Talk:Confederate States of America/Archive 9

GIF timeline in three columns
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For 8/20/1861: I would change that to "Restored Government of Virginia passes 'An Ordinance to Provide for the Formation of a New State Out of a Portion of the Territory of This State', to be approved by public referendum Oct. 24, 1861." Or however you wish to word it. This was not actually the creation of the state, just an ordinance to approve the creation of the state. Dubyavee (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm presently coloring it as a disputed state named "Virginia", next to the solidly Confederate state named "Virginia". Until 1863 when it becomes, of course, the disputed state named "West Virginia". --Golbez (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Golbez. And I would like to say again how nice it is of you to take this on. Dubyavee (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

GIF design in three columns

 * Comments:
 * Was Tennessee admitted to the CS in May or July? This article says May.
 * Our article says Indian Territory was never formally ceded, but they received representation in the Confederate Congress. Thus, barring additional sources, I consider it somewhat of an external territory, like Puerto Rico is to the US, as opposed to an internal territory like Arizona was.
 * Maybe I can find some way of illustrating which states were expelled from Congress at which times... hm. I'll think about that.
 * The article has a map that says a "New Mexico Territory", above Arizona Territory, was claimed by the CS; I have never seen a source for this, does anyone know if this is accurate, or if it's only including this because of the Union's New Mexico Territory?
 * "MiDi-5:TX n. to n.LA." How is this different from just saying "TX and LA"?
 * Oh, wait, I see - southern Louisiana was captured early and maintained representation. Oy. I love how this gets more and more complex.
 * How to display the military districts? I don't want to give them different colors from each other, as they had the same status, and it adds more colors to an already colorful map. I could use the thicker international border to set them apart. In fact, that would give a useful counterbalance - the seceding states had the international border when they left, and now the military districts to reconstruct them have the same. State -> Independent -> CSA -> Military -> State. Circle of life. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) Tennessee legislature passes a ‘secession resolution/ordinance’ May 6 (Martis) I do not have the other source at hand. I’ll pursue it, one of us should nail it down.
 * (2) TN, TX, VA used a political theory of the “Jacksonian Era of Democracy” requiring 5-step: legislature-elections-convention-referendum-secession. Others used 4-step: legislature-elections-convention-secession, others 2-step: legislature-secession. They all can fit into a rigorous category consistently applied in every case: date of Secession Ordinance.
 * (3) The Confederate Congress approved admitting Tennessee on May 17, subject to conditions of the referendum. This is the date Admitted to CSA. Delegates were seated in August. In VA case, delegates were seated the day admitted, before referendum or voter elections. To the CSA, the CS legislature determined representation, not any one of the various political theories. Thus secessionist governor appointed Representatives would to for MO, although some were elected out of Army camps.
 * (4) TN referendum on June 8 approved secession. Like VA referendum after CSA admission, the event should be noted. But for CSA.GIF, whatever the political theory, the significance rests on whether battalions were raised, fought and campaigned. If tens of thousands are persuaded to arms, the ordinance is significant, whether 2-step or 5-; if no one shows up, the ordinance is “not worth the paper it is written on”.


 * (5) MiDi-5. My bad, it should read a district in TX north to the LA northern border latitude. TX has its own history. The secession won there because the USA did not protect from Plains Indians raids. Thus CSA treaties with the Five Civilized Nations. But they could not subdue the Plains Indians when CSA could not meet treaty obligations. Smuggled bales of cotton landed on the Gulf coast for Indian Territory have value on world exchanges, but they are not crates of rifled Enfields. After the Civil War, Generals Sherman and Sheridan are heroes in TX for their 1870s Indian War exploits against Plains Indians (Fehrenbach, “Texas”). Comanches could go 400 miles into Mexico for cattle raids. They also went to Texas. railroads = cattle = Texas = immigrant cities = industrial giant. Add oil. But I digress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

6-color palette for Civil War GIF
The Civil War and the CSA in it can be comprehended in a state GIF with an 8-category legend in six colors.

1. The #1 color:
 * United States

2. The #2 color: Secession Ordinance
 * note any referendum whether before or after "Admitted to Confederacy"
 * 13 states and two territories

3. The #3 color: Admitted to Confederacy
 * dates by CS Congress (Martis) for 13 states, other for two territories
 * - except those in #4 color. seven until March 4, 1863, then four/one.

4. The #4 color: CSA with U.S. Representatives, and
 * USA with C.S. Representatives (WV)
 * from each "Admitted to Confederacy" until 38th Congress,
 * to Mar 4, 1863: VA, KY, MO, LA, TN, AZT, Indian Terr.
 * after Mar 4, 1863: WV, KY, MO, AZT, Indian Terr.
 * - Indian Territory treated for summary purposes like AZT
 * - national border along southern border of WV

5. The #1 color: uncontested Union. end of organized resistance directed
 * by elected CSA officials and funded by CS Congressional appropriations
 * after Apr 9, 1865: WV, KY, MO, AZT, Indian Territory

6. The #5 color: Presidential Reconstruction
 * after Apr 9, 1865: TN, LA, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, AR, TX
 * - in Congress, "Vacant"

7. The #6 color: Radical Reconstruction
 * After March 2, 1867: Military Districts (MiDi) with surrounding national borders
 * date from first of four Reconstruction Acts which established Military Districts
 * MiDi-1:VA, MiDi-2:NC-SC, MiDi-3:GA-FL-AL,
 * MiDi-4:AR-MS, MiDi-5:TX n. to n.LA border.

8. The #1 color: Readmitted to Congress
 * United States

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The CSA treaty with two tribes provided for applying for statehood. The article features an infobox with independent state republic flags. Unlike the ratification process found in the U.S. Constitution, each state presented itself to the C.S. Congress on its own terms to apply for Confederacy. The CSA adhered to principles of "state sovereignty", a sovereignty just like the Native-American nations. There should not be a distinctive color to distinguish their autonomy as there was no distinction in the eyes of CSA. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the Golbez and JimWae discussion concerning the International boundary.
 * The International boundary might be replaced with another line font, say, solid (thinner than international) line on the Confederate side, dotted line on the Union side -_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-_, or something.The universal descriptor could be
 * "Boundary claimed by the Confederate States of America, [month] 1861 - April 1865."
 * the border changing with each new Admitted to Confederacy. That would put WV on the south of the line, but WV would stay #4 color (CSA-with-U.S. Representatives, same color as USA-with-C.S. Representatives) and the geopolitical change would show visually because  #3 color would obtain to VA (CSA, no U.S. representatives).  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical restrictions prevent me from being fancy with dotted lines, and also they would either have to be so thick as to render the panhandles of West Virginia entirely black, or so thin that the nuance of 'dashed on one side, solid on the other' would be lost. Such a detailed line might work in a much more zoomed-in, fine-penciled work, but not how I do it. But, I might try nonetheless. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Introductory - "secession" discussion
In the introductory passage, following WP style guidelines, I edited the intro "secession" passage for flow and conciseness, directly contrasting the Confederate view immediately adjacent to that of the U.S. -- Then I located the excellent detailed discussion on "secession" that had been located in the introduction into the lead-in for the main "secession" article section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The first line of the article is factually incorrect: "The Confederate States of America (also called the Confederacy, the Confederate States, C.S.A. and The South) was a government set up from 1861 to 1865 by 11 Southern slave states of the United States of America that had declared their secession from the U.S."


 * The state of North Carolina, the last state to leave the Union, was unique in the fact that North Carolina did not seceed from the Union as the other twelve states did. Instead, NC chose to UNDUE the act which made in a part of the Union in the first place.  On May 1st, 1861 Governor Ellis called an emergency session in Raleigh of the legislature.  The North Carolina General Assembly immediately authorized Ellis to send troops to Virginia at once to help defend that state.   An ordinance was proposed by F. Burton Craige of Rowan County, and was passed by a unanimous vote.  That evening, North Carolina passed the act repealing North Carolina's ratification of the U.S. Constitution and on May 21st, 1861, President Jefferson Davis proclaimed North Carolina a Confederate state.


 * Since were nitpicky on acuracy here, SECESSION is entirely different from UNRATIFYING the Constitution. The actual documents and minutes of the meeting can be found in the NC Capital Archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.206.135 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To UNRATIFY the Constitution, the procedure for ratifying the constitution must be reversed.
 * (1) the U.S. Congress (Articles Congress then) recommends to the legislatures of all the states to use the same procedure.
 * (2) the state legislature calls for a Convention of representatives of the people chosen for the sole purpose of deciding union/disunion.
 * (3) states, including NC increased suffrage to elect these ratification Convention delegates, following regular state constitution order.
 * (4) the state Conventions meet in public with crowds, and its debates reported and its delegates consult statewide and nationally.
 * (5) Exceptions to the proposals made in Convention place requirements honored by that new government in the Bill of Rights.
 * (6) The Congressionally mandated concurrence of 3/4 of the states to bind any one state was achieved with 11 of 13, unanimous with NC and RI in two years. By 1861, three-fourths required 27 for ratifying or unratifying. Congress had passed no enabling legislation, but some Disunionists proposed a Convention of all 15 slave-holding states without Congress, to secede on 3/4 ratification with twelve states.
 * (7) previously constituted Congress (Articles Congress then) acknowledges legitimacy of new regime, dissolving itself without coercion.


 * By your own account, no such thing happened in 1861, therefore there was no “unratifying” of the Constitution. A secessionist governor called an “emergency” meeting of the legislature, though the March inauguration following November elections was known in advance. The partial, rump legislature unanimously presumed what they would not submit to referendum either before or after, then it subsequently submitted the state to a proclamation of the Confederacy’s Provisional President, elected unanimously with a vote of six to zero.


 * The references may be in the NC Capital Archives and much of it is online. As you must know, NC is held by many scholars to have superior research and networking resources than those to be found in my humbled Virginia. Please provide a direct link to your scholarly source for our perusal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

When was the Confederacy formed?
From the article:
 * Montgomery, Alabama served as the capital of the Confederate States of America from February 4 until May 29, 1861. Six states created the Confederate States of America there on February 8, 1861.

How could it serve as a capital of a country that would not be created for four more days? --Golbez (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that Montgomery was the capital because SC emissaries to each of the seven secessionist conventions prompted inclusion of the call to convention at Montgomery in each secession ordinance. Delegates showing up there were under instructions to make Montgomery the Capital.
 * Coulter reports (“The Confederate States of America” p.19) Than Montgomery was chosen by “practically all” of the secessionist conventions. The official emissaries of the six secessionist governors all lobbied for Montgomery. (Houston had no such emissary, Unionist/Cooperationist he was excluded from the round-robin secessionist correspondence.) The caucus of Southern Senators on Jan 15 in Washington DC recommended it to each of their state legislatures.
 * The Provisional Convention convened in Montgomery on Feb 3, 1861 and it sat on Feb 4. The motion to make Montgomery the Capital was passed with other provisions, sent to committee, drafted Feb 5-7 and passed unanimously Feb 8. The Convention nominated one name for Provisional President and one for Provisional Vice President, and Feb 9 Davis and Stephens were elected unanimously. Davis was referred to as the "President of Six Nations". (Coulter, p.32) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: that "unanimous" vote was 6-0. Each state delegation had that of its number in the US Congress, except Texas, which was twice its size there. Each state had one vote, as in the Articles of Confederation. Texas had a 5-step secession process, so while the Texas delegation was seated and is counted in the "original seven", it had not the roll call vote until referendum made secession operative in their view, by the insistence of the Texas delegation, and it is so noted in the Journal. The Virginia delegation had no such compunction, so it was seated and voted before its ratifying referendum. (Martis). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

”Kith and kin of every degree”


Anonymous editor would blank a quote from Coulter in the sentence, “It was an American tragedy, ‘brother against brother, father against son, kith against kin of every degree’."

In one sense, the quote is a from a reliable source which bears directly, succinctly, on the topic, although, granted, somewhat gracefully. This may come from a good faith misunderstanding. The expression is not simply a flourish, it actually conveys information.

As noted in a description from Emory Thomas describing the folkways of the South, since deleted, the “persistent folk culture in the Old South” was made up of the sectional values of a culture combining aristocracy, democracy and kinship (Thomas, p.9).


 * kith and kin means “both friends and family”.
 * The phrase “kin of every degree” refers to the “degrees of kinship”, a phrase which is acknowledged in common English usage in the Wikipedia entry “Degrees of kinship” which is duly redirected to consanguinity.

Or it may be the editor may be unacquainted with the topic, but it may also be that the root of the misunderstanding may be the enduring cultural divide. If we are riding on a bus as perfect strangers, the Yankee turns to his neighbor and pleasantly asks, “What do you do?” This begins an inquiry into how things work and how innovations can be applied. The Southron inquires, “Where are you from?” This begins the search for connection to place, then kin in that place, and so, relationship with the rider, connection, a business contact perhaps, and maybe a place to stay with family at the end of the journey.

This is characteristic of both Anglo- and Afro- Southern cultures, like holding small children on the hip and line dancing. See the Pulitzer Prize-winning Australian cultural anthropologist Rhys Isaac, “The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790 ISBN 978-0-80-784814-2. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a lot of words for what I think was the simple confusion that they weren't aware of the word "kith." --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Last CSA date
Although it has no bearing on the GIF mapping project, nevertheless, relative to previous discussion here, the last CSA government sponsored, Congressionally funded, civilian controlled military surrender was the Pacific Ocean commerce raider of twelve whalers, cruiser CSS Shenandoah Captain James Iredell Waddell, commanding. Waddell acknowledge the end of war in the Pacific from reliable sources on August 2, 1865 (Coulter, p.305), and surrendered to the British captain of the HMS Donegal in England on November 6, 1865. The Adams-class guided missile destroyer USS Waddell (DDG-24) was named for him. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is listed at Conclusion of the American Civil War. --Golbez (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle-naming conventions - i -
I have re-termed some of the battles with the Confederate convention, linking them to the articles that use the more common Federal denominators. Generally, US names armies by rivers, battles by streams; CS names armies by places, battles by places. Thus,
 * on September 17, 1862,
 * the U.S. Army of the Potomac [River] fought at Antietam Creek,
 * the C.S. Army of Northern Virginia fought at Sharpsburg, Maryland.


 * on April 6-7, 1862,
 * the U.S. Army of the Tennessee [River] fought at Shiloh Branch,
 * the C.S. Army of Mississippi fought at Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee.
 * Aside: The reason for all the creeks at battles was that both sides wore wool clothing year-round. Movement was navigated cross-country from creek to creek, as the perspiring soldiers required rehydration throughout the day marching. Both sides grew from moving under five miles a day at First Manassas -- Jackson’s mountain boy “foot cavalry” excepted -- to over twenty miles a day by Second Manassas, both sides.

Alas, the battle-naming convention is not uniformly enforced throughout the duration of the war, it does vary some on both sides. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I believe your aside comment is in error. The reason that the Union army were near bodies of water was owing to the fact that at the beginning of the war they had very little geographical knowledge of the South and few detailed maps. The maps that they did have were based on waterways which is what they used as navigational points. Look at Keegan, pp. 94-97. Where did you get your information? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  16:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the first important battle set the format--the Union called it "Bull Run" (after a small river--it was water but it was not navigable) and the Confeds called it Manassas (after a small town). Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Berean Hunter. Did I say thanks yet for the leadership-assist at “American Civil War”? I read into the Keegan link. Yes, unless the battle was at a post office or a railway station, the naming of things were alike across the many incomplete and conflicting sources only in the naming of streams, hence naming battles for streams. Also, once begun, the format continued. Interestingly, linguists tell us some water names predate the extant Native American languages, as river and lake names were received from their predecessors on the land.
 * ”The official military atlas of the Civil War” is now available on the bargain racks. Elements are mapped there which are now lost on a modern interstate map. If you are reading a diary from the 1700s, it is indispensable if you want to trace the narrative. There are not only long abandoned places and renamed localities. Rivers and streams, branches, brooks and rills mapped there may be lost now in the disrupted watersheds carved up by modern road engineering.
 * I fear I surprised with the petite concerns of the infantryman. Commanders may have stumbled forward blindly from stream to stream because they were lost, but also because the men needed water on the march. Both sides needed water, they met at streams with water and found themselves fighting as armies do. That was my only point, a trivial one. Our collaborator and GIF programmer Golbez also reminds me I get too wordy.
 * USMA has a spectacular animated GIF map series of American wars online, showing strategic, grand tactical and petite tactics in map collections for major battles. Some have narration and sound effects. The clopping of walking horses at JEB Stuart’s cavalry on administrative move, running horses in the attack ! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

International relations section
Britian remained out of the war because Lincoln fooled them into believing the war was over slavery. France remained neutral because England did. The remark that the south was mistaken about Britian depending on them for cotton infers the Southerns were stupid. Such remarks are offensive and racist. 71.228.186.13 (talk)the rebel sharpshooter —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC).


 * -- You ascribe too much to Lincoln. First of all, much of history is writ large among the many. Begin with looking at the British Empire world wide. Regarding slavery, a good place to start is the story of the anti-slavery movement advanced by Wilberforce as pictured in the film Amazing Grace. In much the same way the mass movements of American First and Second Great Awakening had roots in Great Britain, likewise Abolitionism in the United States. Lincoln did not author all that, certainly not by fooling all of Britain single-handedly beginning March 3, 1861 at his inauguration. British believed the war was about slavery all by themselves. Just because they talk funny does not mean the British are stupid and racist.
 * -- It was not that Southerners were stupid. Political leaders were beholden to their monied backers. Very rich people think that they are very smart. Very successful enterprises that have lasted a very long time are run by people who believe that those enterprises will last some time longer. Secessionists believed their monied backers who were successful, well-educated, powerful and determined.
 * -- (1) no one, north or south, foresaw the increase in cotton supplied from British colonial India and Egypt expanding as much as it did as soon as it did. (2) no one, north or south, foresaw the disastrous European crop failure beginning concurrently with the American Civil War. Without it, dependence on northern grain surplus to avert widespread starvation would not have trumped the economic advantages of choosing southern "king cotton" for monetary gain.
 * -- Secessionists did not make a "stupid" miscalculation about "king cotton". It was merely inaccurate economic forecasting for two very large reasons, both of which were (a) unforeseen and (b) out of their control. That is something very different than "stupid". One can, however, fairly pronounce that the resulting fluctuations in the mid-term international commodity markets resulted in financial consequences unfortunate for the secessionist cause. In the long-term, world markets returned to the more reliable supply of lower cost, higher quality southern cotton following cessation of hostilities there. "King Cotton" to be sure, only different. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Map questions - TN VA KY MO LA - Martis as RS
So I've been working a little bit here and there on the map, and I think I have most of it done. There remains the question of coloring the areas that had dual representation - that is to say, Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisiana.

Kentucky and Missouri are simple - both states had representation in both houses the length of their secession.

After that things get a little itchy. The following representations are partial; no side controlled the whole of any of these states, but I'm figuring, if any part of the state was represented in any side, it counts.
 * Tennessee
 * was represented in the CS congress from the time it joined until surrender.
 * was represented in the US congress until March 4 1863, when the 38th congress convened and apparently booted out all remaining representatives from rebel states.


 * Louisiana
 * was represented in the CS congress from the time it joined until surrender.
 * was represented in the US congress until secession, and again from December 3 1862 until March 4 1863.


 * Virginia until partition
 * was represented in the CS congress from the time it joined until partition
 * was represented in the US congress from June 9 1861 until partition (I did think it was only until March 4 1863, but the senators apparently retained their seats through the 38th congress)


 * Virginia after partition
 * The whole was represented in the CS congress from partition until surrender; the CS claimed the whole of the state and thus it all counts.
 * West Virginia was represented in the US congress from December 10 1863 on.
 * Virginia was represented in the US congress until March 4 1865.

The first two are relatively simple - color Tennessee as being in both congresses until March '63, and color Louisiana the same from Dec '62 to March '63.

Virginia is where it gets complicated. If I were to follow the rules I have set forth, this is how it would go:
 * From joining the CSA to December 3 1861, it would be dark green.
 * From June 9 1861 to June 20 1863, it would be light green.
 * From June 20 1863 to December 10 1863, Virginia and West Virginia would be dark green.
 * From December 10 1863 to March 4 1865, both would be light green.

The italicized portion is why I'm bringing this up. If I'm going solely by representation in Congress, while West Virginia was admitted on June 20, it did not seat its first US congressman until December 10.

There is of course a way around this - change the color criteria from 'having representation in congress' to 'being eligible for representation in congress'. After all, West Virginia became eligible on June 20, whereas the rebel states had been expelled and were not eligible.

There is a crazy, crazy solution to all of this that would require a lot of research to perform: Mapping the congressional districts individually. I kind of like this idea... but it would require a knowledge of Confederate districts that I don't have. Fortunately, a quick look at Google Books reveals that some of this information is there (for example, I quickly found the law that designated the Confederate districts in Georgia. Unfortunately, the scope of the counties has changed since then, but I have resources to work around that)

So once I finish this "broad strokes" map, I might go real insane and do a congressional district map.

Any comments, and is my analysis of the Virginia issue correct? --Golbez (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Virginia is tricky, to say the least, due to partition. Most of the West Virginia counties had representation in the Richmond General Assembly all through the war, and West Virginians served in the Confederate Congress as Virginians. From the Confederate point of view there was no West Virginia. This is a map of the Virginia Confederate Congressional districts. West Virginians, mostly soldiers, voted in the Virginia election of May 1863. There are 7 Congressional districts that represent all of West Virginia in the Confederate Congress (plus a good part of Virginia counties too) Districts 14,15, and 16 are totally in WV, 10, 11, 12, and 13 have 13 WV counties within them. If you want a rundown of those let me know. Dubyavee (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the Map I linked to will open for everyone, so here is another link just in case on Flickr. Dubyavee (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, since as far as the CSA is concerned WV didn't exist, WV must be colored light green (Represented in both houses). I've gone through and updated the colors for this latest hiccup, I'll probably put them up tonight. I also went crazy and did a quick map purely from the CSA/secessionist point of view - showing the seceded states as independent nations, graying out the United States, giving it the pure CSA treatment of its borders, etc. I don't know if it will have any scholarly use but it was fun to do something a little different. And between the Georgia list I found, and your excellent map of the VA districts, my crazy idea of a per-district control map might well happen. If I did that, I'd also illustrate where the capitals were and when they fell, as that would be the only adequate way (for example) to illustrate when Arizona Territory fell, it having no districts. --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to go on with a detailed district map you will need "Martis, Kenneth C., The Historical Atlas of the Congress of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865, Simon & Schuster, 1994". It is detailed with a great many maps, perhaps you can get it through inter-library loan, though I don't think it is terribly expensive.Dubyavee (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sweet, my local small college library has it. (Unusual because this is Iowa, why would a little college here have a confederate atlas? :P) Thanks for the advice. --Golbez (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WIP C.S.A. March 5
Here is my current WIP. You'll have to click through to the full version to see it animate, 2 seconds per frame for this beta version. I'm thinking the color median between yellow and green isn't visible enough, and isn't distinctive enough from the territories. And as always, the captions are up for change (and will be, since I don't want the font size jumping everywhere - I'll probably make it smaller across the board). I'm also wondering how to display the military districts, if at all. Finally, I wonder if I should switch everyone from 'member of CSA house' to 'no house' at Appomattox Court House, or on May 5 when the Confederate government was formally dissolved. I'm thinking the latter. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer "no House" as of May 5 as described. Military Districts make sense given recent historiography which links the Civil War and Reconstruction as an extension of the soco-political "second American revolution" (yes, it is a double entendre, South first/North second). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If states are indestructible like SCOTUS says, then this map should not include military districts. But if the military districts cannot be used in the map below, then their objective reality to the people living under them should be reflected in this map, since their experience was as though there were no state, only a military district. And "states" and "military districts" are mere legal fictions, artificial constructs, reified concepts. Only people are real. Yes, "Virginia", in official U.S.G. correspondence, you were once "Military District One", but your people were not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WIP Confederacy - Reconstruction March 5=
And here is the first 'crazy' version I mentioned, purely from a Confederate point of view, where seceded states were independent republics and the Union's claims were irrelevant. Not sure I could find any page to put this in to... but it's still an interesting perspective that should be presented. I present the military districts as their own entities. Would also like feedback on this. --Golbez (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is brilliant. It seems to me that if it were properly captioned as "Southern States in the American Civil War and Reconstruction -- the Confederate States of America as found in the CS Congress, Journal (date-date), and U.S. Military Districts, US Congress, Journal (date-date)", or something, it certainly would not be original research, however informative and striking the GIF revelation is. They should be distributed in two different article sections . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This map best illustrates the "Government and politics" section. The Supreme Court defined the U.S. government policy. Every individual is constrained to support the civil society in which they live. There was no treason against the U.S. government by residents acquiescing to Confederate government during the Great Rebellion wherever the U.S. government could not effectively extend its control. No one was required, either legally or morally, to resist either Confederate government nor, by extension for the purposes of our use of this map, the U.S. military government. But this map accounts for both de facto situations that these populations in states lived under. The map is good political geography. And, as the historian Pauline Maier observes, “a disjunction in historical research is not a disjunction in history.” This map should be used to illustrate the "government and politics" of the people of the American South, 1860-1880, or something, in the article "Confederate States of America", regardless of POV regarding the legitimacy of either government. In a way, a civil war is not over until the general government says it is over, and the U.S. government declared resistance to its administration ended to its satisfaction only when it abolished the extra-constitutional Military Districts required to administer its government in those places. Or on the other hand, maybe it better fits into "American Civil War". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"True documents"
DizzyDog1972 edited without discussion, “Wording corrections to be consistant with true documents of History.” with reference to the Confederacy never ending, there being no formal surrender ceremony of government.
 * Jefferson Davis wrote in the |A Short History of the Confederate States of America, p.503, Ch.LXXXVIII, “Re-establishment of the Union by force”
 * “With the capture of the capital, the dispersion of the civil authorities, the surrender of the armies in the field, and the arrest of the President, the Confederate States of America disappeared … their history henceforth became a part of the history of the United States.”
 * If the Confederacy is over in the eyes of Jefferson Davis in his published work, what scholar does DizzyDog1972 propose to counter Jefferson Davis’ judgment of its history? Unreferenced assertion from unnamed “true documents” does not persuade. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit of "died of states rights" and "conscription"
I did a copy edit on the "died of states rights" section, restating the theme national v. local "states rights" in the paragraph from Potter, making it the conclusion, which then serves as a transition into "died of Davis" subsection. Then moved solders paragraph up to "conscription" to make it the concluding paragraph, as a better summing up-conclusion there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"True documents"
DizzyDog1972 edited without discussion, “Wording corrections to be consistant with true documents of History.” with reference to the Confederacy never ending, there being no formal surrender ceremony of government.
 * Jefferson Davis wrote in the |A Short History of the Confederate States of America, p.503, Ch.LXXXVIII, “Re-establishment of the Union by force”
 * “With the capture of the capital, the dispersion of the civil authorities, the surrender of the armies in the field, and the arrest of the President, the Confederate States of America disappeared … their history henceforth became a part of the history of the United States.”
 * If the Confederacy is over in the eyes of Jefferson Davis in his published work, what scholar does DizzyDog1972 propose to counter Jefferson Davis’ judgment of its history? Unreferenced assertion from unnamed “true documents” does not persuade. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit of "died of states rights" and "conscription"
I did a copy edit on the "died of states rights" section, restating the theme national v. local "states rights" in the paragraph from Potter, making it the conclusion, which then serves as a transition into "died of Davis" subsection. Then moved solders paragraph up to "conscription" to make it the concluding paragraph, as a better summing up-conclusion there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move "flags"
The national flags section is a well written summary of the history of Confederate flags found at Flags of the Confederate States of America. I have added the link to this article "See also" section.
 * I propose that the "national flags" section here be moved to the main "Confederate flags" article as an introduction.

The states and flags section is almost complete. The Secretary of the State of Missouri authorized unlimited use of the state Confederate Missouri flag image found on that webpage, with attribution, in a personal email to me, but I switched from a PC to an Apple, and I have not yet figured out how to use "Snap" in the same way I once used "Snag-it" for downloading images into Wikimedia Commons. The plain blue field pictured is a placeholder for the flag of the Missouri state seal centered on a blue field. Note of personal privilege, when I started collaborating on this page, the first thing I did was add the Virginia flag to this chart. I am really proud of the collaboration with other editors which has expanded the flags represented to include both early flags at resolutions of secession / independence, and those subsequently adopted following acceptance into the Confederacy for each state where there were two. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose that the "states and flags" section here be moved to the main "Confederate flags" article as a subsection.


 * Missouri’s “Secretary of State” hosts a |Missouri Digital Heritage with the blanket permissions for reproduction with attribution now posted. It links to | Flags of Missouri and the Civil War, picturing the “State Guard Flag” of pro-confederates. The resources are considerably expanded.
 * I now learn that Missouri also has a second secessionist flag for the chart --  described but not pictured, a palmetto palm flag on a white field with red border to honor secession by SC with the legend “Constitutional Rights”. Missouri had voted 90% Douglas and Bell, "against both Union splitters and rail splitters". But some believed there could be no coercion to preserve the Union, and so the "invader" by their lights was to be repelled.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

infobox CSA capitals - not Danville, not Goldsboro
The reference to Danville, Virginia as the third capital of the Confederacy should be deleted from the article infobox.

While it is true that “Jefferson Davis slept here.”, Danville, Virginia cannot be considered a Confederate capital, nor can Greensboro, North Carolina, which by the Danville criteria would also qualify as the fourth Capital. The railroad cars used in transit for executive department officials and their archives from Richmond to Danville to Greensboro cannot be designated the "last Confederate White House", or the "last Confederate Capitol".

Davis was authorized by Congress both to (1) remove the executive and archives at his discretion in 1864, and again in 1865, and (2) call the legislature to meet at a site removed from Richmond. In a republic, the capital is the place where the legislature meets, the Capitol is the building where the legislature meets. Davis was no dictator, he did not pretend to be a Napoleon, only his detractors accused him of it. The Confederacy was a kind of a republic.

Davis removed much of the executive at the fall of Petersburg, but he did not call the legislature, not in Danville, nor in Greensboro, nor in any passenger car of the Richmond and Danville Railroad. On its own terms, there was no third Confederate Capital. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * yes indeed, ‎TheVirginiaHistorian is quite right, regardless of what the Danville Tourist Bureau says. Rjensen (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I took the time to drill down into the sources of the Wikipedia article on Danville as a Confederate capital. The Richmond newspaper featured a "stringer" feature - vignette meant to be entertaining, not scholarly. A sweet little old lady wrote to say her home had been the last Confederate White House and Danville the last capital of the Confederacy, because Mr. Davis was her house guest during his stay. Anyone who has visited there is aware of the very long, steep hill rising from the railroad up into the nice residential part of town then extant. When the temporary offices of government were moved back down the hill closer to the railroad station in the home of the other sweet little old lady, Mr. Davis did our correspondent the honor of remaining her house guest. He even refused her offer of her family stash of $1000 in cold hard Yankee dollar gold pieces, back when $1000 was real money, back when gold was real money. She offered without her dear departed husband's permission, but she knew he would not object to her patriotic gesture.
 * In any case, please visit the historical landmarks to the Confederacy when you visit Danville, Virginia. There is serious historical preservation going on there, even if the "capital" bit is not literally true, as they explain there when you visit, Danville "served as the acting capital of the Confederacy". It was a center of tobacco recovery following the war, the tobacco warehouses are still extant, a part of Washington Duke's tobacco kingdom. (yes, like Duke University). Why not add Goldsboro, North Carolina as a fourth capital? Well, as Grandmother S. used to say in these matters, Pity poor North Carolina, a valley of despair between two mountains of arrogance -- meaning Virginia and South Carolina. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

consensus Confederate railroads map - USMA
Rjensen deleted without discussion this photo of the pre-war Baltimore &Ohio Railroad map, reasoning that it was a Union railroad.
 * Consider the map as a place holder until an editor crops the map south to the north border of Missouri, leaving the important south-leaning town of Lecompton on the western edge of the map.


 * At a minimum, the map will then show the pattern of the South’s 10,000 miles of railroads in 1860, whether the reader is interested in (a) “South” below the Mason-Dixon Line, (b) the rails in 10 states of the Confederacy, (c) the interior lines of communication and supply, (d) rail lines of approach available to advancing Federals, or (e) port city rail access to the interior of the Confederacy.


 * This is a map of a Southern city’s B&O Railroad, “East West connections” to the territorial center of pro-slavery sentiment, Lecompton, Kansas, which has no rail connection. The southerner/secessionist import is apparent. It shows state capitals, including Milledegville GA, and connections, along with the South’s major ports and industrial and commercial centers and their connections.
 * This is a map of the Confederacy’s “interior lines”. The military import is apparent. There are three clearly traceable.
 * (1)westerly: New Orleans-Memphis-Knoxville-Richmond, broken in 1863,
 * (2) central: Pensacola-Atlanta-Charleston, broken in 1864, and
 * (3) east-coast: Allapaha-Savannah-Charleston-Wilmington-Richmond broken in 1865. The direct Savannah-Charleston link, completed December 1860, does not show on this map.


 * This map shows the axis of Confederate 1863 incursion to interdict Union eastern rail chokepoints at the military supply centers in Harrisburg PA and Baltimore MD. In this larger view, it is apparent that Meade at Gettysburg lay between Lee and the primary rail center target and Stuart’s route of reconnaissance for the army’s eastern route of extraction following destruction of the secondary rail center. Washington was fortified, but still a possible target of opportunity.
 * Without this map, one might idly speculate about Stuart wandering lost aimlessly behind the Federal lines, or Lee’s disinterest in a spectacular right flanking move to slip the set piece battle Meade had developed for Gettysburg’s third day.


 * This map shows the axis of Federal 1864 advance to interdict Confederate east-west rail connections in Sherman’s March through Union Point to the north and Macon to the South, splitting the last 30% Confederate population.
 * Savannah was of course to be the point of Federal resupply, but the strategic objective was destruction of the east-west rail connectors of population and foodstuffs beyond Federal’s immediate grasp.
 * The map could be cropped, or replaced, but not removed until a suitable replacement is found which makes available the same information and orientation that this map affords the reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the map is not useful to the reader. I did try cropping it but the RR system in the South is illegible because the artist included rivers, boundaries, longitude & various other lines that overlap the RR's & make it impossible to see where the RR are located. Try it yourself The B&O lines are bolded but they did not extend into the South. No reader will learn anything about the RR system, so let's encourage some one to make a new map that actually shows RR.  A new map would also "This map shows the axis of Federal 1864 advance" which this map does not.  As for "without this map one might idly speculate about Stuart wandering lost" -- the map shows zero about Stuart: nada, nothing. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to crop the map. It may be that Golbez has a contact to help us out. I also agree that a legend of some description would be useful. In the meantime, a one-line legend might be added to the caption,
 * Bold lines are B&O, other lines connecting places are railroads. Modern convention for longitude and latitude now labels the lines of latitude and longitude, then stops them an inch or so into the map so there are no lines into the data mapped.


 * (1) We must not underestimate the Wiki readership. On this map, there are no “various other lines” which are of no use to a general reader. All are a part of the public education required to pass end-of-course tests for 5th and 8th grade in Virginia, Texas and South Carolina, and other states. These include identifying standard symbols for rivers, oceans, longitude and latitude, state boundaries, capitals, place name fonts sized by population, and unfinished construction. Students learn to read subway/metro maps and Amtrak maps using the same line conventions in the B&O map without intersecting roads and highways. Editors can form a consensus approving maps in English Wikipedia using those same symbols.


 * (2) The reader sees smoothly drawn continuous lines representing the 10,000 miles of track in the South which are the RR lines. That is where they are located. They are the not-squiggly, not-rectangle, not-dash-dot lines. They “actually show” most RRs in the South as required here.


 * (3) The reader can take advantage of the map picturing the railroad lines as lines –trace the rail lines from Atlanta to Savannah and Baltimore to Harrisburg, I only meant to point out that on this 1860 map, those familiar with the major military operations in the Civil War would recognize the rail lines as drawn relating to strategic operations commanded by Stuart in 1863 and Sherman in 1864. There is not “nothing, nada” there, it is all there but for Chattanooga, late 1860 and post 1860 construction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

B&O RR Connections map, continued
it's a poor map--one that was never designed to show the southern RR system. (it was designed to show the B&O system) The rail lines look just like the rivers and the state boundaries and the coastlines and are not named--unless you already know the rail system you will not be able to see it on this map. This article furthermore does not discuss military operations using the rails, so that role is irrelevant. Fact is if they used a map like this in the NY subway a million people a day would get lost. Rjensen (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the complaint. The first thing one reads to understand a map is the title. It says,
 * A map of the
 * Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
 * and its principal connecting lines
 * uniting all parts of the EAST & WEST.


 * As the title describes, this map is intended to show connecting lines from the north and the south to go EAST - WEST, the principal axis of B&O Railroad right-of-way. The explicit intent of the B&O map is to inform the reader how to travel and transport freight by rail from all points north and south to the B&O railroad to travel WEST continuously on its standard gauge track, eliminating the time delays and costs of teamster transport across cities with different gauge lines, as opposed to connecting west by alternative, competing routes available at the time. The South is included in the B&O carrying trade, and so all principal rail connections from the South to the B&O are mapped in the B&O map.
 * Further, Lecompton is a westerly destination of interest to advocates of slavery in the territories. Most freight and passenger prospects for the B&O Railroad to Lecompton KS as a destination in 1860 are found in the South. Further, more rail lines are omitted in the North than are omitted in the South for the B&O map purposes.


 * Note in the accompanying NYC subway map in use on Wikipedia, the same mapping convention is followed as in the B&O map, that is, lines = rails, bubbles = places. A million people a day are indeed lost in NYC, but not because of their rail maps. This is the map that everyone reads for subways, and maps drawn with like symbols are clearly understandable to millions in NYC who do ride the rails to their destination every day.


 * In my travels over fifty years to museums and historical sites throughout the South, I have not found any maps of railroads on display or in publications available in their specialty bookstores which were drawn exclusively within the territorial confines of the C.S.A., omitting all reference to rail lines above the Mason-Dixon Line. This, whether in reference to maps used by commanders of Confederate armies, plantation owners or cotton factors. I may have overlooked the specialty map we are looking for. If one is readily available for free use, an Editor should download it onto Wikimedia Commons for our use. Rjensen and I are agreed on his main point.


 * Mapping railroads in the South as of 1860 is certainly germane to the topic of “Economy” relative to transshipping cotton for sale as a source of taxable government revenue and government-owned commodity support of the Confederate currency. Indeed, it seems that there was interest in the rail axis of approach from the North even among even the non-commercial civilian population. At the McLean House, it is reported that rail lines and their location were a consideration of Mr. McLean in removing his family from Manassas to Appomattox, away from any possible chance of armies maneuvering to battle over his farm's acreage again.


 * On this map, rail lines look like smooth lines drawn between bubbles, [ o-o---o ]. Rivers look like squiggly lines [ -~ ] labeled in italics Rivername R., going to the sea, pictured with close parallel rippled lines, [ [land] )}}} }} }  [water]]. State boundaries are dash-and-dot lines [ --- - --- - --- ]. They do not look the same. Students are taught, make maps using these symbols with titles and legends, are tested, are re-taught, make different maps with titles and legends, and are retested to master this distinction in sequential grades for elementary school map reading. The mastery of these fundamentals is extended by student activities in every subsequent social studies subject through 12th grade.


 * It may be that the map Rjensen and I wish for never was. In the mean time, I propose that we go with what we got. It is (a) as legible to the reader as other Wikipedia maps in use, (b) understandable to U.S. middle school readers and above, (c) applicable to the topic and (d) illustrative of the article text found in the “Transportation” section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Increase visibility of the 1860 B&O map: (1) Click on the map shown in the article. (2) Click on the “File:1860 B&O.jpg” map. (3) Click on the map (+) to enlarge. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * TheVirginiaHistorian says we should read the caption--it says East-West connections. There is no evidence the cartographer was at all interested in showing the southern RR, the great majority of which did not connect to the B&O. For example the key RR center of Chattanooga (famous for its choo-choo trains) is not even on the map. I've taught the use of RR maps to middle school and high school teachers. They say it is very difficult material for their kids. This map is illegible when it comes to the South--try locating the RRs in Georgia and North Carolina, for example, and see if you can tell which are interconnected and which are not. Who will explain to kids about the o-o-o and squiggles?? -- the map and its caption do not do that. It's a bad map for this article. There are hundreds of RR maps--find a better one. Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you try the three-clicks trick on both maps? Our 19th Century cartographer does better than the NYC subway map. Sort of like the Capitol designs in India ink on linen showing every individual cut stone in a façade were better than the auto-cad blue lines of today. Just a different level of draftsmanship.
 * Above, I mentioned the omission of Chattanooga and the Savannah-Charleston link. If the “great majority” of the South’s 10,000 miles that you refer to is omitted, is it four-fifths? There was not 8,000 miles of southern track about Chattanooga to be omitted, so it was not. ALL of the other lines between the bubbles on the map are the railroads.
 * - Why not admit all of the rail lines mapped into the discussion?
 * As I referenced above, the B&O map tells you exactly the rail connections in Georgia Sherman followed west to east by each railway station, north axis of advance [ Atlanta-Union Pt.-Camak-turned southeast-Millen-Savannah ] and south axis of advance [ Atlanta-East Pt.-Macon-Gordon/Milledgeville-Millen-Savannah ], then north to Charleston and into North Carolina, station by station. Before you said this detail was irrelevant, and now, for the purposes of our conversation, it does not exist.
 * - Why not admit the mapped rail lines into the discussion?
 * I explained mapping squiggly rivers and bubble towns to the kids. Over the course of nine years, my learning disabled students in eleventh grade with a fifth-grade reading level or better mostly got 100% on the geography section of the end-of-course U.S. History test. Only the best 50% of my 17 – 19 year olds with below a third-grade reading level could even get 50% of the section correct.
 * I found my secondary educational profession demanding. Hint: reading is fundamental. Pay elementary teachers six figures to teach reading, pay professors who assign reading lists and fail non-readers, a base living wage of 12k, then let them publish or perish, sort of like Europe’s great medieval universities. Well, regardless of interesting aspects of developmental psychology and learning strategies and public education that we may otherwise consider, the point is, Should we aim in our editorial selection of maps for a readership composed of elementary students who have not learned their lessons?
 * - What is the target map - readership that you are proposing for this article?
 * I have seen you now for months, repeatedly showing yourself to be a knowledgeable, discerning and fair minded editor. I have been grateful for your collaboration and guidance. Please take another look at the map. (1) Click on the map shown in the article. (2) Click on the “File:1860 B&O.jpg” map. (3) Click on the map (+) to enlarge.
 * - With respect, would you try the three-clicks trick? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Confederate Railroad Map
A couple points here: the general reader cannot handle the map without the hours of excellent training TheVirginiaHistorian provides his students. The map is irrelevant-- this article does NOT concern military movements--those are covered in many other articles. This article does discuss RR's at length but the map is no help. For example it does not name a single southern RR nor explain its gauge its connection, its disrepair, its importance. As TheVirginiaHistorian pointed out before, read the caption and it says it is a :EAST-WEST map and we need a map of the SOUTH. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, as above, I totally agree with your main point, we need a better map. It now occurs that the exhaustive inclusion of so many southern rail links in the B&O map was meant for contemporary readers to see how they could get from anywhere in the north, anywhere in the south, to the B&O to go west. That large amount of visual information, presented in a way which I so much admire for its elegance and economy, is incomprehensible to the modern general reader.
 * - Chattanooga was not mapped because, although it was a new railroad junction, it had not yet developed as much of a place to come from. It would, just as the rail centers of the north had done, but as of early 1860, there was not much there there from which to attract B&O business.


 * I now believe your point about our reader's lack of comprehension is correct, only for a different reason. The modern reader will anachronistically look at the network mapped and offhandedly think the smooth lines of man-made construction as pictured must be paved roads, railroad rights-of-way having shrunk so much over the 20th Century. Asphalt-on-gravel has replaced rip-rap railroad beds for all-season, all-weather local transportation.
 * - For instance, in northern Virginia, along the axis of I-495 to I-66 west, the asphalt laid for Old Dominion Drive runs for tens of miles of unbroken suburban settlement. In 1860 it connected several discrete towns extant on the railroad right-of-way of the Old Dominion Railroad. North of there, along the axis of Route 7, my great uncle would finish a Sunday service in Herndon, Virginia, and hop a train to the Washington Navy Yard to have dinner with my grandmother once a month, a casual affair unthinkable by road even in the 1920s. Likewise there are continuous asphalted walking-cycling paths that run from Alexandria west to Loudoun County over rail beds basically abandoned from 1870 to 1970.


 * To summarize our points of agreement, we need a RAILROAD MAP of the Confederacy which is
 * (a) comprehensive of the South, including the 5% population in Texas, and distinguishing wartime construction.
 * (b) limiting the mapped rail connections by importance, perhaps no more visually crowded than a modern Interstate Highway map,
 * (c) including examples of all four gauges, especially showing the discontinuities at cities.
 * (d) Labeling major railway names and the dates of their interdiction, perhaps boxed at the place adjacent, with the permanent break in bold.


 * I feel like I dropped by your office and got the benefit of an unscheduled interview during office hours. Thank you for your patience. I get the sense you are what college professors are supposed to be. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)




 * thanks for the compliments--there's a great map (copyright) at http://www.csa-railroads.com/images/Eastern%20Railroads.pdf which I hope some cartographer can use to make a wiki map. I suggest we use the West Point map --- a government document and not copyright -- at http://www.csa-railroads.com/images/WP%20RR%20Map.pdf.  For the purpose of the entire CSA this is highly useful.  It's pdf -- will that upload just like JPG or what?  Rjensen (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok here is the West Point map--everyone OK with it?
 * Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. Hey !! 2.95 out of 4.00 aint bad, considering. I'm lovin' it. I do not think a .pdf file can be used with the "double image" format, but it seems to work here as a single "File" image ...


 * size at 300px per guidelines,


 * Alternative "B" caption:


 * Railroads of the Confederacy, 1861
 * The system with four gauges caused interior problems, not "interior lines".


 * Alternative "C" caption:


 * Railroads of the Confederacy, 1861
 * These railroads moved cash crops to market, but limited interstate transit.


 * -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fred Leach" delete
I am not so interested in restoring the locomotive Fred Leach, deleted without discussion. I thought that it was interesting to show a period 4-0-0 locomotive captured by the Confederates and used on their right-of-way. Also, sort of a counter-weight to the Great Locomotive Chase Federal raid capturing a Confederate locomotive. I am so old I saw the Disney movie in a theater. But I am beginning to get Rjensen's editorial direction about steering away from military items in this article. I did cut almost 1000 words from my "Confederacy at war" contributions following the article-too-long tag.

Of course, being of Union origin does not disqualify a locomotive from use in an article about the Confederacy. Most of its locomotives in 1860 were Northern manufactured. Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond ceased production in 1860. Stonewall Jackson captured some 50 locomotives in his early raids on the B&O Railway. But I just want to say, Why not a movie about Jackson's locomotive raid? Not just a failed one-locomotive heist, an infantry raid successfully bagging tens of them!-!-! Later this year I'd like to get to writing a stand-alone stub on the Fred Leach. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

USMA RR map critique / assessment
Thanks to Rjensen for the assist on finding a railroad map placeholder. I believe it to have four advantages over the B&O placeholder. To review our consensus criteria / grading rubric, and critique the USMA map for our purposes. Begin assessment awarding 4.0 points.

(A) Show Confederate railroads in the South at 1860 and wartime construction.

(1) USMA placeholder shows “Southeastern United States 1861” as titled. Shows the Savannah-to-Charleston link, (plus). That RR’s opening Dec 1861 figured prominently in South Carolina’s secession convention, held away from regular business at Columbia, the state capital. And RR defense at Savannah enabled continuous rail supply to besieged Charleston until 1864.

-- Advantage over B&O map. No points deducted.

(2) USMA placeholder like the B&O leaves out Texas, with its railroad-building campaign throughout the war, so central to its Civil War – Reconstruction history. Omitting Texas shows economy for U.S. military purposes, but fails to meet comprehensive requirement to encompass the SOUTH, (minus).

-- No advantage over B&O map. Omitting Texas in railroads in the south with 5% of the Confederacy’s population, deduct .05 on the 4-point rubric.

(3) USMA placeholder highlights railroads south of the Mason-Dixon Line by using a thick double line similar to that used in modern Interstate maps, meeting the conventional definition of the “South”, (plus). Using title “United States” to illustrate the Confederacy, (minus).

-- B&O advantage for SOUTH competition against Yankee investment in westerly railroads of NY & PA. No points deducted.

(4) USMA placeholder shows Danville-Goldsboro 1864 wartime construction, (plus). Important to show military “interior lines of communication” and route of Jefferson Davis flight from Richmond by train. Does not show other wartime construction in Alabama and Georgia for connecting cotton-to-food acreage to regional theaters of war, (minus). While these wartime-built southern railroads were not important to United States military assessment of Confederate troop movements to the front, feeding Confederate soldiers was important to the Confederacy. The market was not to export, but to internal shipment to armies.

-- Advantage over B&O map. Omitting provisioning railroads in wartime construction category, two-tenths of a point deducted. (B) Limit railroads mapped to most important, uncrowded visually.

-- Successful, (plus). Advantage over B&O map. No points deducted.

(C) Show gauges with discontinuity at cities.

-- Successful, (plus). Advantage over B&O map. No points deducted.

(D) Label major railways, names and dates of principal disabling

-- Does not label names or disabling by disrepair or interdiction, (minus). No advantage over B&O map. Omitting labeling requirement, deduct one full point.

Summary: By our criteria, USMA placeholder map has a 4-2-1 advantage over B&O map: four advantage, two no advantage, and one B&O advantage. Points deducted for omitting Texas in South (-0.05), omitting Confederate provisioning RRs in wartime construction (-0.20), and omitting labels altogether, both RR names and disrepair (-1.0)  = 2.75 of 4.00. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support inserting the USMA map uploaded by User:Rjensen. Perhaps not as lovely as the previous, but certainly a resource which describes and identifies, and an unimpeachable source. BusterD (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support RR map placeholder from USMA over B&O previous. USMA has four advantages over B&O and it scores above 2.0 on the article's editor-consensus 4.0 scale.


 * Also, do not miss animated campaign and battle maps on USMA history department webpage which can be used in the public school classroom with great effect, supplemented with other open source online illustration during presentation. RR administrative troop moves have locomotive whistle sound effects. Students cannot miss them, they develop a concrete understanding of the Civil War as the first Railroad War, directly applicable to the WWI American Expeditionary Force getting exclusive use of U.S.-built narrow-gauge right-of-way for rail supply to the front ...
 * USMA military maps for all historical periods are click-to-pause for classroom discussion, student responses to map questions, teacher remedial lecture, supplemental electronic in-class retest, etc. Also, the continuous run format for each map allows the instructor "preview" and a "review" summary overviews showing the uninterrupted flow of movement for each campaign and battle in time scale which is unattainable by any other way I've tried.  TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle-naming conventions - ii -
Recently, editors have changed a battle name of Confederate victory, First Manassas, from the Confederate name in the section “Confederacy at War” to the Union name, First Bull Run, on the grounds that “Bull Run” was more commonly used. They did not progress with the edit throughout the article. It has been reverted and re-reverted …


 * There should be a consistent style for naming battles in the article, Confederate States, in the section “Confederacy in War”. Links are of course to the Wikipedia articles with their names.

Proposal: We should title battles by _____  convention in the section “Confederacy at War”.


 * (A) ONLY use the Confederate name (as in first draft), because Confederate names for the section is fitting for the Confederacy article.
 * Example: First Manassas.


 * (B) EITHER Confederate or Union name as used in Wikipedia articles, because encyclopedia name consistency and ease of recognition is a concern.
 * Example: First Bull Run.


 * (C) ALTERNATELY use (a) Union name first with wikilink, Confederate name in parenthesis, AND (b) Confederate name first with link, Union name in parenthesis. The selection to be governed by Wiki "battle of" article titles,
 * Example: First Bull Run (First Manassas).


 * (D) ALWAYS Confederate name first with the wikilink, AND Union name in parentheses.
 * Example: First Manassas (First Bull Run).
 * - - - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I support choice (D), always first the Confederate battle name to describe “Confederacy” at war with wikilink, then followed by Union name in parentheses. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * that's a very good analysis. I also support "D" Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support "B." Wikipedia tends to use the most common English-language name for these sorts of things, no matter from what side of any conflict the name derives, for exactly the reasons given above. IMHO, this article is the wrong pagespace to discuss varying regional nomenclatures. I'll concede I'm no authority. Full disclosure: I notified Hal Jesperson about this thread; he penned much of what became the Military History style guide, has written widely on Wikipedia about many ACW battles, and has created a large number of maps which illustrate ACW battle articles. It would be difficult to find major ACW battle pagespace Hal hasn't guided or influenced. He may have useful comments on this subject. BusterD (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a variant on "B." Refer to the name selected for the Wikipedia article and, if Confederate usage differs, show that name in parentheses. Example: First Bull Run (First Manassas). This will make it consistent with the large majority of other ACW articles. (This might actually be option C, which is written in a way that makes me unsure. The use of BOTH is confusing.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For option C, following Hal Jespersen's reasoning, ALTERNATELY now replaces BOTH, as in,
 * (C) ALTERNATELY use Union name, Confederate name in parentheses, AND Confederate name, Union name in parentheses, the selection governed by wikilink battle article convention. Example: First Bull Run (First Manassas). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering input from collaborative editors, I can agree the article should follow the ACW article style generally in use, showing names used by both sides. But I still would like to denominate battles in the article on the Confederacy with the Confederate name in some economical way. How about an option (E)?

(E) ALTERNATELY use Union name, Confederate in parentheses, AND Confederate name, Union in parentheses, governed by ACW convention, BUT always wikilink by Confederate name. Example: First Bull Run (First Manassas) - - - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)


 * Battle names on "Confederate States" now consistently follow the style:
 * [Name by ACW convention], (alternate), with wikilink by Confederate name.


 * For collaborative copy-check, edits applied the convention for the battles of Antietam, First Bull Run, Wilson’s Creek, Shiloh, Plum Point Bend, Hampton Roads, Stones River and Big Bethel. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

C.S.A. animated map beta.2



 * (1) The map is a map of states represented in the Confederate Congress. The RS is Marts, Kenneth C., “The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865” Simon & Schuster (1994) ISBN 0-13-389115-1 pp.1-8.


 * (2) Animated, it shows states with proclamations of secession recognized by the Confederacy,
 * (a) those represented in the Confederate Congress, and
 * (b) those state delegations during the life of the Confederacy which are admitted to and expelled from the U.S. Congress.
 * The RS is Martis, Kenneth C., et al, 'The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989', Macmillan Publishing Company, NY, 1989, ISBN 0-02-920170-5 p. 112+


 * (3) Those Confederate states and districts with representation in both Confederate and U.S. Congresses are of interest because of scholarly inquiry into
 * (a) the changes in Confederate Congressional voting patterns which are directly associated with the disruption and occupation of Representatives districts over the course of the war.
 * (b) Representation in the U.S. Congress likewise related, with states assuming vacant delegations in the U.S. Congress where candidate support for the Confederacy resulted in disputed elections, making it impossible for either U.S. House or Senate to determine who should be found “loyal” and seated following the 1862 elections.
 * The RS is Marts, Kenneth C., “The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865” Simon & Schuster (1994) ISBN 0-13-389115-1 pp.27-28, 72-73, 90-91, and 'The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989', Macmillan Publishing Company, NY, 1989, ISBN 0-02-920170-5 p. 112-114.


 * I propose this beta.2 map, title and legend aligned to Golbez color palette, be included in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues discussed above on this Talk page.
 * “The problem is that they didn’t seceded from the Union …”
 * ”They never voted to rejoin the Union … “
 * ”Maps tell what country controls a certain area … “
 * “The CSA never claimed any political control of Kentucky or Missouri … “
 * "The political map should ONLY show the claims of the CSA and be clearly marked as to political claims made in Richmond that does not necessarily correspond to any reality in the actual states."

See discussion in extended content. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * “The problem is that they didn’t seceded from the Union …”
 * Well, by the Tennessee five step secession, only Tennessee seceded.
 * (a) convention called in regularly called legislature at the state capital, elections called
 * (b) election of delegates in regular polling places for the sole purpose of deciding secession,
 * (c) Convention with majority of the voting citizens of the state represented,
 * (d) voting a resolution of secession from delegates representing a majority of voters.
 * (e) a state-wide referendum including counties with a majority of the voting citizens, ratifying secession with a majority.
 * In the event, there were four-step, three-step and two-step procedures to resolutions of secession, all comprehended by "state proclamations of secession" recognized by the Confederacy. The NY town outside Buffalo voting for secession was not so recognized.
 * Some Southern Constitutionalists followed the precepts of John Calhoun, that the section might constitutionally secede, with thirteen of the fifteen states in convention voting for secession. Yet for the purposes of this article, we should proceed as though the Confederacy was formed, regardless of differences of opinion of how secession might come about. SCOTUS would say secession can come about only with a Constitutional amendment, as secession is not found in the Constitution as written.
 * Without determining which of the forms of secession de jure was or can be now recognized before a court of international law. In the event, as a matter of de facto history, the question is, Did a proclamation of secession in a state produce regiments (1000s) of troops in the Confederate armies? In any case, the Beta.2 map only reports places where a resolution of secession is recognized by the Confederacy for the purposes of the article on the Confederate States.


 * ”They never voted to rejoin the Union … “
 * If one holds that the people cannot be sovereign, only states, then without a state “rejoining the Union” American history will be difficult to explain. But if one can see the U.S. government position, that the People are sovereign, the only thing required for representation in the U.S. Congress is for an election by the people in a republican form of state government, and their subsequent seating in the House or the Senate. This, regardless of the state. Indeed, during the Civil War, the U.S. Congress at times had states with representatives from the people and no senators from the state, and states with senators and no representatives from their people. The Beta.2 map does not make a determination about state governments or the people in them, only representation as accounted for in reliable sources for the Confederate Congress and vacancies in the U.S. Congress caused by the Confederate war for independence (rebellion).


 * ”Maps tell what country controls a certain area … “
 * Maps titled “State representation in the Confederate Congress” do not refer to military control, only representation. Military control can be found addressed elsewhere on Wikipedia. I recall in 1962-1970 avidly buying up Time, Newsweek and U.S. New and World Report to clip the maps of South Vietnam showing various versions of military control. All differed, so I made my own map each week showing where all three agreed, and hatching as "contested" all other areas. At the time of the Mexican War, Lincoln noted, "Anybody can draw a map". His test for the Texas region between the Nueces and Rio Grande was to ask, Where did the people voluntarily send their taxes? His answer as a Whig Representative opposing Polk's war was, They sent their taxes to Mexico City. Regardless of the military or tax-remitting situation on the ground, the map Beta.2 only shows only state representation in C.S. and U.S. Congress as documented by reliable scholarly source.


 * “The CSA never claimed any political control of Kentucky or Missouri … “
 * Kentucky and Missouri were represented in the Confederate Congress from state governments recognized by the Confederacy. Members were appointed by Confederate Governors and some elections in Army camps by absentee voters registered in Kentucky and Missouri. Regardless of our judgment on the matter, an article on the Confederacy should reflect the official policy of the Confederacy, accounting for where the Confederacy recognized state governments where it did, which it did in the cases of KY and MO by giving representation to them by the same apportionment it gave other states admitted to the Confederate legislature.


 * I propose this beta.2 map, title and legend aligned to Golbez color palette, be included in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The political map should ONLY show the claims of the CSA and be clearly marked as to political claims made in Richmond that does not necessarily correspond to any reality in the actual states."
 * (a) That Richmond political map is provided in the Infobox. -- A "Greater Confederacy" map would include KY and MD; both Bragg in KY and Lee in MD believed regiments of pro-Southern men would flock to their colors as their armies neared, just as escaped and abandoned slaves did to the Union armies. But the Beta.2 map does not attempt that military appraisal from the Confederate perspective. The Beta.2 map is meant to be a timeline related to political representation in the states of the Confederacy 1860-1870. That includes the elements shown in the map Beta.2 legend above.
 * (b) The power of Confederate nationalism among the people in some states was evident in those states under Union military control such as Tennessee, Missouri, Virginia and Louisiana. Elections were duly held in 1862 under the auspices of the U.S. Army, BUT the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate could not agree to seat credentialed candidates due to questions of their loyalty, resulting in state delegation vacancy. This a political phenomenon, not military. It is not POV, but the record of the U.S. Congress as represented in a scholarly reliable source, for the 37th through 41st U.S. Congresses, Martis, Kenneth C., et al, 'The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989', Macmillan Publishing Company, NY, 1989, ISBN 0-02-920170-5 p. 112+. The Beta.2 map shows this aspect of the Confederate political history 1860-1870. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Beta.2 political map advantages.

 * Beta.2 map features animation to graphically show the sequence of events relating to political geography in States of the Confederate Congress. See proposed Beta.2 map legend. Some items are striking, not original research, but only quickly, clearly evident in an animated map based on reliable sources.


 * It shows Texas did not hold its referendum, and its delegation, though seated, does not vote in the Confederate Congress until after the U.S. Congress admits Kansas as a free state, omitted in many narrower treatments of the Confederacy.
 * It shows Virginia looses its entire representation in the U.S. Congress at resolutions of secession, but it is partially restored following the Confederate capital in Richmond, omitted in many narrower treatments of the Confederacy.


 * It highlights developments west, including Arizona Territory and Indian Territory, omitted in many narrower treatments of the Confederacy.
 * It shows western Virginia is still represented in the Confederate Congress following the admission of West Virginia by the U.S. Congress, omitted in many narrower treatments of the Confederacy.
 * It shows that readmission of many former states of the Confederacy follows admission of Nebraska, a sequence omitted in many narrower treatments of the states which composed Confederacy.


 * These items are documented in Atlases published under the editorial direction of Martis. They are not original research just because they are overlooked in narrowly circumscribed monographs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Beta.2 map legend: “secession proclamations”

 * Beta.2 map features animation to graphically show the sequence of events relating to political geography in States of the Confederacy. Editors have voiced scholarly objections which can be used to amend the map legend as notes.
 * Legend: secession proclamations. [begin note proposal] There is scholarly debate as to three main issues.


 * 1. What is legitimate secession in a state or a part of a state, Here there are five sub-issues of controversy.
 * (a) by call of a regular session of legislature or by a partisan governor’s proclamation,
 * (b) by meeting in the regular place of business with access to legislative documents and state supreme court, or removed to a secessionist district,
 * (c) Conventions by delegates elected directly by the people on a constitutional question campaigned before the voters, or resolved by an ad hoc secessionist clique in a rump legislature,
 * (d) by a majority of convention delegates state-wide, or any majority of the state’s secessionist delegates present at an emergency session,
 * (e) by (1) delegates representing a majority of the voters, or by (2) the voters themselves in a referendum held in regular voting places, or (3) whether the people need to be consulted at all in secession of a sovereign state from a union of We the People.


 * 2. If there is to be secession from a union, whether others in the union, Congress, states or people, need be consulted for secession of a state and its people from union.


 * 3. If there is lawful secession from a union, whether there can be secession from a state’s secession, or secession from a subsequent union.


 * [links to other wiki articles of intellectual history and political philosophy -- end note proposal]. A similar construct can be made to cover every such objection to the animated map beta and beta.2 legend as proposed. Or it may be, that the map and legend needs no such note of scholarly balance and explication of the nature of secession in the United States, 1860-61, et alia, for purposes of the article, "Confederate States of America". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeline
Please check out my timeline at User:Golbez/sandbox. It's a little sparse and has no sources, but does it look like I have all the broad strokes? I haven't uploaded maps yet, and probably won't until this is very close to going live. In particular, I'd love sources as to why TN, LA, and VA were kicked out of the 38th and 39th congresses. --Golbez (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Poke. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm starting with the Biographical Dictionary of Congress, since much of my library is packed. | 37th Congress and | 38th Congress. The basic trail is found in the notes. In the Senate, non-attendance, disunionist statements on the floor, letters of introduction for Texas arms dealers addressed to the "Honorable Jefferson Davis", active service in Confederate uniform, etc., resulted in a seat declared vacant, then without a regularly convened state legislature, the seat remained vacant. Also with the more usual vacancy by death in Virginia's case. Representative seats faced a very much more convoluted procedure. Many elections were challenged, but no determination was made by the House during the course of the term, so the seat went vacant. Senate seats declared vacant by resolution of March 14, 1861 for non-attendance, participation in conspiracy to overthrow U.S. government. Senators expelled by resolution of July 11, 1861subsequently seats declared vacant until states with convened legislatures chose Senators and they were seated by the Senate.


 * Looking at the notes in the House of the 37th Congress, Mr. and Mr. both claimed election from the second district, but on February 14, 1863, the House decided that neither was entitled to the seat; Mr. presented credentials from the eighth district, but on March 3, 1863, was declared not entitled to seat. Mr. declared not entitled to his seat under first credentials by resolution of February 11, 1862; subsequently elected and declared entitled to seat under second credentials by resolution of May 6, 1862; qualified and took his seat the same day. Mr. presented credentials of an election held May 23, 1861, and took his seat July 4, 1861; declared not entitled to the seat February 27, 1862. Mr. presented memorial denying right of Upton, and claiming seat under an election held October 24, 1861, but on March 31, 1862, was declared not entitled to same. Mr. elected to fill vacancy caused by the unseating of Mr., and took his seat February 16, 1863.


 * In the 38th Congress,
 * Arkansas: Mr., Mr., and Mr. presented credentials as Members-elect, but their claims were not finally disposed of. By resolution of March 3, 1865, each was allowed the sum of $2,000 for ‘‘compensation, expenses, and mileage.’’
 * Louisiana Mr., Mr., Mr., Mr., and Mr. presented credentials as Members-elect, but their claims were not finally disposed of.
 * Virginia Sen. (Wmsbg) 38Died January 2, 1864. On February 17, 1865, the credentials of Mr., to fill vacancy caused by the death of Sen., were presented but were ordered to lie on the table; no further action taken. State unrepresented in this class from this date to October 20, 1869. Mr., from the first district, Mr., from the second district, and Mr., from the seventh district, presented credentials. They were declared not entitled to seats, the first two by resolution of May 17, 1864; the last named by resolution of April 16, 1864. Mr. also claimed to have been elected from the seventh district, and was declared not entitled to the seat by resolution of February 26, 1864. The first three claimants were subsequently allowed mileage and pay to the dates of the adoption of the resolutions.
 * Now on to find explanations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pinging to hopefully get more info on this. I'd like to move forward on completing the article and maps. --Golbez (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello? :) --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * | Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives made during the first session thirty-eighty Congress 1863-64. GPO Washington 1864. Viewed April 17, 2012.


 * Report No. 8. Committee of Elections … State of Louisiana … A.P. Field.
 * Five members were to be elected from districts newly drawn, increasing representation from four to five. The apportionment was never made. Three were supposed to have been elected November 2. In the First District, Mr. Field was elected among less than 1/20 of the population, as the military governor had banned any votes being cast in New Orleans. The election was not according to law and 9/10 of the voters had no opportunity to make a choice. Two representatives were properly elected in the last Congress, but as Congress did not redistrict Louisiana according to law, Louisiana’s representation was vacant. Mr. Field is a loyal citizen.


 * Report No. 9 Committee of Elections … State of Virginia … Joseph Segar.
 * Virginia entitled to eleven seats in Congress before the separation of West Virginia, the Wheeling government districting according to law, elections held on the fourth Thursday of May 1863 in accordance with Virginia statute. Four of twenty counties had open polls. “All, or nearly all, the remainder of the district was in the armed occupation of the rebels. If any portion … was outside of the confederate lines, it was so near the enemy as to practically render the unrestrained exercise of the elective franchise by Union men an impossibility.” A selection made by a small minority, the others kept away by force, “then no such selection thus made could be treated as an election.”


 * | History of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary] U.S. Senate. Viewed April 17, 2012.
 * In July 1861, the Senate expelled all Senators from southern states.
 * On July 2, 1862, Congress enacted The Ironclad Test Oath of Office to preclude anyone who had sworn allegiance in an official capacity to the Confederacy from serving in the federal government. The application of the Ironclad Oath proved to be problematic in 1866, when the State of Tennessee elected David Patterson — a Tennessee judge during the Civil War — to the Senate. Patterson testified before the Judiciary Committee that he had sworn allegiance as a judge within the Confederacy solely for the purpose of protecting the Union loyalists residing in his judicial district. Patterson's testimony persuaded the Committee, and they voted to seat him. On the Senate floor, however, debate lasted until the early morning hours, when a compromise was reached to seat Patterson. The compromise included a resolution excluding him from taking the Ironclad Test Oath of Office.”


 * So far, suggestive examples for Louisiana, Virginia, and Tennessee. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)