Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 19

Should we just delete Texasreb's Talk edits when they are cut and past disasters that foul up the discussion format and are unsigned?
What should we be doing about this, because the editor can't seem to figure it out? We get these multiple responses of uncivil vitriol that are inserted in others' posts, are unsigned, and generally make a mess of the talk page. Should we just delete them until he learns how to edit? He keeps threatening to seek intervention, I only hope he does because then maybe he'll be blocked for this sort of repetitive nonsense. Had enough of his crap yet? I have. Red Harvest (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you will go back and look, I went back and edited to include my signature. That was my mistake.  Seeking intervention.  Dad gum right I am going to.  Starting with the Texas v. White controversy.  Uncivil?  Uhhhh, gimme a break.  Your fellow editor and ally has posted more "uncivil" comments than I ever have, or ever would.  I see thru this whole thing.  And what cut and paste are you even talking about???  Pray be specific? TexasReb (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. And something else. I honestly don't care if you or anyone else gets me "banned."  I wouldn't want to be part of a censored article anyway -- where a few rule the roost by numerical superiority alone -- if there is that kind of outlook.   Which is all it is.  You have had enough of my "crap"? Awwww, poor fellow.  Translation is that you can't tolerate anything that goes against your own biases.  There is not a logical nor rule-violation at all on the latest revision of the Reagan quote that warrants deletion.  And I think you know it.  TexasReb (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On talk pages we normally don't delete intentional edits which reveal a pattern of behavior of an abusive editor; sometimes we might choose to revert an edit which deliberately refactors a discussion or is clear vandalism. Normally I prefer to leave everything the editor says and does right on the talk page, allowing the edits to speak for themselves. When we get into a situation involving administrators trying to sort who's been good and who's been bad, it's better to leave evidence undisturbed, but pointing out reversions with appropriate edit summaries. User:Texasreb appears to be on a mission to feel victimized. No reason to make it harder on them. Their own actions will soon cause a resolution of some sort. BusterD (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How the heck was I supposed to "go back and look" when at the time of my post, none of those changes had been made? Was I supposed to use a time machine to anticipate your corrections to your characteristically sloppy editing (which you often don't fix).  You have a habit of doing these sort of screwball edits without sorting it out...and even blaming your mistakes on others as part of your ongoing conspiracy theory.  It's been enough of a problem that I've created sections about it TWICE now on this talk page in the hopes that you might actually become more careful if it was brought to your attention.  I really would like for you to become a more proficient editor as it would cut short a great deal of the confrontations you are having.  I am not opposed to you balancing viewpoints, but that requires proper use of secondary sources rather than just making it up as you go along.  That is where the rub is.


 * There are so many rules violations in your editing that I'm looking forward to you getting your wish for intervention.  I don't believe I've ever requested ANI...but I'm sorely tempted. Yes, we all have our biases, but for some of us, our biases can be overcome by reason and sources. Red Harvest (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So give me an example, RH (by the way, which novel is your screen name taken from?). But be honest, there is nothing wrong at all with my inclusion of the speech of Reagan. Anymore than there is the one of Alex Stephens.  It really comes down to that you don't want it included.


 * Secondary sources? None needed in the way in the way I revised it.  There was no opinion at all as concerning preface.  If there were was, then please state it.


 * Conspiracy theories? Oh gawd.  Like everyone on there I have made my share of mistakes.  Geez.  Have you never?  And to come back to it, what in the hell is wrong with the Reagan quote.  It mentioned both slavery and economics.  What is wrong with that, as concerns violation of Wiki rules.  I really want to know. TexasReb (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Examples, I could give you dozens since you violate so many of the basics, but it isn't worth the trouble because when brought to your attention, you just ignore it and continue in the same manner. I've given you several examples and you've simply blown them off.


 * As for your mistakes, you avoided admitting to them (and used an OJ like "If I did it" approach to skirt the issue.) However, you did accuse unnamed others of causing the problem that you yourself had obviously made.  Way to take responsibility.  I can't and won't assume good faith on your part anymore as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't edit in good faith.  You are dishonest and troll frequently.  Is that language clear enough for you? Red Harvest (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't give me that "OJ" stuff. And damn right I don't take responsibility for something -- in a negative sense -- for something assumed only because I am accused of it on a level that is .  Not once, other than some vague accusation of "edit warring" (translation: daring to do what a select bunch do with an unmatched frequency) and have the audacity to refuse to cowtow to anything that is not in accord with the almighty "consensus" of a certain bunch who are hell bent on keeping the page as they want it to be.


 * Clear enough language for me? LOL  Yeah, it is.  Now is THIS clear enough for YOU? The clarity is that "trolling" definitions on your part is flat stupid. And also, more importantly, don't get yourself feeing all "gutsy" because you can use the phrase "is that clear enough language for you".  Not once have you (or any others) made any sort of case for how my inclusions/edits did not meet the test for what has traditionally been considered to be within the parameters of good faith Wiki policy.  If I have made mistakes in the past on some things, then that is one thing, and I have always tried to rectify them when I felt I did.  But I don't necessarily take your word as to what the "mistakes" are.  Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?


 * And now RJensen is actually deleting my talk posts? Oh great, it has come to that?  I will say for the record he is way out of line (as he has been for some time with things he says) if this is intentional.  And I would love nothing more than to tell him this directly to his face, were it possible.  Or any one else's. And in no way, shape, or form, should that be construed as being a "threat". Not at all. Just a truly benign desire to talk like real men do and hash it out in front of an audience.


 * With all that said? I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else. Never did. But that sentiment stops short of giving in to what appears to be going on, and has been for some time. I still can't believe than even RJ would actually delete talk posts...
 * TexasReb (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest Talk
For one reason and one reason only, I am going to refrain from too much posting on the "talk" page here, on this subject. That reason is only that I made a gentlemans "agreement" with a certain administrator to just "stand down and back off" for the sake of not keeping throwing gasoline on a fire that threatens to get out of control already. This moderator made a very good case and, because so, I will abide by it...until personal honor becomes involved, in which case the rules change, and hopefully it never does...

With all that said though, I do want to make it clear that I did nothing wrong in including -- and later modifying for harmony's sake -- the quote by Reagan. How different was it than giving an almost unlimited amount of time to Alexander Stephens commentary? Of course it wasn't and was never meant to.

RedHarvest write this absurdity about "refusing to accept responsibility...  Lord, I swear, I have been thru at least a dozen county fairs and a goat-roping and never encountered someone so full of themselves as this.  "Refusing to accept responsibility"?  Accept responsibility for what? Pray be more specific.  Do you honestly believe that because consensus ruled in that case that might makes right?  Sometimes, I swear, your cloistered existence is a never ending world...

But ok, I have spoken my piece. I will back off and disengage. RJ? Stop deleting talk posts. Even you ought to be embarrassed by taking out another editors posts. TexasReb (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do Not Change the End Date
The dissolution of the Confederacy has long been a subject of debate. It is only natural that this issue has reappeared now that it is the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War. This does not, however, mean we should start this debate again. Of all the proposed dates for the end of the Confederate States of America, May 5 remains the most probable candidate. It is not only is it the date that the last major army surrendered, but it is also the date President Davis dissolved the last remnants of the Confederate government before going into hiding. We are not going to use the November date. The very idea is laughable. That would mean that a ship is a sovereign nation! Leave the dates in the infobox alone. Anasaitis (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think User:Anasaitis makes a strong argument. I agree we shouldn't change the date to anything associated with Shenandoah. BusterD (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While I don't have a problem with May 5, another editor did...and didn't use the talk page to discuss it (sound familiar?) The actual changes occurred then.  There is a lot of mischief in infoboxes this way.  It might be wise to cite some sources for historical consensus calling it the end date. The Conclusion of the American Civil War article is a timeline that does not address an end date for the CSA.  However, the Korn cite in the article indicates Davis final cabinet meeting declared the govt. dissolved.  That would appear a good starting point.


 * Additionally, the text in this article concerning the collapse uses somewhat contrary wording and does not mention May 5. It seems that some expansion of that section is needed. Red Harvest (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an insult? I already explained why I hadn't discussed the edits until now. I HAVE A JOB! I can't spend every day editing Wikipedia, no matter how much I enjoy it. If you want proof that the May 5 was the day the Confederacy was desolved, see the link on the Wahington, Georgia. Anasaitis (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't intended to be an insult, but a reference to the nature of this common problem. Using the talk pages to work on disputes is not optional.  Other people have lives and jobs too.  If you don't have time to discuss, then don't do multiple reverts.  While it's easier just to edit and ignore everyone else, that doesn't work when the edits are controversial. That is why Wikipedia has a process for content disputes.


 * You seem to misunderstand. I don't disagree with May 5 and I'm not asking for "proof", I'm pointing out that there is a disconnect in the present article.  Simply stating "Do Not Change the End Date" is unlikely to be sufficient if editors challenge it.  Strengthening the text and the sourcing is part of the collaborative process.


 * Also, please consider using indentations in talk at times. Red Harvest (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation
I have respectfully reverted Rjensen's recent addition of a paragraph regarding the Emancipation Proclamation. That important document is a feature not of Confederate history but of U. S. history. It belongs in its own article and in the article on the war, but not here. We must resist the temptation to use this article to retell the whole history of the South, the Secession Crisis, the War of 1861, American slavery, Emancipation, Reconstruction, etc. This article should focus on the Confederate States per se, their federal union, and its government; and its scope should be quite limited, in my opinion. The Emancipation Proclamation was the act of another government, and it was a legal nullity within the C. S. A.'s effective jurisdiction while that lasted. It deserves profound attention in appropriate articles, but not in this one. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 14:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Confederacy lost its slave Labor force because of the Emancipation Proclamation, so it is essential to any discussion of the Confederate economy. Note that by the Crutchfield standards, most of the coverage of the war would have to be omitted because it deals with the Union Army and Navy. Rjensen (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the edit and it is concerned with the EP's impact on the CSA and in particular the slave based economy. The EP does get a lot of play in the overall article, but since it was directed at the root of the southern economy it had far reaching effects.  So I find it difficult to dismiss in the context provided.  I would like to see some comments from other editors, but my inclination is to reinstate the material. Red Harvest (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I approve of the passage by Rjensen. Alternative language might be:
 * Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order of the U.S. government changing the legal status of 3 million slaves in designated areas of the Confederacy from "slave" to "free." The practical effect was that the Confederate government could not preserve the institution of slavery. Slaves were legally freed by escaping to federal lines, or by advances of federal troops; they could then serve the federal army as teamsters, cooks, farmers and laborers. The Confederate owners were never compensated. Plantation owners, realizing that emancipation would destroy their economic system, sometimes moved their slaves as far as possible out of reach of the Union army. By June 1865, the Union Army controlled all of the Confederacy and liberated all those once designated as slaves there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ok --Hearing new objection I will post the version of Virginia Historian, which was better than my proposed version. This will now give the article some coverage at least of one of the largest and most controversial elements in the entire history of the Confederate states: the slaves and what happened to them. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag
Now that we're using Flag of the Confederate States of America (1863-1865).svg as the flag icon for most pages, I think we should use it as the flag here. --70.88.32.225 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a long-established consensus to use the Stars and Bars, with 13 stars, as the flag in the infobox for this article. See Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 10 for the main discussion on this. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To recap for IP, the Second National Flag, the Stainless Banner with battle flag union, white field, was official 650 days. After adoption, it is only sourced atop the Confederate Capitol, Richmond, Virginia (Samsing). The 2:1 ratio flag literally did not function, -- it did not fly on a flagpole -- and it was seen as truce or surrender (Samsing). For the Confederacy at the time -- it was “not satisfactory” (Coulter, p. 119).


 * The Second National Flag wasn’t used much if it can be said to have been used at all, the First National Flag was used most widely and through the entire duration of the Confederacy for both civilian and military purposes, and the first flag was the flag flown by Jefferson Davis at his retirement as the only rebel Confederate not given amnesty by the U.S.G.


 * You can help the accuracy of WP articles by restoring the First National Flag, Stars and Bars as the flag icon for most pages -- based on these sources, the Second Flag should be limited to the info box for an article on the Confederate Capitol building. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

When did the states join the CSA?
Unfortunately, the list we have here seems to be unsourced. And I am having lots of trouble finding primary sourcing for the dates. Por ejemplo: I can find the law that allows for the accession of North Carolina ("An Act to admit the State of North Carolina into the Confederacy, on a certain condition.") but it only kicks in when a presidential proclamation has been made... and I have been unable to find such a proclamation, let alone the date it was made. Is there any truly solid sourcing of the dates of admittance/accesison? --Golbez (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * On seceding, the first seven states considered themselves independent nations Their commissioners in DC and 25 southern Senators almost unanimously backed a national convention in Montgomery AL, and it met February 4, the Constitution of seven states was adopted unanimously February 8 (Coulter, The Confederate States of America, p. 19-23.) Virginia ratified the Confederate Constitution April 25 (p. 41), Arkansas secession ordinance was May 6 (p. 42), North Carolina secession ordinance was May 20 (p.4), Tennessee ratified the Confederate Constitution on June 8 (p. 43). Missouri was admitted to the Confederate Congress November 28 (p.48) and Indian delegates were seated from the Creeks and Chikasaws following their treaties on July 10 and July 12, and from the Cherokees following their treaty on October 7 (p. 50). Confederate Congress admitted Kentucky on December 10, 1861 (p.46). Congress seated a delegate from the Territory of New Mexico a few days after creating the territory on January 24, 1862 (p.53). Sorry its not all “admittance/accession to Confederate Congress dates”, but there is a start of a timeline. With respect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Unrecognized? Or Partially Recognized?
IIRC, didn't Jefferson Davis send a letter to the Pope, which he sent back addressed to "President Davis", thereby recognizing the CSA? I'm not sure if that's exactly "officially recognized", but it seems reasonable.
 * There was such a papal letter, but the Richmond government realized that it did not constitute a recognition. In diplomacy, recognition is a formal procedure, characterized by the exchange of ambassadors. There were no ambassadors to Richmond, and none of its ambassadors were officially received in Europe. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Time to create spinoffs?
It may be time to create a spinoff or two owing to the article size guideline. The current size is at 250K where 50K is what is recommended. Editors may want to consider how to do that logically and discuss. What do you think? — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Preceded by box missing states?
The box labeling "preceded by" is missing four of the states that joined the Confederacy. As such, I will add them there, and if there was some legitimate reason for not including them, please let me know. As far as I can tell, there's no reason the other ones were left off. As such, I'll add the other four (in order), and possibly include disputed territories. Cnd474747 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas had no official flag
Also, Arkansas had no official flag until the early 1900s. Shouldn't we just leave the box empty, since using a later flag is technically wrong? Cnd474747 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good catch. I was not aware this was the case. I've removed the flag and left a note only visible to editors. If others have a better solution, I'm open to ideas. The flag which occupied the space on the chart was a banner proposed after 1910. The current state flag was approved in 1912, according to sources. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede insertions by ip editor today
This edit was reverted by User:North Shoreman today, then reinserted by the ip user, prompting a semi-protection by a watching admin. Since the ip user in edit summary stated they'd be back this evening and might find themselves dismayed at the page protection, I'm starting a thread here to head off further disruptive editing in live pagespace. To my mind, the two sections inserted are, in the first instance, undue weight when applied in the third sentence of the article (tariffs, to my reading of presented sources, being a peripheral issue, not a primary or even secondary cause), in the second instance, mentioning the inability of Lincoln to actually eliminate slavery until passage of the 13th amendment seems a non-sequitur in the context of the sentence which exists. I don't deny there's a reasonable argument to be made for such insertions, I just believe consensus for such insertions will need to be mustered here first. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well put, sir. I am an infrequent editor on Wikipedia, so perhaps I do not know precisely where such information should be inserted in a page.  I would like to point out that the emphasis on slavery in the lede seems quite undue to me, as while slavery became an issue later in the war (primarily to avoid European entry into the war on the side of their blockaded trading partner), it was in no way the issue that started the secession or the war.  The overarching economic reasons, which far out-weigh a young abolitionist movement, go completely unmentioned, while the hypocritical moral reasons are given center stage.  As another topic in this talk page notes, the North held more slaves than the South, and the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing to free these slaves in 1863.  Only in 1865, with the end of the war and the ratification of the 13th amendment, did these slaves gain their freedom from Union slave owners (on a side note, that amendment failed in the House only one year previous in 1864, obviously without any representatives from the rebelling states).  However, as I said, I am infrequent editor and would welcome discussion on this point before further editing on the page.  --AlwaysLiberty (the IP editor mentioned in the topic)
 * Thanks for engaging in discussion. I can see you've got some strong opinions on the subject. Unfortunately, our opinions don't matter much as to what ends up in pagespace. In order for me to help, you'd need first to provide some sources which agree with your positions, and if you browse the talk page archives, you're likely to find these subjects have been discussed before. Secondly, you'd need to acquire some consensus for those positions in the way of other users who agree with you. If you can provide sources meeting WP:IRS, please present them. BusterD (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BusterD is quite right. The new Republican party promised to end the expansion of slavery which Confeds could not tolerate when Lincoln was elected. As for tariffs, that was a Yankee grievance because the tariffs of 1840s and 1850s were written by Southern Democrats and were very low, hurting Northeast factories.  The South had far more slaves than the North (Northern slave states = Maryland, DEL, West Va, Kent,  Missouri--slavery was dying out there) Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, first a retraction, and perhaps we'll put that other topic to bed. According to the 1860 census data as presented on http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html, the total number of slaves held by the South was 3,521,110, while the North held 429,416, so the North held a little less than 11% of the slaves in the country at the start of the war. Therefore, the North did not hold more slaves than the South (I'll add a note to that topic as well; I'm not sure why no one else responded with hard numbers). Rjensen: perhaps you would like to follow the rules and present sources to back up your statements as well? Slavery was dying out (economically) everywhere by 1860; most of the plantations were in the red. The kind of slavery existent in the US at that time was a recipe for economic ruin; as the industrialists taught us in the robber baron period: it's a lot cheaper to hire a man and let him try to meet his own needs on his pay than to own him and care for his every need to maintain your investment. --AlwaysLiberty

I've not had a chance to go through all the rather extensive talk archives on this article, though it seems that the article has a long and tumultuous history of arguments regarding NPOV. I think I'll let Lincoln speak for me regarding the cause of the War Between the States on the Northern side (http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm, an 1862 response to Horace Greeley's earlier editorial published in the New York Tribune):

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

As you can see, Lincoln himself, well into the war, states unequivocally that freeing slaves was not the point; preserving the Union was the point. Admittedly, Lincoln expresses his personal view that all men everywhere should be free, but he is careful to state that this is a personal view, not a political one. This quite at odds with the statements made in the article, as it focuses almost solely on slavery as the key issue of the war. --AlwaysLiberty
 * You're misreading Lincoln. It's VERY dangerous to try to interpret primary sources. Historians only do that after reading thousands of pages of primary sources and hundreds of scholarly studies. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But the point of the Confederacy was to perpetuate slavery by war. Their fear was that slavery could not be guaranteed in the future during the peaceable operation of constitutional democratic government within the United States. Lincoln would at the beginning acquiesce to an amendment to guarantee slavery at his Inaugural Address, but he would not yield to war to dismember the Union. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The POINT of the confederacy was to perpetuate slavery? Wow, that needs some major support; I always thought the point of the confederacy was to answer the growing threat of centralized authority, which the Republicans represented at the time, to the rights of Sovereign States. I don't see Lincoln "not yielding to war" considering that he started the war by resupplying Fort Sumter; the confederate government could hardly allow a foreign power to control one of its largest harbors (the South was an export economy, after all, so the harbors were tremendously important to the South). You make it sound like the confederacy sought war; if that were true, there would have been a whole lot more fighting on Northern territory. It might also have been a real civil war, with the Southern States attempting to conquer the Northern States, rather than a failed revolution and a brutal war of conquest prosecuted by the North on the South. The South left the union because secession was the only way they could prevent ruinous tariffs from completely destroying their economy. Hindsight tells us that the South's economy was in such bad shape because of their reliance on slavery, and that is why those tariffs could be so ruinous, but no person ever has the benefit of hindsight on the actions they currently perform. --AlwaysLiberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.66.114 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * " growing threat of centralized authority" -- well this is an article about the Confederacy, and it was a very powerful force in trying to centralize authority in the South. So much so that there was practically a little Civil War inside the Confederacy between powerful governors who resisted the centralization of the Davis administration. Meanwhile, the Republicans of 1860 had no interest whatsoever in centralizing anything. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Confederate constitution, Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 1 (The Powers of the Confederate Congress): "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp): So, when considering the taxation powers of Congress, the first thing the Confederates insure is that no ruinous tariff will become law. Hmm.

As to there being "little civil war(s) inside the Confederacy between powerful governors," isn't that always the problem with Confederations? Isn't that why we opted for a federal constitution that created a stronger central government after Shay's rebellion and the fact that the continental congress under the Articles of Confederation could not provide for the common defense without coercive taxation authority?

As to "the republicans of 1860 (having) no interest whatsoever in centralizing anything," plank 12 of the republican platform of 1860: "That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620) This curtails free trade, a key and foundational principle for our country since its founding. It expands federal authority in interstate commerce, making the case that tariffs should be used for other reasons than simply raising revenue for vital government services (i.e. services that only the government can provide).

Again, in plank 16: "That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the federal government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established." (Ibid.) Another major expansion of central authority, again expanding interstate trade regulation to include promotion of infrastructure and industry. Looked at anachronistically, using a modern perspective, this doesn't seem like an expansion, but anachronism has no place in history if one seeks to see clearly. By contrast, the confederate constitution, in the 3rd paragraph of the above section states: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof." Direct opposition in the confederate constitution to the republican platform on economic issues doesn't show that those arguments were important to the events of the times? Also, I've been providing citations for my claims; would you please follow the rules and provide some of your own if you want to be a part of this conversation, Rjensen? (also, how am I misreading Lincoln? He's pretty clear in that letter.)

Returning to the original point of my edits to the article: the article presents the case from an almost entirely Northern moralistic standpoint, glossing over or completely ignoring the fact that the argument was almost entirely economic from the Southern perspective, with the moral aspects subsidiary and only raised when arguing with abolitionists. I think we can all agree that slavery was and is an abomination, but our discussion is not about the moral implications of slavery, but rather, we are discussing a period in history and the fact that the article does not adhere to NPOV standards, presenting only one side of the conflict in detail. It needs to give greater weight to the economic realities that led to secession, confederacy, and war. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, AlwaysLiberty, Here Wikipedia we do not allow editors to make their own independent interpretations of the past. That belongs on your own Facebook page. Our job here is to figure out what the reliable sources have said, and to condense it in the format of an encyclopedia article. As far as the tariff was concerned, all major political parties at all times in American history have supported the tariff of one sort or another. In 1860, it was at a very low point, and was designed by Southerners. If you're saying in your opinion the Southerners set up the Confederacy in other words to save $10 a person, then they made a very stupid economic bargain. Rjensen (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

But apparently, Rjensen, you can make up what ever you want unsupported, as I again point out your utter lack of citations and apparent lack of interest in acquiring any. The primary problem with the tariff was as not in its direct cost, but rather in the responses of the nations buying the South's exports to their own exports becoming taxed, so they levied tariffs on American goods and reduced plantation sales volume. These plantations, working on very narrow margins, depended upon their low prices to provide sales volume in the purchasing countries, but the federal tariffs and reciprocating foreign tariffs made this impossible. Therefore, facing economic ruin, they seceded and, in their constitution, prohibited these kinds of laws. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen is the second most frequent contributor to this page and applied many of the citations. He's a professional historian and if he makes a claim, he can provide a source to back it up. But that doesn't matter. WP:BURDEN says that someone wanting to make an insertion must come up with sources if the claim is challenged, as it has been by four different editors in this case. So the burden of proof is on AlwaysLiberty, not Rjensen. Please consider registering an account. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks BusterD for the kind remarks in response to alwaysliberty--let me ask where you're getting all that stuff??? Most US cotton production was sold to Britain which had no tariffs at all it was free trade and there was no fear of retaliation of any sort. As for the south facing economic ruin-- no it was as prosperous as Silicon Valley is today. Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been giving citations, to which you have not directly responded, Rjensen. So, BusterD, are you saying that Rjensen, on his own authority, can say no, without further argument or correction, to a claim that I have backed up with citation? He certainly hasn't shown where I'm wrong in my previous posts and citations; he simply says I'm wrong and leaves it at that. I didn't try to remove anything from the article, just add the other side of the story, which I can pretty easily cite, as you've already seen. My question is this: if I am citing material, why is it dismissed out of hand by those who do not cite any material or make any counterargument to the points I raise? If the burden of proof is on me, then I've given that proof; respond to my citations and arguments, please.

Regarding the tariff, from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff#Reception_abroad):
 * Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms. Economist William Stanley Jevons denounced it as a "retrograde" law. The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[18] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:


 * If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Perhaps the actually unfolding history of the later nineteenth century did not bear out the fears of the South regarding the tariffs and responses abroad, but the sentiment in Britain was certainly there at the time. Politics doesn't deal in facts; it deals in perceptions and beliefs, transforming them into action. If the prevailing belief in the South was that the tariffs would bring economic ruin in the form of reciprocal tariffs on American exports, then that belief, whether it was well-founded or imaginary, still caused the secession. Remember, anachronism is a major historical fallacy, so you cannot judge the actions of the South in 1860 by what followed, only by what led up to it. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You make the Confederates sound totally stupid. The good news is that there's no  truth to the statement whatsoever. I recommend getting a serious book on the subject--And read it before you return. Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

An appeal to ridicule fallacy as a response, still without responding to my arguments and citations with more than "you're wrong," and you're a respected editor on wiki? Wow.

Frankly, they were pretty stupid, but the article makes them sound evil, when in fact, they were nothing more than people trying to maintain their livelihoods on thin margins using the oldest and most established economic system of the day, not to mention millennia past. Save the modern-view anachronism for an opinion piece, and write history with a view to understanding the thoughts of the people involved. Otherwise, we will be doomed to repeat it. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing helps as much as the words at the time by the actors themselves, as Henry Benning of Georgia said addressing the Virginia secessionist Convention, "What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction . . . that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. . . . If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. . . .” the speech, quoted in a newspaper, . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree regarding the words of the actors of the time, TheVirginiaHistorian, and thank you; it is quite refreshing to discuss this matter with someone willing to bring sources to the table instead of hubris. Let's consider a few other quotes from that same speech by Henry Benning:


 * "My next proposition is, that the Republican party of the North is in a permanent majority. It is true that in a government organized like the government of the Northern States, and like our own government, a majority, where it is permanent, is equivalent to the whole. The minority is powerless if the majority be permanent. Now, is this majority of the Republican party permanent? I say it is. That party is so deeply seated at the North that you cannot overthrow it. It has the press, it has the pulpit, it has the school-house, it has the organizations-the Governors, Legislatures, the judiciary, county officers, magistrates, constables, mayors, in fact all official life. Now, it has the General Government in addition. It has that inexhaustible reserve to fall back upon and to recruit from, the universal feeling at the North that slavery is a moral, social and political evil. With this to fall back upon, recruiting is easy. This is not all. The Republican party is now in league with the tariff, in league with internal improvements, in league with three Pacific Railroads. Sir, you cannot overthrow such a party as that. As well might you attempt to lift a mountain out of its bed and throw it into the sea." (http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm)

This quote lists grievances Georgia brings against the Republican majority in the more populous North; as you can see, the economic reasons I listed above are quite prevalent. He begins by speaking of the tyranny of the majority, and goes on to talk about tariffs, internal improvements, and what we today would call the corrupt alliance of big government and big business. He goes on at length, polemically describing the fall of civilization in the South should the course continue; it seems that it doesn't matter in which era one reads, a political speech is always sensationalist and polemical.


 * "The next reason is this, the North entertains upon the subject of the Constitution the idea that this a consolidated Government, that the people are one nation, not a Confederation of States, and that being a consolidated Government the numerical majority is sovereign. The necessary result of that doctrine when pushed to its natural result is, that the Constitution of the United States is, at any time, subject to amendment by a bare majority of the whole people; and that being so, it becomes no matter what protection the Constitution may contain, it would be changed by a majority of the people, because a stipulation in the Constitution can no more be binding upon those who may choose subsequently to alter it, than the act of a legislature upon a sub-sequent legislature. Thus it is they will have the power to change the Constitution, alter it as you will. The President elect has proclaimed from the house tops in Indiana that a State is no more than a county. This is an abandonment in the concrete of the whole doctrine." (Ibid.)

Here we have a remarkably prescient discussion of fears realized after the war: the reduction of Sovereign States into mere counties of a consolidated central government, as they pretty much are now.

I include this following section as an example of the operating Southern economy in the mid 1800's:


 * "Georgia and the other cotton States produce four millions of bales of cotton, annually. Every one of these bales is worth $50. The whole crop therefore, is worth $200,000,000...You perceive, then, that out of one article we have two hundred millions of dollars. This is surplus, and a prospect of an indefinite increase in the future. Then, we have sugar worth from fifteen to twenty millions of dollars, increasing every year at a pretty rapid rate. Then, we have rice, and naval stores, and plank, and live oak and various other articles which make a few more millions. You may set down that these States yield a surplus of $270,000,000 with a prospect of increase. These we turn into money and with that we buy manufactured goods, iron, cotton and woolen manufactures ready made and many other descriptions of goods necessary for consumption...Bear in mind that the manufactures consumed by the South are manufactures of the United States. They have now got the whole market by virtue of the tariff which we have laid on foreign importation." (Ibid.)

Benning mentions the protectionist tariff at the end, though in the capacity of offering Virginia and the other border states the business if they join the confederacy. He does go on about his opinion regarding the duties of the confederacy, but he states that "We have merely adopted the revenue system of the United States so far, and are now collecting the revenue under an old law" (Ibid.), which is quite true; the confederate constitution is largely identical to the US constitution. He also states, at the beginning the speech, that he has "no power to make promises, none to receive promises; no power to bind at all in any respect" (Ibid.), so in this respect, we can easily accept that his statements here on revenue generation were not authoritative.


 * "As things now stand, there is a great drain of wealth from the South to the North. The operation of the tariff, which at present averages about 20 per cent, is to enhance the prices of foreign goods upon us to that extent; and not only foreign goods, but domestic goods, as they will always preserve a strict ratio with the price charged for foreign imports." (Ibid.)

More on the tariff.

Let's keep in mind, at the risk of repeating myself, that this discussion is regarding 408 characters I tried to add to the article, and that I did not attempt to delete anything (though I see North Shoreman's point about consistency; there are other sections of the article that will need revision to attain a neutral POV, not just the lede). I don't deny that slavery was a major cause of the secession, but the article would have a reader believe that it was the only significant reason, a statement which is patently false. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * to AlwaysLiberty. I suggest you read a solid scholarly book in many ways still the best is David Potter, Impending crisis-- it won the Pulitzer Prize and most libraries have a copy. Stop reading primary sources--Whoever is feeding those sources to you has a secret agenda that is loading you down with unscholarly POV . Until you do get some good books, it's unlikely that anything you write will survive at Wikipedia.   Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the book, Rjensen; I will give anyone a chance to make their case. That's the most substantive comment you've yet made; perhaps I can hope that eventually, you will even have something truly productive to add to the conversation. Just remember, appeal to authority is a fallacy, too. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding primary sources: the one who "fed" me that source was TheVirginiaHistorian, who passed it on from the Washington Post. I begin to see why your posts lack citations: if your philosophy of history forbids accessing primary sources, it must seem like a waste of time to cite sources at all. I always thought the point of citing was so that your readers could read your sources for themselves; if not that, what is the purpose of citing sources? --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * while you're reading Potter you can glance at the rules here. Wikipedia is all about appeals to authority; that's the reason for the footnotes. Your original thoughts belong to Facebook. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, you believe the purpose of citing sources is to commit a fallacy? Not to read those sources and ensure the veracity of the thoughts involved if you doubt the conclusions reached, but to appeal to the sources' author's authority to make a case? Uncritically accepting what an author tells you, regardless of his authority, is a poor way to gain any kind of understanding. Your philosophy of history sounds more and more like the Ministry of Truth from 1984. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it's how Wikipedia works. You can run your Facebook page on your own principles and see who makes the most blunders. You are off to a big lead already. Rjensen (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Just let me know if you have anything productive to say; I'll be listening. I value knowledge as opposed to authority. --AlwaysLiberty 99.127.66.114 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Benning’s analysis was fundamentally flawed. Tariffs are at a low until the Southern Senators withdrew, no president had held two terms since Andrew Jackson, and Lincoln was no Andrew Jackson. There was and is now, no consolidated government except that which follows from the 14th Amendment requiring State governments themselves to adhere to the Bill of Rights in governing their citizens.


 * Benning believed in error "that the Constitution of the United States is, at any time, subject to amendment by a bare majority of the whole people”. Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3 of the states representatives in the Senate, 2/3 of the people in the House of Representatives, and 3/4 of the states (the majority of people in 3/4 the states — not "a bare majority" of the consolidated whole). There were no supermajorities to abolish slavery in the North or South until after the costs of a Civil War over slavery. I hope that you follow through on your inclination to read Impending Crisis to understand the actors of the time, rather than reflecting the Lost Cause re-interpretation of that time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian: Let's add a little background on the Benning speech before we go on: Henry Benning was a representative of Georgia to the Virgina Convention on the Ordinance of Secession; Georgia had already seceded, and his task was to give Georgia's reasons and invite Virginia to join the growing Confederacy. The speech is not a piece of political analysis, it is a political speech meant to persuade the listeners to the view Benning espoused. Since we are exploring the reasons the confederate states seceded here, the accuracy of Benning's analysis is immaterial to the discussion; the beginnings of most wars look like a comedy of errors in hindsight, but as I've said before, the actors of the day did not have the benefit of hindsight, as we do on their period. It is not our task to pass judgment on his words; it is our task to understand the mentality of the South from his words, among many others we should consider.

Regarding your analysis: your speculation that Lincoln would have had only one term is just that, and does not speak to the attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions that led to secession. You are correct that obstruction by southern legislators had prevented the tariff from rising, and their leaving allowed it to pass, but again, what-ifs are immaterial; we are looking for motives. Our analysis of motive has little to do with what actually happened after the action we study; it has to do with the beliefs that caused it. Discussions of whether we have had a consolidated government since the war, de facto if not de jure, are also immaterial to the topic at hand; by contrast, fears of consolidated government, which are quite prominent in the speech, are very pertinent to motive.

You also misidentify the major flaw in Benning's reasoning, as you cut off the context of the quote you used. Benning's flaw was a slippery slope fallacy, of which you only quoted the end. Let's expand that quote and see it in context:


 * "The next reason is this, the North entertains upon the subject of the Constitution the idea that this a consolidated Government, that the people are one nation, not a Confederation of States, and that being a consolidated Government the numerical majority is sovereign. The necessary result of that doctrine when pushed to its natural result is, that the Constitution of the United States is, at any time, subject to amendment by a bare majority of the whole people; and that being so, it becomes no matter what protection the Constitution may contain, it would be changed by a majority of the people, because a stipulation in the Constitution can no more be binding upon those who may choose subsequently to alter it, than the act of a legislature upon a sub-sequent legislature."

Benning doesn't claim that the constitution might currently be amended by a simple majority, but that the necessary result of populism is that there be no higher sovereignty than the majority. This is a fear tactic in politics still in use today, and if it still works today, I'm sure it worked then in persuasive political speech. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * give it up AlwaysLiberty -- you have not provided any information based on expertise just your own meanderings. As for Benning & tariffs--all nonsense. he made his position clear in 1861:
 * What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that aseparation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. ... If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. By the time the north shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything....we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. (from Henry L. Benning  Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm presenting the words of the actors of the time in context, in this case Benning's; none of this is my "own meanderings." So, according to RJensen, this one statement overrides anything else said in the speech; even though this is one topic among many Benning discusses, it is apparently the only one that matters in the mind of RJensen. Indeed he said this, and I do not deny that slavery should be listed among the major causes of the secession. I won't repeat my citation of the other things he said in that speech here; anyone can scroll up to read them if they like. To repeat once again: I did not delete anything in the article; I simply see bias in its presentation and added weight to other factors, particularly the economic angle that was so important in the South. Still no response to my own citations, but at least you used a citation yourself this time; good for you! I'm proud of you. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Benning says there is one reason: "separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery." do you disagree with him? Rjensen (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that, if the statement is taken literally, he makes himself a liar on that point later in that same speech, yes, I disagree with the veracity of that statement; I cited some examples above. You might liken that statement to someone who says they "just" want one thing after another; a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally, but rather to lend emphasis. Since he goes on to list other reasons himself as the speech continues, I believe we are safe in that interpretation. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why as wikipedians we're told to avoid interpreting primary sources. We're supposed to use reliable independent secondary sources. Interpretation and understanding contradictions are not our tasks. As wikipedians we leave interpretation to professional interpreter/historians and we use the majority view among those, possibly including significant minority viewpoints. Primary sources are generally speaking not ours to use, especially when there exists so much secondary sourcing on the subject. BusterD (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This probably isn't the proper place to discuss policies, but I'm sure you will let me know if that is true and point me in the right direction to discuss such things. Being new here, I am still learning the established rules and how they work; I intend no offense, and I appreciate where you've chimed in regarding policy and context, BusterD.

As I was debating the use of citation with RJensen above, we had a basic disagreement on their fundamental purpose: he sees the importance of citations as appeals to authority, which seems to be in-line with wiki policy as it stands, and I see them as ways to fact-check dubious conclusions in secondary sources. I appreciate and understand the usefulness of secondary sources, as the authors of those sources have usually performed immense research into the subject, what ever it may be; however, if a conclusion in such a reputable source seems suspect or is in conflict with another reputable secondary source, it is quite useful, even necessary in the conflict example, to refer to the primary sources the author(s) used to come to that conclusion. Use of a majority opinion only makes sense when other data are unavailable for analysis; with such data, coming to a definitive answer should be possible without regard to prevailing opinion. Facts don't depend upon people believing them to be facts. Forbidding the study of primary sources seems akin to blindfolding oneself and depending upon a few people who have seen the room before to lead you through, trusting them because they have received training; why not avail oneself of every piece of data to insure as clear and complete a picture as possible?

A good example of a dubious use of primary source material in a secondary source was that Washington Post article presented by TheVirginiaHistorian, which led us to discussing Benning's speech in the first place; any time I see a quote cut up that much, I have to go read what they left out and the context in which it was said. It turned out, as I had suspected in that case, that the Washington Post ignored the majority of the speech, taking only what supported its argument and leaving out anything that disagreed, despite such material being present in the remainder of the speech. Such cherrypicking allows a secondary source to prove any conclusion they desire by adding ellipses and bracketed words; avoiding this behavior is why I make sure that most of my quotes are more complete and that all of them are considered in context. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your willingness to address your edits in the talk page. The relative Policy to read on the matter of sources is No original research. Particularly the following section: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows: 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. Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. 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, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize 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; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy."

If you want to discuss the Morrill Tariff, there is a somewhat lengthy article on the subject that could use better sourcing. As for reasons contributing to the War see the article on the Origins of the American Civil War. Particularly the section on tariffs.: "The tariff issue was and is sometimes cited–long after the war–by Lost Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists. In 1860-61 none of the groups that proposed compromises to head off secession brought up the tariff issue as a major issue.... and when some did, for instance, Matthew Fontaine Maury they were generally writing for a foreign audience.

The tariff in effect prior to the enactment of the Morrill Tariff of 1861, had been written and approved by the South for the benefit of the South. Complaints came from the Northeast (especially Pennsylvania) and regarded the rates as too low. Some Southerners feared that eventually the North would grow so big that it would control Congress and could raise the tariff at will." Dimadick (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've had a chance to read some of those policy pages last evening, and I admit, I've been approaching this from the wrong standpoint for the venue. Given that Wiki has that whole "anyone can edit" statement, I suppose I wasn't taking this quite seriously enough from a policy perspective. Thank you, Dimadick; I will take a closer look at the Morrill Tariff page. As I continue to consider the content of the article (I had been side track from that since the article is protected at the moment anyway), I find that the body content presents a much more balanced view than the lede, but I would continue to state that the lede is not neutral. A reader's first impression of an article holds a great deal of weight, and the lede may be the only thing they read at all. Perhaps we could summarize it a little more and add a few more links to the content sections?

On a side note regarding comments from above, I don't think it's fair to call my views "Lost Cause," as I in no way espouse the idea that slavery was benevolent or benign, or anything else except an historical reality and an abomination. AlwaysLiberty (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Article length
A quick question: in Wikipedia's format, is the lede's purpose to present conclusions or to summarize the content of the article? I haven't seen an answer to this in the policy pages, and I'd like to be sure I'm not going down a blind path here again.

Another editor, above, suggests that the article is too long, citing a recommended 50k and a current length far in excess of that. If the Origins of the ACW has a main article, why not summarize that section a bit more, for example, not to mention any other areas of duplicated content because the section has a main article? We would just have to make sure we don't lose any unique content, and that should take care of the length issue. I ask first, rather than working on it now, since I'm still learning the ropes here, and I don't want to waste what limited time I have to give Wikipedia; please bear with me. 99.127.66.114 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, it looks like we have a country article along the same magnitude as others. CSA. Prose size (text only): 108 kB (17039 words) "readable prose size” --- USA. Prose size (text only): 89 kB (14210 words) "readable prose size”. At Article size we have, "Articles of more than 200kB (~30 pages) exist for topics that require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles.” CSA is half that measure.


 * The more lengthy sections which are unlike other country articles relate to the Confederacy’s history, both for the process of secession and the conduct of the American Civil War from its perspective. I’m not sure I disagree with the article’s overall emphasis, nor do I find the length inordinate, as it is classified as “readable prose size”. But it makes sense to review those sections related to secession and the American Civil War for shortening.


 * I like to use the notation to box my proposed language in slightly smaller font
 * This requires editors to open a second window to compare the two texts, it's an alternative to boxing the existing and the proposed text side by side. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Confederate historical revisionism
At Historical revisionism (negationism)‎ an editor has removed the text about Confederate historical revisionism - see their reason at Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). Clearly needs input. Doug Weller (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Slave States of the Confederation
Reading the article about the Civil War, it frightens me to read how accusing toward slavery the south is depicted. All should well remember there where far more slaves in the North than the South. A huge number of Southern Blacks did joint voluntarily the Southern army to fight for the Southern right. Lincoln only came with the idea of abolition in 1863, not '62 as mentioned and for one purpose only ! Hope of seeing Blacks from the South deserting (weakening) the army to joint (strengthening) the union. Also, when the idea of abolition came to get strength, most Northern slave owners where totally and utterly against it. In example, even in the house of the butcher U.Grant, there where lots of reticence to let go the slaves. Ownership of slaves was in those days a way of life and by no mean a racist condition. Written history cannot be changed just to please some so called anti-racist people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.77.248 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 77.99.77.248 Has not been very selective in his readings on the American civil war. (eg: he claims "there where far more slaves in the North than the South." --All the states north of the Mason Dixon line had long before abolished slavery. A huge number of southern blacks did not join the Confederate Army. Rjensen (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I recall, something approaching 85% of the enslaved population held in 1860 were on cotton plantations in the deep south. Usually Unionist states with slaves are referred to as Border States. Slave owners rented, then had slave labor drafted for the Confederate armies. Most railroad repair crews in the South were enslaved, so, yes, they were a valuable asset on the Union railroads when they escaped to freedom -- as were once enslaved farm workers raising Union army foodstuffs in the South. Ownership of American slaves was race-based enslavement, hence the repeated kidnapping of free blacks into perpetual slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Lincoln wanted to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in the summer of '62, but was advised to wait for a Union victory, to carry more credibility. Valetude (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the 1860 census data as presented on http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html, the total number of slaves held by the South was 3,521,110, while the North held 429,416, so the North held a little less than 11% of the slaves in the country at the start of the war. Therefore, the North did not hold more slaves than the South. --AlwaysLiberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.66.114 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the "Northern" slaves referred to above were in fact in the border states of Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri - that is, southern states. These states chose not to oppose the Union in the war, but they weren't then, and aren't now, northern states. Slavery had been outlawed in all Northern states by the outbreak of the war; this was elemental in the tensions that brought on the war. It's true that the Dred Scott decision allowed Southern slave owners to import their captives to Northern states and continue to "own" them there, so there were in fact some slaves in the free states at the outbreak of the Civil War.


 * As for Lincoln's abolitionist sentiments, they are well documented long before he became president. He also had a draught of the Emancipation Proclamation in his possession at least a year before he promulgated it. The witness who attested to this said that at the time Lincoln showed it to him, the President said he'd promulgate it that instant if he thought he could survive it politically. Laodah 07:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection
I am both saddened and disgusted by the attempts of die-hard neo-Confederate revisionists to rewrite this article to be more favorable to the South. I can't help but wonder whether this has something to do with the recent racial tensions in the United States. In light of these disgusting attempts to make this article more pro-South then neutral, I'm concerned about the expiration of the articles semi-protected status on October 10. Does anyone else think that this article's status should be extended? It would help ensure its protection from these revisionists. As for those who are trying to rewrite this article, I beg of you, stop trying to revise this article. I understand your pride in your Southern Heritage. I was born in the South, so I understand where you're coming from. But the connection between slavery and Southern secession cannot be ignored. There is irrefutable evidence supporting this. Confederate Leaders said so themselves. Please do not try to change this article to reflect the revisionist view of Southern History. This article must remain neutral and unbiased, as is required of any encyclopedia article. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree to investigate restoration of protection. The DumbBOT Q&A says,
 * --- so I suggest we look further into it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest indefinite Semi-protection, which "prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed.”


 * WP:SEMI continues, "This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, and/or to prevent sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest.” — well, American Civil War gets a significant amount of disruption or vandalism whenever there is race-related news, which is persistent, as Anasaitis suggests.


 * Guidelines for administrators says, "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view)."


 * An example is the bi-monthly attempts to impose the Blood Stained Banner in the info box which never flew in the Confederacy, and is an expression of contemporary symbolism for neo-Confederates. See Brief history of Confederate flags, which quotes the author of “Confederate Military History”, Confederate General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong year?
''Preparations for Lee's incursion into Pennsylvania were underway to influence the midterm U.S. elections. Confederate independence and nationhood was at a turning point. "Southerners had a right to be optimistic, or at least hopeful, that their revolution would prevail, or at least endure". The result was a defeat at Gettysburg...''
 * This seems to refer to Lee's first attempt to invade Pennsylvania (Sept. 1862), shortly before the mid-term elections, when Britain and France came closest to granting recognition to the Confederacy. It was Lee's defeat at Antietam, not Gettysburg, that killed this prospect. Valetude (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Material about consideration of influencing midterm U.S. elections was not to be found in referenced pages. It is removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't add a better reference at the moment, but there is ample documentation of Lee's intention to influence the U. S. mid-term elections, including, IIRC, a letter or report from Lee himself. See, e.g., Joseph L. Harsh, Taken at the Flood: Robert E. Lee and Confederate Strategy in the Maryland Campaign of 1862.  In any event, unless unsourced matter is false or at best dubious, it's better to add a "citation needed" tag, rather than to delete it.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 20:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Valetude's point was that the "midterm" consideration was of 1862, which the Harsh title refers to, not Gettysburg's 1863 incursion, which was meant to threaten the capital at Washington DC and/or the mint at Philadelphia (see routes of march for elements of Lee's army at turn-around for Gettysburg).
 * The capture of gold from Philadelphia (as had been taken from the mints at New Orleans, Georgia and North Carolina) and the subsequent capture of DC (or a demonstration before its fortifications) would have influenced the presidential election of 1864 as well as down ticket elections, so yes, I personally POV agree with your speculation. It just doesn't conform with the pagination of the reliable source referenced. In any case, nesting favorite facts into the narrative as referenced WITHOUT sourcing is bad practice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * the statement is correct re 1862 and Antietam. See   Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Rjensen for the citation. In an article about the CSA, I'd use Sharpsburg, rather than Antietam, just as we'd use British spelling conventions in an article on England.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 17:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, but. My preference is to name battles here after the style, "Sharpsburg (Antietam)" -- so as BOTH to conform with the preponderance of sources using "Antietam", AND to allow for Southron eccentricity. But I am not sure my POV can fly in an encyclopedia for the general reader.


 * So -- we are agreed to delete "to influence the midterm U.S. elections" for Gettysburg in 1863, and make the narrative conform to the source in Thomas as referenced -- and now confirmed -- both in Harsh and Hoptak -- that strategic consideration applies only to 1862? The elections in 1863 were in the spring for U.S. (Federal) Government in West Virginia and Virginia Confederate state offices -- Gettysburg was too late to effect those. As Hoptak put it on page 16, “In early September 1862...The 1862 midterm elections were less than two months away". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. also, note that the section is under "diplomacy", and the "midterm U.S. elections" is a domestic consideration. Information on the consideration of midterm elections introduced in the midst of material take from Emory Thomas is in the wrong year and wrong narrative section. Perhaps the sourced information belongs in "military strategy". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the map of the CSA
The map's caption is "The Confederate States in 1862. Light green denotes claims made by the Confederacy. Medium green denotes western counties of Virginia that separated from that State and were admitted to the Union as West Virginia. Teal denotes the rest of the Indian Territory that did not sign a treaty with the CSA."

Relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War

The CSA had signed treaties with all of the tribes of the Indian Territory, which makes the caption factually incorrect.

The map seems to be an attempt to show that the Indians in Indian Territory were divided in their sympathies, but it is not an accurate depiction of political geography of the Indian Territory. The Cherokees and Creeks were divided into factions which supported the South and factions that did not. The Indians that did not support the Confederacy fled to Kansas, leaving their lands in control of the factions of their tribes which supported the Confederacy. The Union did not regain control over the Cherokee and Creek lands in 1862, which is the year mentioned in the map's caption.

Can we get a more logical map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.46.136 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I copy edited the caption to read, "Teal denotes the still contested Indian Territory." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"The cause of slavery" revert
On 19 April, Jdcrutch reverted a contribution by IP.97 as, “anonymous, unsourced, and based on an unjustified premise”. The copyedit was " In addition, abolitionist sentiment was on a steady rise in Britain, making any adhesion to the cause of slavery politically difficult [there].”

Abolitionist sentiment among European nations in the 19th century is a well known development. The only “white” nation still tolerating slavery was the United States, which had during the Civil War begun emancipation under the Lincoln Administration. That left only the insurgents of the Confederacy supposing to constitutionally guarantee slavery into the twentieth century, -- making it very unlikely that Europeans would recognize it, whether or not the summer 1863 incursion at Gettysburg was successful.

If that premise is not found in Blumenthal (1966), Jones (2009) or Owsley (1959), another source should be found to supplement the narrative on “diplomacy#international diplomacy”, pointing out that, "abolitionist sentiment was on a steady rise in Britain, making any adhesion to the cause of slavery politically difficult [there]." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What "whiteness" has to do with anything is a mystery to me. Does the writer mean to suggest that "white nations" (whatever those may be) are to be held to a higher moral standard than others?  Are we to understand that Brazilians and Cubans (let alone Mexicans, Chinese, Turks, and Arabs) were not "white" enough in 1863 to appreciate the enormity of slavery?  I really did not expect to see a racist variation on the "They Deserved It" theme advocated in the Twenty-first Century.


 * Be that as it may, my chief objection to the assertion I reverted was that it seemed to be based on the premise, that the cause of the C. S. A. was absolutely equivalent with "the cause of slavery". It is beyond reasonable dispute that the main precipitating cause for the secession of the first seven States that formed the C. S. A.—and a powerful contributing cause for that of the States which seceded after Lincoln launched his war against the C. S. A.—was the fear of their governing classes, that the Republican party, having achieved complete dominance in the federal government, would move to destroy the South's remaining political power by abolishing its economic foundation, viz., slavery.  That fact, however, by no means makes the cause of the C. S. A. absolutely equivalent with "the cause of slavery".


 * I would not object to something along the following lines, if properly supported by reference to reliable sources:


 * In addition, abolitionist sentiment, which portrayed the Confederate cause as a "slaveholders' rebellion", was on a steady rise in Britain, making any action favorable to the CSA politically difficult.


 * J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The subject is the Confederacy, Confederates called themselves a white Christian nation, yet were so blind to "the enormity of slavery" so as to guarantee its perpetuation constitutionally. As the "cornerstone" of the CSA was slavery, it follows the rebellion was absolutely equivalent with "the cause of slavery". The economic value of exports in cotton would not have gone down without slavery, only the profit margins -- although some contemporaries believed wage labor was cheaper than slavery. Free black and slave labor was used in the Tredegar Iron Works, steel might have been had at Birmingham, Alabama with a rail connection or two. Slavery was a drag on Southern economic development, not its "economic foundation".


 * Not only did abolitionists consider the Confederate cause as a "slaveholders' rebellion", so did most of the common soldiers fighting in grey, as they referred to the late conflict as a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The writer is free to present this one-sided, moralistic misrepresentation of history on his own web site, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. I feel no need to answer his fallacious arguments here, as abler hands have long since refuted them.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 16:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Many influential slave holders in the Confederacy intended to conquer Mexico to re-enslave people of color there, leaving "white" hidalgos free, imposing a race-based slavery as provided for in the Confederate Constitution. The slave power in Virginia successfully made it unconstitutional to abolish slavery in Virginia in the 1850 Convention and authorized removal of free blacks, because of their continuing fears of emancipation as sought by a majority of the white male voters, since abolition passed in 1832 in the House of Delegates but only failed in the malapportioned Virginia State Senate favoring slave "property" counties. The Confederate Constitution reads, "the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress". That was, in the words of Jdcrutch, "the enormity of slavery" in the Confederate cause. -- Recalling that history is not a misrepresentation of it.


 * Your white-washing twist to history in an alternative text, "abolitionist sentiment, which portrayed the Confederate cause as a "slaveholders' rebellion" is unsatisfactory as wp:weasel style. Amateur writers paraphrasing the Jefferson Davis post war defense of the Confederacy in a "Lost Cause" literature are not reliable sources for historical analysis and interpretation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the writer ought to have looked up the word enormity in a dictionary. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 21:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets not use code words from a fringe subculture. "enormity" does not just mean "big", it is "a grave crime or sin" it is "something perceived as bad or morally wrong" on a "great or extreme scale, seriousness, or extent" -- in the foundation of the Confederate States of America by its ruling slaveholders.


 * You will note that in most Confederate states, to ensure slaveholder rule, the voting franchise is more limited than that under the United States by state Constitutions promulgated by slave power fiat during the Rebellion, and large landowners owning slaves were exempted from an otherwise universal conscription at first...though the more restrictive Virginia Constitution proposed by the Secession Convention failed ratification by the people there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Were slaves "African American"?
Surely they were just African at that point? Mazz0 (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, they were African-American, see the earlier transition to Anglo-African at The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790 by Rhys Isaac. By the way, the first Africans to Virginia from Angola were Roman Catholic, which on conversion to Anglican Protestantism, made them eligible for emancipation after seven years' service until the 1680s. See the interracial Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 for more context in the first half-century of slavery in America. Later, there were other streams of African immigrants from west Africa to America who were Animists and Muslim, but by the mid 1800s, the inroads of Baptists and Methodists proselytizing among slave populations in the First and Second Great Awakening had made the American-held slave an African-American. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * All, or virtually all, slaves in the C. S. A. had been born in America; and their ancestors, generically speaking, had been settled in English-speaking America since the early seventeenth century; so they were at least as thoroughly American as their white neighbors, and modern usage would not consider them African. Polite usage in the 1860s might refer to them so, as reflected in the name of the African Methodist-Episcopal Church, and the institution sometimes referred to as African slavery (though it was more common, I believe, to refer to them as negroes—using a lower-case n—or mulattoes, respectively).  I would not favor Wikipedia's following that outdated practice.  Calling black Americans "Africans" seems to imply that they are (or were) not really Americans, and thereby to legitimate their unequal status in American society.  That subordinate status fostered the development of a distinct sub-culture (or several sub-cultures) among black Americans, but that was no less American than the New England Yankee sub-culture, the Pennsylvanian Quaker sub-culture, or the Virginian Cohee sub-culture, and no more African than those were British.


 * Whether or not, and under what circumstances, Wikipedia should refer to the slaves of the Confederate States as "African American" is an open question, as far as I'm aware. There is an argument that all Americans of African ancestry should be referred to as African Americans, regardless of context.  Alternatively, one could argue that Wikipedia should follow the polite usage of the time and place under discussion.  Then again, some white people appear to believe that they should use "African American" wherever somebody else might use "black".  (I've even seen a reference to the plight of "African Americans in South Africa"!)  I'm not aware of any current scholarly consensus on the subject (and I confess I haven't tried to find out if there is one).  If there is one, we should follow that (even though I suspect I wouldn't like it, if current academic usage in other areas is any indication).


 * My own preference is generally to refer to persons born in Africa as Africans (or according to their respective nationalities, if I know them), and to persons born in the United States (or the Confederate States, if there is ever a case where that matters) as Americans (or according to their respective States, if that seems appropriate). If race or ancestry is significant, I try to use an inoffensive adjective or noun consistent with that practice.  I tend to prefer black over African American, first, because it's a term black people chose for themselves as a badge of pride, when well-meaning white people tended to call them "Negroes"; and, second, because African American seems to suggest that white people like me, who are generally called "American", without a modifier, are the real Americans—a notion I reject.


 * In any event, in the present context, it certainly is not incorrect to refer to the slaves of the Confederate States as African Americans; and it certainly is not preferable, if it is acceptable at all, to refer to them as Africans. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 19:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well said, indeed! Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

20 August 1866 end of the Confederacy
The end of the Civil war is 20 August 1866 by presidential proclamation. The last Confederate fighters in Texas fought until Early August 1866. After they surrendered the President proclaimed the Civil War over. The reason for this is to make it a federal crime of treason for shooting Union soldiers after that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Flag
I was wondering why the 1st National Flag is shown as the flag of the CSA when it should be the 3rd National Flag. Barrowscv (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The “Third national flag”, the Blood Stained Banner with battle flag union, white field, red vertical stripe; official only 14 days to final Congressional adjournment, and less than a month to the “collapse” of the Confederacy (Coulter, p. 119) when Jefferson Davis reported in his memoir, the Confederacy “disappeared". The Third National Flag was reported by scholarly Confederate authorities after the War as “never seen" in the Confederacy of history (Sansing, A brief history of the Confederate flags), although it is widely adopted anachronistically by neo-Confederate groups of the modern era.


 * You can help the accuracy of WP articles by restoring the First National Flag, the "Stars and Bars" as the flag icon to replace the wrong flag -- the Third National Flag -- that is found in error on many pages. Based on Coulter and Sansing, the Second National Flag should be limited to the info box for an article on the Confederate Capitol building, and the Third National Flag should not appear at all except to illustrate the fleeing Confederate Congress at the fall of Richmond. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Unrecognized Confederation
I think that the term "unrecognized" should be added to the first sentence, so it says "...commonly referred to as the Confederacy, was an unrecognized confederation of secessionist American states..." "Unrecognized confederation" can link to the "Unrecognized State" article. This is what is done in the Rhodesia article, among other unrecognized states. Nalter (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604075834/http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html to http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/Civil+War+Records+at+National+Archives+at+Atlanta

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dubious -- discuss tag
A “dubious — discuss” tag has been placed by without discussion on sourced conclusion by scholar Emory T. Thomas, in The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865.

The editor seems not to have read the complete sentence, the paragraphing notes the introduction of a separate, new idea modifying the narrative apart from the previous paragraph noting that there was no official recognition of the Confederacy. It begins, "The Confederacy was seen internationally as a serious attempt at nationhood[dubious – discuss], and European governments sent military observers, both official and unofficial, to assess the de facto establishment of independence.”

I have linked defacto in the sentence to allow the reader to easily look up the term. An transitional "Nevertheless" seemed unnecessary at writing, but I am open to discussion. Without further discussion, the tag will be removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I read the complete sentence, thank you very much. I believe it is contradicted by the rest of the section which is very clear that there was never a single foreign recognition of the confederacy. It has long been an element of the neo-confederate POV to push the idea that the CSA was recognized in some way. Although I am not making that accusation here, the statement jumped out as creeping in that direction. Unless the clause is explicitly sourced I think it should go. If you have a source explicitly making this statement I will withdraw my objection. With regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * the tag is wrong. it is true that "The Confederacy was seen internationally as a serious attempt at nationhood[dubious – discuss], and European governments sent military observers, both official and unofficial, to assess the de facto establishment of independence." Britain & France did look and consider, and then they decided NOT to recognize the Confederacy. Gladstone (whose family wealth was based on slavery) was the key advocate for the Confederacy. He failed to convince the prime minister Palmerston. look at  Rjensen (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence is now copy edited to reflect the contingent nature of the international assessments. "Nevertheless, the Confederacy was seen internationally as a serious attempt at nationhood, and European governments sent military observers, both official and unofficial, to assess whether there had been a de facto establishment of independence."


 * To, Thanks for your gracious concession. The clause is explicitly sourced to Thomas and confirmed as accurate by Rjensen referencing Shannon above. I see you are a kindred spirit animated by a desire to keep creeping neo-Confederate Lost Cause interpretation at bay. Perhaps you can tackle replacing the various Confederate flags on battle and bio pages to conform with the Stars and Bars pictured at this article, as it is sourced as the banner widely used throughout the Confederacy of history, unlike those adopted by the Confederate Congress and never flown but for an exception or two, and never over an army in the field. I have tried without success to get the Wikiproject Military History to adopt the convention globally based on the following research:


 * As I noted here almost to the day three years ago, David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the Blood-stained Banner was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the Blood-stained Banner. --- In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wars
The Confederacy also fought in the Cortina Troubles with the United States in 1861. They also fought in the American Indian Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolframVonKrieger (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Anaconda: 1863–64
Maybe I am missing something, but what does this heading refer to. It's been present for over 500 edits, so looks like it could be genuine, but I cannot see an obvious meaning for it. Red Jay (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The South American anaconda snake kills its prey by squeezing it; the strategy was to surround the Confederacy on all sides, including crucially, blockade by sea, and so logistically and commercially squeeze it to death. At first many in the North assumed that local Unionists would recover the government democratically if the secessionists of the new Confederacy suffered duress and then became unpopular, thus bringing about peace by negotiation. It did not turn out that way in the event. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you think it is worth, expanding the section to explain this? Red Jay (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

quoting lots of soldiers = unnecessary, space-wasting, POV
McPherson examined many thousands of letters and summarized their meanings. It is a mistake to waste space with quotes from POV-selection of letters stripped from the context McPherson provided. His analysis is all we need: "Confederate and Union soldiers interpreted the heritage of 1776 in opposite ways. Confederates professed to fight for liberty and independence from a too radical government; Unionists said they fought to preserve the nation conceived in liberty from dismemberment and destruction." For cause and comrades pp 104-5. Rjensen (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm.....It seems there are many here that have this "POV-selection of letters" virus- only quotes by Confederates that have references to slavery can be included. All others are out. -Topcat777  14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki editors are using pov top choose "representative" quotes from ordinary soldiers. That's dangerous and unnecessary -- best policy is to summarize what the RS say about the letters.  Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Motivations of Soldiers - Inclusion of quotations from James McPherson's sampling works
Hello all...I've watched some contentiousness the last few days over the edits that Magnolia251 started to the 'motivations of soldiers' section of the page. Respectfully - and without intent to start pointing fingers - It is my belief that the material she (he?) added ought to remain on the article. This 'motivation' subsection is considerably smaller than nearly every other section on the page. I'm well aware of the fact that the article concerns the Confederate States as a whole; but we're referring to an unrecognized country, the entirety of whose existence was directly depended on its military success on the battlefield. As such, I would argue that understanding the motivations of soldiers in the field *is* relevant - very much so - to facilitate a thorough understanding of the nation as a conceptual entity. As such, I'm not sure why this category seems so underdeveloped in comparison with those that speak to the political motivations which lead to secession - these, in turn, are full of quotes from Confederate political leaders, which have been selected by editor choice for inclusion.

A similar analogy might be found in comparing this to the early days of the United States - Washington's rebels, the soldiers themselves, were absolutely fundamental to the survival and success of the nation as a whole. Should they have shrunk from their duty, or deserted entirely when their initial enlistments expired; the British Army and Navy would have crushed the rebellion. During these critical early hours for the American Republic, the motivations and beliefs of the soldiers themselves were what carried the day - not the Continental Congress holed up in Philadelphia.

James McPherson's work is unique in that he's sought to compile a significant amount of primary source documents concerning the motivations of Civil War soldiers, and heap them in one place. He does not push an opinion or a point, but rather has simply given the men the opportunity to speak for themselves, and bound this information into one volume. He is a professor of history at Princeton University whose work, particularly in this genre, is held in very high regard. It has been regularly referenced by the American National Park Service (NPS) for use in educating visitors to Civil War battlefields and

To avoid response bias in the collection of his data, McPherson was very careful to include both simple random sampling (SRS) data collection methods, and to include and compare ideological quotations from soldiers according to and within state, rank, unit membership, and social caste divisions. The quotes included a diverse sampling, as such, from the portion of his book devoted to Confederate Motivations exclusively (one third). While it is true that the sample is in several ways imperfect - for example, it excludes, by nature, the 15-20% of Confederate and Union soldiers who were illiterate; and trends itself to represent those soldiers who enlisted in 1861 or 1862 rather than those who were drafted later under each side's respective conscription acts (before the Confederate system of delivering mail collapsed), it is widely regarded as one of the most open, insightful, and historically revealing works which compiles reference material on the motives of Civil War soldiers.

I have seen quite a few claims which suggest the assembled quotes to be an oddball selection of 1/2000 or 1/1000 of McPherson's work - which, respectfully, I believe to be simply untrue. However, even assuming that it was - and I am open to discussion - I do not understand how, in the spirit of free information, excluding revealing personal quotes from well sampled members of every Confederate Field Army can benefit the article. Ultimately, all that is written of any event after the fact is someone's interpretation of what's happened - often themselves based on a third, fourth, fifth or tenth secondhand interpretation. In this manner, It seems to me logical that hearing from the men themselves is key: why they chose to fight for The Confederacy, and as such, what the motivations for the Confederacy - a nation whose brief existence was secured only by the sword - essentially were. There's multiple paragraphs under nearly every subsection of the article, but it seems to me that this effort to include what I believe to have been well sampled quotes from the men has been deliberately stifled. Look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmudt-Schmidt 78 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not true, I think, to say that " He does not push an opinion or a point, but rather has simply given the men the opportunity to speak for themselves." Here are examples of McPherson summarizing the thrust of letters: 1) " Confederate and Union soldiers interpreted the heritage of 1776 in opposite ways. Confederates professed to fight for liberty and independence from a too radical government; Unionists said they fought to preserve the nation conceived in liberty from dismemberment and destruction." For cause and comrades pp 104-5. -- several historians have used the same McPherson quote. So should we. 2) "Patriotic holidays had a special tendency to call forth meditations by Confederate soldiers on the legacy for which they fought" p 105  3). "This folk memory of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat Sustained the morale of Confederate soldiers during times of discouragement. [ p 105]  4) "The rhetoric of liberty that had permeated the letters of Confederate volunteers in 1861, grew even stronger as the war progressed."  In other words, McPherson is explaining the context and the meaning of what the soldiers are writing. That's essential to their use. Otherwise, we're using primary sources to manipulate the readers. Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * With respect, it is pretty obvious why there's a an issue here. The problem is one of sampling bias, essentially no different than if we were doing a survey. There is a massive 'population' of letters in McPherson's book. I don't question McPherson's sampling methods, which are irrelevant to our discussion here. What I do question is how any wikipedia editor can make an NPOV selection of a few of those letters in such a way as to fairly represent the book as a whole. I don't think this can be resolved in any reasonable way.

−
 * I agree with RJenson's edit comments in which s/he states that there is no way to do this and remain faithful to RS.

−
 * Finally, (and I freely admit both that this is my weakest argument and that it does not apply universally), my experience has been that when people talk about the motives of ordinary confederate soldiers, what they are sometimes really doing is pushing a POV. That POV is designed to creates doubt or uncertainty about the political motives behind the creation of the confederacy. The motive for the creation of the confederacy was very simple: to maintain and expand slavery. We know this because the confederates themselves told us in 1860-61. That fact should never be obscured, and I fear that something like that happens when we try to say why ordinary soldiers fought. Soldiers in every war fight for all sorts of reasons that generally have absolutely nothing to do with the political purposes of the war. So although it is not fair to those soldiers nor to every person who tries to discuss this subject, it is nevertheless my experience that there's a subtext of "it wasn't about slavery" when, well, politically, it WAS.

−
 * This is not meant as questioning the sincerity of any editor here. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "The motive for the creation of the confederacy was very simple: to maintain and expand slavery. We know this because the confederates themselves told us in 1860-61." -except that four states comprising nearly half the population of the Confederacy did not say that. -Topcat777  16:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point. Please read the succession statements of those who did, and the CSA constitution, and then tell me what it was all about. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You have read them?...but don't know how to spell secession???-Topcat777 18:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I’d like to direct the discussion back to what’s relevant here: including or excluding quotes from Confederate soldiers. Principally, I’d like to point out that the references made in this section are from a different book. The book that the proposed quotations are from is “What They Fought For, 1861-1865” which only has 88 pages. It is not some of James McPherson’s other volumes about the cause of the war, or the moral issues at stake. This is a volume dedicated exclusively to the words of soldiers themselves. The concerns raised by opposition so far have stated that while James McPherson’s work is ultimately not what concerns them, the methods of quote selection and extraction by editors does. In the indicated work, McPherson divides the book into three sections; which are, respectively; motivations of Confederate Soldiers and Sailors, Motivations of Northern Soldiers and Sailors, and each sides’ respective take on the slavery issue - as the men in the ranks, and not politicians - saw it. I stress again that it is a book devoted exclusively to exploring the *motivations of soldiers* - not of the nation, not of secession, etc etc. This is a fitting category, since the subset in question is titled “Motivations of Soldiers”, not “National political Motivations” as concerned statesmen or articles of secession - which are already covered in depth in this article.

Concerning selection bias in editor quote choices; I’d like to point out that not a single quote in the section of the book devoted to motives of Confederate Soldiers ever mentions slavery. From that section of the book, selection bias concerned those in opposition of the quotes for fear that unfairly chosen quotes push an image of The Confederacy which might otherwise contradict Confederate motives pertaining to slavery. Ultimately, what it does it matter? This is not about confirming or threatening someones’ narrative of the war. It is about being able to include the words of soldiers, under a section devoted to explaining their motivation. It seems to me that the quotes are frustrating and problematic because they do threaten an image that is trying to be pushed - which it and of itself is a POV; and as such those in opposition of the quotes and any connotations they might bring have simply opted to remove them. This goes against the spirit of truth and freedom of information, instead showing that if material does not lend itself to the oppositions' interpretation of history, they simply deem it not be included. Among Confederate Soldiers sampled in James McPherson’s book, the only group not represented with a quote are those who expressed hatred for northern soldiers and citizens, and a desire for revenge killing - effectively excluding fears that the selected quotes omit connotations of slavery. I was, to this point, not debating that issue, and I do not think that's Magnolia251 intended to come off.

However, in regards to that section of conflict, I’ll make a few points. I have read the Confederate Constitution - I have a copy on my desk. I’m well aware of the fact that it guarantees the rights of slave owners to bring slaves to new territories, and that it guarantees the right of these territories to opt to be slaveholding should they choose. But it also explicitly bans the further importation of slaves, and it allows for the introduction of states and territories that are non-slaveholding. Furthermore, I find it important that a significant number of Confederate states fail to mention slavery at all in their secession documents. North Carolina and Virginia had not yet seceded when Lincoln called for a blockade - an act of war - to stretch the length of their coastlines. The Federal government then - after Sumter - wired the governors of each state asking for troops, which would ultimately be refused: on the very unambiguous grounds that these states would never give an American president men to invade his own soil, or the soil of former states wanting out of the Union.

Maryland’s state government was thrown in jail before it was afforded the right to vote, and Lincoln then suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus. I think there’s a confusion here: slavery might have been the deciding factor in fueling differences between North and South, but ultimately, the war began over a simple question: does a state have the right to leave the Union?

I think there’s an unfortunate trend today to confuse slavery with white supremacy, which was nation wide and accepted. At this time, nonwhites were unwelcome to vote, unwelcome to marry whites, and unwelcome to be American Citizens, north and south alike. The VAST majority of Northern soldiers - mid 19th century american males - would have mirrored the racial views of their southern counterparts.

The inconvenient fact remains that the Emancipation proclamation was not issued until 629 days - or one year, 8 months, and 20 days into the war. Furthermore, it only freed slaves in rebelling states, conveniently and deliberately omitting slaveowners in border states; and in Maryland and Delaware, which were sending thousands of men to fight the Confederacy. For almost two years, Union soldiers occupied cities like New Orleans, or territory in Northeastern NC, where plantations ground on, and blue coated soldiers did nothing but stand by idly. Beyond this, Lincoln actually issued the proclamation with an ultimatum - if rebelling states would opt to rejoin the Union by January 1st, 1863; then the proclamation would have never been issued.

It’s widely accepted today that Lincoln ran on an abolitionist platform, or, at the minimum, one that opposed the expansion of slavery into western territories and new American States. But if we can assume that including quotes from Confederate field infantry and cavalrymen is so threatening to the connotation that the Confederacy was created in defense of slavery that they must be quickly and repeatedly stifled away, then we can surely assume that failing to include Lincoln’s personal views on race creates a strong connotation of Union benevolence and moral superiority; when the reality is that Lincoln and most Northern counterparts opposed slavery - when they did - as much on the grounds that it would be ultimately destructive to the prolonged health of White American bloodlines and social structure, as they did on grounds of its inhumanity:

A. “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality” -Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

B. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that” -Lincoln, (Voices of America, p.138).

C. “I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” -Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural address: Monday, March 4, 1861

D. “Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.” -Abraham Lincoln to Alexander Stephens-Vice President of the Confederacy. Springfield, Ills., Dec. 22, 1860. Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150.

And again:

E. “Our republican system was meant for a homogenous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may one day challenge the supremacy of the white man.” -Abraham Lincoln’s personal correspondence, May 1862

F. “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…” -Abraham Lincoln addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.161.147 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And my point is proven a second time. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see a little more than a copout like that. We're trying to have a mature discussion here. While I’m not here to argue about slavery - and I’m respectfully reproaching you guys for doing that - I think that a row about selection bias is kind of dubious. It’s a section about “motivations of soldiers.” We can’t include references from every soldier that fought, nor can we include all material relevant to other Confederate topics in other sections…McPherson’s work, *in the cited book*, seems to be as a good source as any from which to draw material that might represent southern soldiers’ motivations. I tend to agree with what helmut said when he pointed out that the issue seems to be that the quotes don’t lend themselves to the oppositions’ narratives, or impressions they are trying to convey, and so the conclusion is just to delete them over and over. He’s right in that that seems as much PV as anything else. I can hardly say that they are irrelevant; and they’re well sampled. The truth speaks for itself, and we should let readers draw conclusions. To conveniently omit is the same as lying. Magnolia251 didn’t Include quotes about Confederates furious at the rape, burning and pillage of southern cities and civilians; the sack of their homes and farms, the mass execution of Native Americans allied with the south, or the forced evacuation and displacement of entire counties of people either, but ultimately I’m just drawing from what McPherson compiled under his “Confederate Motivations” section, and those quotes seem extremely unilateral in their basic motivation. As far as McPherson goes, I think that he’s really just collectively restating what the quotes say, not pushing an opinion. But I suppose that restatement, if inaccurate, could be seen as one - so I’ll concede that. But if that is the case, his take on slavery from pages 61 and 63 of the book is interesting:

“..their resistance to any notion of turning a war for Union into a war against slavery was one reason for Lincoln’s hesitancy to do just that. The cause of the Union united Northern Soldiers; but the cause of emancipation divided them. Letters and diaries mention vigorous campfire arguments about slavery” (61)

“plenty of soldiers believed the proclamation had changed the purpose of the war. they professed to be betrayed. They were willing to risk their lives for the Union, they said, but not for black freedom.” (63)

‘“the men are dissatisfied with it”, reported a New York Captain, “and say that it has turned into a ‘nigger war’ and all are anxious to return to their homes for it was to preserve the Union that they volunteered.” Enlisted men confirmed this with a blizzard of bitter comments in letters home. “I am the boy that can fight for my country,” wrote an Illinois private, “but not for negros.” A private in the 66th Indiana wrote from Mississippi in February, 1863, that he and his messmates”will not fite to free the niger…there is a regiment her that say they will never fite untill the proclamation is with drawn there is four of the capt[ains] in our Regt sent in there resingnations and one of the lieutenants there as nine in Comp. G tride to desert.” At the end of 1862 another Illinois soldier with a wife and children reflected on the "cost of freeing the black devils. no less than 300,000 of our own free white citizens have already been sacrificed to free the small mite that have got their freedom…I consider the life and happiness of my family of more value than any nigger.” (63)

this compares to Confederate motives as such :

'In the winter of 1863-64 General Patrick Cleburne, a division commander in the Army of Tennessee, had proposed that the Confederate army should resolve its manpower shortage by freeing and arming slaves. This heretical suggestion had been squelched because, as one of Cleburne’s fellow officers said, “its propositions contravene the principles for which we fight.” But it did not stay squelched. By the following winter, discussions of the matter had again become widespread. In February, 1865, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee threw their weight behind a measure to enroll slaves in the army - with the assumption, although not the explicit authorization, that they would be freed as a reward for such service. This was a desperate move, but these were desperate times. As a Mississippi newspaper put it: “although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for…if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and nationality, away with it!” After contentious debate, the Confederate Congress finally passed the Negro soldier bill on March 13, 1865. The margin was three votes in the House and one in the Senate. This close split probably mirrored close divisions among Confederate soldiers’ (54).

The case in point is that the slavery issue was enormously contentious on both sides. The obvious purpose in including these quotes was to speak to the motives that nearly EVERY confederate soldier seemed to express from the sample, thereby rendering selection bias essentially unimportant to communicate with primary sources unilaterally confederate motivations for soldiers during the war; and more or less eliminating the oppositions' concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCLA ryder (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And now a third proof of my point. I myself did not expect to be proven right but, well, here we are.
 * The important points here seem to be that while the books we're discussing are RS, selectively pulling quotes can never be considered RS or NPOV. I'm not accusing anyone specifically here of bad faith or even POV pushing, however, there's just no way to QA the quote selection to ensure it's not biased and thus POV. To illustrate: suppose you and I each go through to pick out five illustrative quotes. Will we pick the same ones? Probably not. Will our selections shade the meaning or POV in any way? Probably, and that's just normal human bias, even if our intent is good. Moreover, this effort would be completely unnecessary because the author himself has already summarized the major themes.
 * As you conceded, we cannot include everything. Therefore we must select some things. That's where the bias comes in and, I contend, cannot be resolved. Better not to select.
 * As an sort-of-aside, is there a section in any of our WW2 articles describing the motives of US soldiers? If not, why not? Isn't it because WW2 is viewed as a "good war" and therefore the motivations of ordinary GIs are assumed to be "good" somehow? That they do not need exploration? And of course this is nonsense, because WW2 GIs fought for their friends, for their sense of individual pride, and to survive, just like soldiers everywhere. Since this does not subvert the narrative of WW2, it goes unmentioned. But there is a need in some circles to push a POV that says confederate soldiers fought for these ordinary things, or some other things, as long as the thing is not slavery. Ponder that.
 * You do realize you're, in part, arguing that Union soldiers were frequently racist (and I concede that was often that case, just as today many white people are racist) but Confederate soldiers weren't, because they were fighting for anything except slavery. I'm exaggerating, but I hope you see the point. You have virtually said "both sides did it" Yes, both sides were racist. But there were some pretty important differences in how that racism operated, don't you think?
 * The truth rarely "speaks for itself". Usually it needs some help. For sure, it needs good sampling. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the section should be in the article at all and should be deleted completely. It's WP:UNDUE – we wouldn't add a section on motivations for individual planters to grow cotton. This is not the American Civil War article (which also has a motivations section almost identical to what's currently here, but is actually smaller than the one here). Mojoworker (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic belongs under Confederate States Army -- where it is already covered in greater depth than here. Rjensen (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with deleting the section and letting readers go to the more detailed article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree also. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Is anyone opposed to removing the section? Mojoworker (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "The topic belongs under Confederate States Army" Sure...sure.  Will be waiting for you to include those type quotes (“the same principles which fired the hearts of our ancestors in the revolutionary struggle”) in the other article, but not holding my breath.-Topcat777  18:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break in long section
"You do realize you're, in part, arguing that Union soldiers were frequently racist but Confederate soldiers weren't, because they were fighting for anything except slavery." Well, not exactly...What I'm getting at is that among that sample - which is pretty well regarded - union and confederate soldiers had a variety of takes on the slavery issue. But no Union soldier ever advocated for secession; and no Confederate soldier ever advocated for the union - which is why I think its appropriate to include quotes from Confederate soldiers about secession and independence. And I'm sorry, but if the "we cannot include everything. Therefore we must select some things. That's where the bias comes in and, I contend, cannot be resolved. Better not to select" runs true; then I don't understand why the article is already covered in quotes from political leaders that are subjective to the same ends. There's several mentions of Davis' take on slavery; but hardly any on his endless ranting about independence and secession. For soldiers in the field, these were the only two causes that, among really reliable samples, were shared by every Confederate soldier. I guarantee that If the sample I'd looked had had twenty men whining about "niggers", it wouldn't have been touched. Why? it isn't because the quotes are irrelevant, but because the two political tenets that every confederate favored run contradictory to evidence that they fought to preserve human slavery. If that's the real concern here, which it appears it is, then I think the appropriate solution is to include words McPherson's summaries, in the place of quotes, which talk about slavery as a contentious issue for both sides, and then articulate the respective motivations specific to one side or another. This would be enriching to the measley paragraph talking about WHY the 300,000 soldiers fought the war the rest of the article is over. I mean I'm a first gen east indian girl from tampa, I don't have blood in this fight or some stake in the argument, but the institutionalized bias to attack any confederate material that doesn't overtly mention slavery - and include all that which does - is pretty obvious. That's why I'm taking the other side on this one. It's about whether quotes from soldiers can enrich a section on their motivations. The answer's yes. Not about which perception of the war those quotes might make people lean towards. Again, if selection is really such a problem, then we oughtta delete every quote on the whole article; or just include quotes representative of confederate motives to retain slavery. But in neither case does it give grounds for just dust-binning them and making them invisible. *that's* PVing. you guys say that "there is a need in some circles to push a POV that says confederate soldiers fought for these ordinary things, or some other things, as long as the thing is not slavery. Ponder that." Well I am, but by that same token is there not a push, in some circles, to remove all Confederate material which might - in and of itself - verify or hint that confederate soldiers did in fact fight for things other than keeping african americans locked up?


 * The motivations of the soldiers, and McPherson's analysis, are already covered in the article about the Confederate States Army where it belongs. The cause is already outlined with the section A revolution in disunion and there also is the whole page of Origins of the American Civil War. If you want to avoid an edit war you´d probably need both consensus about the content, a good written form and the right place for it. Neither is given here and, concidering the topic, is hard to achieve. Also please remember that the talk page is no general forum so if you just want in-depth discussion better go to civilwartalk.com ... GELongstreet (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Flags in Info Box
In the info box the then-flag of NC is used for TN and vice versa. Please fix that --81.186.244.171 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Solved. The numbers were mixed up, thanks for noticing. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Article quality
It's a shame that such an important and potentially useful article is in such a poor state. Is anyone interested in trying to improve it? --John (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2017
image result for confederate flag ,this is the real confederate flag JerPollarBear (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Incorrectly formatted image.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132115262500/http://www.wvculture.org/history/wvcivilwar.html to http://www.wvculture.org/HISTORY/wvcivilwar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011024040/http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860 to http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604075834/http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html to http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206024047/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/canu/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/canu/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206024037/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/AP2xC84/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/AP2xC84/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111231646/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/ccsus/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/ccsus/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206024042/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/E468x7xM647/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/E468x7xM647/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024013411/http://www.library.okstate.edu/okmaps/ to http://www.library.okstate.edu/okmaps/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confederate States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20132115262500/http://www.wvculture.org/history/wvcivilwar.html on http://www.wvculture.org/HISTORY/wvcivilwar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Query re poet laureate
I hope that someone with more knowledge than I about the topic could tell me whether Margaret Junkin Preston was
 * Officially, by some sort of proclamation, the Poet Laureate of the Confederacy, of which there would have to be some record in a newspaper,
 * or, as I surmise, this was something said about her after the war, when her books appeared. Looking at her book titles, it's pretty clear _she_ thought she was. To my knowledge there is no writer on the war, not even Walt Whitman, who wrote more poetry on Civil War topics.

Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Map in infobox
Is there a clearer map that could go in the infobox? Shewing almost the whole of the Americas to illustrate a part of the USA seems a little disproportionate to me. DuncanHill (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. It's unhelpful to readers. --John (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At the moment there is no "map". There's an animated map of development over time, which is really unhelpful if you want to see which states were in and not and there's the infobox map which is not very easy to use. Francis Davey (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's some maps at the WikiMedia Commons category "Maps of the Confederate States of America". I think a non-animated map is best.  This one would be good, I think, if it showed the name of Mississippi, which is somehow missing, and didn't have a caption about Tennessee.  I like how it shows both the Confederate and Union states.  Can someone create an improved version of this map, or create a new, similar one? — Mudwater (Talk) 13:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the linked map; I have several newer ideas for it, here's a sampling. What seems like it would be best for the infobox? Do we show the maximal extent of CSA claims (the core states, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, and the native nations)? Do we have different colors for what they claimed but never had any real control over (central Tennessee, western and northeastern Virginia, southeastern Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky)? Do we even need the USA in there, especially since Kansas overlaps with one of the allied nations?


 * I could modify this: File:United States Central map 1863-03-03 to 1863-03-04.png to remove the U.S. territorial borders, add in Arizona Territory and the allied tribes;
 * Or, we could work with this work-in-progress I've been toying with, File:Confederate States map 1861-12-31 to 1865-05-05.png. I could add different shades to indicate MO and KY were illegitimately seceded, but they were still fully considered part of the CSA, so should be included.

Obviously whatever method we go with, I'd make a custom one for the infobox. What do y'all think? --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Poke? :) --Golbez (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I still think it would be best to have a map that shows all of the U.S., like the one I included above in my first post in this section, and not just a map of the C.S.A. itself. The map should therefore be color coded for Confederate states and territories vs. Union states and territories, more or less like in the example. My thought would be to do it by whole states and not to get too complicated by showing different parts of Tennessee or Virginia. But having Missouri and Kentucky be striped to show that they were claimed by the C.S.A. but pretty much under Union control might be good, and the same for any territories that were in a similar situation. Thanks for your work on this. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see what I can do. Do I also include the allied tribes? And it feels like it would raise questions if Missouri and Kentucky were shaded as 'claimed but not controlled' but actual areas claimed and not controlled - most notably northwestern Virginia - were not similarly noted. It's a very difficult question to portray in a single image. --Golbez (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to keep things simpler. Thinking about this further, it might be preferable to show Missouri and Kentucky as part of the Union.  Along these lines, showing the allied Native American tribes might be too much detail.  This is intended to be the new main map for the article, hopefully included in the infobox, so it doesn't have to explain all the historical details.  And some readers will not click through and will just view the map in its smaller size.  (There could be other maps added to the article, or to different articles, to show more detailed historical information.)  That's my view anyway. — Mudwater (Talk) 09:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

How's this? The USA is brown, the full, controlled-by-their-government-at-some-point members of the CSA are yellow, and the territories, allied nations, and claimed-by-CSA-but-who-are-they-kidding states as red. Does it need labels? Most infobox maps don't have them, so I wasn't sure. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Info in infobox
In the brief chronology offered under Historical Era, why does the last item, "Dissolution," have a date of May 5, 1865, while it yet links to the part of the article dated May 10? (I would think the date in the infobox should be corrected rather than the link.) --Fredwords (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Davis was captured on May 10... the second sentence in that section says the Confederate cabinet dissolved on May 5. The date is correct, as is the link, since there's no section on the May 5 dissolution. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)