Talk:Confederate States of America

Make the language neutral

The topic is still controversial one hundred and fifty years later so effort ought to be made to make the presentation neutral. First, saying 11 Southern slave states, would seem to have less of a slant if it instead said, 11 Southern states seceded. They were states where the ownership of slaves was still legal and whether slave owners could take their slaves into the new territories was one of the many issues of dispute between these states and the Northern states but it was not the only issue. A crucial issue concerned federal import tariffs which were expropriating Southern wealth to pay for the federal government, and transferring Southern wealth to the North, forcing Southerners to pay for overpriced Northern manufactures or pay the very high tariffs on imported goods. There could be more discussion of this.

Also there could be more about the right of states to unilaterally seceded. After all this belief in the right of states to unilaterally secede was part of what led to the creation of the USA in the first place. There were also claims about inequitable taxation. The idea that the Southern states did not have the right to secede needs more than cursory treatment. The Southern states did not have representation in congress because the North out-numbered them and voted against the South's interests. Of course, as the Northern states demonstrated in the end, might is right, and the victors write the history.

our anonymous contributor misses the first rule of Wikipedia: editors report what's in the Reliable Sources (RS). If he tells us what RS he is using we can discuss the issue. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Southern states outnumbered the northern in the House for most of the nation's history because of the three-fifths bonus given for their slaves.

However, over time, the slave economy was not a successful choice of societal organization. It could not support populations like a free society could. Slave interests blocked canals and railroad building. But in the north, these expanded farmland to feed cities of excess labor for factories. Manufacturing in turn produced additional centers of wealth and power.

Slave interests in each southern state insisted on keeping the state power in their own hands. Representatives in family farm regions with equal population were outvoted 5:1 in the state Assembly because state constitutions apportioned by population and wealth. State law stopped Ruffin from importing guano fertilizer to restore family farm soil. State law stopped McCormick's mechanical reaper from competing with slave labor. Virginia lost representation In Congress because it could lose 20% of its population in a decade. Family farmers moved to states with better soil, better business and equal votes.

Southern states chose slavery and slave holders over fertilized, mechanized family farms shipping by canal five times faster than wagon. Southern states chose to disenfranchise the family farmer to sustain slave-power. It was a conscious, deliberate, sustained southern choice for fifty years. It was a losing proposition even without war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

House apportionments are at United_States_congressional_apportionment#Past_apportionments; is there a Southern majority at any date there? --JWB (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Congresses following each reapportionment from 1810, with reference to the link provided for apportionment, U.S. census and Martis for parties divisions in House and Senate, ending at 1860 elections but using apportionment from 1860 census that came later.

Percents of the United States. -

Proslavery Senate. – 68 – 54 – 50 – 68 – 64 – 38

Slavery inst. -States. -- 50 -- 50 -- 50 -- 50 -- 48 -- 44

Proslavery -House. – 65 – 48 – 50 – 62 – 56 – 39

Slavery .. Districts. – 44 – 44 – 40 – 40 – 38 – 35

Southerner --whites. –- 30 -- 28 -- 28 -- 25 -- 24 -- 22

> I stand corrected. Delightful afternoon though, checking through the three sources. I used Census population-by-race tables 10 South Atlantic, 11 East South Central, 12 West South Central, although that is only 95% of slaves reported in the 1860 Census. Martis for 14th, 19th, 24th, 29th, 34th and 37th Congresses. I used percents from my high school algebra to bypass the serious scholarship required to comprehend various changes in apportionment formulae -- now that would make for a fun dissertation.

> People representation in the Senate is touched on in History_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Population_power. Given this thread suggested by JWB, no wonder the secessionists would not countenance majority rule, especially when seen through the lens of the ex-pat settlement of whites following the Haitian Revolution in Charleston, South Carolina. Where is the scholarship to help us better understand that stream of American intellectual history? It certainly would help us understand Southern reaction to John Brown's Raid, never mind "states rights".

> The meaning of the words of the Constitution was changing from under the slave-holders feet. Lincoln said it was the true meaning ever approximated before and always intended. But under democratic impulse, the dynamic was radical. The Fire-eaters were not delusional, there was for them, a real crisis. Slave economies would not allow fertilizer, mechanization and transportation to increase white populations. Slave population did not increase as fast as free soil settlement. National majorities would not allow more than three-fifths bonus for slave states without emancipation. Slave-power would not allow for growth in free black population as in New Orleans and Baltimore. History as mass migrations, and democracy only accelerates its impact.

> Proslavery majorities were in control of House, Senate, President and Supreme Court for most of the nation's antebellum history, not slave state apportionment in the House. I stand corrected. My thanks to JWB. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 16 January 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)

Suffrage

Is it correct that "African-Americans" did not get voting rights in the Confederate States of America before 1965? It says so in a book I read. It's called Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics by Todd Landman (2008) page 119. If this is correct, should this be in the article? Kristian Vangen (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

mostly true (some blacks voted in every state)--but that happened around 1900 and had no connection with CSA. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. Strange that this is written in a book of great influence on my study in Comparative Politics at University of Bergen, Norway. It says "They [Moore and Dietrich Rueschemeyer] insist that the United States was not fully democratic until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which extended suffrage to African-Americans in the former Confederate states." Is there something I'm missing here? My english is not perfect. Kristian Vangen (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that your sources is talking about African-Americans in the former Confederate states. What happened after the war is covered in the article on Reconstruction (linked to in the third paragraph in the intro to this article). And it's not a simple linear process--as the Reconstruction article discusses, after the war the political and social situation of the former slaves seemed to be very much on the upswing for a time, but then Jim Crow was imposed and the voting rights theoretically guaranteed by the post-War amendments to the U.S. Constitution were mostly ignored in large areas of the South until the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and '60's--the Reconstruction article has discussion of this and links to the subsequent historical developments like "Jim Crow". 139.76.224.65 (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Landman seems to be assessing the democratic degree of a regime by percent suffrage exercised in a group. So regardless of numbers or concentrations in a place, one asks what is the voter turnout for that group's adults as a group. Another aspect of representative government is measured by how many of those resident in a place participate. Even were a regime to have the forms of a Western liberal democratic republic, if a majority of those living under a county or municipality’s regime do not participate either in elections or in government, how should one characterize their governance? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Altering the Republic

I removed the bold face portion of this sentence from the lede. "The U.S. used military action to defeat the Confederacy, altering the republic which had been united without coercion." From a strictly factual basis it is inaccurate with respect to the American Revolution -- there was considerable coercion against the British and, more importantly, the Loyalists.

My main objection, however, is the POV. Both supporters and opponents of the theoretical constitutional right of secession begin their arguments with the founding of the nation and the drafting of the Constitution. It is an extreme POV to suggest in the article lede that the pro-secessionist position (i.e. a voluntary association that could be dissolved at will) was always the case while the anti-secessionist position was something that arose only when the Civil War "alter[ed] the republic". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

- (1) The original thirteen colonies formed a republic among themselves without coercion. Other English colonies were invited, such as Bermuda, where Washington sold his wheat once he got out of the tobacco business, but they declined. In 1774-1775 the Continental Congress published pamphlets in French for les inhabitants, "You have been conquered into liberty," But events did not prove the publisher's clarion call. The British and Loyalists were monarchists and never pretended to the republic.

- (2) It is rather an extreme POV to attribute republicanism to George III. Most Loyalists were disenfranchised, property confiscated or their entire families expelled -- monarchist cleansing maybe, but without the slaughter. U.S. Senator Harry Byrd, Sr., and U.S. Senator Harry Byrd, Jr., of Virginia were descended of Loyalists who founded apple orchards on the frontier. But to your larger point about coercing the English, cite sources that George III was coerced into a republic with the colonies of North America before you attribute POV to editors in disagreement with your premis.

- (3) There can be no secession from Union as the Constitution is written, although one may speculate that if an amendment were passed in the same percentages that the union was entered into, it might be then, but only then, the fundamental law being altered in that way, the people in three-fourths of the states agreeing. The South Carolina legislature received no such concurrence as provided for in the Constitution. Mr. Calhoun's "concurrent majority" in each of three regions was a rehash of outvoted proposals in the Constitutional Convention, but was not adopted as an Amendment of fundamental law among We, the people. There was no 20-year "long train of abuses", in 1860, no president since Andrew Jackson had served more than one term, all in sympathy with slavery, as was the Supreme Court the entire time. No northern majority voted together across party lines until 1858, rejecting the "Ruffian" undemocratic terrorist outrage of the "LeCompton Constitution" which sought a slave-holding Kansas.

- (4) The point of the sentence is that many, perhaps the majority of secessionists were surprised that they were not let go without a fight. For all the bravado about x Rebels outfighting 10x Yankees, it is a commonplace among Civil War historians that the Union troops in the Army of the Potomac were never beat, only their generals were. See the grudging mutual respect of the men fighting. After the war, there is no "states rights" appeal to bullets sustained for half a decade to slaughter another half a million, only the ballot, as provided for in the United States Constitution. Characterize that statement as you will. If it is that confusing to experienced WP editors, then I propose to leave it out of the introduction. The referenced observation is in Ferguson. For the purposes of collaboration, I concur with Tom (North Shoreman) in his edit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How about the Perpetual Union provision of the Articles of Confederation? --JWB (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) The Continental Congress declares independence of the "separate and equal" people without coercion in 1776.

(2) The Articles are entered into unanimously, voluntarily without coercion over the five years from 1777 to 1782.

(3) The Constitution is declared ratified by the Articles Congress with eleven states in 1788, dissolving itself without coercion in 1790.

(4) The Constitution begins unanimously without coercion over two years from 1788 to 1790. Since it took two years to adopt not five, the Founding Fathers thought that the Constitution was perhaps two times better than the Articles. France is in its Fifth Republic, but the U.S. has the same prescriptive charter for two centuries.

(5) Given the world history of forming nation-states by suppression and conquest with privileges granted to favored subjects, the United States was fortunate to gain a nation with rights and liberties guaranteed to citizens and expanded by Amendment without the perpetual coercion of rebellion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Secessionist surprise at coercion

(1) For there to be a nation, the state must have a monopoly of force. There cannot be armed fiefdoms, rebels, crime syndicates or drug lords. The premise of a republic is that the government will be divided, for the people. The premise of a democracy is that rulers are to remain in power for a limited time, chosen not by themselves, but by others, perhaps the people. The majority of the people being ruled can change both individual rulers, and the forms of their rule. This is the opposite of a drug lord's drive-by shooting at a bus stop, for instance. The on-lookers do not have a vote on the drug lord, nor do they have a say in the procedures leading up to executions in their neighborhood.

(2) Because the Union was entered into without coercion, secessionists believed that it could be left without coercion. But in the event, the majority who chose to be persuaded and bound themselves to majority votes would not be dismissed and intimidated by an armed minority. This is an enduring surprise to those who live in regimes of coercion, slavery is one, authoritarian rule is another. Those who choose persuasion for governance and who submit to the rule of law even when they disagree, will sometimes fight for what they believe. Right does not make might, as in the Revolutions of 1848, or the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943.

(3) But in the event, the majority prevailed in the American Civil War. The nation state will have a monopoly of force. States and the people living in them will be bound by persuasion and majority rule in a democratic republic. There is nothing, no “peculiar institution” of any description, which is exempt from the will of the people, Constitutionally exercised. This includes drinking alcoholic beverages, for instance, but rule of law allows for reversal of any action. The democratic means justify the policy ends, in part because the outcomes are reversible without the bloodshed of civil war. See the 18th Amendment followed by the 21st Amendment.

(4) Slaveholders, “domestic tyrants” as the abolitionists put it, were surprised by the “pasty faced clerks” who lacked the courage of their convictions, refusing to face death on a dueling field of honor, repeatedly bending to majority will to allow slavery while carping away in their pamphlets and tracts. Although not unique in history, I propose that the slaveholding secessionist surprise at organized, sustained defense of a democratic republic by those who believed in the rule of law and majority rule as recounted in Ferguson, somehow be reflected in the body of this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thomas scholarship

JimWae (talk | contribs) observes in tagging (→History: this seems to be mostly opinion (unsourced editorial and Thomas') rather than historical background). The volume "The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865" is one of the "New American Nation Series" published by Harper Colophon Books, edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris. JimWae has come to my assistance several times, so while WP policy does not require editors to cite the reference notes of a reliable source, it seems a courtesy which has been earned, and easily given in collegial collaboration. I still miss stuff, and I still need his help. That said, from (Thomas 1979, notes on pages 4-5):

"8 Emphasis on ideology in the American experience is well expressed Bailyn Ideological Origins, pp.v-x; Eugene D. Genovese, "The Slave South: an interpretation," in The political economy of slavery: studies in the economy and society of the Slave South (New York, 1969); Eric Foner, Free soil, free labor, free men: the ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (New York, 1970), especially pp.1-10; and Raimondo Luraghi, Storia della guerra civile americana (Turin, Italy, 1966), especially pp.5-103, and "The Civil War and the modernization of American society: social structure and Industrial Revolution in the Old South before and after the War," Civil War History, XVIII (1972), 230-251.

"In his brilliant essay "The historian's use of nationalism and vice versa," published first in Alexander V. Riasonovsky and Barnes Riznik (eds.) Generalizations in historical writing ([University of Pennsylvania] Philadelphia, 1963), and later in The South and the sectional conflict (Baton Rouge, La., 1968), David Potter uses nationalism in such a way as to imply (at least) ideology.

"9 Cf. Charles G. Sellers, Jr. The Southerner as American (Chapel Hill, NC, 1960); Howard Zinn, The Southern Mystique (New York, 1959); and F.N. Boney [University of Georgia], "The southern aristocrat" The Midwest Quarterly, XV (1974)), 215-230, which express in different ways a contrary viewpoint.

"10 Updated expositions of the Southern-American theme are Sheldon Hackney, "The South as a counterculture" The American Scholar 42 (1973), 283-293; and George B. Tindall, "Beyond the mainstream: the ethnic southerners," Journal of Southern History, XL (1974), 3-18. The most complete explanation of the problem is in C. Vann Woodward The burden of Southern history, enlarged edition (Baton Rouge LA 1968), and American counterpoint: slavery and racism in the North-South dialogue(Boston, 1971)."

-- Note, the link to the Italian Wikipedia for Raimondo Luraghi is not properly coded. But I hope that suffices to remove the tags. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

History intro tags removed.

• Citation needed tag (A) was said to be required for the statement, “That there was a Confederate experience and an American Civil War was due to the fact that a a sufficient number of whites considered themselves more Southern than American." JimWae has previously demonstrated a wider reading and command of this topic than I have. I assure all that I am not editorializing, but fairly representing the historian Emory Thomas. The citation is to page 3. The sentence paraphrased is "The essential fact of Confederate experience was that a sufficient number of white Southern Americans felt more Southern than American or, perhaps more accurately, that they were orthodox Americans and Northerners were apostates." I have also read historians that propose it was the Secessionists who were the true Americans, such as "Cousin" Ludwell H. Johnson at the College of William and Mary.

I am persuaded that, to the extent the United States is a democratic republic, that somewhere in the calculus at Wikipedia, votes should be counted. It may be as JimWae has tagged, that the South was purely American, and the larger number of Northerners were no longer properly to be called "American", and the Thomas citation as given is not a reliable source, perhaps. But rather than tagging Thomas, I would ask JimWae for an alternate source, as I do not consider those I have read who hold that point of view to be the mainstream of American historiography, my "Cousins", et alia, notwithstanding.

• Citation needed tag (B) was said to require a citation to support "interests and institutions became ideals and goals". I assure all that that is what Thomas said, to be found at the cited reference. It is a paperback edition, I hope I did not mixup the hardback and paperback ISBNs, which I have done before on these pages. I still need JimWae's oversight, and I do not pretend otherwise. Thomas also referenced the Adams-Jefferson correspondence about the Revolution in the minds of Americans before it occurred. I also left out the "secular transubstantiation" bit found there. Here, is it that i messed up on citation protocol? Does the citation need to be adjacent to the quotation marks as well at the end of the paragraph to the same page in the same reference?

• Clarify tag (C) is given reason=worldview (and values and belief systems) transcends ideology???}} Well, yes, that is the point Thomas makes. Thomas supports his point of view with Bailyn, Genovese, Foner, Luraghi, Potter, Zinn, Boney, Hackney, and Woodward, historians all. It may be that social history is suspect as a discipline, although the American Historical Association sponsors conferences on the perspective, and it lists the Social Science History Association (SSHA) as an affiliate.

Does JimWae's greater experience at WP see the general reader understanding ideology as the over-arching determinant in each society's zeigheist??? I thought ideology a moveable feast, transitory phases serving more central values and significant others, put on and taken off as a coat under setting and rising sun, like Marxists becoming neo-conservatives when Stalinist Communism disappointed, for example. Is it more than that? Lets get a reference from the non-historian perspective before we tag the historians in the "History" section introduction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I restored two tags before I saw this here. I will think about this some more.
  • However, when quotes are used, it needs to be entirely clear WHERE they come from - we should not have to presume they come from a source later in the paragraph. What might be acceptABLE style among history profs familiar (or expected to be so) with the texts appears to me to be a problem in a general purpose encyclopedia.
  • Overall, I find much of this section to be more grandiose verbosity (even pomposity) and opinion (even if it is the opinion of historians) rather than informative. We end up with grand phrases but vacuous sentences. I cannot tell if this comes directly from the source or is the result of an attempt to "sum up"--JimWae (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I find the phrasing "That there was a Confederate experience and an American Civil War..." problematic especially because of the first 5 words. I think it would be more descriptive to begin: "That the Confederacy was ever formed and a Civil War followed..." Non-Americans & non-historians might think "Confederate experience" means something "extra", but not know what it is supposed to be.--JimWae (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The whole issue from "a sufficient number of whites considered themselves more Southern than American" regarding whether the North or the South was more "American" is resolved simply by stating those whites identified themselves more with their state and their culture than with the entire national entity -- & that sectionalism had been growing as the issue of slavery became more important--JimWae (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ideologies are composed of and unify values and belief systems, so saying they transcend it appears to be more empty rhetoric --JimWae (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • RE: “Interests and institutions became ideals and goals”. Besides asking for a clear source for quoted material, I question the informative value of including this sentence at all. Its meaning is somewhat opaque (and grandiose), but it seems it could be applied to a great many interests and ideals, and says little specific to this topic--JimWae (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Intro, draft ii

- Point #1. Thank you for the courtesy of a reply.

- Point #2. “grandiose pomposity”, okay, on re-reading, perhaps I slip into it in response to the offhanded dismissal generally given to lost causes. (Not JimWae, note the submission was tagged, not blanked.) I promise that it is toned down from most sources, but I’ll work on it. Serious men undertook a serious enterprise, one which I disagree with, but which I understand and respect just as much as I do the escaped slave who would dare wear Union blue in the front lines of a combat firefight, and stand. -- rats, I did it again. Is it just a "Southron" thing and I can't help it? Thank goodness for collaboration.

- Reworked the lead sentences generally following editorial direction from JimWae‘s point #3, #4 and #5.

- Point #7. Removed the offending generalization “Interests and …” tagged with “citation needed” which historians unacquainted with social sciences found instructive in 1970s. Provided specifics of interests involved, “tariffs …”, etc. Reworked “transcended ideology” above to reflect “ideology” use by historians, moving away from obscure allusions to ideologies of “free trade” or “states rights” to reflecting concrete, political concerns of “tariffs, …”

- Point #6. An ideology such as Marxism is subservient to values when a believer rejects the constructs because of the mass murder which proceeded from Stalin’s logical application of the doctrine. An ideology such as Marxism is subservient to societal ties when an “Uncle Kulak” weeps at the loss of the entire extended family left behind by starvation, and the believer leaves the Party. In neither case did value judgement against mass murder nor family circumstance undergoing genocide alter the objective reality of the struggling workers' oppression worldwide.

- Social Psychology does not have the same cachet as Clinical Psychology, or Political Science, but it helps in understanding how people relate to one another in a way applicable in describing how groups act in concert to sustain folkways or to effect and transmit change. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I also followed Rjensen editorial contribution to develop his treatment of southern white minorities found in every state. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

History intro, draft iii

I explicitly named the ideology "states rights", added additional concrete examples of splitting national parties and national churches, and belatedly bunkered bits of the bloviating.

JimWae's earlier edit chose to go silent on the South's "plain folk". We in the South do make a distinction between the "yeomenry" of small farms and the trades versus the "plain folk" day laborers living in the "hills". The distinction is commonly made throughout American culture and society. James Michener writes empathetically of them in "Chesapeake" as the marshland Turlock family who were basically hunters-gatherers, describing their women through the generations as strikingly beautiful. MSNBC morning commentators today refer to them smirkingly as our "poor white trash". "Trailer trash" is no better, not really. It never ends. How do you expect us to forget it? Maybe the day the heroic monumental gilded equestrian statue of William Techumseh Sherman is taken down at the north end of NYCs Grand Central Park. Rats - I did it again. Thank goodness for collaboration. Let us spare the gentle reader. At least Wikipedia uses the horse's statue in Washington, DC.

On reflection it is probably best to leave the "plain folk" out of the introduction, although the social reality was once significant enough so as to be seriously treated at length in descriptions of the sociological make up of Confederate armies by scholars such as Joseph Glatthaar (University of North Carolina) in his Lee's army: from victory to collapse (2008) ISBN 978-06-8-482787-2. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So, regarding the "plain folk" of the South. WoopWoop reminds me in Town Line -- is that where the REAL "Buffalo wings" come from? -- to lighten up. I really did laugh out loud at nationally televised series HEE HAW with the shanty house porch skits. And Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a redneck" comedy routine may have done more for national goodwill between the sections since Lee and Grant sat down together by the little table in John McLean's livingroom at Appomattox Courthouse. Sort of like going from Redd Foxx to Richard Pryor to Eddie Murphy to Bill Cosby for racial harmony, maybe, just maybe. (politicians Stephen Douglas (white), Frederick Douglass (black), comedians Red Buttons (white), Redd Foxx (black). get it?) - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Confederate States of America → Confederate States – Per consistancy, as the United States of America article is named United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• oppose the RS and the popular sources are unanimous in using the "CSA" form. I can't recall anyone using the "CS" form in a book. (in 2012, by contrast, both "USA" and "US" are in common usage). Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• oppose-I also oppose the name change and move.Dubyavee (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• undecided. A similar discussion without formal application for article name change was broached at American Civil War. Reference was made to data provided by the “Ngram Viewer” out of Harvard to determine name frequency during discussion. There it rests at one for "United States Civil War", three for "American Civil War". I'm not sure what goes into the naming process, reading links now.

Ngram Viewer for U.S. terms, “United States” was most frequent, trailed far behind by “the Union” and last by “United States of America. Ngram Viewer for C.S. terms, “the Confederacy” was most frequent, “Confederate States” twice closely approached it, and usually half of that was “Confederate States of America”. My own reading experience coincides with Rjensen. Undecided. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that this search is flawed. Since Confederate States is included in the search term Confederate States of America, the results for the former include all of the hits of the latter. The search is not exclusive.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rjensen's rationale concerning the RS's and our common name policy. I don't believe that the usage is unanimous as stated by Rjensen but I certainly do think it is the most prevalent form. Additionally, there are several thousand articles which link to this one. I stopped counting when I went over 5000 (see for yourself (articles only excluding redirects)). Unless such a move is very well justified in policy, it doesn't make sense to create that many redirects. I see the nominator has cited consistency as the reason for a move. That would need to be bolstered with a policy otherwise it seems to fall into the other stuff exists category.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose following Rjensen and Berean Hunter. Any change should be without chaos.

But as a footnote to our discussion, the noted Ngram syntax flaw can be compensated by using Algebra. The two terms are additive as reported. If we choose a CS-CSA- smoothing of 3 for the ten-year period 1998-2008, , we see (a) “Confederate States of America” holds at .00002% on the Y-axis.

CS starts at .00008%, troughs at .00004& in 2003, then finishes at .00007%. We subtract the .00002 added in for the CSA due to the observed syntax flaw in the Ngrams program, so (b) CS is now 1998: .00006 down to 2003: .00002% equal to CSA, then up to 2008: .00005%.

(c) ”Confederate States” is found 2-3 times as frequently in English than “Confederate States of America” over the ten year period, 1995-2005, using a stratified random sample from each year. Nevertheless, and all points to the contrary notwithstanding, I begin leaning with Rjensen from my own reading, but I find the possible disruption pointed out by Berean Hunter is persuasive. oppose. Rats, JimWae, I did it again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That, however, does not take into account situations where first mention is "Confederate States of America" & later ones are shorter. Also, sometimes expressions that are on separate lines and/or broken by dashes are not properly evaluated --JimWae (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I follow. The easy item would be the line-break. Run a statistically sound sample of texts and expression(s) and line breaks to determine if the incidence is significant. If it is not, the syntax is acceptable, if not, not, add code. The harder item is CSA in the title, forward, and first paragraph of every chapter, followed by CS as shorthand throughout the remainder of the text, counted against the CSA context. That CS count is invalid for our purposes. That implies that in determining Wikipedia article titles, we need the project to provide us with a subset data selection of "titles only", maybe, speaking as a consumer/user. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Consistency is often important but does not invariably trump other considerations. CSA is definitely better known outside the USA than CS, see WP:BIAS about dangers of systemic bias. Actually, I would cautiously favour moving US to USA, but that's another discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Town Line, New York

This image should have a green dot in upstate New York to show that Town Line, New York voted 85 to 40 to secede from the Union in 1861, became an exclave of the Confederate States of America, and provided five soldiers for the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no reason why this bit of trivia should be mentioned ANYWHERE on wikipedia other than, possibly, in the article on Town Line. Can you cite any reliable source on the CSA or the Civil War that discusses this? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Town Line NY notes the vote is never reaffirmed with any enacting legislation. (1) There was no vote for Jefferson Davis for president on the date required by the Confederate Provisional Congress. (2) Whig Congressman, "Spot" Lincoln had a test for determining loyalty of "the people" that he used to ascertain whether the spot of the cattle raid starting the Mexican-American War was in the U.S. or Mexico. ("Anyone can draw a map." Lincoln observed that they paid taxes to Mexican government.) Town Line is not reported making tax remittances to CSA (or US). (3) The town did not enforce Confederate conscription laws, and no reported resistance to Federal conscription laws. (4) At a time when men voted with their feet, five from Town Line are reported in the article going for the grey, twenty for the blue. So I say, no obedience to Confederate election law, no payment of Confederate taxes, and no enforcement of Confederate conscription law for men ages 17-50. No dot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. :-) . With permission, The rest of the story:The secessionists fled the hamlet 14 miles outside Buffalo, NY for Canada in August 1864 with the rumors of a massing Confederate army in Canada. In September 1945, a 97-year old Confederate veteran pleaded, “give the United States another try.” The town voted 29-1 Rebel, but it reconciled at President Truman’s suggestion to use a feast of road kill barbeque to make peace. I get it now. But here, could we treat the Civil War as a serious topic? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead introduction with state and territory enumerations.

Following Mudwater's edit adding enumeration of states and territories in the lead introduction, I edited the links to "[place] in the American Civil War" and "Confederate Territory of Arizona". Editors may want to consider whether state and territory enumeration meets WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY. The thirteen original states are not enumerated in the American Revolution, but planets are called out in solar system. undecided. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC) If enumeration of the states in the lead text is objectionable, I would like to keep the listing in a note by the summary expression in the lead. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit summary, the names of the eleven Confederate states -- seven of which I added in my edit -- are definitely key information that should be mentioned in the lead section. I also think the second paragraph of the lead, where the states are mentioned, is well written and very appropriate for the lead section, going on to talk about some of the other states, and territories, and their relation to the Confederacy. This is in the context of a lead that's about 450 words, an appropriate length for an article this size. And not to get side tracked by quibbling about words, but saying that the states are "enumerated" makes it sound like there's a long list of them embedded in the article. There aren't that many, and their names are included in prose that, like I say, in my view is well written and, because it contains key info, should definitely be included in the lead. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Strictly southern"

Anonymous *224.16 proposes to edit according to a “strictly southern” criterion to exclude cities from the article. “Strictly Southern cities” in 1860 lie below the Mason-Dixon Line and allow legal racial slavery. The “South Carolina Secession Banner” at the SC Secessionist Convention with the inscription “Built on the ruins” featured the Palmetto palm with slave-holding state building blocks of the Confederacy -- all fifteen in the U.S. See Emory T. Thomas, "The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865" (1979) ISBN 0-06-090703-7 Chapter 3. "Foundations of the Southern Nation". See the visual evidence by any web search on “South Carolina secession banner” to see all fifteen slave states included.

But additionally, consider Border states in turn as treated in E. Morton Coulter’s classic “The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865”, (1955) ISBN 978-08-0-710007-3 published in the Louisiana State University’s “History of the South” series. Davis proclamation May 6, 1861 “recognizing hostilities with the United States excepted all the Border slave states.” (Coulter p.54). The Border slave states were “a fringe running from Delaware west through Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri” (Coulter p.43). “Delaware had few of the characteristics of the South except her tenacious clinging to the institution of slavery”. (Coulter, p.44)

In Maryland “there was genuine Southernism” in the Eastern Shore, Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore and south (Coulter, p.44). In Kentucky, Governor Beriah Magoffin was a “thoroughgoing secessionist and made every effort to take his state out of the Union”. The C.S. Congress appropriated $1 million to secure a Confederate Kentucky and admitted Kentucky in December (Coulter, p.45-46). Missouri Governor Claiborne F. Jackson advocated secession and anti-Lincoln to Lincoln vote having been 9:1, he had “no good reason to doubt his success”. While the German population of St. Louis could not be ignored, the C.S. Congress appropriated an additional $1 million to secure a Confederate Missouri and admitted Missouri in November (Coulter, p.47-48).

What sources may there be to define some cities below the Mason Dixon Line as not “strictly southern”? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In our contemporary day, a good diagnostic for "strictly southern" is grits for breakfast in restaurants. The mapping is variable. In Virginia, grits are served automatically with an order north to Staunton on I-81, Petersburg on I-95, Fredericksburg on US-1. Still holdouts in pockects of eastern Maryland on the way to the beach...on the other hand, great Italian gelato in Baltimore near Johns Hopkins. Is that the basis for objecting to treating Baltimore as a "strictly southern" city in 1860 for this article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA states evolution . gif

Added File:CSA states evolution:gif to Secession section. Earlier objections seem to have been overcome as I found it at Wikimedia Commons. On my browser, it takes two clicks to get to animation, which is why I so noted in the map caption. Kentucky and Missouri are now noted as having had resolutions of secession, but only note the Confederate claim, leaving the de facto control colored Union. This is consistent with the article narrative, and the counting of eleven states in the Confederate States.

A few powerful insights jump out, as graphic presentation using spacial recognition creates larger, better and more immediate cognitive awareness than lineal text. (1) The free state of Kansas is admitted before Lincoln’s inauguration and before the Texas referendum landslide amidst Texas rumors that “Bleeding Kansas” was the source of funding and arms for slave-labor unrest and Plains Indian raids. Physical security is the first duty of government, and the Union failed to defend, nay, promoted insecurity, Texan secessionists said.

(2) Between Kansas, West Virginia’s creation and Nevada (violating Congressional population criteria, but there was silver and gold, sort of like the Cherokee in Georgia, gold means the law “just depends”). With Lincoln’s “Presidential Reconstruction” readmission of Congressional delegations from Tennessee and Louisiana, I think that makes the three-fourths states to Constitutionally abolish slavery if all the loyal states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, new states Kansas, West Virginia and Nevada, and Congressionally re-admitted Tennessee and Louisiana, all line up along with the free-soil states antebellum for the Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery – without another state required from the former Confederacy …

(3) The map reflects the new scholarship which includes Reconstruction as an extension of the Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And as I said on TheVirginiaHistorian's talk page, I'm aware of some factual errors with it and some other issues (the Missouri and Kentucky secessions need to be treated with more nuance, the two extra counties of West Virginia need to be handled somehow, and it's well known that the colors are garish), and am always open to learning any other improvements. In fact, I voted to remove it as a featured image because I know it has shortcomings. I want to make a thumbnailed animation with much of the detail trimmed so it can be animated in the article itself. I'm also going to drop the 31 day meter since that's not needed. --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I object very much to this map, unless some changes are made to it. It shows KY and MO seceding (green), this is very deceptive to people who don't understand what actually happened. It shows WV as a Union state while KY & MO are marked as seceded. WV is the fly in the ointment here. I would point out this map [1] which shows how much of WV publicly voted to leave the US along with the rest of VA. So how is this going to be conveyed on a map? It shows MO and KY being more supportive of the CSA than it actually was, and WV as being less supportive than it actually was. The only solution I can see is showing KY and MO in another color than green, or just making the border states as a group a different color. There really is no way to accurately portray what happened in a map like this unless it is made much more detailed. Dubyavee (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) I very much endorse Dubyavee's proposal to in some way distinctively tint the coloration of the special cases found in Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia. (a) Following the Dubyavee discussion, the KY and MO mapping should read more aligned with the Union, but tinted towards the Confederacy in a way which is readily distinctive from Massachusetts, for instance. This can be done with computer coloration in a similar way that "blue" states and "red" states are shown as various hues of "purple" designating contemporary election results commonly found in daily newspapers and weekly news magazines. (b) Rather than a label "secession" as in consensus Confederate states, that for KY and MO should be "secession ordinance" at a bare minimum, some distinctive phrasing, not identical to the eleven. The casual reader will see there is a difference to investigate. Dubyavee is correct, we need to find a way to convey the information without misleading. These are important distinctions that Golbez has indicated a willingness to work with us for this article.

(2) West Virginia has at least three county votes that reflect the complexity of underlying social and political reality. More detail can be shown in pop up county maps as Dubyavee suggests. Within the borders of WV, there can be three squares in a contrasting but related color, labeled [1], [2] and [3], each dated appropriately with a short summary summary paragraph and supporting county tables. The box [1] would reflect the first secessionist convention vote, say. Moving the cursor over the box would pop up a WV county map. Box [2] would display a popup to reflect the second secessionist convention vote. Box [3] could show votes taken in the plebiscite/referendum to join WV after its establishment, or whatever variable milestones from our consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done the first steps in creating a second version of the map. I work backwards with these, from current borders and editing back. So far I've gotten back to April 9, 1865. So I obviously haven't done much. I'm leaving the question of the West Virginia counties to a later date, but my question right now is... what were the borders of the CSA? In the GIF, they include the rebel states and Arizona Territory. I was wondering if Indiana Territory should also be included, since the Cherokee had delegates in the Congress just like Arizona Territory did, but the nations there never ceded themselves directly to the CSA. And since the Creek, Choctaw, and Seminole also had delegates, it doesn't necessarily mean that delegation confers additional jurisdiction.

As for KY and MO - Obviously they weren't formally part of the CSA, but they did have Confederate governments significant enough to send representation to the Confederate Congress, and therefore need to be set apart somehow. The animated map I made is pretty old, and I have since learned more techniques to express more information rather than the broadsword of "Make them a color! Big letters! Small words! Let the text explain it!" which didn't help since there was no text.

The next frame back will have the CSA set off with its own borders, including Arizona Territory but not KY, MO, or Indian Territory; these three will be shaded. I'll keep y'all posted. --Golbez (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA POV is embedded in the captions. Captions and legends say that states "seceded", instead of "declared secession" or "seceding". It shows KY & MO as "seceded states". It has states "readmitted to the Union", instead of "restored".--JimWae (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of what I meant about needing more nuance. Well aware. Trying to fix. Help out. (although, so far as I know, "readmitted" is perfectly standard usage, and is used multiple times in our article on Reconstruction) --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this involves a lot of work for Golbez and I appreciate the time taken to do this. The complicated question of the Border States I think is much too difficult for a timeline .gif image. It would perhaps be best to have the Border States a separate color from the Confederacy and Union, and in 1863 add WV to the Border States and leave it at that without introducing county-level secession. I think the text of the article covers the intricacies well enough. Keeping it simple is best. If it works, it shows the timeline of secession well and might be an addition to the article. Perhaps Golbez has other things to do than rework this image, and if so, then we should drop the map from the article. Dubyavee (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It'll be an animated image, a list article, etc... And I'm not sure if by 'border states' you mean 'ones with a secessionist government' like MO and KY, or all Union slave states, including DE and MD? WV definitely falls into "claimed by the CSA", as do MO and KY, but unlike those it actually was part of the CSA for a time.

I just came up with another question: Should the military districts be illustrated in any way? --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Post Office

WP:ACCESS would have all images on one side so that article text is not broken up. "Postmaster General" portrait and "The 1st stamp" honoring Jefferson Davis remain. Two other icons of the Confederacy are added: Andrew Jackson and George Washington. Previously, the second and third images of Jefferson Davis showing alternative engraving styles is appropriate to the "Main article" link. They are beautiful in distinctive, important ways.

But for an article of history in politics and policy, images should illustrate that Confederates did not commemorate Davis alone. In undertaking their "Revolution" they sought to emulate slave-holder George Washington's original principles. In pursuing national "Independence" they saw themselves in the tradition of another southern general-politician, slave-holder Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans in the 1814 victory over larger numbers invading from the wealthy British Empire. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA states GIF design

color selection. Generally, I concur with Dubyavee until we see what Golbez comes up with. Point of personal priviledge: red is the universal color assigned the enemy units in freshman R.O.T.C. mapping convention; I’d like to avoid red in this application. I believe Golbez is working out his own pastel pallet, but for general and preliminary contemplation and cogitation, from 1860 Presidential Election, we might select something approximating

(a) Union = Douglas’ 1860 map blue.

(b) Confederacy 11 = Breckinridge 1860 map green.

(c) All others claimed by CSA = Lincoln’s 1860 map peach, to wit, WV, KY, MO, Indian Territory, Confederate Arizona Territory.

terminology. I concur with JimWae's points generally,

(a) Captions reading “declared secession” is good for Confederacy 11 and also for those conventions recognized by the CSA for mapping MO, KY, Indian Territory and Arizona Territory, allowing for a distinctive color to be used on them.

(b) the states in rebellion, Congressional delegations in the 38th U.S. Congress denoted as “vacant” had delegations subsequently seated along the timeline the previous edition of the CSA state evolution GIF map shows. They may be captioned “readmitted to Congress” without POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

re colors: I'm really hoping to avoid bright garishness. Compare the maps at Territorial evolution of the United States with my newer palette at Territorial evolution of Canada and you'll see the direction I hope to move. Right now I have a slightly subdued red for 'states still needing to be reconstructed', and am trying to figure out what color to use for the CSA as an independent unit. I know the red might not be the best touch, but colors are the easiest thing to change so I'm open to suggestions once the first version is up. I'm trying to avoid "unnatural" and bright colors like green or blue. Unfortunately, this is a much more complicated subject than Canada (sorry, Canada), with colors required for: US states, US territories, CS states, CS territories, seceded, split government seceded [KY, MO, maybe WV], claimed by CS but never under control [KY, MO, maybe WV], and aligned with CS [Indian Terr]. That quickly runs me out of available earth tones. (And there's also the question of if the Neutral Strip was considered included in Indian Territory for the CS's purposes) --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

re captions: Don't worry, they'll be better. The way I was doing things before, I had tied myself to fitting text into the corner of the map with large type, and that's no longer a concern. It will treat KY and MO with much more nuance than exists in the current map, will deal with WV better, and for the first time I think will actually mention Indian Territory.

While doing this, I'm also making a timeline article like the previous two linked, so we can step through it and ensure there's no outstanding POV or factual issues. My plan is to have a triple threat: A full-featured animated gif similar to what we have now; a territorial evolution article; and a mini-gif suitable for embedding into an article that omits most labels and simplifies the graphics, yet doesn't dumb down the subject. --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very nice of Golbez to take this on, I know it is a lot of work. I would like to add my concern here on WV, which is my special field. The map should treat WV in the same manner as KY and MO in terms of divided sentiment and areas claimed, and also partially controlled, by the CSA. First, from the CSA point of view it was still part of Virginia and therefore the Confederacy. The Confederacy controlled much of southern and eastern WV through 1863 (see footnote 84 in the article). In 1862 martial law was declared by the CSA in 10 southern counties, comprising nearly 1/3 the territory of the state. Martial law was lifted early in 1863. WVians participated in both Federal and Confederate elections in May of 1863. If anyone has any questions about this please ask. Dubyavee (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The more I work on this, the more I realize my goal of nuanced, subtle colors probably won't work. They're just too similar. I'm going to have to go garish. Should have something ready in a day or two. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA mock-up GIF 02/07/2012

To the right is an example of one frame. Literally everything in it is up for discussion, so please comment. The list of changes is the same as what we currently have, except it will of course be more accurate wrt KY and MO. I decided that (I think it was?) VirginiaHistorian was right that we can get away with abbreviating New England, since this is fundamentally a CSA map and not a USA map and we can take slight liberties with the USA portion. I'd also like advice on how best to describe Indian Territory's status. Note that it is on the US side of the thick international border. The main benefit of moving the description to the bottom is we have arbitrarily more room to describe what's going on. It also makes it look more professional. Finally, I'm wondering - I use the 'international border' to set the CSA apart from the USA, should it also surround seceded states before they join the CSA? Since they did, I believe, consider themselves independent republics at the time. --Golbez (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

color palate: I really like the combinations as presented, and their alignments to the legend categories and their relationships.

My concern is that they will be too similar to rapidly acquire, but I hope the text labels will make this less of an issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Scale break: Along the longitude of scale break, the convention in engineering drawings is two thin parallel zig-zag accordion-like lines. We might adopt that convention with the text between them, “-- smaller map scale west --” and repeat the phrase to a number of complete statements extending just inside the Mexican and Canadian borders. My choice for placement relative to U.S. political geography would be nearby the Continental Divide, say 110-degrees West Longitude.

The gains would be far outweighed by the costs, especially when you consider that the Confederacy at one point extended from Wilmington to Yuma. Would we gain anything by accordioning Arizona Territory? --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Text area: really good idea for legend, lists, four-cell charts, extended remarks. But more information presents the problem of timed-limit 3-second acquisition.

- Any thoughts on how to approach this? Can there be a toggle 3-second/7-second choice? Is it possible to provide the reader a click-driven virtual map flip-chart option using these same frames? Would that solution still be a Wiki-GIF ? I would not want to lose the fluid, proportional rendition of the timeline sequence modeled from beginning to end.

You say "Wiki-GIF" as if this is a special feature; it's just your standard Gif87 format. Which doesn't allow for such things. The list article will allow readers to go frame-by-frame, so the animation doesn't necessarily need that. I could up it to 4 seconds but I'd rather not upload versions whose only difference is speed. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Claimed areas contested by exile governments: use the same color choice as shown in Indian Territory. Almost immediately on Secession Resolutions, Confederate-recognized governments in the following areas functioned in exile from their principal antebellum capital:

(a) Missouri and Kentucky,

(b) Indian Territory, Arizona Territory

(c) “Restored Virginia” (1861) at Wheeling, then West Virginia (1863)

- at WV frame, note in description area the counties additional to initial composition of the declared state of "Kanawha".

Missouri and Kentucky will have colors midway (literally) between the U.S. yellow and the C.S. green; Indian Territory's is literally midway between the U.S. Territory brown and the C.S. green; Arizona Territory, being actually claimed and controlled by the CS, will be in a darker green, similar to how U.S. territories are in a darker color. West Virginia is kind of a matter I'm leaving til the end, since it's such a complicated matter.

- I concur with Dubyavee. “Restored Virginia” certainly and then WV until the cessation of hostilities could not administer a substantial portion of its territory and claimed population. Apart from one’s “de jure” take on the situation, this was the mirror “de facto” situation that the Confederate state governments suffered in Missouri and Kentucky.

- To avoid assuming a point of view WP:POV they all, MO, KY, and WV, Indian and Arizona Territories, should receive the same color treatment. At the “April 1865” frame, WV, KY, MO, Indian Territory and Arizona Territory should be the first regions to take on the Union coloration, before any “Readmitted to Congress” timeline label on states of “the former Confederacy”. See 38th United States Congress#House by state delegations.

There are differences between the above, though. MO and KY were claimed by the CSA but never controlled; Arizona was claimed and controlled by the CSA; Indian Territory was aligned with/controlled but not claimed by the CSA (from what I understand, though it did kind of have representation in the Confederate Congress); and West Virginia is just a mess. I figure Arizona and Indian Territories disappear the moment the war ends, since Indian Territory was never part of the CSA, and Arizona Territory did not need to be readmitted (nor had it really existed for years at that point; I may indicate this in the map) --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

International border. There might be two international borders, one solid, one dashes.

(a) Solid lines would mark borders where they are not contested, U.S.-Canada, U.S.-Mexico.

(b) Dotted or dashed lines should mark the contested, de facto, borders of the Confederacy and the Union, in the same way modern maps denote Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

Since this is kind of from the CSA's point of view (not in a way that invalidates NPOV, I just mean... we are saying what they declared to be true. A map from the USA's point of view would not have them be a separate country. A neutral map indicates the dispute, but since this is laser-focused on that dispute, we don't need to go overboard with it) and because dotted lines are a hassle, I'd rather not. There's a difference in this map than, say, India/Pakistan over Kashmir, as I don't need to indicate what areas are disputed - the entire issue is disputed. That known, we have some leeway in how it's expressed. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

- The Confederate dashed-line border would trace up the Potomac River, WV panhandle, the Ohio River, north border of Missouri, Indian Territory, Texas and west along the Arizona Territory latitude. It would not be a solid international line because its independence was not formally recognized by a foreign nation.

- The Union dashed-line border of early wartime de facto control would trace up the Potomac River then turn along the southern border of WV, KY, MO, Indian Territory, along the north and western border of Texas to the northern border of Confederate Arizona Territory, turn south along the California state border and close at the solid international border with Mexico. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This would make it nearly invisible if placed on top of existing state borders. And if it replaced existing state borders, we suddenly have half the states melting into each other. I also don't want to indicate wartime control because that was very fluid. This is a political map, war maps are elsewhere. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The color palette, palate, pallette, pallet, that you are developing is absolutely superlative, and it conveys the information much better than the usual graphic presentation we get in news magazines and textbooks. I can hardly wait to see the next step. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA Timeline

Here's my working timeline for the maps, please let me know if anything is missing or incorrect. --Golbez (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• 1860-12-20: South Carolina secedes.
• 1861-01-09: Mississippi secedes.
• 1861-01-10: Florida secedes.
• 1861-01-11: Alabama secedes.
• 1861-01-19: Georgia secedes.
• 1861-01-26: Louisiana secedes.
• 1861-01-29: Kansas admitted to US.
• 1861-02-01: Texas secedes.
• 1861-02-08: CS formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery.
• 1861-03-02: Texas admitted to CS.
• 1861-03-28: Mesilla government of Arizona Territory secedes. (Mesilla voted on March 16, Tucson on March 28, but our article on Az Territory labels the latter as the ordinance of secession)
• 1861-04-12: American Civil War begins.
• 1861-04-17: Virginia secedes.
• 1861-05-06: Arkansas secedes.
• 1861-05-07: Tennessee secedes, Virginia admitted to CS.
• 1861-05-18: Arkansas admitted to CS.
• 1861-05-20: North Carolina secedes.
• 1861-05-21: North Carolina admitted to CS.
• 1861-05-29: Capital moved to Richmond.
• 1861-07-02: Tennessee admitted to CS.
• 1861-08-01: Arizona Territory admitted to CS following First Battle of Mesilla.
• 1861-08-20: Wheeling government secedes from Virginia
• 1861-10-31: Neosho government of Missouri secedes.
• 1861-11-20: Bowling Green government of Kentucky secedes.
• 1861-11-28: Missouri admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
• 1861-12-10: Kentucky admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
• 1862-02-14: Arizona Territory organized.
• 1863-06-20: Wheeling government admitted to US as West Virginia
• 1864-10-31: Nevada admitted to US.
• 1865-04-09: Army of Northern Virginia surrenders, effectively ending the war.
• 1866-05-05: Nevada expanded.
• 1866-07-24: Tennessee readmitted to union.
• 1867-01-18: Nevada expanded.
• 1867-03-01: Nebraska admitted to US.
• 1867-07-19: Reconstruction Act passed, creating military districts.
• 1868-06-22: Arkansas readmitted to union.
• 1868-06-25: Florida readmitted to union.
• 1868-07-04: North Carolina readmitted to union.
• 1868-07-09: Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted to union.
• 1868-07-13: Alabama readmitted to union.
• 1870-01-26: Virginia readmitted to union.
• 1870-02-23: Mississippi readmitted to union.
• 1870-03-30: Texas readmitted to union.
• 1870-07-15: Georgia readmitted to union.

Here are some alternate captions:

moved to table below--JimWae (talk) 01

33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to delete this, since almost all of is identical to my list, making it difficult to see any differences; please just add comments after the actual timeline entries you're elaborating on. Also, my timeline wasn't the final version of the captions, far from it, I just wanted to make sure everything was included. I'll have better captions later. --Golbez (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the timeline needs to end on June 19, 1865 (Juneteenth in Texas). and exclude the Arizona stuff 9which was too trivial when all sorts of major events get left out). Rjensen (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The GIF/article will definitely extend to the end of Reconstruction, since that was when all of the political map changes finally ceased. And for a history map like this, nothing is too trivial. What major events got left out? I'm sorry, I just realized I may not have been clear: This is the working timeline for the second version of the animated GIF I'm making, and a companion article, to show the political map changes. A la Territorial evolution of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested adds.

• 1860-11-07: News of Lincoln’s election. “Fire-eater” secessionists call for disunion. => Start frame of "Civil War-Reconstruction" subroutine GIF. or something.
• 1865-04-09: Surrender of Army of Northern Virginia, Confederacy ends government-sanctioned contest of U.S. control over West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian Territory and Confederate Arizona Territory. => GIF frame shows uncontested Union tint.
• 1870-12-22: 41st United States Congress seats last of state delegations once declared “vacant”. => End frame of "Civil War-Reconstruction" subroutine GIF. or something. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

YYYYxxMMxxDD
1860-11-xx		34(?) States at time of Lincoln's election
1860-12-20	South Carolina secedes.	South Carolina declares secession.
1861-01-09	Mississippi secedes.	Mississippi declares secession.
1861-01-10	Florida secedes.	Florida declares secession.
1861-01-11	Alabama secedes.	Alabama declares secession.
1861-01-19	Georgia secedes.	Georgia declares secession.
1861-01-26	Louisiana secedes.	Louisiana declares secession.
1861-01-29	Kansas admitted to US.
1861-02-01	Texas secedes.	Texas declares secession.
1861-02-08	CS formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery.	CSA formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery, AL.
1861-03-02	Texas admitted to CS.	Texas admitted to CSA.
1861-03-28	Mesilla government of Arizona Territory secedes. (Mesilla voted on March 16, Tucson on March 28, but our article on Az Territory labels the latter as the ordinance of secession)	Mesilla government of Arizona Territory votes to secede.
1861-04-12	American Civil War begins.	American Civil War begins, at Fort Sumter.
1861-04-17	Virginia secedes.	Virginia declares secession.
1861-05-06	Arkansas secedes.	Arkansas declares secession.
1861-05-07	Tennessee secedes, Virginia admitted to CS.	Tennessee declares secession, Virginia admitted to CSA.
1861-05-18	Arkansas admitted to CS.	Arkansas admitted to CSA.
1861-05-20	North Carolina secedes.	North Carolina declares secession.
1861-05-21	North Carolina admitted to CS.	North Carolina admitted to CSA.
1861-05-29	Capital moved to Richmond.	CSA capital moved to Richmond, VA.
1861-07-02	Tennessee admitted to CS.	Tennessee admitted to CSA.
1861-08-01	Arizona Territory admitted to CS following First Battle of Mesilla.	Arizona Territory admitted to CSA following First Battle of Mesilla.
1861-08-20	Wheeling government secedes from Virginia
1861-10-31	Neosho government of Missouri secedes.	Neosho government of Missouri declares secession.
1861-11-20	Bowling Green government of Kentucky secedes.	Bowling Green government of Kentucky declares secession.
1861-11-28	Missouri admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
1861-12-10	Kentucky admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.
1862-02-14	Arizona Territory organized.	Arizona Territory organized by CSA.
1863-06-20	Wheeling government admitted to US as West Virginia	West Virginia admitted as state to US.
1864-10-31	Nevada admitted to US.
1865-04-09	Army of Northern Virginia surrenders, effectively ending the war.
1865-04-09		Surrender of Army of Northern Virginia, Confederacy ends government-sanctioned contest of U.S. control over West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Indian Territory and Confederate Arizona Territory.
1866-05-05	Nevada expanded.
1865-06-19			Juneteenth (any change to map?)
1866-07-24	Tennessee readmitted to union.	Tennessee readmitted to Congress.
1867-01-18	Nevada expanded.
1867-03-01	Nebraska admitted to US.
1867-07-19	Reconstruction Act passed, creating military districts.	the 10 states not yet readmitted to Congress organized into 5 military districts (could be diff 5 colors here)
1868-06-22	Arkansas readmitted to union.	Arkansas readmitted to Congress.
1868-06-25	Florida readmitted to union.	Florida readmitted to Congress.
1868-07-04	North Carolina readmitted to union.	North Carolina readmitted to Congress.
1868-07-09	Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted to union.	Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted to Congress.
1868-07-13	Alabama readmitted to union.	Alabama readmitted to Congress.
1870-01-26	Virginia readmitted to union.	Virginia readmitted to Congress.
1870-02-23	Mississippi readmitted to union.	Mississippi readmitted to Congress.
1870-03-30	Texas readmitted to union.	Texas readmitted to Congress.
1870-07-15	Georgia readmitted to union.	Georgia readmitted to Congress.
1870-12-22		41st United States Congress seats last of state delegations once declared “vacant”.

--JimWae (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Secession CSA timeline GIF issue

I see an issue with how to choose the GIF dates unambiguously to avoid POV. I suggest that for mapping purposes of the CSA, we use the “dates admitted to the CSA”. We can use a scholar to assign dates rather than submit original research.

These are the dates taken from Martis, "The historical atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865, p.8, 10. “Admission” which is not the same date as

(1) the earlier and variable date, “seceded” and

(2) the earlier or later date, “referendum” and

(3) the same or later date, “seated”.

Feb 8 : SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, TX seven “original members”

May 7: VA

May 17: NC and TN, “on certain provisions” which were subsequently satisfied.

May 20: AR

Nov 28: MO

Dec 10: KY

Background on three states illustrate some of the nuances that are problematic in accurately, consistently applying them without POV.

(1) Is secession when a convention says it is (SC), or when it recommends and gives the people a chance to make it so (VA, TX)?

(2) Are delegates legitimate only when their state procedures say so (TX), or when the CS Congress says so (VA)?

(3) Does secession to reverse union require a state convention elected solely for the purpose, or can the legislature recommend a plebiscite to the people to determine the issue directly, results to be proclaimed by a secessionist Governor (TN)?

Dates now put forward for secession in the CSA timeline GIF and some possible variants:

Texas 1861 Feb 1.

Article: resolution Feb 1, referendum Feb 23.

Martis: seceded Feb 1, “original member” Feb 4, “seated” Mar 2. No roll call vote until then. “the ordinance of the secession of Texas does not take effect until the 2d day of March.” (Confederate Journal, Vol. 1, p.60 cited in Martis)

Virginia 1861 Apr 17.

Article: resolution Apr 17, referendum May 23.

Martis: seceded Apr 17, admitted May 7, seated May 7.

Tennessee 1861 Jun 7.

Article: resolution May 7, referendum June 8.

Martis: seceded May 6 without convention, legislature’s ordinance called a referendum [Jun 8], admitted May 17, seated Aug 12.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Junteeth end of CSA for GIF map ( ? )

Although some scholars suppose the Confederacy among some for a time included something other that slavery, Juneteenth is still an interesting sort of slavery-centric date to adopt in this article to signify the end of the Confederate States of America. Rather than, say, count the end of the CSA the end of the last session held by the CS Congress, March 18, 1865 (Martis, “Confederate Congresses” p.2).

Juneteenth was the day in Texas, with 5% of the South’s population, that the last of Texan-held slaves there were told of their personal emancipation. On the other hand, other scholars assert that “the Confederate states had been ready from the day of Surrender to resume their place in the Union”, “Surrender” meaning April 9, 1865. (Coulter, “The South during reconstruction”, p.391)

Coulter’s assessment would imply

(a) a tint for state resolution to secession date regardless of origin, perhaps with a note for previous failed conventions (VA) or subsequent referendum/plebicite (TN),

(b) a tint for state admitted to CSA, see previous Talk:section

(c) a tint and frame for states CSA but U.S. Representatives in the 37th Congress, March 4, 1861 showing SIX states and territory including VA, KY, MO, TN, LA and CS Arizona Terr. (H.) – this to avoid tracking variable military occupation.

(c) a frame for "CSA but U.S. Representatives" in the 38th U.S. Congress March 4, 1863 showing FOUR states and territory including WV , KY, MO and CS Arizona Terr. (H.) – this to avoid tracking variable military occupation.

(d) Indian Territory might be included in the tint (c) admitted to CSA with representation in US Congress. Although it did not have a delegate in Congress, it was early, permanently Union occupied, the US maintained its treaty obligations, the CS did not, and the formal tribal councils never resolved to secede.

(e) a tint for states after April 9, 1865 "Vacant" in Congress. SCOTUS says a state cannot go out of existence.

I would counter-propose April 9, 1865 (Coulter) over Junteenth. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Juneteenth is the day the last Confederate state came under Union control. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Of all the options given in Conclusion of the American Civil War, Juneteenth is not included. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the mechanical edit conflict, I modified my proposal above while Rjensen was writing. I changed "Congress" to "Representatives" in the 37th and 38th and some phrase tweeks. Virginia had Senators only in the 38th to vote with Lincoln on foreign policy and his Supreme Court nominees, but the permanently Union occupied (Martis) districts in northern Virginia, tidewater, Norfolk and eastern shore were stripped of their Congressional representation. As though representatives of the people freely elected in polls supervised by the United States Army might object to some of the administration's policies in occupied territory on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. This "lay of the land" should be reflected in the GIF map by flipping the 37th Richmond state territory a different tint from the 38th Wheeling state territory. Point of state pride. Sorry, I digress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've built all the frames up to the Wheeling convention, and all the frames after the end of the war. It's that nasty four year period right in the thick of things that I'm trying to figure out just how to treat West Virginia. My current plan is to show WV as ... well, I was going to say "its own country" for a moment, like the rest of the seceded states before they joined together, but while Wheeling seceded from Richmond, it wasn't necessarily to be independent, simply to shift back to the Union. Right? Hrm. Maybe... I will show it with the same color I show MO and KY, but on the CS side of the border until admitted to the Union...? --Golbez (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur, however contested by ballots and bullets, that was their population majority drift, for assignment of the border placement, that was their occupation, that was their WV ratification, that's where they ended up. Hard to ague otherwise for our summary GIF map. Also fits in with my 37th/38th Congress change, which is not yet agreed to. I'm working on an expanded table for comparison purposes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I see at least 3 times in the above discussions a mention of complications that arise about where to place the solid line that represents an "international" boundary. I submit for consideration that it is not up to us to determine where to place this line, nor is it necessary. According to the US, there never was such a line. The different colors can be interpreted by the viewer's own POV, we do not need to interpret that for them, and NPOV issues arise if we do. I regret not having raised this issue earlier, before Golbez did so much fine work on this. I am open to any explanation of what such a soloid line is supposed to mean other than "international" boundary.--JimWae (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To omit a line would be to follow the USA POV; to include a line would be to follow the CSA POV. I think that for this map, it being laser-focused on the CSA and its specific history, can benefit from showing the CSA's POV a bit and include the line as an illustrative tool. (Note that I'm also outlining the seceded states in international borders, since South Carolina, et.al. considered themselves independent republics) The point of this map is to say, "This is what the CSA says it was, in addition to the political realities surrounding that." Put another way: If I did a map of Russia, I would probably color Chechnya as "disputed" during certain time periods. But if I was doing a map of Chechnya specifically, I wouldn't be able to color the entire thing disputed, I might as well label it independent, with a note explaining. The only difference is that the context of the United States matters for this map, which is why I include its extent as well. Though, come to think of it, it might be interesting to do a map SOLELY of the Confederacy. I might make that a side project. Long story short: I think we can trust our readers on this front to be able to figure out what everything means. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Will the GIF have embedded within it the context that this is how the CSA supporters view what happened? Will every article that wants to use this map have that embedded in the gif? Omitting the solid line does not take the US POV, it merely takes no POV. The CSA POV would include KY & MO (& WV always), and would flat out say "seceded" and "rejoined Union" - all of which would be quite unnuanced. Readers can interpret the colors as they wish, we do not need to interpret it for them - indeed in some cases we cannot agree that there was even a definitive CSA POV on what was happening.--JimWae (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Except I'm not just towing the CSA line. I'm saying, "This is what the CSA claimed, this is what they claimed and controlled, this was the US (claim and control not in dispute), and this is what the US claimed and controlled." And I disagree that saying "The CSA was not an independent nation" is purely NPOV, that is clearly the view of the U.S. and completely counter to the view of the C.S.

Though, now that I think about it, there might be room here for a separate gif, as I mentioned before, showing things purely from the CS point of view. Keep the international borders there, remove them here... except, we have a problem. Based on how things have gone, according to you, without having an international border, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Louisiana would all have the same color, despite having three very different statuses. The border allows, I think, a little more detail. Oh well, we'll see how it actually looks once I get a first draft done. I have ideas, I'll work on them tonight. --Golbez (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

GIF timeline in three columns

YYYYxxMMxxDD
1860-11-xx	-	34(?) States at time of Lincoln's election	-
1860-12-20	SC secedes.	SC declares secession.	-
1861-01-09	MS secedes.	MS declares secession. -
1861-01-10	FL secedes.	FL declares secession.	-
1861-01-11	AL secedes.	AL declares secession.	-
1861-01-19	GA secedes.	GA declares secession.	-
1861-01-26	LA secedes.	LA declares secession.	-
1861-01-29	KS admitted to US.	-	-
1861-02-01	TX secedes.	TX declares secession.	-
1861-02-08	CS formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery.	CSA formed from all of the above except Texas. Capital located at Montgomery, AL.	CS “original 7”: SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, TX; LA in CS with U.S. Representatives 37th Cong Capital at Montgomery AL
1861-03-02	TX admitted to CS.	Texas admitted to CSA.	TX seated in CS Congress at referendum for ratification.
1861-03-04	-	-	37th Congress opens - no map change -
1861-03-28	Mesilla government of Arizona Territory secedes. (Mesilla voted on March 16, Tucson on March 28, but our article on AZT labels the latter as the ordinance of secession)	Mesilla government of AZT votes to secede.	-
1861-04-12	American Civil War begins.	American Civil War begins, at Fort Sumter SC.	-
1861-04-17	VA secedes.	VA declares secession.	VA secession resolution. Referendum ratifies May 7.
1861-05-06	AR secedes.	AR declares secession.
1861-05-07	TN secedes, VA admitted to CS.	TN declares secession, VA admitted to CSA	TN declares secession. VA: CSA with U.S. Representatives
1861-05-17	-	-	TN admitted to CSA TN: CSA with U.S. Representatives
1861-05-18	AR admitted to CS.	AR admitted to CSA.	-
1861-05-20	NC secedes.	NC declares secession.	-
1861-05-21	NC admitted to CS.	NC admitted to CSA.	-
1861-05-29	Capital moved to Richmond.	CSA capital moved to Richmond, VA.	-
1861-07-02	TN admitted to CS.	TN admitted to CSA.	TN referendum ratifies legislature’s ordinance
1861-07-12	-	-	Five Civilized Nations of Indian Terr. admitted to CSA
1861-08-01	AZT admitted to CS following First Battle of Mesilla.	AZT admitted to CSA following First Battle of Mesilla.	-
1861-08-20	Wheeling government secedes from Virginia	-	WV: USA wth CS Representatives U.S. border along WV s. boundary
1861-10-31	Neosho government of MO secedes.	Neosho government of MO declares secession.	-
1861-11-20	Bowling Green government of KY secedes.	Bowling Green govt. of KY declares secession.	-
1861-11-28	MO admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.	-	MO: CSA and U.S. Representatives
1861-12-10	KY admitted to CS, but remains firmly in Union hands.	-	KY: CSA and U.S. Representatives
1862-02-14	AZT organized.	AZT organized by CSA.	-
1863-03-04	-	-	(a) 38th U.S. Congress opens (b) CSA and U.S. Representatives WV, KY, MO, AZT, [Indian Terr.*] (c) CSA only: VA, LA, TN
1863-06-20	Wheeling government admitted to US as WV	WV admitted as state to US.	WV: USA with C.S. Representatives [same tint as KY, MO w/ U.S. border along WV/VA]
1864-10-31	NV admitted to US.
1865-04-09	Army of Northern Virginia surrenders, effectively ending the war.	Surrender of Army of Northern Va, CSA ends government-sanctioned contest of U.S. control over WV, KY, MO, Indian Terr. and AZT.	(a) Union: WV, KY, MO, AZT, Indian Terr. (b) “Vacant” in Congress” VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, MS, AR, LA, TX, and LA and TN. [Local governments set up under “Presidential Reconstruction”]
1866-05-05	NV expanded.	-	-
1865-06-19	-	-	Juneteenth (any change to map?)
1866-07-24	TN readmitted to union.	TN readmitted to Congress.	-
1867-01-18	NV expanded.	-	-
1867-03-01	NB admitted to US.	-	-
1867-07-19	Reconstruction Act passed, creating military districts.	the 10 states not yet readmitted to Congress organized into 5 military districts (could be 5 diff shades of roughly the same color here)	(a) Congressional Reconstruction MiDi-1:VA, MiDi-2:NC-SC, MiDi-3:GA-FL-AL, MiDi-4:AR-MS, MiDi-5:TX n. to n.LA. (b)still "vacant" in Congress: LA
1868-06-22	Arkansas readmitted to union.	Arkansas readmitted to Congress.	-
1868-06-25	Florida readmitted to union.	Florida readmitted to Congress.	-
1868-07-04	North Carolina readmitted to union.	North Carolina readmitted to Congress.	-
1868-07-09	Louisiana and South Carolina readmitted to union.	LA and SC readmitted to Congress.	-
1868-07-13	Alabama readmitted to union.	AL readmitted to Congress.	-
1870-01-26	Virginia readmitted to union.	VA readmitted to Congress.	-
1870-02-23	Mississippi readmitted to union.	MS readmitted to Congress.	-
1870-03-30	Texas readmitted to union.	TX readmitted to Congress.	-
1870-07-15	Georgia readmitted to union.	GA readmitted to Congress.	-
1870-12-22		41st United States Congress seats last of state delegations once declared “vacant”.

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)

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)

Map update

So I made frames for everything up to the accession of West Virginia, and I ran into a problem: Where to put the border? It was solidly around the whole of VA; then the Restored Government of VA seceded from Confederate VA, but I kept the border on the north side; then I moved it to the south side when WV became a state. But why? VA already had representation in both Congresses at this point. What signifies the border moving?

So... I'm starting to agree with people who say we shouldn't have a border, but for different reasons. Either we use it to signify ALL CSA claims - which would include MO, KY, and WV - or we don't use it all. Otherwise I'm just using my own random decisions to decide where it goes. And then there's the matter of Arizona Territory - after it declared itself a territory but before it was acquired by the CS, what was it? Independent? Where does the border go?

There's also the thorny issue of Louisiana. It maintained representation in both congresses almost throughout the entire war. So it seems off to give it CSA coloring the whole time.

Gif 1

Gif 2

Next frame

Here are two GIFs of the first two segments of the timeline, as well as the first frame of the next. These are just for comment, these aren't necessarily final. They run at 2 seconds a frame so you can get through them quickly to review. The first GIF should be pretty solid, it's the start of the situation to the formation of the CSA, and the second GIF is from there to the finalization of the CSA. The very next frame is my experiment in illustrating Virginia as a disputed state, since starting July 4 1861, the Restored Government of Virginia was seated in the U.S. congress. Please let me know what you think. --Golbez (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And as an aside, I'm starting to wonder of the pre-Confederate Mesilla government should be mapped. As a territory, can it really be independent? You're either part of a country or a country or owned by a country, and as an independent territory they don't match any of the above. Were they a [self-proclaimed] U.S. territory petitioning to be part of the CSA? --Golbez (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I would make Virginia green like the rest of the Confederacy, perhaps putting a dot where Wheeling is and saying on July 4, 1861 that the Restored Government of Virginia, in Wheeling, is recognized by the Federal government as the government of Virginia. I would hesitate to denote the boundaries of West Virginia until June 20, 1863 when it becomes a US State, as the boundaries of the state went back and forth for a while. And I wouldn't fiddle with Jefferson and Berkeley Counties, just put them in with the rest. It makes it all too complicated. Dubyavee (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Except it wasn't just the mountain counties that had representation in Congress. I guess they followed the Wheeling government, but it was also areas in Northern Virginia as well. So all of Virginia technically, as far as this map is concerned, has the same status as Missouri and Kentucky. The Restored Government, based in Wheeling, claimed to represent (I believe) the whole of the state, not just the mountain counties. Two competing governments, two sets of representatives, varying levels of control. And I agree, I gave up on mapping WV being split. I think noting the Restored Government regaining representation is sufficient until statehood. --Golbez (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So, here's my idea: To use colors to indicate congressional membership. That way, it's different than all the nuances of who controls what, etc. It's the objective fact about representation:

• Yellow = U.S. only. (all U.S. states)
• Brown = U.S. delegate only. (U.S. territories, DC)
• Green = C.S. only. (TX, AR, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, VA until the formation of the Restored Government, LA until the Union captures New Orleans)
• Light green = Both. (TN, MO, KY, WV, VA after the formation, LA after fall of New Orleans)
• Dark green = Both U.S. and C.S. delegates. (AZ, IT)
• Red = Neither. (All C.S. states during secession and reconstruction)
• Light red = Two governments, one U.S., one none. (MO and KY between secession and accession)

Because you can't be in a congress if you aren't considered part of that country, except for Indian Territory. So this handles the whole border issue, and we can rely on text to explain the nuances.

I'll work on this and see how it turns out. --Golbez (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks very good. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, too --JimWae (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can there be three tones of green, so deepest is C.S. only, middle is both US/CS states, and lightest green is both US/CS territory (AZT and InT). The brown for U.S. only territory and DC should have the same value light brown as the lightest green used for "both US/CS territory". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. No, I take it back. This is getting harder, not easier. Thank goodness for Golbez. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I still have a problem with captions that assert states seceded, or is this just a working caption?--JimWae (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything is a working caption, a working line, and a working color. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

”Kith and kin of every degree”

the cousin tree, or, how to find “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’."<ref>Coulter, E. Merton, "The Confederate States of America 1861-1865" (1950) p.61. See also Avery O. Craven in "The Growth of Southern Nationalism 1848-1861" (1953) p.390.</ref>

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).

• wiktionary: 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)

Naming conventions

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

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. [2] 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. [3] 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)