Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Secessionist "compact" versus "contract"

Northshoreman beat me to it, but the proper term is indeed "compact" for secessionists. It has the common usage relating to a bargain that might be unilaterally ended, or diplomatically, maybe by war among independent states.

And, as there is a Consitutional provision contained in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No State shall, without the consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.", “Compact” was also a direct slap by the secessionists at those who made an oath to support the Constitution, those enumerated in Article VI, paragraph three:

• US Senators, Representatives, all executive and judicial officers, and likewise all STATE members of legislatures, “executive and judicial officers”. (See Governor Sam Houston in Texas for an example.)

“Article VI”, second paragraph, says, “the Constitution … shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every STATE shall be bound thereby, “any thing in the Constitution or laws of any STATE notwithstanding.”

On the other hand, it was LINCOLN who referred to a “contract” in his First Inaugural Address,

• “Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

I concur with the JimWae language “compact” for secessionists, and Northshoreman’s revert of the “contract” edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"slave" in 'slave state' intro edits

JimWae restored a reference to "slave" states for those which would make up the Confederacy. In a modern sense, that was entirely so, the alternative never tested.

However, in good faith, some editors would use the convention "states" or "states with slaves", because "slave state" and "slave power" were northern and abolitionist epithets of the time, not terms the Confederates would apply to themselves. By these editors' reasoning, adopting the terminology of an adversary while treating an historical subject is a biased point-of-view. I wonder if there might be progress towards a consensus of style, maybe by a larger discussion of usages, or the variety of terminology over the course of an article.

I readily admit that the reasons for becoming a "Rebel" in grey included more than a single belief concerning "slavery". There were often simultaneous alternative personal motives, social, religious and political justifications, economic and speculative interests, all well beyond "slavery". But never allowing any use of the convention "slave state" becomes itself a point-of-view to modern readers.

The POV danger on the one side is avoided if an article holds a variety of desciptors, alternatives such as "state allowing slaves", "cotton state", "state with slavery", "Deep South state", "state with lawful slavery", "state with over one-fifth of its population held as slaves", etc.

For the POV danger on the "slave state" side, if the term is reserved for the specialized purpose of introductions for the general reader, for brevity and conciseness, it seems to me "slave states" works just fine. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia deal with reliable sources--and they all use "slave state" so there is no bias. It is not true that only abolitionists used the term--Calhoun and Jefferson Davis used "slave state" Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My revert was to the removal of "slave" from the sentence, not to an alternative wording. The various declarations of secession & the CSA constitution repeatedly characterized themselves as "slave-holding states". The Mississippi declaration of secession specifically said "It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union". Usage of the term is justified both now & for the past, and not just an epithet. Given this, and what Rjensen says above, the claim that "slave-state" expresses a POV does not seem at all justified. I suppose that residents of such states are not thrilled with having their state so described, but some of the alternatives seem mealy-mouthed. "Slave-holding" could be an occasional alternative (though the relevant wiki article does not have that name). But even "slave-holding" seems a monumental understatement of the injustices slaves endured (they were not just "held"). --JimWae (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Slave state" occurs 7 times in the article. Switching to another term might be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with US history, as if it meant something different. "Slaveholder" occurs 6 times, in reference to the owners. In fact, it might help readers to use "slave state" more often - particularly in the "seceding states" section, to make it clear that only slave states considered secession. --JimWae (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Rjensen that the term "slave state" is permissible, and with JimWae that existing terms should not be changed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "slave state" is offensive to many citizens of the states covered by it. The claim that "slave-holding" is an understatement is moot. If someone is studying the American Civil War, they surely know of the severity with which slaves were treated. I am a resident of Georgia, a direct descendant of several high-ranking Confederate soldiers (most of which can be proven to be neither racist nor slave-owners), and a half-brother of a mixed (black and white) child; I also find the term "slave state" highly offensive. Calling these Southern states "slave states" is analogous to calling Germany an antisemitic nation. Germany is not referred to as an antisemitic nation, therefore, the states of the former Confederate States of America should not be referred to as slave states. StevenKell (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some Changes

It seemed implied that the 11 rouge states were the only pro-slave states at the time, a few pro-slave states remained in the US even after a Republican was elected president.

Also for all intents and purposes Richmond was the only practical capital of the CS.

I also removed the mention in the first paragraph that the Vatican sent a letter to Jefferson Davis addressing him as president, this is a diplomatic concession and on it's own does not imply any formal or official recognition of the CS as a sovereign unit.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Moi

Official dissolution?

When Jefferson Davis was captured on May 10th 1865, the Confederacy had not been formally dissolved. When did that ceremony take place? 94.194.61.128 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Missouri secession vote quorum

It has been a few years since I studied the whole Missouri secession timeline, but the statement about "lacking a quorum in either house" is disputable at best and likely wrong. I'll have to dig around to find the sources, but what I recall is that it had been established that one of houses did have a verifiable quorum and the other was claimed by some to have had one, but without a record of this 2nd quorum. One of the sources I read at the time said that the 2nd house's quorum was finally established by the recent discovery of some records of the session at the Wilson's Creek research library. Now if I can just find the references... Whether or not there was a quorum, prior to this the populace had elected conditional unionists to the Missouri constitutional convention that was to consider secession, and the convention overwhelmingly rejected secession, 98-1. The constitional convention was recalled to form a new govt. when Jackson and the secessionist lawmakers fled before Lyon's Federal advance. By the time the secession ordinance was passed by the old state govt., the constitutional convention had replaced them with a new provisional Missouri govt. Explaining the intricacies of all of this in paragraph is challenging.Red Harvest (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Direct evidence of a quorum was found for only one chamber. Charleston newspaper account states votes and quorum for both.Red Harvest (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

should "doughface" be considered derogatory?

in the early section of the CSA, it says "Southern interests in the United States had been protected by doughface northern presidents with southern principles and patronage." According to Wikipedia, "doughface" is synonymous with "useful idiot." The way it is written makes the writer sound supportive towards the CSA rather than having a neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinal (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Being supportive towards the CSA is a neutral and rational POV. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Doughface is a term often used by historians of the era and, as such, it is perfectly appropriate for use in wikipedia. In fact, it exposes readers to a term that they need to become familiar with if they are studying this era. There is nothing supportive of the CSA concerning the use of the term and nothing violating NPOV. I did remove the reference to "useful idiot" from the Doughface article since it was unsourced and redundant. I also tinkered a little with the language in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

About improving this article...

Unfortunately, this article is huge and clearly unorganized, like it's lacking in focus. Has anyone considered using the FA about the Empire of Brazil as a model to improve this one? It could follow the same pattern. --Lecen (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the subject matter as written,

First, in the "history" section, 'racism' is demoted and placed alongside previous similar edits, including placing the two extended quotes from the Texas resolutions adjacent to one another. Do we have a scholar nominating Texas as being most representative of most of the Confederate States? It certainly supports "The Cornerstone Speech", and it is a particular confirmation of its racist sentiment ... or at least evocative of the evolutionary Social Darwinism of the time.

Second, as edits have shortened the section on fire-eaters, it is combined with secessionist conventions and illustrated with Yancey and Gist portraits.

Third, in an article about the Confederacy, Lincoln's reaction hardly merits its own subheading, although it is an important aspect the narrative relating to the inauguration of a Confederacy in the first seceding states, and the extension of states and territory following reaction to Lincoln's stand at Fort Sumter.

Fourth, Secession included states and territories, so they are consolidated into the same heading, 'secession". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rise and Fall illustrations

Intent is to illustrate the text with an example from all regions: deep south (inauguration), Atlantic (Sumter), invasion north (east), Mississippi (west), Gulf and upper south (surrender). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds really cool, and will provide some additional color for this page. If you are finding the illustrations on the web make sure to clear them through wikicommons. If they are yours you have to do the same thing but its less of a hassle.Millertime246 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

All Wikicommons. Only Confederate pics I've brought into Wikicommons so far is Col. Olmstead (Ga volunteers, then Ga Regulars out west) and Leslie's Weekly print of the Union bombardment of Fort Pulaski. Both are from National Park Service documents online over 35 years old. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

article improvement - organization, continued

continued from above,

Fifth: The matter of secession and location of a national capital is similar; the capital section is relocated there, with pics of two capitals.

Sixth: Diplomacy is a conventional topic of national history. Diplomacy with foreign governments for the Confederacy include the United States and others, each have a category.

Seventh: The "Rise and Fall of the Confederacy" is renamed the more direct "Confederacy at War". The section devoted to the armed forces is then included as an introduction. The year sections are additionally named to reflect the text in each section, with pics to illustrate each stage of The War.

Eighth: The history of the Confederacy section can include an editor's earlier contribution on a principal cause of its demise, "died of states' rights', with pics of three anti-Davis, states-rights, men pictured in Wikicommons.

Ninth: In the section on Constitution, thee three branches are made subtopics, and as the Post Office -- to be constitutionally privatized ! -- is in the Constitution, it is included, with pics of justices available on Wikicommons.

Tenth: The 'economy' section is expanded. the existing text is a subsection, "national production", the river and rail systems are condolidated into a subsection, "transportation". financial instruments and Devistation found elsewhere are moved into the expanded economy section, with pics of devistation by 1865: a home, a center city, a navy yard factory, and a railroad bridge.

Eleventh: A new category is made for flags, including the national flags as a subsection, and the states and their flags as a subsection.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We now have (1) history, (2) government and politics, (3) economy, (4) flags, (5) Geography, and (6) military leaders -- a list.

"History" treats 1.1 A "Revolution" in disunion, 1.2 secession, 1.3 diplomacy, 1.4 confederacy at war, 1.5 "died of states' rights" TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Birthday of a Nation by R. Blakeslee Gilpin in NYT December 19, 2011, 9:30 pm

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Make the language neutral

The topic is still controversial one hundred and fifty years later so effort ought to be made to make the presentation neutral. First, saying 11 Southern slave states, would seem to have less of a slant if it instead said, 11 Southern states seceded. They were states where the ownership of slaves was still legal and whether slave owners could take their slaves into the new territories was one of the many issues of dispute between these states and the Northern states but it was not the only issue. A crucial issue concerned federal import tariffs which were expropriating Southern wealth to pay for the federal government, and transferring Southern wealth to the North, forcing Southerners to pay for overpriced Northern manufactures or pay the very high tariffs on imported goods. There could be more discussion of this.

Also there could be more about the right of states to unilaterally seceded. After all this belief in the right of states to unilaterally secede was part of what led to the creation of the USA in the first place. There were also claims about inequitable taxation. The idea that the Southern states did not have the right to secede needs more than cursory treatment. The Southern states did not have representation in congress because the North out-numbered them and voted against the South's interests. Of course, as the Northern states demonstrated in the end, might is right, and the victors write the history.

our anonymous contributor misses the first rule of Wikipedia: editors report what's in the Reliable Sources (RS). If he tells us what RS he is using we can discuss the issue. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Southern states outnumbered the northern in the House for most of the nation's history because of the three-fifths bonus given for their slaves.

However, over time, the slave economy was not a successful choice of societal organization. It could not support populations like a free society could. Slave interests blocked canals and railroad building. But in the north, these expanded farmland to feed cities of excess labor for factories. Manufacturing in turn produced additional centers of wealth and power.

Slave interests in each southern state insisted on keeping the state power in their own hands. Representatives in family farm regions with equal population were outvoted 5:1 in the state Assembly because state constitutions apportioned by population and wealth. State law stopped Ruffin from importing guano fertilizer to restore family farm soil. State law stopped McCormick's mechanical reaper from competing with slave labor. Virginia lost representation In Congress because it could lose 20% of its population in a decade. Family farmers moved to states with better soil, better business and equal votes.

Southern states chose slavery and slave holders over fertilized, mechanized family farms shipping by canal five times faster than wagon. Southern states chose to disenfranchise the family farmer to sustain slave-power. It was a conscious, deliberate, sustained southern choice for fifty years. It was a losing proposition even without war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

House apportionments are at United_States_congressional_apportionment#Past_apportionments; is there a Southern majority at any date there? --JWB (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Congresses following each reapportionment from 1810, with reference to the link provided for apportionment, U.S. census and Martis for parties divisions in House and Senate, ending at 1860 elections but using apportionment from 1860 census that came later.

Percents of the United States. -

Proslavery Senate. – 68 – 54 – 50 – 68 – 64 – 38

Slavery inst. -States. -- 50 -- 50 -- 50 -- 50 -- 48 -- 44

Proslavery -House. – 65 – 48 – 50 – 62 – 56 – 39

Slavery .. Districts. – 44 – 44 – 40 – 40 – 38 – 35

Southerner --whites. –- 30 -- 28 -- 28 -- 25 -- 24 -- 22

> I stand corrected. Delightful afternoon though, checking through the three sources. I used Census population-by-race tables 10 South Atlantic, 11 East South Central, 12 West South Central, although that is only 95% of slaves reported in the 1860 Census. Martis for 14th, 19th, 24th, 29th, 34th and 37th Congresses. I used percents from my high school algebra to bypass the serious scholarship required to comprehend various changes in apportionment formulae -- now that would make for a fun dissertation.

> People representation in the Senate is touched on in History_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Population_power. Given this thread suggested by JWB, no wonder the secessionists would not countenance majority rule, especially when seen through the lens of the ex-pat settlement of whites following the Haitian Revolution in Charleston, South Carolina. Where is the scholarship to help us better understand that stream of American intellectual history? It certainly would help us understand Southern reaction to John Brown's Raid, never mind "states rights".

> The meaning of the words of the Constitution was changing from under the slave-holders feet. Lincoln said it was the true meaning ever approximated before and always intended. But under democratic impulse, the dynamic was radical. The Fire-eaters were not delusional, there was for them, a real crisis. Slave economies would not allow fertilizer, mechanization and transportation to increase white populations. Slave population did not increase as fast as free soil settlement. National majorities would not allow more than three-fifths bonus for slave states without emancipation. Slave-power would not allow for growth in free black population as in New Orleans and Baltimore. History as mass migrations, and democracy only accelerates its impact.

> Proslavery majorities were in control of House, Senate, President and Supreme Court for most of the nation's antebellum history, not slave state apportionment in the House. I stand corrected. My thanks to JWB. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Suffrage

Is it correct that "African-Americans" did not get voting rights in the Confederate States of America before 1965? It says so in a book I read. It's called Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics by Todd Landman (2008) page 119. If this is correct, should this be in the article? Kristian Vangen (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

mostly true (some blacks voted in every state)--but that happened around 1900 and had no connection with CSA. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. Strange that this is written in a book of great influence on my study in Comparative Politics at University of Bergen, Norway. It says "They [Moore and Dietrich Rueschemeyer] insist that the United States was not fully democratic until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which extended suffrage to African-Americans in the former Confederate states." Is there something I'm missing here? My english is not perfect. Kristian Vangen (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that your sources is talking about African-Americans in the former Confederate states. What happened after the war is covered in the article on Reconstruction (linked to in the third paragraph in the intro to this article). And it's not a simple linear process--as the Reconstruction article discusses, after the war the political and social situation of the former slaves seemed to be very much on the upswing for a time, but then Jim Crow was imposed and the voting rights theoretically guaranteed by the post-War amendments to the U.S. Constitution were mostly ignored in large areas of the South until the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and '60's--the Reconstruction article has discussion of this and links to the subsequent historical developments like "Jim Crow". 139.76.224.65 (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Landman seems to be assessing the democratic degree of a regime by percent suffrage exercised in a group. So regardless of numbers or concentrations in a place, one asks what is the voter turnout for that group's adults as a group. Another aspect of representative government is measured by how many of those resident in a place participate. Even were a regime to have the forms of a Western liberal democratic republic, if a majority of those living under a county or municipality’s regime do not participate either in elections or in government, how should one characterize their governance? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Secessionist surprise at coercion

(1) For there to be a nation, the state must have a monopoly of force. There cannot be armed fiefdoms, rebels, crime syndicates or drug lords. The premise of a republic is that the government will be divided, for the people. The premise of a democracy is that rulers are to remain in power for a limited time, chosen not by themselves, but by others, perhaps the people. The majority of the people being ruled can change both individual rulers, and the forms of their rule. This is the opposite of a drug lord's drive-by shooting at a bus stop, for instance. The on-lookers do not have a vote on the drug lord, nor do they have a say in the procedures leading up to executions in their neighborhood.

(2) Because the Union was entered into without coercion, secessionists believed that it could be left without coercion. But in the event, the majority who chose to be persuaded and bound themselves to majority votes would not be dismissed and intimidated by an armed minority. This is an enduring surprise to those who live in regimes of coercion, slavery is one, authoritarian rule is another. Those who choose persuasion for governance and who submit to the rule of law even when they disagree, will sometimes fight for what they believe. Right does not make might, as in the Revolutions of 1848, or the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943.

(3) But in the event, the majority prevailed in the American Civil War. The nation state will have a monopoly of force. States and the people living in them will be bound by persuasion and majority rule in a democratic republic. There is nothing, no “peculiar institution” of any description, which is exempt from the will of the people, Constitutionally exercised. This includes drinking alcoholic beverages, for instance, but rule of law allows for reversal of any action. The democratic means justify the policy ends, in part because the outcomes are reversible without the bloodshed of civil war. See the 18th Amendment followed by the 21st Amendment.

(4) Slaveholders, “domestic tyrants” as the abolitionists put it, were surprised by the “pasty faced clerks” who lacked the courage of their convictions, refusing to face death on a dueling field of honor, repeatedly bending to majority will to allow slavery while carping away in their pamphlets and tracts. Although not unique in history, I propose that the slaveholding secessionist surprise at organized, sustained defense of a democratic republic by those who believed in the rule of law and majority rule as recounted in Ferguson, somehow be reflected in the body of this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thomas scholarship

JimWae (talk | contribs) observes in tagging (→History: this seems to be mostly opinion (unsourced editorial and Thomas') rather than historical background). The volume "The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865" is one of the "New American Nation Series" published by Harper Colophon Books, edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris. JimWae has come to my assistance several times, so while WP policy does not require editors to cite the reference notes of a reliable source, it seems a courtesy which has been earned, and easily given in collegial collaboration. I still miss stuff, and I still need his help. That said, from (Thomas 1979, notes on pages 4-5):

"8 Emphasis on ideology in the American experience is well expressed Bailyn Ideological Origins, pp.v-x; Eugene D. Genovese, "The Slave South: an interpretation," in The political economy of slavery: studies in the economy and society of the Slave South (New York, 1969); Eric Foner, Free soil, free labor, free men: the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (New York, 1970), especially pp.1-10; and Raimondo Luraghi, Storia della guerra civile americana (Turin, Italy, 1966), especially pp.5-103, and "The Civil War and the modernization of American society: social structure and Industrial Revolution in the Old South before and after the War," Civil War History, XVIII (1972), 230-251.

"In his brilliant essay "The historian's use of nationalism and vice versa," published first in Alexander V. Riasonovsky and Barnes Riznik (eds.) Generalizations in historical writing ([University of Pennsylvania] Philadelphia, 1963), and later in The South and the sectional conflict (Baton Rouge, La., 1968), David Potter uses nationalism in such a way as to imply (at least) ideology.

"9 Cf. Charles G. Sellers, Jr. The Southerner as American (Chapel Hill, NC, 1960); Howard Zinn, The Southern Mystique (New York, 1959); and F.N. Boney [University of Georgia], "The southern aristocrat" The Midwest Quarterly, XV (1974)), 215-230, which express in different ways a contrary viewpoint.

"10 Updated expositions of the Southern-American theme are Sheldon Hackney, "The South as a counterculture" The American Scholar 42 (1973), 283-293; and George B. Tindall, "Beyond the mainstream: the ethnic southerners," Journal of Southern History, XL (1974), 3-18. The most complete explanation of the problem is in C. Vann Woodward The burden of Southern history, enlarged edition (Baton Rouge LA 1968), and American counterpoint: slavery and racism in the North-South dialogue(Boston, 1971)."

-- Note, the link to the Italian Wikipedia for Raimondo Luraghi is not properly coded. But I hope that suffices to remove the tags. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

History intro tags removed.

• Citation needed tag (A) was said to be required for the statement, “That there was a Confederate experience and an American Civil War was due to the fact that a a sufficient number of whites considered themselves more Southern than American." JimWae has previously demonstrated a wider reading and command of this topic than I have. I assure all that I am not editorializing, but fairly representing the historian Emory Thomas. The citation is to page 3. The sentence paraphrased is "The essential fact of Confederate experience was that a sufficient number of white Southern Americans felt more Southern than American or, perhaps more accurately, that they were orthodox Americans and Northerners were apostates." I have also read historians that propose it was the Secessionists who were the true Americans, such as "Cousin" Ludwell H. Johnson at the College of William and Mary.

I am persuaded that, to the extent the United States is a democratic republic, that somewhere in the calculus at Wikipedia, votes should be counted. It may be as JimWae has tagged, that the South was purely American, and the larger number of Northerners were no longer properly to be called "American", and the Thomas citation as given is not a reliable source, perhaps. But rather than tagging Thomas, I would ask JimWae for an alternate source, as I do not consider those I have read who hold that point of view to be the mainstream of American historiography, my "Cousins", et alia, notwithstanding.

• Citation needed tag (B) was said to require a citation to support "interests and institutions became ideals and goals". I assure all that that is what Thomas said, to be found at the cited reference. It is a paperback edition, I hope I did not mixup the hardback and paperback ISBNs, which I have done before on these pages. I still need JimWae's oversight, and I do not pretend otherwise. Thomas also referenced the Adams-Jefferson correspondence about the Revolution in the minds of Americans before it occurred. I also left out the "secular transubstantiation" bit found there. Here, is it that i messed up on citation protocol? Does the citation need to be adjacent to the quotation marks as well at the end of the paragraph to the same page in the same reference?

• Clarify tag (C) is given reason=worldview (and values and belief systems) transcends ideology???}} Well, yes, that is the point Thomas makes. Thomas supports his point of view with Bailyn, Genovese, Foner, Luraghi, Potter, Zinn, Boney, Hackney, and Woodward, historians all. It may be that social history is suspect as a discipline, although the American Historical Association sponsors conferences on the perspective, and it lists the Social Science History Association (SSHA) as an affiliate.

Does JimWae's greater experience at WP see the general reader understanding ideology as the over-arching determinant in each society's zeigheist??? I thought ideology a moveable feast, transitory phases serving more central values and significant others, put on and taken off as a coat under setting and rising sun, like Marxists becoming neo-conservatives when Stalinist Communism disappointed, for example. Is it more than that? Lets get a reference from the non-historian perspective before we tag the historians in the "History" section introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I restored two tags before I saw this here. I will think about this some more.
  • However, when quotes are used, it needs to be entirely clear WHERE they come from - we should not have to presume they come from a source later in the paragraph. What might be acceptABLE style among history profs familiar (or expected to be so) with the texts appears to me to be a problem in a general purpose encyclopedia.
  • Overall, I find much of this section to be more grandiose verbosity (even pomposity) and opinion (even if it is the opinion of historians) rather than informative. We end up with grand phrases but vacuous sentences. I cannot tell if this comes directly from the source or is the result of an attempt to "sum up"--JimWae (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I find the phrasing "That there was a Confederate experience and an American Civil War..." problematic especially because of the first 5 words. I think it would be more descriptive to begin: "That the Confederacy was ever formed and a Civil War followed..." Non-Americans & non-historians might think "Confederate experience" means something "extra", but not know what it is supposed to be.--JimWae (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The whole issue from "a sufficient number of whites considered themselves more Southern than American" regarding whether the North or the South was more "American" is resolved simply by stating those whites identified themselves more with their state and their culture than with the entire national entity -- & that sectionalism had been growing as the issue of slavery became more important--JimWae (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ideologies are composed of and unify values and belief systems, so saying they transcend it appears to be more empty rhetoric --JimWae (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • RE: “Interests and institutions became ideals and goals”. Besides asking for a clear source for quoted material, I question the informative value of including this sentence at all. Its meaning is somewhat opaque (and grandiose), but it seems it could be applied to a great many interests and ideals, and says little specific to this topic--JimWae (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Altering the Republic

I removed the bold face portion of this sentence from the lede. "The U.S. used military action to defeat the Confederacy, altering the republic which had been united without coercion." From a strictly factual basis it is inaccurate with respect to the American Revolution -- there was considerable coercion against the British and, more importantly, the Loyalists.

My main objection, however, is the POV. Both supporters and opponents of the theoretical constitutional right of secession begin their arguments with the founding of the nation and the drafting of the Constitution. It is an extreme POV to suggest in the article lede that the pro-secessionist position (i.e. a voluntary association that could be dissolved at will) was always the case while the anti-secessionist position was something that arose only when the Civil War "alter[ed] the republic". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

- (1) The original thirteen colonies formed a republic among themselves without coercion. Other English colonies were invited, such as Bermuda, where Washington sold his wheat once he got out of the tobacco business, but they declined. In 1774-1775 the Continental Congress published pamphlets in French for les inhabitants, "You have been conquered into liberty," But events did not prove the publisher's clarion call. The British and Loyalists were monarchists and never pretended to the republic.

- (2) It is rather an extreme POV to attribute republicanism to George III. Most Loyalists were disenfranchised, property confiscated or their entire families expelled -- monarchist cleansing maybe, but without the slaughter. U.S. Senator Harry Byrd, Sr., and U.S. Senator Harry Byrd, Jr., of Virginia were descended of Loyalists who founded apple orchards on the frontier. But to your larger point about coercing the English, cite sources that George III was coerced into a republic with the colonies of North America before you attribute POV to editors in disagreement with your premis.

- (3) There can be no secession from Union as the Constitution is written, although one may speculate that if an amendment were passed in the same percentages that the union was entered into, it might be then, but only then, the fundamental law being altered in that way, the people in three-fourths of the states agreeing. The South Carolina legislature received no such concurrence as provided for in the Constitution. Mr. Calhoun's "concurrent majority" in each of three regions was a rehash of outvoted proposals in the Constitutional Convention, but was not adopted as an Amendment of fundamental law among We, the people. There was no 20-year "long train of abuses", in 1860, no president since Andrew Jackson had served more than one term, all in sympathy with slavery, as was the Supreme Court the entire time. No northern majority voted together across party lines until 1858, rejecting the "Ruffian" undemocratic terrorist outrage of the "LeCompton Constitution" which sought a slave-holding Kansas.

- (4) The point of the sentence is that many, perhaps the majority of secessionists were surprised that they were not let go without a fight. For all the bravado about x Rebels outfighting 10x Yankees, it is a commonplace among Civil War historians that the Union troops in the Army of the Potomac were never beat, only their generals were. See the grudging mutual respect of the men fighting. After the war, there is no "states rights" appeal to bullets sustained for half a decade to slaughter another half a million, only the ballot, as provided for in the United States Constitution. Characterize that statement as you will. If it is that confusing to experienced WP editors, then I propose to leave it out of the introduction. The referenced observation is in Ferguson. For the purposes of collaboration, I concur with Tom (North Shoreman) in his edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How about the Perpetual Union provision of the Articles of Confederation? --JWB (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) The Continental Congress declares independence of the "separate and equal" people without coercion in 1776.

(2) The Articles are entered into unanimously, voluntarily without coercion over the five years from 1777 to 1782.

(3) The Constitution is declared ratified by the Articles Congress with eleven states in 1788, dissolving itself without coercion in 1790.

(4) The Constitution begins unanimously without coercion over two years from 1788 to 1790. Since it took two years to adopt not five, the Founding Fathers thought that the Constitution was perhaps two times better than the Articles. France is in its Fifth Republic, but the U.S. has the same prescriptive charter for two centuries.

(5) Given the world history of forming nation-states by suppression and conquest with privileges granted to favored subjects, the United States was fortunate to gain a nation with rights and liberties guaranteed to citizens and expanded by Amendment without the perpetual coercion of rebellion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Town Line, New York

This image should have a green dot in upstate New York to show that Town Line, New York voted 85 to 40 to secede from the Union in 1861, became an exclave of the Confederate States of America, and provided five soldiers for the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no reason why this bit of trivia should be mentioned ANYWHERE on wikipedia other than, possibly, in the article on Town Line. Can you cite any reliable source on the CSA or the Civil War that discusses this? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Town Line NY notes the vote is never reaffirmed with any enacting legislation. (1) There was no vote for Jefferson Davis for president on the date required by the Confederate Provisional Congress. (2) Whig Congressman, "Spot" Lincoln had a test for determining loyalty of "the people" that he used to ascertain whether the spot of the cattle raid starting the Mexican-American War was in the U.S. or Mexico. ("Anyone can draw a map." Lincoln observed that they paid taxes to Mexican government.) Town Line is not reported making tax remittances to CSA (or US). (3) The town did not enforce Confederate conscription laws, and no reported resistance to Federal conscription laws. (4) At a time when men voted with their feet, five from Town Line are reported in the article going for the grey, twenty for the blue. So I say, no obedience to Confederate election law, no payment of Confederate taxes, and no enforcement of Confederate conscription law for men ages 17-50. No dot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. :-) . With permission, The rest of the story:The secessionists fled the hamlet 14 miles outside Buffalo, NY for Canada in August 1864 with the rumors of a massing Confederate army in Canada. In September 1945, a 97-year old Confederate veteran pleaded, “give the United States another try.” The town voted 29-1 Rebel, but it reconciled at President Truman’s suggestion to use a feast of road kill barbeque to make peace. I get it now. But here, could we treat the Civil War as a serious topic? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Intro, draft ii

- Point #1. Thank you for the courtesy of a reply.

- Point #2. “grandiose pomposity”, okay, on re-reading, perhaps I slip into it in response to the offhanded dismissal generally given to lost causes. (Not JimWae, note the submission was tagged, not blanked.) I promise that it is toned down from most sources, but I’ll work on it. Serious men undertook a serious enterprise, one which I disagree with, but which I understand and respect just as much as I do the escaped slave who would dare wear Union blue in the front lines of a combat firefight, and stand. -- rats, I did it again. Is it just a "Southron" thing and I can't help it? Thank goodness for collaboration.

- Reworked the lead sentences generally following editorial direction from JimWae‘s point #3, #4 and #5.

- Point #7. Removed the offending generalization “Interests and …” tagged with “citation needed” which historians unacquainted with social sciences found instructive in 1970s. Provided specifics of interests involved, “tariffs …”, etc. Reworked “transcended ideology” above to reflect “ideology” use by historians, moving away from obscure allusions to ideologies of “free trade” or “states rights” to reflecting concrete, political concerns of “tariffs, …”

- Point #6. An ideology such as Marxism is subservient to values when a believer rejects the constructs because of the mass murder which proceeded from Stalin’s logical application of the doctrine. An ideology such as Marxism is subservient to societal ties when an “Uncle Kulak” weeps at the loss of the entire extended family left behind by starvation, and the believer leaves the Party. In neither case did value judgement against mass murder nor family circumstance undergoing genocide alter the objective reality of the struggling workers' oppression worldwide.

- Social Psychology does not have the same cachet as Clinical Psychology, or Political Science, but it helps in understanding how people relate to one another in a way applicable in describing how groups act in concert to sustain folkways or to effect and transmit change. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I also followed Rjensen editorial contribution to develop his treatment of southern white minorities found in every state. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

History intro, draft iii

I explicitly named the ideology "states rights", added additional concrete examples of splitting national parties and national churches, and belatedly bunkered bits of the bloviating.

JimWae's earlier edit chose to go silent on the South's "plain folk". We in the South do make a distinction between the "yeomenry" of small farms and the trades versus the "plain folk" day laborers living in the "hills". The distinction is commonly made throughout American culture and society. James Michener writes empathetically of them in "Chesapeake" as the marshland Turlock family who were basically hunters-gatherers, describing their women through the generations as strikingly beautiful. MSNBC morning commentators today refer to them smirkingly as our "poor white trash". "Trailer trash" is no better, not really. It never ends. How do you expect us to forget it? Maybe the day the heroic monumental gilded equestrian statue of William Techumseh Sherman is taken down at the north end of NYCs Grand Central Park. Rats - I did it again. Thank goodness for collaboration. Let us spare the gentle reader. At least Wikipedia uses the horse's statue in Washington, DC.

On reflection it is probably best to leave the "plain folk" out of the introduction, although the social reality was once significant enough so as to be seriously treated at length in descriptions of the sociological make up of Confederate armies by scholars such as Joseph Glatthaar (University of North Carolina) in his Lee's army: from victory to collapse (2008) ISBN 978-06-8-482787-2. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So, regarding the "plain folk" of the South. WoopWoop reminds me in Town Line -- is that where the REAL "Buffalo wings" come from? -- to lighten up. I really did laugh out loud at nationally televised series HEE HAW with the shanty house porch skits. And Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a redneck" comedy routine may have done more for national goodwill between the sections since Lee and Grant sat down together by the little table in John McLean's livingroom at Appomattox Courthouse. Sort of like going from Redd Foxx to Richard Pryor to Eddie Murphy to Bill Cosby for racial harmony, maybe, just maybe. (politicians Stephen Douglas (white), Frederick Douglass (black), comedians Red Buttons (white), Redd Foxx (black). get it?) - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Confederate States of America → Confederate States – Per consistancy, as the United States of America article is named United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• oppose the RS and the popular sources are unanimous in using the "CSA" form. I can't recall anyone using the "CS" form in a book. (in 2012, by contrast, both "USA" and "US" are in common usage). Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• oppose-I also oppose the name change and move.Dubyavee (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• undecided. A similar discussion without formal application for article name change was broached at American Civil War. Reference was made to data provided by the “Ngram Viewer” out of Harvard to determine name frequency during discussion. There it rests at one for "United States Civil War", three for "American Civil War". I'm not sure what goes into the naming process, reading links now.

Ngram Viewer for U.S. terms, “United States” was most frequent, trailed far behind by “the Union” and last by “United States of America. Ngram Viewer for C.S. terms, “the Confederacy” was most frequent, “Confederate States” twice closely approached it, and usually half of that was “Confederate States of America”. My own reading experience coincides with Rjensen. Undecided. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that this search is flawed. Since Confederate States is included in the search term Confederate States of America, the results for the former include all of the hits of the latter. The search is not exclusive.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rjensen's rationale concerning the RS's and our common name policy. I don't believe that the usage is unanimous as stated by Rjensen but I certainly do think it is the most prevalent form. Additionally, there are several thousand articles which link to this one. I stopped counting when I went over 5000 (see for yourself (articles only excluding redirects)). Unless such a move is very well justified in policy, it doesn't make sense to create that many redirects. I see the nominator has cited consistency as the reason for a move. That would need to be bolstered with a policy otherwise it seems to fall into the other stuff exists category.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose following Rjensen and Berean Hunter. Any change should be without chaos.

But as a footnote to our discussion, the noted Ngram syntax flaw can be compensated by using Algebra. The two terms are additive as reported. If we choose a CS-CSA- smoothing of 3 for the ten-year period 1998-2008, , we see (a) “Confederate States of America” holds at .00002% on the Y-axis.

CS starts at .00008%, troughs at .00004& in 2003, then finishes at .00007%. We subtract the .00002 added in for the CSA due to the observed syntax flaw in the Ngrams program, so (b) CS is now 1998: .00006 down to 2003: .00002% equal to CSA, then up to 2008: .00005%.

(c) ”Confederate States” is found 2-3 times as frequently in English than “Confederate States of America” over the ten year period, 1995-2005, using a stratified random sample from each year. Nevertheless, and all points to the contrary notwithstanding, I begin leaning with Rjensen from my own reading, but I find the possible disruption pointed out by Berean Hunter is persuasive. oppose. Rats, JimWae, I did it again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That, however, does not take into account situations where first mention is "Confederate States of America" & later ones are shorter. Also, sometimes expressions that are on separate lines and/or broken by dashes are not properly evaluated --JimWae (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I follow. The easy item would be the line-break. Run a statistically sound sample of texts and expression(s) and line breaks to determine if the incidence is significant. If it is not, the syntax is acceptable, if not, not, add code. The harder item is CSA in the title, forward, and first paragraph of every chapter, followed by CS as shorthand throughout the remainder of the text, counted against the CSA context. That CS count is invalid for our purposes. That implies that in determining Wikipedia article titles, we need the project to provide us with a subset data selection of "titles only", maybe, speaking as a consumer/user. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Consistency is often important but does not invariably trump other considerations. CSA is definitely better known outside the USA than CS, see WP:BIAS about dangers of systemic bias. Actually, I would cautiously favour moving US to USA, but that's another discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead introduction with state and territory enumerations.

Following Mudwater's edit adding enumeration of states and territories in the lead introduction, I edited the links to "[place] in the American Civil War" and "Confederate Territory of Arizona". Editors may want to consider whether state and territory enumeration meets WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY. The thirteen original states are not enumerated in the American Revolution, but planets are called out in solar system. undecided. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC) If enumeration of the states in the lead text is objectionable, I would like to keep the listing in a note by the summary expression in the lead. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit summary, the names of the eleven Confederate states -- seven of which I added in my edit -- are definitely key information that should be mentioned in the lead section. I also think the second paragraph of the lead, where the states are mentioned, is well written and very appropriate for the lead section, going on to talk about some of the other states, and territories, and their relation to the Confederacy. This is in the context of a lead that's about 450 words, an appropriate length for an article this size. And not to get side tracked by quibbling about words, but saying that the states are "enumerated" makes it sound like there's a long list of them embedded in the article. There aren't that many, and their names are included in prose that, like I say, in my view is well written and, because it contains key info, should definitely be included in the lead. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Strictly southern"

Anonymous *224.16 proposes to edit according to a “strictly southern” criterion to exclude cities from the article. “Strictly Southern cities” in 1860 lie below the Mason-Dixon Line and allow legal racial slavery. The “South Carolina Secession Banner” at the SC Secessionist Convention with the inscription “Built on the ruins” featured the Palmetto palm with slave-holding state building blocks of the Confederacy -- all fifteen in the U.S. See Emory T. Thomas, "The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865" (1979) ISBN 0-06-090703-7 Chapter 3. "Foundations of the Southern Nation". See the visual evidence by any web search on “South Carolina secession banner” to see all fifteen slave states included.

But additionally, consider Border states in turn as treated in E. Morton Coulter’s classic “The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865”, (1955) ISBN 978-08-0-710007-3 published in the Louisiana State University’s “History of the South” series. Davis proclamation May 6, 1861 “recognizing hostilities with the United States excepted all the Border slave states.” (Coulter p.54). The Border slave states were “a fringe running from Delaware west through Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri” (Coulter p.43). “Delaware had few of the characteristics of the South except her tenacious clinging to the institution of slavery”. (Coulter, p.44)

In Maryland “there was genuine Southernism” in the Eastern Shore, Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore and south (Coulter, p.44). In Kentucky, Governor Beriah Magoffin was a “thoroughgoing secessionist and made every effort to take his state out of the Union”. The C.S. Congress appropriated $1 million to secure a Confederate Kentucky and admitted Kentucky in December (Coulter, p.45-46). Missouri Governor Claiborne F. Jackson advocated secession and anti-Lincoln to Lincoln vote having been 9:1, he had “no good reason to doubt his success”. While the German population of St. Louis could not be ignored, the C.S. Congress appropriated an additional $1 million to secure a Confederate Missouri and admitted Missouri in November (Coulter, p.47-48).

What sources may there be to define some cities below the Mason Dixon Line as not “strictly southern”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In our contemporary day, a good diagnostic for "strictly southern" is grits for breakfast in restaurants. The mapping is variable. In Virginia, grits are served automatically with an order north to Staunton on I-81, Petersburg on I-95, Fredericksburg on US-1. Still holdouts in pockects of eastern Maryland on the way to the beach...on the other hand, great Italian gelato in Baltimore near Johns Hopkins. Is that the basis for objecting to treating Baltimore as a "strictly southern" city in 1860 for this article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Post Office

WP:ACCESS would have all images on one side so that article text is not broken up. "Postmaster General" portrait and "The 1st stamp" honoring Jefferson Davis remain. Two other icons of the Confederacy are added: Andrew Jackson and George Washington. Previously, the second and third images of Jefferson Davis showing alternative engraving styles is appropriate to the "Main article" link. They are beautiful in distinctive, important ways.

But for an article of history in politics and policy, images should illustrate that Confederates did not commemorate Davis alone. In undertaking their "Revolution" they sought to emulate slave-holder George Washington's original principles. In pursuing national "Independence" they saw themselves in the tradition of another southern general-politician, slave-holder Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans in the 1814 victory over larger numbers invading from the wealthy British Empire. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA states evolution . gif

Added File:CSA states evolution:gif to Secession section. Earlier objections seem to have been overcome as I found it at Wikimedia Commons. On my browser, it takes two clicks to get to animation, which is why I so noted in the map caption. Kentucky and Missouri are now noted as having had resolutions of secession, but only note the Confederate claim, leaving the de facto control colored Union. This is consistent with the article narrative, and the counting of eleven states in the Confederate States.

A few powerful insights jump out, as graphic presentation using spacial recognition creates larger, better and more immediate cognitive awareness than lineal text. (1) The free state of Kansas is admitted before Lincoln’s inauguration and before the Texas referendum landslide amidst Texas rumors that “Bleeding Kansas” was the source of funding and arms for slave-labor unrest and Plains Indian raids. Physical security is the first duty of government, and the Union failed to defend, nay, promoted insecurity, Texan secessionists said.

(2) Between Kansas, West Virginia’s creation and Nevada (violating Congressional population criteria, but there was silver and gold, sort of like the Cherokee in Georgia, gold means the law “just depends”). With Lincoln’s “Presidential Reconstruction” readmission of Congressional delegations from Tennessee and Louisiana, I think that makes the three-fourths states to Constitutionally abolish slavery if all the loyal states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, new states Kansas, West Virginia and Nevada, and Congressionally re-admitted Tennessee and Louisiana, all line up along with the free-soil states antebellum for the Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery – without another state required from the former Confederacy …

(3) The map reflects the new scholarship which includes Reconstruction as an extension of the Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And as I said on TheVirginiaHistorian's talk page, I'm aware of some factual errors with it and some other issues (the Missouri and Kentucky secessions need to be treated with more nuance, the two extra counties of West Virginia need to be handled somehow, and it's well known that the colors are garish), and am always open to learning any other improvements. In fact, I voted to remove it as a featured image because I know it has shortcomings. I want to make a thumbnailed animation with much of the detail trimmed so it can be animated in the article itself. I'm also going to drop the 31 day meter since that's not needed. --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I object very much to this map, unless some changes are made to it. It shows KY and MO seceding (green), this is very deceptive to people who don't understand what actually happened. It shows WV as a Union state while KY & MO are marked as seceded. WV is the fly in the ointment here. I would point out this map [1] which shows how much of WV publicly voted to leave the US along with the rest of VA. So how is this going to be conveyed on a map? It shows MO and KY being more supportive of the CSA than it actually was, and WV as being less supportive than it actually was. The only solution I can see is showing KY and MO in another color than green, or just making the border states as a group a different color. There really is no way to accurately portray what happened in a map like this unless it is made much more detailed. Dubyavee (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) I very much endorse Dubyavee's proposal to in some way distinctively tint the coloration of the special cases found in Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia. (a) Following the Dubyavee discussion, the KY and MO mapping should read more aligned with the Union, but tinted towards the Confederacy in a way which is readily distinctive from Massachusetts, for instance. This can be done with computer coloration in a similar way that "blue" states and "red" states are shown as various hues of "purple" designating contemporary election results commonly found in daily newspapers and weekly news magazines. (b) Rather than a label "secession" as in consensus Confederate states, that for KY and MO should be "secession ordinance" at a bare minimum, some distinctive phrasing, not identical to the eleven. The casual reader will see there is a difference to investigate. Dubyavee is correct, we need to find a way to convey the information without misleading. These are important distinctions that Golbez has indicated a willingness to work with us for this article.

(2) West Virginia has at least three county votes that reflect the complexity of underlying social and political reality. More detail can be shown in pop up county maps as Dubyavee suggests. Within the borders of WV, there can be three squares in a contrasting but related color, labeled [1], [2] and [3], each dated appropriately with a short summary summary paragraph and supporting county tables. The box [1] would reflect the first secessionist convention vote, say. Moving the cursor over the box would pop up a WV county map. Box [2] would display a popup to reflect the second secessionist convention vote. Box [3] could show votes taken in the plebiscite/referendum to join WV after its establishment, or whatever variable milestones from our consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done the first steps in creating a second version of the map. I work backwards with these, from current borders and editing back. So far I've gotten back to April 9, 1865. So I obviously haven't done much. I'm leaving the question of the West Virginia counties to a later date, but my question right now is... what were the borders of the CSA? In the GIF, they include the rebel states and Arizona Territory. I was wondering if Indiana Territory should also be included, since the Cherokee had delegates in the Congress just like Arizona Territory did, but the nations there never ceded themselves directly to the CSA. And since the Creek, Choctaw, and Seminole also had delegates, it doesn't necessarily mean that delegation confers additional jurisdiction.

As for KY and MO - Obviously they weren't formally part of the CSA, but they did have Confederate governments significant enough to send representation to the Confederate Congress, and therefore need to be set apart somehow. The animated map I made is pretty old, and I have since learned more techniques to express more information rather than the broadsword of "Make them a color! Big letters! Small words! Let the text explain it!" which didn't help since there was no text.

The next frame back will have the CSA set off with its own borders, including Arizona Territory but not KY, MO, or Indian Territory; these three will be shaded. I'll keep y'all posted. --Golbez (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA POV is embedded in the captions. Captions and legends say that states "seceded", instead of "declared secession" or "seceding". It shows KY & MO as "seceded states". It has states "readmitted to the Union", instead of "restored".--JimWae (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of what I meant about needing more nuance. Well aware. Trying to fix. Help out. (although, so far as I know, "readmitted" is perfectly standard usage, and is used multiple times in our article on Reconstruction) --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this involves a lot of work for Golbez and I appreciate the time taken to do this. The complicated question of the Border States I think is much too difficult for a timeline .gif image. It would perhaps be best to have the Border States a separate color from the Confederacy and Union, and in 1863 add WV to the Border States and leave it at that without introducing county-level secession. I think the text of the article covers the intricacies well enough. Keeping it simple is best. If it works, it shows the timeline of secession well and might be an addition to the article. Perhaps Golbez has other things to do than rework this image, and if so, then we should drop the map from the article. Dubyavee (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It'll be an animated image, a list article, etc... And I'm not sure if by 'border states' you mean 'ones with a secessionist government' like MO and KY, or all Union slave states, including DE and MD? WV definitely falls into "claimed by the CSA", as do MO and KY, but unlike those it actually was part of the CSA for a time.

I just came up with another question: Should the military districts be illustrated in any way? --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA states GIF design

color selection. Generally, I concur with Dubyavee until we see what Golbez comes up with. Point of personal priviledge: red is the universal color assigned the enemy units in freshman R.O.T.C. mapping convention; I’d like to avoid red in this application. I believe Golbez is working out his own pastel pallet, but for general and preliminary contemplation and cogitation, from 1860 Presidential Election, we might select something approximating

(a) Union = Douglas’ 1860 map blue.

(b) Confederacy 11 = Breckinridge 1860 map green.

(c) All others claimed by CSA = Lincoln’s 1860 map peach, to wit, WV, KY, MO, Indian Territory, Confederate Arizona Territory.

terminology. I concur with JimWae's points generally,

(a) Captions reading “declared secession” is good for Confederacy 11 and also for those conventions recognized by the CSA for mapping MO, KY, Indian Territory and Arizona Territory, allowing for a distinctive color to be used on them.

(b) the states in rebellion, Congressional delegations in the 38th U.S. Congress denoted as “vacant” had delegations subsequently seated along the timeline the previous edition of the CSA state evolution GIF map shows. They may be captioned “readmitted to Congress” without POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

re colors: I'm really hoping to avoid bright garishness. Compare the maps at Territorial evolution of the United States with my newer palette at Territorial evolution of Canada and you'll see the direction I hope to move. Right now I have a slightly subdued red for 'states still needing to be reconstructed', and am trying to figure out what color to use for the CSA as an independent unit. I know the red might not be the best touch, but colors are the easiest thing to change so I'm open to suggestions once the first version is up. I'm trying to avoid "unnatural" and bright colors like green or blue. Unfortunately, this is a much more complicated subject than Canada (sorry, Canada), with colors required for: US states, US territories, CS states, CS territories, seceded, split government seceded [KY, MO, maybe WV], claimed by CS but never under control [KY, MO, maybe WV], and aligned with CS [Indian Terr]. That quickly runs me out of available earth tones. (And there's also the question of if the Neutral Strip was considered included in Indian Territory for the CS's purposes) --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

re captions: Don't worry, they'll be better. The way I was doing things before, I had tied myself to fitting text into the corner of the map with large type, and that's no longer a concern. It will treat KY and MO with much more nuance than exists in the current map, will deal with WV better, and for the first time I think will actually mention Indian Territory.

While doing this, I'm also making a timeline article like the previous two linked, so we can step through it and ensure there's no outstanding POV or factual issues. My plan is to have a triple threat: A full-featured animated gif similar to what we have now; a territorial evolution article; and a mini-gif suitable for embedding into an article that omits most labels and simplifies the graphics, yet doesn't dumb down the subject. --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very nice of Golbez to take this on, I know it is a lot of work. I would like to add my concern here on WV, which is my special field. The map should treat WV in the same manner as KY and MO in terms of divided sentiment and areas claimed, and also partially controlled, by the CSA. First, from the CSA point of view it was still part of Virginia and therefore the Confederacy. The Confederacy controlled much of southern and eastern WV through 1863 (see footnote 84 in the article). In 1862 martial law was declared by the CSA in 10 southern counties, comprising nearly 1/3 the territory of the state. Martial law was lifted early in 1863. WVians participated in both Federal and Confederate elections in May of 1863. If anyone has any questions about this please ask. Dubyavee (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The more I work on this, the more I realize my goal of nuanced, subtle colors probably won't work. They're just too similar. I'm going to have to go garish. Should have something ready in a day or two. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA mock-up GIF 02/07/2012

To the right is an example of one frame. Literally everything in it is up for discussion, so please comment. The list of changes is the same as what we currently have, except it will of course be more accurate wrt KY and MO. I decided that (I think it was?) VirginiaHistorian was right that we can get away with abbreviating New England, since this is fundamentally a CSA map and not a USA map and we can take slight liberties with the USA portion. I'd also like advice on how best to describe Indian Territory's status. Note that it is on the US side of the thick international border. The main benefit of moving the description to the bottom is we have arbitrarily more room to describe what's going on. It also makes it look more professional. Finally, I'm wondering - I use the 'international border' to set the CSA apart from the USA, should it also surround seceded states before they join the CSA? Since they did, I believe, consider themselves independent republics at the time. --Golbez (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

color palate: I really like the combinations as presented, and their alignments to the legend categories and their relationships.

My concern is that they will be too similar to rapidly acquire, but I hope the text labels will make this less of an issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Scale break: Along the longitude of scale break, the convention in engineering drawings is two thin parallel zig-zag accordion-like lines. We might adopt that convention with the text between them, “-- smaller map scale west --” and repeat the phrase to a number of complete statements extending just inside the Mexican and Canadian borders. My choice for placement relative to U.S. political geography would be nearby the Continental Divide, say 110-degrees West Longitude.

The gains would be far outweighed by the costs, especially when you consider that the Confederacy at one point extended from Wilmington to Yuma. Would we gain anything by accordioning Arizona Territory? --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Text area: really good idea for legend, lists, four-cell charts, extended remarks. But more information presents the problem of timed-limit 3-second acquisition.

- Any thoughts on how to approach this? Can there be a toggle 3-second/7-second choice? Is it possible to provide the reader a click-driven virtual map flip-chart option using these same frames? Would that solution still be a Wiki-GIF ? I would not want to lose the fluid, proportional rendition of the timeline sequence modeled from beginning to end.

You say "Wiki-GIF" as if this is a special feature; it's just your standard Gif87 format. Which doesn't allow for such things. The list article will allow readers to go frame-by-frame, so the animation doesn't necessarily need that. I could up it to 4 seconds but I'd rather not upload versions whose only difference is speed. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Claimed areas contested by exile governments: use the same color choice as shown in Indian Territory. Almost immediately on Secession Resolutions, Confederate-recognized governments in the following areas functioned in exile from their principal antebellum capital:

(a) Missouri and Kentucky,

(b) Indian Territory, Arizona Territory

(c) “Restored Virginia” (1861) at Wheeling, then West Virginia (1863)

- at WV frame, note in description area the counties additional to initial composition of the declared state of "Kanawha".

Missouri and Kentucky will have colors midway (literally) between the U.S. yellow and the C.S. green; Indian Territory's is literally midway between the U.S. Territory brown and the C.S. green; Arizona Territory, being actually claimed and controlled by the CS, will be in a darker green, similar to how U.S. territories are in a darker color. West Virginia is kind of a matter I'm leaving til the end, since it's such a complicated matter.

- I concur with Dubyavee. “Restored Virginia” certainly and then WV until the cessation of hostilities could not administer a substantial portion of its territory and claimed population. Apart from one’s “de jure” take on the situation, this was the mirror “de facto” situation that the Confederate state governments suffered in Missouri and Kentucky.

- To avoid assuming a point of view WP:POV they all, MO, KY, and WV, Indian and Arizona Territories, should receive the same color treatment. At the “April 1865” frame, WV, KY, MO, Indian Territory and Arizona Territory should be the first regions to take on the Union coloration, before any “Readmitted to Congress” timeline label on states of “the former Confederacy”. See 38th United States Congress#House by state delegations.

There are differences between the above, though. MO and KY were claimed by the CSA but never controlled; Arizona was claimed and controlled by the CSA; Indian Territory was aligned with/controlled but not claimed by the CSA (from what I understand, though it did kind of have representation in the Confederate Congress); and West Virginia is just a mess. I figure Arizona and Indian Territories disappear the moment the war ends, since Indian Territory was never part of the CSA, and Arizona Territory did not need to be readmitted (nor had it really existed for years at that point; I may indicate this in the map) --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

International border. There might be two international borders, one solid, one dashes.

(a) Solid lines would mark borders where they are not contested, U.S.-Canada, U.S.-Mexico.

(b) Dotted or dashed lines should mark the contested, de facto, borders of the Confederacy and the Union, in the same way modern maps denote Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

Since this is kind of from the CSA's point of view (not in a way that invalidates NPOV, I just mean... we are saying what they declared to be true. A map from the USA's point of view would not have them be a separate country. A neutral map indicates the dispute, but since this is laser-focused on that dispute, we don't need to go overboard with it) and because dotted lines are a hassle, I'd rather not. There's a difference in this map than, say, India/Pakistan over Kashmir, as I don't need to indicate what areas are disputed - the entire issue is disputed. That known, we have some leeway in how it's expressed. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

- The Confederate dashed-line border would trace up the Potomac River, WV panhandle, the Ohio River, north border of Missouri, Indian Territory, Texas and west along the Arizona Territory latitude. It would not be a solid international line because its independence was not formally recognized by a foreign nation.

- The Union dashed-line border of early wartime de facto control would trace up the Potomac River then turn along the southern border of WV, KY, MO, Indian Territory, along the north and western border of Texas to the northern border of Confederate Arizona Territory, turn south along the California state border and close at the solid international border with Mexico. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This would make it nearly invisible if placed on top of existing state borders. And if it replaced existing state borders, we suddenly have half the states melting into each other. I also don't want to indicate wartime control because that was very fluid. This is a political map, war maps are elsewhere. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The color palette, palate, pallette, pallet, that you are developing is absolutely superlative, and it conveys the information much better than the usual graphic presentation we get in news magazines and textbooks. I can hardly wait to see the next step. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA Timeline

Here's my working timeline for the maps, please let me know if anything is missing or incorrect. --Golbez (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• 1860-12-20: South Carolina secedes.
• 1861-01-09: Mississippi secedes.
• 1861-01-10: Florida secedes.
• 1861-01-11: Alabama secedes.
• 1861-01-19: Georgia secedes.
• 1861-01-26: Louisiana secedes.
• 1861-01-29: Kansas admitted to US.
• 1861-02-01: Texas secedes.
• 1861-02-08: CS formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery.
• 1861-03-02: Texas admitted to CS.
• 1861-03-28: Mesilla government of Arizona Territory secedes. (Mesilla voted on March 16, Tucson on March 28, but our article on Az Territory labels the latter as the ordinance of secession)
• 1861-04-12: American Civil War begins.
• 1861-04-17: Virginia secedes.
• 1861-05-06: Arkansas secedes.
• 1861-05-07: Tennessee secedes, Virginia admitted to CS.
• 1861-05-18: Arkansas admitted to CS.
• 1861-05-20: North Carolina secedes.
• 1861-05-21: North Carolina admitted to CS.
• 1861-05-29: Capital moved to Richmond.
• 1861-07-02: Tennessee admitted to CS.
• 1861-08-01: Arizona Territory admitted to CS following First Battle of Mesilla.
• 1861-08-20: Wheeling government secedes from Virginia
• 1861-10-31: Neosho government of Missouri secedes.
• 1861-11-20: Bowling Green government of Kentucky secedes.
• 1861-11-28: Missouri admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
• 1861-12-10: Kentucky admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
• 1862-02-14: Arizona Territory organized.
• 1863-06-20: Wheeling government admitted to US as West Virginia
• 1864-10-31: Nevada admitted to US.
• 1865-04-09: Army of Northern Virginia surrenders, effectively ending the war.
• 1866-05-05: Nevada expanded.
• 1866-07-24: Tennessee readmitted to union.
• 1867-01-18: Nevada expanded.
• 1867-03-01: Nebraska admitted to US.
• 1867-07-19: Reconstruction Act passed, creating military districts.
• 1868-06-22: Arkansas readmitted to union.
• 1868-06-25: Florida readmitted to union.
• 1868-07-04: North Carolina readmitted to union.
• 1868-07-09: Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted to union.
• 1868-07-13: Alabama readmitted to union.
• 1870-01-26: Virginia readmitted to union.
• 1870-02-23: Mississippi readmitted to union.
• 1870-03-30: Texas readmitted to union.
• 1870-07-15: Georgia readmitted to union.

Here are some alternate captions:

moved to table below--JimWae (talk) 01

33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to delete this, since almost all of is identical to my list, making it difficult to see any differences; please just add comments after the actual timeline entries you're elaborating on. Also, my timeline wasn't the final version of the captions, far from it, I just wanted to make sure everything was included. I'll have better captions later. --Golbez (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the timeline needs to end on June 19, 1865 (Juneteenth in Texas). and exclude the Arizona stuff 9which was too trivial when all sorts of major events get left out). Rjensen (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The GIF/article will definitely extend to the end of Reconstruction, since that was when all of the political map changes finally ceased. And for a history map like this, nothing is too trivial. What major events got left out? I'm sorry, I just realized I may not have been clear: This is the working timeline for the second version of the animated GIF I'm making, and a companion article, to show the political map changes. A la Territorial evolution of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested adds.

• 1860-11-07: News of Lincoln’s election. “Fire-eater” secessionists call for disunion. => Start frame of "Civil War-Reconstruction" subroutine GIF. or something.
• 1865-04-09: Surrender of Army of Northern Virginia, Confederacy ends government-sanctioned contest of U.S. control over West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian Territory and Confederate Arizona Territory. => GIF frame shows uncontested Union tint.
• 1870-12-22: 41st United States Congress seats last of state delegations once declared “vacant”. => End frame of "Civil War-Reconstruction" subroutine GIF. or something. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

YYYYxxMMxxDD
1860-11-xx		34(?) States at time of Lincoln's election
1860-12-20	South Carolina secedes.	South Carolina declares secession.
1861-01-09	Mississippi secedes.	Mississippi declares secession.
1861-01-10	Florida secedes.	Florida declares secession.
1861-01-11	Alabama secedes.	Alabama declares secession.
1861-01-19	Georgia secedes.	Georgia declares secession.
1861-01-26	Louisiana secedes.	Louisiana declares secession.
1861-01-29	Kansas admitted to US.
1861-02-01	Texas secedes.	Texas declares secession.
1861-02-08	CS formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery.	CSA formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery, AL.
1861-03-02	Texas admitted to CS.	Texas admitted to CSA.
1861-03-28	Mesilla government of Arizona Territory secedes. (Mesilla voted on March 16, Tucson on March 28, but our article on Az Territory labels the latter as the ordinance of secession)	Mesilla government of Arizona Territory votes to secede.
1861-04-12	American Civil War begins.	American Civil War begins, at Fort Sumter.
1861-04-17	Virginia secedes.	Virginia declares secession.
1861-05-06	Arkansas secedes.	Arkansas declares secession.
1861-05-07	Tennessee secedes, Virginia admitted to CS.	Tennessee declares secession, Virginia admitted to CSA.
1861-05-18	Arkansas admitted to CS.	Arkansas admitted to CSA.
1861-05-20	North Carolina secedes.	North Carolina declares secession.
1861-05-21	North Carolina admitted to CS.	North Carolina admitted to CSA.
1861-05-29	Capital moved to Richmond.	CSA capital moved to Richmond, VA.
1861-07-02	Tennessee admitted to CS.	Tennessee admitted to CSA.
1861-08-01	Arizona Territory admitted to CS following First Battle of Mesilla.	Arizona Territory admitted to CSA following First Battle of Mesilla.
1861-08-20	Wheeling government secedes from Virginia
1861-10-31	Neosho government of Missouri secedes.	Neosho government of Missouri declares secession.
1861-11-20	Bowling Green government of Kentucky secedes.	Bowling Green government of Kentucky declares secession.
1861-11-28	Missouri admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
1861-12-10	Kentucky admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
1862-02-14	Arizona Territory organized.	Arizona Territory organized by CSA.
1863-06-20	Wheeling government admitted to US as West Virginia	West Virginia admitted as state to US.
1864-10-31	Nevada admitted to US.
1865-04-09	Army of Northern Virginia surrenders, effectively ending the war.
1865-04-09		Surrender of Army of Northern Virginia, Confederacy ends government-sanctioned contest of U.S. control over West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian Territory and Confederate Arizona Territory.
1866-05-05	Nevada expanded.
1865-06-19			Juneteenth (any change to map?)
1866-07-24	Tennessee readmitted to union.	Tennessee readmitted to Congress.
1867-01-18	Nevada expanded.
1867-03-01	Nebraska admitted to US.
1867-07-19	Reconstruction Act passed, creating military districts.	the 10 states not yet readmitted to Congress organized into 5 military districts (could be diff 5 colors here)
1868-06-22	Arkansas readmitted to union.	Arkansas readmitted to Congress.
1868-06-25	Florida readmitted to union.	Florida readmitted to Congress.
1868-07-04	North Carolina readmitted to union.	North Carolina readmitted to Congress.
1868-07-09	Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted to union.	Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted to Congress.
1868-07-13	Alabama readmitted to union.	Alabama readmitted to Congress.
1870-01-26	Virginia readmitted to union.	Virginia readmitted to Congress.
1870-02-23	Mississippi readmitted to union.	Mississippi readmitted to Congress.
1870-03-30	Texas readmitted to union.	Texas readmitted to Congress.
1870-07-15	Georgia readmitted to union.	Georgia readmitted to Congress.
1870-12-22		41st United States Congress seats last of state delegations once declared “vacant”.

--JimWae (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Secession CSA timeline GIF issue

I see an issue with how to choose the GIF dates unambiguously to avoid POV. I suggest that for mapping purposes of the CSA, we use the “dates admitted to the CSA”. We can use a scholar to assign dates rather than submit original research.

These are the dates taken from Martis, "The historical atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865, p.8, 10. “Admission” which is not the same date as

(1) the earlier and variable date, “seceded” and

(2) the earlier or later date, “referendum” and

(3) the same or later date, “seated”.

Feb 8 : SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX seven “original members”

May 7: VA

May 17: NC and TN, “on certain provisions” which were subsequently satisfied.

May 20: AR

Nov 28: MO

Dec 10: KY

Background on three states illustrate some of the nuances that are problematic in accurately, consistently applying them without POV.

(1) Is secession when a convention says it is (SC), or when it recommends and gives the people a chance to make it so (VA, TX)?

(2) Are delegates legitimate only when their state procedures say so (TX), or when the CS Congress says so (VA)?

(3) Does secession to reverse union require a state convention elected solely for the purpose, or can the legislature recommend a plebiscite to the people to determine the issue directly, results to be proclaimed by a secessionist Governor (TN)?

Dates now put forward for secession in the CSA timeline GIF and some possible variants:

Texas 1861 Feb 1.

Article: resolution Feb 1, referendum Feb 23.

Martis: seceded Feb 1, “original member” Feb 4, “seated” Mar 2. No roll call vote until then. “the ordinance of the secession of Texas does not take effect until the 2d day of March.” (Confederate Journal, Vol. 1, p.60 cited in Martis)

Virginia 1861 Apr 17.

Article: resolution Apr 17, referendum May 23.

Martis: seceded Apr 17, admitted May 7, seated May 7.

Tennessee 1861 Jun 7.

Article: resolution May 7, referendum June 8.

Martis: seceded May 6 without convention, legislature’s ordinance called a referendum [Jun 8], admitted May 17, seated Aug 12.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Junteeth end of CSA for GIF map ( ? )

Although some scholars suppose the Confederacy among some for a time included something other that slavery, Juneteenth is still an interesting sort of slavery-centric date to adopt in this article to signify the end of the Confederate States of America. Rather than, say, count the end of the CSA the end of the last session held by the CS Congress, March 18, 1865 (Martis, “Confederate Congresses” p.2).

Juneteenth was the day in Texas, with 5% of the South’s population, that the last of Texan-held slaves there were told of their personal emancipation. On the other hand, other scholars assert that “the Confederate states had been ready from the day of Surrender to resume their place in the Union”, “Surrender” meaning April 9, 1865. (Coulter, “The South during reconstruction”, p.391)

Coulter’s assessment would imply

(a) a tint for state resolution to secession date regardless of origin, perhaps with a note for previous failed conventions (VA) or subsequent referendum/plebicite (TN),

(b) a tint for state admitted to CSA, see previous Talk:section

(c) a tint and frame for states CSA but U.S. Representatives in the 37th Congress, March 4, 1861 showing SIX states and territory including VA, KY, MO, TN, LA and CS Arizona Terr. (H.) – this to avoid tracking variable military occupation.

(c) a frame for "CSA but U.S. Representatives" in the 38th U.S. Congress March 4, 1863 showing FOUR states and territory including WV , KY, MO and CS Arizona Terr. (H.) – this to avoid tracking variable military occupation.

(d) Indian Territory might be included in the tint (c) admitted to CSA with representation in US Congress. Although it did not have a delegate in Congress, it was early, permanently Union occupied, the US maintained its treaty obligations, the CS did not, and the formal tribal councils never resolved to secede.

(e) a tint for states after April 9, 1865 "Vacant" in Congress. SCOTUS says a state cannot go out of existence.

I would counter-propose April 9, 1865 (Coulter) over Junteenth. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Juneteenth is the day the last Confederate state came under Union control. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Of all the options given in Conclusion of the American Civil War, Juneteenth is not included. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the mechanical edit conflict, I modified my proposal above while Rjensen was writing. I changed "Congress" to "Representatives" in the 37th and 38th and some phrase tweeks. Virginia had Senators only in the 38th to vote with Lincoln on foreign policy and his Supreme Court nominees, but the permanently Union occupied (Martis) districts in northern Virginia, tidewater, Norfolk and eastern shore were stripped of their Congressional representation. As though representatives of the people freely elected in polls supervised by the United States Army might object to some of the administration's policies in occupied territory on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. This "lay of the land" should be reflected in the GIF map by flipping the 37th Richmond state territory a different tint from the 38th Wheeling state territory. Point of state pride. Sorry, I digress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've built all the frames up to the Wheeling convention, and all the frames after the end of the war. It's that nasty four year period right in the thick of things that I'm trying to figure out just how to treat West Virginia. My current plan is to show WV as ... well, I was going to say "its own country" for a moment, like the rest of the seceded states before they joined together, but while Wheeling seceded from Richmond, it wasn't necessarily to be independent, simply to shift back to the Union. Right? Hrm. Maybe... I will show it with the same color I show MO and KY, but on the CS side of the border until admitted to the Union...? --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur, however contested by ballots and bullets, that was their population majority drift, for assignment of the border placement, that was their occupation, that was their WV ratification, that's where they ended up. Hard to ague otherwise for our summary GIF map. Also fits in with my 37th/38th Congress change, which is not yet agreed to. I'm working on an expanded table for comparison purposes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I see at least 3 times in the above discussions a mention of complications that arise about where to place the solid line that represents an "international" boundary. I submit for consideration that it is not up to us to determine where to place this line, nor is it necessary. According to the US, there never was such a line. The different colors can be interpreted by the viewer's own POV, we do not need to interpret that for them, and NPOV issues arise if we do. I regret not having raised this issue earlier, before Golbez did so much fine work on this. I am open to any explanation of what such a soloid line is supposed to mean other than "international" boundary.--JimWae (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To omit a line would be to follow the USA POV; to include a line would be to follow the CSA POV. I think that for this map, it being laser-focused on the CSA and its specific history, can benefit from showing the CSA's POV a bit and include the line as an illustrative tool. (Note that I'm also outlining the seceded states in international borders, since South Carolina, et.al. considered themselves independent republics) The point of this map is to say, "This is what the CSA says it was, in addition to the political realities surrounding that." Put another way: If I did a map of Russia, I would probably color Chechnya as "disputed" during certain time periods. But if I was doing a map of Chechnya specifically, I wouldn't be able to color the entire thing disputed, I might as well label it independent, with a note explaining. The only difference is that the context of the United States matters for this map, which is why I include its extent as well. Though, come to think of it, it might be interesting to do a map SOLELY of the Confederacy. I might make that a side project. Long story short: I think we can trust our readers on this front to be able to figure out what everything means. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Will the GIF have embedded within it the context that this is how the CSA supporters view what happened? Will every article that wants to use this map have that embedded in the gif? Omitting the solid line does not take the US POV, it merely takes no POV. The CSA POV would include KY & MO (& WV always), and would flat out say "seceded" and "rejoined Union" - all of which would be quite unnuanced. Readers can interpret the colors as they wish, we do not need to interpret it for them - indeed in some cases we cannot agree that there was even a definitive CSA POV on what was happening.--JimWae (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Except I'm not just towing the CSA line. I'm saying, "This is what the CSA claimed, this is what they claimed and controlled, this was the US (claim and control not in dispute), and this is what the US claimed and controlled." And I disagree that saying "The CSA was not an independent nation" is purely NPOV, that is clearly the view of the U.S. and completely counter to the view of the C.S.

Though, now that I think about it, there might be room here for a separate gif, as I mentioned before, showing things purely from the CS point of view. Keep the international borders there, remove them here... except, we have a problem. Based on how things have gone, according to you, without having an international border, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Louisiana would all have the same color, despite having three very different statuses. The border allows, I think, a little more detail. Oh well, we'll see how it actually looks once I get a first draft done. I have ideas, I'll work on them tonight. --Golbez (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)