Talk:American Civil War

Bleeding Kansas, NOT Ft. Sumter!

It is quite clear that the Ft. Sumter demarcation as beginning of the conflict is absolutely incorrect and Union ex-post facto propaganda of triumphalism, like when Henry VII of England declared Richard III of England to have been the villainous traitor, even though Richard was technically the only one with the Crown, regardless of merit, on the day leading up until his death, Henry only being crowned on the battlefield afterwards, after which Henry edited the date of his rule to the day before. The point is, the War Between the States began as a private and sectional affair. The rabble rousing butchery by abolitionist murderers like John Brown in Kansas, against Federal law in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, was the very beginning of the War and the organized Southern response was the assault on Ft. Sumter, after the assault on one of the Northern Congressmen (Sumner) by a Southron (Brooks) during a session of Congress. Kansas is conveniently trivialized by the majority of Union apologists, even though the sequence of compromises over the decades between North and South was the order of the day, whether right or wrong. From Mason-Dixon to Ohio River, to Missouri-Iowa, to Kansas-Nebraska, to Arizona-New Mexico. Delaware was a boundary dispute between the proprietors of Maryland and Pennsylvania, then moving westwards, Virginia was split in half, Kentucky was internally divided (between the Northwest and Southwest Territories), then Missouri as well, followed by Kansan pioneers besieged by Abolitionist foreigners whose stock in trade was filibustering, then the wish of Arizonans to achieve independence from New Mexico and Union neglect.

The simple fact of the matter is that is how it went, even if hardly ideal circumstances for either side of the conflict. Especially for the South, all the new land-grabbing put themselves in a weaker position, because places like Louisiana, Texas, California-New Mexico and Arizona were not the base of Anglo-America and they consequently couldn't hope to survive. The Union held most of the original 13 states which were British colonies, although it is truth that the Virginia origins of America were constantly being undermined by patriotic anti-monarchism. National sentiments were increasingly anti-London Company, more Plymouth Company. It was less about Raleigh and Drake, than about the Pilgrims and Quakers, who were not mainstream Britons. It is a mistake to equate the Federal Government with Abolitionism, for that arrangement only existed upon the election of Lincoln and the Republicans' new establishment. The secessionist Hartford Convention during 1814 and the story of the Mormons in their beginnings and the Utah War is a perfect example of how the North provided anti-Federalist enclaves. While the Shakers died out, the Amish still exist as a well known antisocial group if the rest of the nation's standards are to be a judgment. The North was the same as today, wholly opposed to the regular order of living and more into experimentation, the counter-culture. The Republicans were the inverse scenario of everyday America, with a counter-culture coup d'etat which caused the War. It was socioeconomic engineering on their part for a utopian world of their own imagining which was the main drive in the conflict, for the South never insisted the North live according to their way, only that each do their own thing without molestation. The situation was relatively the same as the English Civil War, with the Puritans out for Anglican blood, only this time, it was Massachusetts vs Virginia, William Lloyd Garrison vs Robert E. Lee.

I just pointed out how anti-Americanism on the part of Northerners with disgust for Southern elections in the White House (e.g. the Virginia Dynasty, Jeffersonianism, Jacksonianism) and Congress (Douglas, Clay, Calhoun) has little to no coverage on Wikipedia or in the stereotypes of the War and the disputes between the two blocs of Americana. So why continue the bias, the POV on behalf of the North? Hey, the North won, but that doesn't mean we have to be force-fed the idealized, whitewashed version of how things ought to have been, even if that's what we might all agree with to be our primary outlook. So many "minorities" and special interest groups are vocal and adamant about retelling their histories without the standard whitewashing. In what way is this different? The Jesusland map dictates our conscience? Why is it acceptable to cut "certain" people down in the open for telling the truth? Oh, anybody who could lift a finger in defense of a beaten people, must be as dumb and ignorant as those hillbillies. Apathy has no place in a society that really cares for the poor and forlorn among them. Never mind, just walk all over those American savages and put others on pedestals, just to spite Southerners. How appropriate. Yes, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind as Ghandi said. Wouldn't liberal hippie Northerners care for their hearts, rather than their minds, or at least get priorities straight?

What I am asking for, is a dedicated collaboration of editors with a history steeped in Americana to counter systemic bias with at least the simple matter of Southern Kansas vs Northern Nebraska as the official beginning of organized armed conflict, yes on the part of Northerners...no, I am not expecting a rectification for all the lies spread about. This will do for now. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bleeding Kansas controversy is mentioned in the article. The war began after the Fort Sumter crisis.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? It is called a Civil War for a reason. Citizens and not the military, were the first to strike blood. You people define the war as between capitals, like Washington and Montgomery or Richmond, when that was just a further development of the ongoing conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You are also tunnel-visioning the issue to the Nullification Crisis, rather than looking at the very first expression of violence, without regard for the specific issue as determining the overall warfare. You also do not explain yourself. You simply repeat the propaganda of "official history", without even any details. Grade F in my opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What source are you using for this?..and back off with the "you people" stuff unless you want to be ignored. Respect is a two-way street.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Berean...if you're going to come at us with some left-field revisionist history, you need to provide some pretty compelling references, rather than an argument of logic. Oh, and Berean, thanks for your work to clean the redundant copies of that post. AKRadecki^Speaketh 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather, the issue should be convincing people that it is appropriate to pretend that Bleeding Kansas was not violence and that Ft. Sumter was violence. You are promoting the view of Southern aggression, without a look at the abolitionist subculture of the North that wanted to force the South into submission for its "sins" by enslaving other men. Well, if the Southerners were being aggressive, you might be right in their use of the Federal Government to enhance the cause of slavery by continually opening the Western territories to either stipulation for slaves south of some point, or referendums possibly resulting in new territories having slaves. The South is on record for being the aggressor towards Mexico, on behalf of slave power. You must admit that I am not revising history here, but that you are whitewashing the North's hostilities with the War by trivializing Bleeding Kansas and putting all the weight upon Ft. Sumter. It would be much easier to point out that Bleeding Kansas was caused by Northerners without Federal power (then in the Democrats' corner), but that the Southerner's response, also without Federal power (then in the Republicans' corner), was the attack on Sumter. Why focus on simply a fight against the Lincolnian Republican administration on part of Southerners? It is widely written of Abolitionist hate for the Democrats' promotion of slavery and the Whig failure to do anything about it. That's what John Brown was about. But no, go ahead and blame the South for aggression against the North and blame Lincoln's election for the War. Is this the revisionist compromise you are advocating? If it is, then it is just too late for reality. You already have all the academic references at your fingertips, but your perception of these events is skewed. Onset of hostilities couldn't be Sumter, because that was the second stage of violence. Otherwise, why even include Kansas? The Wikipedia presentation doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory. The War was not simply about secession and confederation, so South Carolina's move was a result of earlier events, just as John Brown and his ilk had inspiration from earlier events to justify their violence against Southerners and the Southern, Slave Power stranglehold on the Federal government at the time, with such people as Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan being the opposite of Abraham Lincoln. What kind of myopia cannot see that the status quo of the establishment changed with the election of Lincoln, but that the warmongers in the North were edging for Abolition long before, personified in Brown best of all? Furthermore, Wikipedia makes it seem like Missouri was the aggressor in the Kansas affair, when the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company went way out of the way to send its filibusters (to Kansas from places far away) to destroy the Lecompton Constitution by invading Kansas, a territory that had the support of the Democratic Federal administration. It fails to mention the natural westward movement of people into the location of Kansas from the east, before the Emigrant Society sent its filibusters. The whole reason to send emigrant filibusters, was because native Kansans (the ones who were there because they pioneered in the original Missouri territory which became carved into separate territories, for instance, Kansas) were promoting slavery in their own territory and were receiving recognition and support from sympathizers in the Federal government, many of whom were Southern, but the Presidents were Doughface Northerners. As it turned out, the "martyrdom" of Brown led to a Republican coalition stronger than people in South Carolina could tolerate, so that resulted in not only the Democratic evacuation from the Federal government, but the secession of the South. You want references from me about this? I have not edited any of these pages on Wikipedia, but they all point to this data I present here. I'm not looking at other websites or books at all. So, your demand that I provide "evidence" is fallacious. I'm finding all kinds of holes in the logic of Wikipedia's self-contradictory presentation of all this, so when you defend it, you must be the ones to substantiate your positions. All I asked for, was some people who have the materials, to repair the nonsense written here. I'm not about to do it myself, because this is all the trouble I am going to get into on behalf of Wikipedia. Because you promote and defend obvious falsehoods, you must have agendas. You are apparently profiting from misnomers and any request from you to improve these articles will result in nothing good, but maybe strengthened propaganda to make it worse. What a waste of time, but confirmation that your sentiments are nefarious. If you had a clue what it is I am stating, then we would not be going on like this. Your objection makes me not trust your objectives. Countering systemic bias is something you must have no interest in, as it would hurt your goals or comfort in lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From the very beginning, you showed no interest. Any claim that I'm being unreasonable, is trumped. You simply didn't care to begin with to rectify anything. I'm pretty sure you don't want me touching the articles anyways, because it would interfere with your control of the information. So, I'm exercising prudence, rather than engaging in edit wars with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RANT. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I see lots of words and still no references. I've no problem with the concept of countering systemic bias, but if you'll read the wikiproject guidelines, systemic bias is countered not by yelling from a soapbox, but by finding legitimate references that balance the viewpoint. That is where you are lacking. All argument, no support. Oh, and as for your statement "You are apparently profiting from misnomers..." dang, profiting? From Wikipedia? Where was I when they were handing out the checks?AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is self-contradictory and you want references? Look no further than your own editing! It is thoroughly amusing to be pointed to the Soapbox guideline, when the very nature of the POV pushed in Civil War articles is against the letter of that "law" and certainly no where close to the spirit, but there are numerous loopholes you lot have exploited to push your anti-Southern bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Watch who you're calling "anti-southern"...I was born in Texas, thank you. Bottom line, provide references. Period, end of story, end of argument. Show me a couple of reputable historians or history-related publications that say what you're saying, and I'll personally add the material. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Article size is the main problem with adding anything big. The article is almost 100k. A brief mention of the 1856 Pottawatomie Massacre could be added, but then it would also make sense to add mention of violence (including a few murders) and massive vote fraud perpetrated by Missouri Border Ruffians. I don't think the overall addition would make anyone happy. The article currently links to Bleeding Kansas and John Brown for those who want to know more. If Wikipedia contradicts itself, give us some specifics. Other details of the Bleeding Kansas controversy that would appear to be anti-South if they were added include the 1855 Wakarusa War, the 1856 Sacking of Lawrence, the 1856 Battle of Osawatomie and the 1858 Marais des Cygnes massacre. Be careful what you ask for.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

At least you are now paying attention, Jimmuldrow. The other person is purposely avoiding the issues. Jim, since the fighting began under Buchanan's administration, it should be presented as the onset of the whole War. Sumter is nevertheless, a very important sequence in the overall violence and represents a major turning point in the status quo, for it was no longer a slippery slope for the Slave Power in Washington, but an indication that they were shut out by the Republicans and South Carolina took it the whole way. Of course, the Border Ruffians were an initial group of people who were fighting the rush of abolitionism in the South by outside forces and their fight with the Yankees--an appropriate name because they were from Massachusetts--characterized the rest of the War. Brown's people were operating outside the law, but according to their sense of moral dictates and had no government sanction, unlike the Border Ruffians, who were enforcing Buchanan's administration for Kansans. The major shift with Sumter, was the change in the Federal government, for it then did a completely 360 turn and that's probably why so many people look at Sumter as the beginning. Many want to denote the secession as a revolt against absolutism in Washington, but the conflict is on record as beginning with the invasion of Kansas by anti-slavery activists, who were just as wrong with the Federal government then, as the secessionists were five years later. It would be better to show the origins of the Civil War to be the failure of the Whigs to satisfy the people like Brown, who took matters into their own hands, just as the Southerners were later to do with Sumter. The outline of the timeline leading up to the war, should concentrate generally on Southern Manifest Destiny and Northern Abolitionism, which ended up clashing in blood at Kansas and being the whole reason why the violence wouldn't stop. In essence, it was no isolated instance, but the result of built up tensions that were fully flared under Lincoln. It is erroneous, but most Civil War presentations focus on Lincoln-Johnson, rather than Buchanan-Lincoln, as the nexus of all this. It was with the transition of Whig to Republican that the most fervent war cries were made. Brown was the voice of the newfound Republicans, for they considered the Whigs to be too lenient. All I'd hope for is a balanced POV on this. Lee refused to lead the Union Army because he knew that Washington was going to invade Virginia to enforce Republican legislation, just as Brown had attempted to force his sense of righteousness in Kansas. The shoe was on the other foot with Sumter, that's all. Brown's kind was in power then, although they were the ones working outside of Federal sanction beforehand. The dynamic of this shift should be explored more, but I hardly think that's a controversial sentiment to raise, unless of course, the people reading this are just Scalawag Union apologists from Down South. Let me tell the guy before you, that Texas ain't the place for born and bred Southrons at heart so much as he'd think. Republican Eisenhower was the product of Carpetbagger parents, just as the Republican Bushes are Carpetbagger oil men in Texas, although Bush 43 is somewhat of a Doughface like Pierce and Buchanan because of his mother Barbara Pierce. In any case, I wasn't wanting to alter any material myself on any of these articles, but just mention the lack of consistency with the POV being pushed about how the War went on. I also am not contradicting the majority of the material already at Wikipedia, only hoping that some of the myopia can be expanded and the focus to cover the period as between the Invasion of Kansas until the Fall of the Freemen. The structure could be done with three sub-periods, with the entrance of the Yankees to Kansas, to the secession of South Carolina, to the start of Reconstruction. There is the long series of events before Kansas and the long series which led up until 1965, but those are not as central to the War itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The side issue that needs to be explored, is the nature of the population of Kansas. If not for the Emigrant Society formed by the Yankees, Kansas would have remained Southron, with or without slaves. It was the Free-Soil movement which tried to make Kansas along the lines of the Northwest Territory, so now, most people in Kansas are 19th century German immigrants rather than American. This is important to understand the nature of the violence in Kansas. Even if the point of Kansas (as opposed to Nebraska) emerging as a territory of its own, was to provide more slave land, it does not erase the fact that Southrons were there first. The statements written about Kansas seem to overlook or diminish this, most likely because of the slave issue and the fact that the Northerners won Kansas through bloodshed, but not through legislation. Lecompton was a legitimate constitution by the first Kansans, regardless of slavery. It was deposed by the immigration of non-Kansans who have since steered the state away from its Southern and specifically Missourian origins, much like the origins of Arizona upon the Gadsden Purchase as an originally Texan offshoot. Arizona's first administrators were born in Tennessee and Kentucky, moved to Texas and they were chosen by the people who lived in Arizona, but that state is usually not accounted for as Southern outside of country music today, even though it has a whole lot in common with Texas. So, unofficially, places like Kansas and Arizona experienced their own forms of "Reconstruction", but due to the very short lifespan of their Southern origins, their identities are glossed over by subsequent migrants. Consider the current issues with Kansas and the teaching of evolution in public schools, vs creationism. Creationism would likely still be taught there if not for the Reconstruction of that place by German immigrants on behalf of Massachusetts people, who were all Unitarian Universalists and very liberal then, as now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, more detail was added about Bleeding Kansas. It would add too much to the article length to add more, but there are links to a number of other related Wikipedia article. Wiki-linking makes a huge amount of detail easily available.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one with a brain around here. Thanks Jim! There is another idea that would be workable: scale down and condense the rest, so there is the beginning Kansas period, intermediary Sumter period and the following KKK period. This is the full extent of the violence associated with this War. I would only include a few sentences about annexationism and abolitionism in the introduction. I'm sorry to have to ask anybody for help with this, but I'm not particularly adept at composing professional essays. In addition, I am afraid that any editing of the articles will simply be blocked as "tendentious editing", when all I mean is to improve and increase the scope of the War. I tried to put my message all around the primary articles' discussion pages, in order for a "reconstruction" to really come to place on the subject. Nevertheless, your assistance is very much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it!Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

About Games

Would anybody be upset if games are moved to List of American Civil War battles?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That article would be off-topic for games. Why not List of American Civil War games? No objection to moving them out of this article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A number of the See also entries probably could be fit into the text and linked, eliminating the need for a lot of them. Also most of the media could easily be removed, perhaps to List of American Civil War movies and such. Kresock (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As the one who first added the list of games, I have no problem with this, especially since movies and so forth also have been moved to other pages. I do hope, though, that no one will again try to delete the games simply because their personal sensibilities are offended by the idea of games based on the Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil1970 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't offense...they simply do not belong here. Pop culture fancruft litters and detracts from wiki articles. Unless an article subject itself is based on pop culture, there should be no such sections. FWIW, I have nothing against games (Sid Meier's Gettysburg was/is a heluva lot of fun!) but the virtual world should not convolute the real.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"dissuaded the British from intervening" ?

I am curious about this statement in the lead. Why would the British have wanted to be involved in an internal conflict in the USA in the first place? Surely they/we would been more concerned with maintaining the Empire? Can someone explain this please? (I am British btw.) SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

perhaps some felt dividing the US in two would weaken one of Britain's major economic political and military competitors. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Britain was indeed very interested in what was going on, as they imported a lo of... hmm I think it was corn or cotton or both, from the southern states, yet they looked down upon the Confederacy maintaining slavery, something Britain abolished decades prior. Jersey John (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Britan did indeed import large sums of cotton from the south. The reason Britan was involved was becuase someone always makes large amounts of money from trading weapons and other sorts of suplies to a desprate buyer they can charge more for their goods. They simply cashed in on the south's desprate neeed for suplies.=}$£♥--209.66.200.43 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

95% of the SOuth's exports of cotton and tobacco were cut off by the Union blockade. The Brits depended heavily on wheat from the North for the basic food supply. They could survive without cotton but not without food. Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm very good point Rjensen!Jersey John (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

American Civil War vs. United States Civil War

Which title is more popular? 98.119.177.171 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

American Civil War —⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

I read the little warning about "don't request a npov sticker" and I think that's nonsense. You cannot pawn off someone's views as authentic and unchallengeable when those views have been distorted by the article in the first place. Slavery was not the cause of the Southern secession!

If the states had the freedom to make their own laws or if something had been done to alter the level of Southern representation in Washington in favor of the South, then no secession would have occured. The Southern people wanted to be in control of their destiny, and that destiny, at the time...included slavery and considerations which the South had to make because of its slave population (the North did not have the same considerations, obviously, because it did not need slavery economically/have a black slave population that was larger than the free white population).

To be more honest, this article should break down the "causes of secession" into two headings: concerns over federal representation and states rights. The content of both sections should go into detail about slavery and pre-war considerations...not post-war considerations. Slavery was critical to the Southern economy, but slavery itself was not the reason for the secession, and Potter NEVER suggests otherwise.

By the way, it is "anti-slavery", not "antislavery". Who wrote this stupid article? 172.162.44.57

The slave states did have a great deal of "freedom to make their own laws." Republicans made no attempt to end slavery in existing states before the war, and since each state has two Senators regardless of population, the South had enough Senators to block pro-North legislation including a transcontinental railroad, land grant colleges, a proposed homestead act, and high tariffs before the war. The three-fifths clause gave the South the extra votes needed to pass the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854, and to prevent proposed emancipation of Missouri slaves around 1820. A coalition of Southerners and Northern Democrats allowed a minority region to elect mostly pro-South Presidents before 1860. Pro-South Presidents selected mostly pro-South Supreme Court justices, who were responsible for the pro-South Dred Scott decision. Southern states had enough clout to cause Northerners to complain about the alleged aggressions of the slave power.

Also, Potter made it clear that slavery was the most important cause of the war, and that other causes became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it.

I wrote most, but not all, of the part of the "stupid article" you object to.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your history is right on! It is true that the South played quite a role influencing the country's direction up to 1860. However, "they did not have the freedom to make their own laws", acknowledges something completely different, that federal power overrides state power, so if the South no longer sent the majority of reps to Congress or controlled the White House, ultimately Southerners would be tied to an entity that had more pull to decide the South's fate than the South. In other words, the South would be subject to decisions made by those who did not have the same considerations. All CW historians contend that Lincoln represented such a threat to the South, which is the main issue.

Due to the immigration explosion and the reality of increasingly more states entering the Union, the South was in danger of losing the representative power that gave it the power you mention. To say different views of slavery caused the secession is misleading, like pulling a carcass from an animal and calling it the animal. The South wanted to be in control but felt things were changing and that it was losing power. Because of the article's narrow focus on the North as anti-slavery and the south as pro-slavery, this is lost.

Do I really have to go hunt down my college textbooks to show to you these considerations are not my own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.28.55 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Causes mentions control issues, which certainly did exist. The South did have fears of losing control over the federal government. A large part of this fear was, as one Southerner put it, the fear that preventing slavery expansion would surround the slave states with "a wall of fire" that would squeeze slavery out of existence.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is what we have for headings:

1. 1 Causes of secession

• 1.1 Slavery

Considerations about slavery certainly loomed in the air, and made losing representation particularly important to the South. But the North was by no means anti-slavery, though the article tries to prove the opposite, as it is necessary to do so if we are to believe that a general disagreement over slavery led to secession.

To what degree does the article try to do this? Let's look at the first sentence (unsourced): "The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict likely." Was the North "increasingly anti-slavery?" Note that anti-slavery is taken to mean Abolitionist, not "not pro-Slavery", which would be a more accurate assessment. To what degree was Abolitionism a reflection of the North's will? And how did the actual state of affairs make "conflict likely"? The SPREAD of slavery into new States of the Union where it was utterly useless...now that was something the North did not support. But the North was dominated by Abolitionist thought?

This is why the article fails to prove that slavery was the cause, because that would require "an increasingly Abolitionist North" increasingly opposed to slavery, which the first sentence only assumes there was. Beyond that sentence, the article tries to create this illusion that the North was anti-slavery by noting the quotes of a few anti-slavery ideologues, as well as the comments made by the leading brass of the South about how important slavery was. The article then suggests that all other, more accurate assessments as to why the war was fought (all concerning the south's fear of losing representation, the lack of state representation) are null and void because people who said it was this once said it was about slavery. Southern wealth was attached to the legality of slavery, which makes the conflict over slavery the dominant issue; BUT slavery was attached to the South's ability to carry out its own will, either by state law or continued federal representation...not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.190.201 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Antislavery is not the same as only abolitionist. The article mentions economic, moral and political opposition to slavery, and all three did exist. Northerners who opposed both slavery and slaves believed in the Free Soil idea that slavery was bad for the economic prospects of whites. Other Northerners feared the alleged aggressions of the Slave Power based on the belief that slave owners, who were autocratic towards slaves, were also a threat to republicanism for whites. Moral opposition was only part of the equation, and existed beyond a small and unpopular group of abolitionists. For example, the three largest religious denominations split mostly over the slavery issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, "anti-slavery" links to the "Abolitionism" page, so it is implied that "anti-slavery" means one thing when in actuality, it means several things - and, as you mentioned, Abolitionism was probably the least influential of all of them.

Slavery was not the cause of secession...your own words demonstrate what I have been arguing all along: that the secession was the result of a power struggle between Republican aspirations and the aspirations of the Southern Landed-classes, thus breaking the US into two factions along a North-South divide. Yes, Southern prosperity depended on an institution which the North did not want in the North, but everything centered around power and destiny. I think we are arguing the same thing here, but the article does not head in the right direction. The article's focus is elsewhere. "Causes of secession" focuses on pro(South) and con (North) slavery opinions, and "1.1 Slavery" offers more of the same. Why two sections that cover the same thing? Again, "causes of secession: slavery" is misleading, for all the reasons both you and I have indicated here.

By the way: "Threat of international intervention" - ummm, "threat"? Yeah, this isn't written from a Northern point of view (SIC)...Britain was an important industrial supplier to the South, so "threat" is not only highly pov, but also inaccurate. Again, yet another reason why this article needs a pov sticker, regardless of the self-aggrandizing tone of the FAQ.

I agree about the international intervention title. "Power and destiny" sounds fuzzy, though. Power to do what?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

in school we are learning that these battles were very important even though they were small . i think that they should list every battle that is recorded in this article. try listing important facts about each one and then they should list they generals for the union in order because they had many. that would be even more helpful. thanks Savannah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.0.34 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the article is that regardless of what people at the time said in speeches, there were more problems and disagreements between the south and north than just slavery. The fact that border states were pro-union AND pro-slavery is evidence of this fact. The article needs to address these issues. It doesn't need to diminish the role slavery played, but it needs a more holistic approach. If the content in the FAQ is accurate, then article needs to incorporate that information. 66.249.100.228 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the info in the FAQ is in the article, only people sometimes overlook it. This includes what you said about the border states, and the likely explanation for it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple case of history being rewritten for some political purpose. The cause of the Civil War was the desire of southern states to be independent of the existing federal government primarily because of southern states lack of representation in the federal govenment. One example of this was the southern states paying 85% of all federal taxes while being a minority in Congress. Hence the battle cry came from taxation without representation, the same reasoning behind the American Revolution. Slavery was an issue and not a cause. It pains me to see history rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.65 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how many history books leave out such information. Also, the South had quite a bit more than its share of representation given the smaller size of its population.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the tag for splitting the article

I thought that the point of this article was to unite material that many other articles explore in more depth. I don't think it would make sense to split the article, unless someone has a well thought out plan for doing so, and can explain why it would be an improvement to do it that way.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the content of the article, it's the size of the article. The page is 101KB long, which causes a few issues, see: Wikipedia:Article size for a detailed explanation.Funandtrvl

Ok, but that's not the way the WWI, WWII and Vietnam wars are done, and most people expect to see an American Civil War article in an encyclopedia. Also, how could the thing be broken up and still cohere?Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WWI is definitely not a good example! WWII is better organized. There are some helpful guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style. One may look at Category:American Civil War to see the nine sub-categories and articles, then one could go thru each section in the main article, taking information and adding it to each sub-article, so that those would be more detailed than the main article, using {tl|main}} under each section on the main page to point to the corresponding sub-article. Is there a topic outline of the American Civil War, that could be followed? --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So where would people who want to see one overview of the American Civil War go? Also, the sub-categories you mentioned each point to a list, so the total is much more than nine. As it is, none of the details of the battles are mentioned because they are mentioned in other articles. Very few of the causes are mentioned in detail because links to other articles are used for that purpose. And most people expect some coherent overview of the war as a place to start. A great deal of the space is from references, which are needed. Also, can the article be fragmented in a way that would result in a Good Article? Probably not.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article is a GA, but there are a few things that could be done to pare it down a little. First, combine the references that are somewhat duplicated by using ref names, i.e. for McPherson, instead of listing each page as a separate note, combine and put pgs. 284-297. See: WP:CITE. Second, are there any e-books that could be cited and linked, instead of using detailed explanatory notes? Third, in the external links section, if any of those links were used as refs, move them to the ref list with the proper citation style. If I have a chance I can work on this; however, I'm not a prof. historian. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I've replaced split-apart with citation style, hopefully, this will work better for this article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to claim that the reason for the Civil War was slavery.The reason was control of cotton!! Very disappointed in Wikipedia's article in misinforming the public!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.172.121 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Southerners made a huge fortune from cotton during the 1850s, so they weren't oppressed on that issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Currency/Monetary Policy

This article makes no mention of how monetary policy was affected. It doesn't mention the northern greenback or the southern currency during the civil war. This is of major significance as many southerners lost their fortunes when the civil war ended because their currency was literally worth the paper it was printed on and nothing more.Smallman12q (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

True. But that applied more to the end of the war and Reconstruction. A small mention is made in the article of hyperinflation in the South, and of Northern economic policies such as a tariff increase, a Homestead Act, Land Grant colleges and so forth.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Written by Carlie Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.38.70 (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Causes of the civil war

Does anyone else feel that this article relates to closely to slavery being the only cause to the civil war, and the south opting to leave the union? There were many other financial, and sociological reason for the war, disputes over the direction of Western expansion for one. I would like to see a section that delves into some of the other causes, does anyone disagree that this would be a useful section. Wikiguy1020 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Useful, as long as it is thoroughly sourced to reputable academic scholarship. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is now a link to non-slavery related causes of secession. Western expansion was too connected to slavery (the annexation of the slave state Texas, the Bleeding Kansas issue and so on) to be included.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree others should be included rather than just slavery. If slavery was the only real reason, then the Corwin Amendment, which President Lincoln fully supported, should have appeased the South enough. (Trentc (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

An explanation of the Corwin Amendment was added.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DR JOHN ORDRONAUX

Please see my small addition to the text about this army medical advisor which I hope won't conflict with your editorial plans. Ref details to follow. Regards, Wfm495 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any one doctor being mentioned in the lead has to be WP:UNDUE Even if he/she saved millions this is the whole war in a brief summary, there are hardly any battle details so the good doctor doesn't warrant mention, especially in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand this. However, I think you might consider a section on the contribution of military medicine to the War as Ordronaux had a similar effect to Florence Nightingale in the Crimea. No article about the Crimean war is complete without the contribution of medics. DR O was no ordianary medic, he wrote whole military medical manuals. Also, I have been asked (by WIKI admin) to make links from other articles to the one about Dr Ordronaux because it has been flagged as "orphan status" now removed. If not in this article, do you know another article that deals with medicine in the Civil war? Thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the good doctor, the wikipedia article on John Ordronaux doesn't mention him as encouraging surgeons to wash hands or sterilize medical implements before surgery. 19th century medicine wasn't much to brag about.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well there may be a case for expanding the detail of his medical innovations in the main text of the Dr Ordronaux article. But his contributions are clear from the full text of his military medical manuals which are online and quoted in the external links section. The originals of those books sell for up to $3,000 today. I am very new to Wiki (since early Feb 2009) and am only doing what I have been asked to do by Wiki admin. Wfm495 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I am going to undo the reversion, because I have been asked to add back references by Wiki admin, and also to continue the discussion on this important aspect of the Civil War. Wfm495 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Will please don't do that - it would be edit warring and unconstructive. I have added Dr Ordonaux to List of people associated with the American Civil War - I think that's an acceptable compromise. – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I have self-reverted the text to its previous version, Sorry!! Wfm495 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC) kle sope was hurrrrr(((: