Talk:American Civil War/Archive 12

International war
Was the Civil War an international war? Britain made ships for the Confederate Navy and paid reparations in the Alabama claims. Also, France invaded Mexico while Union and Confederacy were fighting each other. There is the French Erlanger bond sales supported by cotton credit, in addition to cotton being used to barter military supplies from Britain? Does this make the American Civil war an international war? 74.38.22.42 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There were international aspects of the war, but they did not involve governments. It was a private shipyard in Britain that made ships for sale to the Confederacy, against official British policy.  The Erlanger bonds were sold by the Confederates to private investors in Paris, not to the French government.  Cotton was not used to barter military supplies from Britain.  (The blockade runners bought the cotton and sold military supplies to the Confederates, but they were private British businessmen and did not have any authorization from the British government).  The French were certainly involved in Mexico, but that was quite a separate operation from me American Civil War. Not a single nation in the world recognized the Confederacy. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rjensen! Good information. Would the French have invaded Mexico if there was no Civil War?  Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think France probably would have stayed out.Rjensen (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Were there British made or French made weapons used by the Confederates? Was the Union blockade fullproof or how much access did the Confederates have to other nations overseas? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Siam offered elephants for the Northern war efforts. They were turned down. Russia also was willing to aid the North and had its fleet wintering in San Francisco. 69.122.132.127 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This was by no means an international war. Other countries were involved in parts of the war efforts of both sides by no other country joined the war. If you recall in World war 1 the United States held a position of non-interventionism while selling supplies to allied forced. We eventually declared war but until that declaration there was no war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

150th Anniversary
How should wikipedia approach the 150th Aniversary of the Civil War? Controversy seems to be mounting, especially with "Confederate heritage" insistance that the Civil War was not caused by slavery. Almost 150 years later there remains controversy. Also, in the South there seems to be a celebration over succession, rather then the Civil War as a whole. There appears to be section difference over the meaning of the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section really adds to the article; none of the commemorations and debates are really unique to the anniversary. Rather, they are continuations of trends that have been going on for much longer. Including commemorations and controversies from 2010, but not more notable ones from the 20th century is an example of recentism. You could write whole articles on the Historiography of the war, the history of commemorations, and the war as an issue in partisan politics. So, my suggestion would be to axe that section and replace it with a "Memory and historiography" section, like in the War of 1812 article. Or you could split it off into its own article, since the anniversary probably has independent notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The South has a completely different view of the North in terms of understanding the Civil War. The South continues to view the war as succession, in a sense, perpetuating the Civil War or the causes of the Civil War controversy into the 21st Century.  Since sectional differences continue, I am not sure the Civil War ever ended.  The Civil Rights issues in the 1950's and 1960's are an extention of the Civil War.  Unless people come to some overall all view of the Civil War, the Civil War continues into modern times in this country.  The validation of the Civil War is also at stake.  New York, according to one article, has yet to spend any money on a Civil War commemoration.  Wallmart is threatening to take over the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia.  Grant on the fifty dollar bill has been requested to be replaced with Ronald Reagan.  Sectional and corporate interests seem to be fogging the lenses of objective historical critisism of the Civil War. I can make a change as you suggested to the title segment to widen the topic. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone may have removed a reference in the controversy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The focus is much better now. You've now addressed a hugely significant topic that was previously missing. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should approach it neutrally with an emphasis on verifiability. From a sociological perspective I think a separate article on this subject would be interesting. 150 years later. We could record all significant views pertaining to 150 years later. There will be numerous events commemorating it and likely a number of perspectives of the war from a modern day view point. We may even be able to see the views of Confederados on this subject. I would say this is as historically significant as the centennial and bicentennial. But someone else may feel different.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The First Slaveowner in Virginia was a Black Man
Perhaps this Wiki article should have a section on the origins of slavery in the US, to shed some light on how it came to be an institution that helped provoke the Civil War. For starters, Anthony Johnson was the first person to own a slave in Virginia by a decree of the court--and Johnson was a black man! The name of his slave was John Casor, also black. (Both men and their stories can be found at their respective Wikipedia sites.) Also, John Rolfe (Pocahontas' husband) started slavery when he acquired Spanish tobacco seeds and then on Aug. 31, 1619 he acquired black slaves to grow tobacco, tobacco being labor intensive. (Again I refer to the Wiki site). And of course when slaves were moved to Liberia they started their own slave plantations... 64.169.155.54 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and how is that relevant to an overview article on the Civil War? --JimWae (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We are looking at the past through colored glasses (no pun intended); slavery and the Civil War have to be viewed in the context of their times and their own history for us to get a grasp on what was really happening. For instance, here's a quote from Abraham Lincoln in 1862 in a response to Horace Greely:  "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."  --"The American Past", Third Edition, Joseph R. Conlin, Harcourt Brace, 1990, pg. 409.  We cannot allow ourselves to succumb to "political correctness" (political correctness was invented by the Communists in 1923 at the Frankfurt School in Germany as a form of brainwashing).  Wikipedia has to be objective and free from contemporary cultural biases, political fads, etc.  By the way, today is the 148th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.64.169.155.54 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lincoln wrote that (and quite a bit more that you omitted) as the Emancipation Proclamation lay ready on his desk. To repeat, the Union did not fight to end slavery, the South fought to preserve it. --JimWae (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there are reliable sources discussing this supposed fact in relation to the American Civil War, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To refresh everyone's memory, here's the complete quote: "If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do it."  --Abraham Lincoln  --So Lincoln's objective was to preserve the Union, not to end slavery.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To refresh everyone's memory, here's the complete quote: "If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do it."  --Abraham Lincoln  --So Lincoln's objective was to preserve the Union, not to end slavery.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I already said that the Union did not (i.e. at least not initially) fight to end slavery, and that the South fought to preserve it from the outset. As reliable sources state, slavery was the main reason there was a war. Why should I bother responding to you when you ignore everything said to you? Btw, that is NOT the complete quote either--JimWae (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring you, I'm just quoting from textbooks. I think we're trying to communicate on two different frequencies.  Look, I was in the Vietnam War and what people believe about the Vietnam War is a pack of lies, so I'm wary of what we're told to believe.  I'm currently reading an Atlantic Monthly article (May 2000) about Abraham Lincoln which propounds that Lincoln was quite the profligate whoremonger, contracted syphilis in 1835, and so forth.  The Atlantic Monthly is a highly reputable magazine.  I think I'm just caught up in the 150th Anniversary fever.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just re-read Lincoln's short letter to Greely, it's pretty much as I remember it. To be redundant, here's some more from it:  "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery".  --A. Lincoln  --Lincoln was a politician, he had to try and appease everybody.  I personally think the Civil War was fought over money, that King Cotton was to blame.  We'd have to look at those 2,200 plantation owners who owned more than 100 slaves in 1860 and see what this select group of rich people did politically with the US government to hold onto their wealth.  I think that would reveal a lot about the causes of the Civil War.  There must have been books written about them (for reference) but I can't recall any offhand.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel the article is in error in presenting slavery as the most important cause of the war, this is the place to do so, by presenting reliable secondary sources that directly state otherwise. If you are here to 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, based on primary sources. We need reliable secondary sources directly stating that the primary cause was something else. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your input. Here's what occurs to me:  for decades the issue of slavery was discussed but the North and South did not go to war over it.  However, when the South seceded, that's when the North and South went to war.  So the actual cause of the war was the right to secede; however, the slavery issue was (obviously) a major underlying cause (along with many other issues which the Wiki article discusses).  I think that's the distinction I'm trying to enunciate.  64.169.155.54 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. We need reliable secondary sources directly stating that the primary cause was something else.  - 06:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a source--if everyone listened to "O, I'm a Good ol' Rebel" on Youtube, they'd acquire some "gut" understanding of how Southerners felt. The song is about hating Yankees, not the institution of slavery.  It was written at the end of the war by Major James Randolph, a Confederate officer.  It clearly expresses a regional bias as the overwhelming emotional driving force of the Civil War, not slavery.  I think regionalism was the primary cause of the war, slavery being just one aspect of that regionalism.  Hope this is food for thought.  63.198.18.13 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's where I think the trouble lies: the point of view.  From the Northern POV the war was about preserving the union (Lincoln), while from the Southern POV it was a regionalism issue.  Would they have still fought if slavery was not an issue?  Probably, after all the Americans seceded from Great Britain in the American Revolution and slavery was not the issue.  I think the FAQ should reflect both the Northern and Southern POV, maybe that will appease everyone.  But now I'm being Abraham Lincoln.  63.198.18.13 (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 interpretation of a song or your opinion on POV. We need reliable secondary sources directly stating that the primary cause was something else.  - SummerPhD (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 64.169.155.54 mentioned "slavery and the Civil War have to be viewed in the context of their times and their own history for us to get a grasp on what was really happening". My interpretation of this means that history should be judged by the moral relavitism of the past.  Wikipedia does not judge whether slavery was immoral, rather states that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war.  My personal belief that slavery is an immoral institution is not in the article.  The question today is why Confederate heritage societies are against this notion that slavery was the primary cause of the war.  Wikipedia does not say slavery was the only reason for the war, just a primary reason.  Slaves were sold in New York City on "Wall Street".  Slavery was not just a southern institution, however, as more Northern states began to make slavery illegal many in the South did not want to be part of the same Congress.  Charles Sumner, an abolitionist, got severely beaten by a southerner because he critisized slavery and for making offensive words against Senator Butler over the Kansas-Nebraska Act, not over the southern cotton tarriff.  These northern states made it difficult to recapture run away slaves.  The northern press was hostile to the practice of whipping slaves.  This all amounts to Northern meddling into the slavery institution.  The south, finished with slavery "compromises" and with critisism from men like Senator Charles Sumner, decided to break from the north. Not even a moderate like Lincoln could keep the country together.  Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out in the wikipedia article on Anthony Johnson it is hard to identify him as the first slave holder. But the bigger issue (I think) is that Mr Johnson is more relevant to an article on Slavery than an Article on the Civil War. Mr Johnson died before The United States was born.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Legality of Southern Secession.
Texas v. White (1869), although adjudicated after the Civil War, authoritatively establishes that " . . . a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States." Thus, the illegality of southern secession is established and the obligation of the Federal Government to enforce unity is obvious.

Any other arguments as to cause (such as slavery tariffs, states rights, etc.) is secondary and a proximal cause, and not the primary fundamental cause.

Why this has not been pointed out before is beyond me.

Clearly, succession of the southern states was a violation of the terms of becoming a member of the Union as agreed to by every member state. End of story. . . end of argument. TDurden1937 (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937
 * well that was Lincoln's argument too. But legalism don't start wars--artillery shots do, as at Ft Sumter. Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally disagree with this argument. IMHO it was totally within the right of any state to secede. If the states could see into the future and see that they would not be allowed to withdraw from a nation that they voluntarily joined, then I doubt the Constitution would have been ratified....Regardless, Rjensen makes a point....and besides, Texas v White was after the war....-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How anyone can claim that the states didn't have the right to secede is absolutely mind boggling. The states were (and are) sovereign nations who voluntarily chose to form a union and delegate certain powers to the Federal government. They had just seceded from the British Empire. To suggest they wanted to immediately submit themselves to a domestic tyrant is ludicrous. Read any of the statements made in the ratifying sessions and it is quite clear that they viewed the Federal government with the utmost suspicion, especially big states like Virginia. The fact that US Senators initially were chosen by the state legislatures as ambassadors is further evidence of this view. In addition, the Supreme Court was never meant to be the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional, something Andrew Jackson displayed with ample clarity. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of verifiable fact. Misessus (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. However, we need reliable sources, not claims supported by arguments. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can recommend Thomas DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln as well as Thomas Woods' books on American history, e.g. "Nullifcation". I should like to see the source for claiming that secession was illegal, and no, a Supreme Court ruling after the war doesn't count. Do you have one, perhaps? You can read White Shadow's excellent comments on the section below. Although it is mainly about slavery vs. the actual cause of the war, the issue of secession is also addressed. Misessus (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If a Supreme Court ruling has no meaning in deciding what is or is not illegal, we've too far removed from basic meanings of words for me to really have anything to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting that my comments below have been ignored now. May I remind you that after the war, the Republicans dominated everything and a majority of the justices were pro-Republican? Prior to the war, the south had a 5-4 advantage in the court...yet when the ruling came in 1869, it was dominated by the Republicans who obviously had an agenda to fulfill. Jefferson Davis was never even given a trial, and thus, never given a change to plead that secession was legal, despite the fact that a prominent New England lawyer had offered to help defend him in court-the Republicans knew that Davis had a strong case in favor of him...thus they denied him a trial. Don't tel me that a rigged kangaroo court's ruling has any real since of "deciding what is or is not illegal". Both you and I know that most courts and local governments were controled by the radical Republicans after the war.-- White Shadows GO GREEN BAY PACKERS! 11:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious to most of us that Rjensen and company are going to stick to their guns, while I am going to continue to defend my case, that this article is full of POV insertions and factual errors, and thus needs to be fixed accordingly. As a result, I'd like to ask those whom it may concern, to agree to a WP:RFC in regards to this article and the discussion that took place here during the last few days.-- White Shadows GO GREEN BAY PACKERS! 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is all about reliable sources, and instead of reading and citing them White Shadows searches for fringe ideas from neo-Confederates and Lincoln haters. People interested in that sort of thing should avoid Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Rjensen can no longer discuss this as an adult, and refrence those who oppose him to "neo-confederates", I've brought this to the attention of WP:ANI.-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Confederate actions could not have been unconstitutional (aside from the owning of slaves which was morally wrong), for the 1869 decision that secession is illegal was not yet a commonplace belief and the case has certainly not been settled. are we a concrete Union of states, or a loose Confederacy? there is no right answer despite what Wikipedian pundits say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And RJensen, while you make a valid point that it is good to avoid blatantly biased sources towards either side, your assertion that just because something has a Confederate slant makes it even less valid than a Union slant is flawed. That shows your POV. Instead of stating the "causes" of the war, Wikipedia should state the "proposed causes of the war." The true causes of the war are ultimately in the bloodthirstiness of the human ego —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Texas vs White established that secession was illegal. Lincoln's thoughts on the subject didn't matter. If president Obama declares that dounuts are unconstitutional that declaration doesn't make it so. Until the court made that ruling the case wasn't so. If you really want to make this argument you need to show that the states involved were aware that secession was unconstitutional. Pointing out that Lincoln said it was does nothing. Now if you could show that any of the state governors or legislatures involved held Lincoln's views or that a majority of the CSA legislature and Jefferson Davis held this view you would have an argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln's position on slavery
In the opening section, second paragraph, it reads:

"In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. In response to the Republican victory in that election, seven states declared their secession from the Union before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861."

Where is the source? This is a GROSS distortion of the truth. Lincoln sponsored a bill that would strengthen the fugitive slave clause and fugitive slave laws. He had absolutely no problem with slavery and said so himself on numerous occasions. Furthermore, the states DID NOT secede in reaction to Lincoln's victory in the presidential election. In his inaugural speech, Lincoln made it clear that he would invade the South if they didn't pay the punitive tariff. He sent supply ships to Fort Sumter because he knew that it would be viewed as an act of war, prompting the carolinians to fire the first shot. That started the civil war. As far as Lincoln was concerned, the war was not about slavery, he made that very clear. For the south, they rebelled against the punitive tariffs of the Congress dominated by the North. The secession of the Southern states was quite similar to that of the colonies from the British Empire. Lincoln never made any threats regarding slavery, quite the reverse. That being the case, why would the South secede over slavery?

This section needs SERIOUS revision. Misessus (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1: the GOP platform of 1860 called disunion treason: we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence." [National Party Platforms, Republican Platform of 1860, p.32]
 * 2. the GOP platform promised no slavery in the territories: "we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States." [National Party Platforms, Republican Platform of 1860, p.32] --that's what angered the South--not the tariff (which was a low pro-southern tariff that angered Northerners). Rjensen (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a point? Secession doesn't become treason because a political party says so.

The tariff was not low, and how in the world is a low tariff bad for the North? Oh yeah, low tariffs would leave them defenseless against foreign competition. From the beginning of the 19th century tariffs were continually hiked, that is what made Southerners so angry. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, it was rejection of the continual and ever growing abuse by the North. Already in 1816 the Congress instituted a 25 percent tariff with the specific goal of protecting Northern manufacturers at the expense of the South. In 1824 the tariff was hiked againto 35 percent despite the treasury reporting a surplus. Then of course we have the Tariff of Abominations in 1828, projecting tariffs to 50 percent, and even over 60 percent. The South Carolina legislature passed a resolution nullifying the tariff. This was really the starting point for the Southern secessionist movement.

After some reductions, the tariffs remained still high across the board, even at Abomination level in 1832. In 1842, the general tariff rate was still above 20 percent. In 1857, the Republicans started advocating higher tariffs again following the recession, finally getting their way in 1859-1860 with the Morral tariff. 87 percent of the Northern Congressmen voted for the Morral tariff. In contrast, only one out of 40 Congressmen of the states who seceded voted in favor of the tariff, which raised the tariff rates from about 15 percent to 40 percent. It was signed into law two days before Lincoln took office.

The Southern states had been suffering from punitive tariffs from the early 19th century all through to the War of Southern Independence, with tariff rates averaging over 30 percent. The Morril Tariff and Lincoln's open threat to invade if the tariff wasn't collected (with the nullification of SC in good memory), sent the South over the edge. Lincoln was the disciple of Henry Clay, the most infamous protectionist in American history. Everybody knew that Lincoln was a protectionist, he made sure of it as he knew it would win him the Republican nomination.

It really bothers me that people who edit articles here don't do any research whatsoever. Misessus (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1: Lincoln's got quite a history of backpedaling then: 2: The Republican platform did promise to keep slavery from expanding...but not for the reasons that we think: 3: Southerners also ended up paying the large majority of the tariffs, up to 90% of the federal revenue came from tariffs. In fact, even before the Morrill tariff bill of 1860, due to their reliance on foreign manufactured goods, southerners were paying 87% of all federal taxes, even though they had less than half of the population of the north. This explains clauses in the Confederate Constitution that banns tariffs to protect industries and makes any tariffs, universal throughout their nation.
 * "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and to form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confided to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” - Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848
 * "Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or the new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them. Slave states are the places for poor white people to move from....new free states are the places for poor white people to go and better their condition." - Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854 (emphasis added)
 * "The motive for those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been a concern for the welfare of the white man, and not the unnatural sympathy for the Negro" - William Seward

-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 17:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * as the Republican platform warned, secession was treason and would be defeated. In 1860 the total tariff was $53 million or about $3 per person, and the rates had been set by Southern Congressmen in 1847 and 1857--kept low so as to NOT aid northern factories. Cut it one-third and save $1 a person. The South risked total destruction for how many extra dollars? Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The South had threatened secession already back in 1828. Even between 1847 and 1857, the tariffs were around 15 - 20 percent. Nor was it "set by Southern Congressmen", it was a moderate compromise after decades of consistently high rates. Again, it wasn't a spontaneous decision, it was the reaction to several decades of the North plundering the South, much like the American Revolution. Lincoln had go so far as to support a constitutional amendment which would ensure that the Federal government would not interfere with slavery. Lincoln never said anything about abolishing slavery, so why would the South secede over slavery? It wasn't an issue for anyone in power. The tariff was. If the Southern states left the union and established a free trade zone, the Northern economy would dry up. That is why Lincoln went to war and that is what the war was about. This WP article is little more than populist propaganda. The fact that the opening section isn't sourced is further evidence of that. Misessus (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to secession as "treason" I give you this, in addition to the quote from Lincoln himself in Congress in 1848.


 * "...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government..." - United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
 * "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801
 * "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuation in Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" - Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1816
 * "It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty, not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the Government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the Convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal. The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty, were discussed in considering the Article of taxation, and need not be repeated here. A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State Governments would by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint, but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done, without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the Fœderal Courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a preexisting right of the State Governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers (Number 81)
 * "not as individuals composing one entire Nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers (Number 38)
 * "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf states go." - New York Times, March 21, 1861
 * Neither the words "Perpetual", nor "Permanent" appear anywhere in the US constitution as a way to describe the Government.
 * "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.” - Texas vs. White, 1869. "Indissoluble" is lacking from the text of the Constitution, as well as The Annexation of Texas joint resolution passed by Congress in 1845 and accepted by Texas. Therefore, if we are to assume that Texas did in fact enter "into an indissoluble relation" (Which she did not), then the US Government illegally annexed Texas by not presenting them all of the "fine text" as part of the annexation agreement. The fact of the matter is, Texas did not join in an indissoluble relation any more than the 13 states did when they formed the Constitution back in 1787.
 * Furthermore, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Texas states "All political power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to that limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."


 * And of course the last personal fact: If a state which voluntarily joined the United States secedes, who are we to stop said state from voluntarily leaving the nation when the national Government is no longer beneficial to said state? The United States is not a nation in which, by joining, you forfeit any and all rights to leave. The states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island specifically reserved the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution, yet there was no uproar over the reservation and Americans accepted that fact when the Constitution was put into place in the late 1700's.

The south did not risk total destruction for anything. They though (correctly) that it was entirely legal to secede and believed that they would be "let go". Otherwise, they would have not sent ambassadors to Washington to negotiate their purchase of all Federal property and pay their share of the debt (which BTW, Lincoln refused to even met them). The tariff was a tool that the northern states used to plunder the south. The south furnished over 75% of the Federal Government's budget when they left in 60'-61'. Furthermore, if your argument is sincere on your part, your using double standards; claiming that the South seceded over slavery and yet also saying that they (foolishly) seceded over a couple of "dollars".-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 02:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * the tariff brought in about $60 million a year at most nationwide--about $3 a person per year--and much was spent in the South--for forts, the navy, post offices, courthouses and war pensions. The South was not trying to save a dollar or two per person per year, it was trying to save billions of dollars worth of money it invested in 4 million slaves. Follow the money trail--but its gamble was a bad one. It knew the North called it treason and promised to stop it (see 1860 Republican platform). Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It also knew that Lincoln had no intentions of interfering with slavery where it existed, as that would be unconstitutional. So why seceded over something that really was not threatened? Furthermore, the Republicans were against slavery in the territories not to support abolition or blacks in general but rather, to protect the jobs of white people. The south also knew that secession had been considered a constitutional right since the American Revolution in the 1770's-80's. Did you even read the quotes and plain facts that I posted? In addition, forts, the navy, post offices, courthouses and war pensions all existed in the northern states as well (and in some cases, as in railroads, they were much more frequent than in the south). Breaking down the numbers do not help your case. The fact is, the south with only 5.5 million taxpayers, payed up to 80% of the tariff, which accounted for 90% of the Federal Government's funds and the south only had 15.5% of the nation's population (including slaves). Something is wrong in this situation. If you had yo pay 80% of a single tax, which accounted for 90% of the Government's money, you'd be, quite frankly speaking, pissed off.-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * the South did not import a great deal since it spent most of its huge profits from cotton on buying slaves and new lands. The tariff was a tax on imports, and Northerners paid most of that tax.  The money was used by the federal government to pay routine government expenses, many of which benefited the South. the South did not have any significant grievance about tariffs in 1860; they failed to mention it in their declarations in 1861 justifying secession; and the many efforts to compromise the crisis in 1860-61 never once brought up a new tariff as a possible solution.  The tariff theory was invented by neo-Confederates many decades later, and is not taken seriously by scholars. What angered the white South about the Republican Party was its explicit determination to block slavery in the territories, which the Southerners felt was a violation of their states rights.  That is the southern states were inferior legally speaking if certain property (ie slaves) recognized by Alabama could not be carried to Kansas or Nebraska, while all the property recognized by Indiana could be carried there. the South was very proud of its honor and could not tolerate being put into second-class status.  As long as the South remained in the union, Lincoln and the Republicans were pledged not to interfere with slavery in the states.  Once they engaged in rebellion, however, the War Powers took effect, which is what Lincoln used to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Rjensen (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure do like to ignore a large portion of my comments. Yes the tariff was a tax on imports, yet you are dead wrong in assuming that the north paid most of that tax. The north made their own manufactured goods and thus, did not need to import them from Europe or other nations abroad. The south, being an agrarian society, did. Tariffs were anything but a "red-herring". South Carolina threatened to secede in 1833 over a tariff. You mention that tariffs are not mentioned in any of the decelerations justifying secession, yet only 4 states posted such decelerations, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi. You cannot say that those four states' (which BTW, were all members of the initial 7 states that made up the CSA and thus were more slavery-oriented than the other 4) decelerations represent all 11 (arguably 13) of the Confederate States. Furthermore, if tariffs are indeed a red-herring, mind explaining why the Confederate Constitution explicitly outlawed protectionist tariffs and internal development subsidies and eliminated the general welfare clause from the US Constitution? I'd like an answer to this question if you can (something which you have lacked to do in reference to any of my past questions). You also cannot say that "the South did not have any significant grievance about tariffs in 1860" or that "many of which benefited the South". They did indeed have serious grievances against a tool that was used to plunder them since the early 1800's. The argument that "many of which benefited the South" is null and void. "Much of it" also "benefited the north" too you know. I offer this quote from the Daily Chicago Times on 10 December 1860: "The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually." The argument "That is the southern states were inferior legally speaking if certain property (ie slaves) recognized by Alabama could not be carried to Kansas or Nebraska, while all the property recognized by Indiana could be carried there. the South was very proud of its honor and could not tolerate being put into second-class status." is simply ludicrous. The south would not secede over territories that quite-frankly, could not nurture a slave-system. The mid-west states could not cultivate cotton like the deep southern states could. If the war was fought over territories, then why didn't the South secede in 1860-61 than in 1850 (May I point out that the Nashville Convention was a total failure) or when Kansas was declared a free territory and soon to be, a free state? In response to "Once they engaged in rebellion, however, the War Powers took effect" what war powers? the President is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces, not the supreme dictator who is allowed to supersede constitutional laws, suspend Habeas Corpus, and imprison more than 13,000 writers, publishers, editors, anyone who opposed the war or simply "wanted peace", in places like Ft. Lafayette. Furthermore, in the 1865 Hampton Roads Peace Conference, when the subject of slavery then came up, Confederate ambassador Mr. Stephens asked President Lincoln what the status of the slave population in the Confederate states would be if the south were to re-join the union, as well as what effect the Emancipation Proclamation would have if the Confederates rejoined the Union. Lincoln responded that the Proclamation was only a war measure and as soon as the war ceased, it would have no operation for the future. Another note is that in 1865, with the CSA on their last legs, the Confederates offered Britain and France to abolish slavery if they assisted them in joining the war or forcing the Union to accept a peace conference guaranteeing the CSA's independence; both London and Paris refused but this is a testament to the fact that the southern states valued their independence more-so then their immoral use of slavery and were even willing and desperate enough to abolish it themselves if they were allowed their independence.-- White Shadows  We live in a beautiful world 04:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * the Republicans said independence (disunion) was treason and they meant to stop it, and they did. The South purchased very little machinery--the slaves used simple hoes to chop cotton and picked it by hand. Rjensen (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More of the same old stuff. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. The "it wasn't about slavery" crowd needs to start making its case by referring to the vast secondary literature on this subject and quit relying on their own anecdotal arguments. These claims have been made over and over again and rejected over and over again because reliable sources are never presented. It takes more than a few days of limited discussion to change a long standing consensus so please refrain from adding or deleting text w/o a clear change in consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never did "add or delete text". I'm merely discussing the case. Furthermore, I have a secondary source, " The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" by Thomas DiLorenzo. BTW Rjensen, you continue to give me these little 3rd grade answers, "but the republicans said it was treason....therefore it is" Since when is the legality of anything in America dictated by one party in a democracy? You continue to repreat yourself, while ignoring 99% of my comments. I challenge you to buy this book, read it, and then come back to me and talk. Everything that I argued in this talk page can be (and is) backed up by this book. DiLorenzo also cites works from McPherson and other historians that you cite in this article, as well as several newspapers from the era, speeches, and more. Furthermore, Rjensen, if the Republicans did "meant to stop it", then how can you claim that the south started the war? They were coerced into firing on Ft. Sumter (also mentioned in this book). I'm beginning to believe that you are replying with one or two phrase answers because you cannot come up with a reasonable and effective response that disproves a 16 year old's arguments. Your arguments are "null and void" Rjensen. Is there any WP:RS that states that disunion is treason simply because the Republicans say so? Furthermore, the south did use "very little machinery"...yet the north used even less....therefore, the South payed up to 80% of the tariff (or tax) that furnished 90% of the Federal Government's funds. Like I said, read this book, (and a few others mentioned below on amazon) and then come to me. It's likely at a local library of yours too if you don't want to buy it :) I've seen this scenario before, someone comes on board with arguments similar (but not as thorough or as widespread) as mine, and then...when you guys do not have any counter to it....you pull out the "RS clause" and tell them to hit the road if they cannot back it up. I have done that. If you want...I can tell you every page of that book that I used and what I used it for...and I can tell you what the sources that DiLorenzo used as well and let everyone decide if they are "reliable or not". You failed to comment at hardly any of my vast section of replies. I suggest that you actually open up your eyes and read it for once.

PS:"limited discussion" in regards to my comments is a gross understatement and I am not trying to remove slavery from the equation at all...it's obvious that it was indeed a major issue...but not the only major one as you all continue to claim ;) After discussing this with you two, you continue to make edits that are biased and not backed up at all...I'm considering bringing this to some sort of dispute resolution if this continues. To be honest, this article is an insult to A-class articles everywhere. -- White Shadows  We live in a beautiful world 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * White Shadows needs to understand there was NO tax or tariffs on exports--the South kept all the $$$ it got. The tax was on IMPORTERS who brought goods into the US, and paid a tax on it to customs officials. The tariff in 1860 was the lowest in decades and had been set by Southerners in Congress --and was designed to advantage the farmers & South and not help factories & the North. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said nor claimed that there was a tax on exports. Your first sentence is entirely false in assuming that I thought that. Now, how could the tariff be "set by Southerners in Congress" if they had a minority in the House and the Senate in 1857? You continue to once again ignore the majority of my comments. For the love of God, just take a look at the opposing viewpoints before making assumptions and coming to me saying what you've been telling me for the past two days. Furthermore, the Morrill Tariff was passed in the House and sent to the senate before any states seceded. This further gave cause to the southern states to secede (even though it had not yet passed!). I keep telling you....the south furnished way over 50% (really around 80%) of the tariff (regardless of the rates) prior to the war...and the tariff made up 90% of the Government's budget....yet they only made up 15.5% of the population (including slaves!) In time, the south would have been effectively disenfranchised from the government...they were already outnumbered in the House and eventually, with the admission of Kansas, Nevada, and others, they would be easily outnumbered in the Senate as well...then the tariff to be hiked up further despite southern attempts to block it. Why not read my comments before repeating yourself for the umpteenth time?-- White Shadows  We live in a beautiful world 22:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This right here is proof that you are ignoring my comments. I said earlier a few lines up that "Yes the tariff was a tax on imports". Yet you claim that I think that there was a "tax or tariffs on exports". Don't waste your time commenting again unless you take your time reading everything I said. You refuse to even consider my opposing viewpoint, calling them "neo-confederate" in nature and saying that they are not supported by scholars even though I have shown you that they are indeed supported by scholars...just ones that do not support your version of what really happened and why it happened in the first place.-- White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 22:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking aside, Southern secessionists had much more to say about slavery-related concerns than the tariff. Also, cherry-picking aside, Lincoln opposed slavery and said so many times. A few statements in the opposite direction were combined with political circumstances.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather late to the discussion and, excuse me before I begin, I'm a poor editor in terms of understanding the use of the system hardware, i.e. adding the spaces and the indents and etc, etc, but I felt compelled to add my argument. It's been said that the South fought the war over slavery (true), and rebuffed as they fought over tariffs (not an expert there), independence (true), State's Rights (true), this and that, etc, etc. I fail to see why these are all mutually exclusive. The South's reasons for fighting the war weren't black and white, and they weren't simplistic. They wanted independence in order to have their perceived rights as sovereign nations, in order to be free from the culturally different North and in order to retain their "property (slaves)" and utilize this property as they saw fit. It wasn't just economic or just cultural, it was all intrusively linked together; an entanglement of ideals, the fallacy of pride, and a false-sense of honor that allowed neither side to back down and admit that maybe what they were doing was stupid and wrong and was going to get more American lives wasted than every other conflict fought by the nation combined. The South was not "coerced" into firing on Fort Sumter, it did so of its own volition. You may say that they viewed the fort as enemy territory on their own soil, but no one forced them to fire upon it, to take up arms against their fellow countrymen. Today there are North and South Korean troops within rifle range of each other on a border marked by the largest minefield in the world and yet we see no war there. They even shoot at each other! To say that the South "had" to take the fort, or that they were tricked into doing it, is fallacy. They did it knowing that it would incite conflict; they simply operated under the (false) assumption that the conflict resulting thereof would be quick and bloodless, not a 4-year-long catastrophe that would reduce American society as they knew it to ruin. The other argument I found profound was Lincoln being quoted on revolution. To believe the people hold a natural right to revolution-on-demand is not the same as condoning secession. Revolution is the reshaping of government into something new; secession is leaving a government to form a new entity. Endorsing one is not the same as endorsing them both. The Framers, I believe at least, intended the people to have the right to take on corrupt or evil government if necessary, but they didn't intend for them to break up the government and redraw national borders as they saw fit; Reformation, I say, not Balkinization. Even the immediately-post-Independence from Britain states did not go their separate ways; they acknowledged that their destiny was as a single, unified "city upon a hill," as my high school history textbook so eloquently put their belief in their morale superiority in Christianity--but that is another topic. The South believed that they and the North could not continue to exist as codependent organisms--and yet, they had already done it for about a century! You can argue that trying to stay together would have led to more conflict, but how? A John Brown here and there, a Senator-beating madman (it might have been a Representative, I'm not sure; the man who later, in the Alabama claims deal, demanded Canada from Britain; he was the guy who was beaten...); those are not grounds to say a nation is falling apart. We, Americans forged in the flames of a war for independence, survived the Great Depression and World War II back-to-back and emerged as one of only two superpowers on Planet Earth. That isn't hyperbole, that is fact. Whether we did so in a morally sound way is certainly up for interpretation, but it's truth either way. They, at the time of the American Civil War, could not have known this, of course, but we argue this today from the position of 20/20 hindsight, and we know this now. The South and North were both too quick to act, and they senseless wasted lives and, for better or for worse, changed the course of the nation for the next 150 years. 68.28.138.231 (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that all of this has been said before, but anyone who doubts that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War needs to deal with the reasons given by the seceding states at the time(s) they seceded. You can see those here: . When you have read them, you will know that the preservation of slavery and white supremacy were the causes of secession. And of course secession led to the war - any nation that allows pieces of itself to secede is not a nation at all. If the Lost Cause devotees would simply read the words written by their ancestors, they would see that by attempting to confuse the issue of causes they are insulting their (self-styled) noble ancestors - who were extremely proud of their racial supremacy and exploitation of slave labor. Davidiank (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC). " Lincoln sponsored a bill that would strengthen the fugitive slave clause and fugitive slave laws. He had absolutely no problem with slavery and said so himself on numerous occasions." You point out that no source is provided for Lincolns campaign for slavery yet you don't ptovide a source for that statement. You only point out the republican platform. Do you have a verifiable and reliable source?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of election from lede
Misessus has twice removed from the lede statments that 7 states declared their secession before Lincoln took office. Doing this removes important background info. I have restored the text in the following form:
 * In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. Following the Republican victory in that election, before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, seven states declared their secession from the Union.

Historians generally agree that the election was the trigger for secession - and removing mention of the election & the decs of secession makes no sense. I have removed "in response to" though it seems perfectly appropriate. That the war was connected to the secession & the secession to the election & the election to the platform is crucial to understanding the topic. Misessus says "The paragraph strongly suggests the South seceded because of Lincoln's victory and his anti-slavery views. This is unsourced and untrue. See talk page". He has not brought this to the talk page -- & it is well sourced in the article JimWae (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Without the above 2 sentences, the 2 sentences
 * Several other slave states rejected calls for secession at this point. Both the outgoing administration of President James Buchanan and Lincoln's incoming administration rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion.

are left hanging without a temporal reference JimWae (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC) This is very important background detail. As is the detail of the states that feigned secession. One need not be listed with out the other and both are highly important to a study of the Civil war. it would be like an article on US in WW2 and no mention of Pearl Harbor.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of Slave/Free state in the lead
The first three sentences of the lead use the word Slave/Free state or slavery 8 times, without ever mentioning any of the other verifiable cause of the conflict. This unilaterally leads the reader to come to the conclusion that slavery was the only cause of the war or that many in the south only fought to preserve slavery. Although slavery was a large focus of the conflict, many in the south were indifferent to slavery, including many of its commanders, and many felt that they were fighting to preserve their state's rights. I Request that all of the reference to "Slave/free" states be removed from the lead,although the phrase "slavery" is appropriate in its current wording and placement.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * what states rights did they have in mind? Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Each use of these words is necessary in order to give the proper context to the events referred to. Each use is accurate and each use is consistent with the manner the terms are used in reliable sources. Slavery was more than simply "a large focus" -- in fact it was the major single factor leading to secession and war. There is nothing misleading about the language in the first three sentences. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If we removed the slave/free references, then we have the opposite problem. Both sides felt that they were fighting to preserve their state's rights.  How do we seperate the two for our purposes?  For purposes of the beginning of the war, the states can most easily be divided between whether they were slave or free.  Confederate and Union work just fine once all of the states that were going to leave the union had actually done so.  The term "slave state" doesn't necessarily refer to states that fought against the United States.  It refers to states where slavery was legal.  Some of these joined the Confederacy.  Others did not. Sperril (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Many at the time referred to their states as slave states or free states, and the phrases accurately describe the status of those states. Also, Southern secessionists made many complaints about perceived threats to slavery, even though Lincoln talked (many times and at length) about merely preventing slavery expansion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Potter was one of many historians who describes the fact that Southerners saw Lincoln's policies as a threat to the future of slavery. Potter said that Southerners saw Lincoln as more of a threat to slavery than the abolitionists, in that no abolitionist could have duplicated Lincoln's success in gaining a majority vote (in the North) for an anti-slavery party platform.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are arguing with the wrong person here. Can I assume your comments were meant for Jojhutton?  (I don't want you to think I'm just ignoring you, but you are obviously in agreement with me.)  And out of curiosity, who is Potter? Sperril (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Potter wrote The Impending Crisis, a pretty good history of causes of secession. My comments were about Jojhutton.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll check out the book.  Most of mine are about the war itself and only peripherally cover secession.Sperril (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Potter won the Pulitzer prize for the book, which in my opinion has never been equalled as a history of the 1850s. Rjensen (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the over all point here is the usage of both terms deserve careful scrutiny to remain in context.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentences
The opening few sentences have to summarize the overall war--not just launch the sequence of events in 1860-61. I suggest for an overall summary: "After four years of very bloody, devastating warfare across the South the North won, restored the Union and ended slavery, thus giving the nation its central memory and icons of personal heroism, nationalism and freedom.." That is a guidepost for people who have not the vaguest idea what the war was, as well as a simple summary for people who do know details but want the overall view. Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The war was not BETWEEN two factions WITHIN the USA. It was an attempted separation from the central gov't. Saying it was *between* the Union and the Confederacy makes both appear as a faction WITHIN the USA & is informative only if one already knows what those terms refer to. For an international reader, the "Confederacy" could just as well refer to the central gov't. Plunking a name for the central gov't as a "between" party without setting the background overly legitimizes CSA claims of independence. --JimWae (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is it established who "the North" is? Did "the North" restore the Union & end slavery or did the nation?--JimWae (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * the opening sentence or two has to say what the war was. The war was indeed fought between party A and party B--"North" and "South" are the very common terms for A and B and are fully defined in the next paragraphs. The international reader probably is best served by telling who fought, who won, what results, & what it means to American history, all in a nutshell. Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok let's try this, which defineds the two sides, adds info about the fighting, tells the results, and gives the meaning of the war all in the opening. (it puts old alternative names in the footnotes)Rjensen (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The American Civil War[1] (1861–1865) was a civil war in the United States of America. After four years of very bloody, devastating warfare across the South the Union, led by Abraham Lincoln, won, restored the nation and ended slavery, thus giving the nation its central memory as well as icons of personal heroism, nationalism and freedom. In 1860-61 eleven of the country's 15 slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, called "the Confederacy" or "The South." Led by Jefferson Davis, it fought against the United States (the Union, the North). The goal of the North, which had a much larger base of population and industry, was to invade and conquer the South, and nearly all the fighting took place in the South and border areas.


 * This makes the sequencing of the lede backtrack several times. "Invade" is POV. (police, eg, do not "invade" a neighborhood when they quell a riot.) The stuff about central memory is editorial comment, unnecessary & uninformative. What is there in the 1st paragraph already gives the essentials of what happened. Attributed sources might be available to make an assessment on how important it was in the history of the USA - - but "central memory" is editorial assessment. The goal of "the North" the central gov't was to quell the rebellion --JimWae (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First say where the war was. Then say what it was about & how it came to be. After that it is then possible to characterize "the sides" with less bias. Then we can say how it ended & what the results were. That is what the 1st paragraph already does. We can probably also then attribute to some source some assessment of its importance to US history, but that should not be presented as factual in any parallel sense to the recounting of events. JimWae (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the article used to say most of the fighting took place within the states that tried to secede - but somebody seems to have edited that outJimWae (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Civil War was fought by two opposing armies, the Union and the Confederate armies. According to Catton, the two armies picked and chose where the war was to fight.  I do not have an objection for "North" and "South" terms as long as the reader understands the Union Army and the Confederate Army fought each other on the battlefields. Both Union generals Scott and Thomas came from Virginia.Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"The war was not BETWEEN two factions WITHIN the USA." I would disagree. Being that secession was illegal the secession wasn't recognized. Legally no state ever left the Union of the United Sates. Texas vs White established that, "Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation." This was a war between two factions in the USA. The Confederacy may have been an illegal faction but it was no less a faction of the United States.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

slaves
why did only one third of southerners own slaves
 * they were very expensive to buy, and then you had to provide food, housing, clothing and medical care. They were worth the cost only a) if you had $$$ and wanted a luxury item like servants; b) owned cotton land and needed people to pick the cotton. (you could not hire white people to pick cotton). Generally only rich people owned cotton land.  Most southern families were farmers--many of them poor or had enough children to do the farm work. Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting statement about white people not being employed to pick cotton. Is there a reason whites were not hired to pick cotton?  This is a historical point that I haven't heard discussed before.  70.237.14.218 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dollars. Paying wages cost more than the price of slavery.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Russel says poor whites would not work for wages, and refused to work in gangs (when slavery ended the blacks also refused to work in gangs). Planters did not want white workers who they could not control, and who might leave or strike at a critical harvest time. [Russel, "Effects of slavery upon nonslavegholders" Agricultural History (1941) online Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Slavery A Red Herring Issue?
There's been a great deal of discussion about slavery by posters questioning the status quo, which to me is a good thing. So why all the sniffing around like bloodhounds over this slavery issue? I know if I was a Southerner back then and I had the choice of dying in a war or letting my slaves go free and picking the cotton myself, I'd let the slaves go free. Then I'd go invent a machine to pick the cotton for me. Problem solved. When did machines start picking cotton, by the way? The machines would have made slavery obsolete anyway. So slavery was on the way out, no matter how you look at it. I remember a black history professor on YouTube saying that Lincoln had to go to war because he didn't have a country when he took office--it had disintegrated, split apart, and no telling who was going to leave next. So Lincoln had to go to war to maintain his rule over the country. 70.237.14.218 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The best available sources concur that slavery was the main cause of the American Civil War. To dispute this, you will need more than your opinions re self-preservation and the Cotton gin combined with "a black history professor on YouTube" that you say you remember. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth of the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. The growth of cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The technical problem was harder than you imagine:
 * "The idea of mechanical cotton picking began to be practical in 1943, when International Harvester produced the first dozen of their successful commercial cotton pickers. Although there were many attempts to invent successful cotton pickers, their use was not made practical until the 1950s,..." [emph added]
 * —WWoods (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with User:SummerPhD that what you "know" and what you'd do isn't important. Supporting your assertions with multiple reliable sources and massing consensus, that's what's important in this context. Otherwise you're just discussing the subject, and not discussing the wikipedia article. BusterD (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer to the title question up top is No, according to historians.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a red herring issue. I wouldn't call it the main issue. We tend to look at history with a microscope but in this case we do not. Secession was a main cause of the civil war. I feel the most important thing to look at is why Each state opted to secede. Each state opted for secession individual. The CSA did not secede. Notably Unionists in Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee prevented secession until Lincoln's call for troops from each state. At the moment I can't exactly recall but one of these states offered the most troops for the confederate war effort. I think it was Virginia but for the moment the answer alludes me. The here is that each state left independently. If you want to nut-shell it you can say that slavery was the cause but providing the primary cause for each state isn't beyond our ability. This was the Primary cause for these four states. Votes for succession went from largely against to largely for due to this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
In the opening section, the article says "Ten percent of all Northern males 20–45 years of age died, as did 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40." Later in the Results section, a second contradicting set of figures: "Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and 18% in the South." I assume this second figure to be more accurate - can someone confirm the references for the second set of figures as more reliable, and then replace the first set of figures? ··gracefool&#9786; 02:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

These conflicting accounts should be corrected with the best available source and if both are reliable I suggest it be changed on both to read between 8-10% of all Northern White males and 18%-30% of those in the south between age 13-43. That of course is if there is a consensus of conflict. Personally though I feel that the 30% between age 20-45 is from a smaller pool of individuals than the 18% of individuals between age 13-43. Both figures could very well be true.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Secession Was an Irrational Act of Passion, the Civil War Was Fought Over Regionalism
As we all know, being Civil War historians, the Civil War was expected to last just a few months. (General Winfield Scott was one of the few who expected it to last for years, requiring hundreds of thousands of troops). So the enormity of the war was beyond conception at the time. Secession was thought to be a simple answer to complex ongoing regional issues (such as slavery). There was a secession hysteria in the South. Alexander Stephens, who was soon to become Vice President of the Confederacy, was a strong opponent of secession (that's right, opponent). On Dec. 3, 1860, he wrote, regarding Georgia's secessionists: "The people run mad, they are wild with passion and frenzy, doing they know not what". In leaving the Union, the South had waived all legal rights to the territories, thus assuring that slavery would be banned from the territories forever (the South ironically excluded slavery from the new territories by the act of seceding!). Seceding also made it easier for slaves to escape, all they had to do was go into a Northern State, the Fugitive Slave Act being effectively defunct upon secession. The South screwed up by seceding. They shot themselves in the foot. So here's a direct quote from a reliable source: "Secession was less a rational political act than it was the fruit of passion, suspicion, and sectional hatred blinding the southern extremists to reality". --From "The American Past", Joseph R. Conlin, 3rd edition, 1990, Harcourt Brace, pg. 393. --So there's the RS about the war being fought over "sectional hatred" rather than slavery. If the South had wanted to maintain slavery, then they would not have seceded. The war was fought over sectionalism, not slavery. It was a regionalism issue. Seceding was actually bad for the institution of slavery. (This should satisfy SummerPhd and others who want RS.) 71.154.159.1 (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the FAQ (see the top of this page. No one source does not overcome the consensus of the reliable sources that the war was fought primarily over slavery. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1>When people act irrationally, they often "shoot themselves in the foot" 2>The CSA actually claimed territory for itself 3>what SummerPhD said --JimWae (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Now tell us all about the war and what they fought each other for." "Why that I cannot tell" says he, "but 'twas a famous victory."  (Robert Southey, "The Battle of Blenheim".)  We're all chasing ghosts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.159.1 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Slavery was the most important cause of the war. There are other issues, such as the tariff issue, or states' rights which have been included in the article as well." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

For some this may have very well been the sole case but this wasn't the sole case for all. This cause is covered under the section titled "nationalism and honor". "Follow the leader" mentality has been documented all over history but it's rarely so plain and simple.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If the war was over an "irrational act of passion", which is likely to be true, that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't the motivation. See Notes From Underground for details. More than one good historian credited Confederates with making the rapid destruction of slavery possible - by starting a war in an attempt to save it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A number of good Historians completely write off the Lost cause and push slavery as the main focal point. These same historians cite Robert E Lee as one of the primary inspirations for the lost cause. Sociologically peoples views tend to reflect that of the area they come from. The larger the area the more people break up on certain issues but there still are connecting issues. Robert E Lee was a Virginian. Virginia being one of four states that staved off secession until aggression from the Union. History shows that Lincolns call for troops was a major factor in Virginia secession. Further more it's clear in the Virginia's Governor's response to Lincoln that he felt that Lincoln was over reaching in the authority granted to him by the constitution. As the Tenth amendment points out any authority not granted to the Federal Government belongs to the States or to the people if the states choose not to exercise it or in plain terms Lincoln was stepping on Virginia's states rights. As a number of good historians have pointed out in history slavery could have been ended peacefully. The Confederadoes of Brazil or Rather the Confederates who settled in Brazil after the Civil war had no problems peacefully transitioning from slave labor to payed labor 20 years after Slavery was ended in the United States when it was ended in Brazil. The stigma of the "Rebel flag" is a recent phenomenon for the descendants of the confederadoes brought in by Brazilian outsiders. We have two groups of people doing major damage to history. On one side we have "Neo-confederates" and on the other side we have there opponents. You can pin point these said opponents because they call anyone who doesn't absolutely follow their views "neo-confederate". For example if you do not specifically say that slavery was the major cause of Secession you are a "neo-confederate". You can mention other causes but if you suggest that any of them are more than a minor occurrence you are a "neo-confederate". Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee which were about 40% of the slave states didn't secede due to slavery. They didn't join the CSA on the brink of war with the USA due to slavery. It was not important to list why Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana personal civil war history pages why they seceded. It mentions that they supported slavery and states rights but not that either of these issues lead to secession. There were Union states that supported both of these issues that did not secede. That is strange because the cause of secession is very important on this page. That truly is an interesting anachronism. Though you could argue that slavery was precipitating factor in Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee seceding do in part to if South Carolina had not seceded due to slavery Lincoln wouldn't have made those calls for troops and those four states wouldn't have themselves seceded. But that doesn't take away from the fact that if Lincoln had not asked those four states to supply troops to attack and suppress the southern rebellion they would not have seceded. I wouldn't Label it an irrational act of passion but I wouldn't have tried to put most of it's weight on slavery. Each individuals states cause and views on secession need to be weighed and balanced. We need not give in to unforgivable racists or guilt ridden professors when identifying the causes of secession.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

History- The study of the human past. The importance of slavery as a states right.
History is the study of the human past. Slavery is a very contentious subject in our history. In our current time period we try to view it from the context of today. But shouldn't we attempt to view it from a context of the era it existed in? "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."-George Santayana

Today it is very offensive to talk about anyone as property. It is audacious to consider anyone 3/5 a person. We can use semantics to remove slavery from states rights. It can not be argued that a slave owners did not feel they owned their slaves as property. In Todays context a slave owners owned slaves like one might own a lawn mower. The slave was theirs as the lawn mower is yours. Now we do have to give proper respect to Northern views of the time period but we also have to give respect to southern views. McPherson argues semantics. Since there was quite abit of weight of slavery attached to southern view of states rights he would prefer to not even mention states rights. He desires to put this history in the context of today.

In the context of the lost cause one thing not particularly important to talk about by Historians is related to the fact that it was based on Robert E Lee's views. Lee was a Virginian. Virginia was one of four States that did not secede do to slavery. They did so instead do to Lincoln's call for troops from VA to suppress the southern Rebellion. A move which the Governor of Virginia (John Letcher) felt was both unconstitutional and not with in the authority granted to him in the 1795 amendments of the militia act of 1795. The Governor was both an opponent to secession and very prominent in the organization of the Peace Conference of 1861. Such an unconstitutional move would be both violative of Virginia's state sovereignty and it's states' rights. Such a look at history would frown on Historians like McPherson who are always looking for a reason to name drop "neo-confederate".

Slavery is immoral. Bias by historians will not make it any more so. We should only post information from historian's relevant historically. The only historical relevance tot the McPherson quote is simply that McPherson held this opinion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for a Good Article reassessment.
Due in part to the length of time since the last assessment and The numerous changes that have taken place since I feel this page begs a reassessment. Noting a number of Changes from February of last year to now I can only imagine the changes made since last reviewed in December of 2008. The reliability of some parts of this do come to question. Just in the introductory I find, "the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation." The end of slavery wasn't caused by the war. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. I feel a review will uncover any other such problems. I feel that due to the length of time since the the last assessment and the number of changes that have transpired that there may be a conflict of interest on the part of long time editors and as such I ask that a community reassessment be used. Perhaps at some point this article will meet Featured Article Criteria. Thank you.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of historians think the timing of the 13th amendment was more than coincidental. So do I.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of historians that feel the timing of the 13th amendment was more than coincidental mention that slavery was outlawed after the war due to it. The importance of the war doesn't take from the importance of the 13th amendment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement in the text is clear, accurate and relevant: "the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation." Who can possibly misinterpret it? Rjensen (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact here is that the 13th amendment ended slavery in the United States. There would be no problem including that in the opening and it is relevant to the opening. But back to the point at hand. GA reassessment. I feel certain of course that neither of you would have a problem with a GA reassessment or even skipping that step and having a feature article review? I do not feel that you are suggesting this article would fail to live up to a GA or even FA standards and of course if you did feel that it would I am sure you would be open to the careful scrutiny of such a review.Personally I feel being a featured article would be a more important step in the evolution of this article. Personally I feel that this article deserves a community GA review to go beyond the scrutiny of the active editors of the past 2 some odd years since last review. Not to suggest bad faith or anything though. I just feel inherent bias in ones on work is a flaw of human nature. My ultimate suggestion is that after such a GA review that an FA review be undertook. But again I see no problem with just simply moving on to a featured article review.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would The South Have Seceded If Slavery Was Not An Issue?
Would the South have seceded if slavery was not an issue? Probably, after all, the 13 Colonies seceded from Great Britain and slavery was not the issue. And as noted, there were many other ongoing differences between the North and the South that were causing serious problems. In this regard then, the weight of slavery being the major cause of the Civil War is diluted. Hope this gives some food for thought. 63.198.19.212 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. As the reliable sources in the article indicate, slavery was the most important cause of the war. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Beginning of Hostilities?
The article states that "Hostilities began on April 12" but a Union civilian supply ship "Star of the West" was fired upon on Jan. 9 as it attempted to supply Ft. Sumter (fired upon by cadets at The Citadel, no less). Should this be mentioned? That Citadel cadets started the war? Anybody know the name of the cadet who fired the first shot? When was war actually declared--since the U.S. has declared war only 5 times and a declaration of war was not issued in the Civil War? This is a bit confusing. Was there ever an official announcement of war? And when was the official announcement if there ever was one? Should it be mentioned that Lt. Farley fired the first "formal" shot of the Civil War at Ft. Sumter as a ceremonial shot, thus "ceremoniously" beginning the war? Also, Major Anderson was good friends with Brig. General P.G.T. Beauregard (Anderson had been Beauregard's artillery instructor at West Point--how's that for irony?). So there must have been personal considerations in some depth and what part did that play at Ft. Sumter? These two guys were buddies. Also, Beauregard had only 48 hours of ammo, so the whole Ft. Sumter situation seems to have been ceremonial in nature (especially since no one was killed during the battle, although I remember reading a long time ago that a pregnant woman happened to be at the fort at the time and she was killed in the battle, anybody got any info on her?) And Lincoln had offered to evacuate Ft. Sumter if Virginia stayed in the Union. There's a good Wiki article on this entitled "Battle of Ft. Sumter", which mentions a lot of these points, if Wiki editors need a quick review. The whole Ft. Sumter battle seems very arranged and ceremonial. The Confederates actually cheered for the Union soldiers in the fort. The Civil War is like peeling an onion--there's layers and layers, attempting to get at the core, and then poof! there is no core, only the layers. I think if we examined the Ft. Sumter battle it might give us some perspective in understanding the war, and give the article a good dramatic kick start, thus improving it. 63.198.19.212 (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Historians have studied the issue at length and prefer the later date--when the shots were fired on orders of the Confederate government in Montgomery. see Lincoln and the first shot by Richard Current (1963) Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

By historians are you suggesting all historians? That's not exactly clear. I feel that IP is suggesting that equal validity be used in this situation if it's applicable. I do agree that what is currently written is accepted academic scholarship but what is not clear is if you are saying to the IP that the points he brings up are not accepted academic scholarship. Your comments seem to me to suggest that other historians may accept another date. Please clarify.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IP is proposing his own original research and cites no RS. The consensus in the history books and textbooks is pretty well fixed on the firing on Ft Sumter. Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had thought my reference to the Wiki article "Battle of Fort Sumter" was sufficient RS. I'm confused--are you saying that Wiki articles do not qualify as RS?  Please clarify.  Thanks.    63.198.19.212 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For starter, the Battle of Fort Sumter article says "The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) ... started the American Civil War." No, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, as 1) they do not fit the description at WP:RS and 2) this can easily create circular references: What if Battle of Fort Sumter cited this article for that "fact"? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are always going to be a few rogue "historians" who try and question the accepted version of historical events, so it doesn't surprise me that this is an issue. Remember that most historians are in the business of writing and selling books. The next great historian is always trying to make a niche for him/herself by coming up with some new twist on an old story. If every historian wrote the same thing that the previous generation of historians did, they wouldn't sell too many books now would they. Thats how we get fringe theories and why wikipedia has a policy of giving undue weight to these theories.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "... why wikipedia has a policy of giving undue weight to [fringe theories]."
 * Blink. I suppose there's a "not" missing. :-) —WWoods (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the Star of the West reference to the article, not because it's of major importance, but to correct the wrong impression that Buchanan made no effort to address the Fort Sumter issue. War was all but inevitable after Beauregard fired on Anderson's troops, not before. Lincoln did mention a suggestion of trading Sumter for Virginia, but this was not a formal, official position. I don't know if a pregnant woman was in the fort, but a soldier did get killed by accident when a ceremonial shot was fired during the surrender ceremony. Anderson was, indeed, Beauregard's instructor before the war. Other articles can give more information on these details than this article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was two union soldiers who had died due to a gun explosion during the ceremonies. Though I have heard that approximately 100 died due to either disease or wounds sustained during the events of Fort Sumter. The information of the two deaths is on the battle of fort sumter page. It need not be covered here. It need not be. There is a consensus by most historians (if not all) that there was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement. An accidental gun explosion during a ceremony, death to sickness, stumbling on a pothole and breaking your neck while being involved, and receiving a wound that would generally not otherwise kill you that later becomes infected and kills you really don't constitute a direct result of the war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article Status...
There is currently a peer review going on. I did this to check to see what needs to be changed for this to meet FA status. There are a few highlighted thoughts on what needs particular work so if anyone is interested in helping move this article to FA status please check her out. I've yet to see a remark of bias in this peer review. It highlights issues of structure, prose, sources, and anything related to FA criteria. It doesn't argue the correctness or incorrectness of any info in this article so far.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also capitalistic reasons for the war?
Hi!

I can't really tell if somebody already mentioned it (at least it doesn't seem that way regarding the headlines) but i just read the essay "The American road to capitalism" from the historian Charles Post as a coursework. It was published in the New Left Review in 1982. In his essay he points out the connection between slavery and the development of capitalism in the USA and how it became an obstacle for the incipient industrial capitalism from 1960 onwards. He claims that one of the reasons for the Union to engage in the civil war was to prevent the expansion of slavery into the south-west of the country because of that. Does anybody has references who speak in favor or against this theory?Afghani84 (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * preventing the expansion of slavery was a leading goal of the new Republican party. However the businessmen of the Northeast OPPOSED war--they made a lot of money trading with the South. Rjensen (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for the quick answer...i think this might be an interesting point to add to the article. but i don't really know where it would fit in. further references would be required as well.Afghani84 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)