Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 18

Proposal: Delete section on Texas v. White
It seems to me that Texas v. White is utterly irrelevant to the subject of this article. It already has its own article, where it is (or ought to be) discussed thoroughly; and it may deserve mention in "Reconstruction Era" and "Secession in the United States". It offers no information concerning the Confederate States of America, other than what a few men of hostile views thought about them after the fact, and it should be removed from this article.

Although the opinions in the case offer various views concerning the secession of the States that formed the Confederate States of America, none of them, majority or minority, had any effect on the Confederate government, which is the subject of this article, and which had ceased to exist before the case was ever filed. None of the opinions in the case was determinative as to the right of secession under the Constitution of 1788: that question had already been determined by the sword, and the judgment of the court in that respect was a foregone conclusion.

It might be argued that opinions as to the legitimacy and effectiveness of Southern secession are relevant to the article as touching on the legitimacy of the C.S.A. as a government. If that be the case, it seems to me that the relevant opinions are those expressed&mdash;on all sides&mdash;before and during the life of the C.S.A., not post-hoc rationalizations by the party that had already prevailed by force. That debate, it seems to me, belongs more properly in the article on secession, and not here.

I therefore propose that the section on Texas v. White be deleted from this article. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While a detailed analysis is not really relevant to this article, a mention certainly is. Since when is the cutoff for any historical article strictly limited in time to its duration, ignoring that its repercussions do carry forward in time?  Already in the article we have this paragraph:


 * The U.S. Government began a decade-long process known as reconstruction which attempted to resolve the political and constitutional issues of the Civil War. The priorities were: to guarantee that Confederate nationalism and slavery were indeed dead, to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth which guaranteed dual U.S. and state citizenship to all, and the Fifteenth which guaranteed the right of Freedmen to vote. By 1877, Reconstruction had ended in the former Confederate states and political control in each of them had been gradually re-established by white Southern Democrats, many of whom had formerly been disenfranchised by Reconstruction policy. The war left the South economically devastated by military action, ruined infrastructure, and exhausted resources. The region remained well below national levels of prosperity until after World War II.[8]


 * and these paragraphs:


 * When the war ended over 14,000 Confederates petitioned President Johnson for a pardon; he was generous in giving them out.[272] He issued a general amnesty to all Confederate participants in the "late Civil War" in 1868.[273] Congress passed additional Amnesty Acts in May 1866 with restrictions on office holding, and again in May 1872 lifting those restrictions. See Amnesty Act. There was a great deal of discussion in 1865 about bringing treason trials, especially against Jefferson Davis. There was no consensus in President Johnson's cabinet and there were no treason trials against anyone. In the case of Davis there was a strong possibility of acquittal which would have been humiliating for the government.[274]


 * Davis was indicted for treason but never tried; he was released from prison on bail in May 1867. The amnesty of December 25, 1868 by President Johnson eliminated any possibility of Jefferson Davis (or anyone else associated with the Confederacy) standing trial for treason.[275][276][277]


 * The aftermath of the war, including the White decision, are relevant to the article and certainly of interest to a reader. I'm sure many readers are just as unaware that the Supreme Court ruled on the subject as they are of he issues of treason and pardon. Up until relatively recently, there was not a separate section on the White decision.  It was added with this  edit. Perhaps we can revisit that decision and add the current language as part of the section "Amnesty and treason issue".


 * Language like "other than what a few men of hostile views thought about them after the fact" and "post-hoc rationalizations by the party that had already prevailed by force" show a severe under-appreciation of the role of the Supreme Court in U.S. history.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The general amnesty was really a "face-saving measure". Chief Justice Salmon Chase had warned against a public trial, because he knew full well what it would bring about. That is, a defense from Davis revolving around the constitution and the issue of secession.  That was the last thing the powers that be in the Union wanted.  Matter of fact, Davis was disappointed that he was pardoned, as he wanted to make his case openly, but had no choice but to go along.  In a nut-shell, the whole "amnesty" thing was an act of political expediency, not a wish for reconciliation (although I do agree that at least some of it came about because most northern were sick and tired of the Radical Republicans and their vindictive policies and just wanted it all to end) TexasReb (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it can show that the SCOTUS can make -- by a majority -- rulings that simply represent the personal opinions of the majority of the makeup of the Court. Yes, it is solidified by virtue of the Constitution itself...but also has constitutional check and balances upon it. It can and does abuse its powers. The "Warren Court" was the perfect example in our era. If any court in history ran roughshod over the Constitution, then this was the one. It reminds of a rich boy bully carried away with their own power.  Then,once they realized they were not going to be challenged?  Heck, they kept going.  The Texas v. White decision was very akin to many of the Warren court decisions. Maybe the decision had no precedent, no justifiable citations...but that was what they wanted and that was that.  I realize that is only my opinion, but how would you say different in a constitutional sense...? TexasReb (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree about relative importance to the reader, since judicially the matter has been settled. The "Amnesty and treason issue" section appears the proper companion for it, perhaps with an expanded title.  These issues, including Texas vs. White and Reconstruction are part of the postwar housekeeping that resulted from formation of the CSA.  However, looking at the structure I suggest "Amnesty and treason issue" (section 7) should be moved upward immediately after the "Confederacy at war" section where Texas vs. White presently is.  At present it is at the end of the article disconnected from the timeline.  A section 2.6 collecting these matters could include links to main articles. Red Harvest (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree to Red Harvest and Tom North Shoreman efforts at restructuring/consolidating narrative sections. Interesting turn of phrase, national reconciliation as “housekeeping” in the aftermath of the Confederacy's rebellion. Texas v. White seems to be an important part of the narrative, even if it does not merit its own stand-alone section.


 * Much was done to reconcile the nation in many different venues, both by officials and individuals, North and South. Most of the Confederate banners in Richmond’s Battle Abbey were returned by sympathetic Northerners who arranged for the “repatriation” of captured banners for a Southern museum. Robert E. Lee famously taught the sons of his former Confederate generals to become good U.S. citizens at Washington College in Lexington, VA.


 * Repeated mischaracterization and diminution of the official U.S. reconciliation efforts can best be answered by a referral to “[ http://www.amazon.com/April-1865-Month-Saved-America/dp/0060899689| April 1865: the month that saved America]" by Jay Winik, a state department official who had witnessed the aftermath of civil wars throughout Africa without a practical reconciliation predicated on amnesty for rebels. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing at the moment I am going to say is that I am very willing to see how all this works out in terms of compromise and good sense and fairness as to a possible revision. I don't want to take it to a higher level of authority to settle things for good and all -- as to sub-heading, relevance, and content -- before giving this "proposal" a chance to work. TexasReb (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Red Harvest writes, "judicially the matter has been settled." If by "the matter" Red Harvest means "the legitimacy of Southern secession", I beg to differ. That matter was settled all right, for all practical purposes and (as far as I'm concerned) for all time; but it was settled by military force, not by any impartial judicial process, and least of all by White.  The issue was not presented to the court in White for decision:  all parties presumed and argued that Texas's secession had been illegitimate.  The case turns on the judicial interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts, not on the legitimacy, vel non, of secession.  There was never any possibility that the court in White would find secession legitimate (and if it had, the decision would have been a dead letter as soon as it issued).  Chase's dicta on the question are nothing but one man's opinion, however persuasive others may find them; and they do no more than to endorse the military fait accompli by the Lincoln administration, of which Chase had been part.  They carry no more judicial weight than Taney's dicta regarding the political status of African-Americans in Dred Scott.  White is irrelevant to this article, and the section on it should be deleted.


 * Sanford Levinson writes,


 * . . . there is no very good reason to accept the Marshall-Lincoln-Chase-Amar view of "an indivisible Union of indestructible States," articulated, appropriately enough, in a case called Texas v. White,[fn. om.] as the undoubtedly correct view of the Constitution.


 * Mark A. Graber writes,


 * White, however, was decided rather late in the day to resolve political questions associated with seccession, and is probably better conceptualized as only resolving questions associated with Reconstruction.


 * If post-hoc arguments regarding the legitimacy of secession are relevant to this article, then there is no reason to exclude discussion of the dissents in White, or, for that matter, Davis's Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Bledsoe's Is Davis a Traitor? (which presumably would have made a big part of Davis's defense, had he ever been given his day in court), and Stephens's The War Between the States. I say none of those arguments belongs here, but if one position is discussed, neutral POV requires that significant opposing views (which those listed here unquestionably are) be afforded equal recognition.


 * It seems to me that "postwar housekeeping" by the U.S.A. belongs in the article on the war, or that on Reconstruction, rather than that on the C.S.A. A neutral POV would seem to demand that this article limit itself to the rise, career, and fall of the C.S.A., and not extend to U.S. arguments&mdash;least of all post-hoc arguments&mdash;as to the legitimacy thereof (which are, however, appropriately to be discussed in the articles on the war and Reconstruction, to which they were of immediate significance).  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, whether you like it or agree with it, the matter was settled judicially and it was not simple dicta. There was a need for addressing the status of states during the war years.  The Taney dicta has been widely condemned and was never really accepted by the nation, nor is it supported by the courts today.  White on the other hand established the framework for dealing with actions of secessionist governments.  That's relevant to the CSA.


 * The CSA states plotted their own course and chose trial by combat. But part of the result was the Texas vs. White decision.  From what I've read the Court would not have been inclined to rule in favor of secession before the war either, so pretending this was all post-war doesn't stand up.  Instead the decision appears an affirmation of "pre-war national'' interpretation of the Constitution--which Chase summed up rather well.  The Constitution had not enabled unilateral secession, but it had, as Chase noted, forbidden acts by states that were undertaken as part of secession.


 * The dissents don't appear to have disputed that secession was unconstitutional, so they are not relevant to this article. Grier and the two other dissenters were concerned about the status of the interim state govt. rather than the status of the state during the war.  Grier simply passed the buck on the Constitutional issue, rather than addressing it. Thanks for bringing my attention back to that, since it completely negates the arguments for inclusion of the dissents here as part of NPOV.  Red Harvest (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think Red Harvest (who offers no authority to support his or her assertions) knows what dicta are.
 * Statements and comments in an opinion concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand are obiter dicta, and lack the force of an adjudication.
 * Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., citing ''Wheeler v. Wilkin, 98 Colo. 568, 573, 58 P.2d 1223, 1226 (1936).
 * Chase's opinion would have had the same practical effect if he'd started it at the bottom of page 730, with the sentence that begins, "The 39th Congress . . . ." All that goes before that is inessential to the court's judgment, and is therefore dicta.  The decision turns on the effect of the Reconstruction Acts, not on the effect of Texas's Ordinance of Secession.  Chase's opinion regarding secession is thus a mere argument of one man, not the judgment of the court, no matter how many other justices agreed with it, and no matter how many later decisions may endorse it.  The issue of secession was not litigated and therefore was not decided.  White is a decision about Reconstruction, not about the Confederate States of America.
 * We're just repeating ourselves, so I yield. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was using that very definition as my basis. You have not provided reliable sources claiming the ruling was simply dicta.  Jurisdiction was fundamental to the case and ruling on the status of the state during the period in which it operated under a secessionist govt. was a key aspect of it.  It is true that the decision addressed the needs of Reconstruction, but that doesn't invalidate it.  Claiming that litigants didn't contest the constitutionality of secession does not mean that it cannot form part of the basis of the ruling--since it is still a necessary condition per Chase's opinion.  You can't consider only issuance of the bonds before the war and Reconstruction acts after because the event that was ruled "treasonable" and thus void was during the war.  As Chase said, "This purpose was undoubtedly unlawful, for the acts which it contemplated are, within the express definition of the Constitution, treasonable." (page 736, which even you will notice is after page 730...)  I'll take Chase's standing legal opinion over yours. Red Harvest (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

While I cannot find a case in which the doctrine of secession was upheld to support the claims of a litigant, the doctrine of perpetual union does --- for the use of "settled law", we have Michael C. Dorf, (2004) at FindLaw, “Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession." . And at Ketchum v. Buckley (1878), the Supreme Court held, with majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Waite, "It is now settled law in this court that during the late civil war 'the same general form of government, ... which had existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. ... Williams v. Bruffy, ... Horn v. Lockhart,... Sprott v. U.S., ... Texas v. White" . --- So the discussion on overthrowing the "settled law" nature of Texas v. White'' needs to be broadened to at least five Supreme Court decisions for the sake of accurate history on this subject, were we to pursue it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody, I think, has suggested here that the permanency of the Union is not settled law. I certainly have not.  I haven't even suggested here that Chase's interpretation of the Constitution in White is not 100% correct.  That's completely beside the point here.  The point under dispute here is whether or not White should be covered in an article on the Confederate States of America.


 * The immediate disagreement is over whether or not the question (as to the indissolubility of the Union) was judicially settled by the White decision. I argue that it plainly was not, since the question was not litigated in White, and it had no bearing on the outcome of the case.  The dicta in White, however, offered a plausible rationale to justify the settlement of that question by military force, and were therefore adopted in subsequent decisions as "settled law".


 * While that adoption had great significance for Reconstruction, it had no significance for the Confederate States of America, which had ceased to exist before the White case even arose. TVH's citation of Dorf merely suggests that one scholar may disagree with the scholars I cited&mdash;as to which I think there was never any doubt (though in fact Dorf more-or-less agrees with Levinson).  The controversy would properly be covered in the article on White.  It has nothing to do with the C.S.A.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 19:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to offer a few comments in reply to several of the points brought up by the editors of the above exchanges:


 * The fact that the dissenting opinions did not "dispute" that secession was "unconstitutional", and therefore "has no place" in the sub-article is irrelevant. For one thing, secession was not the issue before the court so there was no reason to address its constitutionality.  Grier's opinion stated this clearly:


 * ''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. I can only submit to the fact as decided by the political position of the government, and I am not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union when Congress have decided that she is not. It is a question of fact, I repeat, and of fact only. Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.
 * The ordinance of secession was adopted by the convention on the 18th of February, 1861, submitted to a vote of the people, and ratified by an overwhelming majority. I admit that this was a very ill-advised measure. Still, it was the sovereign act of a sovereign State, and the verdict on the trial of this question, "by battle," [n2]  as to her right to secede, has been against her. But that verdict did not settle any question not involved in the case.


 * I too have read the Dorf article, and it appears that he -- at least to a notable extent -- regards the majority opinion of the Chase court as being a fait accompli in terms of having the status of "settled law". After all, as JDCrutch points out, Dorf seems to agree quite a bit with Levinson, and is not shy about pointing out the weaknesses in both Lincoln's and anti-secession arguments. It is interesting as well that Dorf wrote the following as to why no court will ever likely rule on the question of the constitutionality of secession.  To wit:  That conclusion in turn suggests that no court will likely answer the question--except perhaps in the way that the Supreme Court in Texas v. White gave its retroactive approval to the verdict of the Civil War battlefield. (BTW -- lest some construe it that way -- I am in no way, shape, or form advocating secession)


 * Finally, I totally support JDCrutch's proposal. That is, as the best option, eliminate the Texas v. White section completely. Barring that, then a neutrally worded inclusion of a summary of the dissenting opinion...one in which a significant number of court members joined.  This was all I ever wanted anyway, and it was worded devoid of any POV on my part.TexasReb (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Grier's dissent doesn't address the constitutionality of secession. It hints at it with the "sovereign state" statement, but it doesn't provide a basis for the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the act of secession by the state.  The dissenting opinion is concerned with the de facto status of the state both during the war and Reconstruction.  Since it doesn't provide a constitutional basis for secession it isn't relevant.  It would be absurd to include it only to have to say that, and that would be required. Red Harvest (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, Grier's opinion didn't address the constitutionality of secession because it was not the issue before the court. Regardless, the dissenting opinion as to de-facto status of a state of the Confederacy during the War and Reconstruction is definitely relevant as the majority decision opines upon the same issue. It was in response to the majority opinion on that very point.  Actually, things would really be a lot simpler if the whole she-bang was eliminated and taken elsewhere. TexasReb (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The opinion on secession appears a necessary portion of the ruling, even though it was not the issue before the court. Without it, jurisdiction is problematic (as illustrated by the dissents of Swayne and Miller that rejected jurisdiction because of the "present condition" of Texas!)  That eliminates the obiter dictum conclusion.  By ruling on secession and the status of the state during the war, Chase rejected the most radical Republican theory of the condition of secessionist states.  That nobody contested that secession was constitutional (although Grier hints at it) doesn't change the fact that it was necessary for establishing jurisdiction on the key issues.  In fact, it provides even stronger support for Chase's majority opinion that it was not.  I'm still waiting for reliable sources providing a consensus that Chase's opinion on secession was dicta.  I've only seen the dicta claim used in fringe arguments over the years, so if there is some consensus historical opinion that we should know about, please provide it.


 * The majority opinion of editors so far is that the section is relevant and should remain. The same majority does not see the need for the dissent which is not relevant to the article. Red Harvest (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I will give you one thing, you are consistent in your adamant belief that anything which goes against your own opinions on Texas v. White -- or most anything else related to the WBTS -- is a "fringe" viewpoint. All you have to do is  some exploring around to find sources which believe Chase's opinions necessary to reach the conclusion he did -- and were already decided beforehand anyway in order to justify Lincoln's actions -- was dicta.  Although I am sure no matter how many you come up with, you would dismiss them as "unreliable".  As it is, JDCrutch gave a very good summary of it (one doesn't have to be a lawyer to present good legal rationale...although he may well be an attorney for all I know).  He said what I have been saying the whole time, but he explained it much better and in much better detail.


 * You seem to predicate your whole thesis on why the dissenting opinion should not be included upon the fact Grier's position did not address secession. As has been said many times, he (and the others) didn't address it for the simple reason it was not the issue before the court. He refused to be drawn into a debate on a by then moot point which had been decided by force of arms.  However, the dissent is very relevant in that it disputes Chase's reasoning as to the question of jurisdiction and -- by indirect extension -- his personal opinion on the nature of the Union and why secession itself had never been a fact.  To this, of course, the Chief Justice resorted to amazing contradictions and leaps of logic; such as attempting to "prove" Texas had never left the Union, yet simultaneously trying to square it with the fact they had no representation in Congress and were under military rule. As the dissenting opinion said, it was based on "legal fiction". On a related tangent, I sincerely believe this is the real reason why certain editors do not want the summary of such  presented.  That is, because to do so would directly stack the two up side by side and could conceivably damage a "sacred cow" of many pro-Union historians; the ironclad belief that secession was "unconstitutional".  Again, I can't prove this, but I stand by my opinion on it.


 * You obviously regard consensus as an end all and be all. On relatively minor or unimportant topics it might well be a decisive factor.  But the one being discussed here is not of that ilk.  It involves a controversial issue that is not only disagreed upon by historians, but played a major role in American history.  Thus, if the Texas v. White article is not eliminated completely, and no compromise is reachable on the inclusion of a neutral and non-POV summary of the dissenting opinion, then the only alternative is to request moderation and/or arbitration to settle it.  In any event, you might want to re-think your surety about having a majority as it stands on inclusion (assuming the article remains).  Three are against it (including you), two are for it (myself and JDCrutch), and Virginia Historian has indicated he thought the opinion was "of interest" and put forth a suggestion/compromise as to wording (which can be found at the start of sub-section 8.1, "Alternate Language).


 * But first things first. A proposal has been put forth by JDCrutch to strike the article completely.  I suggest the first order of business be to put it to a straight-up, slap-down, recorded individual "yes" or "no" vote by each of the 6 main editors as to whether or not the Texas v. White section should stay or go.  That way there will be no mistaking where everyone stands.  A "yes" vote means taking it out.  A "no" vote means leaving it in.  I further suggest that it be confined to a simple yes or no answer, with a minimum of explanations or rationales.  This should be a vote where a majority (consensus)would be sufficient to pass or fail.  If anyone disagrees, then they should say so along with their vote.


 * I guess I will go first. I vote "yes".  I waive any further comments as my opinions have been expressed in other places on the Talk forum. TexasReb (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it – there is a need In this article for mention of the final legal obituary for the CSA. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

With apologies to Texasreb, I think an up-or-down vote here is pointless. Majority rule and consensus are very different things. If Wikipedia operates by consensus, then nothing can be done here, since there is no consensus on my proposal, and the most aggressive and persistent voice will prevail, regardless of the merits of the proposal. If Wikipedia operates by majority rule, assuming the five participants in this debate have the right to decide, my proposal is clearly doomed to fail.

I made my proposal hoping to spare the forum precisely the kind of tedious, repetitive argument that this has become (and I admit to a share of the guilt for that). Probably what I should have done was simply to delete the section on White, and throw the burden of justifying its reinstatement onto those who want it in the article: that would at least have required them to cite some reliable sources for their POV. But there is no shortage of biased scholars to support that POV, if editors could be troubled to cite them; and I thought it would be more civil to discuss the matter rather than acting unilaterally.

I had intended to bow out of the dispute, because I found that I was just repeating myself, but there may be one or two new points to be made in response to Red Harvest, who writes,
 * The opinion on secession appears a necessary portion of the ruling, even though it was not the issue before the court.

That is an oxymoron. Only the issues before the court, issues fully argued by counsel and considered by the court, are necessary to any court's holding, because if they were not before the court, they are not part of the holding. Opinions that go beyond the issues before the court are dicta and are of no judicial authority (though, as with White, they may be of historical importance in the proper context). See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399-400 (1821). The jurisdictional question in White was decided wholly on the basis of the court's interpretation of the acts of Congress:
 * It suffices to say, that the terms of the [Reconstruction] acts necessarily imply recognition of actually existing governments; and that in point of fact, the governments thus recognized, in some important respects, still exist.

The entire judgment of the court, in practical terms, flows from that finding, not from any of the previous speculation as to secession and the nature of the Union, and the decree would have been the same if Chase's dicta had been entirely left out of the opinion. That is clear from the dissent, which takes no issue with Chase's dicta on secession (not because Grier agrees with Chase, but because the issue was not before the court), but disagrees with the majority as to the effect of the Reconstruction Acts. As Mark Graber said in the article I quoted above, White is a case about Reconstruction, not about the C.S.A., and it belongs in that context, not here.

I will not speculate on the motives of the editors who want White covered in this article, but I will ask them: Is there any reason for including it, other than the desire for an "authoritative" declaration that the Confederate States of America were illegitimate and that their formation was unlawful and treasonable? That position is certainly entitled to acknowledgement in the articles on Secession in the United States, the War of 1861, and Reconstruction (within the bounds of NPOV), but it is not neutral here, and the declaration of it in White has no place in the present article. Otherwise, there is no reason to exclude other significant opinions on the question, such as those I listed earlier from notable Confederate officials.

Rjensen romantically calls White "the final legal obituary for the C.S.A.", but obituaries seldom speculate on the legitimacy of the deceased's birth. Chase's pronouncements on secession and the nature of the Union in White were not at all "final", inasmuch as scores of arguments on those questions appeared in the ensuing years, some rather more candid and judicious than Chase's; and the controversy continues to this day, even among respectable scholars, not to mention Wikipedia editors. I have already disposed of White's "legal" status: it is no more a judicial pronouncement than Bledsoe's brief in defense of Davis (which, tedious and occasionally sophistical as it is, makes a far more compelling legal-historical argument). No more is White an obituary of the C.S.A.: it is a manifesto against Radical Reconstruction, and it belongs in the article on that era, not here. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Summarizing and distilling: you still can't provide reliable secondary sources declaring it dicta.  It remains your personal opinion unsupported by sources.  Your claim that it was based purely on acts of Congress conflicts with the structure of the opinion.  And no, at this stage, a single source for the claim of dicta would not do.  It would require some historical consensus (as seen in Dred Scott concerning dicta for example.)


 * As for TexasReb's up-or-down vote, it stands at 4 vs. 2 to keep. Red Harvest (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless I missed something, Red Harvest, I am not sure of how you came up with your tally as to the vote. Can you explain this one...? TexasReb (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unable to refute my arguments, Red Harvest falls back on a demand for authority, forgetting that the burden lies with the editor advocating inclusion to provide sources supporting same. I have already supplied authority for the irrelevance of White to the C.S.A., which Red Harvest has not rebutted.  Red Harvest will nevertheless win this dispute because I have no further taste for it. That's how "consensus" works.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 19:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your arguments have easily been refuted (once again.) The section is already referenced (and I didn't write it) so there isn't any need for me to rebut your assertion of dicta.  The burden of proof is all on you at this point. Red Harvest (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, JDCrutch, this sort of thing is par for the course in this article talk page. I have experienced it for quite a while. There is a "bully pack" mentality that will shout down, shut down, and use every tactic allowed to censor those who disagree with them. I honestly hate to put it in these terms, but I don't know of any other way to say it. Some editors don't want to discuss/consider/compromise at all. They rely on numbers; they shut off, from the beginning, any attempt at reasonable discussion, when reasonably discussion would work and be productive to the article itself. That is telling, and has been for some time...  TexasReb (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a useful element in this article but discussion of it should be abbreviated, not in its own section, I agree with the edit demoting it as it now appears. My earlier preference for reporting that there was a dissent in a footnote is met by the inline link to the article Texas v. White. As to the merits of the case, if secession were legal, post-war Texas would have had to pay up on the bonds floated by the secessionist government at Texas v. White, so the dicta discussion seems misplaced.


 * Again, the theory of secession is not upheld to grant the petition of any litigant to my knowledge. No lawyer now tries to get the money back from post-war Texas. Because it — the fact that unilateral secession is illegal — is settled law, there is no case. The reference in Texas v. White certainly does apply to CSA. The secessionist governments forming it were illegitimate, CSA was illegitimate, the rebellion was illegitimate, so the bonds floated to finance it were illegitimate, there is no binding contract for illegitimate purposes before the law.


 * The discussion here seems to have been sidetracked into a debate over the merits of Texas v. White, a favorite hobby horse of the "Republic of Texas" and neo-Confederate groups. When I point out continuity of government before during and after the rebellion is upheld in five Supreme Court cases, across two Chief Justices, we have ad hominem attacks on Chase but none yet presented for Chief Justice Morrison Waite who generally held to restrict federal powers under the Reconstruction Acts, --- but he also wrote upholding the continuity of state government, and therefore the illegality of unilateral secession, citing Texas v. White as settled law on this subject. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If anybody has sidetracked this discussion into a debate over the merits of Texas v. White, it is TVH. The merits of the case, as I've said repeatedly, are irrelevant to the C.S.A. TVH seems to have categorized me as a "neo-Confederate", whatever that is, which is a ludicrous error (see, e.g., my user page), as well as an argmentum ad hominem. He insists on trying to refight the Civil War in this space. Apart from being gratuitous (hint: guess which side won!), that is doubly inappropriate here, where discussion should be limited to the article; but it does stand as an effective admission, in case anybody had a doubt, that TVH's position as to the article is ideological, not neutral. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, TVH has pointed out that the opinion you are expressing is one used by neo-Confederate groups. This is the same experience I've had on this matter.  Your points have once again been refuted and you still haven't produced reliable sources for the dicta claim, so here we are.  It's the same problem that TexasReb frequently encounters. Red Harvest (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ J.D. Crutchfield. Alright, I read your user page and I see you are a Virginia gentleman who has attained “esquire” status by merit as one of natures aristocracy as Jefferson put it, one of America’s priesthood, as DeToqueville put it. I certainly apologize for any ludicrous error on my part, as well as any argumentum ad hominem, as I am sure you do, too.


 * I concede Crutchfield may have a special knowledge of how neo-Confederates support the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, but I do not know of it, and he has not shared it. Rather, their objection revolves around mislabeling “dicta” in the case, dismissing the relevance of ruling on the unlawfulness of secession legislatures to the illegitimacy of their bond issues, and ad hominem attacks on Chief Justice Chase, arguments which resemble Crutchfield's.


 * I have had two posts of some twenty lines combined in this section, both related to the article in some way. I doubt very much that I have “derailed" the discussion here, — it is somewhat lengthy — I do believe the thinking of Chief Justice Waite on the subject should be considered, so as to get out of the partisan anti-Lincoln-Chase intellectual trap. Continuity of government before, during and after the rebellion, --- and illegality of unilateral secession, are two sides of the same coin.


 * I approach the CSA with a neutrality appropriate to the sacrifices of both sides — regardless of the historical imperatives others may see, I see contingency in history — so I have been sympathetic to removing references to Texas v. White here when they were first objected to as an ex post facto ruling. But it seems I was mistaken in my first impression, it is more a part of reconciliation, reducing the financial burdens on impoverished post-war Texans who had supported the C.S.A. Keep it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When a discussion turns this nasty, with more said about the participants than about the topic, it's time to end it. While I'm not aware of any argumentum ad hominem I might have committed, I am sorry to have descended at times to personalities.  Good-bye.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't leave quite yet, Jdcrutch, if you don't mind not doing so. There is no other way to resolve this issue except by some kind of intervention by higher authorities.  As I have said repeatedly, I promise to abide by whatever ultimate decision is made.  If "I" lose then I lose, so be it.  But I am not going to surrender this without objection; it has gotten way to far out of hand.  That is (to say for the umpteenth time) to allow certain editors to rule the roost on what goes or doesn't on this page without any challenge at all. That is not any sort of "threat" -- and for damn sure not a "bluff" or anything remotely like it.


 * No, it is just sort of a disgusted weariness with this whole damn thing. From the beginning, the section never belonged to begin with and, if it ever did, it should include neutral, non-POV, material on the dissenting opinion.  But some object to that for no reason other than, seemingly, they just don't want it there.  And, like you succinctly say, the discussion is often "nasty"...for no good reason. Oh well, again, I am going to request intervention. TexasReb (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"No slave revolts took place anywhere during the war."
What about slaves who escaped to reach Union lines and often join Union forces? What about other forms of resistance? There were important during the civil war, and at best, this statement is misleading. 108.56.154.33 (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it can be stated as " no major slave revolts erupted during the Civil War." Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Like the IP editor stated, the original wording carryied some implications that would mislead the reader.  I had noticed it as well.  The additional wording about slaves making their own path to freedom addresses the issue. Red Harvest (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious statement "Elliot's conclusions have been widely disputed by many Texan historians of the Civil War"
TexasReb added this section with two cites but provided no page numbers for either. First of all, two is not "many" (and there are others whose work seems to support Elliot) But more importantly do they directly contradict Elliot as claimed? The section goes on to say "on the grounds it's premises attempt to blur the lines between actual active support for the Union as in being a northern sympathizer, and that failure to back every measure undertaken by the central Confederate government was tantamount to giving passive support to the Union. When, in fact, the two cannot be combined; that the overwhelming majority of white Texans supported the Confederacy throughout the war." Is this what the two authors said? I'm skeptical and would like to see actual quotations here in "talk". Howell's work is an anthology...so it really needs to cite the historian that makes the claim. In reading Chapter 1, studies by Alwyn Barr that serves as on overview of the new studies I see no real support for the statement in this section. Red Harvest (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good god, RH. Do you just get a kick out of stirring up crap? Or just need attention? Or have some kind of personal issue? Who cares if you are "skeptical"?  This is crazy. I would like to see your sources for disputing it (what I said), and I don't need pages to furnish what sources I provided. Read the damn things and what I said was provided all over the books themselves as just common-sense...and many more history books confirm the same. I have read Elliot and he said himself he was, in the preface of writing the piece he did, that he got "negative" reactions from native Texans concerning his conclusions.  This guy obviously had a certain bias (just as you and I do), as he was a northerner who wished Texas had not taken the course it did.   The record of Texas role in the Confederacy speaks for itself, in any event.  What you, on the other hand, need, is to back up your own reasons for why -- apparently -- you have justification for marking my  disputation "dubious."  Have you ever even read Elliot's work? It was largely opinion.   In any event, how in the hell could it be otherwise when Texas was one of the original Confederate States and the second to last to be "re-admitted" to the Union for the simple reason the state refused to comply with certain demands for the said re-admission.  This makes no sense at all...not even counting (pun intended} the sheer numbers of Texans who fought on which side.   In a nutshell, Elliot was wrong and his writings, premises, and sources were silly and false. And please provide -- since you are such a stickler for sources -- the "others" whose work supports his baseless conclusions...TexasReb (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * TexcasReb is just a troll--he imagines past events and ignores RS. we can ignore his rants. Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a troll, right. And a "ranting" one at that, I am. Brilliant retort, RJ LOL *rolls eyes * Irony aside, whassmatter, just a little jealous for some reason?  But to hell with all that, I ain't gonna lower myself to the level you and certain others are.  I have watched the "operation" for quite a while and know the skewed rules of the "game".  No  true "guts" involved, but just a certain kind of "consensus" that others cannot buck for the simple fact they are outnumbered -- just like in Texas v. White -- and that is supposedly the final authority. I saw all that happen, not only with me, but with JCrutch, who provided great information on the subject. Same as in this case, although it hasn't come to a conclusion yet.  I want to see the backup of Elliot's case, anything wrong with that?  A troll...hahahaha.  Come up with something better than that, prof... TexasReb (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Texasreb, no, this isn't about "stirring up crap". I had thought the passage was strange before, and my attention was brought back to it in light of another person's edit of it.  In trying to understand what was wrong with it, I learned that the passage was another one of your edits.  I guess that shouldn't be a surprise given your edit history.  At any rate, above you have confirmed the problems with the passage:
 * The basic statement is WP:Synthesis. Whether or not other historians have different views, it does not appear that "Elliot's conclusions have been widely disputed by many Texan historians of the Civil War."  It is another example of your own bias getting in the way of basic reading comprehension.
 * You are showing your propensity for WP:OR again by summarizing whole books through your own astigmatic lens rather than accurately conveying the authors' conclusions. It is because I have checked one of the cites as well as other works that I recognize the problem.  There are elements of the statements I accept, but they are not backed with specific cites (as in page numbers or quotes).  They also seem to have been added merely as an attempt to discredit an author.
 * I gave you the opportunity to provide page numbers/passages to back your claims. You refused, so the solution is to remove the paragraph. Red Harvest (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You gave me an "opportunity? You really do seem to be full of yourself in lots of ways.  Regardless, yes, I am "discrediting" an author because it makes no sense as to what he (Elliot) writes. Simple as that.  Here are the real facts:


 * Elliot's thesis was based on a three-fold consideration. To start, his conclusion was -- recalling from memory -- that probably only a third of the Texas population "actively" supported the Confederacy. A third, he claims, were "neutral." Another third, again he claims, gave "passive support" to the Union (i.e. northern states which kept the name by default). I appreciate that you seem to be open to some kind of agreement, however...


 * Where the issue comes in is the "devil in the details." First of all, he makes no distinction between black and white Texans, which skews his figures. At that time, a third of people living in Texas were black -- mostly slaves -- who obviously were, for the most part, "neutral", in practical terms. By that standard, Mississippi and South Carolina would have been over half "neutral."


 * The real issue is, again, how Elliot blurs the lines between "active" support for the Union -- as in northern sympathy -- and what he attempts to define as "passive" support. A perfect example is -- from his work -- Throckmorton who opposed secession, yet later was a general in the Confederate Army because he went with his state and new nation.  That is a prime example of what I mean by deliberately "blurring" the lines between of how Elliot makes his "case". The author of the piece also brought up opposition to the draft and keeping some troops in the home state for defense rather than sending them to the armies, was construed as "passive" support for the Union.


 * So how many states in the Confederacy, in toto, could the same conclusion not be reached by using Elliot's editorial (which was what it amounted to)? Support for the CSA "perhaps" being "weakest" in Texas?  LOL.  What about the Upper South States?  Wanna make a comparison with real figures?


 * Now, if you are suggesting a solution being to remove the entire paragraph? Yes, I would agree with that... TexasReb (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Texasreb, seems you are projecting again--you are full of yourself since again you believe your opinion is more important than reliable sources. Afterall, your standard editing mode is to write your personal POV, then sometimes throw in some references to support it...often primary ones that you use to spin your own out of context narrative.  That is the problem, Wikipedia editing is not about what YOU want.  It is about accurately representing the subjects with the best information possible.  So take all of your juvenile LOL's, ROFL's, etc. to some chat room and reserve this space for actual editing, NOT your personal opinion.


 * Your opinion of Elliot is irrelevant to this article. Unlike your original research, Texas historians take a different view since the TSHA online handbook lists Elliot as one of three sources in the bibliography for the Unionism article, and one of those cited is the author of the TSHA Unionism article, Walter Buenger. In addition we have McCaslin's work about Unionism in North Texas and others writing about the hill country.  One of the things that comes across is that Texans were on average not terribly eager to go off and fight for the Confederacy. As Wooster writes in another TSHA article, "two-thirds of the Texans enrolled in the military spent the war in the Southwest."  Other authors comment about the focus of Texans on frontier defense, concerns about slave insurrection, as well as Unionism as primary reasons that many tried to stay near home.


 * I don't know whether the claim that support for the Confederacy as a nation was weakest in Texas is strong or not. I'll defer to reliable sources.  It certainly had some competition from Tennessee.  That Texas was one of the original states to secede doesn't weigh much in the analysis since it was far enough removed that it had little immediate fear of the consequences militarily or economically, while the states of the Upper South had far more to fear from both. Red Harvest (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Red Harvest-- that is very well put indeed. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL I ain't one of your undergrad students, "professor", so if that is a "dig" at me? Then big deal.  Most of what you do is call names and sling insult and falsehoods of your own creation.  Who cares? TexasReb (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And etc., etc. Why don't you ever address the real point when you are challenged?  Because you can't. You make a claim of "reliable sources", then you can't back it up with how it is reliable in terms of actually providing evidence of your own as to how Elliot's work actually made a case?  And your use of the language really just proves it.  The issue here is Elliot's work as to actual support for the Confederacy in Texas and thus far you just mess up your own position as in the linear sense of being able to respond the particulars.  You make a claim, then retreat from the original, when you cannot refute the original. "Dubious" seems to be one of your favorite modes of objectio to use when you make a big production about something.  There ain't a damn thing dubious about it.


 * So back and read carefully. Nothing presented ever said "Unionism" was not present in Texas. It was in every other Southern state as well. Just as there was "Confederate" sympathy in most northern states, and the comparisons are valid between the two regions, relatively speaking, for obvious reasons. So what are you even saying?  Why don't you make an argument without deflection? Stick to the initial point, in other words.


 * Reliable sources? Oh boy, you actually dare to defend Elliot when you can't back up what he says?  This is almost funny.  On a related tangent, the whole page is becoming a "spokespeak" for a northern viewpoint of view as to the existence of the Confederacy and what was the principle for it.


 * And I will repeat again, if you want to take out the whole sub-section, then I would definitely go along with it. It made no sense from the very beginning. TexasReb (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously you are having great difficulty understanding how this whole Wikipedia thing is supposed to work, despite lengthy efforts by many editors to educate you. The "real point" is that you keep inserting your opinion without providing accurate renditions of reliable sources that support it.  Your edits are often dubious because they are original research or synthesis, as you have once again demonstrated in this section.  I asked for page cites because if various historians were saying what you claimed then it was worth keeping as counterpoint.  But I also knew your history, and had looked through what I could of one of the two sources and did not find support for your claim there.  Your response was to refuse to cite pages.  So I removed your entries because they appeared to represent original research/synthesis (in other words they were your opinion, not necessarily the stated assertions of the quoted authors.)


 * I don't have to "back up what he (Elliot) says." If the citation of his work is inaccurate, then it should be changed--I have not seen that challenge made, only your opinion that he is wrong.  But the accuracy of his claim is not my responsibility to uphold.  With what I have read of Texas ACW history I see reasons for the assertions, but I also see other states that were in the same league.  So it passes a basic sniff test, particularly since it refers to the initial stage in 1861.  That unionism in Texas was bloodily suppressed is well established fact.  TSHA historians don't seem to be rejecting Elliot's work, so your opening statement appears to be false.


 * I'm well acquainted with the varying degrees of support from one end to the other in various states--particularly Missouri which makes Texas loyalty discussions look like child's play. These aren't easy things to summarize in a non-dedicated section because of the nuances.  (McCaslin has an interesting take on how communities reacted for example.)  It really looks as if you have misread the existing paragraph and responded with a knee-jerk opinion piece of your own.  That's your problem, not ours. Red Harvest (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry RH, I haven't forgotten about you and your post, just haven't had time to respond to this malarkey. And my be a while before I get to the next one...


 * In any event I have no difficulty at all understanding it. Apparently you cannot grasp that -- in spite of your high opinion of yourself -- what you call "educating me" is laughable. So I don't need your tutelage -- if I do I will ask for it -- and I can figure out the rules myself. Yes, I constantly read up on them (I'm sure you know them all by heart and never unintentionally ran afoul of one, huh? I wouldn't be surprised if you actually said "no" LOL") Now I will give you that, a time or two, some things in your posts you actually seemed to impart a certain amount of information I actually gleaned something from).


 * BTW the LOL? and LMAO's? Fact is, some of the things said on these talk pages deserve nothing more.  That of one editor in particular with his juvenile name-calling. So if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then don't worry about it.  Lots of the LOL type stuff are self-directed anyway


 * But most of what you euphemistically label "education" is almost invariably (from a couple of other editors, on this particular page) nothing but labeling anything they either do not agree with or (in some cases) apparently just don't want read (i.e. Texas v. White dissent) as "original", "unreliable" "dubious" etc. ad nauseam. So spare me that presentation which seems to characterize it as a helpful attempt to guide a clueless student. Not that I would necessarily need it in any case (like I say, if I do I will ask) but don't p**s down my leg and tell me it's raining. What is usually is is revert properly sourced edits, then accusing me of starting an edit war; Accuse me of violating rules, but then using a "dubious" (see, I can say it too) interpretation of the rules. A great example in in the Texas v. White Talk. One editor would cite rules I supposedly violated then, when I quoted directly from the "rule book", would deflect and cite something else, and so on and so on, but never being specific with his own rationale from the said "rule book." Anyone  can look at that page and see it for themselves.  Then finally, has to resort to the most outrageous name-calling and almost libelous accusations.  Geez. Well, I will give you credit for not having gone that low!


 * And incidentally, it wasn't that I can't cite pages, what I asked was why I needed to when a number of sources in this article are not paged (except for those that support a northern apologist viewpoint in many cases)? And ah contraire.  I already have one (from Gone to Texas) and just need to get the one from Ernest Wallace (Texas in Turmoil)to insert it(gotta locate the book first, as it is boxed away from a move not long ago).  But if you happen to have it, you can easily read it yourself.  I can pretty much quote from general memory though: "This account of a dissatisfied Unionist minority, though historically essential, must be put in its proper perspective. The overwhelming majority of Texans supported the Confederacy throughout the war with undiminished devotion, on both the battlefield and homefront..."   I did make one mistake though: I accidently left out "Gone to Texas" and used another book's title. I had just been reading the latter and wasn't thinking when I added it. I am sure it probably says the same thing, but want to be sure before I ad it as a third source.


 * And I know your history as well, so let's don't get holier than thou. And which source was it? The one I am talking about above mistakenly added?  Because if you say it was Wallace's book then you obviously didn't look thru it very well at all. And oh please, how the hell could my "response" be to refuse to cite pages when this is the first I have heard about it?  Lord.  In any event, I said I was going to correct that.


 * LOL I just love that parenthetical phrase you used attempting to "explain" to me what original research is. Uh, I actually have a degree in journalism, won a number of awards at the state level, and have even been published a couple of times in minor historical/genealogical magazines.


 * No, you do not have to back up what Elliot said and my real point was not about the content of Elliot's work (which I already said I was going to address with page numbers), but the opening statement of ("Support for the Confederacy was perhaps weakest in Texas"). Now that was a bit "dubious" in prefacing, and seemingly reflected an unsupported opinion based on one source with no basis of comparison offered.  For one thing, Elliot never even made that claim.  Regardless of how suspect his conclusions were reached about support in Texas, he never said it was "weakest".  Even he never went that far.  Admittedly, it has been a good while since I read the article, but I remember the most important parts and themes.


 * And why do you still persist in clinging to this nonsense that it was "my opinion" that he was wrong? That it was my POV and then added the support?  I cited what several Texas historians have said, how is that "my opinion."? I clearly said his work had been disputed by some Texas historians. And it has. I merely prefaced it with a relevant lead in.  Yes, I do disagree with Elliot...but not because of some kind of wishful historical thinking on my part, but because it has been disputed by reputable historians. I have seen the same thing on countless sections and nothing wrong with that provided it is only done as an introduction to the source(s) themselves. That accusation is what is really juvenile and comes across as more reflective of a personal grudge.  Sure, it is true there is no love lost between us (at least on this an similar topics; I don't know you personally).


 * But...in the interest of fairness, in going back and reading I will agree that the specifics of why the sources were correct could indeed be construed as my own analysis. Not POV as in editorializing, by any means; but rather I agree I should have sourced the analysis. And when I find it again, I will in my rewrite. Satisfied?   However, the lead-in will remain as it speaks but a truism.


 * Unionism was in every state, and I am familiar with it to, and can state unequivocally that Texas' support for the Confederacy far exceeded anything in the Upper South and, with the possible exception of South Carolina and Mississippi, was pretty much on par with the other states of the Lower South. And if Elliot's conclusions about exactly what constitutes "neutrality", "active and passive support for the Union" and "active support for the Confederacy" were applied to other states in the Lower South as well (see the delineation of the three-fold considerations in my original post on this talk page) then I'd bet the cotton crop it would be little different from what was said about Texas. In fact, I know it wouldn't.


 * Now then, tell me what TSHA historians support Elliot's conclusions? I mean in using Elliot's methodology? Not deflecting with something about the "bloody suppression" of Unionism.  There were not that many Unionists in the state to begin with (I am talking about as in "northern sympathizers who were outright northern supporters), but you make it sound like there was some widespread campaign of terror!   There were two incidents that, however unfortunate, in the whole scheme of things, could not even really be called major incidents as in a horrible loss of life.  The one with the small group of German free thinkers was condemned by Texas authorities, and the incident in Gainsville, when read it detail as to accounts, has some issues as well, on both sides. In any event, it was mostly the actions of a mob.  Something that happens in every war when passions are high.


 * And I know what Wooster said (I have his book around here somewhere as well), but it doesn't say anything not generally known and certainly doesn't support your own POV conclusions that Texas were not anxious to fight the war. That is belied by the numbers who volunteered en-masse and enthusiastically, and is verified by numerous first-and accounts of the day. And by the overwhelming support for secession. So for your claim to have any validity at all has to be stacked up relative to the other states of the Confederacy based on the same criteria you used (whatever it was). Care to share it?  And most Texas units did not stay in the "Southwest", in the way you seem to suggest, unless you either count it as part of the Western Theatre, or to a much lesser extent, in legitimate defense of the general Trans-Mississippi Theatre(as ordered by Confederate military authorities).  And of course there is the famous expedition into New Mexico which was part of an overall military operation to secure it for the Confederacy.


 * That is really funny to hear you talk about "knee jerk" reactions! I have never seen anything like the knee jerk reactions of the northern apologist faction, in removing material they didn't like and using the flimsiest excuse for doing so. Then, of course, appealing to a "consensus", knowing full well which editors hold the majority.  I don't know if it was a Freudian slip or not -- I doubt it was -- but that term "ours" says quite a bit!  Yep, it does and you know exactly what I mean.  I believe JCrutchfield discovered it to in the Texas v. White discussion (actually, there was little real discussion at all in the proper sense of the word).  And in spite of his great arguments about the merits of including the dissent in the case (especially him giving a good lesson on the meaning of "dicta!), he (understandably) finally quit in disgust, knowing full well there was no point in continuing to make a case when "consensus" is obviously controlled by certain editors sharing the same northern biases. But hey, *shrug" if you want to be a part of that?  Well, that's your problem, not mine.


 * On a related tangent, the Texas v. White issue hasn't gone away, I just haven't had time to make a formal request for arbitration by using the template and it may be some time before I can. But of course, all the editors on this page will be invited as participants, as will JCrutchfield. But like I say, that may be a ways off. And oh yeah, I read your rationale for removal of the article under discussion here and you cited it was done by agreement. I didn't mean just removal of my part, I mean the whole thing so it could be started from scratch.  That is what I meant when I said the whole thing was ridiculous anyway. I don't see how you could not know that, be oh well.  As I said, my section is going to be rewritten and added back.


 * Now then, I am locate Wallace's book and you can bet it will be going in there, along with GTT, and others I know of. So I will be back whenever I get a chance.  Later. TexasReb (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Turmoil in Texas book has been located and the page found. It will appear, along with the by Randolph Campbell in his book Gone to Texas. And additional sources will be added as they are located. I intend to begin writing that section at first opportunity, although very doubtful it will be done today, and could be several days or so. TexasReb (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You could save yourself and everyone else a lot of time by actually writing properly cited statements rather than the endless tomes of editorializing. You've now stated you have degrees in history and journalism, but one would not know that from reading your edits. Red Harvest (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh spare me your sophomoric digs. What you personally think in that regard doesn't matter a lick to me in the whole scheme of things. And there were not "endless tomes of editorializing" and you know it.  My comment about having a degree in journalism was only in response to your seemingly condescending attempt to explain "original research" to me, when I know full well what it is. If not for that I would have never even brought it up.  And I agreed earlier I should have sourced the analysis of Elliot's conclusions. Of course, I concluded the same even before I read it elsewhere, but the fact remains I should have used the latter as the source.  And as relates to the subject at hand, whether some of the content was improperly properly sourced or not, what about them violates journalistic style?  One doesn't really have anything to do with the other.  That is apples and oranges. Likewise with history. What have I ever written that was false history, even if the said history written should have been properly sourced according to Wiki rules. Again, apples and oranges.  That is ridiculous.


 * But anyway, I didn't come in here to continue a p***ing contest with you. There has been enough of that on both sides and is non-productive in any case. I am just here to post my revised edit (for now, at any rate). 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Something to note in the paragraph concerning Elliott is that some of the information presented is not what he actually said. His work appears in "Lone Star Blue and Gray; Essays on Texas in the Civil War", (edited by Ralph Wooster) and I read it yesterday. In any event, the paragraph in the "Unionism" section reads: "Claude Elliott estimates that only a third of the population in early 1861 supported the Confederacy" However, in his actual article he did not confine it to early 1861. Instead he wrote: "It is extremely doubtful, therefore, whether one-third of the people of Texas actively supported the Confederacy". In addition, Elliott's piece is titled "Union Sentiment in Texas, 1861-1865". Thus, I suggest the "early 1861" phrase be stricken from the paragraph. I will do it if no one else wants to. TexasReb (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finally providing the actual cites. However, only Wallace has directly contradicted Elliott's conclusion about the extent of disaffection with the Confederacy, which is a far sight from "Elliot's conclusions have been widely disputed by many..." or even "some" as it now is written.  Instead, one conclusion is contradicted by the statement of one historian.  A journalist or historian should be able to see those obvious discrepancies. Red Harvest (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And Texas A&M history professor Dale Baum has this to say on p. 83 of The Shattering of Texas Unionism: "This idea of a Confederate Texas united politically against northern adversaries was shaped more by nostalgic fantasies than by wartime realities.  Putting aside the quelling of unionist sentiment by vigilante groups, which led to the murders of many alleged northern sympathizers, Texas Civil War history is, for the most part, a morose story of intragovernmental rivalries couples with wide-ranging disaffection that prevented effective implementation of state wartime policies."  Hmmm...that sounds really familiar.  And then he states many of the same things I observed earlier about Texas being far removed from the potential impacts of war, being naïve about the impact it would have, and being more interested in localism as he puts it rather than the Confederacy.  That should sound really familiar as well. Red Harvest (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am presently reading Lone Star Blue and Gray myself. Not a lot of time to write at the moment, but a few quick comments:


 * Wooster himself speaks of the enthusiasm which most Texans greeted the news of Davis's calling up for troops and the outbreak of war. I haven't read Baum yet (is it available on-line?)but will comment after I do so. But just on the surface of things, it appears he is saying nothing not true of every other Confederate state, as I have read them.  In any event, it states but a truism. Internal politics are always going to be a major player, and latter-day nostalgia become an intrinsic part of the history of any conflict. Ever read David Brinkley's "Washington Goes to War"?  It is about the homefront during WWII, and going by it, we are lucky to have even got our troops overseas -- much less have won so convincingly -- given the mountains of bureaucratic red-tape, departmental and service rivalries, special interests at work, etc.    But anyway, see below for more on Baum.


 * I am not going to quibble too much (at present) with the elimination of the determiner "some", but it is certainly accurate in the whole scheme of things as are there are undoubtedly more historians who take the same position; I have read them but simply don't have the sources available right at the moment for immediate quotation. Your revision makes the whole passage read awkwardly.  But more on that later.  Curiously though, how many sources -- in your estimation -- are needed to justify the use of "some"?  Three, Five, more?  This revision really seems "nitpicky", but I can live with it for the moment.


 * It seems -- no, it is obvious -- a disproportionate amount of attention is being given to Texas, when the whole sub-article is about Unionism (of whatever variety) in an article about the CSA in general. This is one reason (although I am not going to change anything at the moment), why the preface "Support for the Confederacy was perhaps weakest in Texas" should be eliminated or at least re-worded, as it is really a POV based on one source that has its own methodology issues, and no comparissons with other states. Also, you should be able to clearly see that Campbell too disputes Elliot as the latter's conclusion is that only a minority actively supported the Confederacy. I don't see how you could say otherwise. Campbell clearly states that the majority of white Texans supported the Confederacy throughout the war, which directly contradicts Elliot. That there was some dis-satisfaction with some CSA policies (as there was in every state, especially with draft laws) doesn't negate at all the fact most citizens clearly supported it in practice. I stand firmly behind that, as would most journalists and historians (professional or layman). Again, if anything, it is Elliot that has serious issues in the very questionable methodology used to arrive at his numbers. If you have read him, you should be able to see that for yourself.


 * Continuing on Baum, it appears that going by what you say about his piece, that he is giving emphasis to a "player" that is always going to be present in internal politics and using it to draw a misapplied conclusion about support for the war effort itself, when the two are not necessarily directly related. It really seems to say more about Baum's personal feelings than anything else.  But again, I want to read it first before getting into detail or countering it with other opinions.  Also, for it to carry a lot of weight, it would have to be shown that such was not true in other states as well, which relates to what was said about this whole sub-article giving an inordinate amount of attention to Texas (in fact, at present, an exclusive amount in terms of any one state).


 * Once again, I take issue with your seeming characterization of the killings/hangings of some radical Unionists as being widespread in the state. In both main instances, there is evidence that the North Texas affair was in response -- at least to a goodly extent -- over evidence that many of the main players intended to aid a yankee invasion of Texas. In the instance of the German freethinkers, they were violating draft laws although, yes, the suppression after the actual fight went beyond the boundaries of "a fair fight" and it was condemned by Texas authorities and a number of the soldiers who were with the Confederate band. But most Unionists (as in outright northern sympathizers)were not in perilous danger of being murdered in cold blood(although certainly it was wise to keep quiet, but that is true in war time every where when passions run high. Japanese Americans probably ran just as many risks in WWII).


 * I still dispute your analysis about the distance of Texas from the main theatres of war having much to do with the decision to secede. For one thing, many were convinced it would be done peacefully so it likely factored in little. Plus, no one really knew, should war break out, exactly what Union strategy was going to be.  The vast majority of Texans fought in the Western Threatre or, to a lesser extent, in the Trans-Mississippi, under orders from the government.  Plus the troops that stayed in Texas had pretty good reason as they were on an exposed frontier open to invasion from the west (which was the reason for the Silby expedition, which ultimately failed). As well as from the Gulf. So all in all, very few troops were really "home guard" in the proper sense. The vast majority of Texas troops were engaged in active defense of the Confederacy itself.


 * You brought up Walter Buenger a while back and I just finished reading his piece and he seems to back those who dispute Elliot. One notable point he made was that most Texans -- in good part because of their location and unique history -- did not give up on the idea of the benefits of being in a Union, but rather, transferred those feelings from the old Union to the new Confederacy. And the elections during the war indicated clear majority support for those candidates who gave enthusiastic support to the CSA.  As a point of comparison, as Buenger notes, prior to Lincolns election, moderate candidates carried the slate (Houston, even John Reagan, etc), but that changed radically.  Probably only in South Carolina was support for secession a majority opinion prior to the election of 1860 (they had the history with them). The feelings in other Lower South states could probably be summed up in the words of the Mississippi governor (paraphrased) "Mississippi will not be the first state to secede, but she will be second."


 * Far as that goes, had the Texas legislature been in secession (you know the story behind that ala' Gov. Houston's refusal to call it up), Texas could have easily been second or at least third as the legislature was staunchly secessionist. In fact, it is highly likely as -- along with South Carolina -- it was the only Lower South state where the "Cooperationists" (i.e. those who preferred the South go out en'masse rather than individually) did not make up a consequential percentage of the legislatures.  Undoubtedly  this is a major reason why in the other 5 states there was considerable opposition to immediate secession. The history of both Texas and South Carolina, even though different in many respects, was similar in the area of taking individual action.


 * Well, anyway, I have gone on far longer than I intended to. Got other things to attend to (trying to locate Baum being one of them).  BTW -- these latest exchanges should probably be inserted in a new Talk Section titled "Unionism Section" or some such.  I would have gone ahead and changed it, but that the earlier comments already appear in the summary as being for the "Dubious statement..." section.  However, if there is no objection, it should be done.  I will leave it up to you since yours is involved as well... TexasReb (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reagan Speech Inclusion
To Red Harvest: I do appreciate your comments left on my Talk Page. Thus, I will reword what could be considered a direct analysis of the same. That was my mistake, I agree. Also shorten the length of the quote (when I get around to it). Instead it will read:

U.S. Rep. John Reagan of Texas spoke to his northern colleagues on January 15, 1861, citing both slavery and economic concerns as causes of friction. ''You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals...You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions...''

That would seem to easily fit within the requirements for use of a primary source. On a related note, I see how this works occasionally as it has happened before. That is, some editors take turns with deletions so as to not cause any single one to exceed the three revision limit within a 24 hour period! It isn't rocket science. LOL. Also, I believe absolutely that the main objection by some has less to do with failing to use a secondary source for explanation that it does to keep the overwhelming emphasis on slavery. TexasReb (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Texasreb Wants to include the excerpt only because he thinks it refutes the dominant scholarship. But no scholars actually agree with him on that matter, and that's why it's another example of a fringe viewpoint unsupported by reliable secondary sources. That's why we don't want it. It works better on a Facebook page. Rjensen (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Of all the editors, RJensen, your opinions on the matter are the ones that matter least, to me. Your definition of a "fringe viewpoint" comes down to anything that goes against your Lincoln deification.  Sorry, professor, but your time has passed, in terms of that the said Lincoln cult is the only one acceptable. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We do not have evidence of the speech being widely reprinted in southern newspapers, or that it was reprinted in a pamphlet by South Carolina's 1860 Association or some such agency which might have given the speech a wide circulation. Is the Reagan Speech attributed to swaying the Deep South away from Union? If so, by which scholar? Texas was a trans-Mississippi state with two representatives prior to 1860. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with it, VH. It is in the Congressional Records. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Reagan's speech was reprinted from the Congressional Globe and circulated as a pamphlet. It is included in "Southern Pamphlets on Secession, November 1860-April 1861" edited by Jon L. Wakelyn.  The problem is that the entire speech does not say what Texasreb proposes to say above (i.e. "citing both slavery and economic concerns as causes of friction").  Texasreb's source is a small, small excerpt from what covers 14 pages in the book.  Wakelyn, in an intro to the Reagan speech puts it in its proper context when he writes:


 * "...Reagan stated that there was no time left to argue over the right of secession but he wanted to explain why Southern states had seceded. For him, slave property was at stake, and firsthand experience had taught him how abolitionists stirred slave violence."


 * No mention of economic causes as significant. We need to accept Wakeman's interpretation over Texreb's. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * PS It is also worth mentioning that the speech came during the debate on the report of the Committee of Thirty-three which produced the Corwin Amendment which was entirely about protecting slavery. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but no cee-gar, North Shore. And my revision makes no interpretation. It only adds a balance. It is understandable that you object to it.  Because?  It detracts from the slavery issue.  And interesting as well that you will accept an interpretation which you agree with over that I have revised my own inclusion to give no personal interpretation at all. Please don't try and bullshlit a bullshliter. Try as you might, Reagan's speech concerning the economic issues which lent to the friction cannot be ignored, except at the risk of an extremely warped view of the said causes of friction. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The speech really doesn't add anything new. At its core it repeats what the paragraph before it already summarizes concisely.  While Reagan makes some complaints about sectional issues he also makes it clear that the part that requires separation is "the inhuman alternative of unconditional submission to Republican rule on abolition principles, and ultimately to free negro equality and a government of mongrels or a war of races."  The other sectional issues (which were the natural result of a slave based agricultural economy) even viewed through Reagan's distorted lens didn't rise to the level of secession. Red Harvest (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does add something new. It brings in that economic matters as well as slavery was a reason for the ultimate secession of the Lower South states...something that northern apologists get apopletic about. Read sometime, "When In the Course of Human Events." by Charles Adams.  He freely admits that he grew up on northern history of the war.  But, like many, the more he explored it, the more he became convinced that it was all a sham.  That the northern reasons for invading the South were nothing more than economic.  The whole slavery issue and keeping the Union intact, were nothing more that a latter day justification that appealed to mass emotion.


 * Fact is, this whole article is the property of northern apologists who cannot tolerate anything that goes against their own viewpoints. Some worse than others, of course.  If they don't want certain things in there, then they will be deleted on the flimsiest of reasons.  I have long resigned myself to that.  Just have other editors who got disgusted and saw thru it, and finally just bowed out because they knew there was no appealing to any sort of balance at all.  It is nothing to be proud of.  Rather, it is the bulk weak mentality of those who do because they have the numerical superiority to get rid of anything that goes against what they want to have included. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again. NorthShoreman just deleted my revised addition. The old "tag team" game. LOL. No edit warring to it. All it shows is that there is a majority group who will delete anything they want and accuse the minority party of "edit-warring." when they don't give in to their pack-mentality. Which is all it is. There can never be any real discussion here because the other side is not open to it. It is rule by -- as JCrutch once said -- by fiat. I don't blame the bunch for being smug in their outlook of their position. After all, they hold the reins. But like Texas v. White, this will not go away, either. The neutrality of this article is a laughing joke. Meanwhile, I can only do what I can. Which is hope others will see my post on the talk page and that it makes a difference. Which is:

U.S. Rep. John Reagan of Texas spoke to his northern colleagues on January 15, 1861, citing both slavery and economic concerns as causes of friction. ''You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals...You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions...'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasreb (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 March 2015
 * It appears that User:Texasreb can't find sufficient consensus for including Reagan's quote on the page. Discussion seems to conclude the primary source excerpt is used out of context and doesn't accurately represent Reagan's full position. Therefore the quote stays out for now, and any attempt to reinsert it (without first mustering consensus) can be considered vandalism. I have largely stayed out of this situation, but IMHO this has become a behavior issue, not a content issue. Over time Texasreb's behaviors have demonstrated a battlefield mentality and a clear disposition to insert fringe points of view without obtaining consensus on a talk page. The user insults those who disagree with him and accuses them of false motives. The user repeatedly refactors talk discussions and often fails to sign talk page entries, even after prodding by multiple editors. That user has inserted the John Reagan speech excerpt at least five times in the last week, continuing even after a talk page discussion went against them. Over and over again the user has been blocked for edit warring on this page. The user is still edit warring today, in edit summary daring someone to revert the insertion. I can't help but conclude it appears the user is here for some reason other than to build an online encyclopedia. Texasreb, if you can't work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you can't work within Wikipedia. If you continue on this path, you will get blocked again, and eventually get yourself banned. Totally your choice, nobody else's. BusterD


 * Then ban me and get it over with. I will lick a toads ass before I will agree with this. And I will take it to the next level if necessary.  Buster?  I wish I could say different, I honestly do, but you are just one of the "gang".  You claim the title of moderator.  But you are anything but, in the true sense of the word.  Why don't you step back and really look at it?  Why don't you tell me what a "fringe viewpoint' really is.  Define it...?  What is wrong with the inclusion of parts of the Reagan speech, yet the Alex Stephens quotations can be included with impunity?


 * You are not even a good moderator, Buster. It is obvious where you stand; you are simply using the power of your position to force a censored policy of inclusion.   I have seen it on RJensens talk page.  And on mine.  You really can't say anything I have done wrong save including a certain quote.  If quoting a neutral speech of Reagan -- which mentions both economics and slavery -- as issues -- then there is no more to be said.


 * So go ahead and ban me, Buster. I will appeal it to the highest authority...but meanwhile will say for sure you that your are not worthy of being a true moderator. So go ahead, ban me.  I want to see what you can do.  You will have to live with it.   TexasReb (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And once again, we have an example of your uncivil behavior combined with yet another incompetent edit where you cut off part of the signature on another's comment. You are simply too willfully incompetent to be editing on Wikipedia.  You have no respect or understanding of the basic tenets.  You don't care and you won't change.  Your posts mostly consist of trolling. Red Harvest (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)