Talk:Confederate States of America

Vergetorix copyedits -- 7 Dec

Vergetorix made strong 7 Dec copyedits with which I agree or concur.

- These include improvements to my own writing which I wish I had thought of first.

- However, below please find my exceptions to a few -- fewer than half -- of the 7 Dec copyedits.

- For version PRE - previous edit box.nr.a, and NEW - Vergetorix edit box.nr.b, (Copyedit rationales are placed in italics in parentheses.)

Previous edit (PED) v. 7 Dec Vergetorix (NEW)

Previous edit (PRE)	7 Dec Vergetorix (NEW)
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.1.a] The Confederacy was eventually defeated in the American Civil War against the Union (the U.S.). (NEW is not parallel construction, if adopted, CSA = USA would be cumbersome. Confederacy = Union.)	align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.1.b] The Confederacy was eventually defeated in the American Civil War against the United States (the Union). (Corrected PRE terminology)
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.2.a] Five Civilized Tribes (NEW uses “so-called”, violates WP "expressions of doubt")	align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.2.b] So called Five Civilized Tribes of American Indians (PRE copyedit uses POV)
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.3.a] ... blockade brought … disadvantage in supplies and finance. (NEW (a) no ref to blockade-run cotton as financial basis of Confederate currency, and (b) may assume we all read Jomini.)	align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.3.b] ... blockade brought … disadvantage in matériel. (PRE copyedit is Awkward and redundant)
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.4.a] Following four years of Union campaigning, Richmond fell … (Richmond did not fall to any Confederate campaign.)	align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|[box.4.b] Richmond fell after four years of war ... (There were four years of both Confederate and Federal campaigns. Not just four years of "Union" campaigns.)

- Again, I offer this with respect, and thanks again for improving my earlier writing, especially in the multi-phrase monster.

- Without any discussion here, I will restore the previous PRE edits above in the "Old-gold" boxes in a couple of days. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments, however, I must disagree with at least one of your objections. The first use of the word "Union" in the introductory paragraph leaves an outsider (One not familiar with American History) at a loss untill the word is clarified later. It further diminishes the facty that the CSA were at war with the United States of America. A disinterested outsider would need to know this very important bit of information straightaway. That outsider would presumably be familiar with the USA, but not necessarily with the convention "Union". Your thoughts? Vergetorix (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, your insistance on calling the fall of Richmond being due to four years of "Union campaigning" seems to present a point of view. Richmond did indeed fall as a result of a Union campaign (the overland campaign and the siege of Richmond), but these campaigns did not last four years. Both sides fought various back and forth campaigns over those bloody four years. Why not say Richmond fell after four yours of war and a successful Union seige? Vergetorix (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Vergetorix. -- AGREED to your Box 1.b. On second look, I’m not so sure about my own phrasing. Looking into it, I struggled with various wording trying to say, United States Government, but nothing flowed as well as your draft. But, FYI.

-- Reading into Coulter, I gather that technically the CSA declaration of war early on was against the US Government (USG) and free soil states -- but NOT the "sovereign states" [holding slaves], by name in the declaration, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. A flag at the secessionist convention at Charleston had a flag of fifteen stars, the official flag started with eleven. -- After appropriations of two million dollars to bankroll Kentucky and Missouri secession -- financed in part with gold taken from U.S. Treasury in New Orleans without resistance in the Buchanan administration -- two stars were added to the official Confederate flag to make thirteen. –- All that aside, since I can’t reflect that in a clean sentence for the intro, I now go with your box 1.b. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For Box 4, -- At the introduction, the overview should encompass the sweep of CSA existence. Both formulations are correct in themselves -- I think that Richmond fell from four years campaigning AND the immediate cause was from Union siege. For the introduction, the fall of Richmond should reflect the Federal call “On to Richmond!” persisting in the press for four years.

-- The approach to Richmond via Harper’s Ferry switched hands several times, CW wags say the progress of Union advance can be traced by the progress of standard gauge track laid south out of the arsenal. The approach to Richmond via Wilmington NC was met with initial Union success taking the outer banks, and these became important forward bases to close CSA’s eastern ports and supplying the blockade in general. But in point of fact, Federal siege before Richmond was not successful until Wilmington could be closed to Richmond.

-- But Alexandria-Aquia Creek and Fort Monroe were never lost as staging bases for attack on Richmond, Norfolk was lost early and held by Union forces. The calls "On to Richmond!" triggered multiple campaigns to capture Richmond over four years -- across the Appalachians, down the Valley, up the Lower Peninsula from Fort Monroe, out of Washington to Manassas twice, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and only finally through the Wilderness ending in siege.

-- So, for the intro, my preference is still Box 4.a, “Following four years …” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"So-called" usage

(a) In the direct quote we have “so-called” from Secretary of State Seward in “Diplomacy: United States, a foreign power”. "[if Britain is] tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering about it, [they cannot] remain friends with the United States ..." This is permissible usage in the article, as it is in a direct quote, Seward meant to communicate an expression of doubt, in the same way “alleged” is used. The quote faithfully represents that.

(b) in the Introduction: #2 paragraph, we have “so-called”, found as written, “… with the Confederacy were the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" of American Indians.”

- The Introduction "so-called" violates WP WP:ALLEGED, "expressions of doubt". It also causes a “blue out” discouraged in WP introductory paragraph guidelines.

- The sentence should read “… with the Confederacy were the "Five Civilized Tribes"”.

1) In the quotes around "Five Civilized Tribes", which the previous copyedit added -- and which I propose to keep -- the narrative communicates a distinctive usage, without communicating bias in either direction.

2) At the link, readers can find all the necessary background and historical qualification attached to the term as it is found general use. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

- "Five Civilized Tribes” in quotes and all-in-capitalized-words, incorporating a previous editor's quotes - signifying a term-of-art historiographically or the political term-of-the-times. At the link, its meaning is explained.

- At WP:ALLEGED.Expressions of doubt we find in the box "... supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ... [and explication, these terms'] editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources."

- It is NOT meant to communicate the common usage of the words separately 'civilized' and 'tribe', meaning

- -NEITHER to imply (a) all other tribes are NOT "civilized"

- -NOR to imply that (b) THESE five tribes are "not civilized". -- only the meaning found at the WP link at Five Civilized Tribes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A minor edit, slaves, by definition, can't be 'employed'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Political_economy

I made a minor edit to the political economy section of this article where it used to say, 'the plantations that employed over three million black slaves.' According to the Wikipedia article on employment slaves can't be considered employed so in order to make Wikipedia more consistent and to not throw around words I chose to make a minor edit to that particular line.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employ#Indenturing_and_slavery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badsearcher (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- The terminology the source used is captured in the text, The plantations that employed over three million black slaves were the principal source of wealth. The common-sense-use is “Plantations employed slaves”, adopted by historians of the period. In any case it does not say, Slaves were "employees in a developed nation of today" which is the topic of the referenced article.

- At Employment the beginning has, “Employment is a contract ... those who … do not receive pay for their services and are not considered employed.” This refers to "employees" and their compensated employment as an element of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comparisons in the modern era. The 'Employment' article as written is tagged with insufficient inline citations, with disputed factual accuracy and neutrality since 2010. At its Alternatives, “indenturing and slavery” has no citation at all. We should stay with the Thomas terminology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- The text did require review. At the copyedit, I tightened up the antecedent causing conflict and racial solidarity. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

National production - the lost citation

- At the last paragraph in "National production", I restored the substance of the contribution without a citation, which can be found scrolling back through previous edits at the previous button for JimWae's edit on another matter (comma), 05:06, 14 August 2012.

The Confederacy underwent an economic revolution with centralization and standardization but it was too little too late as its economy was systematically strangled by blockade and raids.

- The citation is as the previous editor noted, Ian Drury, ed. (2003) [2000]. "American Civil War: Naval & Economic Warfare". History of war. London: Times Books. p. 138. ISBN 0-00-716458-0. "The Confederacy underwent a government-led industrial revolution during the war, but its economy was slowly strangled."

- In the intervening time, not only was the narrative made more concise in an encyclopedic style, which is good. Also, the documentation was somehow lost, which is bad. I have restored the previous editor's reference in a spirit of collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Immigration Statistics in states

I came out with a map of how the states would look like if certain countries succeeded. What would be great is if someone had some legitimate statistics on immigration population percentages. I can not really tell though, i dont know if this would help...yes, israel is the newest established country whom successfully succeeded into becoming a state nation last. If the FDR (Demokratische Republik Deutschland/Democratic republic of germany or in english the federal republic of deutschland germany ie fdr/ddr) was established in Germany after ww2 the world would be much different than today. Tennesse most likely wouldnt succeed, yet liousana would, the full original map can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Fort Sumter, firing on.

- Editor.Anon*250 made a copy edit 30 Dec: a Civil War initiated by military forces serving the Confederacy firing on U.S. Fort Sumter. -- explaining: "I just wanted to make a little change that might make something easier for a reader to understand." versus previous initiated by Confederate firing on U.S. Fort Sumter.

- This looks like he confuses Cadets firing on the merchanman Star of the West, which did not cause a crisis, and the firing on the U.S. flag at Fort Sumter by Confederate forces. [Note. President Andrew Jackson had collected import revenues from forts in Charleston Harbor while putting down the earlier SC Nullifiers, 1832-33.]

- Donald Stoker in 'The Grand Design: strategy and the U.S. Civil War' reports open communication between Jefferson Davis and Confederate General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, along with Davis consultations with his cabinet in Montgomery, "the Federal presence had to go." On April 12, 1861, the Confederate guns opened on Sumter. (Stokes 2012, p.32).

- This can be properly paraphrased, "Confederate firing on U.S. Fort Sumter.", so the copyedit is reverted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)