User talk:Texasreb

HEy Textreb if you have been looking at the recent debate between me and the other user on the Southern page, you will note that he is making claim that another Survey conducted before the Southern FOcus study for one year hold's just as much merrit as the decade long Southern Focus study; what a joke. If you could weigh in on this I would gladly appreciate. Louisvillian 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I to am kind of a novice at this, But I just click on the users name which takes me to their page, I then click the disscussion tab, hit edit and send them a message. My whole thing about Gator is that he seems to hind what he is truely after, To prove that Kentucky is a "mixed boarder state" as he has told me on my page. He is trying to make it seem as though he is compromising, He is not!! I have even went as far as to leave all of our sources in the article, yet Gator trying hide any and all facts labeling this state as Southern edits in his opinion. Thanks for your response though, I hope to here more from you on the Southern talk page when you get this message Louisvillian 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Texreb It's me agai. There is a dispute in the cultural variations section of the Southern article, between myself and Gator over how the regional identification studies should be presented. I was hoping you could weigh in on this disscussion. Louisvillian 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing Texas
I have divided the Texas page into 6 parts. Hopefully with more manageable chunks, people will be more willing to copyedit the page. would you be willing to copy edit one section of the Texas page? Thanks!

Talk:Texas Oldag07 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Confederate States of America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do hope this same warning has gone out to other parties who have have been engaing in the same. I am only providing balance.  I will continue to do so, and report any and all eliminations of my own edits to a higher authority simply because the other party does not subscribe to the principle of fair and encyclopedic commentary. My record of trying to be fair and balanced speaks for itself.  I invite anyone to look over my contributions.


 * What the record shows is that you have chosen to revert rather than participate in the discussion initiated on the discussion board. You have added unsourced and/or poorly sourced material while deleting material that was properly sourced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You continued with the reverting of my edits so I have made the appropriate referral. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You continue to eliminate/censor mine...which I have not done with any of yours nor anyone elses. Your edits do not have the authority of of ultimate truth, no matter what you might think. When you get to be a moderator or acknowledged senior editor on the topic, then it would be different.  But you are not.  To eliminate such things as the actual vote of SCOTUS, the actual issue at hand, and the obvious fact it is controversial is ridiculous.  So warn all you want, it doesn't change anything so far as truth goes.  Nothing at all I have submitted is in violation of Wiki rules.  And also, your edits are not edits, they are censorship.  And I have attempted to compromise and discuss all this; see the talk page and who is the one attempting to be the most reasonable.  So if necessary, I will make an appropriate referral myself.  It works both ways.  TexasReb (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

July 2010
Please don't remove requests for sources without providing sources. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. If I made a mistake in this regard, please let me know in better detail and I will not repeat it. To my knowledge, I have never removed anyones sources. If anything, mine were removed. But if indeed I violated a rule, then I promise it was not intentional.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Troubling edits again
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Confederate States of America, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cowboy
If you continue reverting on Cowboy then you may be blocked; please discuss the changes on the talk page instead. Dreadstar ☥   02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate that. I just found your edit to the Deep South article very well done. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Confederate States of America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are hereby warned as well. I have attempted to engage in civil discussion as to compromise, but such has been ignored on your part. TexasReb (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Talk article" suggestion
I'm not sure what a "Talk article" is. Could you explain your suggestion at Talk:CSA. Thanks. I'm also not sure how the parallel new articles are to be written in parallel. This has to do with article creation procedure which I have not yet been a part of. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I probably didn't explain it very well. What I meant was that from here on out (at the time I wrote it) was that it ought to be written out on the "talk page" in entirety before additions/revisions/deletions are approved.  As it is, I think I was wrong.  We can just take sections/paragraphs of the article and make suggested revisions, and then discussion.  I hope that makes sense!  :-) TexasReb (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, Tom (User:North Shoreman) seems to be outlining a pretty comprehensive new article. (He introduced himself to me in my first week of editing by reverting unsourced information, which I subsequently restored with citations, so it "passed muster". I would say over the months, Tom North Shoreman is fair minded.)
 * I generally agree with the scope of the proposed new article, so it remains to craft a replacement summary to be left behind in the CSA article that includes everything in "A revolution in disunion" before the subsection "Inauguration and response". I contributed to much of it using Craven and Freehling sourcing. I agree with you that the replacement summary should be crafted at Talk before the section is removed. As I proposed in the draft intro I took down, something from Coulter might be added noting the religious and cultural division in the country's society before the political division attempted by secessionists... Did you have a start? I'll try out something shortly at Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Texas v. White at CSA
As to the Texas v. White copyedits and reverts at CSA. I thought I owed you a separate posting on your Talk page.

I like the general idea of including something on the dissenting opinion at Texas v. White somewhere in the passage, maybe a second paragraph or at the end. But I think you will find that there is no "controversy" in reliable sources subsequent to the Supreme Court at Texas v. White, which held that secession is illegal under the Constitution, both as dicta and in the specific resolution of the case. See the Texas v. White article. Secession is moot, the Union is not.

Can we find an account of the dissent in a reliable source? If not, direct quotes from the dissent are possible, even though editors are cautioned to be careful in direct use of primary sources, --- perhaps a consensus can form around using their views as a footnote, Justice Grier in particular. Tom Northshoreman, --- introduced to me some years ago by his reverting my first edits on WP as an unsourced edit, --- will insist on a well sourced copyedit, as will Rjensen.

Would you try out language at CSA Talk, whether a draft paragraph or footnote with a proposed source before further mainspace edits? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * From your Cornell site source, (which got reverted because of your use of "controversy" is not sourced, it is going to be held as wp:fringe without a reliable source saying that there is an academic controversy in the face of RS saying the illegality of secession is settle law) --- Grier wrote in dissent, --- we are plumbing the primary sources here, always an iffy proposition at best ---

''... If I regard the truth of history for the last eight years, I cannot discover the State of Texas as one of these United States … I do not consider myself bound to express any opinion judicially as to the constitutional right of Texas to exercise the rights and privileges of a State of this Union, or the power of Congress to govern her as a conquered province, ...

''… I can only submit to the fact as decided by the political position of the government, and I am not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union when Congress have decided that she is not. It is a question of fact, I repeat, and of fact only. Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.''


 * Footnote proposal: Grier's dissent in the case hinged on the political fact that in his view, over the preceding eight years, Texas was found to be in rebellion by Congress without Congressional representation, then it had been administered as a military district without self governance. "Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court." cite: Texas v. White, Legal Information Institute online, Cornell University Law School, viewed August 28, 2014. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Confederate States of America
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Secession discussion, continued
I would like to continue our secession discussion, apart from the wording of the CSA article, if I may.

Where does the Constitution forbid secession, you ask? The Constitution and acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land, state constitutions or state laws to the contrary “notwithstanding”. The lone acts of a state legislature without Congressional approval cannot alter the constitutional federal relationship. The supreme law of the land does not allow for secession, it only permits union. Even Buchanan in his dough face phase said secession was illegal, he just wasn’t certain for a time whether the Union could be coerced in the face of rebellion.

By the Constitution, an error by the machinery of state legislature can be rectified by the state judiciary, the federal judiciary, or the federal Congress. (Yes, I am re-reading the Federalist Papers.) In any case, states are legally incompetent to amass the tools of insurrection, such as entering into combinations with other states or foreign nations, maintaining an army or navy, issuing money or letters of marque, or collecting monies by duties or imposts on any commerce into their state borders. In the 1860s, a rebellion occurred attempting all of these acts explicitly forbidden states-- upon entering the Union.

You have argued that at some point secession was meant to be outlawed, but it was voted down, and I thought you meant in Constitutional Convention. Was it somewhere else? Can you give a reference? Obviously a majority of Congress voted to fund a war to put down the Great Rebellion.

You have argued that 75% of U.S. revenues were provided by 25% of the population, where does that figure come from? The greatest port in the South by far was New Orleans, and most of its revenue came from trade to and from Northern states in the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys. When the Civil War began, rails and canals were improved, and the U.S. more than doubled its exports to Europe in corn and wheat while feeding the Federal armies in the field. Foreign investors bought U.S. debt, but not Confederate debt. There is something structurally wrong with the presentation that the Civil War was over tariffs, not slavery.

You seem to dismiss my argument that there was no cause for secession in 1860 because there was no threat or actual grievance from the federal government against the personal right of any individual to hold slaves. But that is the foundation of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, that states might be called upon to interpose themselves between the enforcing arm of the federal government when it violated the rights of state citizens within their borders. Although there was no threatening arm of federal enforcement, those advocating secession said that they were seceding to preserve their way of life with slavery, they would not wait until it was too late to save the institution in the face of anti-slavery legislation by majorities. But Lincoln endorsed the Corwin-Thirteenth Amendment which would have made it impossible for Congress to regulate slavery in a state, regardless of anti-slavery majorities in the future.

This discussion about secession is again theoretical. You would not be arguing for secession in the modern era, would you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry VA, but we are beginning to talk in circles and proceeding from different premises. There was nothing in the Constitution that forbade secession and nothing at all in it that gave the federal government the power to use force to prevent it.  That is really the bottom line far as I am concerned.  But we obviously disagree on that score.   And no, I am not arguing for secession at this moment, I really don't know where this came from.  But I DO believe it is the ultimate check on a tyrannical central government and if it is erased, then it is check, checkmate, and match.  Further, perhaps most importantly, there is no way -- I don't really see how anyone can argue differently -- that the American colonies (recognized as sovereign states by the Treaty of Paris), would have entered into a Union that they knew they could never get out of.  It makes not the slightest bit of sense, especially given that the DOI had a basic premise that the powers of the government are derived from the consent of the governed.  C'mon, VA, I don't see how you could possibly dispute this one.   And I am not saying that the secession of the original lower South states was not foolhardy, rash, and unwise (many a good Southern man thought so) -- it may or may not have been -- but it was not unconstitutional.


 * The figure on the tariffs? It comes directly from the sources.  In fact, we have discussed this one before (see the archives talk).  The North controlled the House of Representatives and that is where budget bills originate, and how to spend the money.  As John Reagan of Texas put it: ''You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers for northern capitalists.

''
 * Anyway, here is the section in question about the tariffs as well as a link.


 * http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html


 * It is simply outrageous to say that the South was not paying a disproportionate share of the tariffs. And that while much of federal revenues were spent on mutual defense, of that spent domestically? It was overwhelmingly spent on northern interests. such as on canals, roads, railrods, etc, which greatly benefited northern industry and interests.


 * Yes, I realize the source is biased (just as we are! LOL), but the figures are based on solid sources, including official government figures of the era. You can look them up for yourself. The blunt truth is, that slavery simply became -- in a later day -- an excuse to provide moral cover for what was an unjustified invasion of a people who had done them no wrong, and wanted nothing more than to go their own way in peace.  What other reason could the North (Lincoln administration, specifically) have had for invading the South?  To free the slaves.  Oh BS, and likewise with some idealistic idea to "preserve the Union" with no other ulterior motive at hand.


 * They wanted to keep the South's tax money, and while the flash point was certainly the issue of slavery in the western territories, it was not for moralistic reasons, it was because they didn't want blacks in the said territories. As Lincoln said himself: The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them.


 * Yes, I will find that source that shows at one time it was proposed that secession be specifically made illegal, but it was voted down. I will get it to you as soon as possible. But you are -- intentionally or not -- mis-stating my words. I never said it was intended to be "outlawed." What I said was that an amendment was proposed to specifically outlaw it, and it was voted down.  But again, I will find it for you.


 * And once again as well, your argument concerning the Constitution of the United States forbidding states entering into treaties and etc, is -- with all due respect -- grasping at straws. They are totally dependent upon your own point of view that secession was unconstitutional from the start. And obviously I don't buy that at all. As I have said before, what you say holds true if and only if the states in question remain in the Union.  If they secede, then they are no longer bound by those rules.  And too -- as has been said before as well -- the Confederate Constitution has the exact same clauses in it.  And it is absurd to the max to think that the intention was anything other than forbidding a member state to make its own treaties while a part of the said federation/confederacy. And further, the CSA preamble spoke of a desire to create a permanent government...which was actually stronger language than in the old Union Constitution (largely written by Southern men). Anything otherwise would have actually made less sense -- given their recent secession -- than that the American colonies would get into a Union they couldn't get out of, regardless of circumstances.  Both simply stated a truism; it holds true only if they are member states.


 * Anyway, I am sure there is more, but right now, I gotta hit the sack and get ready for work tomorrow. We can continue later.  Best and respectful regards! TexasReb (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Publius: "there could be no remedy but force"
The issue in the face of armed rebellion is Union. Slavery, a secondary consideration is abolished as a war measure, because without abolition, the rebellion could not be subdued. The coalition to adopt the Thirteenth Amendment was based on a minority faction of moralizing, but the majority was motivated by a desire to take away the concentration of wealth that underwrote the rebellion, to punish those who cost the nation 600,000 dead and more maimed.

Here are some quotes from the Federalist Papers (Publius, in these excerpts, Hamilton) to show what the Founders meant in the Constitution to ensure a perpetual Union. This debate handbook is circulated among the Federalists arguing for ratification by the people in the state conventions. You are assuming a naiveté which simply did not exist in the Revolutionary generation. It is not the national government which is prohibited from using force, it is the states. The states are prohibited from doing anything Congress does not authorize. There is no provision for secession until Congress authorizes it.

Federalist No.25 (Mentor ed. p.163) ''…the state governments will too naturally be prone to a rivalship with that of the Union, the foundation of which will be the love of power; and that in any contest … the people will be most apt to unite with their local government. If, in addition to this immense advantage, the ambition of the [states] should be stimulated by the separate and independent possession of military forces, it would afford too great a temptation to … finally subvert the constitutional authority of the Union. ... The framers … fully aware of the dangers to the Union from the separate possession of military forces by the States ["to subvert the constitutional authority of the Union"], have in express terms prohibited them from having either ships or troops, unless with the consent of Congress.''

No.26. p.173. ''...Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion… No.27. p.175. …The hope of impunity is a strong incitement to sedition … a turbulent faction in a State many easily suppose itself able to contend with the friends of the [federal] government in that State; but it can hardly be so infatuated as to imagine itself a match for the combined efforts of the Union.''

No.28.p.178. ''That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied….seditions and insurrections…Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportionate to the extent of the mischief. …If … the insurrection should pervade a whole state,…the employment of a different kind of force [other than militias] might be unavoidable [such as a large standing army] …''

Recall in response to the Jefferson Davis call up of 100,000 to rebellion, Lincoln called up of 75,000 militia proportioned among the states, to secure federal property ceded by state legislatures to the federal government, to include coastal forts. At the same time Lincoln withdrew postal service, federal judges and U.S. marshals from the South to avoid incitement to rebellion. But those initial measures did not prove proportionate to the emergency as rebel armies took the field. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2014


 * See, this is where you and I are talking at loggerheads. t  There was no armed rebellion at all.  There was secession, just as the American colonies did during the Revolution, no matter how many northern apologists would like to avoid that subject/comparison.  You can't argue from result; if the English had conquered the colonies we would be reading it as "rebellion" as well.  Sure, force is justified to put down a "rebellion."  But it wasn't what the Southern states did. A rebellion is using aggressive force against lawful national authority.  The Southern states left the Union with the full support of their citizens, legislators, representatives.  The did not attack the Union, had no desire to do so. Why would they?  They said so aforehand many times.  They did not seek war (although yeah, some "fire-eaters" probably did), and offered every peaceful solution in the world, including a mutually beneficial economic and defensive alliance. Instead, Lincoln chose to invade a people who had done no wrong to them.  It was nothing more than a war to keep Southern tax monies, at the least. The term "rebellion" doesn't apply in the least.


 * You quoting the federalist paper is out of context. It is comparing apples and oranges. The "Father of the constitution" is generally agreed to be James Madison, and while he believed (rightfully), that secession should be a last option, he also believed it could be justified if one part of the country used its numerical power to subject another state/region to abuse their power for their own purposes.  Which the North (then northeast, mainly) for their own purposes.  Slavery was not an issue at all in a moral sense and "preserving the Union" wasn't either.  It was moral and posterity cover to justify economic greed.


 * Jefferson Davis only called up troops for the purpose of defense of the South against a possible invasion, otherwise he continually wished for peace and offered the olive branch, and sent peace commissioners to negotiate, which were deliberately ignored. Again, there were no plans at all to invade the North.  With all due respect this argument is groundless.  Any nation has a right to defend itself.  And again too, arguing from result doesn't change anything...unless it might be that "might makes right", or the truism that "the winners write the mainstream history."


 * There were no plans to invade the South before Fort Sumter and the invasion of Kentucky by rebel forces. The plan advanced and adopted was General Scott's Anaconda Plan of encirclement, much ridiculed in the Northern press. Lincoln's plan was to await readjustment in the politics of the Southern states by the next elections. His faith in the people was absolute, hence the presidential election in the midst of a civil war.


 * Madison believed that whenever the federal government violated individual liberties, the state could interpose its authority so that individual state citizens were not harmed. He did not say secession of a state without the consent of Congress is a legal option. It is clear in the Federalist Papers that the nation is not to be founded on states, but on the people of the nation, so the Constitution is adopted by a majority of each state in a 2/3 supermajority of the states as authorized by the Articles Congress.


 * The resolutions of secession by states in rebellion did not cite the tariff as an issue, but they did specify protection and advancement of slavery. The problem with that appeal is that the national government did no harm to the individual’s right to property in slaves, so there was no justification for more interposition than the censorship of the mails against abolitionist literature for fear of slave insurrections, and that censorship was ongoing. And Lincoln further accommodated the slave interest by endorsing the Corwin-Thirteenth Amendment and withdrawing postal service wherever it was resisted, bringing ringing cries of scorn from the Northern Press. After Fort Sumter, Horace Greely endorsed forcibly putting down the rebellion. The Confederate attack on Sumter in that regard was a two-edged sword, so to speak, it brought clarification on the subject of Union or Southern Independence among fence-sitters for both sides of the conflict.


 * Although an argument can be made for interposition, secession from the Union is not an option. Jefferson Davis was not authorized by Congress to call up state militias, that was an act of rebellion. Lincoln's call up was subsequently authorized by Congress, Davis' was not. This is not the winners rewriting history, I consider that accusation a "blow below the belt" in our discussion. I take some pains to put myself in the shoes of kinsmen on both sides of the conflict.


 * All this talk about slavery emancipation per se is not what was on the minds of most in the ranks of either Yanks or Rebels. It was about Union on the one hand, and on the other hand, both defense of the homeland from the invader, and appeals to protect the home front from slave insurrection, --- for the Rebels, initially politics such as tariffs or emancipation did not play so much a part of the decision to fly to the colors, and later tariffs had nothing to do with the will to resist in a losing cause in the face of increasing rates of desertion among the Confederate armies. The fundamental issue was Union, which is why I consider the Federalist Papers an important touchstone of reference. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tariff issue is anachronistic
From the Asheville Tribune, Mike Scruggs held forth in the weekly newspaper, (problems sourcing again, that is not a reliable source) "The Morrill Tariff was certainly a powerful factor predisposing the South to seek its independence and determine its own destiny.” and, "But had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to Secession by Southern states and very probably no war." No, that is not what secessionists told the North in Congress, it is not what secessionists told recruits to the rebel army. They advocated protection and expansion of slavery, their state right to own property, --- which was not under attack by the national government, --- and they believed expansion could only be achieved by leaving the Union. The initial conflict turns on the question of leaving the Union without consent of Congress, not about slavery. To repeatedly set up the straw-man that the war was fought to abolish slavery is nonsense. The rebellion brought about the abolition of slavery in the event, but it was incidental to the suppression of insurrection --- the only sure outcome was the preservation of the Union, because that was the primary issue. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, tariff issue is one that has not been given its place in history, as the victors set not only the terms, but what goes into the history books. No matter what, it was a festering factor. The overarching reason was that, in one form or fashion, the powerful North in terms of numerical superiority was using the South as a cash-cow.  I am glad you agree somewhat -- and you have always seemed to, to be fair -- that slavery was not a moral issue; the majority of northerners could not have cared less about it.  But anyway, back to the point, the North's superior might had suppressed the tariff issue a bit, but it didn't mean it didn't exist.


 * You consistently fail to answer just why the North (Lincoln administration) just didn't let the Lower South states go in peace, as Horace Greely proposed? What was so wrong with that?  The issue of slavery was bound up in the whole economic issue (plus other considerations in Texas and the western frontier states). And many Southerners (very justifiably) saw a great deal of typical yankee hypocrisy with certain northerners who beat their breasts over the evils of slavery...but whose families had made their own fortunes off the slave trade itself.  And they rightfully feared that parts of it were simply the stalking-horse to make further attacks on the principles of federalism and ever more centralize the central government.  And history has proved them right.  Now, whether or not one regards such as a blessing or curse is up to the individual, but with every passing day, the federal government is reducing the states to little more than provinces to be controlled; the 9th and  10th amendment are little more than words, anymore. So sad.


 * Finally, I will just close with two quotes which I believe have relevance:


 * The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert it’s self, though it may be at another time and in another form.

-- President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.


 * If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity. -- Alexander Stephens, CSA vice-president.

Best regards! TexasReb (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since most of the federal revenues were from imports and land sales, it is inconceivable that a minority of the white population in the South consumed 80% of the nation’s imports. Many of the first railroad engines were imported from England, and the track being laid was in the North for the most part. The southern railroad engine factories in Virginia and Georgia benefitted from the tariff as much as the northern manufacturers.


 * There was a depression in cotton prices in the 1850s, but that was from British expanding crop production in Egypt and India, not from a tariff policy newly enacted in 1860 by a Republican minority. Were tariff the principle question of the day, the Southern Democrats would not have split in the Charleston Democratic Convention. They split to deny Douglas the nomination because he had not endorsed the terrorist imposed pro-slavery LeCompton Constitution pushed by Buchanan. Kansas would not enter as a slave state, it would enter free-soil (Jan 1861) before the new Congress was seated with the larger Republican minority. The issue was slavery expansion or ruin the Union for the fire-eaters, the issue was not the tariff.


 * Again, I would like to see some scholarly sourcing on this that I could read into, because a college professor whom I personally know holds this same view, --- though American history and economics is not his specialty.


 * Another truism from Madison, the people do not care whether they are governed by the national government or the state government, they only wish to be governed well. The great concern is for preservation of personal liberty and equality of opportunity, personally and economically. The reason for the Union is not to preserve state privileges, it is to to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The states will endure because they are critical to governing a diverse, continental nation. Not only is the local police power their purview, but at some level their political reality is enshrined in the federal district courts, all within state boundaries, and in the federal appeals courts, made up of state aggregates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Virginia? While this is very (and it is) interesting, we are starting to talk at cross-purposes and very different visions.  You know my position and I know yours.  All we are going to do is go back in circles.  If you honestly believe that the American colonies would have entered into a Union they knew ahead of time they could not get out of, then it really doesn't make much sense to keep this up.  Matter of act, the Colonies had even much less justification for seceding than did the sovereign states.  For the very obvious reason that the former were truly English colonies and were never considered anything else.  Whereas the states formed later from them were recognized by both the DOI and the Treaty of Paris as such, and clearly in the formation of the Union, only delegated certain specific powers to the central government. And if you are going to invoke Madison, then please put the entirety of his beliefs as per federalist and his letters, in proper perspective and not use "weasel words" (no disrespect intended).  He is very clear on his beliefs that he never thought there were not justifications for secession if one section (as the issue involved here is concerned) begins to dominate another in a way which abuses the power of the central government for their own purpose...which the northern states clearly did. There are two questions you still avoid (just as the major ones).  That is, why Lincoln ordered the invasion to begin with, when all the South wanted to do was go in peace?  And why you argue "from result", when you call what the Southern states did a "rebellion" in the applicable sense of the word.  It was nothing of the sort.


 * Yes, had a group from the Southern states formed their own "band" and attacked Washington, with no overwhelming support from their fellows, then it would have been a true rebellion and the federal government be justified in suppressing it by force. No argument there.  But it wasn't.  The Lower South seceded peacefully and offered peace.  The Upper South states did not even want to join at first (they rejected secession), but only when Lincoln forced them to making the choice of "either/or".


 * And it has also been gone over that the Confederate Constitution contains ever stronger language in their preamble in using the phrase "permanent federal government." And to continue along those lines, it simply states the truism that any federation/confederation is not going to be formed if it wasn't the desire to be permanent. That has absolutely nothing to do with that sovereign states maintain their essential sovereignty.  The use of military force does not change it, and it will not go away.


 * Finally, my real issue is not with our disagreement (which is fine even if it has come to an impasse, which you surely recognize), but the seeming desire of some editors to censor relevant information. Such as, in particular, the actual issue before the court and the obvious fact that there is disagreement among historians and those who have demonstrated legal expertise about all the future implications of the ruling.  No way around it; the justification was "dicta" and has no actual value.  The "settled law" as it is put only has application in the sense it is the latest ruling on the matter (by a slim majority).  It can be overruled or overturned in a heartbeat.  Again with all due respect, seems like some cling to it like an island in a raging ocean, because they just can't stand anything to be presented -- valid or not -- that goes against their deeply held "winners version" of the history of the War.  I have no problem at all with differing opinions, but have a real one with those who use Wiki for their own slanted reasons...or so it seems.  Why else take out honest information that belongs?   Regards! TexasReb (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, what to say. Yes, I think that when all thirteen state legislatures signed onto the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", every member of every state legislature knew what “perpetual” meant. The advantage of the Oxford English Dictionary is that it shows how a word’s meaning changes over time. But I am fairly certain it meant in 1781 when Maryland finally signed, what it says in my edition of Webster’s 1828 dictionary, “perpetual. 1. never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal.” That means no exit without consent of the whole (I say by the people in 3/4 of the states). And the Constitution’s “more perfect Union” means more perfect than the previous Confederation, not less so, and it was approved NOT by state legislatures, but by the people in conventions held in over 3/4 of the states, 11 of 13, then 13 of 13 in half the time it took to get unanimous ratification of the Articles. I do not acknowledge the right of individual state secession, devolution must come by the same means as Union was achieved, peaceably by persuasion of the people of the nation as expressed by a majority of them in each of 3/4 of the states.


 * Lincoln went beyond the Anaconda Plan to respond to the Confederacy’s bombardment of Fort Sumter and its invasion of Kentucky. The war was brought on by the self-named Rebels in their rebellion. That is not history written by the victors. It is true as the Federalist Papers predicted, that insurrection is motivated by the belief of immunity, and the fire-eaters certainly said that there could be no war because the effete Yankee storekeepers would never make soldiers. (85% of Northerners lived on farms, approximately same percent as Southerners.)


 * We are agreed that Grier’s dissent should be included in the Texas v. White narrative, but you keep adding more with uncertain sources, which makes the whole thing get chopped in an edit war. The language should be hammered out on the Talk page, which I tried to do at How to include Grier dissent? ---


 * Justice Grier's dissent in the case hinged on the political fact that in his view, over the preceding eight years, Texas was first found to be in rebellion by Congress without Congressional representation, then it had been administered as a military district without self governance. Grier wrote, "Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.” He considered all else a “judicial fiction”. cite: Texas v. White, Legal Information Institute online, Cornell University Law School, viewed August 28, 2014. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit break 1

 * VA, you can't make an argument from result. To say again and again, there was no rebellion in the way the founding fathers would have defined the term. I said earlier, yes, if a faction attacked Washington City (as it was known at the time) or if a faction had refused to pay and/or follow obligations under the clearly auspices of federal authority (agreed upon by the sovereign states upon originally delegating them, then I would agree that there was a justification to fairly call it a "rebellion" and use force.  But the Southern states did no such thing, no matter how many want to spin the matter.  On the contrary, they seceded and did nothing at all as in aggression and/or rebellion in the proper sense, until they were actually attacked/invaded. They sent peace commissioners to negotiate, offered the best terms possible for the honor of both sides, but the overture was deliberately ignored, and many a good boy died (over half a million), both South and North for something that there was no reason for.  Lincoln intentionally provoked that war for economics reason, using manipulated reasons and provocation. Can you name one other reason?


 * But to backtrack, we can argue this til Hell freezes over, but the bottom line is that we are proceeding from separate premises on the actual issue of secession. If one accepts your own vision and outlook, then I am wrong.  But if one accepts mine, then I am right.


 * Yes, we both agree on the dissent aspect of inclusion. Where we butt head on this one is that you seem to object to my inclusion of extremely relevant facts on the grounds that secession was not the actual issue and, as such, is dicta...which had no value in terms of future implications as far as "settled law" goes.  As Dorf said, in effect, this case is unique because it seems to be one that can never truly be settled by SCOTUS or any other entity.  The only thing truly settled was the issue at hand, which was bond sales.


 * You can't deny I have not tried my best to compromise on this one. Also, you can't call sources "questionable" just because you disagree with the analysis of the author of the piece.  Such as the Morrell tax thing. The main thing is that if the concrete facts are correct!  Now c'mon, you often use James McPherson, even going so far as using him by name in one of your fairly recent additions to one of the sub-articles.  Point being, he is an extremely biased historian (see below), so to use his analysis is fine, but it should not be inserted by name, but rather as a source.  And I repeat again the truism that a topic like this is going to be biased by nature, no way around it.  Here are a couple of links I hope you might take the time to read/listen.  It takes a while to get thru the video, but it is a good one, by Thomas Lorenzo, who has had all kinds of articles published in peer-reviewed mags.


 * But ok, enough for now. Please -- in your spare time -- watch the video and read the article.  You don't have to agree with it, but at least look at it.  Gotta get to bed now, so have a good night! TexasReb (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ooops, sorry, here are the links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac As well as:  http://thomaslegion.net/jamesmcpherson.html

Fort Sumter did not fire on Charleston until fired upon, Lincoln did not call up 75,000 until after Davis called up 100,000. Lincoln did not suspend habeas corpus from DC to Baltimore until after Davis suspended habeas corpus from Richmond to Norfolk. Union troops did not enter Kentucky until after Confederate troops invaded. The Anaconda Plan was ridiculed as too passive throughout the Northern press. Only the rebel provocation by force of arms brought the civil war. Although WP editors dismiss professor Coulter of University of Georgia as a racist, I recommend his Confederate States of America (1950) in LSUs History of the South series. It is still in print, perhaps available in your library, or by interlibrary loan.

Congress did not authorized a constitutional procedure for devolution of any individual state, so no individual state could lawfully secede from the Union. States gave up their absolute sovereignty on entering the Union, as explained in the Federalist Papers, there was no trick or slight of hand. Patrick Henry objected that the new constitution was to based on “we the [national] people”, and no longer to be a compact of the states, and he was outvoted in the Virginia Ratification Convention when the Randolph faction was assured of a Bill of Rights. The compact theory of the Articles was superseded by authorization of the Articles Congress with the adoption of the Constitution and We the People by majorities in over 3/4 of the states. Undoing that Union requires the same procedure with consent of Congress.

At the link provided, "import tariffs impose a disproportionate burden on export-dependent regions by passing the burdens of the tax onto export merchants,“ — This restatement of the Lerner symmetry theorem does not apply, as it supposes a zero balance of trade, which did not obtain in the antebellum United States. In any case, tariffs are not the center piece for “causes of secession”, but slavery was, explicitly called out in the Confederate Constitution, and in the Southern press, --- and tariffs are authorized to the Confederate Congress.

There is no trick of winner’s history writing here. The secessionists claimed slavery could not be protected without more slave-holding states in the Senate, and without slavery expansion, the Fire-Eaters drummed up racial fears of eventual emancipation and servile insurrection to persuade adoption of illegal individual state resolutions of secession. --- When as your sources confirm, without Confederates using slaves as army teamsters, railroad repairmen and fortification laborers, Lincoln might never have arrived at the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure to recruit "contraband" teamsters, railroad repairmen, laborers, soldiers (5% as I recall, about a division's worth total) and sailors (20% of the Union navy). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I gotta get up and go to work in a few hours, so will have to continue this in detail later. So point I am making before calling it a night is that you are just not getting the point and arguing from result, and keep avoiding answering the larger points.  Yes, the Confederates fired the first shot.  BUT...they did it in the same way and sense the American colonies would have done it if the English had occupied an installation in the Boston Harbor or Ft. Sumter (had it existed at the time).  There is no point is us -- really -- to argue secession.  We proceed from different premises.  But back to the point, Ft. Sumter was occupied by armed troops of a foreign nation and in CSA territorial waters.  This fact is totally dependent upon whether or not one believes secession was rebellion.  I don't accept that it was, as it wasn't  And the Texas v. White case is not in the least valid as proof, as it was a retroactive decision, and secession was not the issue, anyway.  But some seem to want to desperately cling to the belief it was.  But regardless, as I mentioned, I will respond more in detail later, although I think all we are doing is covering the same old ground.  TexasReb (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can address the "compact theory of government" from the point of view of Madison. The foundation of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions is that states might be called upon to interpose themselves between the enforcing arm of the federal government and state citizens when it violated the rights of state citizens within their borders. There was no cause for interposition in 1860 because there was no threat or actual grievance from the federal government against the personal right of any individual to hold slaves. Although there was no threatening arm of federal enforcement, to compromise the rights of citizens in any states, several states presumed not only interposition, but secession, which Madison opposed.


 * In a letter to Daniel Webster March 15, 1833, James Madison thanked him for his Senate speech condemning “nullification” and “secession”. A claim to interposition at will by an individual state over tariffs is “a violation, without cause, of faith solemnly pledged”. The claim to secession “is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.” Letter from Madison to Webster "Volume 1, Chapter 3, Document 14: James Madison to Daniel Webster". The Founder’s Constitution. University of Chicago. 1987. --- This was written before Calhoun with his Disquisition on Government in 1849 and "concurrent majority" thesis, which was bankrupt as a theory with transpiring events: admission of free states out of balance with slave states on the admission of California in 1850, followed by Minnesota in 1858, Oregon in 1859 and finally Kansas as a free state in January 1861. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I have not replied before now, but had to leave town on a family emergency. So a full reply will have to wait until later. For now just to say your essential appeal is that "might makes right".  You can put it all in pretty wrappings, but bottom line is, that is what it is.  Also, your continued insistence that slavery was the bottom line, when it wasn't.  An important issue? Yes, no question, but also -- as I have pointed out -- bound up in larger principles.  These were clearly spelled out in Davis's inaugural and later, memoirs, as well as that of Stephens, and in the declaration of causes for secession themselves.  To say it was all about slavery as justification makes no sense at all; these people may have been rash, unwise, and etc, but seizing upon that it was all about slavery as a moral issue is just, with all due respect, in the outer limits of reality. And Madison?  I know what he said and wrote.  But he also gave justifications for secession, which I have repeated quite a few time. One can't cover what he actually said with the later day moral cover of slavery as the prime rib of reasons.  The cause of the War was Lincoln's need to invade the South for economic reasons, nothing else could justify it. The South wanted to go its way in peace and most northerners wanted it that way as well.  Why else would he do so; invade a people who had done the North no wrong and offered every peace overture in the world?  No one ever seems to answer this.   Also, speaking of Madison (and more on this later), while he definitely opposed secession for no reason (who didn't, unless, again, one is using extremely dubious slavery rationale), he outlines justifications that can only be applied to the day and age.  Also, he is on the record as saying that using federal force to coerce any state was a worse violation than secession itself.  But anyway, more later! TexasReb (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

3R violation
you are in violation of the WP:3R rule on Confederate States of America, not to mention a stubborn insistence on ignoring the WP:OR and WP:CITE rules. You cannot use court rulings as a reliable secondary source, and you have no RS that support your POV Rjensen (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely ridiculous. You are grasping at straws and it is becoming almost pathetic.  Try and get over your deep-seated sense of yourself as being the ultimate editor.  Also, it is comical that you would even presume to tell me that a dissenting opinion is not a reliable secondary source, when you yourself use one.  Are you for real?  There is no POV about it. Geez.  I can't help it that you are so insecure about all this. TexasReb (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Confederate States of America. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You will need to acknowledge that consensus is a policy and that you will adhere to it. Trying to run around it such as the edit summary here is NOT acceptable. "Consensus is fine if it doesn't involve censorship of relevant info." is not going to work and you do not get to decide that unilaterally. If you persist then you will likely be indefinitely blocked.


 * To Whom it may concern:


 * I will acknowledge that I will adhere to the policy as outlined above.


 * But I do not and will not agree that consensus is a fair policy if such means censoring relevant information as to the actual topic. To say otherwise would be tantamount to agreeing to something akin to what Alexis de Tocqueville said in his classic "Democracy in America", when he warned about the biggest future threat to freedom and truth was a "tyranny of the majority."


 * In modern parlance as concerns here? If consensus rules over historical and factual/balance in Wikipedia, then it can no longer be considered an objective/neutral source of information for millions of readers and what it is supposed to be.  Too, there is no logical end to it; what if some editors making up a majority want to eliminate the reality of the Holocaust or purges in the former Soviet Union and/or China and South Vietnam after that war?  Would "consensus" rule over fact and neutrality?  These may seem extreme examples -- and they are in some ways -- but somehow once the cat is let out of the bag, what seem extreme examples in the present become future reality.


 * I have no regrets, offer no retractions, and make no apologies. If I could do it all over again, I would do it exactly the same way and would write exactly the same things. So I state unequivocally  -- I will accept the consequences -- whatever they may be.  But I also say I wrote nothing but truth, and used well-sourced scholarly examples to balance an obviously biased article on the part of some others


 * In any event, I submit to a higher authority. but in the way a subordinate military officer obeys the orders of a higher-ranking officer. That is, under formal protest.


 * And if saying such gets me indefinitely banned? Then so be it. Again, I will accept the consequences. Further -- with all due respect -- I resent being spoken to as if I were a wayward child, and will not accept it without reply.  I am a grown man and do not regard this lightly. It is one thing to write a private message on the matter, but quite another to do it publicly.


 * Bottom line is, I will not make any more changes on the Texas v. White article. But see above as to the reason.


 * Respectfully, TexasReb (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You did not seem to hold reservation on publicly complaining about others so why would you think that you should be treated differently? Warnings and blocks are public matters on Wikipedia as editors and admins will look into your editing history from time to time. I do not see where you have been spoken to as if a "wayward child".


 * If you will note, I made no complaints until I myself was called to task by certain other editors of this particular article and named by name. It is easy to see which "side" made the first reference to me personally. So I did the same in turn.  Are they treated any differently?  It would seem so.  And yes, I believe I was spoken to like a "wayward child."  A warning is one thing, no problem with that and I understand the need for administrators to check on things periodically, etc.  What I took objection to were the sentence(s):


 * You will need to acknowledge that consensus is a policy and that you will adhere to it. Trying to run around it such as the edit summary is NOT acceptable. "Consensus is fine if it doesn't involve censorship of relevant info." is not going to work and you do not get to decide that unilaterally.


 * If indeed my edit history is reviewed on articles I have contributed to, then it should be clear I have gone along with a consensus many times, and have a history of initiating an attempt at discussion (on this article as well). I am fully aware of the Wiki policy on consensus.  But I am also aware of the rule regarding good faith and neutrality in articles, so I am not deciding anything unilaterally.



— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that the converse is the way to go...let the lone dissenting voice override the consensus of the masses so that great wrongs shall be righted? If the lone dissenting voice is using logic and sources, he should be able to convince the masses and gain consensus to favor his arguments...presuming he is correct, that is. If not, he should be able to drop the stick and walk away.


 * No I am not suggesting that at all. I am stating that there are cases where a consensus should not trump a fair and balanced presentation of the other side of the issue, and in an attempt at neutrality with properly sourced information?. Isn't that a policy also?  I have edited --- even originally written -- articles on Wikipedia and never attempted to delete valid information even if I might disagree with it.   This was the case on the Texas v. White sub-article.  I didn't take out anyone else's information, I simply added relevant ones of my own.  In this instance, what was wrong with presenting the actual issue before the court (bond sales) and prime quotes from the dissenting opinion in the case (which was a substantial one, relatively speaking as in 5-3)?  So really, which party was wrong?


 * Also, while I can -- on some levels -- agree with what you say about persuading other editors to go along with your arguments if they are convincing, I am also very much aware that on this particular subject, there are some editors so biased in their viewpoint that no appeal to common-sense nor fairness will work. The only thing I can ask is that administrators do a thorough review of the history of it (if it has no already been done).  I have many times eliminated passages and sources in the spirit of good-will and compromise.  That is there for the record.


 * But in any event, far as I am concerned, the issue is settled, and I will make no further edits in this particular sub-article. But I do not and will not acknowledge I was wrong for what I tried to do. Respectfully, TexasReb (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

TexasReb Versus the customs and comity of Wikipedia editing
Re: edits in Talk:Texas in the American Civil War‎. User:Texasreb uses uncouth, hostile language in pursuit of his extreme fringe position. He has not learned his lesson, and is at risk of being permanently banned from Wikipedia for his aggressively hostile relationships with serious editors. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL. This wont work Rjensen. If your interpretation of "hostile language" and "uncouth" language is asking for proper sources is that, then you are not a very good serious editor. There is no "hostile relations" with "serious editors" at all. There is, however, an issue with those "editors" who just cannot tolerate anything that goes against their own POV. And I think you really know it.

Don't even start to play that BS about violating rules. I haven't done anything of the sort. What I have done, again, is post information that you and other northern apologists just don't want posted. I have never slandered any other editor at all. What I have done is state the unmentionable (gasp!) that there actually may be a side other than the St. Lincoln and the "winners version" of the War.

You don't scare me one bit with your pompous announcements. You would be the first (and you have) to demand proper sources for additions that went against your own viewpoints. But somehow? You don't mind it at all it the same additions support your own biased outlook.

And again, if I am "permanently banned" (as you put it), then so be it. I am sure that would please you because you can't stand to hear another side of it all. So ban me, Rjensen. I would love to see you try. And if you can? Then all I can say is I wouldn't want to be part of it, anyway.

No matter what you want, the truth will not go away. Reasonable people can take opposing viewpoints on historical issues, but that is all it is...opposing viewpoints that stem from principle. I guess I will never understand how northern apologists do not seemingly grasp that...TexasReb (talk)

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Texas in the American Civil War, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Texas in the American Civil War. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Reagan quote and how WP:BRD works
Since I'm the 3rd person to revert this edit by you, and you don't seem to understand why, I will explain (rather than just applying an edit warring warning which is how some would handle it.) WP:BRD means bold editing, which if reverted, should then be discussed before being put back in. This is the part that seems to have escaped your notice. It is what the talk page is for. You are lamenting that others properly reverted your edit, when it is incumbent on you to explain it because they reverted it. Either that or accept that it was rejected and leave it alone.

The initial revert gave a good and valid reason in the edit summary (secondary scholarship needed.) BRD then requires that you go to talk to explain why using a bare primary reference is sufficient.

For example, I have no trouble summarizing Reagan's speech as a defense of slavery and race inequality. I don't even have to summarize as he says it outright: "you tender us the inhuman alternative of unconditional submission to Republican rule on abolition principles, and ultimately to free negro equality and a government of mongrels or a war of races on the one hand, and on the other secession and a bloody and desolating civil war, waged in an attempt by the Federal Government to reduce us to submission to these wrongs." Now, I realize that you think the intro provides some other justification, but the actual reason for secession isn't in the intro, it is in the part I just quoted. That is the part that many Texans considered intolerable, any chance of abolition or race equality. The hysteria of the time in Texas about slave insurrection had a lot to do with it. Red Harvest (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you actually believe all this, NS.

March 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, having a battleground mentality, and failing to abide by consensus&mdash;the exact same behavior that got you blocked every other time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. S warm  X  00:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock Requests
I hope you don't mind a comment by an uninvolved observer? I haven't looked at the original dispute, so I cannot take sides in it, but I think "Refuse to go along with a consensus that itself was totally biased?" is likely to be at the core of the problem. Wikipedia works by consensus, and if editors were allowed to refuse to go along with consensus they disagreed with (for whatever reason) then the project simply could not work. There are valid steps in dispute resolution that can be taken, but at the end of it we all have to abide by consensus, and if you continue to refuse to do that then I think your chances of being unblocked are slim. Squinge (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a civil reply. I have no problem with a consensus so long to it does not involve censoring.  If Wikipedia works by consensus alone, how far can it go?  I have used this example in the past before, but if the Holocaust is denied, then will a consensus disprove it did?  Please go back and look at what all was written, and has been written.  What, it seems, it taking place is that some editors want to turn the article into nothing more than one which gives a pro-northern version of the War Between the States, particularly revolving around slavery.


 * I can live with that, far as it goes. But it is extremely difficult to tolerate editors who have no regard for anything that might say different.  What was so wrong with giving a summation of the minority opinion in Texas v. White?  Or a minor quote by U.S. Rep. John Reagan?  The former simply gave a considerable minority opinion, while the latter gave an overview of the reason for Lower South outrage against what they felt were reasons for going their separate way; I also included slavery as an issue. If that gets me banned, then so be it.  But I will never understand it. TexasReb (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again. You say "I have no problem with a consensus so long to it does not involve censoring", and I can understand that thought. But it brings us back to the question of how we decide what is and what is not "censoring". And the way Wikipedia does that is by consensus! Yep, that's circular. But the dispute resolution procedures (see WP:DR) are intended to help break out of that circle by seeking input from other people to develop a new and hopefully wider consensus. It's far from perfect, but I don't know of a better way to do it, and people who have been here a lot longer than me don't seem to know either. I won't go into the dispute itself, but it's clear you understand the options available to you. I just hope you can go with WP:DR and not get yourself any more blocks, because I do think these disputes over content need a wide variety of inputs. Squinge (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, Squinge, for a civil and informative reply. I see clearly what you are saying. I get frustrated sometime but, like you say, perhaps that is the only option as it be. And yes, I will pursue the alternatives as to dispute resolution.  Best Regards -- TexasReb TexasReb (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement on Talk:Confederate States of America
User:Rjensen might have given an explanation why your statement was deleted. I deleted it again not to antagonize you, but because the comments you made weren't germane to the subject matter, Confederate States of America. The comments instead seemed to be aimed at other editors who had previously disagreed with you about content and at one editor who gave you advice you could heed. I'm glad you're back. For my part, I would like to see you make meaningful contributions without more controversy. I urge you to take a look at the WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force page. You can see many redlinks, articles which likely deserve creation. You can also see pages which need work of some kind or other. There are many ACW stubs which could use the enthusiasm of a knowledgeable and dedicated editor. For now please consider working on pages less controversial in order to avoid arguments in pagespace. I remember when I was newer here I got into quite a lengthy argument about the need for a better and more concise lede on the ACW main page (with Rjensen as I recall). A senior editor suggested I work on stubs for a bit in order to make needed contributions and gain confidence in styling and NPOV. I don't intend to condescend, criticize or censor your opinions. I just suggest you work in other pagespace to demonstrate to the larger community (as opposed to T:CSA pagewatchers) you are here to assist in the creation of an online encyclopedia. If I can be helpful, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Buster. I really appreciate this. I mean it. I am not a hard person to get along with and I regret that it comes across that way sometime on talk pages.  I will heed your advise.  Again, thank you for your words and courtesy. TexasReb (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Our discussions are by their nature adversarial. What we don't need is a fight breaking out on a war page ;-). BusterD (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, you are at 2RR right now on T:CSA. If an admin blocks you immediately after you've returned from a block, you're likely to get a much longer block next time. I urge you to disengage, as the WP:DR page suggests. If you feel you must continue to disagree, I plead with you to stick to discussing content, not other users or the discussion itself. BusterD (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Again, thank you. TexasReb (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly think Rjensen intended to type "thread" not threat. One way or the other, you're not gaining ground in the discussion. Slow motion edit warring is still edit warring; it doesn't work to your advantage. That's not my assessment, btw, that's the project's. Strongly suggest dropping the stick and working elsewhere for a while. BusterD (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)