Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 17

Was the Confederacy a "nation"
CSA tried to be a nation but was reversed by the USA by winning the civil war and blocking foreign recognition. Historians are pretty well agreed. Here is an Amazon list of 1000+ books that deal with the issue: Amazon title list Rjensen (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you evaluate Emory M. Thomas "The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865" (1979) published in Harper's The New American Nation Series? Where is he placed in Civil War historiography? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thomas is probably the most influential historian of the Confederacy in recent decades. Historians not only cite his work, they organize symposiums about it and publish their papers on his scholarship as shown by Inside the Confederate Nation: Essays in Ho of Emory M. Thomas edited by Lesley J. Gordon and John C. Inscoe (2007). Its publisher's blurb correctly states: "In The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience (1970) and The Confederate Nation (1979), Emory Thomas redefined the field of Civil War history and reconceptualized the Confederacy as a unique entity fighting a war for survival. Inside the Confederate Nation honors his enormous contributions to the field with fresh interpretations of all aspects of Confederate life—nationalism and identity, family and gender, battlefront and home front, race, and postwar legacies and memories." Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Related to this I've been considering discussion of the "Confederal republic" aspect of the infobox, namely, "how Confederal was it really?" We can do this in another section if you like.  Confederal to federal seems to be a continuum rather than sharply defined.  The Confederate Constitution preamble illustrates the purpose: "each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government."  The preamble is a mix of retained state sovereignty at odds with a central government modeled on the U.S.  The Constitution itself is only somewhat weakened with regards to federal power.  It is a lot stronger than the Articles of Confederation despite sharing a key part of the name.  Without the inherent divisibility assumption, the CSA looks like a federal republic.  (I think wiki's articles on the two forms even list it that way.) Red Harvest (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yes and the article has two entire sections, 2.7.1 on ."Theories regarding the Confederacy's demise: "Died of states' rights" or 2.7.2 "Died of Davis" Rjensen (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they don't address the form of govt stated in the info box. I'm not disputing nationalism or states rights interests and not wanting to create a new section in the article.  I'm just not sure what the basis for "Confederal" is.  Is there an historical consensus in the form of a reference that can be tagged to it in the info box?  Or is it self-identification?  The list for Confederation has the CSA but also has a caveat for the list in general about "self-styling."  Similarly, CSA is on the Federation list.  Switzerland is listed as "Federal" and is probably one of the closer comparisons to the CSA...and ironically, Switzerland was formerly a confederation in its distant past.  Red Harvest (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The much-admired E. M. Thomas notwithstanding, I think the CSA were emphatically not a "nation" in the sense in which that term was used by the Republicans (in 1860) of the USA, or in which the term is now used of the USA. The founders of the CSA and their ideological predecessors pointed out that the words "nation" and "national" had been affirmatively expunged from the draft Constitution in 1787, and contended that the Union was a confederacy of nations, not a unified nation in and of itself.
 * Nor did the founders of the CSA consider there to be any difference in meaning between "federal" and "confederate" (or "confederal", which I'm not even sure is a legitimate word).  Before 1861, it was common for Americans, especially Southerners and Democrats, to speak of the United States as a confederacy. The CSA were united in a federal union, just as the United States were, prior to 1865.  That is, the founders of the CSA believed they were recreating the United States as the founders had intended them to be, not creating a new, looser kind of association.  The CSA's government should therefore be described as federal union, not confederal republic.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to Lede
I have made several changes to the lede, which, though I hope they won't be controversial, I attempt to justify below:
 * the Confederate States of America were: only after the U.S. became a unified national state after 1861 did it become proper to refer to a federal union in the singular.  Until then, both the U.S. and the C.S. were usually referred to in the plural.
 * and unrecognized federal union: for international purposes, the C.S.A. could be referred to as a "nation-state", but that point is moot, since they were never recognized internationally.  To the extent that any government can be called a state, it's not inaccurate to refer to the C.S. government as a state; but the C.S.A. formed a federal union, just like that formed by the U.S.A. in 1789.  The founders of both unions would have rejected the idea that they were founding a state in the ordinary sense.
 * slaveholding States: when state refers to a State of the American Union, it takes a capital letter.  Although "slave States" has the endorsement of over a century and a half of usage, even among citizens of the slaveholding States, the latter term is more accurate.  A "slave state" strictly is (or ought to be) a state that stands in the relation of a slave to another state, as, e.g., Soviet Lithuania to Soviet Russia prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.  A state that is the political expression of a slaveholding society should be referred to as a "slaveholding state", not a "slave state".
 * these States had seceded: "declared their secession" presumably was intended to imply that Southern secession was not legitimate or effective; and that is consistent with Lincoln's avowed policy (though query whether his avowed policy was consistent with his practical activity?); but in 1865 the U.S. Congress effectively recognized the secession of the Southern States by declaring them ineligible for readmission to the Union until they adopted the Wartime Amendments to the Constitution.  I have left "declared secession" in the cases of Missouri and Kentucky, since no convention of the people of those States ever adopted an ordinance of secession; though I have changed "officially" to "unequivocally" since there were "official", though not effective, declarations of secession, either from the executive or the legislative departments of those States.  Their legitimacy was disputed even within the State governments, so I regard them as equivocal.
 * The new government: the founders of the C.S.A. denied that the U.S.A. were a nation, and they emphatically rejected the idea that they were founding a new nation.  They founded a government.
 * Deleted "CSA" or replaced it with C.S. or C.S.A.: it appears that the Wikipedia standard abbreviation for "United States of America" is U.S., with periods. (U.S.A. is deprecated for some reason I now can't remember, and I can't find the page that said why.)  "Confederate States of America" should be abbreviated analogously, with periods (though I don't think there's any reason to avoid C.S.A.).

I hope these explanations will be found persuasive. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with many of these. Several appear to be yet more attempts to insert POV and I agree with Rjensen's revert.
 * "The Confederate States were" assertion isn't supported by Googlebooks Ngram search: Graph of results  which runs 3 or 4:1 against.  (The assertion of plurality wasn't even true before 1860 for the U.S.--usage shows roughly even mix.)  Furthermore, it was an unnecessary contortion of the original lead sentence that put "was" after "Confederacy."
 * I'm not sure what the point of the "federal union" change is since the formation of the Confederacy was the creation of a de facto state. They sought this cooperation in forming a slave nation-state from the United States.  They noticeably did not intend or attempt to remain individual republics/states.  Since "federal union" is not wiki-linked it is not clear to me what you are trying to do in this section.
 * "slave state" vs. "slaveholding States". Again, I don't see the purpose of the change.  Common historical usage has been "slave state" vs. "free state."  Furthermore, the form "slave States" is contrary to modern convention which has gone toward "slave states" since about 1930 based on Ngram and is now ~8:1.  The form "slaveholding States" is down by only ~2:1, but still doesn't appear to be the preferred form.  Earlier conventions were often reversed--which adds to the confusion.  Even if "slaveholding" is used, "States" should probably not be capitalized.
 * "Declared their secession" is an accurate description, it doesn't address legality/constitutionality of the unilateral acts and therefore seems the best choice. Kentucky's secession was farcical and Missouri's went against its own convention, likely lacked a quorum, and was not official since the officers' seats had been declared vacant by the very convention they authorized and empowered.
 * The "they didn't form a new nation" claim is dubious.
 * CSA, C.S., and C.S.A. are used variously throughout article. I'm not sure why it must be one way or the other in this one instance.  Red Harvest (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Red Harvest here. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Red Harvest. We should not strain to make an equivalency in parallel at every point. The Confederacy was a combination for rebellion against the federal government (Congress), which had constitutionally selected Abraham Lincoln for a four year term. The secession process was an illegal end by constitutionally irregular means sustained by armed rebellion.


 * There was no twenty-year "long train of abuses" tending to remove all liberties of those in the South such as King George III. Since Andrew Jackson, eight presidents in a row had served only one four-year term, all of them pro-South. Lincoln's prospects were no better. He agreed to a Constitutional Amendment to prevent Congress from interfering with slavery in his inaugural address, but the fire-eaters panicked the South into a fratricidal war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Was or were: I don't accept ngram comparisons as evidence, given the multitude of uncontrolled variables involved; but, for the sake of argument, the more relevant ngram is this, comparing "the United States of America are" with "the United States of America is" between 1776 and 1860.  The plural clearly wins.  After 1865, the singular wins.


 * Usage for the U.S. pre-1865 would naturally go for the C.S., too.


 * State or union: The idea that the founders of the Confederate States proposed a unified state and not a federal union goes against everything they said about what they were doing.  In their constitution, they declared that each State was acting in its sovereign and independent capacity.  The States attempted to remain sovereign, as against the C.S. federal government, to the great detriment of the Confederate war effort.  Jefferson Davis complained that the C.S.A. had "died of States' rights".


 * Now, as I acknowledged earlier, any government can loosely be referred to as a "state"; and in that sense one can talk about the Confederate government as a "state", as Bensel does in his magnificent Yankee Leviathan; but to call the C.S.A. a "state" as distinguished from a federal union is absurd and counterfactual.


 * Under the pressures of total war, the C.S. federal government did in fact come to act like a nation-state in some respects; but that happened always in tension with the constituent States; and it doesn't alter the nature of the Confederate constitution, which was always emphatically that of a federal union&mdash;no different, in the eyes of most Southerners and Democrats, from that of the U.S.A. Had the C.S.A. survived the war, there is no reason to believe that wartime centralizing measures would have been continued in force, once independence had been secured.


 * What I am trying to do in this section, since Red Harvest asks, is to improve the accuracy and neutrality of the lede and remove anti-Confederate POV.


 * Slaveholding States: I acknowledged at the outset that "slave States" is the established term, but contended, and still contend, that "slaveholding States" is more logical.  On what basis does Red Harvest  object to it?


 * "State" is generally capitalized when it refers to a member of the U.S.A., following the style of the Constitution. The same rule should apply to those of the C.S.A.


 * Declared secession or seceded: The United States Congress in 1865 effectively declared the former Confederate States to be out of the United States and treated them as conquered provinces, subject to readmission when they had agreed to new terms of union embodied in the Wartime Amendments. To deny that they seceded is POV, not neutral.  Emory M. Thomas states unequivocally that the Southern States seceded.  See, e.g., The Confederate Nation (1979), pp. 38, 43.  So do many other historians.


 * Red Harvest appears to have misread what I wrote about the ineffective gestures toward secession on the part of Kentucky and Missouri.


 * New nation: Red Harvest may doubt all she or he wants, but the fact is that the Confederate founders positively denied that the United States were a nation, in the political sense.  See, e.g., Bledsoe, Is Davis a Traitor?, Ch. XV.  They expressly created the Confederate States upon the same model.


 * Nation, to be sure, is a term with many meanings or shades of meaning, and a writer like Thomas may use it to describe the C.S.A., but he is speaking more of the C.S.A. as a cohesive society, not as a consolidated political entity. The C.S. were never conceived of as being, and never were, a single, unified political nation-state, as we use nation today with reference to the United States, and as Lincoln and the Republicans used the term in 1861.


 * The States that formed the C.S.A. existed independently of any federal union. Some of them pre-dated the United States. They regarded themselves as separate sovereignties or nations, which had left one association of states and were forming another upon, as they saw it, precisely the same principles.  As Davis said, " We have changed the constituent parts, but not the system of our Government."

J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * CSA or C.S.A.: I am merely contending for consistency. On what basis does Red Harvest object to that?


 * The most relevant nGrams for the CSA would be those using that name, not the U.S. (But even in the U.S. pre-1860 the usage was roughly equal.)  Either way it doesn't matter much because modern usage in both contexts is singular.  The following link has an interesting discussion of the use with respect to the U.S.: Discussion of United States is/are  It also notes that in the Constitution many other things that are singular today were treated as plural:  Senate, Congress, etc.  Unless you can find some consensus secondary sources for the usage you propose, this appears to be a dead issue.  What you are writing appears to be original research, rather than paraphrasing of the commonly accepted usage in reliable sources.


 * You are making a claim that until 1860/1, the United States and the Confederacy were both the same form of government and therefore not nations (because as you say the Confederacy was trying to repeat the United States prior to the election of Lincoln.) Good luck with that.  The Confederacy operated as a nation and adopted a constitution on the same form as the United States with a few changes.  How different it might have been after the war, had it survived, is a matter of speculation.  You will need to discuss this in a section of its own and bring plenty of reliable secondary sources stating that the Confederacy was not a nation and not an attempt to establish one.  At present your argument sounds like original research.


 * Reread what I wrote about "slave states." It was explained, including doubting the capitalization you employed.  "States" is not being used as a stand-in for the name of the states in an official capacity or as a proper noun, therefore, from what I've read, it should not be capitalized.  (Would you write "community property States" for example?)  Slaveholding vs. slave is not a big deal, but it is not an improvement either because of common usage.


 * "Declared their secession" is an accurate description, it doesn't address legality/constitutionality of the unilateral acts and therefore seems the best choice. It doesn't claim they didn't secede.  It doesn't imply that secession was illegal/unconstitutional or that it was legal/constitutional.  I prefer the wording for the lead because it avoids the briar patch with something that is indisputable.  I didn't misread what you wrote about MO or KY, instead I found your wording less accurate than what it replaced.


 * The change in abbreviated form was not a big deal, but it didn't make sense in light of the rest of the article with its very mixed usage. With the introduction of CSA in the first sentence there was no "consistency" in using a different abbreviation here. Red Harvest (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The state suicide interpretation of the Civil War meant that the states in rebellion committed suicide as states to become territories of the United States. There was no leaving the Union, only a change in status. On the other hand, the majority of the Supreme Court in Texas v. White held that states are permanent, even when their machinery is taken over by insurrection. The possible development was anticipated in the Federalist Papers; in the event, the majority of the people of the United States prevailed. The constitutional presidency of Abraham Lincoln over the entire Union was sustained. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Southern states still had a largely sympathetic Supreme Court in 1860, a court that had overturned decades of precedence to support Southern Rights interpretation of the Constitution. Yet they did not choose to try their secession argument before the Court, the agreed arbiter of such Constitutional disputes, when the opportunity arose.  Instead they chose trial by combat (revolution/rebellion.) Red Harvest (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Texasreb's bizarre use of the Talk page--large additions/insertions/and deletions
What in the heck is going on? We keep getting these tomes of Texasreb's personal opinions, followed by deletions and sometimes insertions out of sequence. Take a look at the edit history. The Talk page is being turned into a personal sandbox by Texasreb. It is very difficult to follow or respond to because of the cut/paste/delete games. This nonsense needs to end. Red Harvest (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. What is relevant to the article is that legal experts consider secession to have been illegal and the courts agreed.  The dissenting legal opinions in Texas v. White are of little importance.  TFD (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This makes no sense. What "legal experts" considered secession of the time to be "illegal"? And the SCOTUS did not totally agree on it. Which is the basis of the inclusion of the dissenting opinions. They are objected as per being included because it appears some just don't want them to be presented. TexasReb (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with TFD, dissenting opinions are of interest but little importance to this article. Buchanan clearly said secession was illegal, even before he began to agree to forceable resistance to rebellion by the federal government. The proposed Amendment to allow state secession failed to gain a majority in the Senate.


 * In the view of the dissenting Justices, Texas as “not a state in the Union” did not mean secession was justified, only that in rebellion it had reduced itself to a territory of the United States, but still a part of the United States.


 * There was legally no leaving by state secession resolves, and the majority said there was no change in status, a state is perpetually a state in the Union, saving a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All you are really doing, is pretty much repeating the same old pro-Union version of the War and/or the Chase decision. Again, nothing wrong with that if you truly believe it.  But at the time it was far from clear. Not in the least.  And once again, could you please give a source for your assertion of the amendment you speak of?  And a little more clarity as to Buchanan's position?  Did he disagree with secession?  Yes, he did.  But please give some source to where he supported force to prevent it?  TexasReb (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I play the "cut and paste game" because my responses are being deleted, and I have no choice but to save them and re-add them. I will make no accusations, but it is very obvious such is being done. I have deleted nothing of anyone else's at all. There is nothing out of sequence about anything posted. TexasReb (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are the one deleting your own responses! (As in diff file -- the red -4,384 should be a hint to you.)  You are also the one inserting responses in a way that alters/confuses the meanings of other's posts that preceded yours.  For that reason, I'm moving your response here to after TFD's, just as it came chronologically.  There is no conspiracy except in your head.  If you were more concise and dropped the op-eds, you would experience fewer edit conflicts when trying to post.  Do one response at a time, rather than trying to do multiple sections, as you frequently screw those up.  You keep messing up the formats of sections and others' posts. Red Harvest (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about a conspiracy? I said that I had no choice but to copy and paste when they keep getting eliminated.  If I made the mistake, then I take responsibility for it.  TexasReb (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You did! You intentionally implied conspiracy with your own words: "because my responses are being deleted, and I have no choice but to save them and re-add them. I will make no accusations, but it is very obvious such is being done."  And contrary to your statement, "There is nothing out of sequence about anything posted" the timestamps and edit history prove otherwise, here and in discussions on other pages.  Hence, this section. Red Harvest (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This rings a bit of a conspiracy theory of your own. And yes, my responses were deleted, but I accuse no one of doing so intentionally (see reply). And for sure it is overboard as hell. For whatever reason, I was having difficulty posting my replies, nothing more nor less than that. And yes, my responses were being deleted. But did I accuse anyone of doing it? No, it could have just as easily been something I did or the way things worked. And I said so, in so many words... You are the one making a mountain out of a molehill.  I said earlier, if it was something I did wrong, then I take the blame. TexasReb (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Amazing spin you are applying. Your wording clearly suggested that others were behind it and you still hint at it with "if" and "it could have" rather than actually accepting responsibility for your own obvious mistakes.   No, I'm not making a mountain out of molehill, but I am calling you out for demonstrating an audacious lack of credibility and accountability.  Screwing up your own posts, then claiming others were behind it (which is what you did and continue to do "in so many words" as you put it) is a serious breach of good faith on your part. Red Harvest (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You calling me out? ROFL  Guess what, I am calling you out!  You cling to the silliest things.  Cite one post of mine -- or portion of one -- that claimed anyone was "conspiring" against me.  Are you that desperate?  Cite one post I made that said anything about accusing anyone; and saying I "implied" something really boils down to that one can always say someone "implied" something, and no way to disprove a negative, as the saying goes...


 * I said clearly, several times, that if I was wrong, then I take responsibility...did I not? All I know was that my total response did not come out on screen.  It was weird, but I said clearly perhaps it was my fault.  I say it now.  In that regard, you are making a "mountain out of a molehill".


 * Not that I have to explain/justify one thing to you, but I want to call you out on all this. You seem to want to milk this forever, and for little --if any -- rational reasons.    So, ahhh, hell, don't give me that "serious breach of faith" garbage.  What faith have I breached? Happy New Years. TexasReb (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've already named and quoted the post, but apparently English is a second language for you, because you don't comprehend the implications of your own words. You continue to offer a non-apology and a non-admission of being the origin of the deletions/insertions and formatting problems (errors which you have continued to commit in 3 of your last 5 edits.)  Are you pretending that you can't recognize your mistakes or are you genuinely unable to look at your own edits and see the obvious errors and the large deletion?  Even after it has been brought to your attention, you haven't taken responsibility and you haven't improved the quality of your editing.  Tom had to relocate one of your sloppy editing insertions in this discussion today.  Figure out what you are doing wrong, and quit doing it. Red Harvest (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL Yeah, ok, English is a second language to me. Feel better now?  ROFL.  This is really getting ridiculous...but I suppose it you want to keep going on and on, then have a blast.  To keep this silly-arsed exchange up really doesn't do much good for your own position, far as it goes.  And rings of deflection.  TexasReb (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This personal exchange belongs on a user's talk page, not here. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 21:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it belongs here because it affects everyone in the discussion and is a pattern of problem editing behavior that others need to be aware of. Attempts have been made to make the editor aware of this sort of thing, particularly treating this as his own personal sandbox/soapbox, but all we get is a line of excuses and trying to blame problems of his own making on others.  It is hard to have a coherent discussion when someone is trashing the format and making out of order edits that mislead other editors...one might even wonder if the latter is intentional. Red Harvest (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am just going to say this:


 * I am just going to try and condense all this into a reply to all. I have been out of town all weekend (I have a family and life apart from Wiki) and this is my first response.


 * To start, well, I suppose I should be a little flattered that so many are so defensive when it comes to actually having to confront arguments which go against their own solidified historical viewpoints. And have to come up with self-justifying rationale to bar/ban the same. And often changing the same to suit for the moment. RJensens accusations have run from the hateful to the bizarre.  For instance, the justification of elimination on the basis of "original research" in the primary source.  This makes no sense at all.  How in the world is a source that includes the actual text of both the majority and dissenting opinion an original one???  And rules are clear that inclusions can be both primary and secondary; they sometimes overlap, which this one does.


 * In fact, this was never even brought up at first. No edit-warring was done on my part; I included the dissenting opinion, and its connection to the CSA was that not all of the SCOTUS agreed with the logic (dicta) and personal opinion used by Chase. The opposite opinion has as much connection with the Confederacy as does the majority as in connection with the same, which had ceased to exist some three years before.  So if one is to be included?  Then so should the other...and a sizeable minority one at that (all of whom personally seemed to consider secession very ill-advised). It was my posts that were reverted.


 * Let's be honest, ok? No BS. The belief that secession was illegal is a "sacred cow" among rabid pro-Lincoln and pro-Union, enthusiasts.  Nothing wrong with that per-se, except that a suggestion otherwise seems to invoke an almost hysterical reaction.  And to attack anyone saying otherwise as part of a "fringe" whose opinions are not worthy of consideration...even though they provide nothing substantial in the way of refutation in a logical historical sense.  Rjensen went to the extreme of announcing I hated the USA. This is a bald-faced lie. An apology is in order for that one.


 * To wind it up, I have no problem at all with differing opinion. Yes, I know I am the lone editor who takes a mostly pro-South viewpoint.  No, my problem comes in when I am "shut down"...and the other editors seem to use their numerical superiority in order to issue an edict to that a "consensus" should be the end all and be all.  That is not the approach of serious editors. It is the approach of those who band together (whether they admit it or not) and adopt bully tactics because they know they can; there is that strength in the bloc, not any sort of true individual fortitude.  Well, I am not one who will kow-tow to it.  I harbor no grudges at all.  I only ask for fair editing and additions.  Sincerely. TexasReb (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dissenting Opinion inclusion in Texas v. White Sub-Article
Rjensen? I confess I am not at all sure about what is wrong with including a properly sourced summary of the dissenting opinion. The source was the very same used to back up the quotes in the summary of the majority opinion. Please explain (you or someone someone) what is different...?

I admit, in going over the original deletions (some time back) that removal was justified in that they were not properly sourced. I will agree with that. But this one is not of the same type. It used neutral language and nothing was written that used POV or included anything not actually said in the dissenting opinion. And again, were properly sourced.

Now, of POV, it probably goes without saying that I profoundly disagree with the majority opinion in terms of the continuity nature of the AOC and its preamble relationship to that of the original Constitution. And certainly that the forced appointment of Unionists to high positions in the Texas government during Reconstruction constituted the duly elected "officialdom" of the state. Also, because secession was not the actual issue before the court, it follows that anything related to secession was dicta. Too, that the majority opinion was highly political and partisan in nature as well.

BUT...that is neither here nor there. It is something that might be debated on the talk page, but not anything to word into the article itself. I haven't and won't.

Well, with your latest deletion and rationale for it, I guess it is going to have to be decided by a higher administrator/moderator authority. For you to say that (and I can't believe it!) my summary lacks secondary sources is ludicrous. They are the exact same ones (as per Cornell Law School and going directly by text of the decisions themselves) that were used with the inclusion of the majority opinion. To take a major decision by SCOTUS and say that the majority belongs but the dissenting does not (especially when sourced by the same sources) makes not the slightest bit of sense. Anyway, like I said, I am not going to get into this too much until after Christmas. But yes, I do plan on appealing it in the proper way.

So all in all, I am baffled as to why this was removed. Can you enlighten me? Finally, as it obvious, I have either undid your removal or will do it manually. I am sure this will be countered. If it is, I will not revert a second time for the time being. So I hope all can be mutually agreed upon. Of course, if something can't be settled/compromised upon, by talking it out, I will have no choice but to appeal it. Hopefully though, it will not come to that.

You say the dissenting opinion should be in the White article itself? Well, I guess I just don't understand how the majority opinion is relevant to the history of the Confederacy, yet the dissenting is not? Pray explain this leap of logic...? If anything, both should be removed if that is indeed your rationale. TexasReb (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is an article on the CSA and the dissenting opinions have no direct bearing on its history--whether they said a,B OR C made no difference to anyone except Lost Cause elements. The material was added as TexasReb has just explained for his personal POV reasons to pretend there was a legitimacy to the CSA. There were no citations to any RS that stated the dissent was an important element in CSA history. The dissent belongs in the WHite article not here. The majority opinion was in fact quite important say all the RS because it shaped all government policy on how to deal with laws passed during the 1861-65 period. Rjensen (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Rjensen? I hope you will agree to an "armistice" during the Christmas season. I have too many things to do with kids, grandkids, and family, to get stuck on this. Hopefully you do to.


 * So I am only going to repeat what I said earlier. To wit, if a properly sourced and neutral summary of the dissenting opinion should not be part of a sub-article on Texas v. White?  Then neither should the majority.  The contradiction so far as logical inclusion of one and not the other simply makes no sense.


 * And Rjensen? You either totally misread what I said, ignored it, or just want to mislead with it.  I offered my opinion on the decision itself.  So what?  BUT...none of that was part of anything I actually wrote!  What in the world are you talking about?  I am sure you have your own opinions on the decision, and that is fine.  But again, my personal opinions were not part of the article itself.


 * Hell, I invite ALL to read that one. In fact, I will repost it here:


 * Now, of POV, it probably goes without saying that I profoundly disagree with the majority opinion in terms of the continuity nature of the AOC and its preamble relationship to that of the original Constitution. And certainly that the forced appointment of Unionists to high positions in the Texas government during Reconstruction constituted the duly elected "officialdom" of the state. Also, because secession was not the actual issue before the court, it follows that anything related to secession was dicta. Too, that the majority opinion was highly political and partisan in nature as well. BUT...that is neither here nor there.  It is something that might be debated on the talk page, but not anything to word into the article itself.  I haven't and won't.


 * That is horrid isn't it? And not the least in the you seemingly have no problem with the same sources you say lack on my part yet you accept from the other side...?


 * Ok, enough of this for now...I have Christmas things to do. But I swear RJ, I just don't understand. Oh well, Merry Christmas and Happy New Years, anyway.  Unfortunately, it appears at this point, the is no alternative but to let a high moderator settle it.  I wish it were so...  But anyway, again.  Christmas armistice in force, ok?  TexasReb (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * POV is deeply involved in adding this useless trivia. TexasReb admits it.  --what he does not use is what Wikipedia rules require. . The transcript is an original source posted on the Cornell website.  It is NOT a reliable secondary source as is required. Sorry, a private interpretation of original sources is not allowed by WP:RS   The cite does NOT say the dissent was important for CSA. no scholar does.  Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Rjensen? This accusation is beyond the pale even for you.  What you really seem to object to is not the source, but your own POV reasons for deleting it. There is nothing "trivial" about the dissenting opinion on a SCOTUS decision.  It seems that you just cannot tolerate anything that goes counter to your own viewpoints. And in this instance it is particularly baffling in that nothing was POV on my part!   That what I included is not backed up by a "reliable secondary source" is just ludicrous.  It was used extensively in the main Texas v. White article with no objection at all from you.  You accuse me of advancing a POV, but nothing, absolutely nothing, was POV of mine in the dissenting opinion section I included.


 * No, RJ, it is you, not me, who is violating some fundamental rules. And You are doing what you often do (not always, but lots of times). That is, refuse to assume good faith on the part of another editor as well as seemingly appointing yourself the "Grand Judge" of what is or isn't to be included in an article.  When you become a moderator/administrator, then you have every right to do so. Until then, your rights to edit are no more and no less that of other editors.


 * The assertion that the actual text from the Cornell School of Law did not meet the Wiki standards of a secondary source is just ludicrous. Read the definition yourself and tell me how it was violated, will you?


 * I am going to adhere to the "armistice" I requested until after Christmas. After that, we will just have to let the chips fall where they may.  I gave you my outlook on it all.  I am fairly sure no consensus will be reached (or I will be honestly surprised, and pleased, if it is), but I am not going to give this one up.  In any event, if there is any continued deletion of valid dissenting summation and quotes from the Texas v. White sub-article, then I am going to request arbitration/dispute settlement in accordance with Wiki rules.  Unfortunately, there seems no other way. TexasReb (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, RJensen, your continued accusation that I "keep admitting something" is really pressing it. What is it that I am supposedly "admitting"???  Can you tell me?  And back it up with something concrete as in an actual quote from me. Can you do that?  TexasReb (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Texasreb, please properly format your talk page edits and quit inserting things into your earlier posts AFTER folks have responded. You make a mess of talk page discussions inserting things willy-nilly.  Rjensen is correct about your insertion of what amounts to trivia in a blatant POV attempt to change the thrust of mainstream RS.  This is the same problem we've had on the Texas ACW page and others. Red Harvest (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL I expected you would agree with RJensen. See my reply to him to get my reply to you.  TexasReb (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Red Harvest? You are mistaking me for someone else apparently.  My inclusion of the dissenting opinion is as it always was.  You can check for yourself under the history on the article page.  Also, yes, I did make a mistake in format on talk page which I will correct later this evening.  Got Christmas stuff for now. Merry Christmas. TexasReb (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "I profoundly disagree with the majority opinion ..." admits TexasReb as he tries to slant the article to emphasize his own personal position. His fringe views have no support in the RS and are based on 21st century politics.  That's his profound POV. Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * LMAO. Rjensen?  I "admit"?  Admits what? You haven't answered that as to how to applies to the article itself.


 * Sure I gave my POV on talk page, and it is perfectly within rules. See them for yourself. This, again, makes no sense as to how it applies to what I wrote, included, and sourced, in the inclusion of the dissent itself.  Please don't be that desperate. Which is all it can be.  I haven't slanted the article in the least.  Anyway, here is my general reply.


 * As can be seen, I reverted your unjustified removal of a neutral, relevant, and properly sourced addition to the Texas v. White case. Sadly, you have a history of removing material you personally do not agree with; invariably you justify your censoring by calling it some combination of trivial, irrelevant, improperly sourced, or accuse the other of advancing POV. Of the last, you accused me of it several times, without a single bit of proof.  Yes, I gave my POV on the talk page, but nothing was POV in the article itself and that is the only thing that matters. It was nothing more than a summary of the dissent along with a few quotes and all properly sourced.  Had the dissenting opinion been supported by only 1 justice, then perhaps it would not have much relevance.  But in this case three disagreed with the majority, which was a little over a third of the members on the court.  Your actions and M.O. are increasingly reminiscent of a petty tyrant college professor who gives bad grades to students who take a viewpoint opposite his/her own, as well as the self-appointed ultimate judge/ultimate editor of what can be included.


 * I did a little review of all the rules pertaining to editing/adding, and here are some interesting results, which I will pass along to you (as you constantly accuse me of violating rules). It comes from this page:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research


 * And a few excerpts:


 * ''Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3]


 * Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people...


 * So you see if you are calling this a primary source, then it is perfectly permissible, as the facts can easily verified. Also, please read the reliable secondary source rules.  An excerpt is as follows:


 * Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.


 * As should be self-evident, the Cornell Law site provides a syllabus which highlights the major points of both sides and gives an overview of the basic facts of the case itself. In a nutshell, I am within Wiki rules on both the use of primary and/or reliable secondary sources.


 * Finally, I fully intend to abide by the three-revert rule. So far I have reverted twice. You have as well. If this fails (as I truly see no hope of compromise as we are too far apart on this one), I will take the proper steps and first seek mediation.  If that fails, I will go to arbitration (dispute resolution).  And if it comes to the latter, I will definitely abide by the decision of the arbitration committee.  That seems fair enough, don't you think?   TexasReb (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That state secession is illegal, is "settled law" in the United States. Though, a constitutional amendment allowing secession is admitted as possible by the Court. There is a link to Texas v. White where the dissents are more appropriately discussed. I agree with Texas Reb that the dissent is of interest, but there is no harm done to the encyclopedia to omit that level of detail in this summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We are going back to square one here, VH. Secession is not an issue that can be "settled" by 5 unelected partisans of Lincoln's policies, especially when secession itself was not the issue before the court.  All that is dicta. The only issue before the court was bond sales. But surely you would know that.  Secession is too serious a matter to reduce it to some sort of "settled law" argument; it ignores so many things that would (and were) be involved.  And would be again if it were ever attempted (which I am not suggesting it be, by any means).  If certain states decided to secede by legal means as in legislative and/or voter approval, no SCOTUS decision is going to make any difference.  For one thing, if they are "gone" then they are no longer bound by any rulings.  This was one of the most contrived ahead of time ever decisions of SCOTUS to justify Lincoln's war policies.  The only thing it did was, perhaps, give justification to coercing a sovereign state with the most flimsy of logic.


 * But anyway, I respectfully disagree that the proper place of the dissenting opinion belongs elsewhere. If the majority opinion is included in the whole Texas v. White article, then it seems to stand to reason that so should be the minority...especially when that minority made up over a third of the justices, and none were fans of the Southern Cause itself. I am willing to take this one to dispute resolution if it comes to that. And promise to abide by the results. TexasReb (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Insert Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the states are not sovereign as of the Constitution of 1789, the people of the United States are sovereign, as expressed by their national Constitutional Amendments. The Constitutional Amendment proposed to allow state secession failed to gain a majority of Congress.


 * In Virginia, the convention voted to stay in the Union, the delegates were “whipped” on the floor to vote secession by a member brandishing a pistol, an unauthorized secessionist militia seized the Harper’s Ferry arsenal, a delegation voted in the Confederate Congress before the plebiscite, and out-of-state secessionist militias voted in army camps. Every state “secession” story has similar un-republican irregularities, unconstitutional by each state’s constitutional provisions for changing its own constitution, never mind the Constitution of the people of the United States including them. Lincoln had been Constitutionally elected president of the entire nation, and was so ratified by the outgoing Congress under Buchanan.


 * There was no twenty-year “long train of abuses” by a George III to abolish Southern rights and liberties. The fire-eaters misguided the Southern people into an unlawful fratricidal war by promising a permanent slave society without any resistance to secession. They were wrong, illegal secession was successfully resisted by the federal government; unfortunately, the rebellion did not wait for a Supreme Court holding, with tragic results. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * VH, let me first say I appreciate your comments on the dissenting opinion and desire to find a compromise (and I will reply to your "alterative" in a minutes), but see my latest reply (or any other ones) as to why I believe it should be included on this page and not just the main White page. These unjustified removals by a certain editor have reached a point where the same often refuses to entertain anything with which he vehemently disagrees, and thus, deletes it.  He refuses to adhere to the "assume good faith" rule of Wikipedia and seemingly (not always but a notable number of times) has appointed himself the final authority/supreme editor of this page and what is or isn't allowed on it. And often for reasons that make no sense (see latest reasons given for removal) For that reason if nothing else -- although there are other reasons such as a desire to give balance and include neutral, relevant, properly sourced material -- I am determined to see this through to the end.  It has got to be settled by a higher authority (mediator or arbitration committee) once and for all.


 * So far as secession goes, we have pretty much debated/discussed that one in all its aspects. We will just have to agree to disagree on it. Yes, we can continue it on one of our talk  pages if you like, but I really can't think of anything either of us hasn't said before!  But still, let me give a few comments to your latest, then I really think it ought to go elsewhere (such, as mentioned, to one of our talk pages).


 * Every state, both South and North had some "irregularities" But there is no question that, even with such, a majority supported secession (either the duly elected legislature and/or the voters themselves).  In the North, there were irregularities in the elections of 1864; democrats were often discouraged from voting by threats and occasionally outright force. There are some questions too when it came to allowing soldiers to vote.   Incidentally, the "People of the United States" does not mean "the people" as a nationwide mass, but in the context of the respective sovereign states of the United States" (which early on was often referred to as "these United States."  The Founding Fathers agreed on this. To say the states were not sovereign entities just, with all due respect, makes no sense at all.  That is the reason for the division of power in which the states delegated only limited and specific ones to the central government; that is the reason for the 9th and 10th amendments.  And yes, Lincoln was constitutionally elected, but it was not him personally who was so much feared, as was the sectional party (at that time) and northern business interests which controlled him.


 * The American Revolution is always pesky and inconvenient fact for the pro-Union historians and history buffs. And invariably some variation on what you wrote (well, the colonists rights were abused but the South's was not) used. Actually, as it was, the Southern states had more legal ground to stand on that did the American colonists as the latter British citizens who owed their loyalty to the crown and were never promised any representation. The were clearly in rebellion.  Have you ever read the history of the American Revolution from the British side?  King George actually made quite a few conciliatory measures to pacify the colonists.  I hasten to add I fully support the American side, but just noting that war and rationale for "secession" is not so clear cut and dried.   On the other hand, the Southern states were sovereign states (and first recognized as such by the Treaty of Paris) and the Constitution clearly did not prohibit secession, even if it might be rash, unwise, and foolhardy.  Above all, the South did not start the War.  The conflict started when Lincoln made a decision to invade the Lower South in spite of all attempts by the latter to negotiate a peace settlement beneficial to both sides, and pay its share of the national debt and for all federal property within its borders.  When ignored and then invaded it had no choice but to defend itself.  And the excuse for invasion was clearly a contrived incident.  As Lincoln wrote to Gustavus Fox (who headed the effort to re-provision Ft. Sumter: "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." Finally, can you cite the source for your claim that a constitutional amendment allowing secession failed to pass? I have never heard of one ever being introduced. Now I do know that one was proposed prohibiting secession, and it was defeated (I will dig that out and provide it for you).


 * To continue on secession, congressional approval was not needed as there was nothing said about it one way or another in the Constitution. But let me quote James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution) on the subject of secession (although naturally this is not legally binding): "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." -- James Madison.  It might be noted that in another more detailed writing, he said the latter had a potential for abuse for the reason that if Congress could vote to allow a state to secede, they could just as easily vote to kick another without cause.  Thus, the Southern states chose to go the latter route, the "abuse of the compact".  Now I know the pro-North faction will scoff at this.  And in this day in age where the federal government has lost all restraint in its abuse of power to dictate to the states, it will probably seem trivial.  But at the time, it wasn't. The economic discrimination the Southern states were subject to had long been a festering source of friction.  The slavery issue is largely used today as an emotional argument rather than an historically logical one. Certainly no right thinking person today supports slavery.  So it has to be looked at in the context of the day.  The Southern economy was at least notably dependent on slavery (of which the slave trade itself was firmly in northern hands) and immediate emancipation would have had serious consequences.  The northern states had abolished it gradually only when it became unprofitable (although they continued to bring slaves to the South and profit from it in indirect ways).  Regardless, there is no reason to suppose that slavery would have lasted much longer in the South if they had won. Probably a couple of decades at most. For one thing, opinion in most of the western world opposed it, and such might have made it difficult for the new nation (which did outlaw the slave-trade itself). And many prominent Southern men either outright detested it or had some serious reservations about it.


 * Finally, as said quite a few times, to have brought the issue before the Supreme Court would have been pointless. The SCOTUS does not accept moot cases, which secession would have been if it had not yet occurred.  If it had already occurred, then no Supreme Court ruling would have made any difference.


 * Gosh, I have gone on farrrrrrr longer than I intended! LOL We should really take this elsewhere. Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * [outdent] undo 1. original research in primary source; 2) no secondary source; 3) trivial regarding CSA (the dissent had zero effect)--losers' views are NOT the law but majority view is settled law of the land; 4) motivated by blatant POV of hatred of the main decision; 5) fringe neoconfederate hatred of USA  6) zero support from reliable sources that thisis important for history of CSA  Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, I have used three reverts and so have you. So let's keep in mind the rules on that one (although no, they haven't been within a 24 hour period, although that seems to be a loose rule that may not be used to "game the system).  So far as the rest goes, I will reply simply by referring you back to my post of last night (very early this morning, actually), as there is nothing more to say or add to it.  I stick by my points and position on being within the Wiki rules for editing/additions, as well as future intent (first mediation, then dispute resolution if necessary), and I will abide by the final decision, whatever it may be.


 * Also, your latest "justification" from removal is false as to accusations, and particularly outlandish and hateful on your part is your arrogant and unwarranted assumptions concerning my motives for including a summary of the dissenting opinion; this does not legally constitute libel, but in some ways it is a form of it. As to the others, here are the accusations used as justification for removal, as well as a rebutal:  undo per talk page = 1. original research in primary source; 2) no secondary source; 3) trivial regarding CSA (the dissent had zero effect); 4) motivated by blatant POV of hatred of the main decision


 * 1. Wikipedia rule: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.  As can be clearly seen there is no violation, and all has been adhered to.


 * 2. Wikipedia rule: Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. As should be self-evident, the Cornell Law site provides a syllabus which highlights the major points of both sides and gives an overview of the basic facts of the case itself. In a nutshell, I am within Wiki rules on both the use of primary and/or reliable secondary sources.


 * 3. The fact that the dissent had no effect on the CSA is irrelevant. Any minority opinion of a SCOTUS decision has zero direct effect on the case at hand. But that doesn't mean it should not be cited when exploring the case itself. A competent briefing on any case -- although this was not a briefing -- includes the dissenting opinion(s).  Far as that goes, the majority decision had zero effect on the CSA, as it was written several years after the same had ceased to exist. So what relevance does it have on the Confederacy?   In addition, the case before the court did not involve secession itself, it involved bond sales; and the main dispute was really about whether or not Texas had standing to bring it before the Supreme Court.  In a nutshell, if a Texas v. White section is going to be included in the main Confederacy article, then the summary basis for the dissenting opinion should be included along with the majority.  If someone wants to take out the entire thing, I would raise no objections.


 * 4. This is the most outrageous accusation of all. So now you have a crystal ball into my purposes for writing information?  Blatant hatred? LOL This is truly hilarious on some levels.  Yes, I disagree with the rationale used to reach the majority decision (the "dicta") and said so and why on an earlier Talk Page post, but hatred of it is not involved in any form or fashion. This ludicrous assertion seems to illustrate some desperation on your part; apparently you must feel a need to attribute malicious intentions to someone who takes a different view point than your own on the subject of the War, secession, and the CSA.  Also, as I said earlier, while not legally constituting libel by any means, it contains some elements of the same.


 * And I see on the Talk Page you have included two more accusations, one that is even more malicious than number 4 above. To wit: undo per talk page = 1. original research in primary source; 2) no secondary source; 3) trivial regarding CSA (the dissent had zero effect); 4) motivated by blatant POV of hatred of the main decision


 * And now it appears you have added two other groundless reasons for deletion, one of them even more malicious than the one above. To wit:  5) fringe neoconfederate hatred of USA 6) zero support from reliable sources that thisis important for history of CSA


 * 5. This one is contains even more elements of libel than No. 4 above. If by neo-Confederate you mean one who believes the South had the best constitutional arguments on its side, and that it was unjustifiably invaded, deliberately so over an incident at Ft. Sumter that Lincoln pretty much admitted he contrived for the purpose of rallying northerners to support his war; all for economic reasons that had nothing to do with slavery, then yes, I guess I am a neo-Confederate. If you mean someone who supports secession and Southern Jim Crow Laws, then you are very mistaken and do not in any way fit the definition.


 * And further, to blatantly state I "hate" the United States contains even more libelous elements than No. 4 above, and may even violate Wiki rules concerning personal attacks. This accusation is without the slightest bit of evidence beyond what appears to be your own irrational hatred of anything and/or anyone who takes a viewpoint different from your own. At the very least it is a bald-faced lie on your part.  Not that I have to explain one dammed thing to you, but I happen to love this country and for you to say otherwise without the slightest basis for it is not only an outright lie and highly resented, sir, but possibly even further evidence of your own baffling hatred, intolerance, and possible insecurities when it comes to your whole outlook on topics like this and how you will attack anyone who disagrees with you and delete material you don't like.


 * 6. This one was answered already at No.3


 * Finally, it appears we may have to go to mediation on this one. Possibly even dispute resolution where we can both present our cases. And again, I will abide by the results. I definitely plan to explore Wiki rules concerning personal attacks and if posting of No. 4 and 5 constitute one. If they do -- and they well may not -- I intend to report it if such continues. So I hope you will follow basic rules of civility and refrain from posting falsehoods which contain malicious accusations. TexasReb (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually per the rules you are edit warring. You made a bold edit that was reverted.  Discussion has been occurring and there has been no effective support for your opinion which has been rejected by all of the other editors in the discussion.  Therefore you should have not made the next two reverts.  Please, go ahead and take this to mediation/arbitration/dispute resolution.  I suspect it will result in another block of your account.Red Harvest (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I did not start this "edit war" While "controversial" material may be reverted it stands to reason it must be explained what is so controversial about it.  In this case, the only "controversy" seems to be some do not want the opposing opinion to be seen at all.  Grounds for elimination fall extremely short and are not supported at all by rules for inclusion of relevant material.  And RJ's grounds are becoming increasingly personal.


 * What you really mean by no consensus for my inclusion of "my opinion" really boils down to that the material I added included is not something some editors want to be read/seen, at all.


 * The above unsigned section is another of Texasreb's tiresome, sloppy edits. The reason for the revert was well explained and the consensus is clearly against your blatant attempts to insert fringe personal views.  The dissent is properly covered in the Texas vs. White article. Red Harvest (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on several assertions by Texasreb about this case: These are just more examples of Texasreb's opinions conflicting with historical reality. Red Harvest (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Texasreb claims that the Texas v. White ruling on secession was "dicta". However, this appears to be a conflating of the Dred Scott decision with the White decision.  The Dred Scott decision with regards to restrictions on slavery in the territories is obiter dicta because the Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction.  In Texas vs. White the opposite is true, the Court had to rule on the constitutionality of secession in order to establish or reject jurisdiction.  In so doing the ruling with regard to secession was binding, not dicta.
 * Texasreb also asserts that secession could not be "'settled' by 5 unelected partisans of Lincoln's policies", while clinging to the dissenting opinion of Grier--who was not one of the more reputable members of the Court--having supported the Dred Scott decision as a member of the Court, widely regarded as one of the worst/most flawed decisions ever made by the body. All US Supreme Court justices are "unelected".  Of the 5 mentioned with the claim of partisanship, Nelson preceded Lincoln by a longshot (1845) and was also part of the Dred Scott majority while Clifford joined the Court in 1858 (before Lincoln) and was a pro-slavery Democrat.


 * No, it is dicta. For one thing, neither party ever brought up secession and the points pro or con, were never argued. This was simply an opportunity for Chase to do some extemporaneous advancements of his own personal viewpoints.  Now it is true that the "logic" he used was -- on minor levels -- required to reach the decision he (and the majority) did, but he cited no legal nor historical precedents nor constitutional wording in support of his position; just his personal beliefs (or justifications for the War). And they were extremely illogical and contradictory as well. The dissenting opinions made mincemeat out of them (which is the real reason certain editors oppose their inclusion).   Anyway, main point is that his treatise on the non-right of secession and the "indestructible nature" of the Union were not really necessary.  He easily could have simply cited the Texas ordinance of March, 15, 1866, which declared the ordinance of secession null and void.  No, his real reasons for going on at length was to justify the Lincoln war policy.  So it is dicta in the larger sense.


 * I am not sure at all what you are driving at when you say I "cling" to the dissenting opinion of Greer. No, I agree with it because it makes sense from a "political reality".  Nothing more, nothing less.  So far as Grier being one of the more "disreputable" members of the SCOTUS because of the way he voted on a case of over a century ago is a bit historically illogical. The ruling may offend the moral sensibilities of today (and well they may, mine included), But at the time he time, Grier merely based his opinion on his interpretation of the actual laws of the day.  The easiest thing in the world is to get morally uptight by applying the standards of today to another distant era.


 * Sorry, but I have long noticed that what you regard as a conflict with "historical reality" really boils down to that if you oppose the viewpoint, then anything going against it must, by necessity, mean someone is not being historically realistic. You seem to not grasp at all the truth that history is not an objective subject.  It is something individuals are going to disagree on so far as interpretation goes, which in itself involves many factors.  My own guess is that you have, all your life in the realm of historical interest, been exposed to a decidedly pro-Union "winners history" outlook. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it seems to incline you to dismiss and scoff at anything which goes against it as "fringe" or outright false; and it galls the ilk to have to deal with it.  I have always said the advantage the pro-Union version has is that it has been considered mainstream for so many years.  The advantage the pro-Confederate side has is that -- in large thanks to the internet -- many people are being exposed to viewpoints and analysis they had never heard before. It is not all that uncommon for some historians to frankly state that much of what they grew up learning in their classes has another side to it and that the other side made sense. TexasReb (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it is not dicta, determining Texas status was a requirement of establishing proper (or improper) jurisdiction. You obviously don't understand what the term means.  Chase's argument is easy enough to follow and it has been accepted as settled law.  Contrary to your characterization of them, and it appears that at least 3 of the 5 in the majority were not Lincoln partisans.  History can and should be more objective than you make it, and that means getting basic information right, rather than making crap up as is your habit.  So take your neo-Confederate spin machine elsewhere. Red Harvest (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And I repeat, this could just as easily been done by citing the Texas ordinance of March 15, 1866, declaring the Ordinance of Secession "null and void. And this "neo-Confederate" stuff you keep spouting and "making stuff up" really just amounts to you don't want to deal with it TexasReb (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Right to revolution, force of arms to attain independence, requires human rights abuses, otherwise political issues are subject to internal adjudication. There were no human rights abuses suffered by the states resorting to rebellion in 1861. Recalibration of tariffs by consent in Congress is not the same as a King’s arbitrary ending trial by jury, deporting accused away from the jurisdiction of the crime, making war on civilians, and so on. Resupply of federal property lawfully ceded by a state at Fort Sumter is not a violation of the national compact.


 * Under the Articles of Confederation, the constituents of Congress were the states of the people; under the 1789 Constitution, the constituents of Congress were the people of the states. The Articles Congress voluntarily dissolved itself to make way for the Constitution’s Congress. The Constitution’s Congress did not voluntarily dissolve itself to make way for the Confederate Congress, and when faced with coercion by rebellion, the rebellion was put down by the majority of the United States people. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And what "human rights abuses" did the colonials undergo? The phrase "human rights abuses" can be contracted or expanded as one pleases, to mean anything or nothing.  And really, we do need to take this to a talk page.  We have been over and over this, and we just don't agree on it.  For everything you can bring up so far as "differences" go between the secession of the British colonies which lead to what we now know as that American Revolution, I can bring up bundles of evidence to show the Southern states actually had much more justification.  But then?  You could counter with things of your own.  So bottom line is, let's take it elsewhere, ok?  Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently the Supreme Court was not and is not impressed by your argument, Texasreb. It is not dicta if it is a requirement of the ruling, and this one was.  Texas' 1866 ordinances don't determine the U.S. Federal jurisdiction for 1865 and before, nor did they necessarily determine those later because of that supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.  The Court would at some stage have to rule on secession in order to address the interim status of states while in rebellion.  The heart of the problem was the extra-constitutional nature of secession.  Whether one believes it was valid or not, it wasn't addressed directly in the Constitution and it wasn't addressed by the legislative branch.  Neither had made secession possible or impossible.  In the absence of clear direction, the judicial branch was the natural arbiter, but the seceding states did not seek a ruling before initiating a war against the Federal government.  Initiation of war gave the executive branch war powers.  The legislative branch supported the executive branch.  The judicial branch could have still ruled against the executive or legislative branches on the matter of secession, but it did not. Red Harvest (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are so many holes in this argument that I could probably shoot a .32 Saturday night special thru them. Chase's opinions were just that, and the bottom line is that the issue of secession never came up before the Supreme Court at all. Thus the "arbituer" had no jurisdiction.


 * And face it, if the dissenting opinion had been the majority one? Then can you honestly say you would not be taking an opposite position?  Congress?  Matter of fact, originally, probably most of Congress might have gone along with Southern secession; certainly most were opposed to a war to prevent it.  The Supremacy Clause means nothing relevant to the issue.  The Confederate Constitution contained the very same clause verbatim. It only applied if the said states were within the same Union.


 * The point of bringing up the Texas ordinance is that it would have very "simple" to "prove" that Texas had never left the Union. Chase was not a stupid man (a Lincoln/Republican party stooge, yes), he knew full well what he was doing when he penned the majority opinion...which was to justify what was really an unjustified war upon Southern states which had done no wrong to the North.


 * Answer one question, please. Why did the North -- under Lincoln and the Republican party, sectional and controlled by northern business interests -- invade the South? We both know it wasn't over slavery.  If you are going to say it was to "preserve the Union"...then for what reason was the Union being preserved?  Could it have been because the South was a "cash cow"?  TexasReb (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Texas Reb. As to your one question. The United States is a democratic federal republic with a sovereign people which alters the constitutional status of its perpetual states in perpetual union by the entire people as lawfully expressed by their representatives in 2/3 the House, in 2/3 the Senate and in 3/4 of the states. There was no lawful secession. Conspirators simultaneously captured the machinery of several state governments to foment a rebellion against the lawful authority of the U.S. government as anticipated might happen in the Federalist Papers over some narrow sectional interest, -- in this case slavery expansion, that’s what they told themselves and others at the time --, refusing to acknowledge the authority of Congress and the lawful election of the president by force of arms.

The rebellion was put down by national forces closing with and destroying rebel forces until they relented; -- the majority of the people of the nation prevailed as anticipated in the Federalist Papers. Patrick Henry’s objection to the phrase “We the people” was outvoted in Virginia’s U.S. Constitutional Ratification Convention and outfought in the Great Rebellion. The “sovereign" states were no longer -- with the implementation of the Constitution of 1789 -- by the authority of the sovereign people of the nation in ratification conventions specifically elected for the purpose of constituting a new national government, acknowledging the Supreme Law of the Land as the Constitution and Acts of Congress -- including expansion of slavery -- as a requirement of admission to the Union. The Union was preserved in the American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * How many times do we have to go over this, VH? While I respect you, this is really getting old and needs (as I have said before) taken elsewhere; talk pages, e-mail whatever.
 * We are both just repeating the same arguments. We do not agree and will not ever agree on this subject. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are much more insistent that I accept your viewpoint than you accept mine (which was never my intention, anyway).  So to sum it up?


 * I believe that the states of the United States were sovereign states and the Treaty of Paris and the DOI and the Constitution reflected it clearly, as did the writings in the Federalist Papers. That the said states would have never entered into a Union to begin with if they had known aforehand they could never get out of it (such makes no sense when they had just "seceded" from England, with one of the absolutely intrinsic justifications being that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed". What else can that mean? A Union that has to be held together by military force is no longer a true "Union" in the proper sense. Certainly not the one our Colonial ancestors ever thought of as such...


 * Lincoln chose to invade the Lower South because he could not afford, literally, to lose the South as the "cash-cow" for federal coffers, which overwhelmingly came back to benefit northeastern business interests. And as he later pretty much admitted, to forcing an incident at Ft. Sumter to justify his actions. And was (although, ok, perhaps it was not so much him as the sectional party which he was part of) and when it all ended up said and done, it cost the lives of over half a million both Southern and Northern men and boys who never had anything against each other to begin with when it came right down to it.  No wonder all this had to be later justified in the mainstream history books as being some kind of altruistic morality play revolving around "saving the Union" and "freeing the slaves."


 * Ok, as it is -- and I know I ramble on quite a bit! LOL -- to continue to hash it out here is just pointless. So let's go elsewhere to do it, ok?  Yes, you can go ahead and get in the "last word" here, if you want.  Then?  lets go somewhere private, alright?  LOL  Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, one last word. The “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" followed by a “more perfect Union” meant there was no getting out, we are going forward as a democratic federal republic together under the Supreme Law of the Land, as our representatives the Congress constitutionally relay it to us, including the subject of slavery. The Anti-federalists saw the change in the fundamental character of the national government signaled by “We the people”; they lost unanimously in the thirteen states in half the time it took to ratify the Articles unanimously — among our founding-father colonial-ancestors.


 * Economic analysis is only a shadowy reflection of what actually motivates most individuals. In history, what people say to justify their actions to themselves and to others is a touchstone of accuracy in the past and reality in the present. Unionists said they put down rebellion to save the nation and free the slaves, Rebels said they sought independence to perpetuate slavery and the right to expand it. Some history books create a Lost Cause equivalence to remove the actuating motivations of the time, anachronistically imposing current political divides onto the past to suppose there was nothing worth fighting over. Fortunately here we can look to reliable sources of scholarship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok VH, you essentially have gotten the last long word in. I am just going to close by repeating that we are not going to agree, and both of us can and have presented reliable historical sources to back up our respective positions. Incidentally, I can't help but notice that you present quite an moralistic, idealized version of northern motivations, and quite an abbreviated one of the Southerners! LOL But ok, as promised, I wont get into that here. Where do you want to go to continue it? (if you do). TexasReb (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternate language
I would have only, “Justice Robert C. Grier dissented from the majority.[note]"

''Note: Justice Grier's dissent in the case hinged on the political fact that in his view, over the preceding eight years, Texas was first found to be in rebellion by Congress without Congressional representation, then it had been administered as a military district without self governance. Grier wrote, "Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.” He considered all else a “judicial fiction”. see | Texas v. White, Legal Information Institute online, Cornell University Law School, viewed August 28, 2014.''

I hope this shorter substitute can gain a consensus; I do not agree to the longer edit of Texas Reb. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * VH? I was going to say earlier that I would be willing to consider this attempt at compromise wording -- probably even support it after some discussion. However, as you can clearly see, another editor objects to any compromise on this topic (You can see my statement below his).  And he attempts to frame it with the transparent logic that to do so would simply "encourage" me. Geez...


 * Just a couple more things on the topic, the reason for the length of my original was that two separate dissenting opinions were written and I wanted to summarize both. But that is all it was, a summary with a couple of relevant (and properly sourced) quotes. It was as "tight" as I could make it and still give a good overview, but there was no superfluous wording in it, I don't believe.


 * Anyway, I am willing (and always have been) to compromise. But you will have to get the other editors in on it and, to be honest, I don't think you will have any luck with that (although I would be pleasantly surprised if you can).  You can see below how compromise is regarded. And I've little doubt the other sees it the same way.  In spite of Wiki rules to try and seek a compromise on wording, it has little to no support with some.  But anyway, thanks for trying.  Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Under the current conditions, with TexasReb once again edit warring on the issue, I don't see any purpose in attempting to change the status quo. All you're doing is encouraging an editor who has no intent to play by the rules. However, for the purposes of this article, the only relevant material from the dissents is that none of them recognized the legitimacy of secession. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can see my reply to you about rules and following them in my replies to Rjensen. This will have to go to mediation and possibly arbitration. I didn't begin this edit war, it started when neutral, relevant, and properly sourced material was deleted. And yes, on a related tangent, I see now the little "game" being played because of the general three-edit rule.  When one editor's three run out, then you rush in to take up the slack.  I guess I better write and see if the three-edit rule applies with such an obvious intent as this.


 * Your accusations of my starting an "edit war" are ludicrous, just as is the rationale for removing the summary of the dissent. The real truth is (at least IMHO) is that you too object to anything which goes against your pro-northern bias and to add anything that goes counter to it as "edit warring" if the said editor sticks to his guns and the rules. And of course, the "warring" is always the fault of the other side, never your own. Apparently, the new definition of edit-warring is to have the audacity to include material which can even remotely be construed -- in this instance -- to countering the sacred belief that secession was null and void from the beginning and not made so by the results of the War itself (and I am really not sure what is so objectionable, the dissent was fairly summarized and sourced, and included quotes which indicated the dissenters opposed secession).


 * The majority opinion was that of Lincoln appointees who supported his war policies and to arrive at the conclusion they did (the dicta on secession), they resorted to amazing contradictions and leaps of logic; such as attempting to "prove" Texas had never left the Union, yet desperately trying to square it with the fact they had no representation in Congress and were under military rule. The almost pathetic reasoning they came up with was that the Reconstruction government in the state was the truly legitimate one. That is almost laughable.  As the dissenting opinion said, it was based on "legal fiction".  This is the real reason for objecting to an inclusion of the dissenting opinion, because it is so obviously based on common sense and "political reality", that the rabid pro-Union historians and history buffs cannot tolerate it and seemingly do not want to be read.


 * Finally, IMO, your remarks to Virginia Historian are deflecting and less than truthful as well. How is the inclusion of his attempt at compromise going to "encourage me"?  As it is, I prefer my version, but would strongly consider -- and probably even support his -- after some discussion.  So spare that "cop-out."  You don't want his in there because you don't want any of the dissenting opinion in there.  You are just using me as your stalking horse to keep it out.  So obvious and transparent, and funny, that you would think it fools anyone.  And it is even more hilarious when you say the only relevant part of the dissenting opinion is that "none of them recognized the legitimacy of secession."


 * For one thing, none of that was stated in their opinions (they stuck to the facts of the case). They seemed to personally object to it, but not recognizing it is a little different. In fact, Grier wrote:  I do not consider myself bound to express any opinion judicially as to the constitutional right of Texas to exercise the rights and privileges of a State of this Union, or the power of Congress to govern her as a conquered province, to subject her to military domination, and keep her in pupilage.  The others said nothing about it either.  So where do you come by saying otherwise?  It seems to be just something you tossed out of the blue with no support at all, and would be considered un-sourced if put in the article.   However the fact you seemingly would like to see it in there speaks volumes as to where you really stand on the inclusion of the minority opinion.  To wit, you wouldn't mind it at all if it supported your own viewpoint! LOL TexasReb (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * TexasReb wants compromises on the Wiki rules that require him to produce RS, which he refuses to do. He pursues a fringe position to delegitimize Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the USConstitution.  Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I seek no compromise on basic rules. No, I challenge you to provide concrete and clear proof that I did. Your vague assertions do not suffice. Instead, provide in details how my sources do not meet reliable source standards. Superficial rationale doesn't cut the mustard.


 * Also your silly assertion that my intent is to "delegitimize Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the USConstitution." is just that. To take them one at a time? What? Is Lincoln some kind of historical demi-god in your viewpoint whose actions cannot be criticized?  Please explain. Is the SCOTUS a body whose decisions cannot be called into question and challenged? I fully recognize the legitimacy of the highest court, but that doesn't mean I agree with all its decisions (particularly during the Warren era), and the constitution provides for checks and balances of its powers.  And finally, speaking of the latter, I wouldn't take some of the positions I do if not for the fact I recognize the Constitution -- as originally intended and worded -- to be supreme law of the land and the document to which I owe my highest allegiance. So be dammed to your -- once again -- malicious assertions.  TexasReb (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose alternate wording for the reasons others have already given. Texasreb's personal POV pushing has been blatant and tiresome.  And nothing is ever resolved because he refuses to accept consensus rejection of his fringe positions (which are invariably lacking support from reliable secondary sources.)  The number of pages of his expression of his personal opinion (and yes, he states that it his opinion) is perplexing since the top of this talk page states:  "This is not a forum for general discussion about Confederate States of America."  A topic ban is likely in order. Red Harvest (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally don't care if you find my opinions "blatant and tiresome". The important thing is have I done so in the article itself? So how have I been "pushing personal viewpoints" in a way that is in violation of any Wikipedia rules?  The fact you don't want to hear them is totally irrelevant, and your "being on the bandwagon" doesn't change it. This admonition against not the Talk Page being a general forum for discussion about the CSA itself does not apply -- or would not seem to -- if it includes discussion of controversial topics in the realm of editing/additions.  What else is it for, if not that? TexasReb (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I would omit Texas v. White from the article altogether. It merely echoed by judicial decision what had already been decided by the sword. It has no meaning for the Confederate States of America, which had ceased to exist before the case was ever instituted. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 21:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, Jdcrutch. That would solve everything. As you say, neither opinion has anything to do with the CSA. My only position is that if one is included, then so should the other.  Good points! TexasReb (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Then can we call an end to this tiresome controversy by deleting all reference to Texas v. White from the C.S.A. article? It really doesn't belong here. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose it in a new section as the previous discussions are so buried that this likely won't even be seen by others. I'm of mixed views on it.  It is pertinent to the entire basis of the Confederacy which relied on a contested/rejected constitutional theory.  However, the ruling itself is also post-war.  It might make sense to relocate the section within the article to a part pertaining to secession. I'm not convinced that it should be removed and would like to hear others' input. Red Harvest (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)