Talk:South Carolina in the American Civil War

POV

The article, as is, contains no original research, is not cited with any verifiable sources and contains many loaded words. It should be entirely rewritten before the POV tag is removed, which is exactly what I plan on doing in the next few days. Hope you can contribute. -John_C

Agreed completely, it is considerably biased. - Anonymous

POV ("Relatively free from Union occupation")

I question the article's statement that "Relatively free from Union occupation until the very end of the war" South Carolina was a strategic base of operations for virtually the entire war. The Battle of Port Royal resulted in a Union victory early in the civil war (November, 1861) For the next four years, Beaufort, SC was the headquarters of the Union's South Atlantic Naval Blockade Squadron and the Union Army headquartered it's Department of the South on Hilton Head, SC. More than 50,000 Union Army troops were stationed there. Multiple amphibious raids on coastal ares of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida were launched from these locations. --Charles B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.42.238 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about that for the most part, although I doubt it is a POV problem and more a matter of poor wording (later in the article better wording is used.) The early occupation of the Sea Islands was a critical part of the U.S. naval blockade and put pressure on the east coast of the Confederacy, forcing the movement of slave labor inland and requiring the rework of the whole defensive scheme. There is a lot missing from this article at present, including the operations against Charleston (and bombardment) as well as any substantial coverage of Sherman's Carolina's Campaign.

On the other hand, most of the state was free of Union occupation and unlike border states the interior didn't become a battleground until 1865--by which time there was little real opposition. As a result most of the actual actions were small in terms of field forces engaged. Red Harvest (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It appears admin User:BD2412 tagged the Republic of South Carolina page for merge today with no discussion started, so I'll take the liberty of advocating the proposed merge.

• Merge to this pagespace. Subject is a content fork of South Carolina in the American Civil War. I'll concede this merge candidate has been around longer than the merge target, but we now have a fair (perhaps complete) body of these "Statename in the ACW" pages and it seems (by common usage) the proper namespace. BusterD (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The "Republic of" name is not sourced. This one will be a little more challenging as a merge because it actually has some sourced material that should be transferred into this target page. The current SC in the ACW page is surprisingly short so this merge won't make it overly lengthy. Red Harvest (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge as proposed. The topics cover the same ground. bd2412 T 13:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Merge here: Per Red Harvest. Otr500 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Whether or not the merge is approved, expansion of the SC secession timeline is desirable for this article. Therefore, I've taken a first pass at creating a secession section for SC in the ACW. This includes most of the references and cites from the "Republic" article, but with more details specific to South Carolina's legislative actions/timeline. Please edit as needed. Red Harvest (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Red Harvest, fancy meeting you here. I ran across this looking at the leads (and other areas) of other "Statename in the ACW" articles for consistency and improvement discussions forthcoming at Texas in the American Civil War

"Republic of South Carolina" article for deletion discussion

In addition to the merger discussion above, there is also an active article for deletion discussion for Republic of South Carolina at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of South Carolina Red Harvest (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I made comments there concerning dual AFD and merge requests on-going at the same time. Otr500 (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Republic of" infobox

There are several problems with addition of this infobox. The most serious is that it is unsourced original research. There was a whole series of these articles with infoboxes. The articles have been deleted and/or merged/redirected after discussions on each page since they consisted of speculative original research rather than reliable secondary sources. (The AfD for this one can be found at [1].) The infoboxes were full of original research, were unneeded, and in some way duplications., As such the "Republic of" infoboxes are not helpful to the reader. But now we get to play whack-a-mole as people keep trying to insert their favorite eye candy from articles that never should have been created in the first place. Time for a bigger hammer. Red Harvest (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll confess I was pointed toward this issue by Red Harvest, as that user and myself had been part of the deletion and merge discussions surrounding these subjects. So this may sound like canvassing, but I don't consider it so. On the merits, this infobox is excessive detail, IMHO, and the republic it represents doesn't garner significant enough coverage to warrant its own infobox. BusterD (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a removal of the "Palmetto Republic" description as it is sourced properly. The important distinction is that while South Carolina was a de facto republic for the brief time before the Confederacy was formed, it did not adopt a new official name or refer to itself as the "Republic of South Carolina." That is why the page is gone and the infobox from it should remain vanquished as well. There is nothing in that infobox that is worth having that isn't already in the infobox above it--the duplication of material under a fictitious name is really silly. Red Harvest (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)