Talk:American Civil War

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 February 2008 - June 2008

The Lost Cause and origins of the war

For those who think slavery had nothing to do with causes of the War, see the declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials made by the original secessionists at: Causes of the Civil War.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the moral idea and principle of slavery, as in the owning of another human being, was not the cause of the war. Slavery was tied to the reasons (economy, states rights), but the country did not split on the debate of whether it was right or wrong. The "reasons" section should show this instead of taking a slight feel of downtalking the idea that it wasn't slavery that caused the war. Southerners didn't own slaves because they were twisted, they owned slaves because it was a 100% profit for a lot of hard work. 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Moral and political objections were not limited to abolitionists and Radical Republicans. Many moderate Republicans also had such objections. The article mentions moral, political and economic objections to slavery, and all three did exist.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Civil War document

No doubt the document is locked because there are errors of omission and incorrect information favorable to specific groups of history revisionists.

For example, the Emancipation Proclamation outlawed slavery only in territory that Neither President Lincoln or the Union controlled. Yet, NO slaves in the Union states were released by the Proclamation. The southern states and territories were specifically listed in the document.

And, The War was not fought over slavery! It was fought over double taxation on souther cotton and returning goods along with other eroding constitutional rights of the states as outlined in The Constitution.

And, NO southern ship hauled any slave to the USA for sale. Only ships owned and operated by northern state residents sailed to Africa, bought slaves from black tribal chiefs and hauled them back to America and sold them.

Finally, there were black slave owners in norther states who owned slaves and contracted them out to households and businesses during the day and fed and housed them at night.

How does the revisionists history writers square the northern riots against blacks after The War because they were taking their jobs?

And, there is much more revisionist writers refuse to research, write about and tell the full truth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Barrs (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with your various falsehoods one by one.

And, The War was not fought over slavery! You ignore, like most do, WHY tariffs and other trade arrangements that discriminated against the export of unfinished goods was so anathema to the South. Because its whole entire economy was reliant upon the cheap production of staple, unrefined good by using chattel slavery. The tariffs wouldn't have mattered if the South's economy wasn't constructed the way it was. So yes, slavery, as the cornerstone of their economic system, WAS the cause of the war.

For example, the Emancipation Proclamation outlawed slavery only in territory True, but most people who say this are missing the larger point; Lincoln's war powers didn't extend to states that weren't in rebellion. As it was, most states in the north had banned slavery, and most of the border states had either minuscule populations, or were on their way to banning it.

Finally, there were black slave owners in norther states who owned slaves and contracted them out to households and businesses during the day and fed and housed them at night. Well presuming that they were in a state where slavery was legal, most black slave owners owned their families or purchased fellow slaves in order to wrest them from . It was notoriously hard in many Southern states to grant manumission, and in some, manumission had been totally banned. The only way for a free black who happened to be manumitted to retrieve his family was to pay for it.

That said,there WERE black slave owners, here, and even in Haiti, that exploited their fellow blacks. I can't think of any ethnicity that doesn't have some sort of hierarchical relationship within it. But their prescence was bordering on statistically irrelevant. It also doesn't absolve white people of slavery that a handful of blacks also engaged in it; many racially tinged purges, genocides, and enslavements have been assisted by "helpful" or "good" members of a targeted ethnicity. The fact, for instance, that kapos existed in Nazi concentration camps doesn't absolve the Germans of their crimes.

And, NO southern ship hauled any slave This is blatantly untrue, and can be proven by something as simple as consulting statistics on slave importation and seeing who did so. While I don't have it on hand, I can refer you to "Final Victims" by that documents the last 20 years of the Atlantic slave trade before it was finally banned. I can assure that slave traders can from all over the Eastern seaboard, and dealt in significant quantities. Charleston alone imported 91,000 slaves alone from 1706 to 1775. And it was the BUSIEST port by far. (source: Slave Sales in Colonial Charleston Kenneth Morgan The English Historical Review, Vol. 113, No. 453 (Sep., 1998), pp. 905-927).

"How does the revisionists history writers square the northern riots against blacks after The War because they were taking their jobs?" The same way they square the systematic violence and discrimination of blacks in the South; racism was ever present everywhere in America, both, north, south, east and west. What the north did have, though they had prejudiced racist views, was a hatred towards slavery, for a variety of reasons, from religious to economic to social. Again the fact that the North wasn;t a bastion of racial enlightenment doesn't get the South off the hook.

Your assertions and ridiculous statements are blown apart by people who have actually done research, and by the me, and others who have written and edited articles on the civil war. Now, if you don't mind, have actual research and writing to be done on other civil war articles. SiberioS (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You may want to dig a little deeper when you go back to your research. Look beyond your high school texts. The "Civil War" has been taught from a northern perspective since the war ended.

It kind of reminds me of the end of the Super Bowl. All the reporters rush up to the winning team and get their story. Then, they kick it over to the other team for a couple of minutes and then back to the winners for more of their story.

Ask yourself this question when you are doing your "research". Why would the "civil war" be fought over a single issue (slavery) when the majority of southerners did not own slaves? There must of been other reasons.

It's true that most Southerners owned no slaves. So why would the poor fight for the rich? Because plantation owners went out of their way to win the support of poor Southerners by (sometimes) lending the use of their cotton gins, lending money and encouraging regional and racial solidarity among Southern whites. Poor Southerners were told that slavery created social equality among Southern whites. Also, fears of racial equality were greater in the South because 95% of blacks lived in the South.

Also, high school history books were written from the Southern point of view for many years, and some still are.

Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have, actually, looked "beyond" highschool textbooks. I have in fact, read dozens of books, from scholarly sources, about slavery and the American Civil War. I have read dozens of journal articles. I was the person who mostly rewrote the Military history of African American's in the U.S. Civil War, and also rewrote completely Confederate railroads in the American Civil War, as well as doing significant rewrites of Economy of the Confederate States of America. My record, as indicated by the reference lists in those articles, stands for itself. I already responded to your ridiculous assertions, and I don't feel inclined to give them anymore of my time. SiberioS (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did not respond to my assertions I did not write the top article. High School text are not written from the Southern point of view. I cannot believe you just wrote that. You have got to be kidding. Where did you go to high school?It must not have been on this planet. If high school texts were written from the Southern point of view, why is ther no mention of Black Confederate troops, Native American Confederate troops, Hispanic Confederate troops, Jewish Cionfederate troops? The lack of fair teachings of this war has led to ignorance both North and South to this day. For example, people see a Confederate battle flag and think KKK and hate when the majority of people displaying the flag can't stand groups like the KKK. We need to teach both sides fairly and honor both sides and all people involved in the war regardless of race, religion etc. need to be honored as well.

Your statement of poor Southerners being told that slavery created social equality holds little reason poor Southerners would fight for the Confederacy. Many poor Southerners did not care one way or the other about slavery. Most Southerners fought for their state and their home. That's all they had.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.146.218 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it holds a great reason why. Most people who didn't own slaves were either petit-bougeroise (such as doctors, lawyers, and other professionals) who aided its working, or were yeoman farmers whom provided the food stuff and other crop essentials necessary to running a large plantation that is dedicated to unedible cash crops. Even what industry there was in the South was characterized by the use of industrial slavery and bonded slaves from local plantations. Point is, without a system of chattel slavery the whole entire system that funded both plantation owner and small farmer alike would come collapsing down with the unleashing of millions of african american's into the free labor force and the possibility of new farm competition.

And considering I wrote the article that describes the discussion over possibly allowing blacks into Confederate ranks, yes, I DO know about them. And hardly any of them were raised before the collapse of the Confederacy, and as it was, it still required manumission from slave owners. A slave couldn't just freely join. As for all the other ethnicities you've listed, again, the things that differentiates them from their northern equivalents is their opinion on slavery. Slave holding Indian tribes generally sided with the Confederacy and Cuban's sought to aid the Confederacy because of their own fears about the end of slavery in their own country.

So yes, I HAVE answered your assertions, here, and in the articles themselves. Until you provide actual scholarly sources that assert (and don't go mining for internet quotes) that the economy and political system of the South was not reliant upon chattel slavery, all the articles as they are. SiberioS (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean troops like this one?

Sf46 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Again not taught in school. Would be great to teach to combat organizations such as the KKK and neo nazis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.165.33 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres actually a great book put out by the Unviersity of South Carolina Press called The Jewish Confederates by Robert Rosen. Its a good analysis of their position, status, and ideological affinity during the Civil War. Like all things, its more nuanced than most people realize. SiberioS (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Civil war nd Darfur

I'm wondering whether u consider Lincoln as the new bachir, of sudan? it's a rebellion there also? --Stayfi (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

commanders

why there only 2 for each side?--Jakezing (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly for ease of reading, I suspect. The top commander is the elected President of each side, while the bottom is the primary military leader of the army for each side. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

and yet ignores all those other ones we had, and they, had.--Jakezing (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Star of The West

I'm not sure how this figures in, but there are some claims that the first shots of the Civil War were not the bombardment of Fort Sumter, but the firing on the Star of The West by Citadel Cadets on Jan. 9, 1861. The ships failed attempt to reach Fort Sumter is mentioned in this wiki, but I think the importance of it being fired on prior to the April attack on Fort Sumpter is not properly stated. --205.242.12.130 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Reason for the war (main?)

I read that the civil war was more about handing more power to the federal government than to the states. The fight from a confederate form of government (state sovereignty) to a central government with state power being the lesser. Also that slavery was just used as a promotional tool to gain favor for the federal movement.

My question is: does this have any truth to it? I did not read the whole civil war wikipedia entry as I figured it would be stated as a secondary warrant for the civil war. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.64.129 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The same people who organized secession demanded a Federal slave code for the territories (indeed, they split from the Democratic party rather than nominate Stephen Douglas because he opposed one); they had demanded and enforced Federal legislation on fugitive slaves. That is not a pristine states' right position; as often, questions of constitutional authority only became political issues when they covered a substantive economic interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a general believer that a materialist outlook, more often than not (though with notable exceptions) explains the impulses of individuals as far as their political positions go. I think this is why so many Lost Cause supporters have a problem with the North detesting slavery without necessarily being a beacon of racial integration and harmony; they fail to see the clear economic basis for the disdain of slavery, both from Northern industrialists (who feared slave competition) as well as from working class roots (many early trade and craft unions viewed an emboldened slave power as a writing on the wall for themselves; many feared that enslavement of white industrial workers was not far behind) that had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a person individually liked or disliked African American's as a social group.

In the Confederacy, as I explained above, this concern over economic status is reflected not in class divisions (which were already apparent in the industrial North) but in racial groups. Similar to many other secessionist and nationalist movements, the unit to be promoted is a pan-whatever group (be it pan-white, pan-Arab, pan-African etc), that overlooks or argues away class differences in place of a larger group solidarity. It is also these class antagonisms that often lead to a collapse in such a movement. SiberioS (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

I think the casaulties section may be somewhat erroneous. The North and South, militarily, suffered relatively similar losses, but the South was occupied and convincingly devastated by the Northern Armies, whereas the North was somewhat untouched, apart from Early and Lee's incursions. As such, the total casualty figure seems unlikely to have been 360,000 on the Northern side compared to a mere 258,000 on the Southern side, unless you exclude civilian deaths. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too hung up on the number of dead as a metric for several reasons. First, disease was the worst enemy for both; it killed with less discretion and was primarily a function of numbers (larger army means more succumbing to disease.) Second, CSA reporting of casualties was rather spotty compared to the Union. And in some theaters there were many lost who were never recorded (see the battles in Missouri and Arkansas for example.) I've seen various acknowledgment by historians that the CSA wounded were greatly underreported. Despite this, in the end KIA are approximately equivalent. In various areas of the border states Unionist civilians suffered as much as their Southern counterparts as the result of campaigns by both armies and guerrillas. Even the most famous examples of devastation by northern armies (Atlanta, the Shenandoah) were aimed at property, not civilian lives (something that is largely misunderstood or misrepresented in popular culture.) Red Harvest (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Union territories that permitted slavery

In the map of the US that shows the different colors of states and territories where slavery was permitted during the war by the Union, I believe it is leaving out New Orleans, Louisiana and surrounding parishes which were permitted to maintain slavery and were firmly occupied by the Federals throughout the war.24.105.236.66 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article?

In the introduction to the article titled "American civil war" it states, “In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union”. This implies that the southern states seceded due to the intent of the north to free the slaves. This may be inaccurate, I quote Lincoln’s first inaugural address of March 1861, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so” (cited in Zinn 2003). Lincoln and the Republican Party did campaign against legal slavery in new states but at the cost of the fugitive slave laws in which runaway slaves escaping to the north could be detained and returned to their masters. In Abraham Lincolns 1858 campaign for the senate he gave two public speeches in northern and southern Illinois. In the first he talks of equality and unity of man. In the second he is against votes for the black man, interracial marriage and social equality, he comments on the superiority of the white race and the necessity of slavery. This suggests that his primary interest was in furthering his political career rather than abolition of slavery.

Further to this a resolution passed in congress in 1861 after the start of the war stated, “this war is not waged…for any purpose of…overthrowing or interfering with the rights of established institutions of those states, but…to preserve the union”(cited in Zinn 2003). Lincoln and the union made it clear that they had no intention of ending slavery.

There were gradual moves toward ending slavery after the war started but they were small and motivated primarily toward winning the war. The Confiscation act was the first such act stating slaves that choose to fight for the union would be freed; this was largely ignored by the union generals. When this was commented on by Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune Lincoln's reply stated “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.”(cited in Zinn 2003). This initial introduction makes no mention of the actual reason for the south’s secession and the start of the war. Mainly differences in economic policy and interests, slavery merely a side issue at best.

The introduction of the article also states “In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal”. The emancipation proclamation was issued in January 1863, promising freedom to the slaves of the confederate states, the union states that maintained slavery were left out of the proclamation. The end of slavery was bought about in January 1865, four years after the start of the war. This in part due to the despite situation the union was in and political pressure from abolitionists.

This is just the introduction, the theme of the abolition of slavery as the root cause of war continues throughout, the evidence provided seems largely circumstantial. I suggest that in this one respect this article is bias and misleading. The civil war ultimately ended legal slavery in the United States, this is undeniable. The point is that the true hero’s behind the abolition of slavery are totally ignored and the cause of the war is falsely made out to be simply due to differences in opinion on policy toward slavery.

Bibliography H, Zinn(2003)A peoples History of the United States - Volume 2. Published by The New Press, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humannumber2587495748 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Slavery was not a "side issue", and your argument that it was about "economic differences" hides the reason why there WERE economic differences. Namely, that one half of the country ran off of chattel slavery that allowed for the growing of large amounts of inedible cash crops, and the other half ran off "Free labor". Even the tariff, which hurt the marketability of raw crops abroad, was only relevant because of the way the South ran its economy. There is no doubt that the South could not have the "economic issues" it had without chattel slavery.

But this is no here no there. We've gone through these same issues a million times before in this article's discussion page, and were not going through it again. While I myself would like to see the focus put more on the pressure groups and abolitionists who forced Lincoln's hand on the issue, which would serve to shift the article away from the kind of "Great Men of History" mold that it has, as it stands the article is mostly correct. And it is certainly correct when it comes to the assessment of the Civil War being about slavery. SiberioS (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Siberio, I gotta say once again that your statement "...And it is certainly correct when it comes to the assessment of the Civil War being about slavery" is correct from a politically correct revisionist historian point of view, but from reality it's a pipe dream. Just my two cents. Sf46 (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Secessionists complained quite a bit about Lincoln's House Divided speech.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sf46 repeats the common Southern revisionist/apologist tactic of casting everyone but his own narrow POV as "politically correct revisionist historian(s)." Unfortunately, reality is the reverse of what he contends. And if one reads what Southerners were saying in 1860 and 1861 versus their revisions in 1866 it becomes apparent where the real warping of reality has occurred: Southern revisionist history. I made note of this today while considering a captured flag emblazoned with "Southern Rights"...not "States Rights". It was carried by Missourians against Missourians in 1861. It could have said, "Missouri Rights" casting the issue as one of Missouri vs. the Federal govt. (although the men they opposed were every bit as local as them and weren't in Federal service.) Tariffs were not at issue that far north, so that left slavery as the bone of contention. What afterall was the defining characteristic of Southern culture that set it apart from others in the nation at the time? Slavery. Red Harvest (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll care about your "Two cents" when you contribute more than two bytes to any actual article. My contribution history speaks for itself; almost the totality of Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War, a complete rewrite of Confederate railroads in the American Civil War, significant, albeit uncompleted revisions, of Economy of the Confederate States of America, as well as smaller revisions of bits and pieces of the Confederate States of America article. Despite caterwauling from Sf46, and a cadre of other people, none of them have edited significantly any Civil War article. The proportion of talk on discussion pages far outweights any actual editing in articles. SiberioS (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was about power, and because slavery could be morally argued that, in the end, is what they latched on to so that emotions could be brought into such an important argument. Don't be fooled into believing that the entire civil war was started because northerners thought it was cruel and unusual to own other humans. Political agendas have never operated that way. 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a line drawn from slavery as the method of power and economical growth and slavery the idea. The primary purposes WERE economy and power, and slaves were used to make those gains in the south. They could have shut down cotton and tobacco exports but that wouldn't make any sense. This was not a crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Siberio may be a bit biased when it comes to African Americans and therefore would like the Civil War to be seen as some trophy to the black community (it was a huge step for them, but come on). I know you'd like to make the Civil War into some epiphany that the government had about treating blacks cruel, but the time periods after the Civil War show that treating minorities in any way but crap was the way to go, and that includes the north. Read The Jungle and you tell me if the north was some Civil Rights hubub. Also, trying to claim that you've added a bunch of information to Wikipedia means that you have a ridiculous amount of free time on your hands, not that you are a professional on the topic. I'd take that guys two cents over yours any day because caring enough to add something, but only having time to add two bytes means you have a job. 97.115.226.118 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have a job AND I'm going to school to get my MSW AND I also volunteer at a free clinic on the side. So yes, actually, my schedule is extremely busy, which is one of the reasons why I haven't updated more in recent months. But even if that wasn't true, I still wouldn't have to answer to some drive by anonymous commenter whose best criticism is that anything on Wikipedia is wrong because its written by people with too much "Free time", and therefore nothing on it can be right. Brilliance! SiberioS (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, another attack by an anonymous poster with Southern revisionist agenda. The mixed motives of the North boil down to an "average" in that they had no interest in allowing the expansion of slavery. (Some for moral/religious reasons, some for economic, some for political reasons, etc.) Many Southern revisionists seem to have the horribly misguided idea that one side must be painted as villain and the other as hero based upon today's morals. This is the trap that they almost universally fall into. The routine works as follows: 1. Slavery is bad (today's morality). 2. Therefore, Southerners and their leaders would not have gone to war to protect such an evil. 3. Therefore it must be money grubbers/etc. in the North trying to create a colonial South that instigated a war and/or it was a noble argument over vague States Rights vs. Federal authority. This then results in focusing their venom on the North under the misguided premises (often conflicting with one another)--anything to ignore the elephant in the living room. If one actually reads why Southerners themselves proposed leaving the United States (and with force) in the lead up to war, then you would be far less confused. Instead, you've fallen for post war spin. Red Harvest (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original post in this section: There are some massive errors of fact in that post such as "The emancipation proclamation was issued in January 1863". Sorry to disappoint but that was when it became effective, not when it was issued. Throughout the errant post we see the traditional Southern revisionist themes: Pay no mind to what Southern interests were professing and agitating for. Instead, try to refute the war was over slavery by looking at the North and its leaders. Unfortunately for that line of reasoning, the North did NOT go to war to end slavery (and that is not what mainstream folks are contending happened) so you are taking shots at a target that doesn't exist to make a point that is not relevant. The North didn't instigate the war, the South did--look at the timelines and actions and it is readily apparent, just as stated in the article. There was war because the North did not back down completely about the matter of United States authority in the face of Southern ultimatums. Look to the South for an explanation of why it's leadership chose secession and war, they readily explained it at the time. Red Harvest (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the emancipation proclamation became effective in January 1863 is totally irrelivant to the argument. My argument is that the article in question suggests that the root cause of the war was the abolition of slavery. THIS is erroneous and undeniable, please state some evidence that the war aims were to end slavery all other arguments are totally irrellivant. As all people know even after the war black peoples were more or less reduced to slavery for the next 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.158.16 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the article says or suggests. You are continuing the same flawed strawman argument that gets repeated ad nauseum. Abolition was not the primary war aim of the North and the article does not suggest that it was. The article in fact quotes Southern leaders with regard to their reasoning and in summary it is one of slave rights and feared or suspected impositions on the right to keep slaves and advance slavery into other states and territories. The South did fear eventual abolition. The secession crisis arose from Lincoln's stated intent to prevent slavery in the territories. My suggestion is to reread the article. Red Harvest (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Games ? Why Games ?

Why are Civil War Games listed in this article ? What's fun about 600,000 to 900,000 deaths ? Should we include G.I.Joe Dolls on the WW2 Article ?Bill Ladd (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti War Riots

dont we need to add info on anti war movements and riots ? Articles exist under different names including the NY Draft Riots.Bill Ladd (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhic Victory?

Shouldn't the Civil War be considered a Union Pyrrhic Victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Pyrrhic victories are used to describe battles, not wars, for a Pyrrhic victory is a victory won at such a cost that it affects future battles and campaigns in a negative way. A war can not be a Pyrrhic victory by the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory. There were certainly many Pyrrhic victories for the Union during the war, but the war itself was not a Pyrrhic victory. Even if that term could be used, I'm not sure that this would fit into the definition. A Pyrrhic victory has to be more than just losing more than the defeated. It has to affect, if we think about in terms of a Pyrrhic victory of a war, it's future wars in a negative away. Either way, the term doesn't apply here.ShaneMarsh (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Forgive the spelling corrections above. I just can't help myself.) Perhaps you meant Confederate Pyrrhic victories. Since the Union handily won the war, no victorious battle could be accompanied by such a serious loss that it posed a threat to the eventual outcome. The Confederates -- Robert E. Lee's Army in particular -- won a number of tactical victories that cost disproportionately large casualties on their side, losses that could not be borne over a long war. Every once in a while some editor attempts to put the adjective Pyrrhic on the battle summary in the information box for a Civil War battle, but since there were so many of these it really dilutes the meaning of the term, so we don't use it on any of the battles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I meant Union. ;) A Phyrrhic victory can also stall a campaign, and the Union had multiple battles like that.ShaneMarsh (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Civil War

Hello, I have a question if everyone doesnt mind. I have heard and read a great deal about a "second civil war" in america if Barack Obama is elected, I am not from this country originally (I am an exchange student studying at university) and I was wondering if these comments are serious--will there actually be some sort of strifeafter this election. I am sure these comments are being made tongue-in-cheek, so to say, but I am from a part of the world where civil wars really do break out as a result of elections. Thanks for your help. --130.108.197.145 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Very unlikely, realistically speaking.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. The country was much more divided in 2004 when it comes to politics and the choices given. I haven't heard from any real people about so much as a chance of anything that severe happening.ShaneMarsh (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the lede too long?

At five paragraphs I think the intro could be a bit tighter. Would anyone object if the two paragraphs describing the war were shortened to one paragraph as follows:

Hostilities began on April 12 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states. The Union assumed control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, which complicated the Confederacy's manpower shortage. Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won a series of victories over Union armies, but Lee's loss at Gettysburg in July 1863 proved the turning point. In 1864 Ulysses S. Grant fought battles of attrition against Lee that ended with the Siege of Petersburg. Union general William Sherman captured Atlanta, Georgia, and began his March to the Sea, devastating a hundred-mile-wide swath of Georgia. Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is too long. Your changes look good, generally. I'd include splitting the CSA via capture of the Mississippi. The overall relevance of Petersburg is not apparent - I would not have included it. --JimWae (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A worthy goal. There are also several points carried over from the prior article that might be improved. Here are some changes to consider (italicized), adding back in Vicksburg (for East/West balance):

The Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, exacerbating the Confederacy's manpower shortage. Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won a series of victories over Union armies, but Lee's loss at Gettysburg as well as the fall of Vicksburg in July 1863 proved to be turning points. Red Harvest (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Good points.71.225.223.174 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)