Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indiana in the American Civil War/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009.

Indiana in the American Civil War

 * Nominator(s): King Bedford I  Seek his grace  17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... the previous attempt died due to lack of inertia. It is ready for another attempt. King Bedford I Seek his grace  17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bedford is an active participant in the WikiCup, but I don't think it matters; he might be controversial, but Bedford does know how to write articles. As a matter of preference, it might be wise to use harvnb instead of bare unlinked references. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review
 * There are 0 ref formatting errors, checked with WP:REFTOOLS.
 * There are 0 dead external links with the links checker tool.
 * Fix the 3 disambiguation links, checked with the dab finder tool.
 * 3rd Regiment Indiana Cavalry
 * John J. Williams
 * Stovepipe -- T ru  c o   02:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the dabs.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  05:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not neutral or accurate.
 * Despite significant anti-war activity in the state and southern Indiana's ancestral ties to the Southern United States, it did not secede from the Union. Southern Indiana's "ancestral ties" were and are to Kentucky, which didn't secede either.
 * Strongly disagree, Indiana's earliest settlers were dominantly Virginians - the same as Kentucky's earliest settlers. (George Rogers Clark, William Henry Harrison, etc) Southern Indiana continued to have strong southern ties, and even if the ties were to Kentucky, Kentucky was a southern slave holding state - so how is the statement inaccurate? There were stong family ties to the southern states among southern Indiana's population, and there was significant copperhead activity there, but the state did not succeed. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In a sense: Indiana's earliest settlement was while Kentucky was part of Virginia. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true - which makes the statement in the article true. (Virginia = southern, Kentucky = southern) Both Kentucky and Indiana were owned originally and settled originally by Virginians (southerners). Almsot all of the signers of Indiana's constitution where from born in Virginia. I don't understand where the problem is? I pulled the source listed in the article and it says, "The territory's (Indiana) early stock was of Virginian origin and supportive of the institution (slavery), and Harrison (William Henry) was able to quickly gain their support in the passage of the indenturing act." There are other sources which make similar claims.Charles Edward (Talk) 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Morton did not allow the General Assembly to meet, no budget or tax provisions were passed. This rapidly led to a crisis as Indiana ran out of money to conduct business, and the state was on the edge of bankruptcy. Going beyond his constitutional powers, Morton solicited millions of dollars in private loans. His move to subvert the legislature was successful, and Morton was able privately to fund the state government and the war effort in Indiana. The facts appear to be that the Republican Assemblymen forced adjournment, and Morton did not call the legislature back into session. This is dramaturgy, not history.
 * That is a very good summary of the source. The republican's left the legislature to deny qourum in the second month of the session when the legislature attempted to take command of the militia from governor and give  it to a board of commissioners. The Republicans left at the urging of Morton, and he then some of the democrats arrested and detained. The session still had four monthes to continue, which it did not. Legally Morton had the responsibility to round up the republicans and drag them back to the capital - which he did not. This was a major political and governmental development. Can you please provide a source for your claims? There are sources for what is already there. In addition it did lead to a fiscal crisis as the state verged on bankruptcy more than once. Morton had no authority to take loans and did so knowing full well he might be taken up on charges after the war. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doubtless. The willing use of almost entirely pro-Confederate sources is what makes this less than FA; for the account I give, see "Oliver Morton" in ''American National Biography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Foote is the only source there could be construed as pro-confederate, but that is not right. To my knowledge every other source used is from a northern author. Could you please provide an example of which reference you beleive is pro-confederate? Or a specific statement that is unfairly biased towards the confederacy? Charles Edward (Talk)
 * In terms of the war dead, more Hoosiers died in the Civil War than in any other conflict. What, if anything, is this supposed to mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It means exactly what is said, more people from Indiana died during the Civil War than in any conflict since it or before it. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indiana's southern ties were to Virginia and, to a lesser extant, NC and Tennessee as well, all three seceded. Also, KY's seceding is an arguable point, given their rump government.  The second point is not dramatic.  As for your third point, it is a convenient matter of reference, to put IN in the ACW in comparison with its role in other conflicts.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  05:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That ddemonstrates the fundamental problem here. I shall tag the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How is all this pro-Confederate? Explain yourself.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand by my oppose. When these, and such claims of meaningless state pride as By the end of the war, 46 general officers in the Union army had resided in Indiana at some point in their lives, are cleaned up, do let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok? Charles Edward (Talk) 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments -
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as PBS, etc.
 * What makes http://civilwarindiana.com/biographies/index.html a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything spelled out, and the website is done by published author Craig Dunn; see bio at http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/MillerCollegeofBusiness/RankingsandRecognitions/AlumniAwards/2008AwardsWinners/CraigDunn.aspx. -- King Bedford I Seek his grace  15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article has several POV issues. The mention that Indiana did not secede despite “ancestral ties to the Southern United States” suggests that the Civil War was somehow mainly about kinship ties. In fact, the main reason Indiana developed differently than the folks in Virginia was that early on, despite the efforts of folks like Harrison, the state rejected slavery. There is no need to say anything in the lede about the state's heritage other than that it fought for the Union -- emphasize what it did rather than what it didn't do.


 * Nowhere is there a mention of the 1860 presidential results -- Lincoln carried the state with 51% followed by Douglas with 42%. Breckinridge only received 4.5% of the vote.  These results certainly don’t suggest any groundswell for secession.  There certainly should be a “Background” section that describes the situation before the war. If there actually WAS a significant secessionist faction, then describe it.  If there wasn't, then cut out the insinuations that there might have been.


 * The lede claims, “The state experienced political strife when Governor Oliver P. Morton suppressed the Democratic Party ...”. Actually Morton was reacting to circumstances created by the views of the Democratic Party.  Rather than casting blame, the lede should say that there was strife and then describe the opposing positions.


 * The lede says the Democratic Party as “largely sympathized with the Confederacy” (which suggests that they were pro-secession) yet the body of the article states “The Democratic position was clarified at a state convention in the summer of 1862. The convention was chaired by Thomas Hendricks, and convention members stated that they supported the integrity of the Union and the war effort but opposed the abolition of slavery.” Big difference.


 * The article says, “While not particularly numerous, some Hoosiers chose to fight for the South.” I suppose that is fine, but then the article goes on to specifically name four ENLISTED MEN who fought for the CSA.  Why exactly are the names of folks from this tiny minority relevant to the article?  Where are the names and mention of Union generals and there contributions which should be a major focus of the article?


 * The only statement on the reaction of the state to the Union victory was, “The Indianapolis Journal called the subsequent celebrations within the city ‘demented.’” How balanced is that? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. I think the article could benefit from some more research and added information to better bring out the central themes of the subject. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I think Tom was overly negative, the presidential election results should have been in before, and I have added them.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: rgerading the four enlisted men of Tom's, one was a former US Army OFFICER. I removed the two brother-in-laws, and felt that the enlisted man who later helped Morgan invade Indiana was worthy enough of mention to keep in.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  21:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.