Talk:American Civil War/Archive 11

Anybody able to check this?
This does not appear in the Slavery in the United States article, and numbers seem rather large. The year for the source is 1991, but I cannot tell how stats were derived --JimWae (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As of 1850 the percentage of Southern whites living in families that owned slaves was 43 percent in the lower South, 36 percent in the upper South and 22 percent in the border states that fought mostly for the Union.[26]
 * I checked the source--Freehling. He gives those numbers but his footnote is to the 1870 census which I also checked and it does NOT give any data whatever on family ownership. So I dropped the sentence. Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The footnote you refer to also references an 1872 work by Francis A. Walker. In referencing the census infothe footnote DOES NOT reference 1870.  In any event, what Feehling and other hitorians have done is calculate what the likely number of families owning slaves were based on average family size and number of individual slaveholders.  McPherson in "Battle Cry of Freedom does the same thing regarding family ownership (page 255) and his footnote admits "Calculated from the census of 1860."  If two historians (and reliable sources) such as Freehling and McPherson use ths method, it should be sufficient for wikipedia.  I am adding the sentence back.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Several members within the same family were sometimes listed as owning some slaves on slave schedules. This would skew sucha derivation. If this data stands, there should be a note re methodology--JimWae (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we are getting into serious Original Research when we start rejecting info from Reliable Sources because we question their methodology. McPherson says  "Calculated from the census of 1860" w/o further clarification -- I don't know whether he took such duplication into consideration or not.  Having seen the same census data from the Internet as everybody else, it seems obvious what his calculations were mainly based on.  Throughout all aspects of the Civil War -- whether the topics are deserters, battle casualties, civilian casualties, property confiscated, supplies available or whatever -- numbers are estimates based on the best available information. I will go back and attribute the figures in the text to Freehling and indicate it was an estimate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Census figures do give the # of households. These 1860 figures might help. The column closest to what we are discussing is Slaveholders/Households--JimWae (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen similar tables elsewhere although I don't remember if I've seen it in full in a book. In ay event, I also noticed that Donald, Baker, and Holt in "The Civil War and Reconstruction" (page 61) make the same type of family calculations -- mentioning that in 1860 there were "only 393,967 slave owners but the number of  persons in "slave-owning households" was "a million and a quarter". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS The older 1960 version of "The Civil War and Reconstruction" by Donald and Randall has a chart on page 68 that uses an estimate of slaveholding families in 1860.  They explain that they take the average number of persons in a family in each state and divide that average into the total state population.  This number of families is then compared to the number of slaveholders. The authors state that "it should be remembered that a slaveholder in the census meant usually a slaveholding family".  They point out that the significance of this type of calculation is that it points out a more accurate calculation of the number of people that have a direct interest in slavery. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * North Shoreman is right--and the Randall chart is copied from his first edition in 1937, which in turn was based on 1860 census data (which I have not located in the 1860 census). Hinton Helper back in 1860 used similar census data from the 1850 census, noting that it overcounted the number of owners. (The same family might be counted several times --once for each county in which it owned slaves). Half the owners had from one to four slaves. Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a county by county |PDF map for 1860 - more relevant to Slavery in the United States, but here too. Here's the 1860 county data --JimWae (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Several online tables have talked about "families" on the census (as apparently the sources for this part of the article do). No US census ever counted families - they have counted "households" --JimWae (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the 1860 census had "family": "Dwelling - houses numbered in the order of visitation; Families numbered in the order of visitation; Name of every person whose usual place of abode on the first day of June, 1860, was in this family"; etc = source [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen] (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess families were included in the form - BUT I have never seen families "counted" whereas I have seen the number of households counted and reported. Each census taker interpreted "family" a bit differently - sometimes including next generation families as separate families, sometimes as part of the "main" family -- also servants were sometimes within or as separate - (though that would apply more in the North). Anyway, the number of families are estimates & there is room for diversity and further research. "Households with slaves" is just about as relevant as "families with slaves" in terms of economic & social dependency on slavery. --JimWae (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Several (non-ideological) problems

 * 1. I caught some incorrect dates in the article and corrected them. I mention this because I may have missed others; my changes can be found in the article history.
 * 2. I left a tag on the assertion that Lincoln adopted General Scott's Anaconda strategy; I read somewhere that it was never formally adopted, and I know that historian Rowena Reed made a big point of denying that there was any coherent overall Union strategy. (Reed, Rowena, Combined Operations in the Civil War. Naval Institute Press, 1978.) If someone can give a reference to counter her argument, I will remove the tag.
 * 3. I eliminated the implication that the trade in cotton was choked off by the blockade. Cotton exports fell in the first years of the war because of the policies of the Confederate government, not the blockade. The assertion that the blockade put strains on the Southern economy, however, is true.
 * 4. The frequently-seen judgment that the Battle of Hampton Roads was a tactical Southern victory but a strategic Northern victory has been questioned by more than one historian. Because the evaluation implies a Point of View (should I abbreviate it POV for the hardcore Wikipedians?), I have deleted it. Nothing depends on it anyway.
 * 5. What is the rationale for the names of leaders in the infobox? The Secretaries of the Navy are listed, but not the Secretaries of the Army. Scott, McClellan, Halleck, and Grant were all generals-in-chief (did they have the title? - at any rate, they were able to advise Lincoln on overall strategy), but Sherman was not. On the Southern side, why is Beauregard included and not A. S. Johnston?

I will continue reading and may come up with additional objections. This is enough for right now. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * some comments. #2 I added sources; Scott's plan was built around a blockade which Lincoln did adopt; #3) text is revised; note that the CSA government did NOT order the embargo--it was spontaneous; but the cotton crop was now 90% wasted because of the blockade. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The blockade preceded the Anaconda; that is not to say that Scott had nothing to do with it, but it does imply that the Anaconda adopted government policy, and not the other way around. The other part of the plan, the thrust down the Mississippi, was abandoned by McClellan and Halleck, and was revived because of commercial pressures from the Midwest rather than adherence to a military theory.
 * The statement that the cotton embargo was spontaneous is correct, but misses the point that the drop in exports was not (at least primarily) due to the blockade. (According to Wise, Lifeline of the Confederacy, p. 28, the spontaneous embargo had the tacit approval of the Confederate government. Indeed, it is hard to believe that it would have been so thorough if Davis and Co. had disapproved.) -- By the way, I like the way you have rewritten the relevant part of the article. PKKloeppel (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the next one. This note (number 1, in fact) appears in the infobox: "Nominally, the Russian Empire was allied with the United States, and dispatched two naval vessels, the Alexander Nevsky and the Uragan, with standing orders to attack Confederate shipping in the Atlantic and Pacific in case of a breakdown in relations between Russia and Britain. However, they engaged in no open battles. See: Russian Empire – United States relations." I have two questions: 1. Why is this statement put where it is? It seems to be relevant to the body of the article, where relations with the European powers are treated. 2. Is it even true? I know that Russia made its support of the Union known, but I have never heard of an alliance between the two countries. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the Russia bit is a totally false myth: see "The Russian Fleet Myth Re-Examined" by Thomas A. Bailey 1951. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. As the phrase has it, you learn something new every day. PKKloeppel (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One cause of the Civil War? WTF!
It is just down right shameful and a disrespectful to all those who gave their lives (on both sides) to simply give an 8th grade hyper-simplified answer, slavery. It's pretty bad when an About.com page can give a much better answer than wikipedia To take the issue to another level does anybody believe thousands of "white" people would fight bleed and die to just to keep their "black" property? Not to mention there was only a very small group ultra-rich plantation owners with entrenched political power(who kept their butts at home smoking cigars). It was the poor non-slave owning whites that did the fighting/dieing. What were they fighting for? Slavery? --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * we have had dozens of these discussions, always ending with the point that no reliable sources agree with the neo-confederate protesters. It will surprise those folks to hear that about 380,000 white families in the South owned slaves, including the majority of political and military leaders. Ralph Wooster for example looked at the 169 men in South Carolina who comprised the secession convention in Dec. 1860--they were "primarily a wealthy, middle aged, slave holding, native born group of planters and lawyers." (p 20)-- and so on in every southern state. The poor whites fought for slavery because it meant white supremacy. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to read that about.com article and see that the high school teacher who wrote it presents five separate reasons for the war, but all five are directly related to the dispute over slavery or the differences in economic systems that resulted from free labor versus slavery. He presents the second reason, states' rights, in a neutral way that refers to nullification, but it is clear from the statements of politicians at the time that the only state rights being disputed in 1860 were related to the protection and extension of slavery. Without the presence of slavery in the South, there is no conceivable scenario that would have led to secession and war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Neo-confederate protesters" that is laughable. I'm sure I can find plenty of reliable source. The page is a F'n joke.

Let us examine the following incomplete list as some of the causes of the Civil War: 1. the Constitutionality of states rights (Tenth Amendment), These Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the expansion of a central Federal Government, Ableman v. Booth (1859) 2. Tariff Act of 1789, the tariffs of 1820 and 1824 3. Western states wanting a central bank, Panic of 1837, panic of 1857 4. Southern states as a "voting block" (as the abolition movement gained strength) 5. Western expansion, as the shift in power to "free states". 6. Lincoln's election in 1860 7. The confederate attack on Fort Sumter (state land), the response by Lincoln 8. The Compromise of 1850, California became a state and Texas boundary dispute 9. "Bleeding Kansas" Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 10. In A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States (1868--1870) Alexander H. Stephens maintained: "It was a strife between the principles of Federation, on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other" In The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881) Jefferson Davis held that the Confederates had "fought for the maintenance of their State governments in all their reserved rights and powers." Both men forgot that the preservation of slavery had been the object of state sovereignty, state rights, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy.--Duchamps_comb MFA 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is usually the pattern that developes when folks like you raise this bogus issue. You have provided a list of what YOU CONSIDER SIGNIFICANT while COMPLETELY FAILING to provide anything  from a RELIABLE SOURCE.  Absent some serious effort in the very near future on your part to define your argument using reliable sources, your seemingly frivolous tag on the article neeeds to be removed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

also the south is represented extremely negativity now i am not saying the south was right but about slavery but some of the other ideas they held seemed more correct than those of the north and it is not fair to the south that all this article does is say slavery was bad.
 * Can't tell you how many times I've seen somebody rush to the discussion page and throw a tantrum because they want to downplay the significance of slavery in the beginning of the Civil War. Nobody is denying that issues such as the tariff and central bank alienated the South to some degree; but the simple fact is that the purpose of secession was to protect the institution of slavery, and thus the article deals with the matter appropriately and sufficiently. -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no intent on "downplay the significance of slavery", however there is more to it than that (on many levels). It is not slavery = Bad; South = Bad. From my perspective its about commerce. Slavery was not about humans it was about business/finance to the plantation owners. As was the Huge issue of protective tariffs, once again about commerce/finance. It was the South that was the cash cow of the North. That payed higher tariffs on exported goods, as well on imported goods from foreign countries. South Carolina declared the tariff laws null thus the  Nullification Crisis John C. Calhoun signed the Force Bill to use military force against South Carolina. All the other southern stated knew this. How can tariffs not be part of the causes of Secession? The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads and building light houses, five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects, further putting salt in the souther’s side. Here is another kids webpage that explains it better than wikipedia . There are problems to this day with the issue of states rights. A quick example is a person who is licensed to sell marijuana by the state (CA) can be arrested by a Federal Agency for breaking a Federal law, even tho he is not breaking any state law. There is currently 38 states that have resolutions proclaiming their 10th Amendment sovereignty.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This one casue of the civil war BS is well...BS. There was not one cause and like it or not, slavery was not the only reason that 13 of our own states left the union. Pure liberal bias IMHO. Robert E. Lee himself once said that "This war is not about slavery". While I dissagree and I would suggest that slavery is a major factor, it is not the only one and I since some very strong POV here is this is not corrected. Just google it and you'll see what I mean. Here's an example though I'm not that sure about the Reliability of the source .-- White Shadows  you're breaking up 01:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Rjensen, try not to comment on the contributor but the content. ES's like neoconfederate notions not supported by RS are not acceptable and could be viewed as PA's. I agree with Duchamps but I am certainly glad that the "north" won the war ect.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 01:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody has ever said that slavery was the only cause of the American Civil War. However, it's plainly obvious that it was indeed the primary factor, and without it, the Civil War would not have happened. Note that during the Nullification Crisis, one faction in one state threatened to secede. This was over the tariff. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates were entirely about slavery, and Lincoln getting Douglas to endorse the Freeport Doctrine is what cost him the presidency. Then, the man that promises to limit the extension of slavery is elected, and half the South secedes; the rest follow when the war begins.
 * And as for the Robert E. Lee "this war isn't about slavery" quote: (1) I question if this is a legitimate source, given that this website appears to be for user-submitted content with no citation required; (2) this contradicts what the secessionists said about themselves (compared to Lee, who was simply a military commander and had no influence on politics until he became popular as such); and (3) given that the long-term goal of the Confederacy was to be recognized by France and the U.K., emphasizing that they wanted to protect slavery is likely a bad idea, and thus they have a motive to conceal their true intent. -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm supprised that a historian such as yourself has never head that quote. I know it to exit but I needed a link to "prove it" in front of you all. There are numerous sources that suggest that he was indeed against slavery as a practice and only sided with the south because Virginia left the union. And I am not saying that we need to remove slaverya s a topic. It was infact the primary reason. However, it was not the only reasona and as a result, the section that mentions it in the article is not covering the whole topic. This fails the GA criteria and further proves Duchamps' POV tag which you reverted. At least make a detailed mention of the other casues in the paragraph. Is it really that hard to do?-- White Shadows you're breaking up 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like others who have started this debate before, you have failed to support any of your beliefs with reliable sources (the two websites you linked do not come close). Perhaps you could summarize what you wish to have added and provide the reliable sources that support this addition.


 * The section (not a single paragraph as you suggest) you are objecting to is extensively footnoted. Perhaps you can tell us a few of your favorite,reliable, peer reviewed, published works that you most rely on to support your views on the causes of secession and you feel have not been considered in writing the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When I have time in the coming few days I will try to fix the WP:WEIGHT, Balance, and Tone, so the section does not smack of POV (as SOOO many other editors have suggested). As I believe Origins of the American Civil War seems to come off as pretty balanced and well written. "The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. States' rights and the tariff issue became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it." Their is no reason that this page has to reek. As well I will be adding a few refs.--Duchamps_comb MFA 14:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there is no consensus that there is a need to "fix" the weight of the article, you should discuss your proposed changes here first. The "SOOO many other editors" you refer to have, collectively, mentioned few, if any, reliable sources.


 * Having said that, the sentences you took from the Origins article are both on point and accurate. The problem with your analysis, however, is the failure to acknowledge that this is also the approach that this article takes. This article already devotes considerable space to a topic that has its own article and I'm doubtful that any more detail in this article is required. For example, tariifs and slavery as issues were united during the Nullification Crisis, but tariffs were rarely cited by potential secessionists in the 1850s -- it does not, therefore, seem appropriate to expand the discussion of tariffs in ths article.  Of course, you are free to show on these discussion pages where reliable sources make a different case.


 * When you and your buddy continue to use phrases such as "reek", "BS", "shameful and a disrespectful" and "WTF" in the discussion, it only hinders the possiblity that a reasonable dialogue will develope. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Any arguments here are pointless. You will be labeled a neo confederate and your source will be attacked with various fallacies. Those same fallacies can be used against their sources so in the end this page is locked and piss on you. Their propoganda will stand simply because they have stolen the power.70.15.191.119 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

this is just one of my favorite talk pages to come back to from time to time (usually out of boredom) and read inane comments from clueless editors. i dont think there any reliable sources that state slavery wasnt the main cause of the civil war, but every month i find more comments alluding to such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee
Tennessee's reason for joining the confederacy wasn't on the basis of Slavery. Tennessee the last state to join the confederacy, only Virginia saw more battles. February of 1861 54% of Tennesseans voted against holding a state convention to decide whether or not she should secede. Had the convention been held the vote likely would have been no as Tennessee was largely pro-union before fort sumter. What happened to those pro-union individuals? Did they die? No they changed their mind. Why? Old honest Abe (who assured Tennessee some peaceful means would settle this secession crisis) called Tennessee to send 75,000 volunteers to put the seceded states back into line. The public was swayed to say the least.

Historian Daniel Crofts thus reports:(Daniel W. Crofts, Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis (1989), p.334.) Unionists of all descriptions, both those who became Confederates and those who did not, considered the proclamation calling for seventy-five thousand troops "disastrous." Having consulted personally with Lincoln in March, Congressman Horace Maynard, the unconditional Unionist and future Republican from East Tennessee, felt assured that the administration would pursue a peaceful policy. Soon after April 15, a dismayed Maynard reported that "the President's extraordinary proclamation" had unleashed "a tornado of excitement that seems likely to sweep us all away." Men who had "heretofore been cool, firm and Union loving" had become "perfectly wild" and were "aroused to a frenzy of passion." For what purpose, they asked, could such an army be wanted "but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern states." The growing war spirit in the North further convinced southerners that they would have to "fight for our hearthstones and the security of home."

Basically Tennessee voted and the results left East Tennessee heavily against secession, West Tennessee equally for it, and with the deciding factor being Middle Tennessee, which went from 51 percent against secession in February to 88 percent in favor in June.They weren't allowed to stand neutral and they wouldn't fight their brothers. One of the causes of the civil war was Abe Lincoln decision to attack the south as it pertains to the Tennessee soldier.70.15.191.119 (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * why did so many Tennesseans propose secession BEFORE Sumter? Try slavery. Why did the folks in Middle Tennessee think of the Confederacy as "brothers" while those in East Tennessee did not? Slavery. Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did the Majority of Tennessee vote against secession before Sumter? It couldn't have been Slavery. Voting against secession or rather the majority of people not allowing a secession convention before Sumter doesn't show fears of losing their peculiar institution. Middle Tennessee was apart of the February vote. Why vote against it in February and vote for it in June? Your "try slavery" mantra seems rather biased sir. Why did East Tennessee not care about their confederate brothers? I would argue that they did but they also cared about their union brothers and that they cared about themselves. You are familiar with Nickajack aren't you? A proposed neutral state made up of East Tennessee and North Alabama. There was after all a feeling in those areas that this would be a war for the rich fought by the poor. Many of the population of this area resisted confederate conscription and some even joined the union army. I don't suspect they joined the union because of slavery. I would more so assume that they joined the union for the same reason west Tennessee joined the confederacy. Their hand was forced and they fought against those who forced it. Had Tennessee not been asked to send 75,000 troops she would have remained neutral. Had the confederacy not forced people from east Tennessee into conscription she likely would have remained neutral, Though again a number of East Tennesseans did remain Neutral.70.15.191.119 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The slave power was weaker in Tennessee than further South--that is, fewer big-time slave owners (out of 150,000 white families, only 18,000 owned 5+ slaves). 2) American nationalism was stronger--the tradition of Andrew Jackson was powerful (as shown by Andrew Johnson's role); 3) East Tennessee (with far fewer slaves) strongly rejected secession. 4) the state's location made it highly vulnerable to invasion from the North (as indeed happened). Neutrality was tried by Kentucky--did not work very well. Rjensen (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1) For Tennessee slavery had little to nothing to do with why it entered the civil war. 2) American nationalism was strong in Tennessee so strong that she didn't step out of the union until a request for troops was called upon to attack their neighbors after being assured this would be peaceful. 3) East Tennessee rejected secession and it was largely pro union as was the majority of the state before Sumter. 4) Kentucky would have went with the confederates had the union violated it's neutrality. Kentucky claimed two governments during the civil war.

All in all slavery wasn't a big issue in Tennessee and damn sure not enough to go to war. It doesn't fit in with the revisionist history being pushed but Factual history is more important. I think here's the time that I get labeled a Neo-Confederate but sticks and stones.

Numerous people come here and point out how biased this article is and perhaps they stop a minute and do some research. If you are from a confederate state don't settle for wiki since it is after all a worthless source of information. Find out why your state decided to secede. Now if you find you have the time post it on here please do. If you find a source that shows your state seceded do to other reasons than slavery please cite those sources. If you find a reason that concerned your state more than slavery and led them to secede please cite that source as well. If you find a factual source that leads you to believe slavery had little to nothing to do with your states choice to secede then please cite that source here. It likely won't do anything about the obvious slant on this article and I wouldn't really expect much other than hyperbole getting tossed at you but they might quit trying to rewrite history and start displaying it accurately. I really don't hold high hopes but maybe the a person will read from this page and go from here to a reputable source and actually learn the truth and of course factual history organized by individuals whose agenda is nothing more than recording history.70.15.191.119 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The states that were in between regarding slavery (Kentucky and Tennesee) had more divided loyalties than most states. Both states had more slavery than the average border state, but less than the average Confederate state. Many east Tenneseans fought for the Union, and many Kentuckians fought for the Confederacy. The states with the most slavery seceeded first. The states with no slavery all joined the Union. The overall pattern is clear enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Little attention to the military and too much - to slavery issue
I'm no expert in history, but it struck me that: 1) Slavery is covered too much, as if it was the primary cause for war, which it weren't, see Lincoln's famous quote, and the backstory of political tension over the balance of power in the federal government. 2) There is no section about actual warfare like military tactics or equipment used. Since it's a war after all, I think it would be appropriate to at least include a link in the "See also" section, which is also lacking. 95.181.12.52 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is a pretty high-level overview; it links to a number of sub-articles like Eastern Theater of the American Civil War, and from there on down to articles on like Gettysburg Campaign; Battle of Gettysburg; Battle of Gettysburg, Third Day; and Pickett's Charge (and, on the other hand, to other high-level political articles like Confederate States of America and Origins of the American Civil War).


 * As to your first objection, slavery is covered so much because it was the primary cause for the war. 68.217.100.225 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You obviously do not know your history, slavery was not the primary cause for the war, not even close, slavery was a separate and non-linked issue, the main causes of the war were the economic raping of the south by the north and the political divergence between the south and the north.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.154 (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Slavery was one of the leading causes to the war but not the only. What's the deal here? Great every one has a strong opposition to slavery but they made an amendment to in the constitution that abolished it. It's over. Everybody cheer and rejoice. Now every American is equal. The wiki page on the origins of the civil war talks about other things than slavery. Now states rights is argued to have not been an issue in the civil war but the nullification crisis which had nothing to do with slavery is shown to be one issue that led to the civil war. The nullification crisis was about states rights and had nothing to do with slavery. One obvious thing is that southern opinions on states rights were not like those of northern opinions but alot of interpretations contradict each other. Supreme court case have been overturned in the past. No ones opinion from here is needed in the article. If you know a historians opinion on the subject put it in there but only as that historians opinion. That opinion doesn't void out anything. This wikipedia an encyclopaedia it should represent fact first foremost and opinion only when there is a historical importance. Henry Brooks Adams may not agree with southern views on states rights during the civil war but many soldiers that fought and died didn't own slaves. Many actually fought for those states rights. I don't like the thought of slavery. I also don't like changing history to fit a politically correct mindset.70.15.191.119 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Slavery was not the cause of the killing and bloodshed, that is ridiculous; how many people took up arms to fight against slavery as compared to those who took up arms to preserve the Union? Slavery was not mentioned as the war began, Sumter was!


 * Slavery was one cause, perhaps THE cause of the secession; but it was the secession that caused the duel over what should be done about Sumpter, not slavery. Lincoln said he would not reinforce Sumter with military supplies unless it was fired upon...this had nothing to do with slavery. But the South figured he was lying and bombarded the fort, since they believed it was rightfully their property. Again, nothing to do with slavery. Lincoln decided to raise an army and go to war to preserve the Union...not fight slavery. The people who wrote the article, locked it, and then they play with whoever raises an objection in the talk page until they get tired and give up. They should be ashamed of themselves. This is not your property, nor is it your place to rewrite American History to suite your political objectives.--Germangirl22x (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"North" and "South"
I noticed that the 'Causes of secession' section assumes that the reader understands the meaning of the terms 'North' and 'South' in this context. For those who are unfamiliar with U.S. history, this may not be the case. The section could use a brief introduction to clarify these terms and explain why the groups of states were either slave-owning or not. This would help clarify the remainder of the section. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address this.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How many Union states?
I really need this for a school paper, but how many Union states were there? If you could get me this info as quick as possible, i would be SOOOOOOOO grateful. CamrynRocks! (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a map at Union (American Civil War). Just count the states in blue and light blue, and if your teacher says that those were Confederate, tell her about border states and so forth which you can read about on that article. Buggie111 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Missouri Problems
It is just appalling that you list Missouri as a Union State, in 1861, the missouri government voted to secede, then the union sent its bitching troops to take it back cause they bitches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.235.159 (talk • contribs)


 * Interesting language there. Both sides claimed Missouri as under their control throughout the conflict. In 1861 "control" was a tricky thing, because as you stated there was secession and a pro-Confederate government set up, as was a pro-Union structure. I would venture to say until late 1861 the state was quite a mess and perhaps 51% CSA. During the following campaigns, as Price and Van Dorn were sorta shoved out of most of the state, it fell increasingly under Union control from then on. Best to view this page or this page to learn more. Kresock (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like the sons of the south try to paint the civil war as a battle against The mean Government. But they forget that slavery was the main cause not the only one but the main cause of the war. So instead of defending the south (which started the war by shooting at a Union Fort) they should be glad tha slavery no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism and honor?
I think this idea has some merit, but some large problems as well. One - nationalism would have prevented secession, not caused it. This is the big one. A smaller exception is the fact that some (Robert E. Lee and so on) seemed to have more loyalty to their states than to the nation.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * nationalism DID prevent or delay secession in most of the upper South (says Crofts). The text follows Potter's famous argument (which is cited): The Southerners had two kinds of nationalism, one to the region and one to the entire USA. The deeper south you went the more of the first and the less of the second. There was no reported regional variation in the North. The honor theme comes from Wyatt Brown, also cited.Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the title of the section should be changed. Nationalism is love/pride for one's country. SECTIONALISM is love/pride for a certain PART of your country (see Murrin's Liberty, Equality and Power textbook). I think that most accurately describes the feelings of secessionists. The title should be Sectionalism and Honor. Let me know if this title would be more acceptable/ accurate.

--Schwindtd (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the section called "Sectionalism". Maybe the honor stuff could just be combined with the sectionalism section because the honor stuff adds some more social context to the sectionalism section. --Schwindtd (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Twenty Negro Law
Perhaps someone with edit rights could add this to the article (perhaps just after the Second Battle of Bull Run paragraph): On October 11, 1862, the Congress of the Confederate States of America enacted the Twenty Negro Law, which exempted slave owners of 20 or more slaves from Confederate military service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.37.96 (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is indeed true. I'll leave it to others to judge its relevance. Maybe one sentence would be justified.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

14th and 15th amendments
I have a suggestion. The current description of the 14th and 15th amendments doesn't explicitly state an inaccuracy, but very strongly implies one. The current implication is that these amendments immediately ended unequal protection of the laws and guaranteed the right to vote, which is false. Multiple mass deleters indicate than even links to other articles are too much, in their opinion, to get it right. If these amendments can't be accurately described, they shouldn't be mentioned at all.

The combination of what kept getting deleted and what was persistantly left are what leaves a very false implication. Since the amount deleted was small (the details are in other articles through links), perhaps this was done for emotional reasons?

I will delete mention of these amendments for now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These amendments are always considered Reconstruction topics. No RS I have seen considers the 14th and 15th amendments in connection with the Civil War. Injecting them into this article violates the basic RS rule. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC).
 * I didn't put them there to begin with. Did you add Reconstruction to the article? I thought you did. If Reconstruction doesn't belong, lets get rid of it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (I did not put that stuff in.) One sentence that says Reconstruction began during the war and was used to solve the political issues of the war should suffice.Rjensen (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I remember you adding it years ago, but whatever. It's gone now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. :) I just now revised slightly--Since Reconstruction began during the war it needs a brief mention; the postwar story needs a sentence and a link to the Recon article.Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.130.209.205, 19 August 2010
It states that there where five border states that still had slaves who didnt join the confederacy, i believe there was only four and i think they should be stated which ones for the readers gain.

174.130.209.205 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, if this request is re-posted please follow the instructions within the template itself...


 * This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
 * Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At the outset, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware were the border states. West Virginia broke away from the rest of Virginia later and became a border state. See the article for details.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Top picture is a dreadful jumble
Hi, just passing through. I do believe the visual mess at the top does no justice to this article. Can't you select a single picture? Tony  (talk)  06:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Top left and bottom pics depict motion in opposite directions. Both are "busy" with activity and detail that do not harmonise. The yellowish colour of the top-left clashes with the smoke and landscape of the bottom pic. The top-right pic is monochrome, very static, has little detail, and is a photograph rather than a painting. Fitting all three together into the infobox makes it difficult to appreciate the imagery, since they are very small—especially the top two. This needs to be fixed urgently. I suggest that all three pics be moved down into the article and a new, single pic be substituted. Surely there's something better to choose from??? Tony   (talk)  10:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the picture has been there for over six years, I doubt that the need is particularly urgent. I created it after seeing a number of other big war articles with collages like this, although I haven't checked them recently to see if they've stuck with the practice. If you think that you can find a single image that satisfies the various constituencies interested in the ACW, you are welcome to discuss your ideas here. None of the current three images is important enough alone to worry about moving them later in the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The pic looks a bit busy to me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hal, it has always been urgent. Please consider a replacement. Tony   (talk)  23:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We (the community of cooperative, friendly Wikipedia editors) will be happy to consider alternatives that you or others suggest or create. Just remember that you'll need to satisfy (or avoid annoying) Union/Confederate, Army/Navy, and infantry/cavalry/artillery folks. And please be quick, because we can't afford another six years of this urgent problem. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to annoy. Do you mean it will be like the Jerusalem article, where all factions want to be represented in a picture slot at the top? I hope not. You do see where I'm coming from, visually and thematically, don't you? I'm only trying to help improve what appears to be a pity for this article. Surely the Commons has amassed more pics in six years that might be worthy of consideration ... Tony   (talk)  03:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean. Or check out World War I or World War II for examples of top-level war articles. And let me be more clear: unless you or others suggest explicit alternatives for discussion and consensus here--not simply "something better"--the image we've used for 6 years will remain. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really liking the new pic. Another pic would be better, although I didn't object to the previous one. Yet if the previous pic is too "busy", then does anyone have a suggestion, rather than just saying "I don't like it"?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it says something, prepares the readers for the article. It's much better. Tony   (talk)  22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if someone found a better one though.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Neil999go, 12 September 2010
The section on confederacy surrenders refers to Liverpool,England. Whilst this is not technically incorrect, as Liverpool is in England, the link under England links back to the page for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Either the link is correct (and should link to the page for England not the UK), or the text in the article should say Britain or UK. Neil999go (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ShineOnHarvestMoon, 27 September 2010
In introduction between first and second paragraphs:

"Despite the popular invocation of slavery as the root of the United States Civil War, the conflict was largely a dispute between the Southern landed aristocracy and the rising Northern industrialist class over the issues of trade. Protectionist tariffs designed to foster fledgling Northern industry against foreign competition proved troublesome for the Southern plantation economy, which relied on more liberal trade conditions."

ShineOnHarvestMoon (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the requested statement reflects the notions of the 1920s (especially Charles Beard) that have been rejected by nearly all scholars in the last 60 years. The businessmen of the Northeast did not want war, they  wanted rich southern customers. The Southern planters sold their cotton at very high prices (which kept going up) to Northeastern and English textile mills, and they prospered from the system.Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish there was a more efficient way to keep Lost Cause editors off of Wikipedia. The requested paragraph is factually inaccurate, since the South had dictated the national tariff policy since 1828; its implication is that it would've been the North seceding from the South. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per above. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  21:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The blanket invocation of 'rejection by nearly all scholars in the last 60 years' is an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. Certainly the Northern industrial businessmen did not want war, but they needed protectionism, as the well-developed British industrial infrastructure was threatening to keep their industry from ever gaining traction. Triangular Trade routes were still largely in place at this time, through which the US was kept a mainly agricultural economy, shipping cotton to British factories to process, the textiles from which were then taken to Africa and exchanged for slaves to work again on US plantations. The civil war was the attempt of Northern industrial business owners to stop this trade so that am American industrial system could compete with Britain and drive an imperial economy on strategies of mercantilism like Britain's. Your lament that alternative theories should be better curbed from wikipedia undermines the democracy and legitimacy of the website. -ShineOnHarvestMoon
 * worse than a blanket invocation is no invocation at all. ShineOnHarvestMoon needs to share the titles of the RS he is citing. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Union, Confederate, and United States armies and navies
President Lincoln calling for troops after Fort Sumter was surrendered can be the dividing line for calling the United States Army or Navy the Union Army and Navy. The Confederate Army and Navy can begin with the formation of the Confederacy. However, when did the War officially end? When did the Union and Confederate Armies and Navies dissolve and the United States Army and Navy begin again? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor Wording, Battle of Fort Sumter
Just pointing out that "North and South the response to Ft. Sumter was an overwhelming, unstoppable demand for war to uphold national honor. Only Kentucky tried to remain neutral. Hundreds of thousands of young men across the land rushed to enlist, and the war was on." sounds rather poorly constructed, if anyone is eloquent enough to revise, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.221.87.4 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor said that neither side saw Sumter as a provocation, which I don't think is correct. The South saw itself as a separate country and saw Union control of the fort as a provocation. The North saw Lincoln's call for volunteers as an attempt to defend Union owned federal property. Opposite interpretations led both sides to see the Fort Sumter issue as a provocation leading to war, which is the wording I would suggest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As the RS make clear, the people north and south reacted massively, immediately and with great anger--they demanded war immediately and they joined up, and the article must emphasize the enormity of the event. --compare the reaction to Pearl Harbor or to 9-11. ("Many Americans considered the attacks on 9-11 as a provocation"; "The attack on Pearl Harbor provoked Americans" is bad history because it tells the reader the wrong story.) (The attacks on the Reuben James (1941) or Tonkin Gulf (1964) were provocations) Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kcraven20, 22 November 2010
The Civil War was a new age for weaponry. In the 1840s, new types of weapons were being developed leading up to the Civil War. These weapons were more advanced than the weapons used in the American Revolution. They gave soldiers more range to fire from a longer distance, had a better accuracy, and a heavier striking power. When South Carolina and other states started to leave the union, the North and South started to modernize and accumulate the manufacturing of firearms. Civil War soldiers used a wide variety of arms. Primarily, single shot muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets were used in the first year of the war. As time went on, the shoulder-fired rifle-muskets were adopted. It was known as the Springfield or the Enfield model. This weapon caused about eighty-five percent of the deaths in the Civil War. The most popular rifle muskets were the .58 caliber model 1861 and 1863 Springsfields. They were manufactured in Springfield, Massachusetts. The .577 model of 1853 and 1856 Enfields were popular models also used in the Civil War. The Enfields were not manufactured in Enfield, Connecticut; they were imported from Great Britain. These were the most common weapons used in the battlefields by the North and South. Soldiers carried small arms as well. All officers would carry a saber or a sword but they often relied on revolvers. Carbines and pistols were carried by Civil War cavalrymen but also were carried on navy ships.

Kcraven20 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for List of weapons in the American Civil War? ..or Category:American Civil War weapons? I think that there may be too many entries to make an effective template. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Beecher Stowe Caused the Civil War
Abraham Lincoln, when he met Harriet Beecher Stowe, said "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that caused this great war". It was the rabble-rousing abolitionists who caused the Civil War. Northerners and Southerners had been intelligently debating the issue of slavery for decades; there was even talk among Southerners about abolishing it in the South but the Southerners found that suddenly releasing millions of uneducated blacks with limited skills would add greatly to crime in the South--which already had to deal with the criminal white trash element. They simply could not free the slaves because of the enormous crime wave it would cause. In 1832, Governor John Floyd of Virginia asked the legislature to phase out slavery, but they rejected his proposal by a vote of 73 to 58 after some well-reasoned debate--millions of suddenly freed blacks was too large a logistical problem (how would they be incorporated into society?). Even blacks owned slaves--Andrew Durnford (a black man) of New Orleans owned 77 slaves. And slave drivers (straw bosses) were black. And slaves were expensive, up to $1,800 for a prime field hand--so slaves were taken good care of, although there were whippings. Planters preferred to use Irishmen or freed blacks to perform dangerous labor, since they didn't want their own slaves damaged. And few Southerners owned slaves--in 1860 only 2,200 planters owned more than 100 slaves. In the late 1850's the price of slaves soared so that only the very wealthy could afford them. (Does anybody actually believe that poor white Southerners would go to war to protect the financial investment of a few wealthy slave owners?) A slave produced about $100 in value each year but cost about $50 to feed, clothe and shelter. So owning slaves was a big financial risk. And remember, after 1808 it was against federal law to import slaves. Slavery was on the way out, but because of long-standing feuds, the fear of slave rebellions, the rabble-rousing abolitionists, States' rights, the right to secede, the agrarian/industrial dichotomy, the National Bank issue and other such matters of discord, the North and South were basically two different countries. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" raised the emotional ire in people and pushed the nation into Civil War. It was this book that caused the Civil War.66.122.182.231 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what would abolitionists have to talk about if slavery was phased out? Two reasons Southerners refused to do so: 1) Cotton was extremely profitable in 1860 and 2) fears of racial equality were more extreme in the South because 99 percent of blacks lived in the South. Southerners expressed fears of blacks voting, serving on juries, marrying whites and otherwise enjoying complete social equality with whites.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 66.122.182.231 doubtless feels that the South should have stayed in the Union and not opened fire on Ft Sumter. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were not in anyway victims to an oppressive North. John Brown had been defeated and hanged. Lincoln never made any threats of war while he was President. The issue over slavery's expansion or contraction was what caused the American Civil War. The Confederates did not want to travel to another state and not have their slaves. Lincoln was correct on Stowe, in that words are very powerful, and can influence people. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems money was a driving force behind the war. I crunched some numbers...cotton was the most important American product (not just Southern, but American product).  During the 1850's an annual crop of four million bales brought in more than $190 million (a bale of cotton might weigh 600 pounds) into the American economy from overseas.  That money greatly benefitted the North, not just the South, and I'm sure Washington, D.C. wanted to keep their hands on that money.  Cotton constituted 2/3 of America's exports!  In 1850, 1.8 million of the 3.2 million slaves worked it.  Other slave crops were tobacco, sugar, rice and hemp (for rope).  It seems the North had a vital financial stake in the South and did not want to let it go free (paradoxically).  And the Southern slaveholders didn't want to have their expensive slaves confiscated--I'm currently looking at an invoice copy from 1835 listing slaves from $400 to $500.  A slave was worth more than a house!  There were 4 million slaves at the start of the Civil War, which would have been several billions of dollars back then.  Anybody know the rate of inflation from back in the Civil War?  We must be talking trillion$ of dollar$ worth of slaves.  The South certainly didn't want it's economy devastated by freeing its slaves.  And the North didn't want to lose the South because of the revenue the South generated for the entire nation from cotton...  So the North wanted to have its cake and eat it too, they wanted to free the slaves but they wanted the cotton plantations to continue.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the American Civil War. As such, we discuss the actual causes, as documented by reliable sources. Slavery was the most important cause of the War, despite your research indicating otherwise. There were other minor issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights. We discuss them as minor issues.- SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your input. The problem I'm having is that throughout history I cannot find an instant of a country going to war to free slaves.  We have instances of slave uprisings, such as Nat Turner (apparently there were about 250 slave uprisings in the South but Nat Turner gets the focus of attention); Spartacus; Vercingetorix leading a rebellion against the oppression of the Romans; the ancient helots, etc. but I can't find any instance of a nation actually going to war to free some slaves.  Anybody got any historical instances?  Indeed, when the North invaded the South, they would burn plantations and sometimes hang the black slaves.  That's why I think such things as private property investments, sectional pride, etc. have to take on more importance than they are currently ascribed.  I think Robert Ardrey's "territorial imperative" (q.v.) played a great deal in fueling the Civil War.  I don't think "slavery" was the issue per se (apart from the abolitionists)--I think it was the amount of money tied up in a slave economy and the threatened way of life that caused people to go to war.  So people confuse issues related to a slave economy with the issue of slavery itself.  This Wiki article lists contributing causes of the war but they should be given much more weight.  Slavery by itself would not seem to be sufficient reason to get killed in a war, and indeed many Northerners opted out by paying someone else to be conscripted in their place.  If you were a Northerner would you die to free a black man you didn't even know hundreds of miles away?  There were just too many divisive issues between 1830 and 1860, which ultimately flared into war.  I think we have to understand the Zeitgeist of the times to understand how people thought--remember, they would have pistol duels over some mere perceived offense.  With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War now with us, they'll be a lot of re-visiting of history and we should all be prepared for some robust debate.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel the article is in error in presenting slavery as the most important cause of the the war, this is the place to do so, by presenting reliable sources that directly state otherwise. If you are here to dicuss this conclusion so that you may understand it or debate this conclusion based on your reading of history, this is not the place. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Changing the consensus view, presented in the FAQ linked at the top of the page, will require considerably more than your opinions, inability to find historical parallels and selected examples from antiquity. We need reliable secondary sources directly stating that the primary cause was something else. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Union did not "go to war to free the slaves" - but Southern states declared secessions in order to preserve slavery and "went to war" to enforce their territorial claims (which they felt were being challenged by continued presence of federal troop) AND to preserve their constitution, which was founded to preserve slavery (which they felt was endangered by Republican victory in 1860). The quote attributed to Lincoln about Stowe is not fully reliable, but saying abolitionists (singly or as a group) caused the war is hyperbolic. Abolitionists contributed to tension over the issue of slavery, but they had been around for some time. They had not created any unavoidable groundswell to abolish slavery in states where it was legal. Their greater influence was to disgust Northerners from assisting in the return of fugitive slaves. They did not trigger the attack on Sumter -- "their side" did not start the shooting. For Sumter to happen there had to be Southern reaction not only to the abolitionists, but to any restriction on slavery.--JimWae (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The war was not caused by the cotton trade. Why would Southerners risk everything since they were already wealthy by growing cotton in the first place?  Cotton, itself, was being grown throughout the world and the south did not have a monopoly on cotton.  The only alternative was slavery as the cause of the war.  The Southerners wanted to protect their institution of slavery and not be affiliated with any states that outlawed slavery. Blacks were viewed as lazy animals who had no rights.  Whipping slaves was not thought to be any more then whipping a mule.  The abolitionist movement was causing the Southerners to feel guilty over slavery, in my opinion. The rights of men only applied to whites, not blacks.  How dare those abolitionists say blacks were equal and deserved to be free. This was upsetting to many in the South who viewed the North as meddlers. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake - edit needed
"Civil War soldiers were able to by personal armor independantly through private sellers."


 * buy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.100.68 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "independantly" as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a mess... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a mess... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation Did not Free a Single Slave
"On September 22, 1862...Lincoln issued his Proclamation, to go into effect Jan. 1, 1863. Abolitionists roundly criticized Lincoln for a blow against slavery that did not free a single slave.  (It freed no slave in lands where Lincoln had authority.)  It reassured loyal slaveowners by allowing them to keep their slaves.  It also served as an inducement to Confederate slaveowners to make peace before January in order to save their property." --"The American Past", Third Edition, Joseph R. Conlin, Harcourt Brace, 1990, pg. 410. 64.169.155.54 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Consult our wiki article for sources that demonstrate this claim (i.e. your claim, not Conlin's claim that there was such criticism) to be false... Besides, what has this to do with an overview article on the Civil War?--JimWae (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't belong in an overview article on the Civil War? --Now you've got me confused.  Anyway, my understanding is that the Emancipation Proclamation was a political ruse to allow blacks to join the Union Army (as long as they were legally still slaves, they couldn't enlist); it pacified the Radicals in his own party who wanted a Constitutional Amendment that would free slaves in the North as well as the South; and it achieved British neutrality, Britain being pro-Confederate at the time.  The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the South, not the North.  As I recall, General US Grant didn't free his own slaves until months after the Civil War ended.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1> That's not what I said. 2>Your "understanding" is not a reliable source --JimWae (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For RS in this matter, I refer you to "The American Past" as noted above, pgs. 410-411. 64.169.155.54 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above mentioned criticism was made at the time, but Lincoln's proclamation became a strong symbol of the Union's growing opposition to slavery. It was a symbol that mattered, and Lincoln followed it by getting the 13th Amendment through a Congress that failed to pass it the first time. The war for the Union became a war for emancipation.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Lincoln's letter to Greeley mentioned his oft-repeated personal wish that all men should be free. Some people like selective quoting.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was born in New Hampshire and Horace Greeley was from Amherst, New Hampshire, so I do have a comprehension of events. The statement above about the Emancipation Proclamation not freeing a single slave, etc. is a direct quote, word-for-word, from the Conlin textbook, which itself has a massive bibliography and is well researched.  I think we all know that Lincoln was against slavery, I didn't see any reason to repeat common knowledge.  My old grey-haired neighbor when I was growing up lived to be 93, his grandfather chopped firewood with Abraham Lincoln when they were young men to earn money.  And I think we all know that Lincoln didn't announce his Proclamation earlier because the North needed to achieve a significant victory first, otherwise the words would be hollow.  By the way, I've been calculating the inflation since the Civil War.  While figures vary greatly according to the method used, apparently a slave might be worth $300,000 in today's money.  So with 4 million slaves in 1860, that means there could have been over a trillion dollars worth of slaves!  I've found other sites, however, that equate $800 from the Civil War to be worth $19,000 today.  So a slave might be worth $20,000 nowadays, which meant there was $80 billion worth of slaves.  The South couldn't afford to lose the money invested in slaves, it would financially impact the South negatively and result in the loss of plantation hands.  (In December of 1831, Governor John Floyd of Virginia asked the legislature to phase out slavery and pay slaveowners recompense for their losses, and the legislature debated for three weeks, often stating that they regretted slavery was ever introduced into Virginia, but since half the population of Virginia was slaves, it was deemed logistically impossible to free them).  The South was stuck with slavery, if they wanted it or not.63.198.18.13 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the Conlin quote. It says the PRELIMINARY Emanc. Proc of Sept 1862 did not free any slaves. true---that was an ultimatum. It was the FINAL proclamation (Jan 1, 1863) that freed about 3 million in the next 18 months. As for losing money, Lincoln repeatedly offered to buy all the slaves for cash--the latest in Feb 1865 when he met in person with top Confederate officials, and they said NO!Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2011
 * Some of Lincoln's Generals were freeing slaves after victories and Lincoln had to countermand their orders, lest the border states be affronted. (If Maryland left the Union, Washington, D.C. would be in the Confederacy!)  Lincoln did not believe he had the Constitutional authority to free slaves.  He did try to colonize places in the Caribbean to have a place where already freed slaves could go, but these plans failed through mismanagement and lack of funding.  As I understand it, the Proclamation only applied to the 10 most Southern States.  Lincoln came up with the "Delaware Plan".  In a letter to Illinois Senator James A. McDougall of March 14, 1862, Lincoln outlined a plan to buy up slaves in the four Union slave-holding border states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and including Washington, D.C.) for $400 apiece, the slaves to be freed over a 20 year period, but this was just an idea in a letter.  (The war was costing $2 million a day and Lincoln thought diverting that money to buy up slaves would be a better use.)  The idea was scoffed at by Union slaveholders because they thought it was just a scam and that Lincoln would never actually pay up.  I seem to recall the slaves in Washington, D.C. were bought up though, which makes sense--you shouldn't have slaves in the national capitol of an anti-slavery nation.  I haven't heard about his meeting with top Confederate officials, though, throughout the war to buy up all the slaves.  Can you refer me to sites on the Internet?  Thanks.  63.198.18.13 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * on the Feb 1864 meeting see Hampton Roads Conference also p 850 Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln was a moderate reconstructionist and he even expressed views of white supremacy. His statement to Greely was one of an attorney, who wanted very much the emancipation to pass the Supreme Court test, if the emancipation was challenged.  Lincoln fully supported the 13th amendment and even encouraged prominent congressmen to get the amendment passed.  None of these things eliminates that the Southerners started the War over the slave issue.  Slaves were property and the Southerners hated Northern meddling.  The North did not start the War, the South did. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why Didn't the US Supreme Court Rule Secession to be Legal?
Since the US Supreme Court was wont to rule in favor of slavery (Dred Scott, Fugitive Slave Act, etc.) why wasn't the matter of secession brought before the US Supreme Court? The Court might have ruled in favor of the South. Was any attempt made to subject the matter to judicial review? A court decision could have averted war. I can't seem to recall secession being discussed in the courts, though. Anybody got any info? By the way, the US never declared war during the Civil War (the US has declared war only five times), so should the Civil War actually be referred to as a police action? If it wasn't a war per se, what was it? 63.198.18.13 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone calls it a war, so we call it a war. And it was a war, even without a declaration.-LtNOWIS (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So why wasn't the idea of secession put before the Supreme Court? It might have avoided the war.  The subject would add to the article and improve it.  Does anybody have any RS on the subject?  63.198.18.13 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the Supreme Court did rule in Texas v. White that the Constitution did not permit states to secede, and that the ordinances of secession were "absolutely null". Rjensen (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from WikiZ26, 7 January 2011
The Confederate States Of America was comprised of 13 states that seceded not 11. Kentucky and Missouri Both seceded from the union. They even signed and created an ordinance of secesion. If you look at the Confederate flag you will see that there is 13 stars on the flag and not 11. Please change this article to what it should be. Here is a link confirming this. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp WikiZ26 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC) WikiZ26
 * well no...RS do not include them. The US forces controlled Kentucky and Missouri and these were "governments" in exile--basically a few dozen men in a few wagons attached to a Confederate army out of the state with no control over the states, no courts, no local governments, ...zip. Rjensen (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True. A faction tried to secede in those states, but they were controlled mostly by the Union.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle Count Chart
EB Long's book, The Civil War Day By Day: An Almanac has a list of the major states and the number of battles and military operations that occurred in them. Perhaps it might be good to include it. It's on page 719.

Here is the data:

Virginia: 2154                  Alabama: 336 Tennessee: 1462                 N. Carolina: 313 Missouri: 1162                  S. Carolina: 239 Mississippi: 772                Maryland: 203 Arkansas: 771                   Florida: 168 West Virginia: 632              Texas: 90 Louisiana: 566                  Indian Terr.: 89 Georgia: 549                    California: 88 Kentucky: 453                   New Mexico Terr.: 75

Others not listed: PA, KS, OH, IN, IL, IA, AZ, CO, DC, VT, ME.

69.122.132.127 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Were there nineteen or twenty five Union states?
Nevada became a Union state in 1864. A recent edit counts the number of Union states at nineteen. Is twenty five (including Nevada and the five border states) the correct number? I think it was 20 free states plus 5 border states for the total.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * counting can be fun: there were three Virginias--one in Confederacy, one West Virginia, and the "restored" Virginia that was officially in the Union. Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

O.R.Synthesis and pov in the first paragraph?
The "slavery" terminology in the first paragraph seems self-conflicting and by inference simultaneously,awkwardly carves in stone the pov that slavery was the only factor in how states alligned to fight the war:
 * By inference, suggesting through identification as "free" and "slave" states that slavery was the singular cause for the way states took sides, whereas historical reality shows that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued 1.5 years after the civil war began, and even then allowed for slavery to continue (basically using it as a bargaining chip). "On September 22, 1862, Lincoln announced that he would issue a formal emancipation of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863."
 * Self conflicting since 5 slave states were also Union states; the way it reads now is awkwardly relabelling 5 "slave states" into "Union" states when they joined the fight on the side of the North; this exercise is just too "square peg into a round hole"ish when juxtaposed with the inference of the paragraph that slavery was the primary determining factor as to how the states were alligned.

I propose that there is no logical reason to reference slavery at all in the first paragraph,especially since it is covered thoroughly as one of the causes of the war in the body of the article, and that instead the first paragraph read something like this: "The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States (among other names), was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as "the Confederacy." Led by Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all of the Northern and far west states."

I think this is more accurate and less synthesizing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The long standing reference to slave states and border states is perfectly accurate and is consistent with the way the war is described in most reliable sources. Despite your claims, slavery was not simply "one of the causes of the war" but was the dominant cause and, as such, its mention in the first paragraph is totally appropriate.


 * I have restored the previous status quo and I hope you don't add your changes again unti a consensus to do so is reached on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, I can see where it could be mentioned in the first paragraph that slavery was the dominant cause, but the categorization labels of "slave" states, "free" states and "border" states are just too leading in terms of directing the Readers into seeing slavery as being the sole determinent of which side a state took. Then, the elephant in the closet appears when the Readers see that 5 of the Union states were also "slave" states. If I was an 11 year old Kenyan reading about this for the first time, the first paragraph as it stands would be confusing, at least I think it would. Perhaps it could be rewritten somehow? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom, I suppose the thing I feel when I read the first paragraph in its present wording is that I am immediately feeling a Doublethink state of mind; i.e. the premise(promoted by the slavery status categorization) that the states alligned themselves for war in accordance with their slavery status yet they did not do that because of the 5 border/slave states allignment choice...5 out of whatever, 30?,is too many for me to digest as being an exception to the premise. Can you help me out here? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The alignment becomes clear if you look at the percentages of the populations of the slave states that (A) seceded early: 44–55% slaves, plus Texas (30%); (B) seceded late: 25–33%; and (C) didn't, or were prevented from, seceding: 2–20%.
 * —WWoods (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that every one of the states that succeeded was a slave state. Succession was a radical act. Maintaining the status quo -- remaining in the union -- is easier politically. That some slave states stayed with the union, then, is not surprising. Removing the main cause of the war from the first paragraph is an odd idea. If anything, the paragraph should more directly state that slavery was the main cause of the war. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that states with the most slavery formed the Confederacy, and the fact that free states and five states with less slavery formed the Union, is simply to state among the most obvious and well-documented facts about the war.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the most basic facts are "too leading", it sounds like someone doesn't like the basic facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic fact -- which should probably be more explicitly stated in the first paragraph -- is that slavery was the most important cause of the war. The first paragraph should not "lead" to that conclusion. The first paragraph should explicitly state it. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Show me the beef,please. Where are the quotes from reliable sources which explicitly say that "slavery was the most important cause of the war."? I admit that I have not spent any time on this article and know very little about the subject, but here is what I am seeing as a fresh observer; There are classic cases of synthesis in our article's text, in my opinion, starting off with statistical extrapolation: "Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations" and continuing with cause and effect speculations like "..split the Democratic Party in two, which all but guaranteed the election of Lincoln and secession." Also, one of the quotes in the slavery section from John Townsend is: "our enemies are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery." That quote puts slavery as the #3 issue, behind loss of government possession(federal I assume) and capricious theoretical rule. Having said that, if SummerPhD has the RSs to back up what he is saying, then I prefer making it explicit because then we won't have the confusion/doublethink problem I see in the current wording of the lede paragraph. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Slavery as the most important cause has been discussed to death with an ever-changing cast of "Lost Cause" supporters. Please see Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1, Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1, Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1, Talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_1, etc. (that's just the first of 11 archives, there's plenty more). After all of that, we came up with the FAQ at the top of this page, including the consensus that yes, slavery was the most important cause of the war. If you wish to re-open that question, you will need to do so directly, not with a claim that the first paragraph is "too leading" (with the leading being toward the consensus view). Incidentally, if you dislike the "leading" of the first paragraph in this article, you'll truly hate the opening of Origins of the American Civil War: "The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories." - SummerPhD (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For those who haven't had time to read many books on the subject, call me a nerd, but I read many books on the subject, and SummerPhd does sum up what many good historians have to say.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I wonder whether it could've been simply about money,power and control, like most wars, with slavery as the hot button or catalyst? But if the RSs say slavery was the cause,then so be it. I also wonder why there is such a lot of content here dedicated to the causes of the war? I see no specific sections or subsections at all (relating to the causes of the wars) in the Korean WarVietnam War or Iraq war articles, so why is it such a big deal in this article, occupying the lead section and 9 sub-sections? In addition, if slavery has already been agreed upon as the most important cause, that can be said in 1 sentence and all of the other minor causes may not even be notable enough to go into the main article at all, much less occupy sub-sections. Also, since there is Origins of the American Civil War, why would not all of the content related to causes be shipped over there? I will spend more time reading the article and the "origins" article to try to get a better understanding of why such attention is being given to how the fight got started. Perhaps its a good thing to do with all the other war articles too, if there is enough RS material available. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your wondering about other possible causes is moot. The reliable sources say it was slavery. The other articles you cite as not having "sections or subsections" about their causes do discuss the causes, usually in sections and subsections called "Background". For example, the third sentence of the first you mention, Korean War, is: "The war was a result of the political division of Korea by agreement of the victorious Allies at the conclusion of the Pacific War." After the introduction is a lengthy section (with five subsections), "Background" which leaves little to the imagination as to what the causes were. The existence of a daughter article, such as Origins of the American Civil War, is not a reason to scrub discussion of the causes of a war from the main article, any more than The Beatles shouldn't discuss their albums, concerts, members, etc. or, more directly, that World War II (with considerable background on the war's cause, despite Causes of World War II) shouldn't discuss The Holocaust. Slavery is the most important cause of the American Civil War. This has been established. The most important cause of a war clearly belongs in an article about that war. Get it? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As i say, I plan to take some time to read up so I can better contribute. I do think the content which extrapolates statistics "Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations" should be supported by a direct quote or citation to avoid being synthesis. I will look for such later. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

one proposal
I suggest "Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations in the region." adds nothing but synthesis to the article. Perhaps just that sentence might be removed? The statistics can stay as they are much more objective and verifiable and can speak for themselves. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple historians (see Freehling and McPherson as two examples out of many) mention that the seven states that led the South in secession had the most slavery. The four upper South states that seceded only after the Fort Sumter crisis had less slavery than the lower South, but more than the border states. The five border states (including West Virginia, which split from the rest of Virginia during the war) had less slavery than the upper South, and sided with the free states. The states that were more in between than the rest (Kentucky had more slavery than other border states, and Tennessee had less slavery than most of the Confederacy) were very divided. Many Kentuckians fought for the South, and many east Tennesseans especially fought for the North. About 90 percent of the leaders of secession in South Carolina, the first state to secede, were slave owners. Also, the leaders of secession listed many slavery related complaints against the North, both in their declarations of reasons for secession and elsewhere. Sorry if you don't like this.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, is it possible that you don't like many relevant facts, and feel emotional about them? Could this be the problem?Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for "synthesis," it was a number of historians who synthesized the obvious from known facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lipset looked at the secessionist vote in each Southern state in 1860-61. In each state he divided the counties into high, medium or low proportion of slaves. He found that in the 181 high-slavery counties, the vote was 72% for secession. In the 205 low-slavery counties. the vote was only 37% for secession. (And in the 153 middle counties, the vote for secession was in the middle at 60%). Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Doubleday, 1960) p. 349. Rjensen (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, and I apologise if I get too esoteric. I am now convinced there was a "strong" statistical correlation between slavery and cessation,especially by the Lipset #s shown above, and I am not trying to ignore that correlation nor any relevant facts. I have no opinions at all on this subject matter. I assume that within 1 of the sources already given that the correlation is stated specifically. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps the vote was higher in the high-slavery counties(wealthy counties) and the vote was low in the low-slavery counties(poor counties) because the citizens in the poor counties new that they were going to have to be the ones fighting the battles Foodmonster1989 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Causes for the war, and the general article itself
I cannot be very precise as to what the issue is here. It seems as if almost the entire article is in dispute. See the last 3 sections above this RFC to get an idea as to what the overall issue/dispute is. I won't explain each side so as to remain neutral :)-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 01:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your issue is that the neo-Confederate apologists are not getting equal time with the consensus of historians, scholars and the contemporary reports. See WP:FRINGE.-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "neo-Confederate apologists" is laughable. If you really think that my sources and indeed myself, is/are neo-confederates, you need to read the article. I'm not trying to prais the south at all. What I am trying to show is that both sides were far from perfect, without uplifting either side.-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 01:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a shockingly accurate portrait. "Oppressive tariffs to bleed the South" and all that crap. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * will White Shadows please specify his three most important Reliable Sources. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WS, you must provide a scope for an RFC. Otherwise, it will be ignored. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)