Talk:American Civil War/Archive 1

Aftermath
How is calling the truth that the Civil War was started primarily for slavery POV? Most of the Deep Southern states themselves said that was their motivation in declarations passed and issued by their legislatures. It's not a point of view or an opinion; it's a fact. Rogue 9 19:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Waiting for an explanation. If I don't get one, I'm returning the section to it's factual state. Rogue 9 22:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement that the causes were "justifiably" viewed as the causes for the war is POV. The word "justified" is a statement of opinion about the Union's view on the matter. As to the matter of whether the war was started primarily for slavery, the issue of the causes is much more complex than this. The southern states may have seceded to protect slavery, but the Union initially fought them to preserve the Union, not destroy slavery. Finally, it is also unnecessary to make those arguments in that part of the article, which is speaking about the "aftermath" of the war. Mateo SA | talk 23:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, stating that their belief was justifiable is not POV; it is fact. The following links are not a bunch of opinion papers; they're the official positions of the Deep South states, with the exception of the Cornerstone Address, which was the position of the Confederate central government.


 * Alexander Hamilton Stephens' Cornerstone Speech
 * Mississippi's Declaration of the Causes of Secession
 * Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession
 * Texas' Declaration of the Causes of Secession
 * South Carolina's Declaration of the Causes of Secession


 * If the Confederate states themselves stated unequivocally that they were seceding to protect their right to hold slaves, then acknowledging this is not a point of view. And that's precisely what they did.  Rogue 9 23:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Only the richest people had slaves. They were a luxury item.  Sharecroppers did not have slaves (or any other possessions).  Of course, the richest seem to get elected even today.  However, the common poor non-black person in the South did not have slaves and did not have financial incentive to "support" slavery.  It was more of "The Yankees are coming to burn you house, burn your crops, and kill you, because you are on the Confederacy team."

Introduction
This section is weak.

Naming Conventions
The introduction as it was (before 2005-5-5), had almost as many inaccuracies as facts, and bore too much anti-South hatred. I am not from the South, but there is simply no reason for such hatred and distortion of historical reality. What is needed is something neutral and intelligent. As it stands now, the section reads like a comic book or a badly written 140-year-old political tract.

It was so badly organized and so poorly written, that is was largely unreadable.

The current section (2005-5-5) is greatly expanded, very thorough, very fair, and can eventually be integrated (he he) with a stronger Introduction.


 * And now its a polemic against Lincoln --JimWae 06:34, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * No. It states exactly what Lincoln indeed said -- without comment.


 * 2 things
 * the name of the war in part depends on outcome.


 * That is your very unique POV.


 * The War was between the states, which is why that is the favored term among real historians -- not among amateurs.


 * As clearly explained, Civil War is the preferred term, because that it the term most often used. But it is an inaccurate term.


 * On the other hand, "English Civil War" is indeed an accurate term, because the factions were distributed throughout the kingdom. Society was in disarray, and factions were fighting over control of the government.


 * Similarly, when England fought Scotland -- even when they were governed by the same monarch -- it is never described as a Civil War. Scotland and England are too separate territories.


 * To call it a war of independence, when they lost is just confusing & an obvious POV


 * You didn't read the correction. It clearly states that Southern Heritage groups prefer that term, and why they say they do.


 * This is a simple fact. It says nowhere that we should start calling the war by what the Southrern Heritage groups call it.


 * that makes no attempt to cope with the results. The result was 1 nation, so it makes sense to view it as a contest within 1 nation


 * You are confusing results with description. You are proposing a new term for the war:  "The War that Created One Nation."


 * you have added your personal POV instead.
 * No. You are proposing a novel interpretation based on your own POV which you are just now inventing.  The war was not named on results.  Nobody has ever said that before you.  That is your own POV.


 * The war is named based on what occurred. It is past tense because it was a historical event.  Lincoln wished to interpret that one way:  Thus the terms "Rebellion,"  "Insurrection," "Civil War."  That, too, is POV.  We conventionally use "Civil War" because that has the most mileage behind it, and because it is shorter.  "Civil War" is by no means neutral.  It is just the term most non-historians are used to.
 * It is universally acknowledge by both parties in the war that "War Between the States" is an acceptable compromise -- and it is this term which had official sanction.

That makes no sense. You are aggressively insisting on your own POV, and expecting people to understand you.
 * -To call it a war of independence, when they lost is just confusing

Southerners said they were fighting to maintain the independence they won at secession. This is clearly explained in the emendation to the section.

You are insisting that anything that is not your POV is POV. Thus, when you read anything neutral, you see only POV.
 * & an obvious POV

This is irrelevant. Once again, this is your novel argument that wars are named for results. It is POV.
 * that makes no attempt to cope with the results.


 * By your thinking, The Mexican-American War should be "Manifest Destiny War" or the "War to Create the American Southwest." World War II would become the "War to Destroy Nazis and       ts," or the "War that Resulted in the Cold War."


 * Come on already.


 * The result was 1 nation, so it makes sense to view it as a contest within 1 nation - you have added your personal POV instead -
 * do you deny the USA is 1 nation?
 * Irrelevant. See above.

From the viewpoint of other nations, it was a war that would decide whether the South would be independent or be part of the Union. Read Lord Acton.
 * the name of the war should also be descriptive from the viewpoint of other nations. From their viewpoint, "civil war" makes complete sense


 * It was a war between American States -- even if these states became subdivisions of the Union thereafter.


 * However, most are familiar with the very inaccurate "Civil War," which is also shorter and easier to say. Thus the convention.


 * What this article needed was an intelligent definition of civil war at the top, which is indeed provided in the emendation.


 * Please read it all next time, before you wipe out the entire section again.--Wighson 03:25, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

In the greater context that this article is about a War, it seems out of balance that so much attention is given to the names of the conflict. Maybe a separate article would be appropriate for all this detail about naming convenions. Vaoverland 08:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 'War of Southern Independence is INTRODUCED at least 3 times in Introduction - whole section needs to be made more concise --JimWae 19:23, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

The term "southern partisans" is used in a very redundant manner in the naming section. It's in there about half a dozen times in a row, beginning several successive sentences. This sounds choppy and poorly written. Somebody should clean it upRangerdude 04:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The American Civil War was not a real civil war, because in such a war the opposing sides fight to control the nation's government. The Confederacy did not want to take over Washington and the Union, instead they wished to secede (a right which was given to them in the constitution), and govern themselves much like the American colonies wished to do with Britain in the Revolutionary War. Also, the war was not a war between the states because Florida was not at war with New York or anything of that matter. It was a war between the nation of the United States of America and the nation of the Confederate States of America. In the end the Confederacy was wholly abolished and reinstalled into the Union, but that does not change the fact that it was indeed a nation and it was fighting for it's independance. The best terms to describe the war though they are guilty of being biased on both sides are names such as The War for Southern Independance, and The War of the Rebellion, or even The War of Northern Aggression, because though it is extremely biased it is a far more accurate term than The Civil War or The War Between the States. I have left a very basic sentence explaining the problems with the current name, because the article was presenting the war as a certified civil war when in fact it wasn't. -Joe

Map
The map is inaccurate, and needs to be replaced.

It is anachronistic: it shows states which did not exist 1861-1865. It does not show the Confederate Territory of Arizona which had seceded from the larger Territory of New Mexico. It also shows West Virginia as if separate from the beginning, when in fact it was part of Virginia and the Confederacy until Lincoln declared it had seceded from Virginia in 1863.

---s'not much, the map is still anachronistic, but its color scheme is more appropriate.(blue and gray, instead of red and blue) not good for an encyclopedia to take sides on an ongoing culture war...


 * Not to mention Alaska and Hawaii, which were not even U.S. territories at the time. Mateo SA | talk 15:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are the North & the South at Peace now?
From the article:
 * A great deal of ill-will among the Southern survivors resulted from the total warfare practiced during the war by the Union armies and the "reconstruction" program forced on the former Confederacy by the Union victors.

I think this is misleading on several counts:
 * I don't think the Union used "total warfare", at least not the definition used in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Sherman's March to the Sea is probably the closest to being total warfare and was intended to destroy the morale of the entire south, but they did not specifically target civilians, rather any property that could aid the south.
 * Does "reconstruction" really need to be in quotes? It should be an article link if anything.
 * I think it's misleading to explain ill-will as resulting purely from Union misdeeds. I mean, the south lost a major war, slavery, and saw their political power wane (prior to the civil war, the two major power blocks of states where slaves states and non-slave states and even without the direct after effects of the war, the south lost a lot of power).  I don't think ill-will needs to be explained to this extent as being the result of northern misdeeds.  Daniel Quinlan 00:50, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't think that one should attempt to put a generic label on the type of warfare practiced by one side or the other. The fact is that the type of warfare conducted varied by geographic location, by commander, and by how far along into the war it was.  You can't just simplistically say that one side fought this way and the other fought another way.  Didn't work like that.
 * As far as reconstruction is concerned you have different types of reconstruction. You have Lincoln's conciliatory policy that led to results like Isaac Murphy and you have the radical reconstruction that entailed dividing the South up into military districts.  Reconstruction led to a variety of things, it led to land-grant universities which was good, it led to penetration of railroads into the South which was good, etc. but it also led to terrible graft and corruption.  You are better off just stating a variety of facts and not trying to boil down "reconstruction" as all "good" or all "bad".Ark30inf 01:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any point in trying to discuss the various aspects of Reconstruction here, it should just be mentioned and have its own article. RickK 02:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Check the article. There already was one, so I made according changes (plus fixing the issues as I saw them).  Daniel Quinlan 02:19, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the article is better after the change and thats what matters. All of the Civil War stuff appears to need work in the long run though.Ark30inf 02:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The fact that I think its better is not all that matters, the fact that it is better is all that matters. Thought I would clear that up.Ark30inf 02:30, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The North did indeed break from all conventions of civilized warfare, which can be evidenced by anyone with a basic understanding of the history of the war in Sherman's tactics, but also in the lesser known, but far more notorious actions of General Benjamin Butler who issued a right-to-rape order in the city of New Orleans horrifying the European nations and yielded protests. I have a quotation from his Order Number 28 here: As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subjected to repeated insults from the women calling themselves "ladies" of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her advocation. --Joe


 * Sherman's tactics were far from total warfare. General Sherman's standing orders were to leave all civilians that did not attack or hinder the army unmolested.  The following text is from the Special Field Orders from General Sherman's army during the march.


 * "4. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten days' provisions for his command, and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass; but, during a halt or camp, they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock in sight of their camp. To regular foraging-parties must be intrusted the gathering of provisions and forage, at any distance from the road traveled.


 * 5. To corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, etc.; and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested, no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless, according to the measure of such hostility.


 * 6. As for horses, mules, wagons, etc., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit; discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor and industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging-parties may also take mules or horses, to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments of brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, given written certificates of the facts, but no receipts; and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance. "


 * Source.


 * That is not total warfare in any sense of the term. Rogue 9 21:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Rogue 9 I will point you to the quotation from Wikipedia's own article on Total war which states "US Army General William Tecumseh Sherman's 'March to the Sea' during the American Civil War destroyed the resources required for the South to make war. He is considered one of the first military commanders to deliberately and consciously use total war as a military tactic." Are you implying that a right to rape in the city of New Orleans issued by General Butler was not an act of total war?

Name of the War
Why on earth was this moved from its correct name? Tannin
 * I did not move it, but I certainly agree with it. Civil War is the proper name we have (somewhat egotistically) given to this conflict.  We added American to that proper name to differentiate it from generic civil war elsewhere on the globe.  Given that, all of it should be capitalized.  By changing it to not be capitalized you are referring to ANY American civil war and not the specific one whose proper name is Civil War.  We shouldn't make World War Two into World war two and likewise shouldn't make American Civil War into American civil war. IMO. Ark30inf 13:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- Just so, Ark30inf. Its name (rightly or wrongly) is American Civil War, and proper names are always capitalised. We might as well write George w. bush. I was going to wait to see if CGS had a reason for the move, but on reflection, I don't see how there could be one, so I moved it back. (Sorry CGS.) Tannin 13:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't see it as a proper noun. It was the civil war of the Americans, how is it a proper noun? Naming_conventions. BTW, I was I who moved it. CGS 14:27, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC).
 * War of the Roses is a proper name and is capitalized. American Civil War is also a proper name even though there could be an article called American civil which would deal with the generic concept of any non-specific civil war in America.  But this is a specific civil war called American Civil WarArk30inf 15:28, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Think of it this way: all wars have a name (which is, of course, a proper noun). Some wars have two or three names: e.g., World War II, Second World War, Great Patriotic War - all three are names for the same war. Similarly, the First World War, World War 1 and the Great War. I could call WW2 the war against Hitler and Tojo if I wanted to, but note that this is not capitalised, as it's not the actual name of the war, just a term I made up. So, if I were to call the American Civil War (which is its internationally accepted proper name) ... er ... the US slavery war, that's fine too - but note that it is not capitalised because it's not the war's name. Same rule as for people. I write George W Bush with capitals (because that is his name) but the guy in the top job in lower case because, although it's the same person I'm talking about, I'm not using his actual name. Make sense? Tannin

Causes of the Civil War
I'm amazed by some people's ignorance in here. The Civil War was NOT STARTED because of slavery. Slavery was NOT the core issue. If you really want to know why, yes, it was states rights. It was primarily the TARIFFS that prompted South Carolinas succession. (hence their naming a tariff "Tariff of Abominations" The Confederacy did NOT secede because of slavery, they seceded because they believed the Federal Government was oppressing them on the counts of Tariffs and votes. Please, for the love of history, make sure your facts are right. Agiamba

Recent changes were made to boil down the wars causes to, of course, the slavery issue. The changes diminished the role of States Rights as a concept that stood on its own and instead indicated that it was merely a reflection of the slavery issue. I am not opposed to indicating the role of slavery, which was critical, but I am opposed to dismissing other causes. I'm not in favor of "boiling down" as opposed to providing more information in this case. The Civil War was the most complex political eruption in US history. It is impossible to distill such a complex event down to the sentence "slavery war", at least w/o choosing the point of view that that the rest of the issues are not real, a point of view that is disputed.


 * No, recent changes were made that implied slavery was not the core issue when it was. It certainly was not the only cause, but it was the core issue, and I restored that to the article.  I did not "boil down" anything.  Compare the current text (after my edit) to the text of several days ago.  Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

One cannot rationally deny the role of slavery in the conflict (though many do). But you can't rationally ignore the complexities either. For example, the people of my home State elected a generally pro-Union secession convention, the major State newspaper was pro-Union. That convention voted NOT to secede and dismissed. It only reconvened, and the newspaper only altered its position, after Lincoln's call for troops. The convention, and the newspaper, stated that the primary trigger for the change was the call to supress the seceded States. If you were to say that the Southern States seceded over the slavery you would be correct for Deep South states, but not as correct for the States of the Upper South which were responding to the administration's actions. Arkansas', though very involved with the slavery issue, specifically seceded in response to "coercion", definitely a States Rights issue. Was it inclined towards its fellow Southern states due to the slavery issue? Yes, but it had declined to secede until the call for troops. Also there is the matter of changing motives of the South. If you asked why Alabama went to war in 1861 the slavery motive would be high as stated in their secession resolution. But if you ask why Alabama was fighting in 1864 then independence would have been high.


 * Why did States Rights become an issue? It wasn't due to slavery?  Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Similarly, the United States did not enter the war to end slavery. A few abolitionists certainly did, but not the United States as a matter of policy. Lincoln definitely stated that he would not interfere with slavery if that would keep the Union together. The primary immediate cause of the war in the north was the firing on the flag at Fort Sumter which, due to patriotism and pride, demanded a response. If you say that the war in 1861 was fought by the north over slavery you would be closer to wrong. But if you said that in 1864 the north was fighting to end slavery then you would be closer to right because Lincoln made it so and changed the northern reason for war with the Emancipation Proclamation.


 * No, it didn't enter purely for that reason, but the states seceded to preserve slavery. Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Oddly enough, as the war became more slavery related for the Union, it became less slavery related for the South. As I said, complex event.


 * The sequence of events was complicated and individual rationalization perhaps too, but the core issue was still slavery. Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

I'm mentioning this here because I think that recent edits dismiss much of the complexity in an effort to boil down the war to the lowest common denominator. I think that does the reader a disservice and plays into the stereotypical view of the war. So I wanted to give fair warning. When I get a chance soon I will attempt to put some of this complexity into the article in a fair and neutral way.User:Ark30inf 23:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You're taking a very simplistic view of the complexity of the slavery issue and the numerous problems it caused. If you look at the history of the Civil War, the numerous compromises (all related to slavery that were necessary to keep the South in the Union), and the precipitating events, all relate back to slavery.  Yes, southerners can rationalize all they want about states' rights and northern aggression, but what issue would there have been without the south holding slaves?


 * I think it's a bit deceptive to claim that I somehow "dumbed down" the article, that the article is now falling in line with the stereotypical view, or that adding "complexity" will improve the article. Do you really think the Civil War would have happened without slavery as an issue dividing the north and the south?  Have you fallen prey to the revisionist history that it wasn't ultimately about slavery at all?


 * Perhaps I should just let the text changes speak for me:


 * 14:38, Oct 18, 2003 <- what was there before (perhaps simplistic)
 * 13:00, Oct 23, 2003 <- what I found (revisionist Southern denial)
 * 13:29, Oct 23, 2003 <- what I left (Mmm... good!)


 * 1) But there is no question that the salient issue in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, and the histories written since, was the issue of slavery. Slavery had been abolished in most northern states, but was legal and important to the economy of the Confederacy, which depended on cheap agricultural labor.
 * 2) There is little question that the salient issues in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, were those of slavery, state sovereignty (for the South), and [reservation of the union (for the North). Slavery had been abolished in most northern states but was vitally important to the economy of the Confederacy. which depended on cheap agricultural labor. The dichotomies between how slavery was perceived and the nature of the union were at the heart of the conflict.
 * 3) There is little question that the salient issue in the minds of the public and popular press of the time, and the histories written since, was the issue of slavery. Slavery had been abolished in most northern states, but was legal and important to the economy of the Confederacy, which depended on cheap agricultural labor. State sovereignty (for the South) and preservation of the Union (for the North) have both also been cited as issues, but both were reflections of the slavery issue, i.e., could the Federal government force southern states to end slavery or could the southern states leave the Union to preserve slavery?


 * So, it's longer, more comprehensive, recognizes state sovereignty and preservation of the Union as issues, but does not put it on the same level as slavery, and it's clearly not less information, but that's exactly what you claimed. Anyway, read the text, suggest improvements, I'm game, but we should not apply revisionist southern history that attempts to sweep slavery under the rug to the article.  Daniel Quinlan 01:33, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, you seem to be judging my additions before I write them. I wrote the above on this page to give the opportunity for discussion before I made changes to such a controversial subject.  I have touched nothing.  You might at least have given me the courtesy of responding to my concerns rather than going full defensive as if I had reverted your changes and was engaged in an edit war with you.  I am leaving Wikipedia, so you do not need to worry about YOUR article, it will remain as you have written it.Ark30inf 04:31, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear you're leaving Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 15:19, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

The cause of the secession and the cause of the war are not the same. Considering the two to be equivalent is a major source of disagreement on the issue.


 * The secession was the cause of the war, therefore the cause of the secession is the ultimate cause of the war. That cause was slavery for the Deep South.  The evidence is in the external links page, but here it is again:


 * Alexander Hamilton Stephens' Cornerstone Speech
 * Mississippi's Declaration of the Causes of Secession
 * Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession
 * Texas' Declaration of the Causes of Secession
 * South Carolina's Declaration of the Causes of Secession

People will continue to disagree because "cause" has 2 meanings. The North did not make the abolition of slavery its "cause" for some time. There were other issues that contributed to the secession, but slavery was the major issue and also the reason for other issues. Lincoln was berated in England for not declaring the end of slavery a "cause" - and for exempting areas from the Emancipation Proclamation --JimWae 23:15, 2005 September 1 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of that; however, I'm operating under "cause" defined as the reason the war happened. That reason was the Southern secession, but that doesn't really answer anything.  Why did the states secede?  There you find the underlying cause of the war.  Rogue 9 01:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

- Can anyone give a source on the emancipation of the serfs in Russia being a cause of the US Civil War? I have never heard of this. Of to google it myself. Rmhermen 15:18, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * My printed authorities say nothing about this, and the timing is all wrong anyway; Southern states had said that Lincoln was going to be the last straw, and that was months before serf emancipation. I think the Russian serf theory is one of those lunatic fringe things that always seem to accumulate around familiar topics. Google is not showing me anything. Stan 17:11, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Daniel Quinlan 19:45, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

The Southern States economy was certainly based on what became know as "King Cotton." The problem with this is that the South needed the Northern resources such as ships to transport the cotton to the north and the textile mills of the North to process the cotton. Many of the Northern States had abolished slavery but still(hypocritically)depended on it none the less. England had outlawed slavery in 1805 but bought slave produced cotton from the Southern States during the war. The financial backers and owners of both ships and mills became rich from the slave produced Southern cotton. Many Northerners depended on jobs created by the import of southern cotton. Many citizens of the north feared the release of slaves and the impact it would have on their jobs. Look at the riots that occurred in New York City after the announcement of the conscription of 80,000 men. It finally took Union troops to quell the riots. The quota was never met and the local government eventually paid the fee of $300 each to the Federal Government. It was also possible for men of wealth to buy substitutes which many did.

On the issue of States Rights or Slavery being the root of the war I offer this thought. I am from the South and have greatly researched my genealogy and have found that my ancestors served on both sides and even switched sides during the war. Less than 2% of Southerns owned 5 or more slaves. (A slave owner of 20 or more slaves was exempt from service.) Census records bare out the fact that the majority of Southerners were poor dirt farmers with out slaves. It's difficult for me to imagine that these men(who owned no slaves), some even barefoot, would leave their wives and families behind as my great-great-grandfather did to go fight and risk death for the right of some rich plantation owner to get richer through slavery. Slavery is unequivocally wrong yet still exists by some name in the world today.

The United States stills suffers issues with States Rights today. The Federal governent taxes the citizens then withholds our tax dollars unless we submit to what can only be called blackmail. For example: no seat belt law no speed limit law--none of our money back for road repair and construction.

-- I would argue that you did not research well enough. The Secession conventions were overwhelmed by planters. SC at the time had more slaves than whites. MS and Florida were almost fifty--fifty slave to white. The slave population in Texas was growing exponentially. Many white southerners from various social standings feared the idea of a growing free black population. The South seceded because of slavery. It was not a major factor; it was the major factor. However, your family like many other Southern families fought out self defense. Lincoln had made it clear, even before Fort Sumter, that he aimed to get the seceded states back into the Union. So you could argue that the South fought the war over the contention that they had the legal right to secede. But the South seceded because of slavery. Don't argue with us; argue with Alexander H. Stephens and the Cornerstone Speech (March 21, 1861). Don't argue with us; argue with secession declarations of SC, AL, MS, Fl, LA, TX, and GA. Have you read these? If you are into learning the truth and not winning a debate or saving face, I would suggest that you add these and other primary documents to your reading list.

Maybe if some of you did research on what the actual people fighting the war believed they were fight for instead of assuming that they were fighting to satisfy your own ideologies and points of view then there'd be no cause for this argument.

Ulysses S. Grant, Union general (a slaveholder until, the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified after the war): "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."

Seriously, how many of you truly believe all those thousands of Confederate soldiers were rich plantation owners? Most were poor yeomen among whom, according to studies done by Civil War historian James McPherson, two-thirds of them claimed to be fighting for patriotism, about the same figure of the Union soldiers claiming the same thing. Both claimed to fight to defend what their ancestors gave them. The Union soldiers claimed it was the Union, while the Confederates claimed it was the right of self-government.

There has never been a war in history done for the sake of ideologies. Wars are fought for power and money. When the Confederacy conceded the southern states drastically lowered their tariffs causing their ports to become very lucrative to the European powers, and thereby stole much of the economy from cities such as New York, who then began to clamor for the closing of the southern ports first by war and afterwards by tarrif laws. --Joe -

Hi, would those Wikipedians with knowledge of the Civil War please take a look at Financial motivations behind the American Civil War and weigh in at Votes for deletion? It strikes me as interesting, but I can't tell if it's BS or not. Thanks, Tualha 00:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Regarding removal of the history table--you do agree that the Civil War was part of U.S. history, right? :) What bothers so much about having it included? Someday there may be other specific events in the table--the Great Depression, World War II. I'm not ultra-hung-up on it, but there will be a big fat hole in the history series without the American Civil War section... jengod 09:53, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Civil War is a specific event - a subject onto itself. It is not a daughter article of History of the United States is any more than Vietnam War is or yes, even the Great Depression. See Talk:History of the United States for more. --mav

-- Military Developments in the War was missing. Feel free (I'm sure you already do) to murderize it. :) Stargoat 06:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) -- Being a non-American person (I live in Poland), highly interested in the American affairs,  think you should give more emphasis to the TRAGEDY of this war; after all, it was a massive tragedy for all Americans, with some 600,000 dead (ca. 300,000 on each side), thousands more maimed and wrecked for life, crying widows and children, lots of property destroyed, and lots of hatred remaining (probably) till this day. "Civil War" certainly isn't a thing Americans should be proud of; there was a similiar, and equally unnecessary event in 17th-century Poland, when the civil war between Polish and Ukrainians (Kossacks) erupted, with the effects similiar to those of the US Civil War (aka War Between The States). -- Critto PS. As for a foreigner, I find it senseless for me to declare myself on either side of the US Civil War.


 * A good point. Casualties in the U.S. Civil War were several orders of magnitude larger than any war before it.  Until the civil war, the loss of 10% of a fighting force in one battle was considered unusually high.  However, casualty rates of over 30% were not unknown in most of the major battles in the Civil War.  The primary change was technological, with accurate rifles being available on a mass scale that made mass charges a practical suicide mission.  I will try to address this when I'm feeling better :-)--SteveHFish 02:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarity
Being unfamiliar with this topic, I had a hard time following the article. It would be really helpful if, upon mention of each new general, it were mentioned which side they were fighting on. moink 23:07, 22 Jun 2004

How Did the Civil War Start?
This article leaves the impression that the first shot of the Civil War was the South Carolinians firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, AFTER Lincoln was inaugurated. The first shot was actually fired on January 9, 1861, BEFORE Lincoln was Inaugurated. The South Carolinians fired upon, hit, and damaged the Union Naval Vessel "The Star of the West". Plese see: Star of the West

In both the case of firing on the Star of the West and firing on Fort Sumter there were no casualties. The first death in the Civil Was was the the Battle of Baltimore, which is also not mentioned in the article. pjm July 28, 2004


 * Actually, I believe that a weapon exploded after the battle of Fort Sumter, causing the first casualities. If one does not including Bleeding Kansas or the John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. Stargoat 20:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's as maybe. Sumter may not have been the first engagement, but it turned popular opinion in the North against the South, especially in New York where they weren't really backing either side.  Oh, and one horse died in the Sumter attack, there were no human casualties.


 * Incorrect. According to this site: Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely while firing a salute during the evacuation on April 14. -- brian0918  &#153;  03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere in the article an account of the seceding states seizing federal properties & forts. Nor of what steps Buchanan did or did not take in response to the secessions.--JimWae 10:35, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
This may have already been mentioned but is it accurate to refer to the events of the various "Indian Wars" as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide?" Granted cases of the attempted destruction of whole tribes are recorded but on the whole the attempts of the U.S are better characterized as "ethnic minimilization," by herding Natives onto reservations, and "culturacide" by force-educating Indian youth out of their "savage" ways. I don't dispute that it was horrible, just don't think the point was to wipe the Indians, as a racial or ethnic group, from the earth. It would seem much more accurate to refer to the goverments attempts to culturally intergrate Natives into our society. Also if you guys are still arguing about the name you could call it "the War Between the States (American Civil War)" t.W.B.t.S was what it was called at the time and immediatley thereafter.


 * I agree. The overall treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. government, while certainly harsh, cannot be accurately described as "genocide." The general goal of the government was Indian Removal, not quite extermination. The terms ethnocide and cultural genocide are probably more precise to cover what happened. Funnyhat 00:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

America is the one nation in the post-industrial world to be successful at genocide. We Americans did a far better job of wiping the Native Americans off the face of the planet and isolating those who did survive in harsh, forbidding living areas, than Hitler did with the Jews. No other nation has been so successful at destroying an entire people as we have. --Joe

Jefferson Davis
Is that picture under the narrative summary of events, really of Jefferson Davis? It looks more like Robert E. Lee?
 * It appears he is older than in the photographs of him that one usually sees. -- Decumanus 04:42, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Green states?
What exactly is the reasoning behind the green states in the image in the article? -- Decumanus 04:42, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
 * See the image talk page --[[User:tomf688|tomf688]] 19:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Archive old talk?
Should the unheaded older talk section be archived (before June this year)? I find the "contents" section to be near the bottom of the page, disrupting things. --[[User:tomf688|tomf688]] 19:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds great to me. A lot of edit wars over now-irrelevant issues.


 * dino 02:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the American_Civil_War article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 10:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of Battles in the Naval Blockade
Can anyone provide at least a partial list of battles in the naval blockade? I want to create a campaign box for this, and the only battle I currently know of is the Battle of Hampton Roads. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. I found this very informative link which lists all of the battles by their campaigns. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 17:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the conflict: version B
Spot the syntax errors, factual errors, half-truths, & empty words in the latest version:


 * The American Civil War originated in a constitutional crisis, precipitated when several southern States "seceded" from the United States, and formed their own federal republic, the Confederate States of America. The Southern belief that they had a right, unilaterally, to secede, can be attributed to the doctrine of State Sovereignty or States Rights.


 * Many contributing causes include sectional rivalry, the moral campaign of Abolitionists against slavery and its expansion, and especially trend of growing federalism which was gradually shifting the balance of power in the United States from the states themselves and into the hands of a strong, centralized federal government. Southerners also believed that the Morrill Tariff, which was passed on the eve of the war, unduly burdened them with the bulk of the federal taxes. When compromises to these conflicts (most notably the Corwin Amendment) failed, which had been debated as early as 1820 with regard to tariffs, conflict loomed.


 * Conflict was precipitated by election of the Republican candidate for President in 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a moderately antislavery politician pledged to oppose "slavery expansion" -- that is, the admission of additional slave states to the Union, though this had little to do with his prosecution of the war. And the secession of first South Carolina then other southern states followed by the shelling of Fort Sumter.

--JimWae 06:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)


 * as for sytax, thats for the copyedit, as for the rest, i see no problems --Boothy443 06:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You want to give as a CAUSE to secede that abolitionists conducted a moral campaign against slavery?--JimWae 06:48, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
 * Your Corwin Amendment sentence has at least 4 factual errors
 * Your last "sentence" isn't.
 * If you cannot copyedit, why do you bother us to read it?
 * Secede over Morrill tariff? which was passed AFTER SC seceded?
 * how does one distinguish
 * ''"especially trend of growing federalism which was gradually shifting the balance of power in the United States from the states themselves and into the hands of a strong, centralized federal government"
 * from just being a minority? - especially when the federal gov't had, for the most part, been controlled by the South previously?


 * proof? also if that was the case, why leave the union, if you have the power when not pull the laws in your favor--Boothy443 07:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * read what I said again. Note the word "previously". Also note, there's still no difference between a claim of a (future) "trend toward strong, centralized federal gov't" and "being a minority" - it's not necessarily about feds removing states rights, it can be viewed simply as being outvoted by the other states.
 * I can work the Morill tariff into my version quite easily, though
 * Being in a permanent minority position, the southern states could not prevent large tariffs being imposed on imports of goods that competed with Northern manufacturing.
 * --JimWae 07:49, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Origins of the conflict: version J
Admittedly longer, but could add more on tariffs perhaps. Shall we vote on which version to work with? --JimWae 06:42, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)


 * ''The American Civil War originated in a constitutional crisis, precipitated when several southern States "seceded" from the United States, and formed their own federal republic, the Confederate States of America. The Southern justification for a unilateral right to secede cited the doctrine of State Sovereignty or States' Rights, which had been debated before with the 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, and the 1832 Nullification Crisis with regard to tariffs.


 * ''For many years, compromises had been made to balance the number of free states and slave states so that there would be a balance in the Senate. The last slave state admitted was Texas in 1845, with five free states admitted since then. Kansas's admission as a slave state had recently been blocked, and it was due to enter as a free state instead in 1861. The South seemed to have permanently lost the balance of power in the Senate and the House of Representatives had long been controlled by free states. The slave states were facing a future as a perpetual minority after decades of nearly continuous control of the presidency and the Congress.


 * ''The immediate trigger for war was the election of the Republican candidate for President in 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a moderate antislavery politician pledged to do all he could to oppose "slavery expansion" – that is, the admission of additional slave states to the Union from the territories – but who also said he did not believe the federal government had the power to abolish slavery in the states in which it already existed.


 * ''The slave states expected increasing hostility to their "peculiar institution". They mistrusted Lincoln when he said he had no intention of abolishing slavery in existing states, and also were mindful that many other Republicans were intent on complete abolition of slavery. Lincoln even encouraged abolitionists with his "House divided" speech, though Lincoln likely saw the eventual end of slavery coming about gradually by compensating slave-owners and resettling the former slaves.


 * Before Lincoln took office, seven states seceded & took control of federal forts and property within their boundaries, with little resistance from President Buchanan. Ironically, by seceding, the rebel states weakened any claim to the territories that were in dispute.'

NPS version
For more than 30 years arguments between the North and South had been growing. One of these quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This kind of tax is called a tariff. In 1828 Northern businessmen helped get the "Tariff Act" passed. It raised the prices of manufactured products from Europe which were sold mainly in the South. The purpose of the law was to encourage the South to buy the North's products. It angered the Southern people to have to pay more for the goods they wanted from Europe or pay more to get goods from the North. Either way the Southern people were forced to pay more because of the efforts of Northern businessmen. Though most of tariff laws had been changed by the time of the Civil War, the Southern people still remembered how they were treated by the Northern people.

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal Government, centered in Washington D.C., was changing. The Northern and Mid-Western States were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. The Southern States were losing political power. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern States felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington D.C. They felt that each State should make its own laws. This issue was called "State's Rights". Some Southern States wanted to secede, or break away from the United States of America and govern themselves.

Another quarrel between the North and South, and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. Farming was the South's main industry and cotton was the primary farm product. Not having the use of machines, it took a great amount of human labor to pick cotton. A large number of slaves were used in the South to provide the labor. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. Many Northerners thought that owning slaves was wrong, for any reason. Some of those Northerners loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected against seizure of property. A slave was property. The people of the Southern States did not like the Northern people telling them that owning

Courtesy of U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service


 * First Paragraph/tariff acts - effects on economy
 * Second/ population movement causes power shift and need for less federal government control
 * Third/ slavery

So their are more then just slavery issues. States right (also know as federal control), and economic issues as well, which need to be noted.--Boothy443 08:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see new version which happens to already cover all this - except "States rights" is not an issue, it is a justification. They did not want to secede because they thought they had a right to secede, they seceded because they felt by staying they were not getting their way about something.--JimWae 09:40, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not looking to bad. As for the whole sttes rights thing, let me explain my point on it. The way i look at the States rights issue it's the idea that they secede because they thought they had a right to secede, it is more along the they seceded because they felt by staying they were not getting their way about something. Fundamentally the slavery issue was a state rights issue, as said northern support was growing in congress, so the was a good chance that a law or amendment could be passed that would make slavery basically illegal, even the Corwin Amendment which could not be passes would have kept slavery legal, so their was a significant bias in government going against slavery. But I think the perfect example is Kansas-Nebraska Act, which was supposed to allow the states self determination of their slavery status, But even though Kansas sent a pro-slavery constitution to Congress, which was voted down, the result being that Kansas had to send anti-slavery constitution to congress for their admission. This being that the state cannot determine it’s own rights as it sees fit by its citizens, but that the federal government can overrule the state. I think a perfect quote for this is form Senator James Hammond of South Carolina and his famous "King Cotton" . “Suppose we were to discharge you; suppose we were to take our business out of your hands; -- we should consign you to anarchy and poverty. You complain of the rule of the South; that has been another cause that has preserved you. We have kept the Government conservative to the great purposes of the Constitution. We have placed it, and kept it, upon the Constitution; and that has been the cause of your peace and prosperity. The Senator from New York says that that is about to be at an end; that you intend to take the Government from us; that it will pass from our hands into yours.” I hope this makes some sense and clarifies my point a pit on the states rights. --Boothy443 11:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, this NPS version is hopelessly problematic in its oversimplification. I wonder who wrote it, when they wrote it, and for what purposes. I rather suspect that this passage does not represent the considered views of most park service historians   or advisors. The problems: First, not all Southerners opposed tariffs.  Indeed, Henry Clay, (a Southerner) and most of the Southern Whigs, especially in the hemp, rice, and sugar-producing states, strongly favored tariffs. The last tariff bill passed before secession (the Tariff of 1857) received bipartisan support from both Northerners and Southerners (see the relevant tariff votes in the Congressional Globe for this). Second, if one reads the various secession documents, debates, governor's speeches, commissioner's letters, etc., it becomes clear that it was the exercise of state rights by Northern states, in the form of state personal liberty laws impeding the enforcement of the federal fugitive slave law, that angered state political leaders in the South the most. Indeed, Southern political leaders were demanding stricter enforcement of federal laws and federal guarantees for slavery, not a reduction of federal power. Note, too, that this concern over Northern state resistance to federal authority was one of the most common complaints voiced by leaders in states such as N.C., Arkansas, Kentucky, etc., that ostensibly seceded over the "coercion" of Lincoln's troop call.  This also explains why these same Southerners so strongly supported the Dred Scott decision, which effectively nationalized protections for slaveholder's property claims, and why they were so insistent on federal guarantees for the rights of slave property in the territories ("the Federal Territorial Slave Code") that they walked out of the Democratic Party convention of 1860 in Charleston, splitting that party into two factions.  Finally, there is an incorrect, if unspoken, presumption throughout the passage that slaves were not Southerners, and that no other Southerners opposed these positions.  Such a claim is especially inappropriate when discussing states such as South Carolina and Mississippi where half or more of the population was enslaved, and completely overlooks Southerners such as Cassius Clay, John Crittenden and Winfield Scott who opposed the secessionist program or fought for the North.  Any revision of the main article should reflect these events and policy positions, and should not consider this particular NPS excerpt authoritative.  Tlbenson 06:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Tlbenson - you're oversimplifying the tariff issue and making some mistaken assumptions. True, not all southerners opposed tariffs. But the fact is that most of them did as evidenced by the votes on every major tariff bill. Henry Clay and the southern whigs were a minority position and were shrinking rapidly by the time the civil war broke out. Second, the Tariff of 1857 received southern support because it was a tax cut - the expected position of tariff opponents. The northerners who backed it were in the northwest mostly, and they did so by cutting a deal with the south on some other issues. That changed in 1860 when the northwest cut a deal with the northeastern industrialists and backed the Morrill Tariff

Industrial Revolution

 * It was the first war fought after the Industrial Revolution which tapped an entire economy of an emerging first world power. It was also the first war between two industrialized opponents.

Is this the whole truth? Britain fought in the Crimean War ( 1854 to 1856), it was the world power and it was further into the Industrial Revolution (by almost any measure (eg see Isambard Kingdom Brunel)) in 1854 than the Northern States were in 1861. It did not tap its entire economy because it did not need to, But neiter did the Northern States. I thought that one of the reasons that the South lost was because it was not industrialized to any significatnt degree. Philip Baird Shearer 21:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct, that is one of the reasons why we lost the Civil War. We had an agricultural economy that depended heavily upon cotton, rice, indigo, and peanuts.  There weren't nearly as many factories down here, or as many rail roads for that matter.  The free population was considerably smaller as well.  Too small to support the level of industry found up north.*Kat* 13:39, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * out of curiosity, I notice you used "we" to identify yourself with the South. Is that common amongst Southerners or is there another reason for it?--JimWae 22:23, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's pretty common for Southerners to do that, even if they don't identify with the Confederate cause. A substantial percentage of Southerners have ancestors who fought in the war, so it makes some sense. Funnyhat 00:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the South, which clearly wasn't an industrial powerhouse, the *North* wasn't especially industrialised either. You can see this by checking e.g. Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. The US as a whole was about equal to Russia in 1860. If that qualifies as "industrialized" then the Crimean War must be the first war between industrialized opponents. Angus McLellan

Bickering over the causes of the war
Why isn't all the bickering over the causes of the war under Origins of the American Civil War? In fairness, all of slavery, tariffs, sectional differences, states' rights, blah, blah, blah, all had a role. Isn't American Civil War about the war, not its causes? Shouldn't the curious be directed elsewhere to argue the causes? Perhaps a simple statement, "The causes of the war are complex, including all slavery, tariffs, sectional differences, and states' rights, and are discussed more fully under Origins of the American Civil War".

Just my $0.02.

dino 21:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with your sentiments. A simple statement plus a link would be better and less redundant. Anybody else? Rangerdude 07:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Military/Naval developments in the war
Section deleted as being unfixably wrong. The civil war is sometimes claimed as the first modern war but this is certainly not the consensus. The rest of the first paragraph is vague and/or inaccurate, for example medieval wars almost always targetted the economy. The ACW was not the first use of rifled artillery (Crimean War), nor of the land mine (Renaissance). The Crimean War was almost nothing but trench warfare. Telegraphs were used in the Crimea if not before, railways in the 1848 revolution in Germany and the war in Italy in 1859. All conventional navies were certainly not made obsolete by Hampton Roads. The US blockade was not very large scale compared to the British blockades of US, French, German and Italian coasts in the period 1812 onwards. Also the US had not signed the Declaration of Paris so why is it mentioned ? Angus McLellan 5 March 2005.

Moving 'Naming the War' to end
I don't object to this change, but a better solution would have been to create a new article on the subject and just retain a sentence or two in this big page. Same for 'Origins of the War', which already has a separate page, but more and more creeps in here. How many objections would there be if I did this? big_hal 15:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Really, naming is a sidenote issue compared to the war as a whole, though it is an interesting sidenote issue.  You might also mention that the Union forces were also called Federalists. --Martin Osterman 18:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

U.S. flag with 36 stars needed
There actually were two new states admitted during the war--West Virginia in 1863 and Nevada in 1864. (A lot of people forget Nev., but its nickname is the "Battle-born State.") So we need a third U.S. flag image to show one more star. Funnyhat 03:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) It's been added. Afro Squirrel

Intro paragraph
It has been suggested that the present first (intro) paragraph is both too detailed and lacking in details. The following (with a slight change again) has been proposed in a talk page as a new introduction. The present content about what the soldiers were called could be a 3nd intro paragraph. I think the intro paragraphs for a war should properly identify the sides, the years, and basically what it was about. The present (single) intro paragraph is a bit of a simplification that slides into the assumption of a POV that was at issue - whether the states actually did secede, which was a legal issue at the time and which SCOTUS has ruled was not legal. It strongly suggests that there indeed were only 23 states in the USA during the Civil War (then also introduces too early a less relevant detail about the 2 states that joined the Union during the war). It also says little or nothing about what the war was about. Thus it does not clearly identify either the sides or any issues. --JimWae 05:22, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
 * The American Civil War (1861–1865) was fought between 11 states of the Southern United States (that had declared their secession from the United States, and had joined together to form the Confederate States of America) and United States federal forces (mostly from the other 23 mostly-Northern states of the Union).
 * Following the victory of Republican Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election, seven Southern states declared their secession and formed the Confederacy. The seceding states took control of U.S. federal properties within their territories, leading to the Battle of Fort Sumter and the commencement of hostilities. After this battle, four more Southern states joined the Confederacy. Battles were fought in Southern states, in some Northern states, and in some U.S. territories. During the war, two more states (West Virginia and Nevada) entered the Union.

Did the South really secede?
A discussion is going on at Talk:Abraham Lincoln

- Pioneer-12 19:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this issue has been settled by scholars previously. Since I do not have enough of a scholarly background in this matter, I defer to Hlj and others who have a better background than I do. --Martin Osterman 19:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Texas v. White settled that matter way back in 1869. Not much to discuss. Rogue 9 01:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Official" name for the war
According to the military records of the U.S. Government, the American Civil War was officially "The War of the Rebellion of the States." Does anybody agree that this should be included in the article?Afro Squirrel 8:33, 13 June 2005 (UTC)
 * See Naming the American Civil War. It was "The War of the Rebellion" and that was only one document in the last 140 years. Hal Jespersen 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Confederate Flag.
The first Confederate flag was called the 'bonnie blue'. It was a blue background with a white star in the center.

Casualties
Did you guys mix up the casualties for Gettysberg and Antietam? Antietam was the bloodiest battle and you have Gettysberg as the bloodiest.- B-101 19:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Antietam was the bloodiest single day during the war. Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle (it lasted 3 days) -- Bornyesterday 19:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of victims
I've created a List of notable victims of the American Civil War. Feel free to add to it. BRIAN 0918   20:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Out West
The comments about California, Arizona & the areas in the West seem to have a southern slant to them, if they are not themselves innacurate.

Copperheads
The Narrative Summary mentions the pro-US factions in the South, but neglects the pro-CS factions in the North, mostly known as Copperheads. For balance I think it would be good to have this information added to the Narrative Summary.

Party affiliations
Why is there no mention of the party affiliation of the South during this time? It was majority slave-holding Democrats who wanted this secession. And no mention of the anti-slave Republicans and their role in the North. There's a reason they're called Dixicrats.


 * While I don't see anything wrong with mentioning that the south was a one-party state, the Dixiecrats have nothing at all to do with the civil war. The term only came into existence during the 1948 Democratic Party convention. -Ben 13:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It was the second-costliest conflict in the 19th century and cost more American lives than any other conflict in history ???
Someone added the above text. Umm, the Taiping Rebellion in China, (1851–1864) which killed 20 million? Is there any cite for this? Or where in the scheme of things the American Civil War landed?

Just wondering. Is the American Civil War second to the Taiping Rebellion? Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Uhh, probably not that one either.

dino 20:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Link between Civil War and contemporary conflicts
I've recently been trying to do more research on the Civil War because I've tended to have a feeling that it has actually been connected with contemporary American foreign interventionism. The theory I've got is that the Civil War was primarily about racism; that not only did the South need cheap black slave labour, but that even back then they saw any ethnic group other than themselves as literally less than human, and thus resented/did not understand the Union wanting to go to war (at least partly) for the sake of the black population's welfare. In terms of where I believe this ties in with the present, I once read an account by Jimmy Carter of him growing up in or spending time in Georgia in the 1960s, and he implied that the level of inherent racism among the population there was virtually identical to what it had been when Lincoln was in office. That led me to believe that Vietnam and the other international conflicts since could well have been at least partially motived by Southern racism; that Southern factions within the government either simply wanted an excuse to commit attrocities against other ethnic groups, (the talk during Vietnam of going off to "kill the gooks," for instance) or felt that because other ethnic groups were in their minds less than human, there should be nothing wrong with taking their natural resources. (a la Iraq)

I've tended to wonder though if this was the cause not only of the Civil War, but of just about all of America's foreign interventionism; the idea that the Civil War was the first conflict between those in the country who were racists and those who weren't. Extending that theory, to me it makes sense that the foreign interventionist conflicts could have been partly caused by Southern resentment of the fact that they no longer had moral/legal sanction to kill members of the African-American population domestically, and thus felt driven to extend their genocidal impulses beyond their own borders.

Am I completely off here, or do people think I might be onto something?

Petrus4 10:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting theory, although seems to contain substantial stereotypes about southerners. I could say more, but we try to avoid political discussions on these talk pages that are not related to the article itself. There are several internet message boards related to the Civil War where I'm sure you could get into some vicious debates! Tfine80 18:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Diplomacy
I'm surprised that this hadn't been mentioned in the main article after so many edits. What do people think of the new section? Should it be moved further up in the article, perhaps after the battles? Tfine80 18:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The outcome determined the name!
A state cannot and could not legally secede from the Union without a vote from Congress and approval of the President. The American Civil War was indeed a civil war since it involved armed conflict within a single country. The Southern states attacked the rightful government and were soundly defeated, restoring the proper order. The Confederate States of America never became a seperate country in reality and could never form legitimately without the consent of the United States of America.

Since the Southern states failed in their attempt to form a seperate nation, the Civil War is an entirely appropriate name.

bb