Talk:American Civil War/Archive 7

The Lost Cause and origins of the war
For those who think slavery had nothing to do with causes of the War, see the declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials made by the original secessionists at: Causes of the Civil War.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This article generally stinks of Statist BS
There is a blatant over-emphasis in this article on the importance of slavery in the American "civil" war, stereotypical of those taught history with a bent for statism and oppression. Lincoln and his ilk have been quoted and recorded numerous times stating their their interest in slavery with respect to the war was purely opportunistic. The war was fought over centralisation of governing power and economic control of the North over the South, in direct violation of an obscene number of constitutional laws. The fact that many use wikipedia and this article as learning tool just compounds the ridiculous lies we are being told about this period of history. --207.237.230.38 (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that a great deal of this sort of talk and recent outright vandalism in ACW related articles emanate from Herndon, VA IP addresses. Anyone else notice the same?  Red Harvest (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm from New York, and I'm not vandalising. --207.237.230.38 (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is by far the most biased article I've ever seen on WP. It's almost comical how statist it is. (Whind Soull - to busy to log in) 68.221.218.218 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Statist? So are you an anarchist? Presumably a "Statist" bias would be one oriented towards those who believe in the concept of the nation state. SiberioS (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Military Plan
I have a question. The Norths plan was the anaconda plan. What was the Souths plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.135.120 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a civil war
Technically it was not a civil war since the South declared independence before it started. --207.237.230.38 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, such a technicality doesn't remove it from the category. The definition of civil war includes fighting over control of a separatist state and it also includes some independence movements.  Additionally, hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the South fought against the Confederacy, making it a civil war from their perspective as well.  It is true that the South was attempting a revolution from the Confederate supporter's perspective, but the CSA also tried to annex states, regions and territories where the majority were unwilling to join them:  West Virginia, East Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, New Mexico, Colorado, etc.  (Yes there were sympathizers in most of these particular regions, but the majority rejected leaving the U.S. and/or fought against the CSA.) Red Harvest (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A civil war IS a war within country and never between countries. This was a matter of the north agressivley invading the south. The south was independant whether acknowledged by Washington or not. It should be called the war of northern agression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.170.103 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So many fallacies that have been rehashed so many times. Flush. Red Harvest (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Equally you could call it "The War Against Southern Illegality". The whole discussion is pretty pointless. Everyone around the world knows it as the American Civil War. Attempts to call it anything else (in English) are ridiculous and reek of POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbalmer (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the CSA was never recognized, by either the USA or any foreign power. Therefore its claim of independence and sovereignty, might be view as only nominal. I believe under modern law unilateral secession is illegal. It is bested categorized as a war of secession. The South initiated the fighting, and seized federal property. The reason the war was fought mostly in the South, was that the attempts by the Rebels to invade the North failed. Rds865 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A civil war is defined as fighting between factions within a state. The South declared independence from the United States legally under the succession clauses in the US constitution. Therefore the correct terminology is not "civil war". --207.237.230.38 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, point out the "succession clauses in the US constitution." At any rate the many faults in your reasoning have been pointed out over and over again.  It would be nice if folks actually studied a little before posting based on emotion rather than what they want to believe. Red Harvest (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are technically right, apologies. However, it was understood as a given and not prevented in the constitution.
 * http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/890304.html
 * --207.237.230.38 (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the link has nothing. There is no secession clause in the Constitution nor is there any wording about how states could leave the Union.  States or individual jurists claiming the right don't make it so.  Nobody seems to have argued it before the U.S. Supreme Court.  The CSA instead attempted to claim the right through warfare against the United States (an act clearly in violation of the Constitution they ratified) and failed.  Note also that the amendments which are so often pointed to as allowing (not supporting or explaining) secession were not even in the original Constitution ratified by the colonies; they were amendments that also failed to address the issue. Red Harvest (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the right to succeed was the condition under which many of the states joined, but as I already said, you are right, not explicit in the constitution.
 * "The CSA instead attempted to claim the right through warfare against the United States" Your history is a little hazy. The South tried to succeed peacefully and had treaties with the North that required the North to not reinforce and ultimately vacate the two forts in the South.  The North broke that treaty in an act of provocation which is why the South opened fire on Sumter. --207.237.230.38 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of this seems to be playing with words. There was no constitutional right for the American Colonies to secede, but they did because a majority of the voting citizens thought they were justified in doing so. Equally there was no constitutional right for the Southern States to secede, but they did because a majority of the voting citizens thought they were justified in doing so.  Unfortunately in such cases Might is Right regardless of the actual rights and wrongs.  One lot won, the other didn't.  You might consider one lot to be morally better than the other, but in both cases "Legality" and "Government of the people, by the people" only applies if you are careful enough to define just who the people are that you are talking about. Cerddaf (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Claim the right through warfare? This has to be the loopiest explanation ever. You can argue whether it was moral, just, etc etc, but as to whether its LEGAL is a whole 'nother cans of worms. I also have to say that, of the dozens of secessionist groups that exist or have existed (with the exception of Palestinians and possibly former Yugoslavian states), no one besides the CSA has ever argued that they had a "legal" right to do so. They made all sorts of other arguments, of which one can appraise on a moral or ethical argument, but hardly EVER on legal grounds. SiberioS (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that what you were taught in school? Btw, "secession" was not a "success", they did not "succeed" in "seceding" --JimWae (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My history is not hazy at all. If you actually were familiar with what happened rather than making it up as you went along then I doubt we would be having this conversation.  If you learn anything from this discussion perhaps it will be how to spell "secession."  There was no "treaty", yet more fiction to go with your "succession clauses".  Nobody agreed to vacate the forts, but the CSA tried to force the U.S. to do so via siege, including firing on a U.S. supply vessel in January.  The provocation was solely from the CSA.  (You aren't allowed to shoot at your neighbor because he enters a piece of property that you signed over to him decades before and now regret.)


 * And the various states ratification statements are just that: statements.  They carried no legal weight.  Some were eventually made into amendments and became the law of the land, others were not.  I'm not aware of any of the ratification statements being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.  No single state could make law for all the others--not even South Carolina. Red Harvest (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I declare my backyard to be the Kingdom of Mellonia, it doesn't make it so.Khan_singh (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you're not a state. 68.221.218.218 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

if the south was not successful in secession, then why was it necessary to have them readmitted at war's end? if they had to be brought back in then that means they had to leave...if they left then they were not apart of the united states...if they were not apart of the united states then they were their own entity... if they were their own entity then the war was not between two factions of the same county... if thats the case then it was not a civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.87.254 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

wondering
i was just wondering but if other languages have feature article on THIS article why dont we?--71.141.231.144 (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo of the supposed dead Union Soldier at Petersburg.
Something is wrong with the picture of the dead Union Soldier at Petersburg. It is in the "End of the War" section of the article. If you look at this picture, you can clearly see the sponge for cooling off the inside of a cannon after it has been fired. However, if you click on the photographer's name under the caption (Thomas C. Roche), the page it takes you to has a photograph that is identical except for the missing sponge. The dead soldier's arm is arranged exactly the same way in both pictures, the same pile of rocks is visible in both, the blood on his face is dried in the exact same pattern in both, and he has the same bag in the same position in both. Now, the dissimilarities are less noticeable with the exception of the addition of the sponge. The crease on the bag under his left shoulder is different, the distance of the photograph is different, and that's about it. If you can't see the exact alikeness from what I just described above, take a look at this: the bag on his right has a flap that is curled up the exact same way in both pictures; the blood on his chin is the same amount in the same spot; the leather strap across his shoulder is cracked in the same place; the way his jacket is arranged at his midsection with the large, triangular flat spot is the same in both pictures. This may be just a coincidence but I ate someone photoshopped this picture and either put in the sponge or removed it. Anyone agree or disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekirchubel (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

hahaha such a good way to spend a Thursday night ^_^ is is possible that the photographer took the first picture then made some changes and took the second? Xaedra (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he took two pictures at slightly different angles that could have cause the sponge to only appear in one but no other noticeable differences, I'm probably wrong though.98.243.93.33 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the first photo was taken, the sponge was removed either because it was valuable or needed elsewhere, and the photographer took another photo at a different angle. Although in this day it could have been photoshopped, but that is my theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.1.3 (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Corwin Amendment
I have added a citation to the Corwin Amendment. Since the Crittenden Compromise is mentioned I felt the Corwin Amendment should be as well, especially since the Corwin Amendment was passed by the Congress (although not even close to be ratified by the States). --SMP0328 (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC) yay

Fandom
Please don't be offended. I came to this article looking for WP's article on Civil War "fandom", that is recreators, collectors, amatuer historians, etc. I expected to find at least a "see other" about this here. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You could start at American Civil War reenactment. Incidentally, I almost always use Google to find Wikipedia articles (because the WP search engine is rather finicky sometimes). Just include "wiki" in your search string and it almost always works. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Border States
After discussions with User:GordonUS (see his talk page and my talk page) over his changes, I have rewritten the short paragraph on West Virginia to a two sentence summary stating the basic facts. GordonUS was concerned with the readability of the section as it existed, and I was concerned with the POV -- there were criticisms on the popular support and legality from a CSA perspective, but nothing from the Unionist perspective. The alternatives were either to expand the section to represent both POVs or reduce it to present neither POV. Readers interested on the details and arguments about legality, popular support, etc. can follow the reference to the main article Border states (Civil War). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC


 * Tom, the change you made is not good. Although I know you believe the change is non-POV, it is very incorrect. It is actually heavily skewed to the Unionist outcome and misrepresents the sentiments of thepeople in much of West Virginia. Please re-write it so that is is at least fair, and not a winner-take-all scenario. It should only take a few sentences. Thanks, Dubyavee (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom, I went ahead and added the two sentences, both are documented, and I think it gives a balance to WV in the history of the Civil War.Dubyavee (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your sentences are documented, but they don't tell the entire story. Here is what you say, "Much of what was to become West Virginia however opposed the Unionist government in Wheeling, about half of West Virginia's soldiers were Confederate." However the fact is that population wise the larger segment had opposed secession. After deleting your sentences, Ithought better of it and decided to add material back with an actual vote count on the secession referendumand a better breakdown of the counties. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom, thanks for the new edit. I wouldn't depend on the Secession vote as an indicator of sentiment in WV, it was as much a vote for the status-quo as it was for the Union. If the anti-Secession vote had been solid, there would not have been a 50% split in Union/Confederate soldiers, the highest among the border states, which ran about 70/30. Also Wheeling would have had a much easier time organizing the counties. A number of those which had voted heavily against Secession proved to be intractable once the war started. This also helps explain why, once full voting rights were restored in 1871, West Virginians voted to destroy the Wheeling Constitution. Dubyavee (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording?
Anyone else thinks this line just sounds kind of goofy "Deep South states with the most slavery seceded first,"? Shouldn't it just read "The states with the largest slave populations seceded first,"? SiberioS (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine, except that non-Americans might not know that the deep South is what is referred to.Jimmuldrow (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about: "The states of the so-called "Deep South", which had the largest slave populations, were the first to secede."? Redddogg (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the line looks goofy (if one is to ignore the first sentence connected via semicolon which is designed to provide context for the second sentence). I disagree with the use of "so-called". In printed matter, this might be more appropriate, but since Deep South can be wikilinked, the idiom is excess styling. IMHO, the only change necessary is the wikilink. BusterD (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Justification
Could someone add a section with the reasons why the civil war was justified? I looked also in the List_of_American_Civil_War_topics and didn't see such a page. The declaration of independence in Kosovo has made me wonder why the North was justified in preventing the South from seceding. I came to Wikipedia for the answer, like I do for everything, and haven't found it. ~Kevin 87.110.59.120 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And you're not likely to. The winner gets to write history.  Any attempt to word the South as anything other than the great Satan gets deleted or reworded.  You can check the edit logs of the various Civil War related articles to see what I mean. If you really want to make a comparison on Kosovo's UDI, look up Rhodesia's UDI.Sf46 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that, in this case, the victor hasn't. One look at the numerous Confederate monuments, the history of Lost Cause books, movies, and assorted memorabilia, as well as the invoking of the Confederacy and Southern white supremacy during the Civil Rights movement, and you realize that the Union might have won the war, but it certainly seemed to have lost the ideological fight. In fact, the overturning of the Reconstructions advancements in civil rights, set the stage for Plessy v. Ferguson, the enactment of Jim Crow laws, and a half century of overt and explicit discrimination.
 * I am also amused by your referencing of Rhodesia, a country so explicitly racist and white supremacist, that even apartheid-era South Africa had a hard time supporting it. Like the Confederacy, Rhodesia's quixotic attempt to form a country vested almost entirely in the hands of whites, whilst the majority of the population was black (or in the case of the South, almost half black), was a failure internationally, and very few states recognized it. The various economic sanctions put upon the country crippled it, and its doubtful it would have held on as long as it had without support from South Africa. If you're going to be making an argument that the Confederacy wasn't a bunch of racist crackpots, I suggest you don't start out comparing it to one of the worst offenders the 20th century had ever seen. SiberioS (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rhodesia being racist is merely your point of view, not mine. Sf46 (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has to be the loopiest response ever. Of COURSE it was racist. A government that did not recognize nor allow fundamental political participation by a large segment of the population based on the color of their skin is in every sense of the word racist. Whether or not being racist is a bad thing, now THAT is a matter of opinion. SiberioS (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Siberio I'm not going to debate you, because I understand the reality that you will NOT sway my point of view and that I will NOT sway yours. I also understand that there ARE points of view other than my own.  I don't claim for my point of view to be universally regarded as the best one or the only right one.  Perhaps you should consider that yours is not necassarily the only one or the only right one. Sf46 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is. But as to whether or not the editing of the Civil War articles are edited in such a way as to paint the Confederacy in a bad light, this is flatly untrue. For some people, both at the time of the war, and even now, the ideas and rhetoric on racial relations, slavery, and other things that the Confederate government and its prominent officials and supporters held, were neither wrong nor bad. Some people, then, and now, hold that they were. But simply DOCUMENTING these beliefs is not attempting to inject an opinion, or a bias, or anything else. The reality is, however, that many individuals, both on Wikipedia and off, are consciously attempting to rewrite the history so that these positions, policies, and practices simply don't show up. And thats ridiculous. The statements made about the Confederacy are factual, backed up rigorously by sources, and avoid making sermons or interjecting as to whether or not these policies and practices were bad. The fact that many view them as such, of their own independent reasoning, is something you will have to bring up with them.SiberioS (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WBTS euphemism
I am surprised that a euphemism is being passed off as a more valid name than that used for the Official Records: "War of the Rebellion." "War Between the States" does not even match the CSA Congress declaration: "War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America." That is not the same as a war between states, it is claim of a state of war between nations. The CSA was claiming it was an independent nation--therefore there could be no "War Between the States" unless in fact they were not yet a nation and instead were in rebellion. (This creates a nasty states rights quandary.) The initial attack by the CSA was not against a state, but against the forces and property of the United States government. The result was a declaration of an insurrection. While the WBTS has become an accepted euphemism, it is in essence POV'ish. "War of the Rebellion" is certainly no more POV'ish and was the name chosen for the official documentation of the conflict. It is at least based upon the legalities of how the war was prosecuted by the Federal government, while the WBTS name is self-conflicting. If the name used for the Official Records is purged as POV'ish then WBTS should certainly go, leaving only the "other names" link. Red Harvest (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnotable page
This wasn't a real war, some fighting between people on an unnotable island full of outcasts from Europe should not have an encyclopedia page about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Get back on your meds, fella. Sf46 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

school project
i am a 14 year old girl and i would like some advice about how to write descriptively about a northern lady during the civil war if you have and information to give me please please notify me on the message board 65.190.176.20 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Weapons
A section on the types of weapons used during the war would be very useful. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

edit protected
It should be noted within the article the term "Civil War" is not correct. A civil war is a war for control of a single government; wars of succession are not civil wars since one faction seeks to leave, not control the other. The term "Civil War" was not recongonized until the mid-twentieth century. Throwawaygull (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but while that distinction would make sense it is not quite correct on several levels. See Naming the American Civil War, that is the appropriate place to discuss it.  A current definition used is: (1) The warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. (2) At least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.  A war of secession appears to be a subset rather than a different set.  (A war of "succession" would of course be a civil war.) Red Harvest (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Loaded Introduction Sentence
This is Loaded: The American Civil War (1861–1865), which is also known by several other names, was a civil war between the United States of America (the "Union") and the Southern slave states

There is no need o put that the southern states were slave states. If it is to stay there, then we must write that the north were industrialized states. The confederates were on the wrong side of history yes but slavery was an acceptible economic system up unti this point. Without slaver America could have never become as powerful and expansive as it did. Saying slave states loads the rest of the text. It is also important to not that by default, the entire United states was a nation with slavery up until the succession of the south. The fact that slavery existed and was tolerated only in the south is misleading and has more to do with economic system than morality.

Slavery Acceptable in united states = pre succession (United States) Slavery Unacceptable = post succession (Uion)

Should read: The American Civil War (1861–1865), which is also known by several other names, was a civil war between the United States of America (the "Union") and the Southern States

Note that all of the above was added by User talk:Whordwind Red Harvest (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There could be some problems with the introduction, but perhaps not where you believe. If there is a problem in the sentence it is that not all slave states joined the CSA (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware.)  And only some of the Northern states were really industrialized, so the distinction you are trying to make is incorrect.  (Secession, not "succession.")  What one calls the South is also problematic because of border states, etc.  The war actually began between just the slave states of the Lower South and the remainder of the United States.  States of the Upper South then seceded.  The key distinction here is that the war was between Southern slave states that seceded. And slavery is integral to the whole show making removal of reference to it in the introduction "loaded." Red Harvest (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Northerners and Southerners used the terms "free states" and "slaves states." Also, the intro mentions that the Border States had slavery (although less so than the Confederate states) and fought for the Union.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense and thank you Red Harvest for the correction. The sentence needs to be restructured. The point I was trying to make, is that by introducing the confederacy as a slave state, you suggest that slavery was a mainstay and/or the total cause of the conflict. Which we all must agree is not correct. For instance we would not say:The American Colonies, (slave trading colonies), rebelled against England (a slave trading country). This clearly loads the sentence stirring present day moral indignation. We need only say that the Many Southern states and rebelled against the Northern Sates... Then discuss the reasons. The fact that people at the time, and today, call them slave states is a result of the rhetoric of the era. Fifty years prior to 1808, slavery was perfectly acceptable. The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed in the Senate on April 8, 1864 a good 4 years into the the war.Whordwind (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The comparison is tortured to say the least, since the issues of slavery were not relevant to the rebellion of the colonies against Great Britain. You also make the mistake many do on here on presuming that merely pointing out slavery in the South is some attempt to make a moral judgement on the part of the editors. It is not. Frankly, I am tired of every couple weeks having to defend this point. WHether or not it is moral today, or whether or not it was moral then, is categorically irrelevant to the fact that at that time, southern states, and the border states, had slavery. Pointing out that fact is not a judgement call, but simple reality. But people keep reading into it some attempt at "insulting" the South, presuming possibly, that modern day readers may walk away with a negative view of the south. Thats their perogative, and one's own moral judgements. While it is true that a selective choosing of facts may portray an untrue portrait, no one has ever argued that the South didn't HAVE slaves. What they've tried to do, however, is either mitigate or neuter the mention of it in articles cause they dislike what it might be interpreted today. And thats not mine, or this encyclopedias problem. SiberioS (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. It is groundhog day dealing with a constant stream of folks essentially contending that slavery was not the primary cause of war.  Whordwind said, "by introducing the confederacy as a slave state, you suggest that slavery was a mainstay and/or the total cause of the conflict.   Which we all must agree is not correct"  No, we don't agree about that at all.  That is clearly wrong based on the historical record and the consensus reached by modern historians. Red Harvest (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Red Harvest, from your background and your point of view that probably is true. You've noted that others seem to have the same idea that I do that slavery was a factor in the war, but not the main factor.  Perhaps these folks have the same misfortune that I do of having grown up and been schooled in the South during the Cold War.  The schools I went to taught that the tariff issues and taxation along with State's Rights were the main factors seconded by slavery.  For that type of information to be widely taught in the South and be in text books, some historians had to have been of differing opinions than what you claim is the consensus. Sf46 (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that what has been taught in the public schools in the past was influenced heavily by Southern revisionist history, that doesn't make it accurate. I received the same basic "states rights" causation education in a border state school that had a star in the CSA flag and had a strong southern rural agrarian conservative bent.  School boards are highly politicized, particularly in the South (I've lived here for decades.)  There was still a strong attempt to justify the old slave system under paternalism when I was a boy as well.  Doesn't make it any more accurate as a depiction.  Modern historians overwhelmingly reject the rationalizations that were advanced for a century following the war.  It wasn't until the Civil Rights Era that a lot of the popular fiction passing as history was finally challenged as it should have been.  Yet it was years before public education would catch up.  Our text books still were decades old...often teaching popular history for the section. Red Harvest (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The best known Civil War Causes historians, including the Southerner David Potter, said that slavery was the main issue by 1860. The Nullification Crisis over a tariff happened three decades before. See South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession for an example of what the point of Southern states' rights rhetoric was.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Slavery was much more sectional by 1860 than before, and see the article (especially the Causes section) for the results. Like most wars, the American Civil War was started by a smaller group (pro and anti slavery factions), and other groups (the Border States, War Democrats, and Southerners like Lee) were forced to choose sides as a result. Still, controversies over slavery sparked secession, which in turn led to war. I think some people don't read the article very well before posting comments.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if people did give a careful reading, they would walk way with how much most wikipedia editors, not just on civil war articles, but everywhere, strive for neutrality and to give a whole picture so people can make a decision for themselves. The way wikipedia has dealt with controversial articles such as holocaust denial, pedophilia, and other articles that demand and attract strong opinion, shows how much people who edit want to strive for factual information, and letting people make their own decisions. SiberioS (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like facts, and I think the "confusion" is that there has been very little consistent discussion of the "facts." When certain "southern" states moved to leave the "union," the non-leaving states (some where slavery was still legal) were still in the U.S.A.  Slavery was certainly ONE, certainly the most "visible," of the issues leading to the war, and while some states had already outlawed slavery, others (including some in the "north") had not.  If slavery was the only issue that led to the war, it would seem that the slaves would have been freed first in the "union" and "northern" states PRIOR to the war starting--else why were you not at war with the border states where slavery was legal?  I thought the issue was the extent of the power granted to the federal government vs. that which was reserved to the states that led to the United States Civil War.  I would love to see a well-written piece discuss these issues and put this to rest.--Manos Lijeros (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Republicans and the South agreed that it was unconstitutional to ban slavery in states where it existed. As both the intro and the causes section mention, it was the status of slavery in the territories that the two sides disagreed on. The future of slavery was the implied issue. Southerners thought they carried the rights of their states into the territories, including a right to slavery. Republicans thought they could legally ban slavery from the territories.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for changing the intro, I think this would look more balanced:

"The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known by several other names, was a civil war between the United States of America (the "Union") and the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy"). The Union included all of the free states and the five slaveholding border states and was led by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party. The Confederacy included the Southern slave states and was  led by Jefferson Davis and the Democratic Party.

The Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion."

There, now it's balanced out. It tells you right up front: What two groups (union & confed), what states were on which side, who the respective presidents were and what their political part affiliations were. If there are no objections I'll change this soon. Tengu99 (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the above is more organized. The original wasn't more "loaded" than what secessionists had to say for themselves, but I'm ok with the above.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll go ahead & change it then. Tengu99 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

--Except saying it was between the United States & the Confederacy implies that the Confederate states were no longer part of the US - a statement that would violate NPOV --JimWae (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think I understand what you're saying. You're referring to this line from the Confederate States of America entry, correct? "However, since the CSA was never recognized by other countries, it was never a de jure independent country according to international law and custom." I don't feel that the reformed introduction violates NPOV because it doesn't actually declare that the CSA was a country. There's an entry for the Confederate States of America and in the civil war entry itself it shows one of the opposing sides as the Confederate States of America. It would get a bit ridiculous to remove all references to the CSA, and the link takes persons directly to the entry where it states it was not recognized under international law as a country. Tengu99 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Missouri Secession
Just to be clear, when the article says "In the resulting vacuum, the convention on secession reconvened and took power as the Unionist provisional government of Missouri", it means that the exact same convention took power? Since other sources put the first vote at 98-1 against secession, I guess this makes sense. (Though, it seems a tad odd for a secessionist convention to come out heavily pro-Union, while the State Legislature seemed to be pro-secession. This was a confusing area.). --UnneededAplomb (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was the same convention, minus ~20 "Conditional Unionists" who had sided with the CSA once war broke out. The convention's executive committee called the convention back into session--minus the former president of the convention, Sterling Price.  It was indeed strange but reflected the common voter's desire.  They did not want secession or coercion.  Prior to warfare the governor and legislature (who were primarily Southern leaning) mis-estimated Missouri's sentiment when they called for a secession convention.  They were shocked that open secessionists were defeated in every race.  It is one of the great ironies that the convention the legislature called for, freely elected by the people of Missouri, ended up being the eventual undoing of the secessionist government.  Jackson ran for governor as a Douglas man to get enough votes for election, but he was really a Southern Democrat. (The wiki article about Gov. Jackson is poor, I completely rewrote it with actual cites and timeline once but lost the edit to a bad keystroke--I'll get around to rewriting it again when I finish reading my latest book acquisition.) Red Harvest (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

End of the War
The end of the war is given as April 9, 1865. I know that many professors and commentators on the war consider Lee's surrender to be the effective end of the war; but since there were still rebel troops in arms, still secessionist governments in operation, and still a few battles yet fought, should the end date be altered? Could it be written as, say "Spring 1865" or "~April-May 1865?"Khan_singh (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not discuss the subsequent events? The end of the war took place with the surrender of the CSS Shenandoah on 6 November 1865. The article on the Shenandoah says as much here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Shenandoah#Surrender_of_the_CSS_Shenandoah The captain of the HMS Donegal took the surrender in Liverpool, after which the Shenandoah was turned over to the US gov't. Between April and November, various other Confederate armies and naval vessels were surrendered. Arguably, the last shot fired in the war was in June 1865, also by the Shenandoah.

It is also the case that there were Southern rebel forces of various resistance factions in the field until a much later date. The president and Congress did not agree that all the states were pacified and qualified for re-admission until 1870.

It might be well to use a term like "the end of major combat operations" as of 9 April 1865, and then indicate the last shot fired in June and the last surrender in November of that year. Arguably, the war was over when the last military unit surrendered. Though, of course, partisan units are qualified in many other conflicts as part of the war effort. Planetaryjim (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Numerical conflict on casualties
In the Results section, the total casualties are indicated as "about 970,000 casualties." In the summary table at the top of the article, the figures are given as dead 618,000 and 412,200 - when you sum both sides. Since both sides were and are regarded as "Americans" (even Confederates considered themselves Americans, and their country the Confederate States of America), the figures ought properly to be summed.

However, 970,000 casualties is some 60,200 fewer than the sum of deaths and wounded. The sum of 618,000 and 412,200 is not 970,000 but 1,030,200.

In other publications, such as books on the topic (e.g., Hummel, _Emancipating Slaves_) the figure often given is 1,020,000. Certainly the total casualties is over a million.

I see no reason to get the math wrong. It should embarrass anyone involved in writing this article that the numbers don't foot properly. We can do better. We can either add up the numbers at the top and come to 1,030,200, or we can amend the numbers at the top so that they conform with the total at the results heading. It is simple arithmetic.

The figures on dead and wounded from both sides are a matter of official public records. The records of the Confederate side were captured and made a part of the official records of the US government on "the war of the rebellion." It seems to me that there is no difficulty in obtaining the correct figures.

Rather than questioning the motives of anyone wanting to reduce the total casualties figure below a million persons, which would call into question their personal commitment to the truth, I suggest instead focusing on the math and the figures. We can get the correct figures, and we can add them up. I believe that as an article intended to be authoritative on the topic of this war, this article should be consistent and accurate. Planetaryjim (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A range would be better, as well as a discussion about the problems, somewhere else in the article, about the inconsistency of troop fatality numbers. Despite it being a fact of public record, as you assert, both sides did not keep the most accurate of books, especially the Confederates, whose book-keeping went to hell in the last year or so of the war. Especially amongst colored troops it was significantly harder, since many lacked any tangible record of their birth on them when they joined, and often times, colored units would "absorb" runaway slaves with no or little change to the official roster on the books. The respective Navy's kept even shoddier books. SiberioS (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson and origins of the war (4-27-08 edit)
I made the following changes:

1. Limited reference of Jefferson to Kentucky Resolutions -- Virginia Resolutions were written by Madison.

2. Noted that states rights were a factor only in connection with slavery related issues as it pertains to the origins of the war. There were no stand alone states rights issues at play in the 1850s. This is well documented in the main article on the Origins of the American Civil War.

3. Removed reference to right of revolution. Southern actions were based on an alleged right of secession, which arose out of the unique circumstances which created the nation in the first place. People such as Andrew Jackson, James Madison, James Buchanan, and Lincoln have all differentiated secession from the right of revolution, an individual natural right that supercedes any written laws or constitution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Grant's Strategy for Ending the War 1864
I added this section because the fact that Grant was the first to actually come up with the "Final Solution" to the "Confederate Problem." Actions after Grant took charge should not simply as a continuation of previous events in isolation of an overal plan. The big strategy folks at a number of places including the US Marine Corps University in Quantico are of the opinion that Grant clearly conceived a way out of 3 years of fighting that had not resulted in a conclusion. Would the War have ended even without Grant? Would the North have given up the struggle and sued for peace without Grant? Your thoughts! SimonATL (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture
I think that section in popular culture take so many text in article.--Vojvodaen (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

About the link to "The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up"
The "cover-up" isn't really a cover-up, and the article is very point-of-view and ignores the details surrounding the proposed amendment. Republicans thought that it would be unconstitutional to ban slavery in states where it existed, but thought that it was constitutional to ban slavery in the territories and put it "in the course of ultimate extinction." This doesn't mean that Lincoln was in favor of slavery, which he called a "monstrous injustice" and a "cancer."Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

free access collection
The American Civil War Online, free access until 30 June 2008 http://alexanderstreet.com/resources/civilwar.access.htm -- 78.53.183.47 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention
Please see consensus reached in archives before continually changing first sentence. Sf46 (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)