This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In the end of the section titled "Mobilization", the opinion that the Union and Confederate armies were the best in the world should be qualified, for it is the opinion of one "modern" American historian John Keegan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.173.132.145 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hilarious. Go read John Keegan to see that he is qualified whereas you.... — Berean Hunter(talk) 02:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It completely subjective right now. I not sure how it was then when this debate began. Right now it is very subjective.
WP:VALID Based on this policy I must ask if the inclusion does anything more than unduly legitimize this academic speculation. I don't doubt Mr Keegan's credentials. I question why this should be given equal validity. What purpose does it actually serve.
WP:SUBJECTIVE I don't understand the need for an effusive opinion in an article on the Civil war.
These reasons are why I am removing that portion of the text. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho seems unfamiliar with Keegan, whom he calls an American (he's British of course). Wikipedia is a summary of what the experts think. Keegan long list of awards demonstrate he ranks very high indeed among the experts in world military history, especially in comparing armies, which he does here. His analysis is not the some speculation of a blogger--it's the considered opinion of a highly reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall calling Keegan an American, British, or mentioning his nationality. Could please point out where I have? I also said above that , "I don't doubt Mr Keegan's credentials." so it's unclear exactly why you feel the need list them? I assume that by saying I don't doubt his credentials what put the notion that I presume that he is a qualified individual. So I question basis for those arguments here. I'm also here so if would like to perhaps talk to me and not around me I would appreciate that.
The question being what purpose does it's serve? It may be the opinion of highly reliable source but it is speculation. So The Confederacy and the USA were largest and most efficient armies in the world during the period of the Civil war. Specifically they were larger and More efficient than France, Prussia, and Russia. Ok. But what about the other Pre-Modern Powers? The late Ottoman Empire, the late British Empire, The Dutch Empire, or Persian Qajar Empire? Is it War time Armies of the Confederacy and the USA vs the war time armies of those 3 listed pre-modern powers or just their standing Armies of the time? And is that to say that separately the Confederate Army and separately the US Amry would would have threatened any of them with defeat if not for the Atlantic? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The considered analysis based on massive research by leading experts is not "speculation." It's called "history" here at Wikipedia. His point is that the USA and CSA overnight created very modern and powerful armies that were the match for three of the four most powerful armies in the world in 1861. Take a look at his exact statement at google books. He leaves Britain out (it had a much smaller army than the other three, but of course a very powerful Royal navy which is not at issue here). he of course had no need to mention much weaker armies like the Ottomans, Dutch or Persians. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes with soldiers with war time experience and an already mobilized army Either Army in the USA could have possibly posed a great threat to any of those three pre-modern powers who would have to Mobilize their Army. His point was not that overnight the USA and CSA overnight created very modern and powerful Armies were a match for 3 of 4 of the Major powers. Up-to-date experience is one of the few considerations that he made clear that he used to come to this conclusion. At which point were either Army sufficiently experienced to be deemed to have up to date experience? 2 years into the Civil War? Did any of these 3 Modern powers have more than their Standing Army at the time? No outside factors are accounted for and very few factors were framed. Ok USA vs Russia. One framed factor is that the USA or CSA army fights somewhere after the Civil war has started and taken place for an undetermined but significant amount of time. What's Russia's situation? That's not framed. He removed the navy. If the Russia's used Military intelligence during war in that period do they get to use it? Civil War USA and CSA didn't form a dedicated intelligence service though the USA used Pinkertons though unsatisfactory. Did he also remove the politics of war? Britan was a master of the politics of war at the time. They beat Russia in the Crimean War thru political alliances. So yes in war specifically framed to give the US particular advantages, such as not having to transport Troops by ship, no politics of war, and war experienced soldiers vs what ever standing army the opponent has on hand, the USA or CSA(with a lesser chance than the USA) could possibly beat anyone of these three. That's not called history. Not on Wikipedia or anywhere else. That's called speculation. This is solely the Opinion of John Keegan.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I also feel the need to point directly to the fact that that this article refers directly to Mobilization. Mr Keegans Opinion refers directly to an already mobilized and combat experienced experienced USA or CSA Army vs A Prussian, Russian, or French Army that may or may not already be mobilized or combat experienced.
Back to the framing of the proposed battle I'd also like to point out that the opinion only included Army battalions and not only Mobilized infantry. Though they saw little land action the Marines of both the CSA and USA had were mobilized as land infantry. During a contemporary war of this time, Crimean War, during the Siege of Sevastopol, the Russians mobilized the Naval infantry. Though they lost they had, as history holds, Heroically defended their positions at cost of heavy allied causalities.
The opinion of Mr Keegan refers directly only to an already mobilized and trained land infantry vs a land infantry of undetermined training and undetermined mobilization. Any given Sunday?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You have obviously given this some thought. Are there any counter-sources to Keegan that you would like to share for alternative assessments in this article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Here's a perfect source WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no context in his opinion, which has been my argument. At what point could the USA or CSA already Mobilized Army threaten the mentioned pre-modern military powers with the possibility of defeat? Was it 1861? Was it 1863? He mentions that by 1865 (the year the war ended). What am I to take from what he has written? That after 4 years The Union has successfully Mobilized? After 4 years the CSA successfully Mobilized? This already mobilized Army could threaten with defeat any of those 3 pre-modern war powers if there was no Ocean in the way. Ok that's great. What about the opponents again? Did they have a standing Army (non war time) at the time or did they also have already mobilized Army? Is it to much to expect context? Correct me if I'm wrong her but this source seems to imply that an Army prepared for war would be trouble for an army not prepared for war and this if you excluded every aspect of war and made the Rules of engagement on both sides my Army vs your Army. Without any context that is what I'm lead to conclude. If that what is being said I can't help but question it's importance here.
On another note of context I must say that I'm not sure that the European military "grandees" felt the CSA or USA were Amateurish and unprofessional in their mobilization. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As another editor has pointed out, your intuition needs to be supported by a source, or it cannot be incorporated into the article.
It is clear you have read the passage, which explains the context, "From a tiny frontier force" to "largest and most efficient in the world." At the footnote link to page 57 of Keegan 2009, the context is further explained, they had "grown into the largest and most efficient armies in the world, divided and subdivided into elaborate formations and units and comprising every branch of military specialization. … each … outmatched the French, the Prussian, and the Russian in up-to-date experience."
The discussion assumes an understanding of 'every branch of military specialization', to include infantry, artillery, cavalry, combined arms operations, army-navy inter-service coordinated assault, signaling, courier and telegraphic communications, bridging engineering, logistics, river, railroad and wagon transport, staffing, officer education, enlisted training, recruiting and sustaining mass armies in the field including camp hygiene, hospital facilities and postal service, etc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes page 57 of the American Civil War by Keegan 2009. The basis of my argument.
In context of what is directly written I can only conclude that a mobilized Army at the height of a war (that was able to completely exit that war) vs.. Wait I don't know because there is no context.. He named France, Prussia, and Russia. That does not offer any context. Was Russia at war at this time? How about Prussia? How about France? Was their home front protected by a standing Army or a Mobilized Army? What was the level of mobilization of any returning Army battalions involved in any war that would be returning home. I assume they also are allowed to exit any war they were in free and clear. Do they know about this proposed war before the Yankee's show and start shooting at them? The only context that is made clear is that which is favorable solely to the United States.
The basis I make for this proposed battle being at the height of war is based off the context given. "By 1965 the Union Army" "had grown into the largest and most efficient in the world." they "outmatched the French, the Prussian, and the Russian in up-to-date experience". I assume he's pitting the CSA at the height of their strength as well since that's what he's doing for the USA Army. I base the USA or CSA exit of war being a contingent factor to make them an actual threat based off the USA not being able to enforce the Monroe doctrine during the Civil War which lead to the events of or related to Second Mexican Empire.
As he mentions the USA or CSA Army directly I assume That the USA or CSA Navy would have no major impact on the proposed war.
The European detractors, did they feel that the USA and CSA Mobilization was Amateur and unprofessional? He doesn't make that clear? What was the criticism about exactly? Context is everything but the only thing that seems to Justify using the information as currently written is solely that the source is Mr Keegan. If and only if the detractors felt specifically that the Mobilization was amateur and unprofessional should this remain in this subsection. I'm not opposed to it's inclusion in the appropriate place. Though personally I would tone it down to, "European observers at the time dismissed them as amateur and unprofessional, but British historian John Keegan's assessment is that each outmatched the French, Prussian and Russian armies of the time in up-to-date experience."
The Part, "From a tiny frontier force in 1860, in a few years the the Union and Confederates armies had grown to be the "largest and most efficient armies in the world"." I would leave under mobilization but personally I would make the opening statement of the first paragraph.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And by the by my intuition sir is you should read my arguments before you speak on them and make and argument based off them. Which part of anything I said do you need a source for exactly?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
a) From the time of your critique of Keegan as an American, you appear unhappy that the American armies grew in professional and technical experience beyond anything known in Europe by their most advanced armies at the time, and you wish Keegan had addressed less technically sophisticated armies than the Europeans at the time. ---b) The transition is properly written from mobilization, a transition between sections. --- c) Have you anything to counter Keegan, anything at all to counter the scholarly judgment that "the Union and Confederates armies had grown to be the 'largest and most efficient armies in the world'"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"From the time of your critique of Keegan as an American" Could you clarify exactly what you are trying to say with that? Are you saying I suggested in any way that he was an American? If so I'd ask you to read the debate before you take part in it. Or are you that I am offering a critique of Keegan and I am an American? I'd then have to ask you the Relevance? I appear unhappy? I don't feel I appear emotional at all. Do you perhaps mean I appear unsatisfied with the source? On the basis of neutrality it would probably be best to leave emotions out of this.
I would prefer to understand in the context of what precisely is being said. Could you qualify the meaning of "at the time"? Does this mean somewhere of or between 1861-1865? Do you recognize that in context this proposed war would be fought by an already Mobilized USA or CSA Army? What was the conditions of this proposed war? They had a smaller army. We know the exact reason the USA and CSA had larger Armies. Is there any reason the listed pre-modern powers would have a smaller Army? Using this source do you feel that either the USA or CSA Army would be able to effectively offer a threat to the listed pre-modern War powers if the CSA and USA Army were actively at war with each other during this proposed war? There is no context. This proposed war doesn't ins't even based on many factors of war. It's just this Army vs that Army during some unspecified point between 1861-1865. The Navy of these powers doesn't even factor in.One of the Most powerful weapons of the Civil War for Union side was the Union Blockade.
What is being said by this source? What is not being said by this source?
Can you more than contend from this source the following: Exiting an already ongoing war and already being prepared for war the USA or CSA Army could possibly defeat Prussia, Russia, or France who were not prepared for war.
You have to ignore certain aspects of War for his opinion to matter beyond the above. This war would encompass the USA or CSA Army sometime between 1861 and 1865 at the height of their strength vs what ever land based fighting forces that either Russia, Prussia, or France had at the time.
His opinion does not offer any context on any factors that lead to this opinion other than directly that which is favorable to the USA or CSA. The only notability this opinion has is directly that it can Be attributed to Keegan. It's not even that the USA or CSA would defeat those pre-modern power but that could and that's after you narrow the criteria to almost meaninglessness.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Keegan's book, "The American Civil War: a military history", gives lots of context. Readers of WP articles are encouraged to explore the sources. I told my students not to use WP as a direct source due to drive-by disruption, -- but to use its articles and 'see also' as general introductions to a topic, then track down footnotes online and offline in libraries. Keegan is worth having in your personal library for scholarly military context in the American Civil War.
I regret you are disappointed at the summary style required of encyclopedia writing. It is what it is, use the footnotes for further, more in-depth exploration of the topic. You could write your own original thesis on the military history of the American Civil War under scholarly direction at university, publish it, and put Keegan in his place. WP talk pages doesn't do it. Keegan is the go-to scholarly source for now. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't why you've opted to tell me that Keegan is worth having in personal library or any other library for that matter. I've made no statement to suggest other wise.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is a section of wp:rs. I have not said the Keegan's book offers no context. I'm sure as a professional of the highest caliber his book is full of context. We aren't talking about the over all context of his book though. I'm very direct about what part of the book lacks context. I'm sorry if I have confused you but what I've said couldn't be more clear. Further more his book isn't exactly the source. The source is also very specific. The source is directly page 57 of that book. That's great if page 56 offers alot of context on everything that is being said. That's great if the book offers context on mostly everything that is being said. However no where in anything I've said have I denied that. No offense but that's a bit of a strawman. There's no context in the information being sourced. If I write a published paper thru a University it won't add or remove context from this section of his work. I'm not exactly sure much of a paper can be written on the lack of context on a small portion of page 57. I can't see exactly how a published paper about the lack of context on small section of a page would be helpful. I can't specifically see your need for one. I did not know that Wikipedia required a source that says another source has no context. I thought it was the job of editors to insure their sources had context. Can you point out the Wikipedia policy that requires this? I'm unfamiliar so it would certainly be helpful to me if you could share it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Keegan is a good scholarly, disinterested, reliable source. He makes a modest, defensible claim directly related to the narrative. You would have us recall, from wp:context matters, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." In "mobilization", the article describes the context, From a tiny frontier force in 1860, in a few years the Union and Confederates armies had grown to be the "largest and most efficient armies in the world". What source could be chosen to support "largest and most efficient armies"? Why, we have John Keegan at page 57, they would have threatened any others with defeat. q.e.d.
You misunderstand Keegan, he does not say U.S. and C.S. armies would have necessarily vanquished every empire on earth at every time in history regardless of relative numbers with one hand tied behind their back, -- only that they would have been a credible "threat" on the field of battle with any contemporary army having access to the technology and organization available at the time. That supports the narrative claim, --- over the course of the American Civil War, those engaged became then and there, the "largest and most efficient armies" of that time. Nothing to do with other armies at other places in other times in the context of a virtual fantasy world. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
When I said: 'The Part, "From a tiny frontier force in 1860, in a few years the the Union and Confederates armies had grown to be the "largest and most efficient armies in the world"." I would leave under mobilization but personally I would make the opening statement of the first paragraph.' to you did that raise the implication that Keegans book should be disqualified as a source for that? Your argument surely would be based off something I said so I would enjoy knowing the basis. I also aware that he does not say U.S. and C.S. armies would have necessarily vanquished every empire on earth at every time in history. I also feel that since I never suggested that there's no reason for you to make me aware of that. This was not Prewar USA or Prewar CSA fighting against Russia, Prussia, or France. This is Post war USA or CSA vs Russia, Prussia, and France. They got that up-to-date experience via the war. The switch from smoothbore to rifling. The Minié rifle and Minié ball. The Gatling gun. Army ambulance corps. Aerial reconnaissance. Ect, Ect, Ect. I'm only listing land based infantry technology that came to use during the war. That is the up-to-date experience they had and they had it because of the war. The Minié rifle and Minié ball were developed in 1849 and 1847 respectively. Necessity brought out their usage. The war made them the Largest Army. The war brought that up-to-date experience. That up-to-date experience is what made them efficient.This is a virtual fantasy world. Yes after completely prepared in every way for war they posed a threat to an unprepared country. You might as well say if they had M:16's they would pose a threat to a country with muskets. That would be just as true and just as meaningful.
So they called both armies Amateur and unprofessional. In what way did they feel the CSA or USA was Amateur and unprofessional? I wonder if just for example they could have been talking about situations like where General McClellan inability to press enemies aggressively especially when he had an over whelming advantage. There's that whole context thing. What about CSA and USA operations did they feel was unprofessional and amateur? I assume that if they discussed it and wrote about it they said more than, "We think that the USA and CSA are Amateur and unprofessional." I don't doubt they said it but feel likely they put context to what they said. Without context the inclusion of anything beyond, "European observers at the time dismissed them as amateur and unprofessional, but British historian John Keegan's assessment is that each outmatched the French, Prussian and Russian armies of the time." tilts the point of view from neutral. Also I again question it's inclusion in the mobilization subsection. I'm sure there is a more appropriate subsection elsewhere.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
American Civil War?
I think the article´s name should be changed to United State's Civil War. The word "American" means all America, despite most people use it to reffer to the United States. I live in America but not in the USA and so, this article´s name makes me feel offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsortega (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's commonly known as the American Civil War, not the "United State's Civil War". I can't imagine anyone would be confused by that, and we don't name articles based on whether a few people may find the title offensive. JoelWhy?(talk)
I for one completely agree with Alonsortega that the article's name should be changed. A much better name would be Usonian Civil War. "American" means "of America" and America means the whole land mass of the western hemisphere. Usonian is the English cognate of estadounidense in Spanish, estadunidense in Portuguese, états-unien in French, etc; it means "of the United States".
American is therefore a continental identity and not a nationality, and for Usonians to claim that America means a land which neither Columbus nor Amerigo Vespucci ever laid eyes on while excluding the places which they actually sailed to is exceptionally ignorant, vain, self-centred, overbearing and arrogant. That is why it's offensive.Epikuro57 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
We can't make that change because people will think the article is about the Mexican civil war of 1911....notice that that country is officially named "United States of Mexico" (Estados Unidos de México). Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
In the English WP, conventions are followed consistently within an article, whether American or British English. In both, the convention is to say, the American Civil War, or among British contemporaries of the 1860s, "the American War", maintaining a delicious diplomatic neutrality which was not appreciated by USG officials at the time.
However, point taken, in a Spanish WP article, the "American Civil War" might be translated "La Guerra Civil Norteamericana", as no comparable violence erupted in Canada, and Norteamericana generally is not taken to mean Mexico, which is nevertheless in North America by U.S. geography texts. I love social studies.
Interestingly, the Spanish Civil War is also known as simply 'The Crusade' among Nationalists, and 'The Rebellion' or 'Uprising' among Republicans--- but the observation rates only a footnote in the WP Spanish Civil War article...sort of like 'The Great Rebellion' or 'The War of Northern Aggression' might achieve here, but they do not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
See WP:Commonname for why this article is titled the way it is according to Wikipedia policy. The Pedia does not make up its own names for articles, so cannot use Usonian. Also, Americano/a often means 'of the United States' in Romance languages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If you are offended, get therapy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"Usonian" - you used the Oxford definition of the word to support your opinion.
Here is the Oxford definition of "American" - American which you tried to intentionally skipped. "Usonian" is not a word in common use. Most people have probably never even heard of it. "American" is a word in common use that is commonly used to mean the primary definition provided by the same source you agree with - "someone from the United States of America or pertaining to things characteristic of that nation."
You know this already... Which is why you intentionally did not use the Oxford definition of the word "American" in your comment. but instead switched to the continental definition of "America"... Since the other shot down your point. "American" is not just a continental identity as was falsely claimed here, and by your own choice of source is shown to be primarily used in reference to the United States of America..
You can not like it all you want, but it is the commonly understood and accepted use of the word.
Wikipedia isnt a place to be used for biased wars over semantics or personal word choice preferences 69.127.184.131 (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a whole article devoted to discussing the proper demonym for the United States of America. Feel free to take this discussion there (or better yet, to its talk page). Until/unless the Anglosphere's consensus ever changes, however, this article should use the name "American". (Personally, I like "United-Statesian".) --Alexbook (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Empty request... — {{U|Technical 13}}(t • e • c) 03:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
"Decisive" confederate victories
The attempt to interpret any Confederate victory as "decisive" is a Lost Cause POV.
A decisive Confederate victory would lead to the expulsion of Union troops from the territory claimed by the Confederacy. And as the maps show as published Kenneth Martis in The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865, the territory held by the Union in the south expanded consistently in the Union's favor, with few temporary reversals at raids or incursions, and no permanent, "decisive" victories anywhere for the Confederacy.
For instance, however interesting a battle like Chancellorsville may be tactically for students with a narrow focus, grand-strategically it did not release Fairfax or Alexandria or Occoquan or Fort Monroe from Union occupation, nor did it break the spirit for Union in the overwhelming majority of the country. The temporary reoccupation of Harper's Ferry could not be sustained following the Gettysburg campaign.
Confederate raids north never resulted in either holding Union territory permanently, nor in removing the Union presence in the Southland, nor in compromising the national will to reunion. Indeed, continued resistance after 1862 led to the national resolve to abolish slavery. Union occupation grew following each Confederate battlefield "victory", however haltingly. While Union delays did not result in Confederate independence and the preservation of slavery, Union advances led to reuniting the nation and the end of slavery.
There was no "decisive" Confederate victory, there was never any permanent re-occupation of territory declared seceded, not east, west, or in ports and enclaves along the coasts, regardless of the unquestioned battlefield courage on the part of the individual Rebel soldier who trusted their leadership.
I have reverted the counter-source claim in the article that there were decisive Confederate victories in 1862. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Eight states?
The lede states, "Eight remaining slave states continued to reject calls for secession". I am aware of four upper South states (Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia) that waited till after the Fort Sumter crisis to join the South, and also the border states (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and later West Virginia in 1863) that never joined the Confederacy. But since West Virginia didn't exist until 1863, doesn't this make for seven states, not eight, in the given time frame?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, yep. Never mind.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That's why they call it the "show me" state, Jim. 36hourblock (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Bias
This article is heavily biased. it needs rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.176.209 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Please be more specific. --Alexbook (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Everything must go. --208.77.176.209 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
And replace it what?JOJHutton 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is an example of bias from the 1st sentence of the article: "The American Civil War...was a civil war..." While it is clearly called The Civil War, it was not, in fact, a civil war. It was a war of secession/independence. The South never made any attempt to rule the North. The South only wanted to separate. The American Civil War could be called a war of rebellion or insurrection.
A Second example of bias is in the same paragraph: "The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery..." This would be less biased if the sentence also mentioned taxation, which was also a very significant reason given for secession at the time. Of course an even less biased discussion of the topic wouldn't simply highlight the reasons for secession, but would also highlight the reasons the North had for "preserving the Union." One could write, "The war had its origins in disagreements as to the nature of the Union established during and after the Revolutionary War" because it was the disagreement about what sort of Union existed that turned disagreements about taxation and slavery into a war. However, I think that wording may run the risk of being biased in different ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.32.219 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
In the first place, the Revolutionary Congress and the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, which requires two-thirds Congress in both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states to agree to a Constitutional change, which is what disunion is, a constitutional change. When Virginia proposed another Constitutional Convention, the Fire-eaters were not persuaded to join the initiative.
In the event, the rebels could not even acquire fully two-thirds of the slave holding states to enter into the rebellion that was the Confederacy. One could write, “Having failed to effect their choice for president by ballots, the Civil War was initiated by rebels who sought to undemocratically overthrow the Union to expand slavery by bullets.” This despite the lesser fact that most Virginians fought as rebels to repel the invading armies.
In the second place, read this article through. You will find a treatment of the Lost Cause historiography and the economic treatise of the Beards which they subsequently renounced. Reading through the section on slavery, you will discover the discussion sourced with reliable scholarly sources which discuss what the rebels said they were doing when they were doing it, — not what they said later about themselves after a futile effort to overcome the democratic process, sacrificing 25% of Southern men, 60% of the South pre-war wealth, and costing the nation 600,000 dead. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Causes of the American Civil War
Slavery was not the reason for the war. Secession from the Federated Union of States was wrongly declared illegal - see the original Constitution - and slavery only became an issue 18 months into the war. Lincoln wanted slavery to end so that he could send former slaves to the Caribbean, S America or Africa, thus making the US a whites only Republic.
One of the reasons that provoked the 'south' to secede was the northern imposed taxes on imports that were bleeding the south dry. The northern states were industrialised and controlled ship-building and the south was mostly agriculatural.
Lincoln was famously ambivalent on slavery and only changed his mind on sending all black people out of the Republic after their contribution to the success of the war for the north was recognised.
The plundering of the south by corrupt northern imposed governors and officials set the south back 100 years.
This is a precis of the book 'The Real Lincoln' by DiLorenzo and is my belief, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.190.19.58 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Slavery, its maintenance and its expansion independent of the emerging anti-slavery national majorities in the United States, was the reason for the Civil War, as given by the secessionists. To speculate about alternative “real” economic reasons unstated at the time is abstraction from the facts into Lost Cause or Marxian nonsense. Tariff issues are put forth in memoirs after the fact, not contemporaneously.
The "rights" proclaimed by those rallying to secessionist banners were not rights to lower tariffs, but rights to own slaves. The Confederacy imposed higher tariffs than the United States had done, but kept slavery. Slavery was the first, organizing principle of the Confederacy as a political entity. The banner above the Secessionist Convention in Charleston, South Carolina included all slave-holding states in the Union, including Kentucky and Missouri, Maryland and Delaware.
The depression in cotton prices that caused the wealthy’s coffers to run dry was not caused by northern shipbuilding, but by expanded planting in Egypt and India.
Following the failure of the secessionists which ruined the South, almost immediately following the Civil War former Confederate officials and army officers held from a majority, to then virtually all civil positions of authority, and they chose a system of agrarian sharecropping to benefit their immediate families over visions of a New South for 100 years, until the returning WWII generation made a difference. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Concur with TVH, it's not like those were prehistoric times when nothing was written down, so it's really no big mystery what reasons were given by the secessionists, we still have their original words making it crustal clear. The definition of "revisionism" is deliberately trying to persuade people the truth was something else according to what's convenient for the revisionist here and now, in other words, it's a fancy word for "lying". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Common revisionist nonsense.
The very first two lines of the Georgia secession declaration: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
The opening of the Mississippi secession declaration: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Unsurprisingly, South Carolina says the same thing: "But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."
And of course there's Texas: "Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
The Civil War was fought over slavery. There's no debate about that. The states explicitly stated that they seceded in order to maintain slavery, that's all there is to it. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that has been pointed out so many times, there oughta be a FAQ! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI I found the FAQ up top and added to it pursuant to this... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That "the states explicitly stated that they seceded in order to maintain slavery" is certainly without question. However, equating a state's reasons for seceding with what the war was fought over is a mistake. The elected officials of the states that seceded believe they had a legal right to secede. Virginia was in a particularly strong position in this regard because when they ratified the Constitution they explicitly said they had the right to withdraw. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the confederate soldiers were fighting to defend their homes from invaders, not to defend the institution of slavery. It is my understanding that a number of letters written by confederate soldiers support this point of view, though I am not able to cite any specifics. And I think a similar issue is relevant when discussing the motives of the North. Early in the war Lincoln himself put saving "the Union" before the issue of slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.32.219 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
You are correct in much of what you say, but you fail to draw proper conclusions. Keep digging. “Equating a state’s reasons for seceding with what the war was fought over is a mistake.” — is mistaken because the reasons declared is what motivated the one year enlistments to populate the rebel armies in 1861. After a year of conflict, they were no longer persuaded, they had to be coerced into a kind of nationalism.
More than half the Confederate armies left the field at the end of their enlistment, compelling the Davis administration to institute the first draft in North American history. There was, in this, a sort of bait-and-switch. Early in the war, defense of slavery in the states was primary, Confederate independence secondary, giving rise to state-defense and state-peace movements especially in Georgia and North Carolina. Thus it is said the Confederacy died of “states rights”, see the careers of Alexander Stephens and Robert Toombs, and the article Confederate States of America.
The fact that Lincoln put the Union before emancipation demonstrates that there was no long train of abuses, to result in any tyranny over the Southern states holding slaves. — States pretended to secede on Lincoln’s election, he was not even inaugurated, his administration had done no harm to justify rebellion as limned in the Declaration laying a twenty-year train of abuses such as suspending jury trial.
A majority of the Supreme Court were slave holders, the Republicans who were free-soilers but not abolitionists as a whole — did not have a majority in either the House or the Senate. It is true that Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas came into the Union successively as free soil states before hostilities — but that was a work of the majorities in Congress, and the majorities in those states, constitutional democracy, not oppression of rights in any slave-holding state.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Casualties and losses counts don't add up or match each other
Looking at the WWI and WWII pages, for instance, the infobox casualty and loss figures add up to the totals given. On this Civil War page they don't. On the U.S. side, e.g., the detailed numbers shown add to 138,000 whereas the total is 365,000. (There's some additional detail in the text but the total deaths is 360,000 not 365,000.) Can we fix the infobox and/or the text to (1) add up and (2) match each other? Maybe adding estimates for disease and other deaths in the infobox would help. Nearwater (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, the page starts by saying 600,000 soldiers were killed, then later says 750,000, then says "The war produced about 1,030,000 casualties (3% of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians." 620,000 + 50,000 = 670,000. That leaves 360,000 casualties that were neither soldiers nor civilians -- ?? Philgoetz (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Insert.@Nearwater and Philgoetz:. Casualties are made up of dead and wounded, non-effectives for military duty following an engagement. Soldier deaths do not include wounded, although wounded died in military hospitals and on release as inactive. The 350,000 would be the wounded as initially reported. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like we need to find a modern reliable source which makes a comprehensive report for both sides. That way, we can let a scholar make the calls rather than launching into original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
At Civil War Casualties there is a featured article, “War by the numbers” by Harold Holzer, who refers to the amateur Fox and Livermore figure of 620,000 from 1889. The modern updates as of March 2012 by Dr. J. David Hacker were published in "America’s Civil War” magazine and used in Guy Gugliotta’s new book, “Freedom’s Cap”, and reported in the New York Times. Hacker developed a range using several techniques including the “two-census method”, from 650,000 to 850,000, and finally estimated the total number at 750,000 military dead.
At Historynet.com, military casualties, killed and wounded, amounted to between 640,000 and 700,000. Union combat deaths over 110,000, other deaths over 250,000 (mostly by disease). Confederate combat deaths over 95,000, other deaths over 165,000. I wonder if we can get at Hacker's article with some detail breakdowns? In any case, modern estimates are about 20% higher than the 19th century estimates. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
J. David Hacker in “Disunion”, Sep 20, 2011. Recounting the dead, scholar Guy Gugliotta in the New York Times, New estimate raises Civil War death toll. --- a scholar named Walker is referred to who uses higher estimates... I cannot find a reference on him yet. Hacker speculates on civilian casualties, fertility rates, but in this instance seems to narrow his study to military casualties. It may be that Infobox should be military only, and treat civilian casualties estimates in the body of the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
At The Civil War: overview, the National Park Service has an explanatory note, "Recent scholarly studies suggest that at least 750,000 and possibly more died as a direct result of the Civil War.” Although this is ambiguously stated to include civilian deaths, it does not make the distinctions explicit. Which brings me back to my original post, we need to find a 20th or 21st century reliable source which makes a comprehensive report for both sides, military and civilian. Restating the 19th century counts seems somehow lacking as an encyclopedic report at this point in time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
British gun-running prolonged the war by 2 years?
See [1] - says cost up to 400,000 American lives. 20:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
This statement in an article appears to be a matter of opinion. A more authoritative/reviewed source is needed. I don't know that I've seen anything so specific on the effect of the blockade running in extending the war, although it certainly extended it. It seems somewhat unlikely that the CSA could have been overrun so completely by early April of 1863 even had no blockade runners come through. As reasoning, part was due to the geographic size/logistical limitations. Part comes from reviewing Wise's Lifeline of the Confederacy listing of steamer blockade runs into the CSA during the period from Nov 61 to April 12, 1863: Wilmington NC 20, Charleston SC 48, GA/East FL 8, West FL 6, Mobile 5, LA 3, TX 5 (admittedly these are my own counts from the tables.) Several times as many runs into the CSA occurred after this time. This illustrates the growing dependency, but also demonstrates that imports prior to April 1863 were of a much smaller scale. Red Harvest (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking a bit deeper, Mallet claimed about 150,000 shoulder arms available at the start of the war from Federal(captured) and state arsenals, and there were some battlefield captures and conversion of civilian arms, but claimed "the principal dependence at first was necessarily on the importations."[1] Vandiver in Ploughshares into Swords states that Confederate agent Huse had purchased 157,000 arms (type not given, but 75,000 were Austrian rifles) by Dec. 5, 1862 (page 89) but it is not clear how many had been shipped into the CSA by April of 1863. There are passages on later pages talking about 12,000 of Austrian arms not being offloaded until around Sept. 1863, and another 50,000 in storage in Bermuda in Aug of 1863. On the other hand, Gorgas noted 185,000 arms imported from Jan. 1, 1862 to July 1, 1863. [2] There was some CSA production, but by the end of the war the CSA had imported over 330,000 arms and the state and private ventures 270,000. [3]Red Harvest (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Interesting. Hopefully there will be more discussion of this by academics in the next few months. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Memory and historiography
I like the new Beardian section, but it sems to be hanging out there on its own. Lost Causism is even more worthy of an entry in this section.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I added an entry, based on Nolan, I'm looking for others. But there is a link to fuller treatment at the article Lost Cause. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Good work. Is a mention of contemporary neo-Confederatism relevant here?Pokey5945 (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is the repeated disruption on Wikipedia imposing the Blood Stained Banner (BSB), the flag of the Confederacy "since 1865" as it says at Wikimedia Commons. This is the flag of the neo-Confederate organization, Confederate States of America, Inc.
Editors replace the "First National Flag" which is sourced as seen (used) everywhere. Most recently to my knowledge, yesterday at Confederate Army info box, which I reverted. But the BSB is found on numerous pages, such as Battle of Appomattox Court House. Everywhere I supply the historical banner of the time, it is persistently reverted by various editors without sourcing except their original research into resolutions passed by the rump legislature immediately before complete evacuation of Richmond. Contemporary accounts and recent scholarship suggest the contrary.
David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, Confederate General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussing neo-Confederatism: Although there is some common membership, a clear distinction should be drawn between a) neo-Confederate secessionist groups with a political agenda versus b) Southern heritage organizations with an historical agenda. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The history/politics distinction is not always so clear to me, especially since the LoS has taken over the Sons. Even the Daughters has typically used politics to advance its historical revisionism.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the activists in an historical organization can say things which go beyond their charter for the sake of a press release. But rememberance of the Confederacy does not require disobedience to current U.S. law in force in the extreme, nor even the lesser pipe dream of peaceable majority vote in a lone state without a Constitutional Amendment to secede from the Union in the modern era. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, this article suffers from several maladies. One of them is the "this is a popular article; I want to stick my two cents in" problem. Another is that the page is so vast, it's difficult to watch changes and check for reliable sources each time the page is edited. A third issue is one of emphasis; there's so much to say on a very broad topic, but Wikipedia needs an article of manageable size in order to advance this back to GA or A level quality. I'm sure other editors see problem worthy of group effort.
I propose we (page watchers and interested editors) hold a regular (say weekly or monthly) salon on the talk page to break these issues down and come up with a strategy to address these weaknesses. We'd need to identify the scope of our effort, then break the issues down into smaller chunks for digestion and solution, then work methodically to follow the adopted processes, occasionally starting back from the beginning to re-sweep the page.
I'd be willing to contribute several hours every week to dramatically tighten and improve the page. I'm suggesting a long term ongoing commitment.
Does this sound like a good idea? A workable strategy? Something you'd be willing to assist? BusterD (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I had written a longer, unfinished paragraph but removed some of it because I should think about a few of your points or my further suggestions or comments. To give you some quick response, I agree that the quality, and to some extent the conciseness, of the article needs to be improved. Your idea is a good one since collaboration on this article should produce a better, more stable article. I agree that some of the content is unnecessarily long and not entirely coherent. I will hold further comments except to note that in my opinion, for starters, pre-war and post-war content should be cut. Many details about those topics are, and should be, covered in other main articles, already noted. You diplomatically state a particular problem but, especially if fully considered, that problem might present a difficult barrier to making this a better, more concise and more stable article. I will be interested in further comments and may add to these comments. Donner60 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
List of introduction ACW names.
ADMonroe appeals to the last consensus to keep the list of different names to the “top 2” in the introduction first sentence, meaning, "Civil War", which is neutral, merely truncating American Civil War, and "War Between the States", which is Confederate.
It seems that proportion would dictate a Union name, such as suggested by the recent reverted edit by Shoreranger, "War of the Rebellion", or some variation of it. Reprints of Harper's collected prints illustrating the American Civil War in the 1870s had two regional editions with title pages The Great Rebellion for the North and "The War Between the States." for the South -- all else the same, both editions were once available on the shelves of the Earl Gregg Swem Library at the College of William and Mary.
Where is the discussion on the lead sentence that ADMonroe refers to? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Balance might justify a third term, which I think might carry in a consensus, such as The Great Rebellion or War of the Rebellion for the Union usage. But if that is not persuasive, I wonder if multiple names might be added in an inline note, such as War of the Rebellion or The Great Rebellion and the War of Northern Aggression or War for Southern Independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's good to revisit this and make a formal discussion about limiting the names in the lede. (I didn't intend to imply there was formally discussed on this talk; it was more a series of edits with comments that took place years ago.)
My preference is to limit the names in the lede to only modern popular names. Names of the American Civil War gives near a dozen names that have been used over time. It would be ugly to have the lede include several of them, much less all. From my experience, relaxing the standards to allow one of the ones lower on the list of common names becomes troll bait for editors to add their favorites to counter others' "misleading" ones. We need some limiting criteria. For balance, to cover the two primary sides, we need only two -- one that's "pro-North" (Civil War) and one that's "pro-South" (WBTS). These are both are in common use nowadays, and both have been recently officially used by the US Government (e.g., postage stamps). "Second American Revolution" and all the rest do not meet these criteria.
I'm okay if we want to better highlight the fact that ACW had many other names (the current link to "Names of ACW" isn't that obvious), but we need to keep the lede free of clutter, especially the first sentence. I don't see how readers immediately benefit from a list of these more obscure (and more POV) names. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Just remove them all. No need. There is already an article dedicated to this topic. No need to rehash every name in the lead of this article.--JOJHutton 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
By chance, I just read parts of William C. Davis's book The Cause Lost: Myths and Realities of the Confederacy, Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1996. ISBN978-0-7006-1254-3. Note that he is a professor at Virginia Tech, former editor of Civil War Times Illustrated and the only three-time winner of the Jefferson Davis Prize for Confederate history, according to his Wikipedia article. He wrote the following paragraph on page 178 of the book:
Many of the myths are simply frivolous and none more so than that suggesting that ever since the conclusion of the Civil War, we have been calling the conflict by the wrong name. During the war it was known by several titles. The North called it the Civil War or the Southern Insurrection or most commonly just the Rebellion, the last two reflecting a definitely regional viewpoint. The Confederates usually called it the war, or occasionally the War for Southern Independence. In the years after the conflict these and other terms were used, and Alexander H. Stevens' 1868 work A Constitutional View of the War Between the States popularized a new name that quickly gained currency in the South. Yet even the majority of former Confederates who wrote about the war in later years in books, memoirs, and letters used the term Civil War, which is commonly used and accepted to this day.
All of those who comment on this page have almost certainly seen not just Rebellion but War of the Rebellion used by Northern writers during or not long after the conclusion of the war. And, of course, "The War of the Rebellion" is part of the title of the Official Records. Davis also mentions Lincoln's War or War of Northern Aggression as apparently more recent terms used by Confederate veterans' "descendants."
In any event, I agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. He suggests two possibilities. I favor just using the common and neutral term "American Civil War" in the lede and text, especially given Davis's statements that people who fought on both sides used the term in later years and it is the commonly used and accepted term today, and putting all the alternative names into a footnote. His other suggestion is ok with me as well. Donner60 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
JOJ is correct that since there is an article on Names of the American Civil War, there is no need to list any of them or use any name other than the American Civil War in this article. I think a reference to the other article in a footnote would be appropriate, whether or not other names are included in the footnote as well. So I would be satisfied with a footnote with a link to the names article alone, as another alternative. Donner60 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As "Civil War" was used by both sides immediately after the war as Donner60 notes, and that is the common modern name, to use AD Monroe’s criteria, and JOJ Hutton suggests we prominently link to the article which already exists, names of the American Civil War, I suggest the following wording as an attempt at consensus, writing for the international reader,
The American Civil War, also known as the Civil War as well as many other sectional names, was a civil war in the United States fought from 1861 to 1865. Seven Southern slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America, known as the "Confederacy" or the "South". They grew to include eleven states, though they claimed thirteen, but were never recognized by a foreign country.
I welcome copyedit suggestions to smooth the rough edges. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks good to me. The link covers all of the other names and removes the need to list them or to cover them in a footnote. Donner60 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I like it. Personally, I don't like to use a term to explain the same term, so I'd prefer "... was a sectional rebellion in the United States fought..." But I concur that using a great many names in the lede is a poor use of valuable real estate on a necessarily massive article, and given the naming article, the suggested lede sentence is preferred to the one currently on the page. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine but, if past is guide, you will get objection to " also known as the Civil War" as being "unglobal". I think the context is perfectly clear but that's me. You may want to consider just dropping that clause too, though. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
How about adding "in the United States" after "also known"? Perhaps "widely" or "simply" or both before "known" as well? One or more of those edits might reduce or eliminiate such objections. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure about the need to restate "civil war", so the lede might read, with copyedits above,
The American Civil War, widely known as simply the Civil War in the United States as well as many other sectional names, was fought from 1861 to 1865. Seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, known as the "Confederacy" or the "South". They grew to include eleven states, and although they claimed thirteen states and additional western territories, the Confederacy was never recognized by a foreign country.
At the link "sectional names" to 'Names of the American Civil War', the term "Civil War" is linked to civil war, so I have followed that convention here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to point out that many have not seen the name "American Civil War" as neutral, but pro-North. Calling it a "civil war" implies that both sides were fighting to control the single government. That's certainly not the Confederate view. (Yes, the northerners saw the southerners as trying to "redefine" the United States to be an optional rather than binding association, but the Confederates maintained it was and had always been optional.) So it may be more acceptable to also include the 2nd most popular name, "War Between the States", in the lede sentence, to balance the perceived pro-North name with a pro-South one.
But I won't push hard for this. I was the one that wanted to limit the number of names in the lede; I can hardly complain about it going from two to one. If no one else worries about "Civil War" alone appearing as a pro-North spin, then I'm happy with just that one name. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
While I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, the problem with "War Between the States" is that it was a deliberate post-war attempt by the UDC to whitewash the history. In many cases it was a civil war within the states themselves, and particularly within the Southern states, with tens of thousands serving on both sides in the border states and upper South. Unionists and secessionists within these states were truly fighting a civil war for control of their own states and even territories (see Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, the Indian Territories, New Mexico Territory, etc.) Red Harvest (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That's certainly true, and it's likely that "War between the States" was also designed to obfuscate that (an ongoing attempt by some Southern diehards). I'm happy with TheVirginiaHistorian's latest version. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Coulter actually has Confederates using "Civil War" as one of the names during the war. Alexander Stephens, critic of Jefferson Davis as a violator of states rights during the war, coins War Between the States after the war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
"Civil war" has broader connotation than just "both sides were fighting to control the single government" [2]Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the name WBTS isn't neutral; I'd label it as pro-South. I even think that ACW is the best name we have. But it doesn't matter what I or others think about these names. It's all about WP:RS, as always. There are major sources that "balance" their use of ACW with WBTS, including "official" ones like the US Government. Yes, they're maybe doing this to be "politically correct", or to cave-in to ravings of "the other" POV, or other "poor" reasons. But it's not our job it focus on why they do it, only that they do it.
Our focus should be only on what helps the readers. For those that aren't that familiar with the subject, will including WBTS help or hurt? If they have never heard of the term WBTS, it wouldn't help. But I think there's a chance they have heard it, given its prominent use in some notable RS. It would simply inform them "yes, this is the same war as that".
And, realistically, there's also the fact (unstated in any WP policy as far as I know), that we don't really need to things that incite POV editors. Adding WBTS may act like a "safety valve", acknowledging the existence of the pro-South POV without warping the whole article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a link to accommodate WBTS and all the rest. "Civil War" is neutral, implying only that the state on one side as linked by Alanscottwalker at war formal classification. Lists of Civil War names have their own article Names of the American Civil War, and disrupters pushing a POV can be referred to the consensus pointing to the link.
Were we to add a Confederate name, we should balance it with a Union name, but you rejected "War of Rebellion". After a full discussion, the consensus is that the link to all the sectional names suffices, and we need not start the relisting in the intro. I understand that there may be neo-Confederate blogs that object to using "Civil War" as a term, but what reliable source does? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I've always considered ACW neutral. Granted, I grew up hearing it and never attached a connotation to it. That could be a bias of my border state upbringing (neither "yank" nor "reb".) "War of the rebellion" does imply pro-North, while WBTS is indisputably pro-South (though not positively silly like "War of Northern Aggression.") I might argue that it was simply a rebellion, as R.E. Lee himself stated about secession in a letter to his wife before the war, but that won't change the post-war slant that the term implies. I don't have a problem with either as counterpoint to the other. If you ask me to choose a single neutral term, I'll choose ACW. That isn't meant as an insult or to push either side's POV. I wouldn't worry about neo-Confederate blogs, they aren't bounded in any sort of reality, simply pushing a revisionist POV. Red Harvest (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As have I. I grew up in Miami in the mid-2oth century and always heard it referred to in that way. I've got ancestors who were very pro-Confederate including Jonathan Worth (governor) (who was more pro-North Carolina really than pro-Confederate]] and remember visiting relative who proudly displayed a frame battle-worn Confederate flag on their wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a section (or even a new article) is called for on the semiotics of nomenclature. There's a lot to say on this debate.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed 'contraband' image
I removed the 'contraband' image at slavery as it did not illustrate the text in the slavery section. Contrabands are addressed in the Emancipation section, and they are illustrated with two images there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014
This edit request to American Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
the south was primarily fighting for freedom of states the major issue was not slavery
Nope. This is a factual article; that assertion is contrary to the long-established historical consensus. The phrase "freedom of states", in addition to being non-grammatical, is arrant neo-Confederate nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Those states purporting to secede into independence immediately reconstituted a confederation, just as planned by the Fire-Eaters. Recommended reading on the two uses of "freedom": James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom". -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Is a secessionary civil war really a civil war?
Under whose definition of "civil war" is the conflict of 1861-65 considered a civil war, considering that the southern states did not want to change the national government but to leave it? And how does this change the naming conventions of the article? -75.57.4.183 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Considering that a substantial portion of the war was fought in states/sections whose majority opposed secession, it was definitely a civil war for them. Tens of thousands were fighting to retain their national identity against tens of thousands in the same state. See Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and East Tennessee for example. Plus there is that little problem of the Confederacy having its sights set on U.S. territories (New Mexico, Arizona, Indian Nations, Colorado and even California.)
Another problem with the "secessionary war" argument is that "Southern rights" advocates had for the previous three decades done every thing they could to alter the United States govt. into the form of national govt. they wanted. When that finally failed, they attempted to achieve the same by withdrawing and adopting a slightly modified constitution that included these new Southern rights. In essence they were fighting over control of the govt. which they had lost in the national election. And the irony is the actual shooting started with an attack by the states on a piece of real estate that had been built by and deeded to the Federal govt. The "peaceful coexistence" narrative of secession really doesn't fit with the public statements of the time, or the expansionist nature of Southern slavery--the very factor that fueled the dispute and led to war. The Union states appear to have seen this war as a fight for survival against an aggressive and hostile section. As Lincoln summarized, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Red Harvest (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
And this page isn't a forum to discuss this issue. There isn't a chance in hell we are going to change the title of the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but that doesn't seem to stop people from coming in to propose doing just that. Best to give the weak argument the smack down it deserves. Red Harvest (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Beran Hunter. Beyond that, there are many civil wars that are never named as such, like the Malayan Emergency. The English and Russian civil wars both had attempted secessions due to a regime change. Although there was no conflict between pro- and anti-slavery northerners, you can bet that the civil war would have likely never happened if a Democrat had won the election.2601:D:6900:731:5AF:2D9B:EE18:8307 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Debating the name here is not helpful to anyone. We must follow the WP:RS's WP:COMMONNAME; our opinions, right or wrong, do not matter. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Conflicting death totals in opening section
it reads "It remains the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.[N 2] One estimate of the death toll is that ten percent of all Northern males 20–45 years old, and 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40 perished.[10] From 1861 to 1865 about 620,000 soldiers lost their lives -
So it is 750k or 620k?
Good question. The problem is that nobody knows: these are all estimates and really represent a range or more accurately, ranges. The reference for the note on the 750k number actually says that Hacker's census based analysis says "the most probable number of deaths attributable to the Civil War is 752,000, although the upper bounds of his data set point to as many as 851,000 deaths." The paragraph could use some clean up to reflect that. I don't think Hacker's numbers distinguish between males of military age who remained civilians vs. soldiers...or the gray areas of emergency militia, home guard, guerrillas, and people not officially in either army but killed or executed for various reasons.
The Union losses are relatively well documented although some are missing: particularly in home guard actions and such. (The first husband of one of my ancestor was apparently executed under this sort of circumstance, with no official record, so nothing can be verified about whether he was or was not with militia on either side or simply a neutral civilian.) But it is apples-to-oranges when comparing Union to Confederate since Confederate record keeping and reporting is/was problematic. There were a lot of Confederate records lost and/or destroyed. Some state records were hidden for decades after the war. But even had all the records survived there are many that would not have been reported. This was particularly true of recruiting/guerrilla/"partisan" commands that were broken up before being formally registered. For that reason there are several whole battles in Missouri where the Confederate roster and losses are largely unknown. In these instances there are some unofficial estimates, and some names of known dead. Researchers keep adding to the names and totals. Besides those who died of sickness, accident, or wounds while in service there are also those who died during the time frame while on furlough or being discharged because of wounds or chronic illness.
McPherson notes some of what I outlined above, but I don't think he appreciates the impact it had on early war figures in border areas. His commentary on Hacker includes: "I became increasingly aware that the standard estimate of 258,000 Confederate war dead was a significant undercount. Many Confederate records were lost or incomplete, especially for the last—and bloodiest—year of the war. The number of disease-related deaths of Confederate soldiers was clearly underreported. There were no reported Confederate noncombat deaths from 'miscellaneous' causes—accidents, drownings, causes not stated, et cetera—compared with nearly twenty-five thousand such deaths recorded for Union armies." Red Harvest (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Broken link reference
I'm moving this link to talk page because it is broken. It came from the section "States align".
<ref>[http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html Declaration of Causes of Secession]. Retrieved 2012-11-28.</ref>
The first paragraph mentions the number of states that seceded. Shouldn’t it also mention the number that did not, or the total number of states? Because it wasn’t out of 50. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We would count 34 including Kansas as of January 29, 1861. Propose the second sentence amended and the third sentence unchanged, read:
Alternate A. "Among the 34 states of the Union as of January 1861, seven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States, and formed the Confederate States of America, known as the “Confederacy” or the “South”. They grew to include eleven states, and although they claimed thirteen states and additional western territories, the Confederacy was never recognized by a foreign country."
Alternate B. "Among the 33 states of the Union as of November 1860, seven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States, and formed the Confederate States of America, known as the “Confederacy” or the “South”. They grew to include eleven states, and although they claimed thirteen states and additional western territories, the Confederacy was never recognized by a foreign country."
Favor Alternate A. Although South Carolina had a declaration of secession before Kansas entry, all twelve other declarations followed, and none were recognized internationally. The Confederacy was not established until after Kansas admission, and the American Civil War followed that. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Alternate A seems preferable. I'm not convinced that a change is even necessary, but the proposal is inclusive of information and matter-of-fact, rather than exclusive or open to POV complaints, so I have no problem with it. Red Harvest (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Done.Among the 34 states as of January 1861, seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, known as the "Confederacy" or the "South". --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Cotton profits
Bruce Catton alludes that the Civil War was caused by slavery and the over one hundred million dollar profits from the cotton industry that was produced by slave labor...Catton (1960) The Civil War, page 8...Should this be incorporated into the article? Profits $191,000,000 on southern cotton exports rather then the tarrif seem to be why the South suceeded from the Union...slavery was essential to these profits... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned in Origins of the American Civil War: “They [the largest slaveholders] benefited from economies of scale and needed large numbers of slaves on big plantations to produce cotton, a highly profitable labor-intensive crop.” But no objections here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
OK...I think this information would be good for the article...possibly adding to the lede...I can check to see if Catton (1960) is mentioned as a source...the South was a cotton empire and in essense that is why slavery caused the Civil War since slavery and cotton profits were dependent on each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The economics of cotton was a primary reason why the secessionists believed they could make a slave-based republic into a going concern economically after independence from the United States. --- But, also, the narrative should not lose sight of the primary aspect of the "slave society" organization is grounded in the idea of racial superiority of whites over blacks. North (societies with slaves with abolitionists) and South (slavery-based societies without abolitionists), there was legislation discriminating against free blacks in non-cotton port-city enterprises, regardless of their citizen status. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Correct, there were two major facets: economic dependence on a single high margin cash crop and a race-based caste system often referred to in terms such as the "natural order" of things. The economic aspect had at least two major components: the enormous amount of capital invested in slaves, as well as the value of the cotton based agriculture (and some other lower margin ones like hemp, sugar, and tobacco.) Red Harvest (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I added information from Catton (1960) on the cotton trade...mentioning the captital invested in slaves and the white superiority is important too...the white superiority caste system did not end with the Civil War...In terms of racism the North may have been just as racist as the South, possible exception would be Boston... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The "just as racist as the South" part is a false equivalency in light of the history. While average Northerners of the period shared many of the same prejudices and did not want free blacks competing with their own free white labor pool, they notably rejected the enslavement of blacks as a normal part of their society (enslavement is a step far beyond considering someone inferior or denying them equal citizenship.) Average Northerners were unwilling to allow the expansion of slavery into the territories, while Southerners were willing to secede and go to war over the issue. Northerners, on average not supportive of outright abolition, eventually accepted it as a war aim. And on the whole Northerners were willing to grant Constitutional equality after the war. That equality under the law was effectively rolled back soon after in the South and beyond. There are different degrees of racism involved in period aggregate behavior, rather than simply racist/non-racist categorization. Red Harvest (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree on balance with Red Harvest. There is a useful distinction in regards to degrees of racism between "slave-based societies" and "societies with slaves" even in the 1700s. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
We already have a major article on King Cotton & the prewar issue belongs only in the causes article no here, in my opinion. The CSA GAVE UP all its cotton profits in early 1861 as it cut off cotton sales to Europe. During the war itself it had an entirely different meaning as the Union profited from cotton it seized and sold. Rjensen (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed while the British Empire increased cotton plantings in India and Egypt, the Union not only seized Southern cotton stockpiles, but it re-planted cotton by freedmen in plantations among areas opened by its coastal operations to be sold to the French. Meanwhile as Southern cotton fields were converted to subsistence level foodstuffs for Rebel armies, surplus grain production in the North exploded to amply feed the Union armies, and to supply Europe during crop failures there in the early 1860s. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Racism: According to Brands (2012) Presidents in Crisis: Grant takes on the Klan the Ku Klux Klan was found as far north as far as New York City...Ohio, New Jersey, and Oregon rescinded the 14th Amendment in 1868...New Jersey and Ohio re ratified the 14th Amendment in 2003...I did not state all northerners were racist...rather racism was in the north...Boston seemed to be the only city the incorporated free blacks into society...also the north gave up on Reconstruction allowing the creation of the Solid South and the rise of Jim Crow... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Cotton Trade: I thought Catton (1960) was stating that the cotton trade relied on slave labor and the South believed would be their staple as an "independent" nation...The naval blockade by Lincoln prevented this...Lincoln's naval blockage may have taken about two months into the war to take effect... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Missouri Compromise of 1849
Admits Missouri into Union as a slave state but only on the condition that Maine be admitted as a free state. Is a big dispute due to Missouri being part of the Louisiana territory and said land wasn't allowed to have slaves. This compromise restates that any new states must be a free state so long as it is above the 36'30'N line.96.242.137.127 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome. The Talk page is a good place to begin on Wikipedia. Missouri Compromise is in 1820 before the Mexican Secession. There is also the Compromise of 1850 abolishing the Missouri Compromise, and the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857 which is of note relative to slavery in the territories becoming permissible north to the Canadian border. Although it is subject to vandalism, WP provides a useful introduction to most subjects. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Civil War defined
Why is the Civil War called the Civil War? The article does not explain this...does "civil" stand for civilian ? There really was nothing "civil" about the battles especially many having high casualties Shiloh...Gettysburg...The Wilderness...Should the term "civil war" be explained or defined in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
”Civil War” does not mean civility, it rather relates to civilians. Merriam Webster would have Civil War defined as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." [3].
The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (2005) defines Civil War in U.S. history, "refers to the war fought in the United States between northern (Union) and southern (Confederate) states from 1861 to 1865, in which the Confederacy sought to establish itself as a separate nation" [4]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks TheVirginiaHistorian...I believe that definition needs to be placed in the article...the war was really between two armies the Confederate and Union armies...I think more acurate description is the Union-Confederate War rather then Civil War... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed sentence:
The American Civil War was an ultimate struggle that determined the United States survival as a nation fought between the respected Union and Confederate armies and navies.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That seems rather POV for an encyclopedia article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It has some debatable adjectives and really doesn't add anything. Additionally, there is an implication of sterility of combat between two militaries. In reality it was fought on a much more personal level for citizens and involved much greater citizen support and sacrifice (particularly in the border states and eventually the Upper South and some of the Deep South) than a war on some far-away or neutral soil. Red Harvest (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It’s called the Civil War because it was a civil war, or a war between opposing factions in the same country (which is the meaning of “civil” here). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
POV for an article...This statement is sourced by an encyclopedia in the Overview American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection (2013) lix edited by Spencer C. Tucker ...Also these were not one town against another town these were two armies and navies battling it out for the destiny of the United States. The reader in my opinion is left with an unanswered question for the definition of Civil War... Tucker is an established historian. I would not call his work POV... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think both of us were questioning the wording, but I could be mistaken about the other person's objection. Did Spencer really use "was an ultimate struggle" (which is kind of strange phrasing open to multiple interpretations) and "respected Union and Confederate armies and navies." Respected? By whom and for what are the typical tags that result when stated this way without explanation. Did you mean "respective"?
I'm not really sure where you are going with this. To explore the matter you would need a whole paragraph explaining the definition used for a civil war (which is itself not fully agreed upon) then a discussion of what makes this qualify. Instead the approach taken by the article is that it is the most common name, and others are available in the "sectional names" Wikilink (to Names of the American Civil War) in the introduction. Red Harvest (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It was not simply “two armies and navies.” These words imply a certain amount of official organization which was often missing, and it was not uncommon for these opposing militias to have family members on either side. Also, everything Red Harvest said. The article makes the reasonable assumption that the reader understands the meaning of the term civil war, and the first use of the term (rather than the name of this war) is linked to a page with a definition: Lincoln's inaugural address declared his administration would not initiate civil war. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
My whole idea was to define the Civil War with an updated source. I don't believe there is any need to have a whole paragraph...here is Spencer's exact wording...
"The American Civil War was a struggle to determine whether the United States would survive as a nation and if so what sort of nation would it be."
I believe some or part of this sentence needs to be incorporated into the first sentence of this article...I put in "ultimate" since casualties were involved in many battles fought... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
While the quoted introductory statement is accurate, it’s not a definition by any means, and was not intended to be. Also, that is not the meaning of “ultimate,” and casualties are involved as a general rule of battle and war. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
The American Civil War, commonly referred to as the Civil War, was as a struggle between the Union and Confederate forces that ultimately determined the survival and future of the United States.Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Isn’t much of this true of many wars and other events? I think a simple definition of civil war would be better, something like:
The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war between opposing factions of the nation fought from 1861 to 1865
Probably not the best wording, but something along those lines would benefit those unaware of what the name even means. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
A combination of Cmguy777 and IP.82 might be, Alternative C:
The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was fought from 1861 to 1865 between opposing factions of the nation to determine the survival of the Union. — TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions ! I think we are getting more in line with Spencer source...
Here my revised version:
The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war fought from 1861 to 1865 between opposing factions to determine the survival and future of the United States as a nation.Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think the “survival/future of the US” bit belongs in the first sentence, personally. It still sounds a bit hyperbolic to me. (And it has nothing to do with the question of why it’s named the Civil War.) But I won’t press it if no one else feels the same. =) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue of the American Civil War really was important, but the last proposal still sounds somehow grandiose, overwrought. But just by a little — Was the future of the U.S. “determined” forevermore? No, it was only determined that it would have a future together. I suppose I object to “and future” the most, -- otherwise I think Cmguy's last is serviceable. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I can remove the word future...that would be a great compromise ! Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Modified proposal:
The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war fought from 1861 to 1865 between opposing factions to determine the survival of the United States as a nation.Cmguy777 (talk)
Without any further objection, I would say we should try it. it conveys a sense of urgency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Factions sounds awkward as I've never heard it in context of the American Civil War. -- Calidum 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
What about "governments" in place of "factions"...the Confederacy had a Constitution and representative bodies...although unrecognized by the United States Congress nor President Lincoln...yet the Confederacy was enemy territory... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the term "survival" address the why issue since the two governments were battling for supremacy and victory... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I agree with TheVirginiaHistorian’s “survival of the Union.” That’s what the Civil War was fought over: whether the Union, binding the North and South together, would survive. The “United” part of the United States. (If the North won, unity would stand; if the South won, it would not.) @Calidum: I did say it probably wasn’t the best wording (and after looking up the word, it’s clearly not). I don’t think “governments” fits either—the term means a war fought between citizens, not governments. “Opposing sides”? “Opposing forces”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
How about "opposing sectional forces"...Union versus Confederacy ? Cmguy777 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war fought from 1861 to 1865 between opposing sectional forces to determine the survival of the United States as a nation.Cmguy777 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That there were two sides is understood, we can omit “between two [opposing factions] [opposing governments]”. We are agreed the war was over survival, then the question is the object of the contest best rendered as “the Union” or “the United States as a nation”. We already refer to the United States earlier in the sentence, we might choose a variation just as a matter of style, and to give a nod to the importance of Union as the primary motivator for the North. On the other hand, the primary motivation for the South was independence for the Confederacy. That leads me to this proposal to try to define the sides in the same sentence:
The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the Union or independence for the Confederacy.’’ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I like this wording. -- Calidum 13:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I can accept this wording...survival is the key word...and this gives the reader a definition...also this identifies the sectional forces Union versus Confederacy... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I made the edit...I modified the last part of the sentence from "the Union or independence for the Confederacy" to "the survival of the United States as a nation"...I did this because the Union and Confederate States of America are linked in the following sentences... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I much prefer TVH’s version. It doesn’t make sense to use “determine” this way if you don’t give both options, and you removed the mention of what the other side was fighting for. Come to think of it, that’s what really bugged me about some of the previous proposals, that odd usage of “determine.” Spencer said the war “determined whether” the US would survive as a nation. Taking that word out of context like this makes it a little nonsensical. You can determine whether event A or B happens; you can determine whether or not a thing happens; but you cannot determine a thing happening. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: The point was that the two sides were part of the same nation, hence Civil War. That subtle definition is missing in the current opening sentence. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Poll on alternatives
In a way, we have two options, with three lining up for A during discussion and Cmguy boldly editing B. Modifying A slightly,
A.The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the Union or Confederacy independence.
B.The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the United States as a nation.
I see Cmguy’s stylistic point, the Confederacy is addressed in the following two sentences immediately following. "Determine whether" survival [or extinction] is probably understood, but of course there would have been a remnant US were there Confederate independence.
On the other hand, I had meant to balance the primary motives of both in the first sentence, then the next three sentences define “Confederacy” and “Union”. The shorter “Union” fourth sentence can be moved to second place to follow the order of “Union” and “Confederacy” in the opening sentence.
B. Spencer uses the name United States, however, one would have to add context on the Union and Confederacy prior to any potential mention... Cmguy777 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The original A (survival of the Union or independence of the Confederacy) has a stronger parallel, and its loss makes a misreading possible (survival of Union [independence, or survival of] Confederacy independence), so my vote is for the earlier A… though I still disagree with the use of “determine” in this construction. How about “over” or “about” or “for” instead of “to determine”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
A because I prefer that we introduce both sides in the lead sentence. -- Calidum 17:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Original A is posted as a trial. The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a war fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the Union or independence for the Confederacy.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The United States divided into the Union and the Confederacy...since the Union won and in 1871 under President Ulysses S. Grant all former Confederate states were brought back into the United States Reconstructed...With a Union victory...the Union ceased to exist and the United States began again...the Union of America does not exist today, rather, the United States of America...more clarification is needed...plus the Union and Confederacy are mentioned prior to their definitions... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In other words...the Union did not survive the war, rather ended, and the United States became United again... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The Union and the United States are one and the same, I thought. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
They are. The Union is perpetual, it never divided; secession is illegal, the question is settled by the American Civil War. There was a rebellion for Confederate independence, never internationally recognized; it was put down. Under Grant, states resumed representation in Congress after rebellion when Congress decided it was time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@ TheVirginiaHistorian Spencer C. Tucker (2013) American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection states "The American Civil War was a struggle to determine whether the United States would survive as a nation and if so what sort of nation would it be." There is no mention of survival of the Union, rather the United States...if the Confederacy won independence then the United States would not exist anymore...The Union won and the United States continues...The Union was the Northern States for the most part while the Confederacy was the Southern States for the most part..The United States is all the states... Cmguy777 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The Union encompasses the entire nation as conceived at the time, see Gary Gallagher’s “The Union War” p.1,6. “The loyal American citizenry fought a war for Union that also killed slavery…Union always remained the paramount goal…” Loyal citizens “routinely deployed ‘United States’, ‘the Union,’ ‘the country’, and ‘the nation’ as synonyms.”
While we are to be sourced, it is not important to directly quote entire phrases from Tucker to convey his meaning. wp:plagiarism notes, "In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material.” That encumbrance is not appropriate for the first sentence of an introduction. Union is synonymous with United States for the paraphrase here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The Union, Confederacy, and the Unites States are three seperate governments or countries and three different articles...It is not wp:plagiarism to state the words "United States" in the article since this is a noun, not an opinion...to state that Tucker (2013) actually meant the Union or Confederacy is going beyond what the source is stating in my opinion... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The government of the Union in war time was the government of the United States. They did not form a new, separate government. You’re drawing a distinction that isn’t there. If you disagree, please share a quote from that Civil War encyclopedia or some other reliable source that unambiguously states what you claim, so that we can add this rather important distinction to the article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The United States and the Union are not separate governments; places disrupted by rebellion lost representation in Congress, but they were ultimately restored by U.S. Government force of arms as the rebellion was put down to the satisfaction of Congress.
The American Heritage Dictionary has terms United States and Union used interchangeably as synonyms: "the Union, the United States: The Union defeated the Confederacy in 1865" [5]. The first sentence uses the term United States previously, it would be an awkward construction to repeat it.
While Merriam-Webster has "Union - capitalized : the federal union of states during the period of the American Civil War" [6]. In this second sense, the Union is made parallel with the Confederacy in the phrasing to determine the survival of the Union or independence for the Confederacy. — TheVirginiaHistorian — continues after insertion below
And in this sense, “Union” means “United States at this time.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Cmguy: Why would you not relent when there are three editors for using the phrase sourced with Gallagher and the American Heritage Dictionary — and your objection is met by balancing Union with Confederacy in the same opening sentence, with defining discussion immediately following? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Continued discussion I
First I am leaving your edit as is TheVirginiaHistorian...I gave Tucker source (2013) who does not use the terms Union or Confederacy, rather he uses United States...I felt I had to defend myself with the wp:plagiarism comment...Is Merriam Webster an authority on the Civil War...I don't want any edit wars...The United States was not united in the Civil War, but rather states succeeded from the United States that formed the Confederacy...the loyal states became the Union goverment...The Union government ended in 1871 when all reconstructed states were allowed representation in Congress under President Ulysses S. Grant...I know when I am out voted and I will abide by editor concensus... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
How about the rest of the encyclopedia/collection? Or the rest of Tucker’s overview? You only gave a single sentence, and it doesn’t seem to be freely available online. Does your source claim that the “Union government” ended or anything similar? Iff so, you may have a point, though I would be rather shocked if it made that distinction outside of a secessionist POV. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
But Cmguy does apply the term “loyal” to the Union, which I would like to use to edit the fourth sentence, and place it second.
Existing fourth sentence: The states that did not declare secession were known as the "Union" or the "North”.
Proposed second sentence: The states loyal to Congress were known as the “Union" or the “North”.
Union states were loyal to Congress which had certified the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln as constitutional before the Republican majorities were seated in the 37th Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. Perhaps with a small addition? The states that remained loyal… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Support As far as the length of time for the Union that would be from 1861 to 1871...I don't have a source and the Union article does not give any specific date...However the former Confederate reconstructed states were not admitted to Congress until 1871...in essense the Union was united becoming the United States again...the Union was the remnant of what the United States used to be...succession was officially over...although the Confederacy ended in 1865...All the Confederate States were reconstructed starting in 1868 allowing full civil rights to African American males...Tucker's Overview was found online... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: I was able to find the overview on Google Books, and Tucker seems to use “Union” interchangeably with other terms for the nation. What I’m asking is whether anyone (other than yourself) has explicitly claimed that the Union government began or ended with the Civil War, or that the Union government was a different thing from the government of the United States, or anything along those lines. Because your comments on this Talk page are the first I’ve ever heard of this view, and if we know where it came from, we can investigate it further and possibly amend the article. Or if you came up with it on your own, you’re certainly entitled to your views, but it would be WP:original research and we wouldn’t be able to do anything with it here. Or if it was simply a misunderstanding of language, we should see if we can address that in the article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If more is need than a link to Union, than I would say: "remained loyal to the federal government" as opposed to those who sought to uphold the confederated government. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not come up with this idea on my own...Tucker states United States in the first sentence of his overview, not the Union...The four remaining states were admitted into the Union by 1870 under President Ullysses S. Grant (Brands 2012, p 465)...That would mean the Union became united again technically the United States. Succession was over...There is no limit on the date of the Union's existence...the article does not explain this...I don't see how the Union is synonomous with the United States when the Confederacy succeeded from the United States and withdrew from Congress... Cmguy777 (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
They wanted to secede from the United States. They wanted to secede from the Union. Does this help? I’m pretty sure there is no difference between these two statements. The United States is a Union; it’s a country, a nation, formed by a union of many states, which is what makes these states united. The Union was not formed after southern states tried to secede from it, or else they’d have had nothing to secede from. It was just another word for the country those states were part of. Also, keep in mind that they never actually seceded—they were never allowed to. If that doesn’t clear things up, I’m afraid I still don’t understand where you’re coming from on this. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Cmguy: The four remaining states were admitted into the Union...That would mean the Union became united again technically the United States.
No, four remaining state delegations were reseated in the Congress, there is no act of re-admission for each as states, the seats are counted as "vacant" during the rebellion until Congress recognized elections to refill them. Technically, secession is illegal constitutionally, see Texas v. White, as is armed rebellion against the constitutionally appointed federal government --- which administers a national government over all the states in the Union by the supreme law of the land: the Constitution, Acts of Congress and treaties.
The Union was the same before, during and after the Civil War. H.W. Brands says in “The Man who saved the Union: Ulysses Grand in war and peace” Chapter 57, "the republican experiment would fail if the republic fell apart.” — it did not, the rebellion was suppressed. “Saving the Union during the war had been difficult but straightforward…Saving the Union after the war…would doubtless be more complicated." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The Reconstruction Act of 1867 nullified all previous Confederate state constitutions...in essense the former Confederate states had no state governments until new state constitutions were made...All states Reconstructed were forced to adopt the 14th Amendment put under military occupation...The Confederacy ended in 1865, but succession did not end until 1870, when all the Reconstructed states were brought back into the Union... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Texas v. White the Court only addresses the legality of succession, not the reality of succession, the Confederate states did succeed from the Union... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If someone sees something unbelievably stupid and wrong, he may say, “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.” That doesn’t mean he’s no longer on Earth. A statement of intent does not necessarily make a thing happen. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
All Southern state civil acts relating to legitimate governance such as marriage or criminal justice were acknowledged as legitimate acts of state governance. Acts related to rebellion were disavowed, such as floating bonds to finance illegal activities or resolves of secession. The reality was an illegal rebellion physically blocked the implementation of Congressional law until it was put down. When lawful activity could resume, it did by Acts of Congress.
To enter the Union of the 1789 Constitution, it took two-thirds of the states of the previous Confederacy acting together as the people, then that Confederacy Congress dissolved itself. Although proposed by Southern Senators, no Constitutional Amendment allowing secession was passed by the people of the United States, and the U.S. Congress did not dissolve itself as did the Confederation Congress in the 1780s. No source says it did, rather it prosecuted a war to restore legitimate governance throughout the Union. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Continued discussion II
No one is arguing sucession was not illegal...there were no laws as far as I know that allowed British Colonists to rebel or have a revolution in 1776...Succession was a reality...the Confederacy was a very real country to Union soldiers who died on the battlefields at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Cold Harbor...this was a real war between two opposing forces...regardless of any ruling that took place almost exactly four years after the Civil War ended...were any southerners arrested for this illegal war...there may have been a few...but most of the Confederate soldiers were paroled...Texas v White had no effect on the outcome of the war...maybe we are getting off subject...I am not suggesting any changes to the article concerning United States, Union, and the Confederacy...I repeat I am for editor consensus on this matter... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Secession (not succession) failed. The Confederate States were denied secession, and were universally denied recognition as a separate country. They fought to make their secession a reality, and failed. They tried to secede but did not succeed. As for editing the article, I think we should do our best to ensure readers aren’t confused about “Union” vs “United States” and about whether the southern states ever successfully seceded. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I can read between the lines and can detect some unnecessary hostility towards my comments done in good faith...Tucker (2013) is the one who used the term United States in his first Overview sentence, not the Union...Last I checked the Confederate Army won a few battles, not all failures, and it took the Union five years to put down the Confederacy...The reality is the Union and Confederacy fought each other in real battles regardless of whether sucession failed... Cmguy777 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is probably that the discussion has gone on and on, past its usefulness. Tucker's sentence you point to does not say that the United States and the Union are completely different things. Look at it this way: there is a union called the United States, and no one can unilaterally secede from it - a civil war was fought and determined the union of the United States survived with no secession allowed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I like the term union of the United States...In some respects I was only trying to be compliant with the three articles Confederacy, Union, and United States, all of these are seperate articles...on battle ground the Confederacy was a very real enemy for Union soldiers...for all practical purposes the Confederacy was a real although "illegal" and "unrecognized" nation probably for about three years...until Gettysburg and Grant's capture of Vicksburg that split the Confederacy in two parts... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
There was certainly a Confederate nationalism which admitted centralized policies not popular in the South either before or after the Civil War for the sake of the war effort. But, the Confederacy was not a real country to Union soldiers, they faced a rebellion had to be put down to preserve the perpetual Union; that’s what some wrote their loved ones the night before they died in battle. See Gary Gallagher (2011) The Union War and James McPherson (1988, 2003) Battle Cry of Freedom. For some years after the conflict, the American Civil War was known as The Great Rebellion in the north. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cmguy777: I bear you no hostility, and I have no doubt your comments were made in good faith. I do admit to being hostile toward any encyclopedia article that causes people to misunderstand the facts, which is why I’m suggesting editing the article to correct the misunderstandings you’ve brought to light: The Confederacy was its own nation only in the minds of Confederates—they certainly wanted to be independent of the US, to the point of killing and dying for it. But to the rest of the world, they were still part of the US, albeit a fiercely rebelling part, and that never changed. What other measure of “a real nation” is there?
As for the Union, that’s the WP:COMMONNAME used to refer to the United States during the Civil War. The opening line of that article explicitly says as much: “During the American Civil War, the Union was the term used to refer to the United States of America, …” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
My only counter is that Confederate artillary and guns were very real to Union soldiers regardless to the semantics and legalities of sucession... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I did say they fought over it. That is an indisputable fact. What is not an indisputable fact is that the Confederacy seceded and formed a new nation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Union soldiers charged rebel artillery and muskets to preserve the Union, not to conquer an alien province. The opposition was referred to as “rebels”, as in rebellion, a conspiracy to overthrow the legally constituted Government of the United States of 34 (KS), then 35 (WV), then 36 (NV) states before the end of the conflict. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems like we are talking about the American Civil War in terms of the legality of sucession...letters from Union soldiers prove otherwise...these Union soldiers were dying to end slavery that the Confederacy represented...and the Confederacy was a very real force or nation for about three years until split in two by Ulysses S. Grant at Vicksburg...no 1869 Court ruling on sucession ended the American Civil War...only hard fought battles that had thousands of casualties...we are going in circles and as has been mentioned before we are overtalking the situation...I have no more objections...the article is good as stands... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Back to the question of who fought the war. Not just soldiers, but financiers, industrialists, factory hands, housewives, nurses, MD's, farmers, RR workers, diplomats and many others played major roles. Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
It was the War of Northern Agression - period. Haresandhounds (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Except for that part where Southern aggression (note the spelling) started the whole thing, and when Southern armies invaded New Mexico, the Indian Territory, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and Indiana. Red Harvest (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Notes
I would like to request a revision as well to statements such as "The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery". The war itself being started as the "Union" wanted a strong federal government, while the "Confederates" wanted a more state run government tied loosely together in a confederation, as the United States was before the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. I firmly believe just because you can site a source it doesn't necessarily mean the source is correct, and that generally history is written by the victor through their eyes. I believe if I wanted the generally accepted history I would dig out my high school history book
Zhoffman0308 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)zhoffman
This is discussed and explained quite well in the FAQ at the top of this page. Here on Wikipedia we not only look at sources, but we also look at the preponderance of sources, which in this case doesn't agree with User:Zhoffman0308's assessment. Based on my reading of many sources, it is unmistakably true that one of the major effects of the war was to strengthen the U.S. federal government. It is likewise true that before and during the war many Confederates wanted a central government much more akin to the Articles of Confederation. It could be reasonably argued (and many sources do) that the more decentralized form of government didn't serve the wartime CSA as effectively as the Union's tighter federal system seemed to do during the conflict. However (again based on the preponderance of sourcing available to wikpedians), during the secession winter of 1861, southern states were attempting to withdraw from the Union because they were concerned that the newly elected president from Illinois was going to prevent the spread of, and eventually end the practice of, slavery in the U.S. BusterD (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This is already covered in the article with the quote of McPherson: "While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states'-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, states' rights for what purpose? States' rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle." The efforts by Southern interests to weaken the Federal govt. were all centered on protection of slavery. Historians have also noted that Southerners were very selective in their interpretation of states' rights, having no problem in restricting the rights of other states in the defense of slavery (see Fugitive Slave laws.) The "history is written by the victor" line ignores the prolific rendition of revisionist Southern history known as the Lost Cause. Red Harvest (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with BusterD and Red Harvest. And Emory Thomas argues in “The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865”, that to achieve independence for a slavery-based republic, Southerners gave up states rights to allow Jefferson Davis more centralized control during the war (over imports, exports, planting and manufacturing) --- than was acceptable to them either before the war or after it. Even so, some scholars claim the Confederacy "died of States Rights" because of jealously guarded state militia units restricted to in-state service. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
So because of people like you I will no longer use Wikipedia as a credible source. All of these things are true, but in the article it sounds as if the entire war was about slavery, and this is common knowledge. I don't come here for knowledge. I can get in the discount book section of a thrift store. I would be content to have both sides in the article, but the unrelenting bias of Wikipedia authors ruin the credibility of it. I feel like when I research stuff on Wikipedia I shouldn't feel as if I am reading peoples opinions. I just am saying shouldn't both sides be in it?
ps. I believe slavery to be an abomination, and despicable, but feel as if the greater meaning of the most impactful war in American history is being overshadowed. If I have to, would you like me to dig up my own reference for these statements? I understand I am probably talking to a brick wall though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoffman0308 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If you read the article you will find that the other aspects are discussed: see the sections on states' rights, sectionalism, and protectionism. The problem isn't with the article's rendering, the problem is your proposal that it should be written to support what you (or any other editor) "believe" vs. what the mainstream consensus historians have reached. That's not the way encyclopedias work. Red Harvest (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The above post by RedHarvest is just a cop-out to preserve Wikipedia's biased "encyclopedia". An encyclopedia is supposed to present facts, not the opinions of a bunch of closed minded editors who refuse to allow both sides of a topic to be presented. The nonsense of "mainstream" historians" is another smokescreen. There are plenty of "mainstream" historians that subscribe to the state sovereignty rationale, but RedHarvest and the other promoters of lies don't agree with them, so they are suppressed. Wikipedia is a joke.Haresandhounds (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh really? Then you should be able to list these modern mainstream historians and provide appropriate citations. The fact is (since you are confusing fact with your personal opinion) is that the old Lost Cause/States Rights hogwash has been discredited and is now only a fringe view, although one shared by vocal and often very confused individuals. Red Harvest (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As this article is focused on the actual events of the American Civil War, rather than the historiography surrounding it, there is an important distinction between what the Confederate actors said at the time of secession resolutions and what they said after defeat. States rights was mentioned as the states rights to slavery.
Only AFTER the war did Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens place states rights at the center of secession in a “Lost Cause” account rewriting history, because they recognized that their descendants, like the rest of the western world, would believe slavery to be “an abomination”.
Those who sustained the Union also ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments concerning slavery and the states rights to it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest adding a link to the Infantry in the Civil War article in the links page at the bottom, as it remains currently unlinked to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.117.240.161 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Length of the article
Isn't the balance between Causes, The War and the Consequences too much on the first and last parts? Lutie (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Determine the survival of the Union
The war was not fought to "determine the survival of the Union" the Union would have survived even if the Confederate states had left it. The war was to fought to "maintain the integrity of the territory of the Union". -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You must find a source for your assertion. We have in Gary Gallagher's "The Union War", p. 6. "Continuity marked loyal citizens' opinions and attitudes between 1860 and the early postwar decades. They routinely deployed "United States", "the Union," "the country," and "the nation" as synonymous. As one contemporary poster had it on election day, 1864, "To-day is to be decided whether this Nation lives, or dies at the hands of traitors!." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If someone is mixing up state, country and nation, then to draw the inference "determine the survival of the Union" is OR as one could just as easily write "determine the survival of the country" or "determine the survival of the nation". To use the term "Union" is to imply state and while the country (territory of the state) was under threat the state was not. To give a contemporary example: if Scotland had left the Union as a result of a yes vote last year, then the residual union consisting of the countries England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the nations of English Welsh (and a rump of the Irish) would still of existed as the successor state to the current one), what would have changed would have been the "integrity of the territory of the Union". The current wording in this article states that the state known as the United States would have ceased to exist on loosing the war. That is one possible outcome but no one that was contemplated by many people. Indeed if the southern States had seceded from the Union it would probably have strengthen the Federal government's position within the rump of the Union (perceived outside thereat and all that). However that is speculation and does not alter the fact that the war was not fought to "determine the survival of the Union". Do you have any source written by a scholar in the last 100 years that suggests that the outcome of a Confederate States victory would have lead to the dissolution of the Union and the end of that sovereign state? -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. "Determine the survival of the Union" is sourced to Spencer C. Tucker (2013) American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection, see the "Civil War defined" discussion on this page above. If you would like to change an article narrative, you must provide some reference. You have a logical point which is semantically correct in the abstract, but historically irrelevant. You must provide a source.
You have merely contradicted me without supporting evidence from the scholarship in the field of study, in this case, the American Civil War. The article reflects the mainstream scholarship represented by the Gallagher quote, and what the historical actors believed themselves to be doing.
Please find a source to quote which claims the Union forces were not fighting for the survival of the entire country as it existed before the rebellion broke out. Then we will have the matter of the preponderance of scholarship to sort out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It was not merely a fight for territorial integrity. Many saw it as an existential threat to the United States as a whole. Lincoln referenced that sentiment in his Gettysburg Address with the line "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Red Harvest (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
PBS is right in a way that the war treated the Union as the antebellum whole, not of the union of the northern states.Lutie (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Empty request... — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 03:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
