannot begin until the mindset of several folks performing the systematic deletions is changed. The article can be fixed, though. E.g. the brief paragraph on causes of secession CAN, indeed, be re-written to present a balanced view of ALL the reasons for the secessions made and what the true nature of the sentiments in the South were, as well as the differences in the deep South-7 and the later border states and disputed states.

"First, I see there has been no real response or answer regarding the massive quantities of deletions of reasonable and historical materials, such as that on Robert E. Lee. Additionally, no one has tried to make the argument that the material was not appropriate for this page or section...."

This has been addressed. As previously noted, simply sticking in a sentence that "Robert E. Lee opposed secession" is not relevant to the section (on secession) and makes little sense there. The article does note (in "Rise and fall of the Confederacy") that "Lincoln's call for troops resulted in [Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina] voting to secede, rather than provide troops for the Union", so the article does indicate that not all of the Southern states just up and seceded at the drop a hat. If some official body in Virginia had in fact voted against secession before Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops, then that might be worth mentioning (with proper citation, of course). Certainly there was a lot of division over the issues, in Virginia (and especialy in what became West Virginia) and in other areas of the South (East Tennessee, or Winston County, Alabama).

"Third, there are AMPLE historians discussion causes of secession and giving reasons OTHER than "slavery", being the primary view pushed in this article....""

I think this is likely the crux of your objections to the article as it stands. You want to assert that something other than the desire to preserve slavery was the driving force behind secession and the establishment of the Confederacy, but both the secondary sources (the judgment of professional historians) and the primary sources (the writings and records of speeches left behind by the Confederate leaders themselves) make it impossible not to acknowledge the centrality of slavery in the formation of the Confederate States. -- 68.219.192.80 (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This article does not mention the Cotton trade with the Union during the Civil War

According to the article about Gen. U.S. Grant's issue of General Order 11, there was a legal cotton trade between the CSA and the Union during the war. There was also an even greater illegal trade. Can someone verify if this is true and if so does it deserve mention in the article? It's hard to see if that is cited or not?\. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Sealback.png

The image File:Sealback.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of Seceding States

In the list of seceding states after the attack on Fort Sumter, the order is Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina. While the rest of the list is in chronological order, the dates show that Virginia seceded before Arkansas. The footnotes suggest that the order should be Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee. Shouldn't it be in one of these two orders? 76.31.160.221 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Challanged Section.

I thought these were true but they wer challenged so I had to removed them as they were false I guess:

Two more slave states had rival secessionist governments. The Confederacy admitted them, but the two pro-Confederate state governments soon went into exile and never controlled the states which they claimed to represent:

1. Missouri did not secede but a rump group proclaimed secession (October 31 1861).
2. Kentucky did not secede but a rump, unelected group proclaimed secession (November 20 1861).

12.52.67.30 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Move the article

On Wikipedia, the United States of America is called the United States. This article should thus be moved to Confederate States, as to correspond with the United States. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some sense in this suggestion. We'd need sufficient consensus here before applying for controversial move. I'll start by endorsing this move, per nom. Based on the United States page history, the usage "United States" has been accepted by the wikipedia community since 2002 and used continuously (exception of one vandal move) since then. If the both entities are to be treated equally in an encyclopedic sense, then the shorter usage is appropriate. BusterD (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost everyone in the world knows the country referred to as the United States. Most have never heard of the "Confederate States", and as a defunct entity, the more descriptive name is appropriate. This sounds more like an attempt to change the name of the United States article. --JimWae (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the concept, it looks like insufficient consensus can be mustered for a move at this time. If you feel very strongly, I suggest you take the issue here. BusterD (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To confuse the issue, the full name of Mexico is the "United States of Mexico".--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-American, I agree with JimWae that moving the page to "Confederate States" is not a good idea. From my perspective, it reflects an American-centric view that "Confederate States" is such an obvious reference to the Confederacy that nobody needs to spell out the fact that the Confederacy was an American institution. But Wikipedia is by and for the whole world, not just America. And consider this: in the unlikely event that some part of Mexico decides to secede and call itself "the Confederate States of Mexico", we'd only have to change the name of this article back again. Lexo (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Last state to secede from the union

A dispute has come up at Tennessee over which state was the last to secede from the union. After checking sources outside of Wikipedia I still can't seem to answer this question definitively. Numerous sources say that Tennessee was the last state to secede. Other sources say that North Carolina was the last state to secede. A few sources even say that Virginia was the last state to secede. The discrepancy seems to revolve around these dates:

• April 17, 1861 - Virginia Legislature approves Ordinance of Succession and sends it to the voters as a referendum.
• May 7, 1861 - Tennessee Legislature approves Ordinance of Succession and sends it to the voters as a referendum.
• May 20, 1861 - North Carolina Legislature approves Ordinance of Succession.
• May 23, 1861 - Virginia voters approved the referendum on succession.
• June 8, 1861 - Tennessee voters approved the referendum on succession.

Judging by this information, it would seem that Tennessee was officially the last state to succeed from the union (and Virginia the 2nd to last). I'd like to get a second opinion, however, before changing the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

After doing further research, it seems that these voter ratifications were basically just a formality, as both Virginia and Tennessee began acting as independent states from the earlier dates. I think it's important, however, to note within the article text that these states did not "officially" secede until later. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect this. Hope it's amenable to everyone. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Undue weight" tag on the History section

Is there something left out of this article regarding the "states, territories and Indian nations" of the Confederate States? It seems to me we discuss everything, from Confederate Arizona to Delaware and everything in between. Is there any reason why that tag can't be removed? -- 68.219.109.112 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor who originally placed the tag associated this with the tag:

"there is too much changing of historical information concerning the states, territories and Indian nations which came together to create the Confederate States and its alliances. Please provide historical references on the discussion page, and let's resolve the issues there first. Cite references|you want references for what?"

IMO it didn't make sense then and doesn't make sense now. Since there has been no debate in about five months, i say remove it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party of the Confederate States of America

There's a discussion on the talkpage of the Democratic Party (Confederate States of America) between me and someone who claims that the Confederacy did not have a Democratic Party of its own (although Jefferson Davis, etc. are listed as members of this supposed party on this page). Some input would be nice. --Mrdie (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article you created seems to be entirely original research on your part. A distinctive feature of the Confederacy was its lack of organized political parties, Democratic or otherwise. From William J. Cooper Jr.’s “Jefferson Davis, American”, “Furthermore, at the birth of their new nation, Confederates, in the language ofthe Founding Fathers, denounced the legitimacy of parties. Anti-partyism became an article of political faith. Almost nobody, even Davis’s most fervent antagonists, advocated parties.” (page 462) George Rable’s “The Confederate Republic: A Revolution Against Politics” emphasizes this lack of a party system as a key feature of the confederate political system. Rable’s arguments, far from being unique with him, are supported by many other historians.

Do you have any reliable sources that claim that the Democratic Party continued to function as a political party in the Confederacy? If not, it seems like the article should be either deleted or renamed to something like Politics in the Confederacy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no reliable sources, but if it did not function as a political party then mention of it on this (CSA) page (note infobox: Jefferson Davis (D), Alexander Stephens (D)) should be removed. A "political parties in the Confederacy" page or whatever would be a good idea.

There is one source that is cited though that states the existence of the Democrats in the CSA: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/United_States.html#Confederate to which it says "Dem = Democratic Party ("southern" wing of democratic party, pro-states rights, pro-slavery)."

According to this though, it doesn't mention a Democratic Party but it does mention a Confederate Party (composed of southern Democrats and pro-Confederate Whigs) which was pro-Davis and a Conservative Party (made up of pro-Union Democrats and anti-Confederate Whigs) --Mrdie (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of your websites support your contention that there was a political party within the CSA that identified itself as the Democratic Party. The first website provides no explanation as to what its categorization actually means, but the obvious interpretation is that it refers to the pre-war party affiliations of the CSA officials. The second reference speaks strictly to political affiliations within the state of North Carolina and has nothing to do with a “nation-wide” party system within the CSA. Having actually read the book from the website, I can assure you that it in no way claims that there was a political party system within the CSA that included any national parties. In fact, the source makes it clear that there was no CSA wide political system that Davis needed to deal with.

You state quite clearly in the article you created that “It [Democratic Party (Confederate States of America)] was formed after the Confederate States declared independence...” Do you actually have any evidence at all that such a party was created? With all due respect, it seems like you made a claim originally that you can not support and are now fishing to find anything to support your position.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if anything the book I noted hurt my argument. I'm genuinely trying to find out if there was a Democratic Party in the Confederacy or not. Otherwise the article would be fictitious. --Mrdie (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

CSA Diplomatic Recognition claim

Prior to the edit by Coviepresb1647 the text read that there was no foreign diplomatic recognition of the CSA. Two sources were provided. The first was a work by McPherson in which he actually writes, “ In the Civil War the Confederates failed to achieve foreign recognition ... .” The second was a United States State Department website which states, “One of the most important victories won by the United States during the Civil War was not ever fought on a battlefield. Rather, it was a series of diplomatic victories that ensured that the Confederacy would fail to achieve diplomatic recognition by even a single foreign government.”

What is not at dispute is whether or not Saxe-Coburg-Gotha maintained a trade consul in Texas during the war. The article at Ernst Raven explains this relationship in some detail and includes a third source regarding non-recognition, historian Eugene H. Berwanger, who wrote "In requesting the exequatur, Raven's government made clear that its request did not imply or extend diplomatic recognition." The article also has a long quote from CSA Secretary of State Benjamin explaining the difference between accepting trade consuls and official diplomatic recognition.

Despite this sourcing, Coviepresb1647 decided to claim that diplomatic recognition was secured from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. His cite is a German language book by somebody named Harold Sander. No explanation was offered as to why Mr. Sander’s opinion is to be accepted over McPherson’s or Berwanger's or, for that matter, the CSA Secretary of State. I have restored the original text and ask Coviepresb1647 to (1) establish exactly why Mr. Sander is considered a reliable source on the American Civil War and (2) provide exactly what Mr. Sander said on the subject. If Coviepresb1647 provides convincing evidence, then it might be appropriate to include the info in the body of the article, but certainly not in the article lede as the most reliable statement on the subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

From our previous conversation several months ago where you greatly offended me and have yet to apologise, I have nothing to do with you or your POV-slanted ways. Therefore, please expect no further reply from me.--Coviepresb1647 (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Areas of control and Southern Americana today

I notice how the map shows WV (Kanawah) as Confederate held, but doesn't show NM in this same context. The split between Arlington & DC, VA & WV, entirely within KY & MO & KS, followed by solid tribal CSA support in OK (odd, considering this pattern, so CO must have been solid USA), then another split between AZ (northern Sonora) & NM, followed by the almost invisible Baja California & Alta California differences further out west. The CSA actually "recaptured" NM from USA control because NM was a slave territory, much like KS was before the John Brown domestic terrorist cell invaded from New England, thus barring its entry as a slave state, despite the fact that all of the pioneers and founders of the territory were from MO, itself founded by Kentuckians, as they were by Virginians in a straight line west (where does Yankeeland fit in this?). I think that it doesn't make sense also, to conceive of the South in only its eastern context, in the modern era (especially the US Census Bureau's "rounded edge" sort of inexact groupings). You know, William Walker from TN about conquered himself a few Latin American republics, including Sonora and Baja California, around the same time as the Mexican War...but we're all supposed to pretend that was something we should sweep under the rug (Walker and Texan war with Mexico, as much as the Mormon Deseret Utah considered a Liberal embarrassment), all the while praising the Bear Flag Republic, or limit our conception of the South to the Alamo, because some have this notion that the South only means slavery and just barely getting past the Bayou. Cowboys (TX, again!) and Indians (OK, again!) are the Western extent, especially with the Apache in the Gadsden Purchase, original boundaries of AZ, before the USA version. AZ is the only entity which began its life as a Confederate land, very much so because of Walker's excursions in northwest Mexico (oh no, George Bush's middle name is Walker--conspiracy!). Southerners moving west have had to put up with San Diego, Bakersfield and Los Angeles or SoCal in general, but their main aim was the Peninsula and Gulf, rather than be lumped in with the Forty-Niners, most of whom were German immigrants sponsored by Yankee Free Soilers, who believed in a double edged sword of Aryanism (primalism, getting "back to nature" stuff) and the Communist Manifesto, on par with the failed 1848 Revolutions of Europe, exported down South as a new test ground for Republicommunism.

So we all accept the fact that the old CSA lost and was reincorporated to the USA, right, as much as the previous issue of the "Perpetual Union" was an evolution of the "Articles of Confederation", etc? (compare the Yankee colonies of 1620 as a continuation of English Jamestown [1607] in the same sequentialist, progressive model) OK then, well, we can accept the breadth and expanse of Southern Americana as a significant subset (or even central to American identity, of which New England's philo-Dutch/Deutsch culture is only a sidebar that appended itself to the main) which is inaccurately portrayed in the regionalization of the South (because the Yankee subculture enjoys kicking the South when it's down), very much influenced by exclusivist stererotyping which typecasts Southerners as the "Other", like the exiled Mormons I wrote above in one comment. This pervasive Yankee, triumphalist bias (How much hate do we afford them? Anti-Mormon, anti-Southern, anti-Catholic...when is enough, enough?) certainly skews much of the coverage here on the boundaries and success of the Confederacy, which, of course, is circular as it therefore misrepresents the current South. Where did all those Southerners go, who left the East and went West? Come on, don't pretend they ceased to exist! That would be like saying the Yankee connections in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Honolulu don't exist either...the same as denying the Yankee origins of Salt Lake--what a Yankee embarrassment, as one faction goes into Mormonism and the other chooses Unitarianism--the only religious branch has to leave their homes in the Mormon Trail of Tears, at the murderous hate of the secularists who forced themselves in Kansas. Surely, the "free love" movement began with the Yankee Mormons and spilled over to California through whorehouses in Nevada. Surely we can see the east-west parallelism here, with southern and northern currents of population transfer in Manifest Destiny. Much of that Chesapeake planter ego, pomp and wealthy popularity attitude went into Hollywood, which makes sense, considering the Upper South is closer in trajectory to SoCal than the backwoods country folks, who left Appalachia for the Rockies, not having left the Atlantic for the Pacific because they weren't rich enough for oceanfront property. Then again, this explains why SoCal had a pro-slavery senator when CA was admitted to the Union. It was only as important as slavery in DC, MD, DE or WV. Again, if we are to accept that WV was a Union state, then KS should be accepted as a Southern territory, if not a Southern state. I would rather simply draw the line between secession conventions in the states and territories, along the lines above, between Arlington and DC, all the way to betwixt AZ and NM. The lines of secession, not conquest, should represent popular sovereignty (wishes of the people) rather than the results of military conflict. E.G. WV was never Confederate because its birth was defined in opposition to secessionist VA. AZ's birth was defined in opposition to NM. Perhaps the CSA's invasion of NM was as against popular sovereignty as was the Yankee invasion of Kansas, since the locals had already decided a course of action by that point, by non-alignment in the case of Southern railroad interests, preferring to put up with Yankee government in western expansionism.

Still, the story needs telling and the Damn Yanks just find nothing but the truth and the whole truth, so help them, (God?) to be too embarrassing. The whole truth, is accepting that Kansas was the very cause of the war (hot off the saddles in the Utah War), since the Yanks filibustered any further expansion of a Southern stripe by that time, interfering simply in the name of self-righteousness. I'm sure there were no human rights violations committed by Brown or Sherman...heroes? Whatever! Either it is between two cold blooded nations (real war?), or fratricidal brethren (civil war?) where the fratricides are considered models of decency. Utter nonsense! Oh, slavery, that "peculiar institution"...St. Paul never objected to it (nor did the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans which were the model of our Neoclassical country), for the Yankee fundamentalists who shoved their Baptists down South in Reconstruction to convert the "evil Popish" Episcopalians and Catholics to their will. Any opposition to the truth on these matters is all a giant fairytale that I'm supposed to take as Gospel, through the Yankee public school system, founded by Calvinists in opposition to parochial schools which were the colonial model, even in New England (remember every school was Church funded and every school had big Bibles that class dunces had to hold while standing in the middle of the room for the rest of class?). Yankees like to scream about the separation of Church and State, but conduct both politics and "spirituality" in their meetinghouses. I really wish I didn't have to rant just now, but I hope my points are clear and that there needs to be a WP:BIAS project to handle this severe kind of historical possessionism which the Yanks foist into "acceptable and unacceptable" perceptions of Americana. Not all of us are gung-ho for liberal fanaticism, whether it's Calvinistic or Unitarian and secular humanist. Please, all you good old boys out there, increase the accuracy and scope of detail on the Southern situation, as the Yanks insist on making it as minimalist as possible, reductionism ad infinitum, to present decades upon decades of discontent and differences to the bonds of Africans, even though they themselves sold these Africans to Southerners after coming to ports in Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia and elsewhere, all for their own profit, built on Yankee shipyards...

Please don't delete this, even though I've had a tendency to ramble and rant. You see my specific points raised, especially in regard to the borders of the Confederacy from the Potomac to the Colorado, the push for obscurity in regards to coverage of CSA affairs by Yankee spin and the whole cloud overhead when anybody approaches the South without Jacobin (the world's first Terrorists, in France) screams of "racist slavers", foaming at the mouth hatred for Southerners (why should Southerners, already beaten, bash themselves? Isn't there a law against self-incrimination in connection to our Miranda Rights?). I wasn't born in the South, but I have learnt to accept it for what it is and the people there are nothing like the straw men put up in Yankee (ahem health tonic and wooden nutmeg salesmen--false advertising?) versions of Americana. To be honest, I grew up with a mixed family of English and Irish immigrants, Yankees and Southerners and French Canadians and now there are even Italians, Poles...Africans ("gasp") involved on the edges. You can see what little capacity I have for following the dyed in the wool WASP (Howard Dean, etc) Republican propaganda which still believes in early 20th century eugenics (Planned Parenthood), even after having switched parties to support people like Obama, hoping to start a race war instead of somebody less polarizing. With all the mix in my family situation, there is absolutely no way anybody will win an argument here with some kind of Obama craze on "tolerance", comparable to what Jimmy Carter just said in the news, that racist intolerance is the cause of opposition to Obama. So sad Jimmy and the Clintons, giving in to rabid Yankee propagandas and being used as tools, while I hold to the old Jeffersonian and Jacksonian beliefs, not backwards Lincoln or even Reagan, the Schwarzenegger prototype.

Wrong map for secession and Confederacy

The line of secession not only rules out New Mexico, because Arizona seceded from the Santa Fe government, but West Virginia likewise remained in the Union. Oklahoma's tribal reservations were all united in secession, even if they did not formally incorporate themselves into the Confederacy, so their position is similar to that of Kentucky and Missouri, having declared secession, but not integration to the Confederacy. It is worthwhile to note that both Kentucky and Missouri were added to the Confederate flag. I believe that these two are the only de facto and de jure border states, while Oklahoma was merely Indian Reservation territory and did not require integrated government, not required to pay taxes. West Virginia seems to be added primarily for sentimentality, as having been carved out of Virginia, a secessionist state. I reiterate that the border between Virginia and West Virginia is the same as that between Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. New Mexico is no more a part of Confederacy than West Virginia, based upon the principles of popular sovereignty, because each were held under siege by the Confederacy; Arizona and Virginia respectively. If New Mexico and West Virginia were considered Confederate, then by that analogy, all of the Confederacy itself would be Union. While battlefields may have been decisive in how the conditions were to be, always subject to fluctuation through the course of the War, it is the voting process which defines the true differences between the Confederates and Unionists.

Now, as to the borders of slavery, this usually leaves out mention that Kansas was a slave territory if not a slave state, whereas Los Angeleno Southern California permitted a pro-slavery legislator, while San Franciscan Northern California had an abolitionist legislator. Obviously, this had been among the causes of the War, but these states were not in any way connected to slavery concurrent to the War, as Delaware, Maryland, DC and West Virginia were. Oh, that brings up the main point of West Virginia. West Virginia was merely a slave state in the Union, not a state of its own within the Confederacy. In any case, the Potomac and Colorado rivers represent the respective east and west water boundaries of the Confederacy and Union, no matter what some say about the Mason-Dixon Line. If one designates slave territories or states into the Confederacy or South, then that doesn't have an easily definable limit, due to the fact that most states up until the War had slavery at one time or another. Oh right, so too did the original states have a confederate government rather than federalism. Re: Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Since slavery is only an economic strategy, it is not worthwhile a marker of differences between the parts of America on a governmental or establishmentary basis. Consider the wage slave lifestyle for indentured servants living in employee housing and payroll benefits of Yankee economy. What's the difference between a slave rebellion and a union strike? What's the difference between the Hartford Convention and that in South Carolina? Question: Who started the War? Answer: John Brown.