Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 16

fringe blogs have to be kept out of Wikipedia
re Texas v White: There was no debate among scholars or legal experts--Dorf says it's "settled law" thus rejecting Texasreb's case. The other source Texasreb cites is an neo-rebel anonymous blog that is far from Wiki standards. (that cite is http://law.jrank.org/pages/25025/Texas-v-White-Political-Fact-or-Legal-Fiction.html Its headline today by the way is "The END of Obama? Could this medical scandal against retired Americans take down Obama?" showing the sort of far-out POV fringe we are keeping out of Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. What really exists is a bias on the part of some editors who want to censor the "other side" of it. Again, the "settled law" is simply "dicta." and has no stare-decisis value at all. Secession was not the issue before the court. That is the point Dorf was making. That -- essentially for the moment -- it is "settled law", not anything more.  In reading it (and in the dissenting opinion), it is impossible to not see how Dorf doesn't have some very real problems with many factors in the majority decision (which was by no means a large one). Which I have to wonder is the reason why some editors want to eliminate it completely...?


 * And c'mon VA! LOL. That "fringe" statement was a really silly thing to say, and I would expect better from an intelligent man like you. Just because you disagree with it and automatically support the "winners version" doesn't make it "fringe", other than by virtue of your own POV. Hell, it doesn't bother me in the least, anyway. No offense, but it is has some loose analogy from that the sane man in the nut-house is the nut! LOL  And of course there are some out there (not saying you are, but just saying), who just truly don't like to face the other side of the disagreement.  There is not a reason in the world to undo the actual case before the court and/or the dissenting opinion, and the treatise of those (like Dorf), who have issues with it.  Oh well, I gotta stop staying up so late...gotta go to work in the morning.  Regards to all TexasReb (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Texasreb depends on a website with the blaring headline "The END of Obama? Could this medical scandal against retired Americans take down Obama?" which he cited as his best resource. That's what fringe is like. Not for an encyclopedia of Wikipedia's stature. He has not found a single law book or journal article that supports the fringe views he has adopted.  Not one reliable source supports his strange views. (he thinks that "settled law" is unsettled law.)  It's Dorf who says White is "settled law"--he has no issues with the decision. Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This, Rjenen, is ridiculous beyond belief. Geez. As I have said countless times before, in the whole scheme of things like this it doesn't matter a damn where it appeared if the article in question itself has relevance. Good lord. Can you deny that?  And if you think an article from a law professor from Cornell doesn't have credentials then, oh heck, whatever.  You are in total denial.  Yes, Dorf said it was "settled law"...but only in the sense it is the latest extant. He obviously had issues about it. Do you want to deny that?  And it was dicta. It has no standing whatsoever as to being anything that cannot be overruled in a heartbeat. And especially to delete the link which provides both sides of the case.  Why do so many want to ignore that very simple fact?  Unless it deeply unsettles their own smug assumption that the winners history is beyond reproach?  Makes not the slightest bit of sense! TexasReb (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Texas Reb is somehow conflating the definition of legal terms. At Precedent, we have Stare decisis ... is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[2] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[2]


 * When Dorf says that the illegality of secession is settled law it is to say that case is the stare decisis for following courts. No one sued again to require other southern state tax payers to retire the bonds issued to finance the rebellion, because the illegality of unilateral state secession is everywhere acknowledged as settled law. No one now says secession was legal and the Texas tax payers owe the descendants of White the full value of the bonds plus accrued interest. The case is "settled law". To suppose such a suit is possible in 2014 is WP:FRINGE. No one is going to start a new tax on Texas for the costs accrued related to secession. It is enough to say that Texas v. White allows for a state to leave the Union with permission of Congress and three-fourths states approval. There is no debate among reliable sources as to the illegality of unilateral state secession. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Grier's dissent supposing a political reality in rebellion versus a "legal fiction" of the indestructible state in the indissoluble Union is like asserting the reality of a contract among thieves to commit a crime. The contract for illegal activity has no standing in law, because the legal form has no substance in a society of good order. It is the illegal contract which is a “legal fiction”, the court will not coerce its enforcement. Likewise secession has no standing in law, because whatever legal forms it clothes itself in, it has no substance in a well regulated national community, and it will not be upheld in a court of law. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To some editors above, including NorthShoreTom, I have no problem at all going along with a consensus so long as it does not involve censoring relevant information. Which this one does as per Texas v. White. I know in my own heart I have not eliminated anyone else's posts and points, but simply added another side which any educational/encyclopedic article will include as just a matter of balance and fact.  Some just don't seem to like it, for good reasons, I suppose, if one cannot accept that other viewpoints exist. TexasReb (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dissent opinions have no relevance to the topic of this article (the CSA) since the only reason to discuss Texas v White is to tell what the law of the land is. Dissents are covered at the Texas v White page. Alas, Texasreb still has not read any of the scholarly studies on Texas v White and so has not added anything of use here. He has no reliable sources only his own personal opinions based on politicized fringe web pages like the he repeatedly cites denouncing Obama and promoting the Confederate veterans. Balance is a balance between the RS and TexasReb has not read any of the RS. Rjensen (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Then why in the world are you so seemingly scared to death of it, Rjensen? Again, it is obvious as heck you don't want the actual issue before and court (bond sales), and any disagreement put out there.  And if you think a Cornell law professor is not a valid source outlining both disagreement and support, then that is just grasping at straws. What in the world is your problem with a dissenting opinion being presented? I never once censored any of yours or anyone elses at all.  And you dared mention a "hostile tone" in some of my communications earlier?  Sorry, but you really need to look into the mirror, yourself. Geez. But whatever...I have long since given up on the you and NST seem to have a very inflated opinion of your own authority on the page.  But heck, so if you seemingly have no problem with your own inclusion of the dissenting opinion on a source you provided, then why would you have a problem with another, as in presenting a counter-point.  Actually, I know why, it scares y'all to have it out there.


 * And this ridiculous and irrelevant statement about Obama and "promoting Confederate Veterans" is just an affirmation of your apparent latent hostility and desperation and absolute ability to steer it all into the ditch.  Bottom line is, I have been about the only one who has attempted to compromise at all.  And VA -- although we disagree -- seems to the only one that even remotely wants to do so.  I say again, if we can't all agree on wording, then the whole damn thing ought to be taken out and/or started all over. TexasReb (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox flag caption
The caption line below the info box flag is misleading. It implies that the First National Flag was not flown after 1863. It is the flag flown over Atlanta when it fell July 22, 1864. Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. The Second National Flag (altered) flew over the Capitol in Richmond, the Third National Flag was never fabricated, never seen in the time, and is now used by neo-confederate secessionist organizations. The caption should be restored to the previous, “Flag (with 13 stars)”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

complaints about Texas Reb
TexasReb refuses to abide the Wikipedia policies. He inserts false information based on his own POV against strong opposition -- he has no supporters. This is verging on deliberate disruptions and vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You can make complaints til it all freezes over. It doesn't change the truth and the need for balance.  It is your problem if you cannot accept it.  You repeatedly censor information, and nothing is false about it.  Where do you come by that?  That is almost comical! LOL  And your seeming appeal to a popularity contest will not work.  Finally, even if you and NT can get me censored, you will still know the truth and it will be upon your own sense of yourselves as historians to square it with self obligations to the vocation/avocation. I have definitely done it myself. TexasReb (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * so far you have offered zero information -- just silly assumptions like a make-believe dispute over a court case you have not studied. Rjensen (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "yawns" Whatever, Rjensen. You are simply self-destructing.  If you honestly believe that the actual issue before the court, a balanced analysis -- both pro and con -- by a Cornell law professor (Dorf) who has definite credentials in scholarly authority and has been published in peer-reviewed journals, as well as the wording of the dissenting opinion, to say nothing of that dicta is not "settled law" in the sense of future implications, then there is not much more that can be said.  It seems that your extreme pro-northern bias has actually removed you from any objectivity whatsoever.  A make believe dispute over an issue that did not involve secession as the original question at all?  And was settled by a bare majority?  THAT is make believe?  And oh, lord, an accusation of "vandalism"???  Vandalism???  That is laughable!  I mean absolutely comical.  Not a single thing I have ever done has eliminated any of any one elses contributions, and nothing I have added is not relevant to the sub-article.
 * But again, whatever, it is not my problem that some want to use the most flimsy justifications to wipe out facts that matter. TexasReb (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dorf explictly rejects your POV--he says Texas v White is "settled law" re the CSA, as has been pointed out before. In months of debate you have not found a single RS that supports a view you picked up from outlandish fringe neo-rebel sources. Rjensen (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * it is cherry picking in discussion of Texas v. White to look only at the dicta part of the decision, and not to consider the supporting rationale settling the case itself. This is a mystery to me because you keep calling attention to the specific grounds of the case related to whether post Civil War, Texas taxpayers amidst economic depression should pay debt incurred by an illegal assembly contracted by bonds issued for illegal purposes. The holding of the court is settled law on both counts.


 * Secession is illegal therefore a secessionist legislature is incompetent to encumber taxpayers with an obligation to pay the bonds. Rebellion is an illegal activity therefore contracts in the form of bonds to raise money for it cannot be enforced in a court of law. On the other hand, justices of the peace licensing marriages during the course of the rebellion had their authority and activity upheld as lawful in the perpetual Union as to the legitimate police power of the indestructible state to pursue lawful contracts for the good order of society. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has now been temporarily frozen from editing by an administrator. The theory is that the editors would use this time to reach a consensus. However in this case consensus has already been reached. One (and only one) editor (Texasreb) wants to add original research and poorly sourced material that represents a fringe viewpoint. At least three editors over the last month have expressed their reasons for objecting -- Texasreb claims censorship and states that consensus doesn't apply to him. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good lord, Northshore. What fringe viewpoint does a Cornell law professor give???  In fact, I have actually eliminated several sources in the spirit of good-will and compromise (and have said so), in the past. The only thing I retained at last edit is that of the said professor, the actual issue before the court (which was not secession), and actual quotes from the dissenting opinion. Oh my god, horrors that that should be presented!


 * But whatever... Expressed reasons for objecting? Yeah, I see the reasons clearly; a balance which terrifies some.  And you also, quite frankly, tell untruths with your above post. I never said any such thing as you advance. For instance, that "consensus doesn't apply" to me?  Ridiculous.  I only said that a majority consensus doesn't trump the need to provide historically relevant information in an article in a site that is supposed to provide good information to many readers.


 * I have agreed many times in the past to go along with a consensus sans that one qualification. So that position doesn't hold water. I have -- and am on record as saying on many articles -- I could go along with a consensus if it didn't mean eliminating something vital to the whole understanding of the issue (whatever it might be). To do otherwise is to cheat the thousands if not millions of readers out of what an encyclopedic source should stand for. TexasReb (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My attempt at compromise, — to include a footnote on Grier's dissent in Texas v. White—, is blown out of the water by Texas Reb’s insistence to alter the entire tone and direction of the consensus passage. He has twice 3RR on the main page without further discussion to reach a consensus for the copy edit here at Talk for the precise language of his copyedit.


 * Instead, he adds commentary on the main page about a legal and judicial controversy which is unsubstantiated by reliable sources. It may be true there is a cottage industry questioning the legitimacy of the Union and positing the theoretical possibility of unilateral state secession. But it is not reliably sourced to date relative to Texas v. White, and there is no consensus to include unsourced commentary about a fringe controversy. The consensus calls for scholarship, this is not censorship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The most obvious question is if it is all POV on my part, then why the fear of presenting Dorf's views...unless it is because his ultimate summation was that secession is an issue that cannot be settled by a court and further, was retroactive in application...? I know the reason, actually, it is because some northern apologists are terrified of the thought that  any other viewpoint might be presented.  And once again, a consensus is only valid if it doesn't censor relevant information.  Actually, I think you and the others really know this, and are desperate to prevent it. Further, I don't really give a solitary dam if my additions are permanently censored or not, in the whole scheme of things.  The truth cannot be buried forever and if I have to pay the price for resorting to truth as in being permanently prevented from editing?    Then so be it; I will do so proudly. And it is somewhat sad that those who proclaim some kind of true interest in history actually proclaim to be objective are so obviously biased in their own way, that it is almost hateful in the tone.  But they never seem to recognize it in themselves.  TexasReb (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You have made substantial contributions to this article in the past, there is no reason to believe you will again if you continue to participate. Certainly I would not have made my proposal without your initiative. There is no need for you to “pay a price” over this passage concerning Texas v. White. Editors have actually taken wiki-breaks when they feel themselves getting wrapped around the axle on an issue. I certainly have had my own experience over at United States, trying to include islanders who are U.S. citizens. How do they say at the Supreme Court? the time is “not ripe”. Now I only post on the subject with sources when another editor brings the subject up to advocate for islander inclusion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your words and comments, and even encouragement. In my opinion, you seem to be the only major contributing editor to this article -- even though we disagree on certain things -- that has a real appreciation of neutrality and compromise.  I see all your points, and it makes sense on so many levels.  Sometimes, yeah, we do need to take a break (which I have no choice but to do right now, anyway! LOL). As it is, just to say, I appreciate what you say.  And really, this break has been a good thing in many ways.


 * And to say again, I really do hope you will add to the Texas v. White page. Even though I might wish certain things were included (such as actual issue, etc), I believe also that your contribution would be about the best realistic compromise that can be reached. I trust your judgment on this.  Thank you! TexasReb (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Complaint concerning Rjensen and NorthShoreman
This can be considered a formal complaint against the above editor(s), as it may apply for either/both, or any others, on the grounds of that they violate both the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. In expanding:

1. Repeated censoring of relevant information. To wit: a). Deleting the actual issue before the SCOTUS -- bond sales -- and presenting secession itself as being such. b). Deleting the balanced and unbiased opinion of a reputable legal scholar and professor from Cornell as a valid source. c). Deleting accurate quotation from the dissenting opinion, as well as the dissenting opinion itself.

2. Refusal to assume "good faith" on the part of other editor(s) who furnish relevant information. Rather, instead, make hostile remarks and false accusations of bias, when the said editors are obviously biased themselves and consistently violate rules of maintaining neutrality.

3. Label as "POV" prefaces which are, in fact, undisputable information permissible under Wikipedia guidelines as obvious fact. In this case that the Texas v. White decision -- passed by a bare majority -- is as clear as that the "Civil War" itself is a source of disagreement among legal scholars and historians. Further noting that dicta is not "settled law in the proper sense, but only the logic used by the court to reach the decision itself (which was bond sales, not secession). The former has no bearing on any future rulings that may or may not arise.

4. Refusal to discuss in an amicable manner points of contention, as well as making no attempt to compromise as I have repeatedly attempted to do so and with a record that indicates such. TexasReb (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Texasreb is at it again. 1)a-b-c The RS all agree the issue was the status of the Texas state government--whether or not it was legal and could act officially (in selling bonds) or illegal and could not act officially. Texasreb ignores all the law books & uses the bonds as a distraction to mislead readers. The Cornell professor says explicitly that T v W is settled law--it is not the subject of scholarly debates. the minority opinion is legally & historically irrelevant--it is never cited by other courts and it does NOT say the Confederacy was legitimate or that secession is possible (which is what Texasreb seems to believe). 2) Texasreb invented all his law and demands equal respect for his personal POV versus all of legal scholarship. (He has not a single RS on his side). 3) no scholar says there is a debate--only Texasreb who has in mind all the blogs from fringe neoconfederates websites rather than legal experts. 4) months of good faith drained away after Texasreb's 3R violations and refusal to listen to ALL the other editors here. He violates the spirit of WEiki by refusing to cite or use RS -- and the one he does use (by that Cornell professor) rejects his position. Rjensen (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Rjensen, but nothing is being ignored. You apparently read an article, but fail to really absorb it.  The first thing is, your missive above is mis-applied in toto application.  Yes, Dorf says it is "settled law", but he only speaks a truism in the sense that it is the majority (barely in numbers) opinion extant (operative word).  But you ignore (or else don't want to admit it), the rest of it.  That is, his analysis that the dissenting opinion made a very persuasive case, in that this "law" was retroactive in application, that the bond issue was the actual one before the court, not secession.  Also, why object to Dorf's analysis being presented if you truly believe it to support your own outlook?  That makes no sense.


 * No matter how you apply it, don't think for a minute it doesn't really boil down to that the SCOTUS majority were not all Lincoln appointees who, really, had not much choice but to make the retroactive ruling they did; to rule otherwise was to admit that their invasion of the Southern states was for economic reasons.


 * As the dissenting opinion pretty much said -- and they were no fans of secession -- it was a contrived attempt to justify their own (the majority) adherence to the Lincoln administration's position that the Southern states were engaged in a "rebellion", and would warrant federal intervention. This was what Orwell would have called "Doublethink." In this instance, the insistence that Texas (and the other Southern states) had never left the Union.  But at the same time,   ignoring the obvious fact they were being regarded during the War as subject to the general rules of warfare and not represented in Congress and, after the conflict was over, still denied representation in Congress until they agreed to policies set forth by the Radical Republicans in order to be "readmitted to the Union."


 * This is where the "legal fiction" vs. "political fact" of the dissenting opinion comes into play. Only thing you did is demonstrate your biases (which to be fair, we all have) and, sadly, that you seem to not appreciate/apply the reality of the subject of history which you proclaim to advance.


 * But regardless, you and NS won. I will not edit/revert the sub-article in question, anymore.  But make no mistake in that it is only in the same general analogy as that the Mexicans won the battle of the Alamo, or that Lee surrendered. Only by superior numbers did they win, not necessarily (depending on viewpoint) the righteousness of the reason. And if I cannot tell the other side of Texas v. White here, that I will definitely do it elsewhere. TexasReb (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is a pillar
...and editors who refuse to follow it will find themselves blocked. Claims that one editor may unilaterally decide to circumvent this policy to prevent "censorship" won't work. There has been persistent edit warring which will not be tolerated. Editors need to make sure that they are not displaying a battleground mentality and should confine the discussions to the actual edits being made and not the editors themselves. After looking over this, I have blocked TexasReb for one week for persistent edit warring. If discussion resumes after that time then a consensus would need to be reached before changing the article. Please work together. Thank you, — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate certain things you say on this. And as I said on my talk page, I will do no more editing on the Texas v. White article. But see the other post (talk page) as to the larger issues of public announcement of my "banishment". Further, there is there is no "battle-ground mentality" on my part.  I offered only historically valid facts, nothing more.


 * Finally, I want to say I hold no personal grudges against anyone, only an objection for the reasons. I have never had a problem with compromise, which I hope my record of deleting certain things will indicate clearly. TexasReb (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Lede sentence copy edit
The confusion on the part of Texas Reb and other general readers may stem in part from a deficiency in the first sentence of the article. Additional discussion should be attempted here. I propose that it should read, (changes in bold)

The Confederate States of America (CSA or C.S.A.), commonly referred to as the Confederacy, was a secessionist government established in an 1861 rebellion initiated by seven slave holding states in the Lower South whose economy and political leadership was based on slave produced cotton.

The Union is formally established in the constitution of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and all participating state legislatures understood the meaning of “perpetual”, there was no trick or slight of hand involved. The existing Constitution forbids any state to establish an army or navy without consent of Congress. No change in the Constitution of the nation can be authorized without Congressionally approved procedure, “any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” The rebel Confederate firing on Fort Sumter and its invasion of Kentucky initiated the Civil War. This is not “history by the victors”. It is the chronology of the times. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, you are advancing a viewpoint I do not accept, and neither did many, if not most, at the time. There was nothing in the Constitution that forbad secession, and certainly nothing that gave the central government the authority to use force to prevent it. What do you think the American British Colonies did? Do the twist all around it, but that was what it was, secession.  And Ft. Sumter was an installation within CSA territorial waters.  There was no choice, since Lincoln decided upon aggression and invasion (which was why the Upper South seceded after earlier turning it down).  You are simply arguing from result and that might makes right. Lincoln provoked the whole thing deliberately, and for no reason at all.  TexasReb (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Every nation has the right to self preservation against internal rebellions in its constituent states, even when the mechanisms of those state government are taken over by insurrection, as explained in the Federalist Papers. The Constitution does not allow secession, the states had knowingly given up their absolute sovereignty at the time of ratification over the objections of the anti-federalists who were outvoted, peaceably. In a passage which you refuse to acknowledge, the Constitution says that the laws of Congress are the supreme law of the land, state constitutions and statutes notwithstanding. Congress did not authorize unilateral state devolution; single state secession is illegal, armed resistance to the Congress is rebellion. States are forbidden in the Constitution from forming confederacies with other states in the Union, individual state constitutions or statutes notwithstanding.


 * Fort Sumter was territory ceded by the South Carolina legislature and accepted by majority vote in the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress did not authorize its return to South Carolina as it had Arlington, Virginia from the federally owned District of Columbia. As it says in the Constitution, the laws of Congress are the supreme law of the land, state constitutions and statutes notwithstanding. The Confederacy never attained international recognition except de facto in rebellion by force of arms against the United States government, that is the historical fact, that is what the rebels were fighting.


 * The only way for a state to leave the Union lawfully is with consent of Congress peaceably by a constitutional procedure consistent with the supreme law of the land. The states are outlawed in the Constitution from maintaining army and navy without consent of Congress, and Congress will regulate their militias, state constitutions and statutes notwithstanding. The self-proclaimed rebels in rebellion fired first on Fort Sumter and Confederate forces invaded Kentucky first. The United States responded against the invasion of a state to suppress that rebellion's expansion to the borders of the United States. This is the chronology of the time, not a fabrication of the winners. The article should report the Confederacy was formed in an 1861 rebellion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Source. Consider the British military historian John Keegan in his 2009 [ http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Civil-War-Military/dp/0307274934 American Civil War: a military history]. "The coming war would thus be a civil war, and it was quickly so called and recognized to be.” p.xiii. — “President Lincoln’s initial response to Southern rebellion after the firing on Fort Sumter…” p.43.


 * The Confederacy is internationally recognized only a de facto entity by virtue of its force of arms taken up in rebellion against the United States. The Confederacy was “incapable of winning without foreign assistance, but able to extract such support only if it were victorious”. p. 63. And it was not victorious, as a matter of historical fact in the event at the time. To suppose that it was victorious is simple “Lost Cause” retroactive fantasy. The rebellion in 1861 that gave rise to the Confederacy failed, and the article should reflect the historical fact. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, VirginiaHistorian, you are arguing from result. With all due respect, you advance a premise supporting your later points that I do not accept. I honestly find it a bit amazing that an intelligent historian such as yourself cannot fail to -- seemingly -- see that history is not an objective subject. Don't you know that I can come up with a cornucopia of quotes from foreigners and even northerners of the day and age who said the opposite?  Trading quotes is meaningless unless there is some kind of fundamental agreement.


 * So far as Ft. Sumter goes? Your statement is true if and only if your premise is accepted.  I don't know how many times it has to be said/repeated, there was no "consensus" at all before the War Between the States as to the legality of secession.  You (and others, obviously), cling to the Texas v. White as judicial cover justification for a pro-northern bias, which in reality is totally dependent on dicta...which in turn is not at all "settled law." in a larger, future, sense.  It is merely the logic used to reach the ultimate ruling...which is the only actual issue at hand.  In this case, secession was not the issue. It can be over-tuned in a heartbeat, and Dorf said as much in his brilliant analysis of both side of it all.  I don't understand why anyone would want to eliminate such a scholarly article...?


 * But back to the Ft. Sumter issue, it was a fort in Confederate territorial waters and manned by armed men from a nation with hostile intentions. As has been said, it could no more be allowed to be occupied than could the American Colonial rebels/secessionists, have been allowed to perpetually remain in the Boston Harbor, or Ft. Sumter had it existed then.  The Confederacy (which at that time consisted only of the Lower South States), in an overture of peace, offered to pay for it, their share of the national debt, and negotiate a peace treaty beneficial to both sides.  Lincoln -- as tyrants do -- chose to provoke a confrontation, and give excuse to invade a people who had done the north no wrong to begin with and, in doing so, was the sole reason the Upper South states joined the original Confederacy.  And in the war that followed, Lincoln provoked a conflict which duped many a good northern man/boy into fighting a war that never needed to have been fought at all; probably could have been settled anyway, had Lincoln been at all receptive to the overture of peace on the part of the South.


 * But ok, better quit rambling and get a few hours sleep before going to work! LOL  TexasReb (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Source. “Van Buren joined his fellow ex-presidents Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan in supporting Lincoln’s refusal to recognize the Confederacy and determination to put down the southern rebellion.” REF. Bowman, Shearer Davis. [ http://www.amazon.com/At-Precipice-Americans-Secession-Littlefield/dp/0807833924 At the Precipice: Americans North and South during the secession crisis] 2010 U. of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3392-6, p.137.


 * "Southern rebellion" is how the conflict is characterized in Keegan and Bowman. Where is the reliable source to say, There was no rebellion in the United States 1861-1865. Even the Grier dissent in Texas v. White acknowledges that there was "rebellion" in the South. The sources referred both by myself and Texas Reb say there was a rebellion, no reliable source is provided to the contrary, the article should say so, too. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * VA? They can characterize it any way "they" want. But this is simply repeating "winners history."  There is a big difference in that and such being objective truth (which is not possible in the study of history).  But it is interesting (and telling) and Chief Justice Chase strongly advised against bringing Jefferson Davis to trial on treason charges on the grounds that it would put the whole issue of secession in a public forum and, in his words, "condemn the North...for by the constitution secession is not rebellion...secession is settled, let it stay settled."  The obvious implication is a tacit admission that the issue had not been settled by constitutional law/reading, but by force of arms.  Which in itself settles nothing at all.  As Davis said, prophetically in my opinion:  ''The principle for which we contend is bound to re-assert itself, although it may be in another time and in another form."


 * The real rebellion was during the American Revolution, as the colonists (and I am historically glad they did, of course!) actually revolted against the understood highest authority; they were not sovereign states, but British colonists and British citizens. The fact they won makes for good latter day justification as to a "difference" in what the Southern states failed to accomplish, but that is all it is.  At the real essence, it was just "might makes right" which -- supposedly -- "settled" the question.  Lincoln had to put it as a "rebellion", because there was no other way he could constitutionally justify his actions.


 * Actually, I think he knew all this, but had to publicly say he believed that the majority of Southerners did not support secession, in spite of all evidence otherwise. I will give Lincoln credit for being a man of iron will -- and probably actually good-hearted -- but he was also -- in pursuing his real reasons for invading the South -- the prototype of the politician who had self-interest/faction goals in mind all along...but was willing to use tyrannical measures and distort the constitution for those same ends.  Lincoln was a total tyrant in his methods, a liar in his deceptions to the northern public and, even if he may not have been a "bad man" in other realms, destroyed the Union that he said he was attempting to preserve, as in the sense of paving the way for total centralization of the federal government. TexasReb (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

'' This matter of “arguing from results” that you charge me with really means my evidence (results in the real world, the Constitution created a Union) can lead to a reasonable conclusion such as there was a rebellion against the United States government 1861-1865.

This is in contra-distinction to arguing from "wished for results” without evidence, “If the South had won the Civil War", leading to a conclusion amidst Lost Cause alternative history which is unsourced in the scholarship of what actually happened in the events as they occurred.

Davis in his cabinet ordered firing on Fort Sumter in an attempt to secure international recognition for the Confederacy by establishing contiguous borders, Lincoln did not trick Davis into believing in the Confederacy and Lincoln did not trick Davis into initiating war based on that belief. Nonsense. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Somehow I missed this one, VA, so would like to reply. As I have said, I will make no more contributions nor edits on the Texas v. White sub-article but only because I have no other choice.  However, as I also said earlier, far as I know, it doesn't mean I can't continue to argue my case on the talk page (and I am definitely going to do it elsewhere; that is a cashable promissory note!). So let me take your points one at a time.


 * 1. You misread, and it is convoluted in its reasoning . "Wished for results" have nothing at all to do with the basic foundation of that one version of "what might have been" is just as good and valid as another, provided the facts of the original matter can be supported.  Such doesn't have to be "sourced" as it is pure speculation in any event.  It is the northern apologists who are most prone to take for granted what "would have happened" if their side had not won.  It cannot accept that perhaps all would have worked out for the better if the South had just been allowed to go its own way in peace. Just out of curiosity, why do you think it might have been otherwise?


 * 2. Davis had already attempted to negotiate a peaceful settlement and treaty with the Union states (i.e. northern states which kept the name by default only, not because they revered the DOI or Constitution more). But the peace commissioners were put off on one lame pretext or another for the simple reason Lincoln did not want to hear them out; he was determined to invade the South for their tax money, regardless. Yes, Davis approved the firing on Ft. Sumter, but only with reluctance and after exhausting every other means to avoid it. There is strong evidence that the Confederates got word to Major Robert Anderson as to where the fire would be directed, so as to allow for no casualties (and there were none during the actual firing...which is too much in violation of laws of averages to be simple happenstance.  In other words, it was really more a symbolic action, than anything else.


 * The CSA had offered all totally honorable terms for evacuation, but they were ignored because Lincoln had his mind made up. Thus, he chose to take a course (re-supplying the fort), that was totally designed to provoke a CSA military move that he could use to justify his invasion and rally a northern populace around invading the South on the grounds the Flag had been fired upon...which had previously had no interest at all in suiting up to prevent secession per se.


 * So, it wasn't a matter of a "trick"...it was a matter of an ingenious plan to provoke and take advantage of northern men -- many just farm boys -- who bought into his manipulations. And hundreds of thousands died for no reason at all. So sad. It really is. TexasReb (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. It is true that one version of "might have been" is as good as another, but might have beens do not belong in an encyclopedia. The Confederacy was based on slavery and the extension of slavery, including proposals to conquer slave holding Cuba, re-enslaving Mexico, and expatriate Confederate officer corps migrating to take up slave labor cotton plantations in Brazil following the American Civil War.


 * 2. In 1815, New York had less than 20% of U.S. imports. By 1860, New York had secured an increasing dominance over all other U.S. ports, importing more than 67% of the nation’s import trade, the burden of tariffs fell on the North. Richmond and Norfolk combined held 11.5% imports in 1815, 1.3% in 1860. New Orleans imported for the Ohio River Valley, so it cannot be counted for the South alone. In the 1850s, Richmond’s biggest business was slaves, not its Southern dominating industries of tobacco, flour and iron. The South remained far behind the North in per capita income. (figures from Shearer Davis Bowman, “At the Precipice: Americans North and South during the secession crisis”)


 * 3. Had the Confederacy chosen to avoid war, it would have let the status quo persist, without coercively taking federal property ceded to the U.S. by the states, and without invading Kentucky. One of the requirements of a Just War is that it must have a chance of succeeding; leadership throwing away the lives of a population in a cause lost before it begins is unjustifiable. The Confederacy had no chance, the majority won the war forced on it by an armed rebellion. Hundreds of thousands died to validate the majority at the ballot box, to preserve a democratic republic in Union. But that is out of the scope of this article, which is to treat the Confederate States of America as a de facto country only, so as to limit disruption. Thus my proposal to add "rebellion" in the introduction is shot down. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, VH, this argument doesn't hold water for the simple reason it is based on winners history. However, I will grant for sure -- which is a welcome aspect -- as that you at least attempt to maintain some semblance of neutrality; unlike a couple of others who will go to any lengths to censor those inclusions that no rational person would regard as "unscholarly" nor "original research" nor anything but neutral/balanced in its presentation. It seems anything (and objections have been made against one in particular as concerning bias...anyone can look it up), that threatens their "Lincoln school of thought" and/or almost obsessive clinging to the said pro-northern version of the War.  They -- and I am too contemptuous of the said to even name them -- are almost "pavlonian" in their seemingly single-minded and hysterical mission to censor or shut down anything different.  I know that, in lots of ways, you are of the same school of thought.  But I give you respect and credit for at least not usually attempting to shut it down.  Now then, to address your replies...


 * 1. You are correct on that "what might have beens" are good as another, and do not belong in an encyclopedic site. BUT, that has been a point of mine all along.  I challenge you to show just one instance where I wrote anything ''remotely as in presenting "alternate history" in an article itself.   To the next point, the CSA constitution was no more about the protection of slavery than it was about specifically limiting the powers of the central government (something sorely needed today), and its power to spend and tax and justify almost anything under the "general welfare" clause in the preamble .  Otherwise, it was almost a carbon copy of the one of the Old Union (mostly written by Southern men).


 * Yes, it is true slavery was specifically protected, but not in the way some northern apologists like to present it. To wit, nothing said the document could not be amended -- just like the original -- and that non-slave holding states could not be admitted into the Confederacy.  It just gave more power to the states to decide the issue.  Do you seriously believe that slavery would still exist today, or even a decade or two afterwards?


 * 2. I don't what to say about this one, except that you must be in total denial of any historical factual evidence as to which section was paying the lion's share of the taxes and getting the lamb's share of the way it was spent. Can you offer even one source to back up what you say?


 * With all due respect, I honestly can't believe you can make such a claim with a straight face. For gosh sakes, it stands to even superficial historical reasoning that it wasn't true.  Why otherwise would the tariff issue have come up to begin with in the South, not the North?  Not one time is ever recorded that northern politicians ever complained they were being unfairly taxes by tariffs, but there are quite a few where Southerners had (rightfully) had a bellyful of it.     Do a dance worthy of Michael Jackson, but the figures are there for the taking as to taxes to the feds and where it was spent...provided one wants to do the honest research.


 * 3. I answered the "rebellion" issue earlier.  Lincoln provoked a war, and intentionally so.  Davis was a graduate of West Point (and Southern men were the cream of the crop in that way), and they knew as sure as the sun rises in the east, that one of the strategies of the North (again, those northern states which kept the name only by default) would be to blockade Southern harbors.  The CSA was dependent on exporting cotton (and some other crops) to England and then importing arms and the materials of war.  The Charleston harbor was an important one, therefore, there was no way they could permit a fort controlling exit and entrance to be occupied by an armed force from a foreign nation, with hostile intentions, to remain indefinitely.  As go his own words, in replying to a suggestion from Gustaveous Fox to initiate such provocation and knowing it was a success wrote to him:


 * You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.


 * The CSA had offered to pay the costs for all federal installations, but it was ignored because Lincoln wanted war -- at all costs -- which numbered over half a million men -- to suit his purposes. He was a devious tyrant in what he did, and we are paying the price today (unless, of course, one sets aside the DOI principle of that "government derives its powers from the consent of the governed."


 * Oh wow, that is really something to be proud of, isn't it? Finally, the Confederates didn't "invade" Kentucky, that is ridiculous.  Kentucky and Missouri was both "iffy" and both sides tried to respect their neutrality at first.  However, both had rump secessionist governments so the whole thing was a bit up in the air, so to speak.


 * And finally, for the umpteenth time, even Chief Justice Salmon Chase said it was a terrible mistake to attempt to try Jefferson Davis on "treason" charges as it would not possibly stand up in court, as in his own words "secession is not rebellion." You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint on it, but I am presenting the words of the premier man in charge from the legal standing point of view.  In fact, in another conversation with Lincoln he said to the U.S. President that, in effect, the latter was right in not really wanting to capture Davis at all, fearing that it would bring on more trouble than it was worth...especially if it came to an open public trial (which Davis and his lawyers were eager to do) were the constitutionality of secession was bound to be the main point of defense).  After Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson, the only Southern senator to outright take his stand with the northern Union and become vice-president of the same knew this full well, and made a face-saving move to "pardon" former high-ranking Confederate officials and military men so as to avoid such a potentially humiliating outcome. TexasReb (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Again you are straining to make an equivalence where there was none, not in regards to the votes and enlistments of Kentucky, North and South, not in regards the division of the West Point and Annapolis officer corps North and South. Secessionist leaders led their populations into an unwinnable, unjustifiable war to no purpose.


 * Lincoln and Douglas publicly declared that states may not secede and they could be coerced to stay. That is Lincoln 40%, 180 Electoral College votes, Douglas 30%, 12 E.C. votes, for a total of 70% popular vote, 63% E.C. vote for putting down rebellion were it to break out. The Congress certified Lincoln constitutionally elected before seating the Republican wave from the 1860 election.


 * Lincoln was no tyrant, he was not even inaugurated before the Confederacy presumed to protect and extend slavery outside the constitutional procedures of the Constitution. To put down the rebellion, Lincoln initiated hostilities after Davis, suspended habeas corpus after Davis, initiated a draft after Davis, freed slaves for military purposes after Davis used them for military purposes.


 * The Union won the Civil War; secession is illegal as two candidates for 70% of the voters said it was in 1860. The national election was sustained in war and in the peace that followed. The U.S. chose to determine the consent of the governed for president by a majority vote; the minority rebellion that followed failed; there is no unilateral state secession. You mistake a generous peace with weakness; your interpretation is flawed, Chase did not endorse the rebellion. You should not argue from the premise that the losing minority voting also losing militarily in armed rebellion somehow won in an alternative imaginary universe. That speculation does not belong even in this narrowly focused article on the de facto Confederacy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Sorry, VH, but I am not "straining" to do anything at all. On the other hand, I am stating easily and comfortably -- enjoying right now, in giving certain historical facts that many northern apologists have never been confronted with, as in having to actually deal with them.  Now, how any of us interpret those facts is a matter of subjective historical vision and belief...but I find it quite telling that it is the northern-apologists who are the most "reactionary" when their sacred belief that Lincoln just may (horrors!) have had political and economic interests at the center of his reason for taking the course he did, actually did more to destroy the Union the Founding Fathers created and intended, than the secession of the Lower South could ever do, nor ever intended to do at all.


 * Actually, it is you who is "straining" to disprove an "equivalence", that should be obvious to anyone who has the slightest real regard for historical correlations, and accepting of the fact that some of us come by that belief because we have read/studied history and the federalist papers and the constitution itself, but yet come to different conclusions. What is so wrong with that? And of course, there would have been no war at all if Lincoln had not adopted the policy of being determined to invade the Lower South, regardless of any offers for peace at all.


 * 2. I don't know where you come by this at all. So what that Lincoln and Douglas "declared" no state had a right to secede?(but I would like to see your source where they said it and that force was authorized to prevent it...and in not contradicting previous statements that they believed in the right of a people to determine their own course of action.  And I repeat again, a Union -- as in the sense of a federal republic -- is not a Republic nor Union at all if it has to be held together by armed force.  One obvious bit of support for this position is the original reference to the Union as being "these united states" and stated in the DOI as such, and recognized as such, specifically.  That was no typo, VH...but an intentional understanding of what was intended.


 * 3. With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), you are beginning to get a little bizarre here.  When did Davis suspend habeas corpus???  Actually, the first declaration of martial law -- and all that entails -- was done by Lincoln, not Davis. As in arbitrary arrests for anyone even suspected of having Southern sympathies and shutting down dissenting newspapers, and needing nothing more than paper-thin excuses to do so.  Lincoln was a tyrant and half in that regard...arguably the worst in U.S. history. No, he wasn't a "tyrant" in the sense of a Stalin or Hitler or Mao Tse Tung...but he definitely was (IMHO) as in violating just about every basic principles listed in the DOI.


 * The Union he supposedly saved is not the one that existed before. Instead, he paved the way for the disaster we have today. Of course, if you like a United States in which the states are nothing more than provinces controlled by the central government, then I am sure you believe the outcome of the war was for the best.


 * And we have already been over this slavery thing before. This is getting old.  The majority of the states of the Confederacy didn't mention slavery at all as a cause of secession, and those which did listed other reasons as well, and wrapped up into larger principles and reasons and historical factors.  It is not even remotely close to what some northern-apologists apparently want to believe.

The Union won the Civil War; secession is illegal as two candidates for 70% of the voters said it was in 1860. The national election was sustained in war and in the peace that followed. The U.S. chose to determine the consent of the governed for president by a majority vote; the minority rebellion that followed failed; there is no unilateral state secession. You mistake a generous peace with weakness; your interpretation is flawed, Chase did not endorse the rebellion. You should not argue from the premise that the losing minority voting also losing militarily in armed rebellion somehow won in an alternative imaginary universe. That speculation does not belong even in this narrowly focused article on the de facto Confederacy.


 * Yes, the northern states won the War...that is not exactly rocket-science. But that it is used as "proof" of anything simply goes back to the "might makes right" position.  And what the hell does Chase's endorsement or not, matter?  In fact, that is central to my actual point.  That is, that he strongly advised against a public trial (which Davis wanted), because he stated outright it would make the Lincoln reasons for waging an unnecessary war be destroyed on constitutional grounds.  And that was the last thing they (Lincoln bunch) wanted.  Further, it is really kind of silly that you accuse me of applying alternative history, when it was you who brought it up to begin with.


 * Be honest about it, even if -- and I respect it if you do -- apply it differently. There was no "rebellion" at all in the sense of the true definition of the word. The Lower South states did nothing more than peaceably secede.  There was no intention to overthrow the old Union government at all, nor any aggressive moves save self-protection when invaded, yet many with the intent of peace and understanding and benefit for both countries.  That the North won only means that sometime the wrong side wins; as in the latter ramifications.


 * But finally, secession can never be "illegal" as in the sense it can be enforced by an unelected body of judges. To say otherwise is extremely simplistic.  Look at the number of countries around the world which have "seceded" from the "mother country".  Your logic is very questionable as applies to the United States. Do honestly believe that a people who want to govern themselves are going to be restrained by a SCOTUS ruling which, in itself, was retroactively applied?


 * To really finish it up, please read this record of the communications between the two sides as involves Ft. Sumter. This hardly seems a communication/tone between two opponents which cared in the least, to fight with one another.  Lincoln's plan was repulsive in its intent, and cost the lives of over half a million American young boys and men -- both South and North -- who had nothing at all against one another to begin with.

http://www.civilwararchive.com/RESEARCH1/1861/sumterusa.htm


 * But anyway, gotta get to work. Best regards! TexasReb (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We are far afield from what goes into the article, but I will make a short reply. Lincoln was required by law to enforce the Constitution throughout the full extent of the country as Congress defined it. There was no Congressionally approved secession, as there had been creating the Union under the Constitution, had a remnant chosen to continue to live under the Articles of Confederation; the compact was made anew not by the states but by the people of the entire nation in two-thirds of the states. How it was made is how it can be unmade, by Congressionally approved constitutional procedures without recourse to armed rebellion within the internationally recognized borders of the United States.


 * See Coulter (slammed by the politically correct for being racist) “[ http://www.amazon.com/Confederate-States-America-History-South/dp/0807100072/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413295790&sr=1-1&keywords=Coulter+Confederate+states+of Confederate States of America]”, widely available in libraries, for examples of Davis suspending civil liberties, imposing martial law, drafting etc. before Lincoln and more broadly centralized. Davis ruled by an appointed faction in Congress which “represented” regions without voters, etc. see the writings of Alexander Stephens, the scholarship of Kenneth Martis in his “[ http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Congresses-Confederate-America-1861-1865/dp/0133891151/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413295865&sr=1-2&keywords=historical+atlas+of+the+confederate Historical atlas of the Congresses of the CSA]". —


 * Relative to the article, I have relinquished the idea of explaining the Confederacy was initiated in rebellion for the sake of collegiality and article focus; you have Rjensen on your side. But the voters in 1860 knew that both Lincoln and Douglas (70%) would not peaceably allow the dissolution of the Union. For a very good read, see Shearer Davis Bowman’s “[ http://www.amazon.com/At-Precipice-Americans-Secession-Littlefield/dp/0807833924/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413295585&sr=1-1&keywords=at+the+precipice+americans+north+and+south+during+the+secession+crisis At the Precipice: Americans North and South during the secession crisis]”, which is careful to represent not only the sections at large in their differing sense of honor, but also the differing views among Northerners and Southerners. Neither was monolithic, economically or politically on the issues of the day. --- You won this one, but not for the reasons you submit. We disagree on the rationale while we concur with the language for the article, no "rebellion". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate your desire to compromise, but I have no desire to "win" in the sense you may think. My real issue the whole time has been to let numerical consensus trump neutrality in inclusion of sourced articles. But that is water under the bridge now.


 * In any event -- and I will read the article you mention and discuss it with you later -- our real fundamental "issue" is that we simply take diametrically opposing views/visions of the underlying intent of the DOI and Constitution as it pertains to the right (or not), of any individual state to secede from the Union created by the said states. Yours is that it doesn't (seemingly because it is not specifically spelled out as one), mine is that -- even if doing so is/was foolhardy, rash, and reckless -- that it is not "rebellion" and not "unconstitutional" in the least by any prevailing thinking of the day; and was in fact in line with the basic premise of the original Union of that "government derives its power from the consent of the governed."


 * So really, while I definitely enjoy our exchange, we are just never going to agree on this one. In fact, that is a lot of the reason why I used Dorf's article as a support, because he truly seemed to take a neutral approach to it all, and concluded with the (IMO) truth that no court of law can ever really settle something so complicated as to the desire of a people to separate, politically and socially, from one they were previously tied with.  Best regards! TexasReb (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal with sources
I propose that the first sentence should read, (changes in bold)

The Confederate States of America (CSA or C.S.A.), commonly referred to as the Confederacy, was a secessionist government established in an 1861 rebellion[1][2] initiated by seven slave holding states in the Lower South whose economy and political leadership was based on slave produced cotton.

[1]. Bowman, Shearer Davis. [ http://www.amazon.com/At-Precipice-Americans-Secession-Littlefield/dp/0807833924 At the Precipice: Americans North and South during the secession crisis] 2010 U. of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3392-6, p.137.

[2] Keegan, John. [ http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Civil-War-Military/dp/0307274934 The American Civil War: a military history], (2010) ISBN 978-0307274939, p. xiii, 43. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't like it. :( 1) The article is NOT about the CSA government -- it is about the CSA as a separate country. 2) the "rebellion" began in April not in February. 3) for issues like these Bowman is a weak source (see reviewand Keegan is a very poor source. (This is a political/constitutional issue not a military one). There are other & better articles on the origins of the war--this is about a new country and should not get tied down to issues BEFORE it existed. Rjensen (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, the scope of the article can be limited to the de facto country, however: 1) the CSA as a separate country is determined for its existence by force of arms, it has no existence outside rebellion, Davis explained the Confederacy "disappeared" with the surrender of its armies. 2) the rebellion began with secessionists forcibly seizing Federal forts, armories and treasury deposits throughout the South with the intent to form a new nation, the rebellion is expanded by the Confederate firing on Sumter and its invasion of Kentucky. 3) The review says Bowman’s analysis is weak relative to race and gender, the Confederacy in rebellion is not a question related to race and gender. The Confederacy receives only de facto recognition based on its force of arms, Keegan is a suitable source to assess its competency at arms. It is notable that the CSA as a new country does not exist by lawful persuasion but only so long as its rebellion persists. The sourced phrase an 1861 rebellion initiated is not getting "tied down to issues BEFORE it existed". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Low price of cotton after the war"
I just looked at this a second and something really weird popped out at me: that after the slaves were freed, after farms were abandoned, after half the equipment was lost, cotton would have a low price. It would be really welcome if people would elaborate on how such a strange thing would happen. Wnt (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not have a source at hand, but I would presume the alternate cotton plantings in India and Egypt that kept the British looms humming during the American Civil War continued their world wide supply afterwards, even though I understand the American cotton was generally of a higher quality. Also, there was marginally some British labor displacement out of the cotton mills into the woolen industry.


 * The slave-based "King Cotton" fantasy was just that, brought to the South by the same bunch of fellas who proclaimed secession a bright idea. Once the local secessionist militias burned the 1861 crop on the docks to enforce their lawless embargo (not officially endorsed by the Confederate Congress), the world markets rebounded by multiplying supplies of raw materials from alternative sources, increasing production as their planting seasons went on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I had heard the phrase, but never understood it... hard to understand things that don't make sense. :) We have articles on King Cotton, cotton diplomacy, and Lancashire Cotton Famine, the latter of which, besides containing a message by Lincoln I hadn't known about that is more eloquent than his speech at Gettysburg, also has a brief section about the postwar glut, referring to Indian and Egyptian farmers apparently forced to grow cotton rather than subsistence crops, leading to famine at their end.  If force was involved, I imagine after the privation of the industry in Britain proper there would have been reluctance to let them go away from the industry no matter how low the price went?  Would be worth considerable expansion, perhaps a separate article on the postwar glut. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * cotton prices were high in 1864-67 and poor whites for the first time started growing it. production shot up in the 1870s as prices fell-- the only way to get cash was to grow even more cotton despite the falling price. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Hmmm... if I thought figuring out the story here was going to be easy I'd have tried adding the data myself from the start. :) Wnt (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The best analysis I've seen of the CSA's economy is by David Surdam in Northern Naval Superiority and the Economics of the American Civil War. He does a detailed analysis of cotton production and prices evaluating the world wide market and alternate producers.  His data and analysis seem to refute many commonly accepted themes.  There is a table of relevance that lists "Per Annum Growth in Demand for American-Grown Raw Cotton" that lists quantity in bales as well as NY and Liverpool prices given in $ for the years 1859-1871.  These appear to be inflation adjusted figures based on the notes.  His focus in on war time econ so he doesn't discuss post war much.  What I find most noticeable in the post war years relative to pre war is that the price of cotton was higher (not lower) post war.  This was particularly true in Europe, less so in the US.  However, the consumption/demand was lower.  This gets confusing because a portion was used in the US, more in Europe, and bales became much lighter post war...fortunately Surdam converts everything to 400 lb bales.  But what I see is approximate stagnation in raw revenue. Production seems to have recovered in 1871 in the table.


 * The delta in delivered price vs what was received by growers might have been considerable. This had certainly been the case during the war where market prices shot up several fold while price received at port actually fell.  However, the blockade was largely responsible for this which wouldn't be the case after the war.  With damaged Southern infrastructure and the damage done to the U.S. merchant marine the delta might very well have remained somewhat elevated in the post war period. Red Harvest (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The postwar cotton issue is well covered in One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation (2nd ed [ http://www.amazon.com/One-Kind-Freedom-Consequences-Emancipation/dp/0521795508/ excerpts]) by Roger L. Ransom and Richard Sutch. However the topic does not pertain to this article. Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"radical" to "fire-eater faction"
Re: copy edit of original “Non-slave states might join, but the radicals secured a two-thirds hurdle for them."

The source, Thomas Emory, uses the word “radical” to describe a slavery expansion faction in the Confederate Congress which also favored international slave trade and conquest of Cuba. The term has been replaced with “fire-eater faction”. But I thought that “fire-eater” just referred to those promoting unilateral state secession before the creation of the Confederacy. I'm not sure enough of the historiography to alter Emory's terminology. Should the copy edit to "fire-eater faction" stand? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The term fire-eaters refers exclusively to a group of individuals active prior to secession. While they were successful in their primary goal of achieving declarations of secession, starting with the constitutional convention they were consistently overruled by moderates.  The replacement of "radicals" by  "fire-eater faction" was improper.  Of course, as always, TexasReb is free to produce reliable sources that use fire-eaters differently than we both believe is appropriate.


 * However a bigger problem is the claim that the group (however you style it) "secured a two-thirds hurdle" for the admission of new states. The actual goal of the group was to exclude ANY non-slave states from the CSA and a fall back position was a requirement for unanimous approval for admitting any new states. The 2/3 compromise was not a victory, as the article suggests. Thomas (you have his name backwards) did acknowledge that the radicals "found some comfort" in the requirement for a super majority but he concludes that "the moderates won, as they had won other essential points at Montgomery" (page 65).  William C. Davis, in a more detailed account in "A Government of Our Own", writes that "the Rhett forces having seen themselves so consistently defeated that there remained no point in pressing the exclusion of free states further." (page 255)  Rather than "securing" something, the radicals had only achieved a compromise.


 * As an interim solution, I have restored (using the BRD model) the original language -- however the final resolution should be the total elimination of the entire paragraph (it has very little to do with the rest of the section), replacing it with a more accurate description of the "Great Debate" in the section of the article describing the Constitution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I can go along with the immediate above (as in total elimination, as at least until another compromise/agreement might be agreed upon). And to note, I have read cover to cover Burke's "A Government of Our Own" (and takes a generally sorta pro-Southern slant). So my point is not with what actually happened, but with the appellation of the term "radical".  This is extremely ambiguous and is today, as we should all know.  To bring it down to a concrete level...am I a "radical" if I oppose Obama's agenda?  Yes, I would be by the subjective outlook of some...but they would be according to mine...


 * Point is, "radical" can mean extremes on either end of whatever the issue/question might be. So Burke was simply applying his own viewpoint. As with all historians (professional or layman) he had his own biased outlook.  Something which, in his case, put him in the "camp" of a loosely pro-South outlook...but also of the "moderate" arena.  Which would, subjectively, almost automatically use/apply the plural-noun "radical."


 * But another historian might use the same word to label those on the other end of the issue. For instance, Sam Houston might have been called a "radical" by the fire-eater faction because of his adamant opposition to the South taking the course of secession.


 * Anyway, bottom line is, I am willing to go along with total elimination of the paragraph; No problem. And that -- if at all -- compromise and consensus be worked out before an inclusion of another to replace it.  TexasReb (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In retrospect, I may have been a bit wrong on this one. Not wrong on the general principle, but that I didn't explain it very well. That is, yes, Burke used the term "radical" and the passage was properly cited. So yeah, I was wrong in replacing it with "fire-eater." However, I offer a compromise of placing the appellation of "radical" in parenthesis so as to indicate a subjective use. TexasReb (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The South and Literature
I think there needs to be a section on how much Literature in the South, especially during the early 1900's to mid 1900's. The south produced many famous American authors, that then produced works that add to American's National Narrative. Abeat3 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, but it should probably be placed in the Southern United States article, not in the Confederate States. article. TexasReb (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Indian Territory on the map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#mediaviewer/File:Confederate_States_of_America_(orthographic_projection).svg

The caption below this map says this of the teal colored part of Indian Territory: "Teal denotes the rest of the Indian Territory that did not sign a treaty with the CSA."

From what I've read about Indian Territory, I think this is incorrect. The Confederacy signed treaties with all of the 5 Civilized Tribes and other tribes living in the Indian Territory. Treaties can be found here:

http://csaindiantreaties.unl.edu

I'm sure that the map is intended to reflect that the Cherokees were divided during the Civil War, especially compared to the Choctaws and Chickasaw tribes who inhabited the southern (and light-green shaded) section of Indian Territory during this period. While the Cherokees were more divided than the other tribes during this period, they still signed a treaty with the Confederacy. I believe many of the Cherokees loyal to the Union fled to Kansas during the Civil War.

With that being said, can we change the map to include all of Indian Territory as light-green?

Studying Okie (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Three tribes were represented in the Confederate Congress, the two tribal councils did not agree to participate, though invited with treaty provisions. As the article observes, After 1863 the tribal governments sent representatives to the Confederate Congress: Elias Cornelius Boudinot representing the Cherokee and Samuel Benton Callahan representing the Seminole and Creek people. I defer to the map makers on this, its a technical question of where to color in regions and how much. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Prior to 1863 I believe the Choctaws had a representative as well. What's interesting is that the area shaded teal is the area that would have been represented by Elias Cornelius Boudinot and Samuel Benton Callahan. I could be missing something, but either way I think the map should be changed. Thanks for the response! Studying Okie (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverts of recent extensive edits by FLA.101
I reverted a set of extensive edits by user FLA.101 because they covered so many areas, and had a somewhat random effect, that individual edits wouldn't address it properly. 1. I'm not saying that all of the edits were incorrect, but replacing/deleting "national" throughout the article seems confusing for one. Some of the one word edits might be counter to the sources cited (see "national" vs. "continental" for one that needs examination of the source, also the one that converts "nation" to "union" when the "confederacy" is that actual quote from the Texas declaration of causes.) Substituting "union" for the Confederate entity is confusing and at odds with the change the CSA made in their pre-amble. Removing "national" from flag descriptions is confusing because it is used to differentiate from other classes of flag. 2. The Florida specific edits strike me as incorrect as it certainly qualified as a 7th slave state of the lower/deep south. The actual declaration of causes for Florida's secession only reached draft stage (and after the fact) as is noted later in the paragraph...makes interesting reading as slavery is mentioned 14 times. 3. Lincoln didn't run on an "anti-agricultural platform." Limiting slavery from the territories wouldn't qualify as anti-agricultural. Those seeking to expand plantation culture viewed it differently than those seeking to do other forms of agriculture--these were forms of agriculture competing against one another for new territory. Small farmer vs. plantation owner is not the same as "anti-agricultural." 4. The infobox unofficial anthem deletion probably deserves discussion, although it isn't of importance to me and it probably needs cites or tags at present. 5. The infobox language aspect probably also deserves discussion on whether it should be kept and a cite if retained. There was a fairly strong nativist sentiment in the South and secession (for example the 1861 Missouri State Guard's authorization specifically required commands to be in English--a clear shot at the German unionists and their militias and volunteer regiments.) However, the Louisiana secession convention journal was published together in English and French.Red Harvest (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Red Harvest. There is far too much OR and fringe in FLA.101 changes. Rjensen (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The standard scholarly history is titles: The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865 by Emory M. Thomas. that is the RS call it a nation. Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at one change in particular in the info box the link to "list of historical unrecognized states" with "state" implying nation state, the other editor has been suggesting "union" which is very much at odds with contemporary Confederate thought. This is illustrated in their change of the preamble, specifically omitting "more perfect union" part because that is what they did not want.  They replaced it with "permanent federal government".  The following link from 1920 seems to capture the salient differences Charles E. George discussion of preamble in Virginia Law Review, p. 592-593.  Since their opposition was "the Union", a federal govt. of states that did not recognize a right to unilateral secession, replacing "state" with "union" is clearly contradictory in the context of the CSA. Red Harvest (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like FLA.101 is traveling or some such and using multiple IP's to reinsert the same wording (perhaps not having login handy.) I've reverted it again, leaving the intermediate edits of another IP editor (including some red links and things that will need some other fixes.) FLA.101 and associated IP's still haven't bothered to discuss in talk. Red Harvest (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthem section of infobox?
Another user during an extensive and controversial edit of other material also deleted the infobox section "anthem." This was one of the edits that had more merit and deserves some discussion as to direction. What is the consensus with regard to this infobox section? Since there was apparently no official Confederate anthem, should it be deleted? Should it be deleted from the infobox but replaced with a few sentences about Confederate songs in the body of the article? Should the infobox anthem section be left with "none official", no songs listed, but perhaps a "see Confederate songs" section in the article?

If the info box section stays in one form or another it must be sourced. In this case there is some discussion on the Civil War Trust site: Information on "God Save the South" as well as existing articles for the other two songs. This isn't a big issue, but it seems like an appropriate time to tidy up and establish a consensus about how to handle any controversy about anthems going forward. Red Harvest (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the source, I have not heard the reference before, but I find the presentation persuasive for "God Save the South" as the anthem described at Civil War Trust. Nine editions suggests widespread currency and popularity at the time. Who publishes the site? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion -- Too Much Direct Reference to Professional Historians by Name
Before I make any actual revisions or edits, I would like to speak on a matter of concern. To wit, that too often the content of this page/topic makes too many direct references to certain historians by name, rather than just either paraphrasing and then citing the source. As it should be increasingly clear, this is a very controversial article, and professional historians are just as biased and prone to present slanted/misleading facts to fit, as are laymen historians (like most of all us major contributing editors -- me included -- to this page).

A premier example of this is McPherson. For all his obvious writing and researching talents, he is (IMHO) definitely of the "school of Lincoln" and "pro-North". That is fine, far as that goes, but point is, to paraphrase his (or any other) historians viewpoint and then to provide a linked source to the said book/article/etc, is one thing and perfectly within policy. But to use them by name as in (so and so) said (this or that), opens a real can of worms.

What prompted this was actually not McPherson, but the Mark E. McNeely thingy really got me on this. Sure, it is my own biases kicking into play, but the use of the term "police state" is totally unsupported -- and ridiculous to boot -- as in what most Americans would mean by this label (police state); and from even cursory counter-research, the figure that 40,000 were arrested during the existence of the Confederacy is ludicrous without having to apply the most extreme examples to fit martial law justifications for suspension of habeas-corpus and arbitrary arrests. Davis's policy was limited in scope and he at least had the argument that the CSA was a nation under attack and invasion, whereas Lincoln extended it all over the Union and closed dissenting newspaper which disagreed with his war policies. I can find no comparable examples in the Confederacy.

I hasten to add, I am not trying to suggest that anything be censored, only that the information provided be free of POV as concerns the sources take on it, and that the name of the historian not be used but, rather, just sourced by citation. As it could lend to no end to edit wars and contradictions. Such is not proper for encyclopedic content, anyway. TexasReb (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you cite the wikipedia guideline or policy that discourages mentioning a particular author in the article text? In actuality, Citing sources says the exact opposite.  In the lede it says, "In most cases citations appear in the form of footnotes, although they can also appear within the body of an article."  Then in the body of the guideline it says:


 * "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact. The in-text attribution does not give full details of the source – this is done in a footnote in the normal way."


 * The examples you have referenced fall into this category. Neely's work, when it was first published, presented a new perspective that has since been largely accepted by historians -- tying him to it in the text is fully warranted since it draws the readers to a serious historian that they may not be aware of. Contrary to your false claim, nowhere in this article is there a reference to "the figure that 40,000 were arrested during the existence of the Confederacy." In fact, the number quoted is "over 4000" at one point and "4,108" later on.  There is nothing "ludicrous" about Neely's count. When you claim that you "can find no comparable examples in the Confederacy" of things that Lincoln did, then I can only assume that you have not read Neely's work, the reviews of it, or other works that cite Neely.


 * You claim that allowing historians to be named in the text "opens a real can of worms". Actually, since this issue has never been mentioned before that I remember and the practice has existed for years and occurs throughout wikipedia, where is this can of worms?


 * As far as the use of "police state", it is not terminology that I would use and I don't recollect that Neely has used this exact term. However, I did run across a review of the book referenced that paraphrased Neely's work as portraying "the Civil War South as a virtual police state -- guards and military posts marked the landscape, and citizens reconciled themselves to a domestic passport system in which individuals needed official permission each time they wished to travel." (see Timothy S. Huebner, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 108, No. 3 (2000), pp. 320-322) Neely does use the term in a different work, "Lincoln and the Triumph of the Nation: Constitutional Conflict in the American Civil War" when he describes in a chapter ("The Police State of Richmond") the extreme example in the CSA's capital.


 * Your claims of bias by McPherson and Neely is simply more of the same from you. Their works consistently receive positive reviews by their peers -- it is only a small fringe of folks with minimal credentials that argue about an ongoing Northern conspiracy to academically attack the South. You are free to bring to the discussion contrary claims by reliable sources -- an invitation made to you many times before that you consistently ignore. What reliable sources claim that McPherson is "definitely of the 'school of Lincoln' and 'pro-North". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with North Shoreman. Professional historians (and I am one myself) are accustomed to present their work to the public and to fellow scholars for criticism. McPherson and Neely are top of the line scholars, Pulitzer Prize winners no less--whose merits have been celebrated by hundreds of reviewers. Some scholars disagree with them on some points, but on the whole their positions have been very widely adopted and carry a great deal of weight. That is why the article cites them by name. The article is totally factual in that regard and there is no POV. All major scholarly viewpoints are represented. As for police state, well yes that is what the CSA was. Plus lots of folks (like the Texas Germans) got lynched for their views. To cover that up would be heavy-handed POV that Wikipedia does not allow. I recommend TexasReb read Neely before he denounces modern scholarship with wild, partisan unsourced claims. [ http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Rights-Political-Confederate-Constitutionalism/dp/0813918944/ long excerpts of Neely are online here.]  It is NOT true that this is a "controversial article"--it closely follows the reliable secondary sources as Wikipedia requires. I'm afraid that TexasReb is the one who has trouble following the rules at Wikipedia.  Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less what either of the posters/editors above, "believe". Am I supposed to crawl around and pray for forgiveness because the one immediately above take for granted that anyone disagreeing with their viewpoints and biases are something like "neo-Confederates" and "that is that"?    How ridiculous.


 * And to say there is nothing controversial about it all is just beyond belief...


 * For a certain poster who claims to be a "professional historian", the same sure doesn't seem to respect and/or acknowledge that of their peers which take the opposite "side" of the question." Personally, I don't know whether to chalk it up as delusions of grandeur or just an almost obsessional (reminiscent of Wagner, the opera conductor from Germany) insistence. on being right.  What a pompous presentation!  LOL   I have a double/major in both political science and history, does that make me a "professional"? Of course it doesn't.  So trot out yours and I will trot out mine...(except that I am not that vain...)


 * And to the above poster(s)(or both if it applies), I would invite the same to present their articles and where they can be viewed in peer-reviewed mags. You are not dealing with a novice here...


 * Yes, I have recently read McNeely. His conclusions/analysis are quite a bit different than what the phrasing would lead a reader to believe. To wit?  The overwhelming majority of the arrests incorporated in the Confederate States were not at all under the policies of Jefferson Davis, but of the approved policies of Lincoln to certain generals to arrest anyone at all suspected of "disloyalty", ( Union Gen. John Pope was of definite note), and most of the arrests were in states that were either under Union control or in "border states.")  And McNeely himself wrote all of these figures.  Of course, he defended it, but (and to his credit), he told the truth as he saw it and applied it to his own biases.


 * And perhaps the silliest thing of thing of all is that there is no "controversy" involved in this article and that I am guilty of violating Wikipedia rules which say otherwise. I hardly know how to respond to such a totally "out there" assertion as that *rolls eyes*.  Heck, even the "set in concrete" posted rules of Wiki administrators say the content is controversial and in dispute.  What is so hard to understand and accept about that...???


 * And further, I don't need a "source" to offer an opinion on whether or not McPherson is "biased" or not. In tandem, I might remind a certain editor that this is a talk page, not a part of the article itself. Anyone who calls themselves a professional historian (as obviously presented earlier as being some sort of superior intellect), should know this.


 * Well, a nice Southern cat-fish fry awaits. So all have a nice day! TexasReb (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As an addition to the above discussion, I want to mention I think some may have mis-understood what I originally meant. It is not in the least I object to content (which is always going to be biased). Rather, that names of the historians themselves not be used in the article. In other words, It is fine to paraphrase McPherson or whoever, but just leave out their names and simply cite their work. That is all I meant, as I know I am free to do the same from another point of view...but I will follow the same rules. TexasReb (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * one of the major ways that Wikipedia helps students is to guide them to the scholarly literature, and tell them which historians are especially important. McPherson is probably the most important Civil War era historian of the last several decades, and compares to Allan Nevins back in the 1950s and 1960s. so yes we want to keep their names prominent in the article. It also adds to the legitimacy of the article when readers know that we are citing the leading scholars. I suggest that the names of historians are just as important as the names of generals when it comes to the student of history. Rjensen (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox "Languages" section
Another item deleted in the aforementioned reverted edit was the "Languages" section of the infobox. As with the anthem, this deserves some consensus discussion. It currently lists "English (de facto)" but no source. If there were an official language established, then it would be a simple matter of pointing to the documentation. But without one, this would seem to require some sort of reliable source, particularly since some regions were bilingual (see Louisiana's journal about the secession convention, printed as a single volume in English and French.) Is there even a need for this section of the infobox? Red Harvest (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I remember a tangential comment in a source noting that Confederate Army orders at drill were required to be in English, as opposed to units of "foreign mercenaries" composed of German speakers in both Union eastern and western armies. But I don't remember anything officially for the Confederacy as a whole. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Missouri State Guard had such restrictions from what I recall of the military act of 1861. There was a strong backlash against "the Dutch" because of their abolitionist views.  Should we keep the languages section of the info box, or simply punt it for lack of relevant citation?  I'm not sure that it really adds any understanding of the CSA or defines it. Red Harvest (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)