Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Reference Link to White Supremacy

An anonymous IP account just added a link to White Supremacy to the See Also: portion of this article. I reverted it, not because I think it's vandalism or anything remotely like that, just that I wondered if it came dangerously close to violating WP:NPOV. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I ask because the more I think about it, the more it could be construed as relevant. The White Supremacy article goes into detail how the concept often describes "political ideologies" concerned with the dominance of Caucasians, etc. Where I become uncomfortable is with the suggestion that this was the fundamental, overarching, guiding principle of the Confederacy. Anyway, thought it was an interesting addition. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think it was a fundamental, overarching, guiding principle of the Confederacy. (I added some material at the White supremacy article which I'm not sure BusterD saw or not.) More specifically, defense of the existing system of slavery in fifteen of the United States was a--and nearly "the"--fundamental, overarching, guiding principle of the Confederacy, and slavery as it existed in the United States in 1860 was inescapably racial. -- 206.221.235.188 (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, Ginsengbomb, that I don't think the white supremacy tag is appropriate for this particular article. The problem with equating the institution of slavery as a white supremacy principle within the Confederate government, is that within the Confederacy, there were African American freedmen who were themselves slave owners, as well as American Indians, Hispanics, Jews, and other groups who also owned slaves. Sf46 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Though there were a few free blacks who themselves owned slaves, they were hardly the norm, and can't possibly be held to disprove the notion that slavery as practiced in the Confederate States (and antebellum United States) was based on racialist principles of the supremacy of whites over blacks. As various Confederates themselves said:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. -- A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition. -- Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech".
As for Jews and Hispanics, they would not necessarily have been considered "non-white" by 19th Century standards. 206.221.235.188 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
While I personally would consider Jews, Hispanics, and American Indians to be white, I can agree with you that there are those who would not. I think that the NPOV issue comes into play on the issue of whether or not slavery was the sole reason for the formation on the Confederacy. While there are those that assert it was the main reason for the Confederacy, and therby the Civil War, there are also others who assert that state's rights and tariff issues were equally or even more responsible. Basically I think that in order to justify the white supremacy tag that you have to establish that the main reason for the formation of the Confederacy was to oppress blacks or some other race other than whites. You also must consider that attitudes about race in the United States (both North & South) were not very favorable toward African Americans in the 19th century. To put the white supremacy tag on the Confederate government, one must also put it on the US government of that time, and any other government where slaves of any race were held by people considered to be white. Sf46 (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the west coast, there was a lack of the plantation slavery that long taken hold in the Southeast, but "slavery" for California in the 1850's was the use of Asian coolies (i.e. Chinese, Japanese and Filipino) workers in construction and maintainence of mines, railroads and ditches. Everywhere you go in the USA in the mid 19th century, working class and low-income rural peoples were subjugated to all sorts of abuse by employers. The racist ideology of whites are superior, blacks are subordinate and the European colonial masters want to make money by exploitation of third world labor is repeated throughout the world, but it's not only white or European people who were known to practiced slavery and wasn't limited to but continued on longer in the Southeast US along with Cuba or Brazil, and the Golden Circle secret societies plotted to create a similar Confederate-style government throughout North America (i.e. Mexico) in pro-slavery colonies under Spanish rule in the mid 19th century. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pure simple racism, bigotry and discrimination. Christians are not brought up to be rednecks or hicks as with Catholics. The religious education involved between both sides were non-influential to its politics at the time. First the succession of the states were not because of 'inbred' hicks but because of economic sustainability. Economy thrives by its best production, eg cotton and farming was once a commodity and the government wanted to destroy the lives of many by controlling it. Proof of the intelligent Christians were made in its war, and tactics. A war with sides completely equal in technology. The confederacy was actually smarter in guerrilla tactics, strategic hit and run warfare, masters at calvary, terrain traversion (manual, via paths through mountainous terrain or between the South-Western and Eastern states for supplies and depots) and definitely more mobile. Except the south had less of an advantage due to lack of economic stability. The North had the technology (trains in the North + ships), treaties with other nations that did not break which could sustain its economy. Europe was in its conflict with Napoleon or recovering before this, and the South was unable to sustain its economy this way, by allying itself with the enemy it had once economically traded with. Uneducated subjection from the South is a pure myth. The economy couldn't thrive without slaves. Lack of organization at the time, and Lee's army was under supplied making ventures of crossing the border dangerous. Lee crossing the border like Stonewall Jackson did, was a fatal mistake. He was a good politician but a lousy general for not taking Washington DC and marching mass armies head on without the support. This is why Lee ended the War. This is why Lee decided to tactically and completely kill its army upon the invasion of Washington DC. I don't see the American Republic turning into a democracy anytime soon (unless by complete change due to war, catastrophe, delusion and/or downfall ala the Roman Empire and this alone would even take a few thousand if not hundreds of years). This is why states are still privatized or have privatized governments in the US and even in the North and this is the cause for the Great Migration of the blacks almost 100 years later.--Murriemir

Date of military collapse

The infobox gives an exact date for the miltary collapse (apr 11 - two days after Lee's surrender). What event (or anything) supports this date? --JimWae (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can find no support for this date, in admittedly somewhat limited research. The cited reference doesn't give a specific date. Lee surrendered his army on the 9th, and Johnston surrendered (in a final sense) well after the 11th, "after learning of Lee's surrender." I think, given this bit, we can support moving the collapse date in the infobox to the 9th. However, if someone else has better information or a specific reason for it being the 11th, I'm not going to object. Ginsengbomb (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Split article

This article is too long. I suggest we split of the Government and Politics section to its own article, and substantially condense what remains. PatGallacher (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to be long largely because of the numerous tables and illustrations. Wikipedia:Article size at WP:SIZERULE has suggestions on when an article needs to be split. It uses the term "readable prose" and the "notes" section at the bottom of the article tells how to calculate "readable prose'. I did the calculation and came up with only 49 KB of "readable prose", a number that hardly seems large considering the nature of the topic. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Whats interesting about the Civil War is that it is the first time in history that a smaller entity won against a larger one (population wise and militarily equalized) indefinitely. I say its fine. --Murriemir (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Which flag should be used?

Which flag should be used in the article's infobox as "the" Confederate flag? There were of course several over the course of the war; currently the article uses the seven-starred version of the "Stars and Bars", but in the past the article has shown the Third National (which is what is currently being used in the American Civil War article).

I don't really have any strong opinion one way or the other, but we should probably discuss the issue, come up with some reasonable answer, and stick with it, instead of going randomly back and forth every so often. 68.217.100.225 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'Blood-Stained Bannner' was officially adopted as the flag of the CSA on 4 March 1865, so it should be the one listed. The 'Stainless Banner' (shown) is obsolete. RebelKnightCSA (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're all "obsolete" at this point. The reason given for using the "Stainless Banner" is that it's the flag that was in use by the CSA for the longest period of time, which seems reasonable enough. On the other hand, the "Blood-Stained Banner" is the one that seems to be in use for most American Civil War articles on Wikipedia, so perhaps this article should just go with the consensus. The idea of using the last flag adopted by the Confederacy is also reasonable enough, but I'm a bit leery of this "obsolete" talk. At any rate, at this point this is probably something that should be added to the FAQ, once a convincing rationale has been developed for whichever flag is used. 139.76.224.67 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess I should have kept in mind that not all Wikipedians are unreconstructed Southrons like me. My mistake.  ;) At any rate, since the only authority to decide the CSA flags design has been dissolved, the design cannot be changed. The 'Blood-Stained Banner' is the final flag, and the red bar on the field is a tribute to the Southrons killed in action whilst defending the Southland. So, the 'Blood-Stained Banner' should be used.RebelKnightCSA (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Article for Deletion -- Democratic Party (Confederate States of America)

There never was such a party. Comments at the AFD site would be welcomed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Here's a link to Rable, George C. The Confederate Republic: A Revolution against Politics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994. It is a more reliable source than the one just recently added to the article by the IP. From what I can see in this book, formal political parties were both discouraged and did not have a chance to form in the CSA. Whether former Whigs voted similarly to other former Whigs, and likewise with Democrats is the topic of another book --JimWae (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What looks to be a summary of the Rable book at http://www.bookrags.com/research/political-parties-aaw-02/ states: "The Confederacy, unlike the Union, had no acknowledged political parties."--JimWae (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph to the article to clarify the situation re: political parties in the CSA. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Neutrality discussion

While slavery is indeed a central issue necessary for understanding the causes of the war, it is by far not the only issue - for instance states' rights is also a big issue, as is the right of nullification. As such, I believe that slavery is featured far too prominently in this article, and sheds a bad light on the Southern cause of the time, and one that misrepresents that cause and inserts a certain anti-Confederate and anti-Southern bias. As such, at the very least slavery should not be mentioned prominently in the very first sentence. It should be presented along with other issues and opposing/coinciding viewpoints. To do otherwise is very misleading.
Also, I believe the article glosses over such issues such as Reconstruction, and explains it away in a sentence or two as a time where egalitarian leaders and laws were introduced to the south. This is unfair - in many ways, the Reconstruction period was a continuation of destruction and villainy perpetrated during the war. To represent this otherwise is clearly a bias. Providing a link to the aticle on the Reconstruction does not alleviate this bias, as it is represented in this article. Taylorrx (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This issue has been edit warred over in this article as well as numerous other articles. The problem is that, as in this article, the reliable sources indicate that slavery was more than just "a central issue" but was THE CENTRAL ISSUE. For this reason, it should be featured much more prominently than any other peripheral issues (see WP:Undue weight from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- the guideline you claim the article violates). In the section of this article there are six reliable secondary sources that support the prominence of slavery in the South's decision to secede. Neither you, or anyone else in the debates that I've seen in the various discussion pages over the years, have produced reliable secondary sources to dispute this consensus view. If anything, the info on slavery in the lead should be expanded since it really doesn't, as it now stands, describe directly the relationship between secession and slavery.
Absent any effort on your part to produce such reliable sources, your tagging of the article seems to be disruptive and frivolous. In any event, you have the floor -- what reliable secondary sources (within the meaning of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and without violating Wikipedia:No original research) do you have that support your contentions? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why would an article on the CSA have extensive coverage of events after its demise? And why would any wikipedia article "represent" Reconstruction as nothing but "a continuation of destruction and villainy perpetrated during the war"?--JimWae (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the only concrete objection to the article presented so far has been to describing the seceding states as "slave states", maybe we could compromise and refer to them using the description they used for themselves--the "slave-holding states" (see the Ordinances of Secession of Alabama, Texas, and Virginia, or Robert Barnwell Rhett's Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States.) 68.219.110.56 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a distinction without any difference. Since Taylorrx apparently alternates between an IP and a registered name, it would be helpful if you clarify whether you are another of his/her IPs or a separate editor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It does seem like rather a distinction without a difference, doesn't it? Yet that is how the seceding states demonstrably referred to themselves; and since the only concrete change anyone has made in this round of the regular Confederate States/Civil War brouhaha is to try to change "slave states" to "states", it makes the whole thing seem very silly. 68.219.110.56 (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The "brouhaha", at least from my perspective, is the placement of the two tags on the article with no justification. If changing the article to read slaveholding states results in the tags being removed, then I'm all for it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason I posted from an IP address and then from my login was that I had not realized that I was not logged in. I apologize for the confusion. The person at 68.219.110.56 is not me. The IP I had posted from is my house. I'll try not to do that again, but there's a good possibility I'll slip up. I'll try not to.
Several things occur to me. First, I think some of the compromises mentioned here are excellent ideas. I think expanding the coverage of slavery would be a good idea. Also, Tom, as you note, there have been edit wars over this particular subject in the past. That, to me, says that there is at least one alternate view to the facts as portrayed here. The fact that there have been edit wars says that there are people who feel strongly about this opposing view, and believe they have fact to back up their viewpoint. Since there is that other view, it must be presented to the user, and with an even hand as is possible. There is an article on Wikipedia which does just that, and I think we should leverage that here, instead of glossing it over as we do in the first paragraph.
I propose a prominent section in the article which very briefly discusses the causes of the war, and perhaps the opposing viewpoints. I think this should be brief and point to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War . I also think that this should be near the top of this article - maybe the second paragraph. I think that we should then also have the phrase 'slave states' changed in the first sentence. Doing this would remove the immediate bias caused by mentioning slavery so early in the article, but would very quickly educate the reader on the causes of the war - of which I agree: slavery is certainly one, and a large one.
I also think that referring to the Southern states as "slave-holding states" may possibly be a good idea, depending on how common the usage of this phrase was and how much people in the South referred to themselves as such. If its use was common but primarily as an epithet used by outsiders, I don't think its use would be so appropriate.
Also, to try to make sure that this article does get some scholarly attention, I have dropped a line to the Museum of the Confederacy, inviting members there to take a look at the article and participate in its maintenance. I don't know if anyone there will take up the banner, but I hope they do - and they would certainly have materials to back up what they say!
One final thing that I would like to note. The conversation seems to have very quickly taken a very angry tone. I don't believe that this is necessary. I would like to proceed with the assumption that all of us who may participate in this discussion have the best intentions and wish for this article to accurately portray the facts as we can discern them. Taylorrx (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I asked you the following specific question, "In any event, you have the floor -- what reliable secondary sources (within the meaning of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and without violating Wikipedia:No original research) do you have that support your contentions? Instead of offering any, you tell us you've asked for the Museum of the Confederacy to, I guess, start editing ths article.
Regarding your tagging of the article, I refer you to one of the references in that tag (Wikipedia:NPOV dispute which states, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."
The first resort should have been Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and the second resort should have been the opening of a discussion in which you supported your opinions with reliable secondary sources.
You state, "Also, Tom, as you note, there have been edit wars over this particular subject in the past. That, to me, says that there is at least one alternate view to the facts as portrayed here." However, as I said, this alternative view that keeps surfacing is not based on reliable secondary sources but on beliefs based on Lost Cause and Neo-Confederate doctrines.
If you want to eliminate what you describe as the "angry tone", then perhaps the places to start are (1) removing the premature tagging and (2) producing reliable source to support your opinions.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it is any more POV to say slave states than slave-holding states, so I do not see the point of the POV tag. There has also been no reason given for the cleanup tag. Both should go in 48 hours or less if there is no further explanation.--JimWae (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
No further discussion and no further explanation by the instigator of the tags. I will remove them now. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To enhance the neutrality of this article and add another overlooked issue - I added a brief section on the main issue on taxation that was dividing the industrialized north from the agrarian shouth in taxation. I believe this information to be factually correct and neutral in its statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1kn0wtruth (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

any additional info on other tax issues to add to the taxation section would be great1kn0wtruth (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing in the section you added spoke of any link of tarriffs to secession - it was mostly about links to the war & the effects of a tarriff upon the North--JimWae (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree but in the essence of coming to agreement on important information I will retitle the section - Contributing effects of taxation to the war. This tarriff was an important issue and needs to be included to have a historically correct and neutral presentation of the facts. 1kn0wtruth (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


I moved the section and retitled it. If you look in the section above you will see that it already says and supports the contribution of taxes to secession as common knowlege. this sections gives more in depth information to a topic that is often glazed over. Here is the quote from the existing article "Four of the seceding states, the Deep South states of South Carolina,[31] Mississippi,[32] Georgia,[33] and Texas,[34] issued formal declarations of causes, each of which identified the threat to slaveholders’ rights as the cause of, or a major cause of, secession. Georgia also claimed a general Federal policy of favoring Northern over Southern economic interests." So its not argued that it was a cause. This just gives more information. If you feel it would be better presented under a more refined title or place in the article feel free to move it around - but wholesale deletion based on a minor technical detail which I disagree with you about is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Unless of course you just dont want the information presented. You are a main editor so not much I can do about that. The information is all verifiable fact however....please reconsider your position of exclusion. Scientia quod verum 1kn0wtruth (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also reverted this section. Far from being "common knowledge", tariffs are not considered by most, if not all, reliable secondary sources as a significant reason for secession. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources and the only one you cite (DiLorenzo) is not considered to be reliable. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

In the paragraph there is a sentnece which says the SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN. I don't think that registers as encycolepedic content, so I think it oughta be deleted. So someone get back to me, since I think it is not Encycolepdedic and was written by an angry southerner who was finished watching a history channel special about the Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkywalkerX2 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

are you wondering how many soldiers where in the cofederate states of america team in the civil war?


So am I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.114.222 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

I restored the deletion of a large number of sources. At least three are cited in the footnotes and the elimination made it impossible to tell what works were referred to in the footnotes. A more surgical elmination and reorganization into actual works cited and further reading is probably in order. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I fixed the problem. I reorganized the bibliography to make it easier to use--moving general titles into the survey section and out of the politics section, for example. Only three items (by Goen and Smylie on religion plus Suinha on SC) were dropped--they refer to religion and ideology in the antebellum era and were NOT cited in the footnotes --that seems like the "surgical" solution North Shoreman wants. I added a number of useful books that actually deal with the Confederacy (esp in the new State Studies section). Rjensen (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Congress

why did congress refuse to readmit southern states in 1865? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.205.29 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

because Congress did not think the white Southerners had really given up slavery or their dreams of Confederate nationalism. see Reconstruction era of the United States Rjensen (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture section

why is there section about "popular culture" some mention of the movies (or would that be in the War of Northern Aggression page? But a listing of confederate rebel songs could certainly go here.Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A section on popular culture should be its own article as there are so many movies, TV shows, plays, books, war games etc., that could be listed. I've always wondered (Did anyone else also notice?) why John Wayne never played a Confederate soldier. Even when he was a Texan (as in the movie "The Undefeated" with Rock Hudson) he stated that he served in the Union Army during the War. If I am wrong, and anyone knows of a movie where he served in the Confederate Army, I'd like to know. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been a dimwit all these years. I always wondered why Wayne never "served" in the Confederacy. Then it hit me all of a sudden, just after I finished the above. He was a Confederate war veteran in the movie "The Searchers." I was reading a History.net mag on the Top 100 War Movies this past weekend, that movie was included, and it suddenly came to mind. Live and learn! Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question, as I had wondered the same thing! LOL Anyway, in addition to "The Searchers", the character he portayed in "El Dorado" (with Robert Mitchum) was referred to as being a former Confederate soldier. You brought up "The Undefeated". That one is kinda iffy as to whether or not he was actually a Texan who served in the Union Army. The movie isn't very clear on that, from what I remember. On the general subject, I think in some of his very early acting career, he did play roles of being in Confederate service. TexasReb (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Texasreb

Edits made today by Texasreb are either unsourced or poorly sourced. He/she added the following:

However, some critics of this decision maintain -- as the actual issue of secession was not the original one before the court -- that pronouncements on the subject were dicta, and therefore not constituting precedent on any future case.

No source is provided. Although a footnote follows the sentence after this, this source in no way supports Texasreb's claim (the work is available on the internet). Who are these "some critics" that Texasreb claims support his/her edit? Reliable sources that name these critics are needed.

Texasreb also added the following:

Other historians have disputed this claim, arguing the numbers arrested were not comparable, and that many Union sympathizers detained was in reaction to what had been Union policy early on. Charles Jacobs argues:


There are numerous problems with this. In the first place, "Jacobs,ChThe Maryland Line u.d." is an inadequate and inaccurate reference -- no page number, no publication date, what does u.d mean, is this a book, journal article, etc. However, more importantly, Texasreb got his info. from this website [1]. The quote is falsely attributed to Charles Jacobs, but in fact the quote is made by whoever created the website as an introduction to a piece by Jacobs. Texasreb left out the sentence right before his excerpt that says, "This article, by local historian, Charles Jacobs, describes arbitrary arrests and imprisonment of pro-Confederates in Montgomery County during the Civil War." Since Jacobs only writes about Montgomery County, Maryland, the website editor cites no basis for his conclusions. Website opinions by unnamed persons are not a reliable source and do not support the claim about what "other historians" have said.

I have reverted both edits and encourage Texasreb to make his case on this discussion page using reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Texasreb is also removing cn and who? tags without actually providing sources. I have reverted, but he might need to back off or he'll be blocked for edit warring. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Texasreb has also revert with this edit [2] reverted a large amount of properly sourced material. He/she seems prepared to engage in major edit warring over this article. His continued refusal to discuss this issue is revealing.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added a couple tags concerning the problematic edits. One refers to the faulty citation above and another applies to another reference to Douglas Harper, Cornerstone Speech, 2002. Besides the fact that it is improperly listed (it is a website not a book), Douglas Harper is not a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Texasreb also added unbalanced POV info regarding both Upper South and Texas secession. Rather than reverting, I added sourced info that provide necessary info on Texas, Arkansas, and Virginia secession conventions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my reply to all the above. Especially to North Shoreman and Everrand Proudfoot:

The fact is, this article on the Confederate States of America heretofore contained a definite bias. Heavily overloaded with a northern slant. Apparently, neither of the above "editors" can accept a balanced article..even though my own contributions made every effort was made to keep it that way. North Shoreman Tom seems to have a particularly hysterical objection to anything I have added. And I am not sure at all where he comes up with the "refusal to discuss" the issue. Unless, of course, he is so full of himself he believes his time should be everybody elses time.

It is also interesting (and revealing) that North Shoreman Tom seems to proclaim himself the authority on what is or what is not a reliable source. The source I cited was a website, yet copyrighted as well. Does it all have to come out of a book to have reliability? If so, then half of what is on Wikipedia could be considered unreliable. Continuing along that line, I received a private message containing a "WARNING" for editing his own information. Does he have the authority to issue such warnings? Or any justification for doing so? I invite ANYONE to look over what has been written/edited.

Now, if I failed to properly link to my information, then I apologize. But that can be corrected. The factual information I stand by.

I have a long and well-documented and respected history of contributions to Wikipedia. If North Shoreman and/or Everand Proudfoot would like to take this issue to a moderator/authority, then I will be happy to meet them at the designated time and place and let this issue be settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasreb (talk • contribs) 04:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you failed to respond to most of the above. The governing guideline for reliable sources is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The most applicable section is "Self-published sources (online and paper)" which states:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."
Your warning was for repeatedly reverting my edits and the edits of another editor. When you were warned that this could constitute a violation of 3RR, you ignored the warning and again reverted my edits. As I told you on your talk page, I have made the appropriate referral. When there are three editors disagreeing with you on content, then you need to consider Wikipedia:Consensus and try to make your case on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what North Shore Tom? Let's just indeed get it settled by the moderators and higher editors. I am not going to argue with you any longer on this. Unless you have some official capacity, you have no authority to issue me a "WARNING" along with an icon. And so far as your use of the term "editor", what is the definition. Do you not think I couldn't call up three "editors" of my own and say the same thing?

What it really amounts to is that you just do not like that some balance has been added to the Confederate States article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasreb (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the additions that came from these 2 self-published websites, which did not even accurately represent what was there --JimWae (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to monitor, add to, and edit, this particular article. In fact, I intend to make it a particular point of attention and focus. The major reason being that there is apparantly a very definite bias...and reaction against additions which provide balance. This is going to change, even if it might take some time. In doing so, I will do my very best-- as I always have in the past -- to adhere by the rules of source and content per Wikipedia rules and regulations. Bottom line is, by all fair rules and regs, I am going to be a fair contributor to this piece, and encourage others to review and do the same. TexasReb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

BTW -- I accept my comeupance on not signing out properly. I thought it was three sguigglies! SineBot let me know it was four. Thanks! TexasReb (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If your claims of bias and balance were true, you and others would not have such a difficult time providing sources that meet wikipedia standards. All you have provided to this point is self published websites and unsourced opinion. Four different editors have now reverted material that you recently added. You need to discuss your proposed changes here before unilaterally making controversial edits.
Since you have not responded to the problems with your civil liberties addition, I have rverted it for the reasons stated when I stated this discussion. Another editor has also questioned this so you should not add it back without getting agreement on this page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I am responding now. Your time is not my time. Read this new "section" below. TexasReb (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ordinances of secession vs. declarations of causes

"The Upper South states, in their secession ordinances, did not mention slavery at all."

1. All of the states (or factions thereof) which sought to secede and join the Confederacy issued ordinances of secession; only South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas issued longer declarations of causes. The texts of the ordinances of secession can be found here; the texts of the declarations of causes can be found here. By and large, none of the ordinances of secession (as opposed to the declarations of causes) mentioned the causes of secession one way or the other; they were simply legalistic proclamations that such-and-such state no longer considered itself part of the Union.

2. Virginia (an Upper South state) did mention slavery in it its ordinance of secession:

"...and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States" --- 139.76.64.67 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that qualification. Virginia did mention slavery in the sense of solidarity with the Lower South "cotton states". My point was intended to be that slavery as an institution was not listed as a primary cause of why she seceded. Rather it was the declaration that the federal government (of the Old Union) had no constitutional authority to use military force to coerce the original 7 back into a Union they no longer wanted to be part of. I should have worded it better. TexasReb (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I can help the situation here. The sole contents of this subsection are from one historian only. I have been looking into civilian arrests in the Border States for the past several months, before this edit question, and I believe I can add information to the satisfaction of all parties here. But perhaps I am over-optimistic.Dubyavee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

An Apology

First of all, I want to give a sincere apology to what I can now see were careless edits and sourcing on my part. My lame excuse is that I was kinda tired that night and probably made some errors in judgement in that realm. I hope, however, that my long history of contributions to Wikepedia articles (I invite anyone to view them) will be proof that my intentions were sincere and not intended to start an "edit war" nor stir up trouble. I do indeed take seriously that another editors contributions are to be taken as in "good faith" by default. And perhaps I was "guilty" of removing citations and comments. I really didn't mean to approach it that way.

But here comes to the crux of the matter. IMHO, this article is very biased. All I was trying to do was add some balance to it. For instance, the Texas v. White case. It is total POV that the SCOTUS ruled secession unconstitutional. My addition was to indicate that other legal scholars do not see it that way. That indeed, since secession wasn't the actual original issue, then there was no ruling on the matter. Another issue is violation of civil liberties. Apparently, the other party to this dispute presumes himself to be the final authority on what does or does not constitute an acceptable source. He will quote Neely, but not another accept another recognized historian. And is only books that matter? If so, then we may as well remove a large part of information from Wikepedia articles as, for instance, the "Handbook of Texas On-Line" is often used.

But ok, I will be more careful in the future to correctly quote sources. And to be careful with the number of edits, and always assume good faith. I hope the other party to this dispute will reciprocate. Let me end by just noting two things:

1. I fully intend to add material which balances this article.

2. Once again, I sincerely apologize for my admitedly careless mistakes.

TexasReb (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your apology notwithstanding, your very first edit to the article since your block is to add back your personal opinion concerning Texas v. White. No discussion. No sources. No consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This is almost laughable. It really is. I added the balance that the Texas v. White case is argued. The direct wording of the decision (from Cornell)both majority and minority is there for the taking. The original sentence was that the SCOTUS "ruled" on it (secession). Was that not POV? No, they didn't. What happened was the SCOTUS made a decision in which the majority relied heavily upon the constitutionality of Texas secession. There were disenting opinions. In either instance, the original case was not secession, but bond sales. I am sorry if you can't see that I was not adding personal opinion, but giving balance to that which did. TexasReb (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You can't just make up these claims. Who believes this? Provide reliable sourcing. I reverted your edit because it's original research if you can't provide us with the sourcing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Current Map

The border of the currently displayed map just looks...off. Look at the Texas/Oklahoma border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.145.228 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Yes, the border of 1860 was different than current mapping. The ‘panhandle’ of Oklahoma State is designated ‘neutral territory’, neither Texas or Oklahoma, as late as the 1890s.

The Federal (US) ‘Oklahoma Territory’ of May 1890 followed the ‘Sooner’ land rush. Generally, it fell northwest of a diagonal from the SW corner to the NE. Southeast lay the ‘Indian Territory’. During the Civil War, Indians in territory of Nebraska and Kansas were removed to Oklahoma. To map the reality on the ground would be impossible for a general article.

See website ThomasLegion.net, which cites ‘The Formation of the State of Oklahoma: 1803-1906 by Roy M. Gittinger, Univ. Cal. Press, 1917, Google Books, p.xii shows searchable map pages. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

Texas on the map

The northern border of Texas on the map is just plain wrong. The rest of the border isn't so hot either. Could somebody find a new map? We need a new map. Zazaban (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the border of 1860 was different then. The ‘panhandle’ of Oklahoma State is designated ‘neutral territory’, neither Texas nor Oklahoma, as late as the 1890s, and yes, Texans draw another map… But it is useful to convey the idea –pictured on the map in light green—that the Confederacy did not have control of territory north of the Red River. This is so regardless of and apart from the mapping conventions of the United States, the Confederate States, Nebraska or Texas, then or now. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)).

Goal of the Confederacy?

I was wondering if someone could tell me, and I apologize for putting it here. I would hope it would be a worthy section for this article. Other than the fact that they were battling the Union forces that were determined to restore USA authority over the Confederate states, what was, or might have been, the object of the Confederacy in invading Union territory? (a) reclaiming escaped slaves (b) destroying the Union's ability to wage the war (c) gaining access to northern industry and resources (d) territorial expansion (e) replacing the US with a constitution judged by Confederate patriots to be superior to that of the US (f) any or all of the above? GBC (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

None of these. in terms of Kentucky [Perryville]: to get recruits (failed); in terms of PA (Gettysburg) to raid & get supplies and to ruin the North's self confidence & bolster peace party in North (failed). Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most direct reason to invade the North was to influence the outcome of elections. When the Confederacy could win or invade, the events helped both anti-Lincoln and anti-war Democrats. Following Antietam in 1862, Peace Democrats gained in state legislatures and seated five national leaders in the US House and Democratic majorities went to Congress from NY, PA, OH, IN and IL (!). Four of six governorships that year went to Democrats.

As to (e), some suppose many Confederate sabotage plans were never carried out because Peace Democrat odds of taking over the US government constitutionally were always within reach. Possible well into 1864: a subset of a Lincoln-Seward-Fremont-Greely-McClellan race going to the House and being decided for NOT-Lincoln. "The Constitution as it is, the Union as it was, and the Negroes where they are." See John C. Waugh ‘Reelecting Lincoln: the Battle for the 1864 Presidency. Crown 1998. p. 11, 90 on elections. Google Books preview shows page 11, not 90. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

Gettysburg

Both the TV "Gettysburg" reconstruction and the BBC Magazine give the impression that it was after the horrific Confederate losses at Gettysburg, that an initially sympathetic UK government decided that the Confederacy wasn't going to win the Civil War.

Apparently Her Majesties Government (Victoria) had an Official UK Observer with the Confederacy at this battle who subsequently advised the UK government not to assist the Confederacy in any way.

The British long term cotton supply problem seems to have been then solved by invading and occupying Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, southern cotton planters were their own worst enemies. They overemphasized the importance of cotton to Britain. Worse, for a few years before the War of the Rebellion (As Old Abe called it.) there were bumper crops of cotton, so Britain has stockpiles of cotton during the first two years. Instead of withholding cotton, to hopefully force Europe to recognize the Confederacy, when the blockade was really weak, the South should have sold it for financial credit to help fund the war. By the time they realized that this wasn't going to work, the Union blockade was much stronger. Plus, as the Union regained territory, the cotton in those areas became available for sale to England. Also, as pointed out above, Britain had cotton crops now growing in Egypt and India. Another important point was that, even though the British upper class leaned in support to the Confederacy, the lower and middle classes were strongly in support of the Union's goal to end slavery. When mill workers in Liverpool who were out of work due to a cotton shortage by 1863, met in conference and voted to send a letter of support to President Lincoln for his Emancipation Proclamation, the British Cabinet took note. Considering that Britain had taken a moral stance against the slave trade in 1815 and was enforcing it on the high seas, there were also considerable social/ethical/political problems with supporting a slave-holding country. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(a) GETTYSBURG might have tipped the British scales as a military event, or (b) slavery, since the Brits had had compensated emancipation, see the movie Amazing Grace, or, with no cotton trade, it may have been (c) the lack of gold reserves in the Confederate treasury. The CSA was to tax ‘in kind’ for its last two years … By the end of June, Johnson, Early and Stuart’s divisions raced wildly north and east away from the main body of Confederates threatening westerly of DC. Were they out of control or were they after the Philadelphia mint? (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

Motto 'Deo Vindice'

CS Sen. Thomas J. Semmes’(LA) compromise February, 1862, “Deo Vindice” could meet almost every intention among the factions in both CSA House and Senate, Committees and Floor. Latin words admit to many translations, depending on the context. Without context, meanings can be many.

'A Compendious Dictionary of the Latin Tongue' by Alexander Adams, 1805 p.840-42 (1814, 1822), Google Books, shows what those then read. Using the derivatives of vindex and vindice, God in this motto by chosen context may be a deliverer, liberator, assenter, mediator, guardian, ruler or avenger, depending on the usages taken from Livy and Cicero.

In the debates to amend the motto, Sen. Semmes elaborated a Christian doctrine excluding some interpretations based on his theology, including God asserts what is right and punishes what is wrong. He declaimed alike against the licencious Cavalier and the fanatic Puritan...(web citation unverified).

One linguist scholar is said to translate it God as punisher (vindix), alright, but of slavery, claiming poetic justice. Well, okay, to strike can be to punish. But Vindice, in context of the ancient Roman Republic, could refer to manumitting a slave. The slave at court was struck on the head with fasces in the ceremony to be made free. Really. apart from word games. Really.

The Latin may be taken as a variation of strike or punish, but we read scholars such as A. Adams to avoid the historical fallacy of anachronism. Whatever Latin means today, History requires reading the Latin scholars that those of the time read so we can understand the men of the time. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

Is there a question in here somewhere or are you just trying to clarify? --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the rendering here. But maybe a widened discussion could be a future mini-section...seems real confusion on the web...and there was a second move in Congress to modify the motto in 1864, 'With God's help we can surpass our ancestors' or some such. The snide linguist has gone somewhat viral, so this page might provide an antidote. Serious men with serious intent embarked on a serious enterprise...

and yes, slavery is wrong and should be abolished, and voices in the South who thought so generally insisted that it be done by Southerners, because, in part, of the very same attitude manifest by the self-proclaimed 'Yankee' linguist... see Freehling Road-2. Sen. Semmes in his motto debates slammed both 'Puritan zealotry' and 'Cavalier licentiousness' ... (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

Removal of relevant edits

Removal of edits relevant to only source for subsection 2.5 "Civil liberties" of main article- re:Neely's opinions of North/South civilians.

one editor is trying to discredit Neely's conclusions by citing Noe, who --as the above text shows--actually praises Neely. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is Dubyavee's attempt at synthesis. He wants us to believe that a comment by Noe in an article that mentions in passing a study by Neely of civil liberties in the Union ACTUALLY MEANT that Noe was announcing that he had changed his own mind about his own positive review of Neely's work on civil liberties in the Confederacy. Neely's work on the Confederacy has been widely reviewed -- these reviews are the place to look for criticisms. The material Dubyavee has taken out of its proper context is irrelevant to this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The material I cited in my edit of the "Civil Liberties" subsection was from Kenneth W. Noe's 2003 article "Who Were the Bushwhackers", written 3 years after his review of Neely's book. Noe himself reviewed the records of Camp Chase at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. He states in his article and I quote completely:


The subsection "Civil Liberties" has only ONE source, Mark Neely, and it makes 2 comparison's of North/South civilian arrests. The removal of my citations of Prof. Noe's doubt's pertaining to Neely's conclusions and his comparisons of North/South is extremely pertinent.Dubyavee (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Noe doesn't say, in your article, that North- South comparisons need to be reevaluated -- that is your original research. You also seem to ignore the phrase "may require adjustment". In other words, Noe isn't prepared to say that "readjustment" or "reevaluation" is in order -- only that additional research might be warranted. When someone does that research and makes specific claims regarding a North-South comparison, then you might have an issue. If in fact Neely's methods and results are faulty, then you shouldn't have all that much trouble finding sources that SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS the topic of this article. In order to advance your POV, you are exaggerating the significance of one sentence, taken out of its proper context, and ignoring a dozen or more favorable reviews.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Noe doesn't say, in your article, that North- South comparisons need to be reevaluated-". Well, I don't think Prof. Noe had read the Wikipedia article at that time.

Neely claimed in Fate of Liberty that "Levi C. Turner reported to the secretary of war that he had reviewed 2,020 from Camp Chase. The reports are now missing, but these were almost certainly civilians." (pg. 129) They were not missing, they were in the National Archives, which are the records Noe examined in 2003. I have done NO original research, merely quoting from Prof Noe's article. Why do you want to keep his observations from readers of this article? The article compares North/South. It states the Confederacy arrested 4,108 people, yet he leaves the Camp Chase records out of his estimates for the North. If the article compares North/South, then North becomes part of the relevance. Noe's observations should be part of the article under that circumstance. If you want to change the text of the Civil Liberties subsection in a less comparative manner and just concentrate on South, then do so. But when the article in only 6 sentences makes 2 North/South comparisons you must take all.Dubyavee (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-responsive. Noe is talking about a different work than the ones cited in the article. Nowhere does Noe discuss whether or not the North-South comparison made by Neely is, in his opinion, valid. Your reference to Noe not having read this wikipedia article is simply bizarre, as well as off topic.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That was a joke, Tom. However, there is no need to get into ideological minutiae here. My complaints are very simple:

1. I am an equal editor here and not subject to an unofficial "editorial board of review", which I have faced here and on other article pages. 2. I do not have to jump through arbitrary hoops created by other editors for my edits to be accepted as long as they conform to Wikipedia rules. 3. I am not required to address any edits to specific books previously discussed in the article as long as my edit is relevant to the subject and well-referenced.

There is also the problem of "ownership" of pages here specifically. My original edit last week was reversed by the person who created the "Civil liberties" subsection, and done within 16 minutes of my edit. I reworked my edit at their suggestion, and once again the original creator of "Civil liberties" reverted my edit. The "Civil liberties" section was created on April 29, 2006, and has had little added or subtracted in over 4 years, remarkable for such a heavily edited article.

So far there has been no outside comment as I had hoped to see, we just get the same people arguing here. I will let this Rfc run its course, and if nothing has been resolved will decide then what should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubyavee (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Very much in agreement with all points you have made, Dubyavee. Presently, I am at work on another addition (Texas v. White section in particular, but others as well), but for the moment I am inclined to wait and see how this one plays out (although that is subject to change and in accordance with the criteria you spelled out above). It definitely appears there is a problem with the neutrality in this whole article and that some editors are -- as you say -- presuming ownership and appointing themselves an unofficial board of review. TexasReb (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Expand mapping, CSA.

I offer two mapping proposals, the first is a logical extension of the existing map. Keep the first map, and add two CSA others. I cannot make this proposal without editors' vetting of the elements, as the proposal is based on online research.


At the very least, the existing map should be dated, "As of January, 1862".

Map I. Jan, 1862: as pictured.

Map II. Jan, 1864: add light green: TN, AR, LA.

Map III. Jan, 1865 : add light green: MS, Al, GA

(Dark green remaining: VA, NC, SC, TX, FL) (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC))

Leave Lincoln out

The statement in the text: Some historians, however, have disagreed with Neely's conclusion. Kenneth W. Noe has written: "All told, the [Camp Chase] annotated rosters and descriptive lists of prisoners suggest that the contention of Mark E. Neely, Jr., that historians have exaggerated the Abraham Lincoln administration's violations of civil liberties may require readjustment if not significant reevaluation.. [ref to Noe, Kenneth W., Who were the Bushwhackers? Age, class, kin, and western Virginia's confederate guerrillas, 1861-1862, Civil War History, March 2003, Vol. 49, No. 1, pgs. 5-31] says nothing about the CSA and does not belong here. (Neely wrote a separate study of Lincoln and civil liberties in the North). Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


This is from the Neely quote "In fact, the Confederate citizen may have been in some ways less free than his Northern counterpart." Another editor has objected to this section's bias, which is TOTALLY from ONE source- Mark Neely. Mark Neely did not know of the existence on the Camp Chase records in the National Archives in Wash, DC. He did not consult them at all. This impacts with great significance this subsection. Since Mark Neely is the PRIME source for this section, his inadequate rsearch is justifiably questioned. Kenneth W. Noe is a highly regarded historian, who questions Mr. Neely's conclusions. If this subsection is to remain, then Mr. Neely's critics must be heard. If you want to erase the entire subsection, then that is fine by me.Dubyavee (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
no that's not how Wiki works. Neely is a famous scholar and winner of the Pulitzer prize--he is a RS. The Noe statement is not about the CSA--it about another Neely book that deals with Lincoln and not with the Confederacy. The text statement that does not belong is is about Lincoln and he does not belong in this article. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'In Fate of Liberty Neely writes that political prisoners from Kentucky and West Virginia "were usually sent to Camp Chase in Ohio, and there are almost no extant records for Camp Chase.' (Kenneth Noe, Who Were the Bushwhackers?)

Apparently being a RS doesn't keep you from screwing up. The Camp Chase records are in the National Archives. Camp Chase was a major depot for civilian prisoners, and Mr. Neely's conclusion as quoted in the article is based on flawed research.

On Camp Chase: "[T]here have been from six to seven hundred political prisoners at Camp Chase at a time," marvelled one prisoner. "There are unquestionably," noted Captain Henry M. Lazelle, 8th Infantry, U.S. Army, "a large number of prisoners amounting to perhaps 200 confined here whose cases I think [are] of unjust confinement...[t]here are among the prisoners two idiots, two insane and several so maimed as to be utterly harmless." Portals to Hell: Military Prisons of the Civil War, LR Speer, pg. 47.

The Neely quote directly compares Confederate prisoners to Northern. The quote about the Lincoln government, and Mr. Noe's comments on Neely's gaff in research are both pertinent. I was only trying to resolve an obvious conflict, not get pulled into it. I leave it to you people who know how Wikipedia should work to balance that section, because it clearly isn't and you know it.Dubyavee (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


The Noe quote is off-topic. It is entirely about Lincoln, it is not even a comparison of Lincoln to Davis et al JimWae (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree -- the Noe statement is off topic. I looked at JSTOR and found 10 reviews of Neely's book "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism" (apparently the article quotes an earlier work) and there is no questioning of his basic premise. It is in such reviews, or in other works covering the same topic, that you need to go to if you want to find reliable sources presenting a different story. I have reverted the addition pending additional discussion here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reworked my edit, and will post it in a few days, barring significant opposition. This is how I propose it to read (propery formatted for footnotes)-

Mr. Neely's research, however, has been questioned by Kenneth W. Noe in the light of Neely's exclusion of the Camp Chase records from his studies. Noe surmised that Mr. Neely's conclusions "may require readjustment if not significant reevaluation." (Who Were the Bushwhackers, 2003)

This is pertinent, in that the existing quotation in the article compares North and South, and it questions Mr. Neely's research. It is properly confirmed by the work of a respected historian. Dubyavee (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
the one-line Noe comment does not qualify as a major review--there are dozens of full length reviews of the Neely books in the scholarly journals that qualify as RS when it comes to Neely. --Noe made a very brief side comment. Noe found about 300 cases that Neely had not seen (out of tens of thousands) The Noe cases are on Union treatment of Confederate enemies (not the title of the Noe article), and the text is about a DIFFERENT topic--how each government treated dissidents among its own people. The actual reviews of Neely are highly favorable and to use one ambiguous comment by Noe in place of all those favorable reviews is blatant POV. (Fact is the extra cases Noe found do not change the relative N-S patterns in treatment of their own dissidents--a larger % of Confederate citizens were arrested compared to Union citizens). Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see where the new proposal is any different from the old one. Using a throwaway comment in an unrelated article seems like nothing more than a desparate attempt to justify a POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It occurred to me that Noe probably did review Neely at some point. Did some searching and found that "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism" was reviewed by Noe in The Historian (63.3 Spring 2001: p653). (521 words). After first mentioning that "In his Pulitzer Prize-winning The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties (1992), Mark E. Neely Jr. successfully established that Lincoln's critics woefully exaggerated his alleged wartime tyranny," Neely provides a largely positive review. He does conclude with the following:
As important as Neely's conclusions about the Confederacy are, his interpretation of Southern society may be more significant in the long run. Historians, Neely suggests, have greatly exaggerated Southerners' obsession with their rights. Instead, the white South largely approved of the government's actions, and in some cases even demanded martial law if it would protect civilian society from suspected enemies or out-of-control drunken soldiers. Rather than a society grounded in concerns for individual liberties--one, for instance, that might be expected to chafe at government repression--the South, in actuality, craved order as much as liberty. Just as there was little difference between Davis and Lincoln, so there was little fundamentally divergent about North and South.
Neely at times overstates his case, dismissing the very real concern with Davis's administration policies expressed in state houses and the congress. Stylistically, the author's approach is so episodic as sometimes to suggest a collection of related essays rather than a unified monograph. Despite those flaws, Southern Rights remains a fresh, thought-provoking, and largely convincing work that every Southern and Civil War scholar must address.
So if (when?) we do include material about dissent within the CSA on the repressive policies of the Davis administration, then perhaps we can go to both Neely and Noe. As far as the material currently in the article, nothing Noe writes questions either that or Neely's research methods. In fact, Noe writes, "In the end, Neely concludes, there really was little difference between the attitudes of Davis and Lincoln. Davis's much-cited talk of constitutional liberty, in fact, was nothing more than pragmatic rhetoric designed to pry the border slave states out of the Union. As Lincoln was no tyrant, Davis was no constitutionalist." Nowhere in the review does Noe question this finding of Neely which is really the issue being debated here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Noe review was two years before Noe researched the Camp Chase records in the National Archives, so I am quoting Mr. Noe's current opinion. I took the liberty of asking him if Mr. Neeley has made any reference to his criticism or corrections of his statements and was told that he [Noe] was unaware of any. I will make the addition, which is really very minor, I don't know what the fuss is about. It doesn't keep anyone from adding other material if they feel it is needed. Dubyavee (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Very much agreed, DubyaVee! And to add, the fact that Neely is a Pulitzer Prize winner, does not mean his conclusions cannot be biased as well. And that his opinions cannot be disputed by the work of another historian. What it seems to boil down to is that some editors object to balance. The anti-CSA slant in this article is glaringly obvious. The Noe quote is/was not "off topic" As you said, it addressed what was a section which was seemed to be very slanted to begin with. Like you, I would have no problem at all with deleting the entire section. Or, discussing the matter further. TexasReb (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

4MAY1861 === Declaration of War by Confederate Congress === US less 7 less 2, see UNC-CH


This is one that should be discussed. It was posted in one of the sections that the Confederate Congress reacted to the incident at Ft. Sumter by "declaring war" on the "United States." Even the source provided does not support this contention. I suggest re-wording this portion in order to correct historically innacurate content. TexasReb (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to add and what is your source for it? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to add anything so much as to delete the inaccurate statement that the CSA Congress declared war on the United States. That is, the source was lacking to begin with in that war was ever declared. It is not necessary to provide one that says the opposite. See what I mean? TexasReb (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When we can find a secondary source, please ADD / restore something to the effect that, three weeks following Fort Sumter, the CS Congress,

"Approved May 4, 1861, Chap. III. – An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States; and concerning letters of marquee, prizes and prize goods.

"Whereas, the earnest efforts … to establish friendly relations … have proved unavailing … and whereas the President of the [US] has issued his proclamation … making requisition upon the States … of capturing forts … and … a blockade … and whereas, the State of Virginia has seceded … and … States … have refused … or will … and whereas, by the acts and means aforesaid,

"war exists between the Confederate States and the Government of the United States, and the states and territories thereof, except the States of Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, and Delaware, and the territories of Arizona and New Mexico, and the Indian territory south of Kansas: Therefore…[President authorized to use the whole land and naval forces] … "

See University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, “Documenting the American South, Electronic Edition”, docsouth.unc.edu, ‘Public Laws of the Confederate States of America, passed at the First Session of the First Congress; February 8, 1861 to February 18, 1862.’, page 100, the Act immediately prior to accepting Virginia into the Confederacy. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

Texas v. White

This sub-section can also be considered an "appeal" to a senior editor/moderator to review the history of the content involving Texas v. White as concerns wording and editing. The gist of it goes that I have attempted to provide some balance to this passage. I have eliminated no sources -- in fact kept them linked -- but have added wording which allows for the obvious fact that this particular case has always been a source of contention. The part I edited was that in which it was stated the SCOTUS "ruled" on the actually issue of secession. This is the debatable point and always has been. Apparently, to some "editors" their word is gospel and cannot tolerate even the slightest of variations. What I did was add that it (ruling) is disuputable as to permanent result and tried to do say in the fairest manner. In fact, let me post it so everyone can read. Here is what was originally written:

Four years after the war, in 1869, the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. White ruled Texas' secession unconstitutional and legally null. The court's opinion was authored by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. The court did allow some possibility of separation from the Union "through revolution or through consent of the States."[72][73] Jefferson Davis, former President of the Confederacy, and Alexander Stephens, its former Vice-President, both penned arguments in favor of secession's legality, most notably Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

Here is what I added/edited (again, deleting no sources):

Four years after the war, in 1869, the majority of the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. White opined that Texas' secession was unconstitutional and legally null. The court's opinion was authored by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. However, since the actual issue of secession was not the original before the court, it has since been debated as to whether or not the final ruling on the matter meets the standards of stare decisis on the issue of secession. Some legal scholars have argued the majority opinion on the issue was obiter dictum, while others maintain it was ratio decidendi.

Is there anything objectionable about that? It leaves open every avenue for personal consideration on the matter, and presents the legality of both sides.

Finally, here is a post I received from an editor on my Talk Page:

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Confederate States of America, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is ludicrous on the face of things. On one hand, according to this person's outlook, it is ok to POV on a Supreme Court ruling, but not for another to simply provide additional information and it get deleted as "orginal reasearch? Geez. As said, the links to the original case from Cornell are still there. As the they should be. Disrputive edits? What does that mean? Balance is disruptive?

I don't know Everard Proudfoot from Adam, so am not sure of his authority to issue warnings of this type. So, consider it said, I appeal this to a higher authority and invite the lookover as to edits and contributions. I would very much like to all parties meet in a forum for a hearing on all this. TexasReb (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Those familiar with SCOTUS know that its "opinions" are binding decisions. Many people in this international world may not know that SCOTUS is not just giving "their advice" but making a determination. In this case, you will need to find reliable support (beyond your own words) that "obiter dicta" has any relevance at all. They ruled on whether or not they had jurisdiction - jurisdiction is not something that is just an opinion separate from the case presented - it is essential for the case to proceed at all, and decisive unless overturned. --JimWae (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Provide reliable sources which support your contention. That's all that needs to be done. Unless and until you do, this is your own personal opinion and doesn't belong here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
EP? Why do you seem to fear legal opinions which go contrary to Texas v. White as you see it? Don't presume to talk to down to me in that manner. I presented links/opinions to both dicta and redicio. As it is, Texas v. White was not a ruling on secession, it involved bond sales. Simple as that. And nothing I added said different one way or another. Let's be honest and fair here, and let others make up their own minds,ok? TexasReb (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Where did I say that? I'm only asking for sources. You know, those things which prove that what you're saying is true. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you deny that some legal scholars maintain the Texas v. White was not a ruling on secession per se? Rather, that secession was only used to support the ruling, and there is dispute as to whether this aspect was obiter dicta or ratio decidendi? TexasReb (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, I am not arguing pro or con about anything you are claiming. Read what I wrote. I am asking for sources. Period. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's go that route. I could as easily ask for sources which verify the Texas v. White decision made a "ruling" on secession as an original question. What are you requesting? That I provide sources which dispute such an assertion? If so, see below. And surely you do not think they do not exist? My whole intent was to provide some balance to that section (others as well, but this is the one being discussed). I did not intend to removed sources at all from any one elses contributions. In fact, I intentionally left the Cornell Law link to the SCOTUS decision. I would have provided it as well if someone else had not already done so. My sole concern was with what I felt/feel was POV in declaring the secession aspect as a "ruling" and constituting stare decisis. I wanted to point out that this is not necessarily true. In fact neither party to the case itself ever mentioned secession as being a consideration. Hope that answers the question. Period. TexasReb (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize these works are not exactly unbiased (so will therefore not cite them as sources, for the moment, in any edits/additions to the article), but they provide very good information as to why the Texas v. White case cannot be declared a "ruling" on secession itself. Here are the links for those who care to peruse them: http://secessionuniversity.com/texas-v-white/ and http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/06/27/the-state-secession-issue-texas-v-white/.

I do not understand why some editors seemingly object to balance as concerns this issue. Secession was not the issue before the court so it can, and has been, argued by some legal scholars that no definitive precedent exists in the realm of declaring secession "unconstitutional." What is the problem with bringing up this concrete fact? Unless, of course, some would just prefer the truth remain silent...? TexasReb (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How does this sound as a "compromise" edit?

Four years after the war, in 1869, the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. White stated Texas' declaration of secession was legally null and void. The court's opinion -- of which the original question involved bond sales -- was authored by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. The court did allow some possibility of separation from the Union "through revolution or through consent of the States."[71][72] Jefferson Davis, former President of the Confederacy, and Alexander Stephens, its former Vice-President, both penned arguments in favor of secession's legality, most notably Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

Would that be acceptable for all? This eliminates the use of "ruled" and clarifies the actual issue before the court...but acknowledges the weight given the secession question in the final holding. Discussion? TexasReb (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to either dilute the significance of the decision or add unnecessary detail about the case to this article. The significance is NOT that the case was about bonds, but that the SCOTUS ruled that secession was illegal. "Stated" rather than "ruled" suggests that possibly the decision was only dicta -- a point you have argued while failing to produce a reliable source to back you up. If we were to add anything else on the decision, it should be to quote the most significant part of the ruling:
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Anyone who wants more details has a direct link to the wikipedia article that explains the case in detail.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article explaining the case in detail has some problems as well. But be that is may (or may not) be, the point is that the SCOTUS did not "rule" on the issue of secession per se. They ruled on the actual original issue, which was about bond sales. The supporting logic used to lead to the ruling, by the majority, and it revolved around secession, yes. But secession was not even mentioned at all by the disputing parties. Therefore, what was opined by the majority could easily be considered obiter dicta. And there is no question on that it has been considered such by some legal scholars. See above links for verification. Others maintain the secession question contained within the final holding was ratio decidenidi. I simply fail to see why some object to this point of contention and dispute being presented. The "holding" of the case was direct to the bond sales, not secession. TexasReb (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet again you repeat your unsupported opinions. You claim, "And there is no question on that it has been considered such by some legal scholars. See above links for verification." Your two sources are (1) a self published website by a William Miller whose chief claim as an historian seems to be that "In February of 2010, I earned my license from the city of Charleston as a historical tour guide." and (2) a political website and an article written by a Stephen D. Laid whose claim to being a "legal scholar" (your claim not his) seems to be that he is a "a semi-retired attorney living in Cypress, Texas." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, what part of this do you not understand? This is not my own "unsupported opinion". Is there, yes or no, disupte among legal scholars, whether or not that the Texas v. White case did not actually rule on the issue of secession? Please answer this simple question. And that the actual "holding" in the case was the bond sales? As you should note, I clearly stated I was not (for the moment) going to cite the sources/links as verification. Let's take it from another angle for a moment. There is absolutely NO legal source cited which declares secession was the actual holding in the case. This TOO is POV. Yet, you object when I merely insert the obvious fact not all legal scholars agree. Is that not contradictory? Sure, you downplay the credentials of the persons I mentioned in an earlier post -- one an attorney -- yet are seemingly content with that no source at all verifies that the SCOTUS "ruled" on anything other than the original issue. You have yet to really explain why it should not be brought up that the issue of secession cannot be presented as being disputable than beyond than -- to put it bluntly -- you don't want it to be. And you make a very spurious case (no pun intended) for it. Would it not be equally fair for me to holler "Foul" because one editor declared there was a "ruling" on the issue of secession sans any other support? As it is, I think I have been more than fair in trying to provide balance. TexasReb (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Balance" does not mean "present unsupported opposing opinions". You need to find a quote from one of these "legal scholars" you keep referring to. Often courts must rule whether or not they have jurisdiction before they can decide the case. Jurisdiction is not incidental to a case, nor is it non-binding, nor does it not affect the outcome of the case. Jurisdiction is essential to any case and the case cannot proceed at all without proper jurisdiction. SCOTUS ruled they had jurisdiction in the case (which they would not have had, had they ruled that the declared secession was legal), then they decided (or ruled on) the case, and their decision (or ruling) set a precedent and became a rule for future cases. --JimWae (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss balance. Where is the support -- beyond POV -- which says the majority opinion of the SCOTUS in Texas v. White constituted a ruling on secession being null and void? This was NOT the original issue before the court, and neither party to the dispute ever brought it up. The holding of the court was related to bond sales, pure and simple. Not secession. It seems funny that I am being asked to provide a source for what is obvious (that there are differences in the implications of the ruling), yet those who demand such do not adhere to the same standard.
Anyway, this seems a very disingenous position (no personal offence intended). And as is it, sources HAVE been provided (not in the article, but above in discussion) which not only address the issue of jurisdiction, but the more important one of how the issue of secession, obiter dicta, and ratio decidendi figured in to all of it. What is unfair about that? On the other hand, nothing beyond POV is provided otherwise to support that a ruling on secession was part of the holding. More and more I am concluding that some object to balance in this whole article (which clearly contains an anti-CSA slant). But as may be, here just two of the sources which I am being asked to provide indicating not all legal scholars agree on this matter: http://secessionuniversity.com/texas-v-white/ and http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/06/27/the-state-secession-issue-texas-v-white/ TexasReb (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to your claim, the footnote in the paragraph linking to the book by Aleksandar Pavković and Peter Radan (which is available online) does support the claim that the court ruled secesssion was illegal. You could also find the same thing in the books by Murray, Niven, and Ross listed in the references for the wikipedia Texas v. White article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected on this particular point. There were sources provided in which the author(s) opined that the Chase court majority decision "ruled" secession was "illegal." However, the opinions of the said authors are no more nor less valid than those who wrote and analyzed in the sources I have provided several times. TexasReb (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WHERE are the sources from the legal scholars you keep referring to?--JimWae (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WHAT exactly are you asking? Are you objecting to the term "legal scholars"? If so, then no biggie to change that label to something else. *shrug*. Or? Are you objecting to that the authors of the links provided several times did not back up their opinions with any original sources themselves? If so, then, again, this is a very disengenuous argument. Although, let me add there were dissenting opinions among the SCOTUS on the majority ruling. Will THAT written by Justice Grier satisfy the definition of a legal scholar and that there was question about jurisdication as well as other entangled issues? But backtracking, some seem to miss the whole point of additions to the article. Which is only to point out the very obvious fact that some (call them what you will) with a legal background and knowledge, make an articulated case that the SCOTUS did not "rule" on the the legality of secession per se, but only on the original issue of bond sales. That the opinion of the majority regarding secession amounted only to dicta? To add this mention to the article is not POV, but concrete fact.
http://secessionuniversity.com/texas-v-white/ and http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/06/27/the-state-secession-issue-texas-v-white/ Is your question to ask where are the sources for the opinions of the authors of these articles? If so -- and I hope you will clarify -- then it makes no sense. Opinions are opinions, just as were those of the court members. They based their opinions on the text of the decision/dissent itself. That is their source. Anyway, time to have a beer! LOL TexasReb (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Texas Border, Red River revisited

The ‘Texas State Library and Archives Commission’ online has some interpretation for the Gov. Ross letter on the border dispute between TX, Indian Nations, OK and the USG: Use Adams-Otis treaty or Compromise of 1850? North Fork or South Fork? Named 100th meridian or mis-mapped line? Was the Red River navigable? Was the boundary of the meandering river jumping its banks the south bank, mid stream, or surveyed Indian territory?

US Congressional district maps use the dotted line border convention for ‘undetermined territory’ between Texas and Oklahoma until March, 1883, then the Texas (North Fork?) boundary until March, 1897, then until now, the modern boundary. See Kenneth C. Martis, 'The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989', McMillan, 1989. p.99-151.

For the CSA article, is the boundary to be declared lines of competing courts, or where Texans settled in its new (CSA era) Greer County? This might be worth a map note if properly referenced by a secondary source. My copy of Fehrenbach’s 'Lone Star' fails me. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC))

"Unrecognized State"

An "Unrecognized State"? JUST CURIOUS, by what criteria is this designation affixed to the Confederate States? I know from my studies in US History (my degree is in US Southern History) that the Confederate States, although short of recognition as an independent country, was granted recognition as a Belligerent by both Great Britain and France. Avazina 16:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

recognition is a formal process involving the exchange of ambassadors. The Brits recognized there was a war going on, not the CSA government.Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Both Britain and France did exchange diplomats, short of calling them Ambassadors that is what they were in all but name. Based on that and the fact that Britain did pay recognition to the Flags, Banners and Symbols of the CSA, by directing their Navy and Merchant vessels to pay proper respect to CSA ships on the high seas. So they weren't wholly unrecognized.Avazina 12:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
neither Britain nor France send any ministers to the Confederacy. There were several British and French consuls left over from our peace time, but the Confederacy expelled them.Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen is correct that the South pinned much of its hopes on recognition by Britain, and hoped to use the power of 'King Cotton' to bring that recognition. The Confederate agent Henry Hotze in London did much of the scutwork. But it all came to nought. An excellent examination of this entire issue is presented by British military historian John Keegan in his recent book The American Civil War: A Military History. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember a distinction Europeans use between "defacto" recognition and "dejure" from poli.sci/government classes, whereas the US only uses "dejure". The 'defacto' insight is one of the reasons I like the article's map referencing CSA claims without administrative control. I'd like to see it expanded to show two more maps, Jan 1864, Jan 1865, with a little help ... (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC))
Recognition as a matter of fact (defacto) as opposed to by law (dejure) was used at that time period, but the US and Europe didn't see eye to eye on everything and so it is with historians. PC historians are less concerned with the facts of history than how they can distort those facts to promote their own POV. As such any POV that is based on the proved facts of history is always denounced. It is sad that certain events in the past are labeled controversial simply because PC historians are unwilling to acknowledge the facts.Avazina 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of those same PC historians claim that the Confederacy lost the Battle of Gettysburg! What gall! 74.176.63.184 (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, PC Historians don't make claims like that, because they don't care about facts!!! Even a true Southerner acknowledges Historical facts no matter how onerous. People still get it wrong, by confusing our Historically factual corrections with bemoaning the Confederacy's loss in that war. Facts are stubborn things (ie John Adams) and shouldn't be ignored even if those facts aren't PC.-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner 12:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ‘Where you stand depends upon where you sit.’ But history is rich from many POVs, then, now, and in between. This serves us well, because most of us are caught up in half-truths—not from malice, but limited by context, events, and sources.
So, the question is not whether to adopt a certain PC agenda. It is, what can I learn, which part is useful. For instance, the exceptionally good labor relations – and very much NOT typical, by numbers or by degree—practiced on Jefferson Davis’ properties, before war and after it, is powerfully described in Eric Foner’s ‘Reconstruction’.
But it could not be replicated, as in many 19th Century idealistic communes ( Shaker’s Onieda, Owen’s New Harmony). The Davis’ brothers idealism seems to have been misplaced. It may just be that ‘readiness’ for personal liberty is inalienable to our humanity; all of us (see Declaration). (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confederate_States_of_America/Archive_6&oldid=862569925"