Talk:Confederate States of America

Dissenting Opinion inclusion in Texas v. White Sub-Article

Rjensen? I confess I am not at all sure about what is wrong with including a properly sourced summary of the dissenting opinion. The source was the very same used to back up the quotes in the summary of the majority opinion. Please explain (you or someone someone) what is different...?

I admit, in going over the original deletions (some time back) that removal was justified in that they were not properly sourced. I will agree with that. But this one is not of the same type. It used neutral language and nothing was written that used POV or included anything not actually said in the dissenting opinion. And again, were properly sourced.

Now, of POV, it probably goes without saying that I profoundly disagree with the majority opinion in terms of the continuity nature of the AOC and its preamble relationship to that of the original Constitution. And certainly that the forced appointment of Unionists to high positions in the Texas government during Reconstruction constituted the duly elected "officialdom" of the state. Also, because secession was not the actual issue before the court, it follows that anything related to secession was dicta. Too, that the majority opinion was highly political and partisan in nature as well.

BUT...that is neither here nor there. It is something that might be debated on the talk page, but not anything to word into the article itself. I haven't and won't.

Well, with your latest deletion and rationale for it, I guess it is going to have to be decided by a higher administrator/moderator authority. For you to say that (and I can't believe it!) my summary lacks secondary sources is ludicrous. They are the exact same ones (as per Cornell Law School and going directly by text of the decisions themselves) that were used with the inclusion of the majority opinion. To take a major decision by SCOTUS and say that the majority belongs but the dissenting does not (especially when sourced by the same sources) makes not the slightest bit of sense. Anyway, like I said, I am not going to get into this too much until after Christmas. But yes, I do plan on appealing it in the proper way.

So all in all, I am baffled as to why this was removed. Can you enlighten me? Finally, as it obvious, I have either undid your removal or will do it manually. I am sure this will be countered. If it is, I will not revert a second time for the time being. So I hope all can be mutually agreed upon. Of course, if something can't be settled/compromised upon, by talking it out, I will have no choice but to appeal it. Hopefully though, it will not come to that.

You say the dissenting opinion should be in the White article itself? Well, I guess I just don't understand how the majority opinion is relevant to the history of the Confederacy, yet the dissenting is not? Pray explain this leap of logic...? If anything, both should be removed if that is indeed your rationale. TexasReb (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an article on the CSA and the dissenting opinions have no direct bearing on its history--whether they said a,B OR C made no difference to anyone except Lost Cause elements. The material was added as TexasReb has just explained for his personal POV reasons to pretend there was a legitimacy to the CSA. There were no citations to any RS that stated the dissent was an important element in CSA history. The dissent belongs in the WHite article not here. The majority opinion was in fact quite important say all the RS because it shaped all government policy on how to deal with laws passed during the 1861-65 period. Rjensen (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen? I hope you will agree to an "armistice" during the Christmas season. I have too many things to do with kids, grandkids, and family, to get stuck on this. Hopefully you do to.

So I am only going to repeat what I said earlier. To wit, if a properly sourced and neutral summary of the dissenting opinion should not be part of a sub-article on Texas v. White? Then neither should the majority. The contradiction so far as logical inclusion of one and not the other simply makes no sense.

And Rjensen? You either totally misread what I said, ignored it, or just want to mislead with it. I offered my opinion on the decision itself. So what? BUT...none of that was part of anything I actually wrote! What in the world are you talking about? I am sure you have your own opinions on the decision, and that is fine. But again, my personal opinions were not part of the article itself.

Hell, I invite ALL to read that one. In fact, I will repost it here:

Now, of POV, it probably goes without saying that I profoundly disagree with the majority opinion in terms of the continuity nature of the AOC and its preamble relationship to that of the original Constitution. And certainly that the forced appointment of Unionists to high positions in the Texas government during Reconstruction constituted the duly elected "officialdom" of the state. Also, because secession was not the actual issue before the court, it follows that anything related to secession was dicta. Too, that the majority opinion was highly political and partisan in nature as well. BUT...that is neither here nor there. It is something that might be debated on the talk page, but not anything to word into the article itself. I haven't and won't.

That is horrid isn't it? And not the least in the you seemingly have no problem with the same sources you say lack on my part yet you accept from the other side...?

Ok, enough of this for now...I have Christmas things to do. But I swear RJ, I just don't understand. Oh well, Merry Christmas and Happy New Years, anyway. Unfortunately, it appears at this point, the is no alternative but to let a high moderator settle it. I wish it were so... But anyway, again. Christmas armistice in force, ok? TexasReb (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

POV is deeply involved in adding this useless trivia. TexasReb admits it. --what he does not use is what Wikipedia rules require. . The transcript is an original source posted on the Cornell website. It is NOT a reliable secondary source as is required. Sorry, a private interpretation of original sources is not allowed by WP:RS The cite does NOT say the dissent was important for CSA. no scholar does. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen? This accusation is beyond the pale even for you. What you really seem to object to is not the source, but your own POV reasons for deleting it. There is nothing "trivial" about the dissenting opinion on a SCOTUS decision. It seems that you just cannot tolerate anything that goes counter to your own viewpoints. And in this instance it is particularly baffling in that nothing was POV on my part! That what I included is not backed up by a "reliable secondary source" is just ludicrous. It was used extensively in the main Texas v. White article with no objection at all from you. You accuse me of advancing a POV, but nothing, absolutely nothing, was POV of mine in the dissenting opinion section I included.

No, RJ, it is you, not me, who is violating some fundamental rules. And You are doing what you often do (not always, but lots of times). That is, refuse to assume good faith on the part of another editor as well as seemingly appointing yourself the "Grand Judge" of what is or isn't to be included in an article. When you become a moderator/administrator, then you have every right to do so. Until then, your rights to edit are no more and no less that of other editors.

The assertion that the actual text from the Cornell School of Law did not meet the Wiki standards of a secondary source is just ludicrous. Read the definition yourself and tell me how it was violated, will you?

I am going to adhere to the "armistice" I requested until after Christmas. After that, we will just have to let the chips fall where they may. I gave you my outlook on it all. I am fairly sure no consensus will be reached (or I will be honestly surprised, and pleased, if it is), but I am not going to give this one up. In any event, if there is any continued deletion of valid dissenting summation and quotes from the Texas v. White sub-article, then I am going to request arbitration/dispute settlement in accordance with Wiki rules. Unfortunately, there seems no other way. TexasReb (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, RJensen, your continued accusation that I "keep admitting something" is really pressing it. What is it that I am supposedly "admitting"??? Can you tell me? And back it up with something concrete as in an actual quote from me. Can you do that? TexasReb (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Texasreb, please properly format your talk page edits and quit inserting things into your earlier posts AFTER folks have responded. You make a mess of talk page discussions inserting things willy-nilly. Rjensen is correct about your insertion of what amounts to trivia in a blatant POV attempt to change the thrust of mainstream RS. This is the same problem we've had on the Texas ACW page and others. Red Harvest (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL I expected you would agree with RJensen. See my reply to him to get my reply to you. TexasReb (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Red Harvest? You are mistaking me for someone else apparently. My inclusion of the dissenting opinion is as it always was. You can check for yourself under the history on the article page. Also, yes, I did make a mistake in format on talk page which I will correct later this evening. Got Christmas stuff for now. Merry Christmas. TexasReb (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"I profoundly disagree with the majority opinion ..." admits TexasReb as he tries to slant the article to emphasize his own personal position. His fringe views have no support in the RS and are based on 21st century politics. That's his profound POV. Rjensen (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

LMAO. Rjensen? I "admit"? Admits what? You haven't answered that as to how to applies to the article itself.

Sure I gave my POV on talk page, and it is perfectly within rules. See them for yourself. This, again, makes no sense as to how it applies to what I wrote, included, and sourced, in the inclusion of the dissent itself. Please don't be that desperate. Which is all it can be. I haven't slanted the article in the least. Anyway, here is my general reply.

As can be seen, I reverted your unjustified removal of a neutral, relevant, and properly sourced addition to the Texas v. White case. Sadly, you have a history of removing material you personally do not agree with; invariably you justify your censoring by calling it some combination of trivial, irrelevant, improperly sourced, or accuse the other of advancing POV. Of the last, you accused me of it several times, without a single bit of proof. Yes, I gave my POV on the talk page, but nothing was POV in the article itself and that is the only thing that matters. It was nothing more than a summary of the dissent along with a few quotes and all properly sourced. Had the dissenting opinion been supported by only 1 justice, then perhaps it would not have much relevance. But in this case three disagreed with the majority, which was a little over a third of the members on the court. Your actions and M.O. are increasingly reminiscent of a petty tyrant college professor who gives bad grades to students who take a viewpoint opposite his/her own, as well as the self-appointed ultimate judge/ultimate editor of what can be included.

I did a little review of all the rules pertaining to editing/adding, and here are some interesting results, which I will pass along to you (as you constantly accuse me of violating rules). It comes from this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

And a few excerpts:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3]

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people...

So you see if you are calling this a primary source, then it is perfectly permissible, as the facts can easily verified. Also, please read the reliable secondary source rules. An excerpt is as follows:

Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.

As should be self-evident, the Cornell Law site provides a syllabus which highlights the major points of both sides and gives an overview of the basic facts of the case itself. In a nutshell, I am within Wiki rules on both the use of primary and/or reliable secondary sources.

Finally, I fully intend to abide by the three-revert rule. So far I have reverted twice. You have as well. If this fails (as I truly see no hope of compromise as we are too far apart on this one), I will take the proper steps and first seek mediation. If that fails, I will go to arbitration (dispute resolution). And if it comes to the latter, I will definitely abide by the decision of the arbitration committee. That seems fair enough, don't you think? TexasReb (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That state secession is illegal, is "settled law" in the United States. Though, a constitutional amendment allowing secession is admitted as possible by the Court. There is a link to Texas v. White where the dissents are more appropriately discussed. I agree with Texas Reb that the dissent is of interest, but there is no harm done to the encyclopedia to omit that level of detail in this summary article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

We are going back to square one here, VH. Secession is not an issue that can be "settled" by 5 unelected partisans of Lincoln's policies, especially when secession itself was not the issue before the court. All that is dicta. The only issue before the court was bond sales. But surely you would know that. Secession is too serious a matter to reduce it to some sort of "settled law" argument; it ignores so many things that would (and were) be involved. And would be again if it were ever attempted (which I am not suggesting it be, by any means). If certain states decided to secede by legal means as in legislative and/or voter approval, no SCOTUS decision is going to make any difference. For one thing, if they are "gone" then they are no longer bound by any rulings. This was one of the most contrived ahead of time ever decisions of SCOTUS to justify Lincoln's war policies. The only thing it did was, perhaps, give justification to coercing a sovereign state with the most flimsy of logic.

But anyway, I respectfully disagree that the proper place of the dissenting opinion belongs elsewhere. If the majority opinion is included in the whole Texas v. White article , then it seems to stand to reason that so should be the minority...especially when that minority made up over a third of the justices, and none were fans of the Southern Cause itself. I am willing to take this one to dispute resolution if it comes to that. And promise to abide by the results. TexasReb (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Insert Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the states are not sovereign as of the Constitution of 1789, the people of the United States are sovereign, as expressed by their national Constitutional Amendments. The Constitutional Amendment proposed to allow state secession failed to gain a majority of Congress.

In Virginia, the convention voted to stay in the Union, the delegates were “whipped” on the floor to vote secession by a member brandishing a pistol, an unauthorized secessionist militia seized the Harper’s Ferry arsenal, a delegation voted in the Confederate Congress before the plebiscite, and out-of-state secessionist militias voted in army camps. Every state “secession” story has similar un-republican irregularities, unconstitutional by each state’s constitutional provisions for changing its own constitution, never mind the Constitution of the people of the United States including them. Lincoln had been Constitutionally elected president of the entire nation, and was so ratified by the outgoing Congress under Buchanan.

There was no twenty-year “long train of abuses” by a George III to abolish Southern rights and liberties. The fire-eaters misguided the Southern people into an unlawful fratricidal war by promising a permanent slave society without any resistance to secession. They were wrong, illegal secession was successfully resisted by the federal government; unfortunately, the rebellion did not wait for a Supreme Court holding, with tragic results. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

VH, let me first say I appreciate your comments on the dissenting opinion and desire to find a compromise (and I will reply to your "alterative" in a minutes), but see my latest reply (or any other ones) as to why I believe it should be included on this page and not just the main White page. These unjustified removals by a certain editor have reached a point where the same often refuses to entertain anything with which he vehemently disagrees, and thus, deletes it. He refuses to adhere to the "assume good faith" rule of Wikipedia and seemingly (not always but a notable number of times) has appointed himself the final authority/supreme editor of this page and what is or isn't allowed on it. And often for reasons that make no sense (see latest reasons given for removal) For that reason if nothing else -- although there are other reasons such as a desire to give balance and include neutral, relevant, properly sourced material -- I am determined to see this through to the end. It has got to be settled by a higher authority (mediator or arbitration committee) once and for all.

So far as secession goes, we have pretty much debated/discussed that one in all its aspects. We will just have to agree to disagree on it. Yes, we can continue it on one of our talk pages if you like, but I really can't think of anything either of us hasn't said before! But still, let me give a few comments to your latest, then I really think it ought to go elsewhere (such, as mentioned, to one of our talk pages).

Every state, both South and North had some "irregularities" But there is no question that, even with such, a majority supported secession (either the duly elected legislature and/or the voters themselves). In the North, there were irregularities in the elections of 1864; democrats were often discouraged from voting by threats and occasionally outright force. There are some questions too when it came to allowing soldiers to vote. Incidentally, the "People of the United States" does not mean "the people" as a nationwide mass, but in the context of the respective sovereign states of the United States" (which early on was often referred to as "these United States." The Founding Fathers agreed on this. To say the states were not sovereign entities just, with all due respect, makes no sense at all. That is the reason for the division of power in which the states delegated only limited and specific ones to the central government; that is the reason for the 9th and 10th amendments. And yes, Lincoln was constitutionally elected, but it was not him personally who was so much feared, as was the sectional party (at that time) and northern business interests which controlled him.

The American Revolution is always pesky and inconvenient fact for the pro-Union historians and history buffs. And invariably some variation on what you wrote (well, the colonists rights were abused but the South's was not) used. Actually, as it was, the Southern states had more legal ground to stand on that did the American colonists as the latter British citizens who owed their loyalty to the crown and were never promised any representation. The were clearly in rebellion. Have you ever read the history of the American Revolution from the British side? King George actually made quite a few conciliatory measures to pacify the colonists. I hasten to add I fully support the American side, but just noting that war and rationale for "secession" is not so clear cut and dried. On the other hand, the Southern states were sovereign states (and first recognized as such by the Treaty of Paris) and the Constitution clearly did not prohibit secession, even if it might be rash, unwise, and foolhardy. Above all, the South did not start the War. The conflict started when Lincoln made a decision to invade the Lower South in spite of all attempts by the latter to negotiate a peace settlement beneficial to both sides, and pay its share of the national debt and for all federal property within its borders. When ignored and then invaded it had no choice but to defend itself. And the excuse for invasion was clearly a contrived incident. As Lincoln wrote to Gustavus Fox (who headed the effort to re-provision Ft. Sumter: "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." Finally, can you cite the source for your claim that a constitutional amendment allowing secession failed to pass? I have never heard of one ever being introduced. Now I do know that one was proposed prohibiting secession, and it was defeated (I will dig that out and provide it for you).

To continue on secession, congressional approval was not needed as there was nothing said about it one way or another in the Constitution. But let me quote James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution) on the subject of secession (although naturally this is not legally binding): "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." -- James Madison. It might be noted that in another more detailed writing, he said the latter had a potential for abuse for the reason that if Congress could vote to allow a state to secede, they could just as easily vote to kick another without cause. Thus, the Southern states chose to go the latter route, the "abuse of the compact". Now I know the pro-North faction will scoff at this. And in this day in age where the federal government has lost all restraint in its abuse of power to dictate to the states, it will probably seem trivial. But at the time, it wasn't. The economic discrimination the Southern states were subject to had long been a festering source of friction. The slavery issue is largely used today as an emotional argument rather than an historically logical one. Certainly no right thinking person today supports slavery. So it has to be looked at in the context of the day. The Southern economy was at least notably dependent on slavery (of which the slave trade itself was firmly in northern hands) and immediate emancipation would have had serious consequences. The northern states had abolished it gradually only when it became unprofitable (although they continued to bring slaves to the South and profit from it in indirect ways). Regardless, there is no reason to suppose that slavery would have lasted much longer in the South if they had won. Probably a couple of decades at most. For one thing, opinion in most of the western world opposed it, and such might have made it difficult for the new nation (which did outlaw the slave-trade itself). And many prominent Southern men either outright detested it or had some serious reservations about it.

Finally, as said quite a few times, to have brought the issue before the Supreme Court would have been pointless. The SCOTUS does not accept moot cases, which secession would have been if it had not yet occurred. If it had already occurred, then no Supreme Court ruling would have made any difference.

Gosh, I have gone on farrrrrrr longer than I intended! LOL We should really take this elsewhere. Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

[outdent] undo 1. original research in primary source; 2) no secondary source; 3) trivial regarding CSA (the dissent had zero effect)--losers' views are NOT the law but majority view is settled law of the land; 4) motivated by blatant POV of hatred of the main decision; 5) fringe neoconfederate hatred of USA 6) zero support from reliable sources that thisis important for history of CSA Rjensen (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, I have used three reverts and so have you. So let's keep in mind the rules on that one (although no, they haven't been within a 24 hour period, although that seems to be a loose rule that may not be used to "game the system). So far as the rest goes, I will reply simply by referring you back to my post of last night (very early this morning, actually), as there is nothing more to say or add to it. I stick by my points and position on being within the Wiki rules for editing/additions, as well as future intent (first mediation, then dispute resolution if necessary), and I will abide by the final decision, whatever it may be.

Also, your latest "justification" from removal is false as to accusations, and particularly outlandish and hateful on your part is your arrogant and unwarranted assumptions concerning my motives for including a summary of the dissenting opinion; this does not legally constitute libel, but in some ways it is a form of it. As to the others, here are the accusations used as justification for removal, as well as a rebutal: undo per talk page = 1. original research in primary source; 2) no secondary source; 3) trivial regarding CSA (the dissent had zero effect); 4) motivated by blatant POV of hatred of the main decision

1. Wikipedia rule: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. As can be clearly seen there is no violation, and all has been adhered to.

2. Wikipedia rule: Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. As should be self-evident, the Cornell Law site provides a syllabus which highlights the major points of both sides and gives an overview of the basic facts of the case itself. In a nutshell, I am within Wiki rules on both the use of primary and/or reliable secondary sources.

3. The fact that the dissent had no effect on the CSA is irrelevant. Any minority opinion of a SCOTUS decision has zero direct effect on the case at hand. But that doesn't mean it should not be cited when exploring the case itself. A competent briefing on any case -- although this was not a briefing -- includes the dissenting opinion(s). Far as that goes, the majority decision had zero effect on the CSA, as it was written several years after the same had ceased to exist. So what relevance does it have on the Confederacy? In addition, the case before the court did not involve secession itself, it involved bond sales; and the main dispute was really about whether or not Texas had standing to bring it before the Supreme Court. In a nutshell, if a Texas v. White section is going to be included in the main Confederacy article, then the summary basis for the dissenting opinion should be included along with the majority. If someone wants to take out the entire thing, I would raise no objections.

4. This is the most outrageous accusation of all. So now you have a crystal ball into my purposes for writing information? Blatant hatred? LOL This is truly hilarious on some levels. Yes, I disagree with the rationale used to reach the majority decision (the "dicta") and said so and why on an earlier Talk Page post, but hatred of it is not involved in any form or fashion. This ludicrous assertion seems to illustrate some desperation on your part; apparently you must feel a need to attribute malicious intentions to someone who takes a different view point than your own on the subject of the War, secession, and the CSA. Also, as I said earlier, while not legally constituting libel by any means, it contains some elements of the same.

And I see on the Talk Page you have included two more accusations, one that is even more malicious than number 4 above. To wit: undo per talk page = 1. original research in primary source; 2) no secondary source; 3) trivial regarding CSA (the dissent had zero effect); 4) motivated by blatant POV of hatred of the main decision

And now it appears you have added two other groundless reasons for deletion, one of them even more malicious than the one above. To wit: 5) fringe neoconfederate hatred of USA 6) zero support from reliable sources that thisis important for history of CSA

5. This one is contains even more elements of libel than No. 4 above. If by neo-Confederate you mean one who believes the South had the best constitutional arguments on its side, and that it was unjustifiably invaded, deliberately so over an incident at Ft. Sumter that Lincoln pretty much admitted he contrived for the purpose of rallying northerners to support his war; all for economic reasons that had nothing to do with slavery, then yes, I guess I am a neo-Confederate. If you mean someone who supports secession and Southern Jim Crow Laws, then you are very mistaken and do not in any way fit the definition.

And further, to blatantly state I "hate" the United States contains even more libelous elements than No. 4 above, and may even violate Wiki rules concerning personal attacks. This accusation is without the slightest bit of evidence beyond what appears to be your own irrational hatred of anything and/or anyone who takes a viewpoint different from your own. At the very least it is a bald-faced lie on your part. Not that I have to explain one dammed thing to you, but I happen to love this country and for you to say otherwise without the slightest basis for it is not only an outright lie and highly resented, sir, but possibly even further evidence of your own baffling hatred, intolerance, and possible insecurities when it comes to your whole outlook on topics like this and how you will attack anyone who disagrees with you and delete material you don't like.

6. This one was answered already at No.3

Finally, it appears we may have to go to mediation on this one. Possibly even dispute resolution where we can both present our cases. And again, I will abide by the results. I definitely plan to explore Wiki rules concerning personal attacks and if posting of No. 4 and 5 constitute one. If they do -- and they well may not -- I intend to report it if such continues. So I hope you will follow basic rules of civility and refrain from posting falsehoods which contain malicious accusations. TexasReb (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually per the rules you are edit warring. You made a bold edit that was reverted. Discussion has been occurring and there has been no effective support for your opinion which has been rejected by all of the other editors in the discussion. Therefore you should have not made the next two reverts. Please, go ahead and take this to mediation/arbitration/dispute resolution. I suspect it will result in another block of your account.Red Harvest (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not start this "edit war" While "controversial" material may be reverted it stands to reason it must be explained what is so controversial about it. In this case, the only "controversy" seems to be some do not want the opposing opinion to be seen at all. Grounds for elimination fall extremely short and are not supported at all by rules for inclusion of relevant material. And RJ's grounds are becoming increasingly personal.

What you really mean by no consensus for my inclusion of "my opinion" really boils down to that the material I added included is not something some editors want to be read/seen, at all.

The above unsigned section is another of Texasreb's tiresome, sloppy edits. The reason for the revert was well explained and the consensus is clearly against your blatant attempts to insert fringe personal views. The dissent is properly covered in the Texas vs. White article. Red Harvest (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on several assertions by Texasreb about this case:

• Texasreb claims that the Texas v. White ruling on secession was "dicta". However, this appears to be a conflating of the Dred Scott decision with the White decision. The Dred Scott decision with regards to restrictions on slavery in the territories is obiter dicta because the Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction. In Texas vs. White the opposite is true, the Court had to rule on the constitutionality of secession in order to establish or reject jurisdiction. In so doing the ruling with regard to secession was binding, not dicta.
• Texasreb also asserts that secession could not be "'settled' by 5 unelected partisans of Lincoln's policies", while clinging to the dissenting opinion of Grier--who was not one of the more reputable members of the Court--having supported the Dred Scott decision as a member of the Court, widely regarded as one of the worst/most flawed decisions ever made by the body. All US Supreme Court justices are "unelected". Of the 5 mentioned with the claim of partisanship, Nelson preceded Lincoln by a longshot (1845) and was also part of the Dred Scott majority while Clifford joined the Court in 1858 (before Lincoln) and was a pro-slavery Democrat.

These are just more examples of Texasreb's opinions conflicting with historical reality. Red Harvest (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is dicta. For one thing, neither party ever brought up secession and the points pro or con, were never argued. This was simply an opportunity for Chase to do some extemporaneous advancements of his own personal viewpoints. Now it is true that the "logic" he used was -- on minor levels -- required to reach the decision he (and the majority) did, but he cited no legal nor historical precedents nor constitutional wording in support of his position; just his personal beliefs (or justifications for the War). And they were extremely illogical and contradictory as well. The dissenting opinions made mincemeat out of them (which is the real reason certain editors oppose their inclusion). Anyway, main point is that his treatise on the non-right of secession and the "indestructible nature" of the Union were not really necessary. He easily could have simply cited the Texas ordinance of March, 15, 1866, which declared the ordinance of secession null and void. No, his real reasons for going on at length was to justify the Lincoln war policy. So it is dicta in the larger sense.

I am not sure at all what you are driving at when you say I "cling" to the dissenting opinion of Greer. No, I agree with it because it makes sense from a "political reality". Nothing more, nothing less. So far as Grier being one of the more "disreputable" members of the SCOTUS because of the way he voted on a case of over a century ago is a bit historically illogical. The ruling may offend the moral sensibilities of today (and well they may, mine included), But at the time he time, Grier merely based his opinion on his interpretation of the actual laws of the day. The easiest thing in the world is to get morally uptight by applying the standards of today to another distant era.

Sorry, but I have long noticed that what you regard as a conflict with "historical reality" really boils down to that if you oppose the viewpoint, then anything going against it must, by necessity, mean someone is not being historically realistic. You seem to not grasp at all the truth that history is not an objective subject. It is something individuals are going to disagree on so far as interpretation goes, which in itself involves many factors. My own guess is that you have, all your life in the realm of historical interest, been exposed to a decidedly pro-Union "winners history" outlook. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it seems to incline you to dismiss and scoff at anything which goes against it as "fringe" or outright false; and it galls the ilk to have to deal with it. I have always said the advantage the pro-Union version has is that it has been considered mainstream for so many years. The advantage the pro-Confederate side has is that -- in large thanks to the internet -- many people are being exposed to viewpoints and analysis they had never heard before. It is not all that uncommon for some historians to frankly state that much of what they grew up learning in their classes has another side to it and that the other side made sense. TexasReb (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not dicta, determining Texas status was a requirement of establishing proper (or improper) jurisdiction. You obviously don't understand what the term means. Chase's argument is easy enough to follow and it has been accepted as settled law. Contrary to your characterization of them, and it appears that at least 3 of the 5 in the majority were not Lincoln partisans. History can and should be more objective than you make it, and that means getting basic information right, rather than making crap up as is your habit. So take your neo-Confederate spin machine elsewhere. Red Harvest (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And I repeat, this could just as easily been done by citing the Texas ordinance of March 15, 1866, declaring the Ordinance of Secession "null and void. And this "neo-Confederate" stuff you keep spouting and "making stuff up" really just amounts to you don't want to deal with it TexasReb (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Right to revolution, force of arms to attain independence, requires human rights abuses, otherwise political issues are subject to internal adjudication. There were no human rights abuses suffered by the states resorting to rebellion in 1861. Recalibration of tariffs by consent in Congress is not the same as a King’s arbitrary ending trial by jury, deporting accused away from the jurisdiction of the crime, making war on civilians, and so on. Resupply of federal property lawfully ceded by a state at Fort Sumter is not a violation of the national compact.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the constituents of Congress were the states of the people; under the 1789 Constitution, the constituents of Congress were the people of the states. The Articles Congress voluntarily dissolved itself to make way for the Constitution’s Congress. The Constitution’s Congress did not voluntarily dissolve itself to make way for the Confederate Congress, and when faced with coercion by rebellion, the rebellion was put down by the majority of the United States people. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And what "human rights abuses" did the colonials undergo? The phrase "human rights abuses" can be contracted or expanded as one pleases, to mean anything or nothing. And really, we do need to take this to a talk page. We have been over and over this, and we just don't agree on it. For everything you can bring up so far as "differences" go between the secession of the British colonies which lead to what we now know as that American Revolution, I can bring up bundles of evidence to show the Southern states actually had much more justification. But then? You could counter with things of your own. So bottom line is, let's take it elsewhere, ok? Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the Supreme Court was not and is not impressed by your argument, Texasreb. It is not dicta if it is a requirement of the ruling, and this one was. Texas' 1866 ordinances don't determine the U.S. Federal jurisdiction for 1865 and before, nor did they necessarily determine those later because of that supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution. The Court would at some stage have to rule on secession in order to address the interim status of states while in rebellion. The heart of the problem was the extra-constitutional nature of secession. Whether one believes it was valid or not, it wasn't addressed directly in the Constitution and it wasn't addressed by the legislative branch. Neither had made secession possible or impossible. In the absence of clear direction, the judicial branch was the natural arbiter, but the seceding states did not seek a ruling before initiating a war against the Federal government. Initiation of war gave the executive branch war powers. The legislative branch supported the executive branch. The judicial branch could have still ruled against the executive or legislative branches on the matter of secession, but it did not. Red Harvest (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are so many holes in this argument that I could probably shoot a .32 Saturday night special thru them. Chase's opinions were just that, and the bottom line is that the issue of secession never came up before the Supreme Court at all. Thus the "arbituer" had no jurisdiction.

And face it, if the dissenting opinion had been the majority one? Then can you honestly say you would not be taking an opposite position? Congress? Matter of fact, originally, probably most of Congress might have gone along with Southern secession; certainly most were opposed to a war to prevent it. The Supremacy Clause means nothing relevant to the issue. The Confederate Constitution contained the very same clause verbatim. It only applied if the said states were within the same Union.

The point of bringing up the Texas ordinance is that it would have very "simple" to "prove" that Texas had never left the Union. Chase was not a stupid man (a Lincoln/Republican party stooge, yes), he knew full well what he was doing when he penned the majority opinion...which was to justify what was really an unjustified war upon Southern states which had done no wrong to the North.

Answer one question, please. Why did the North -- under Lincoln and the Republican party, sectional and controlled by northern business interests -- invade the South? We both know it wasn't over slavery. If you are going to say it was to "preserve the Union"...then for what reason was the Union being preserved? Could it have been because the South was a "cash cow"? TexasReb (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Texas Reb. As to your one question. The United States is a democratic federal republic with a sovereign people which alters the constitutional status of its perpetual states in perpetual union by the entire people as lawfully expressed by their representatives in 2/3 the House, in 2/3 the Senate and in 3/4 of the states. There was no lawful secession. Conspirators simultaneously captured the machinery of several state governments to foment a rebellion against the lawful authority of the U.S. government as anticipated might happen in the Federalist Papers over some narrow sectional interest, -- in this case slavery expansion, that’s what they told themselves and others at the time --, refusing to acknowledge the authority of Congress and the lawful election of the president by force of arms.

The rebellion was put down by national forces closing with and destroying rebel forces until they relented; -- the majority of the people of the nation prevailed as anticipated in the Federalist Papers. Patrick Henry’s objection to the phrase “We the people” was outvoted in Virginia’s U.S. Constitutional Ratification Convention and outfought in the Great Rebellion. The “sovereign" states were no longer -- with the implementation of the Constitution of 1789 -- by the authority of the sovereign people of the nation in ratification conventions specifically elected for the purpose of constituting a new national government, acknowledging the Supreme Law of the Land as the Constitution and Acts of Congress -- including expansion of slavery -- as a requirement of admission to the Union. The Union was preserved in the American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over this, VH? While I respect you, this is really getting old and needs (as I have said before) taken elsewhere; talk pages, e-mail whatever.

We are both just repeating the same arguments. We do not agree and will not ever agree on this subject. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like you are much more insistent that I accept your viewpoint than you accept mine (which was never my intention, anyway). So to sum it up?

I believe that the states of the United States were sovereign states and the Treaty of Paris and the DOI and the Constitution reflected it clearly, as did the writings in the Federalist Papers. That the said states would have never entered into a Union to begin with if they had known aforehand they could never get out of it (such makes no sense when they had just "seceded" from England, with one of the absolutely intrinsic justifications being that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed". What else can that mean? A Union that has to be held together by military force is no longer a true "Union" in the proper sense. Certainly not the one our Colonial ancestors ever thought of as such...

Lincoln chose to invade the Lower South because he could not afford, literally, to lose the South as the "cash-cow" for federal coffers, which overwhelmingly came back to benefit northeastern business interests. And as he later pretty much admitted, to forcing an incident at Ft. Sumter to justify his actions. And was (although, ok, perhaps it was not so much him as the sectional party which he was part of) and when it all ended up said and done, it cost the lives of over half a million both Southern and Northern men and boys who never had anything against each other to begin with when it came right down to it. No wonder all this had to be later justified in the mainstream history books as being some kind of altruistic morality play revolving around "saving the Union" and "freeing the slaves."

Ok, as it is -- and I know I ramble on quite a bit! LOL -- to continue to hash it out here is just pointless. So let's go elsewhere to do it, ok? Yes, you can go ahead and get in the "last word" here, if you want. Then? lets go somewhere private, alright? LOL Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, one last word. The “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" followed by a “more perfect Union” meant there was no getting out, we are going forward as a democratic federal republic together under the Supreme Law of the Land, as our representatives the Congress constitutionally relay it to us, including the subject of slavery. The Anti-federalists saw the change in the fundamental character of the national government signaled by “We the people”; they lost unanimously in the thirteen states in half the time it took to ratify the Articles unanimously — among our founding-father colonial-ancestors.

Economic analysis is only a shadowy reflection of what actually motivates most individuals. In history, what people say to justify their actions to themselves and to others is a touchstone of accuracy in the past and reality in the present. Unionists said they put down rebellion to save the nation and free the slaves, Rebels said they sought independence to perpetuate slavery and the right to expand it. Some history books create a Lost Cause equivalence to remove the actuating motivations of the time, anachronistically imposing current political divides onto the past to suppose there was nothing worth fighting over. Fortunately here we can look to reliable sources of scholarship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok VH, you essentially have gotten the last long word in. I am just going to close by repeating that we are not going to agree, and both of us can and have presented reliable historical sources to back up our respective positions. Incidentally, I can't help but notice that you present quite an moralistic, idealized version of northern motivations, and quite an abbreviated one of the Southerners! LOL But ok, as promised, I wont get into that here. Where do you want to go to continue it? (if you do). TexasReb (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternate language

I would have only, “Justice Robert C. Grier dissented from the majority.[note]"

Note: Justice Grier's dissent in the case hinged on the political fact that in his view, over the preceding eight years, Texas was first found to be in rebellion by Congress without Congressional representation, then it had been administered as a military district without self governance. Grier wrote, "Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.” He considered all else a “judicial fiction”. see Texas v. White, Legal Information Institute online, Cornell University Law School, viewed August 28, 2014.

I hope this shorter substitute can gain a consensus; I do not agree to the longer edit of Texas Reb. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

VH? I was going to say earlier that I would be willing to consider this attempt at compromise wording -- probably even support it after some discussion. However, as you can clearly see, another editor objects to any compromise on this topic (You can see my statement below his). And he attempts to frame it with the transparent logic that to do so would simply "encourage" me. Geez...

Just a couple more things on the topic, the reason for the length of my original was that two separate dissenting opinions were written and I wanted to summarize both. But that is all it was, a summary with a couple of relevant (and properly sourced) quotes. It was as "tight" as I could make it and still give a good overview, but there was no superfluous wording in it, I don't believe.

Anyway, I am willing (and always have been) to compromise. But you will have to get the other editors in on it and, to be honest, I don't think you will have any luck with that (although I would be pleasantly surprised if you can). You can see below how compromise is regarded. And I've little doubt the other sees it the same way. In spite of Wiki rules to try and seek a compromise on wording, it has little to no support with some. But anyway, thanks for trying. Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Under the current conditions, with TexasReb once again edit warring on the issue, I don't see any purpose in attempting to change the status quo. All you're doing is encouraging an editor who has no intent to play by the rules. However, for the purposes of this article, the only relevant material from the dissents is that none of them recognized the legitimacy of secession. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You can see my reply to you about rules and following them in my replies to Rjensen. This will have to go to mediation and possibly arbitration. I didn't begin this edit war, it started when neutral, relevant, and properly sourced material was deleted. And yes, on a related tangent, I see now the little "game" being played because of the general three-edit rule. When one editor's three run out, then you rush in to take up the slack. I guess I better write and see if the three-edit rule applies with such an obvious intent as this.

Your accusations of my starting an "edit war" are ludicrous, just as is the rationale for removing the summary of the dissent. The real truth is (at least IMHO) is that you too object to anything which goes against your pro-northern bias and to add anything that goes counter to it as "edit warring" if the said editor sticks to his guns and the rules. And of course, the "warring" is always the fault of the other side, never your own. Apparently, the new definition of edit-warring is to have the audacity to include material which can even remotely be construed -- in this instance -- to countering the sacred belief that secession was null and void from the beginning and not made so by the results of the War itself (and I am really not sure what is so objectionable, the dissent was fairly summarized and sourced, and included quotes which indicated the dissenters opposed secession).

The majority opinion was that of Lincoln appointees who supported his war policies and to arrive at the conclusion they did (the dicta on secession), they resorted to amazing contradictions and leaps of logic; such as attempting to "prove" Texas had never left the Union, yet desperately trying to square it with the fact they had no representation in Congress and were under military rule. The almost pathetic reasoning they came up with was that the Reconstruction government in the state was the truly legitimate one. That is almost laughable. As the dissenting opinion said, it was based on "legal fiction". This is the real reason for objecting to an inclusion of the dissenting opinion, because it is so obviously based on common sense and "political reality", that the rabid pro-Union historians and history buffs cannot tolerate it and seemingly do not want to be read.

Finally, IMO, your remarks to Virginia Historian are deflecting and less than truthful as well. How is the inclusion of his attempt at compromise going to "encourage me"? As it is, I prefer my version, but would strongly consider -- and probably even support his -- after some discussion. So spare that "cop-out." You don't want his in there because you don't want any of the dissenting opinion in there. You are just using me as your stalking horse to keep it out. So obvious and transparent, and funny, that you would think it fools anyone. And it is even more hilarious when you say the only relevant part of the dissenting opinion is that "none of them recognized the legitimacy of secession."

For one thing, none of that was stated in their opinions (they stuck to the facts of the case). They seemed to personally object to it, but not recognizing it is a little different. In fact, Grier wrote: I do not consider myself bound to express any opinion judicially as to the constitutional right of Texas to exercise the rights and privileges of a State of this Union, or the power of Congress to govern her as a conquered province, to subject her to military domination, and keep her in pupilage. The others said nothing about it either. So where do you come by saying otherwise? It seems to be just something you tossed out of the blue with no support at all, and would be considered un-sourced if put in the article. However the fact you seemingly would like to see it in there speaks volumes as to where you really stand on the inclusion of the minority opinion. To wit, you wouldn't mind it at all if it supported your own viewpoint! LOL TexasReb (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

TexasReb wants compromises on the Wiki rules that require him to produce RS, which he refuses to do. He pursues a fringe position to delegitimize Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the USConstitution. Rjensen (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I seek no compromise on basic rules. No, I challenge you to provide concrete and clear proof that I did. Your vague assertions do not suffice. Instead, provide in details how my sources do not meet reliable source standards. Superficial rationale doesn't cut the mustard.

Also your silly assertion that my intent is to "delegitimize Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the USConstitution." is just that. To take them one at a time? What? Is Lincoln some kind of historical demi-god in your viewpoint whose actions cannot be criticized? Please explain. Is the SCOTUS a body whose decisions cannot be called into question and challenged? I fully recognize the legitimacy of the highest court, but that doesn't mean I agree with all its decisions (particularly during the Warren era), and the constitution provides for checks and balances of its powers. And finally, speaking of the latter, I wouldn't take some of the positions I do if not for the fact I recognize the Constitution -- as originally intended and worded -- to be supreme law of the land and the document to which I owe my highest allegiance. So be dammed to your -- once again -- malicious assertions. TexasReb (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose alternate wording for the reasons others have already given. Texasreb's personal POV pushing has been blatant and tiresome. And nothing is ever resolved because he refuses to accept consensus rejection of his fringe positions (which are invariably lacking support from reliable secondary sources.) The number of pages of his expression of his personal opinion (and yes, he states that it his opinion) is perplexing since the top of this talk page states: "This is not a forum for general discussion about Confederate States of America." A topic ban is likely in order. Red Harvest (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't care if you find my opinions "blatant and tiresome". The important thing is have I done so in the article itself? So how have I been "pushing personal viewpoints" in a way that is in violation of any Wikipedia rules? The fact you don't want to hear them is totally irrelevant, and your "being on the bandwagon" doesn't change it. This admonition against not the Talk Page being a general forum for discussion about the CSA itself does not apply -- or would not seem to -- if it includes discussion of controversial topics in the realm of editing/additions. What else is it for, if not that? TexasReb (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I would omit Texas v. White from the article altogether. It merely echoed by judicial decision what had already been decided by the sword. It has no meaning for the Confederate States of America, which had ceased to exist before the case was ever instituted. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, Jdcrutch. That would solve everything. As you say, neither opinion has anything to do with the CSA. My only position is that if one is included, then so should the other. Good points! TexasReb (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Then can we call an end to this tiresome controversy by deleting all reference to Texas v. White from the C.S.A. article? It really doesn't belong here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Propose it in a new section as the previous discussions are so buried that this likely won't even be seen by others. I'm of mixed views on it. It is pertinent to the entire basis of the Confederacy which relied on a contested/rejected constitutional theory. However, the ruling itself is also post-war. It might make sense to relocate the section within the article to a part pertaining to secession. I'm not convinced that it should be removed and would like to hear others' input. Red Harvest (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Texasreb's bizarre use of the Talk page--large additions/insertions/and deletions

What in the heck is going on? We keep getting these tomes of Texasreb's personal opinions, followed by deletions and sometimes insertions out of sequence. Take a look at the edit history. The Talk page is being turned into a personal sandbox by Texasreb. It is very difficult to follow or respond to because of the cut/paste/delete games. This nonsense needs to end. Red Harvest (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. What is relevant to the article is that legal experts consider secession to have been illegal and the courts agreed. The dissenting legal opinions in Texas v. White are of little importance. TFD (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This makes no sense. What "legal experts" considered secession of the time to be "illegal"? And the SCOTUS did not totally agree on it. Which is the basis of the inclusion of the dissenting opinions. They are objected as per being included because it appears some just don't want them to be presented. TexasReb (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with TFD, dissenting opinions are of interest but little importance to this article. Buchanan clearly said secession was illegal, even before he began to agree to forceable resistance to rebellion by the federal government. The proposed Amendment to allow state secession failed to gain a majority in the Senate.

In the view of the dissenting Justices, Texas as “not a state in the Union” did not mean secession was justified, only that in rebellion it had reduced itself to a territory of the United States, but still a part of the United States.

There was legally no leaving by state secession resolves, and the majority said there was no change in status, a state is perpetually a state in the Union, saving a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

All you are really doing, is pretty much repeating the same old pro-Union version of the War and/or the Chase decision. Again, nothing wrong with that if you truly believe it. But at the time it was far from clear. Not in the least. And once again, could you please give a source for your assertion of the amendment you speak of? And a little more clarity as to Buchanan's position? Did he disagree with secession? Yes, he did. But please give some source to where he supported force to prevent it? TexasReb (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I play the "cut and paste game" because my responses are being deleted, and I have no choice but to save them and re-add them. I will make no accusations, but it is very obvious such is being done. I have deleted nothing of anyone else's at all. There is nothing out of sequence about anything posted. TexasReb (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You are the one deleting your own responses! (As in diff file -- the red -4,384 should be a hint to you.) You are also the one inserting responses in a way that alters/confuses the meanings of other's posts that preceded yours. For that reason, I'm moving your response here to after TFD's, just as it came chronologically. There is no conspiracy except in your head. If you were more concise and dropped the op-eds, you would experience fewer edit conflicts when trying to post. Do one response at a time, rather than trying to do multiple sections, as you frequently screw those up. You keep messing up the formats of sections and others' posts. Red Harvest (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about a conspiracy? I said that I had no choice but to copy and paste when they keep getting eliminated. If I made the mistake, then I take responsibility for it. TexasReb (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You did! You intentionally implied conspiracy with your own words: "because my responses are being deleted, and I have no choice but to save them and re-add them. I will make no accusations, but it is very obvious such is being done." And contrary to your statement, "There is nothing out of sequence about anything posted" the timestamps and edit history prove otherwise, here and in discussions on other pages. Hence, this section. Red Harvest (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This rings a bit of a conspiracy theory of your own. And yes, my responses were deleted, but I accuse no one of doing so intentionally (see reply). And for sure it is overboard as hell. For whatever reason, I was having difficulty posting my replies, nothing more nor less than that. And yes, my responses were being deleted. But did I accuse anyone of doing it? No, it could have just as easily been something I did or the way things worked. And I said so, in so many words... You are the one making a mountain out of a molehill. I said earlier, if it was something I did wrong, then I take the blame. TexasReb (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Amazing spin you are applying. Your wording clearly suggested that others were behind it and you still hint at it with "if" and "it could have" rather than actually accepting responsibility for your own obvious mistakes. No, I'm not making a mountain out of molehill, but I am calling you out for demonstrating an audacious lack of credibility and accountability. Screwing up your own posts, then claiming others were behind it (which is what you did and continue to do "in so many words" as you put it) is a serious breach of good faith on your part. Red Harvest (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You calling me out? ROFL Guess what, I am calling you out! You cling to the silliest things. Cite one post of mine -- or portion of one -- that claimed anyone was "conspiring" against me. Are you that desperate? Cite one post I made that said anything about accusing anyone; and saying I "implied" something really boils down to that one can always say someone "implied" something, and no way to disprove a negative, as the saying goes...

I said clearly, several times, that if I was wrong, then I take responsibility...did I not? All I know was that my total response did not come out on screen. It was weird, but I said clearly perhaps it was my fault. I say it now. In that regard, you are making a "mountain out of a molehill".

Not that I have to explain/justify one thing to you, but I want to call you out on all this. You seem to want to milk this forever, and for little --if any -- rational reasons. So, ahhh, hell, don't give me that "serious breach of faith" garbage. What faith have I breached? Happy New Years. TexasReb (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already named and quoted the post, but apparently English is a second language for you, because you don't comprehend the implications of your own words. You continue to offer a non-apology and a non-admission of being the origin of the deletions/insertions and formatting problems (errors which you have continued to commit in 3 of your last 5 edits.) Are you pretending that you can't recognize your mistakes or are you genuinely unable to look at your own edits and see the obvious errors and the large deletion? Even after it has been brought to your attention, you haven't taken responsibility and you haven't improved the quality of your editing. Tom had to relocate one of your sloppy editing insertions in this discussion today. Figure out what you are doing wrong, and quit doing it. Red Harvest (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL Yeah, ok, English is a second language to me. Feel better now? ROFL. This is really getting ridiculous...but I suppose it you want to keep going on and on, then have a blast. To keep this silly-arsed exchange up really doesn't do much good for your own position, far as it goes. And rings of deflection. TexasReb (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This personal exchange belongs on a user's talk page, not here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it belongs here because it affects everyone in the discussion and is a pattern of problem editing behavior that others need to be aware of. Attempts have been made to make the editor aware of this sort of thing, particularly treating this as his own personal sandbox/soapbox, but all we get is a line of excuses and trying to blame problems of his own making on others. It is hard to have a coherent discussion when someone is trashing the format and making out of order edits that mislead other editors...one might even wonder if the latter is intentional. Red Harvest (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am just going to say this:

I am just going to try and condense all this into a reply to all. I have been out of town all weekend (I have a family and life apart from Wiki) and this is my first response.

To start, well, I suppose I should be a little flattered that so many are so defensive when it comes to actually having to confront arguments which go against their own solidified historical viewpoints. And have to come up with self-justifying rationale to bar/ban the same. And often changing the same to suit for the moment. RJensens accusations have run from the hateful to the bizarre. For instance, the justification of elimination on the basis of "original research" in the primary source. This makes no sense at all. How in the world is a source that includes the actual text of both the majority and dissenting opinion an original one??? And rules are clear that inclusions can be both primary and secondary; they sometimes overlap, which this one does.

In fact, this was never even brought up at first. No edit-warring was done on my part; I included the dissenting opinion, and its connection to the CSA was that not all of the SCOTUS agreed with the logic (dicta) and personal opinion used by Chase. The opposite opinion has as much connection with the Confederacy as does the majority as in connection with the same, which had ceased to exist some three years before. So if one is to be included? Then so should the other...and a sizeable minority one at that (all of whom personally seemed to consider secession very ill-advised). It was my posts that were reverted.

Let's be honest, ok? No BS. The belief that secession was illegal is a "sacred cow" among rabid pro-Lincoln and pro-Union, enthusiasts. Nothing wrong with that per-se, except that a suggestion otherwise seems to invoke an almost hysterical reaction. And to attack anyone saying otherwise as part of a "fringe" whose opinions are not worthy of consideration...even though they provide nothing substantial in the way of refutation in a logical historical sense. Rjensen went to the extreme of announcing I hated the USA. This is a bald-faced lie. An apology is in order for that one.

To wind it up, I have no problem at all with differing opinion. Yes, I know I am the lone editor who takes a mostly pro-South viewpoint. No, my problem comes in when I am "shut down"...and the other editors seem to use their numerical superiority in order to issue an edict to that a "consensus" should be the end all and be all. That is not the approach of serious editors. It is the approach of those who band together (whether they admit it or not) and adopt bully tactics because they know they can; there is that strength in the bloc, not any sort of true individual fortitude. Well, I am not one who will kow-tow to it. I harbor no grudges at all. I only ask for fair editing and additions. Sincerely. TexasReb (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete section on Texas v. White

It seems to me that Texas v. White is utterly irrelevant to the subject of this article. It already has its own article, where it is (or ought to be) discussed thoroughly; and it may deserve mention in "Reconstruction Era" and "Secession in the United States". It offers no information concerning the Confederate States of America, other than what a few men of hostile views thought about them after the fact, and it should be removed from this article.

Although the opinions in the case offer various views concerning the secession of the States that formed the Confederate States of America, none of them, majority or minority, had any effect on the Confederate government, which is the subject of this article, and which had ceased to exist before the case was ever filed. None of the opinions in the case was determinative as to the right of secession under the Constitution of 1788: that question had already been determined by the sword, and the judgment of the court in that respect was a foregone conclusion.

It might be argued that opinions as to the legitimacy and effectiveness of Southern secession are relevant to the article as touching on the legitimacy of the C.S.A. as a government. If that be the case, it seems to me that the relevant opinions are those expressed—on all sides—before and during the life of the C.S.A., not post-hoc rationalizations by the party that had already prevailed by force. That debate, it seems to me, belongs more properly in the article on secession, and not here.

I therefore propose that the section on Texas v. White be deleted from this article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While a detailed analysis is not really relevant to this article, a mention certainly is. Since when is the cutoff for any historical article strictly limited in time to its duration, ignoring that its repercussions do carry forward in time? Already in the article we have this paragraph:

The U.S. Government began a decade-long process known as reconstruction which attempted to resolve the political and constitutional issues of the Civil War. The priorities were: to guarantee that Confederate nationalism and slavery were indeed dead, to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth which guaranteed dual U.S. and state citizenship to all, and the Fifteenth which guaranteed the right of Freedmen to vote. By 1877, Reconstruction had ended in the former Confederate states and political control in each of them had been gradually re-established by white Southern Democrats, many of whom had formerly been disenfranchised by Reconstruction policy. The war left the South economically devastated by military action, ruined infrastructure, and exhausted resources. The region remained well below national levels of prosperity until after World War II.[8]

and these paragraphs:

When the war ended over 14,000 Confederates petitioned President Johnson for a pardon; he was generous in giving them out.[272] He issued a general amnesty to all Confederate participants in the "late Civil War" in 1868.[273] Congress passed additional Amnesty Acts in May 1866 with restrictions on office holding, and again in May 1872 lifting those restrictions. See Amnesty Act. There was a great deal of discussion in 1865 about bringing treason trials, especially against Jefferson Davis. There was no consensus in President Johnson's cabinet and there were no treason trials against anyone. In the case of Davis there was a strong possibility of acquittal which would have been humiliating for the government.[274]

Davis was indicted for treason but never tried; he was released from prison on bail in May 1867. The amnesty of December 25, 1868 by President Johnson eliminated any possibility of Jefferson Davis (or anyone else associated with the Confederacy) standing trial for treason.[275][276][277]

The aftermath of the war, including the White decision, are relevant to the article and certainly of interest to a reader. I'm sure many readers are just as unaware that the Supreme Court ruled on the subject as they are of he issues of treason and pardon. Up until relatively recently, there was not a separate section on the White decision. It was added with this [1] edit. Perhaps we can revisit that decision and add the current language as part of the section "Amnesty and treason issue".

Language like "other than what a few men of hostile views thought about them after the fact" and "post-hoc rationalizations by the party that had already prevailed by force" show a severe under-appreciation of the role of the Supreme Court in U.S. history.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The general amnesty was really a "face-saving measure". Chief Justice Salmon Chase had warned against a public trial, because he knew full well what it would bring about. That is, a defense from Davis revolving around the constitution and the issue of secession. That was the last thing the powers that be in the Union wanted. Matter of fact, Davis was disappointed that he was pardoned, as he wanted to make his case openly, but had no choice but to go along. In a nut-shell, the whole "amnesty" thing was an act of political expediency, not a wish for reconciliation (although I do agree that at least some of it came about because most northern were sick and tired of the Radical Republicans and their vindictive policies and just wanted it all to end) TexasReb (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it can show that the SCOTUS can make -- by a majority -- rulings that simply represent the personal opinions of the majority of the makeup of the Court. Yes, it is solidified by virtue of the Constitution itself...but also has constitutional check and balances upon it. It can and does abuse its powers. The "Warren Court" was the perfect example in our era. If any court in history ran roughshod over the Constitution, then this was the one. It reminds of a rich boy bully carried away with their own power. Then,once they realized they were not going to be challenged? Heck, they kept going. The Texas v. White decision was very akin to many of the Warren court decisions. Maybe the decision had no precedent, no justifiable citations...but that was what they wanted and that was that. I realize that is only my opinion, but how would you say different in a constitutional sense...? TexasReb (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree about relative importance to the reader, since judicially the matter has been settled. The "Amnesty and treason issue" section appears the proper companion for it, perhaps with an expanded title. These issues, including Texas vs. White and Reconstruction are part of the postwar housekeeping that resulted from formation of the CSA. However, looking at the structure I suggest "Amnesty and treason issue" (section 7) should be moved upward immediately after the "Confederacy at war" section where Texas vs. White presently is. At present it is at the end of the article disconnected from the timeline. A section 2.6 collecting these matters could include links to main articles. Red Harvest (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree to Red Harvest and Tom North Shoreman efforts at restructuring/consolidating narrative sections. Interesting turn of phrase, national reconciliation as “housekeeping” in the aftermath of the Confederacy's rebellion. Texas v. White seems to be an important part of the narrative, even if it does not merit its own stand-alone section.

Much was done to reconcile the nation in many different venues, both by officials and individuals, North and South. Most of the Confederate banners in Richmond’s Battle Abbey were returned by sympathetic Northerners who arranged for the “repatriation” of captured banners for a Southern museum. Robert E. Lee famously taught the sons of his former Confederate generals to become good U.S. citizens at Washington College in Lexington, VA.

Repeated mischaracterization and diminution of the official U.S. reconciliation efforts can best be answered by a referral to “April 1865: the month that saved America" by Jay Winik, a state department official who had witnessed the aftermath of civil wars throughout Africa without a practical reconciliation predicated on amnesty for rebels. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing at the moment I am going to say is that I am very willing to see how all this works out in terms of compromise and good sense and fairness as to a possible revision. I don't want to take it to a higher level of authority to settle things for good and all -- as to sub-heading, relevance, and content -- before giving this "proposal" a chance to work. TexasReb (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Red Harvest writes, "judicially the matter has been settled." If by "the matter" Red Harvest means "the legitimacy of Southern secession", I beg to differ. That matter was settled all right, for all practical purposes and (as far as I'm concerned) for all time; but it was settled by military force, not by any impartial judicial process, and least of all by White. The issue was not presented to the court in White for decision: all parties presumed and argued that Texas's secession had been illegitimate. The case turns on the judicial interpretation of the Reconstruction Acts, not on the legitimacy, vel non, of secession. There was never any possibility that the court in White would find secession legitimate (and if it had, the decision would have been a dead letter as soon as it issued). Chase's dicta on the question are nothing but one man's opinion, however persuasive others may find them; and they do no more than to endorse the military fait accompli by the Lincoln administration, of which Chase had been part. They carry no more judicial weight than Taney's dicta regarding the political status of African-Americans in Dred Scott. White is irrelevant to this article, and the section on it should be deleted.

Sanford Levinson writes,

. . . there is no very good reason to accept the Marshall-Lincoln-Chase-Amar view of "an indivisible Union of indestructible States," articulated, appropriately enough, in a case called Texas v. White,[fn. om.] as the undoubtedly correct view of the Constitution.

Mark A. Graber writes,

White, however, was decided rather late in the day to resolve political questions associated with seccession, and is probably better conceptualized as only resolving questions associated with Reconstruction.

If post-hoc arguments regarding the legitimacy of secession are relevant to this article, then there is no reason to exclude discussion of the dissents in White, or, for that matter, Davis's Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Bledsoe's Is Davis a Traitor? (which presumably would have made a big part of Davis's defense, had he ever been given his day in court), and Stephens's The War Between the States. I say none of those arguments belongs here, but if one position is discussed, neutral POV requires that significant opposing views (which those listed here unquestionably are) be afforded equal recognition.

It seems to me that "postwar housekeeping" by the U.S.A. belongs in the article on the war, or that on Reconstruction, rather than that on the C.S.A. A neutral POV would seem to demand that this article limit itself to the rise, career, and fall of the C.S.A., and not extend to U.S. arguments—least of all post-hoc arguments—as to the legitimacy thereof (which are, however, appropriately to be discussed in the articles on the war and Reconstruction, to which they were of immediate significance). J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

References

No, whether you like it or agree with it, the matter was settled judicially and it was not simple dicta. There was a need for addressing the status of states during the war years. The Taney dicta has been widely condemned and was never really accepted by the nation, nor is it supported by the courts today. White on the other hand established the framework for dealing with actions of secessionist governments. That's relevant to the CSA.

The CSA states plotted their own course and chose trial by combat. But part of the result was the Texas vs. White decision. From what I've read the Court would not have been inclined to rule in favor of secession before the war either, so pretending this was all post-war doesn't stand up. Instead the decision appears an affirmation of "pre-war national interpretation of the Constitution--which Chase summed up rather well. The Constitution had not enabled unilateral secession, but it had, as Chase noted, forbidden acts by states that were undertaken as part of secession.

The dissents don't appear to have disputed that secession was unconstitutional, so they are not relevant to this article. Grier and the two other dissenters were concerned about the status of the interim state govt. rather than the status of the state during the war. Grier simply passed the buck on the Constitutional issue, rather than addressing it. Thanks for bringing my attention back to that, since it completely negates the arguments for inclusion of the dissents here as part of NPOV. Red Harvest (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Red Harvest (who offers no authority to support his or her assertions) knows what dicta are.

Statements and comments in an opinion concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand are obiter dicta, and lack the force of an adjudication.

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., citing Wheeler v. Wilkin, 98 Colo. 568, 573, 58 P.2d 1223, 1226 (1936).

Chase's opinion would have had the same practical effect if he'd started it at the bottom of page 730, with the sentence that begins, "The 39th Congress . . . ." All that goes before that is inessential to the court's judgment, and is therefore dicta. The decision turns on the effect of the Reconstruction Acts, not on the effect of Texas's Ordinance of Secession. Chase's opinion regarding secession is thus a mere argument of one man, not the judgment of the court, no matter how many other justices agreed with it, and no matter how many later decisions may endorse it. The issue of secession was not litigated and therefore was not decided. White is a decision about Reconstruction, not about the Confederate States of America.

We're just repeating ourselves, so I yield. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was using that very definition as my basis. You have not provided reliable sources claiming the ruling was simply dicta. Jurisdiction was fundamental to the case and ruling on the status of the state during the period in which it operated under a secessionist govt. was a key aspect of it. It is true that the decision addressed the needs of Reconstruction, but that doesn't invalidate it. Claiming that litigants didn't contest the constitutionality of secession does not mean that it cannot form part of the basis of the ruling--since it is still a necessary condition per Chase's opinion. You can't consider only issuance of the bonds before the war and Reconstruction acts after because the event that was ruled "treasonable" and thus void was during the war. As Chase said, "This purpose was undoubtedly unlawful, for the acts which it contemplated are, within the express definition of the Constitution, treasonable." (page 736, which even you will notice is after page 730...) I'll take Chase's standing legal opinion over yours. Red Harvest (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

While I cannot find a case in which the doctrine of secession was upheld to support the claims of a litigant, the doctrine of perpetual union does --- for the use of "settled law", we have Michael C. Dorf, (2004) at FindLaw, “Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession." [2]. And at Ketchum v. Buckley (1878), the Supreme Court held, with majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Waite, "It is now settled law in this court that during the late civil war 'the same general form of government, ... which had existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. ... Williams v. Bruffy, ... Horn v. Lockhart,... Sprott v. U.S., ... Texas v. White" [3]. --- So the discussion on overthrowing the "settled law" nature of Texas v. White needs to be broadened to at least five Supreme Court decisions for the sake of accurate history on this subject, were we to pursue it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody, I think, has suggested here that the permanency of the Union is not settled law. I certainly have not. I haven't even suggested here that Chase's interpretation of the Constitution in White is not 100% correct. That's completely beside the point here. The point under dispute here is whether or not White should be covered in an article on the Confederate States of America.

The immediate disagreement is over whether or not the question (as to the indissolubility of the Union) was judicially settled by the White decision. I argue that it plainly was not, since the question was not litigated in White, and it had no bearing on the outcome of the case. The dicta in White, however, offered a plausible rationale to justify the settlement of that question by military force, and were therefore adopted in subsequent decisions as "settled law".

While that adoption had great significance for Reconstruction, it had no significance for the Confederate States of America, which had ceased to exist before the White case even arose. TVH's citation of Dorf merely suggests that one scholar may disagree with the scholars I cited—as to which I think there was never any doubt (though in fact Dorf more-or-less agrees with Levinson). The controversy would properly be covered in the article on White. It has nothing to do with the C.S.A. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to offer a few comments in reply to several of the points brought up by the editors of the above exchanges:

The fact that the dissenting opinions did not "dispute" that secession was "unconstitutional", and therefore "has no place" in the sub-article is irrelevant. For one thing, secession was not the issue before the court so there was no reason to address its constitutionality. Grier's opinion stated this clearly:

I do not consider myself bound to express any opinion judicially as to the constitutional right of Texas to exercise the rights and privileges of a State of this Union, or the power of Congress to govern her as a conquered province, to subject her to military domination, and keep her in pupilage. I can only submit to the fact as decided by the political position of the government, and I am not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union when Congress have decided that she is not. It is a question of fact, I repeat, and of fact only. Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court.

The ordinance of secession was adopted by the convention on the 18th of February, 1861, submitted to a vote of the people, and ratified by an overwhelming majority. I admit that this was a very ill-advised measure. Still, it was the sovereign act of a sovereign State, and the verdict on the trial of this question, "by battle," [n2] as to her right to secede, has been against her. But that verdict did not settle any question not involved in the case.

I too have read the Dorf article, and it appears that he -- at least to a notable extent -- regards the majority opinion of the Chase court as being a fait accompli in terms of having the status of "settled law". After all, as JDCrutch points out, Dorf seems to agree quite a bit with Levinson, and is not shy about pointing out the weaknesses in both Lincoln's and anti-secession arguments. It is interesting as well that Dorf wrote the following as to why no court will ever likely rule on the question of the constitutionality of secession. To wit: That conclusion in turn suggests that no court will likely answer the question--except perhaps in the way that the Supreme Court in Texas v. White gave its retroactive approval to the verdict of the Civil War battlefield. (BTW -- lest some construe it that way -- I am in no way, shape, or form advocating secession)

Finally, I totally support JDCrutch's proposal. That is, as the best option, eliminate the Texas v. White section completely. Barring that, then a neutrally worded inclusion of a summary of the dissenting opinion...one in which a significant number of court members joined. This was all I ever wanted anyway, and it was worded devoid of any POV on my part.TexasReb (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Grier's dissent doesn't address the constitutionality of secession. It hints at it with the "sovereign state" statement, but it doesn't provide a basis for the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the act of secession by the state. The dissenting opinion is concerned with the de facto status of the state both during the war and Reconstruction. Since it doesn't provide a constitutional basis for secession it isn't relevant. It would be absurd to include it only to have to say that, and that would be required. Red Harvest (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, Grier's opinion didn't address the constitutionality of secession because it was not the issue before the court. Regardless, the dissenting opinion as to de-facto status of a state of the Confederacy during the War and Reconstruction is definitely relevant as the majority decision opines upon the same issue. It was in response to the majority opinion on that very point. Actually, things would really be a lot simpler if the whole she-bang was eliminated and taken elsewhere. TexasReb (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The opinion on secession appears a necessary portion of the ruling, even though it was not the issue before the court. Without it, jurisdiction is problematic (as illustrated by the dissents of Swayne and Miller that rejected jurisdiction because of the "present condition" of Texas!) That eliminates the obiter dictum conclusion. By ruling on secession and the status of the state during the war, Chase rejected the most radical Republican theory of the condition of secessionist states. That nobody contested that secession was constitutional (although Grier hints at it) doesn't change the fact that it was necessary for establishing jurisdiction on the key issues. In fact, it provides even stronger support for Chase's majority opinion that it was not. I'm still waiting for reliable sources providing a consensus that Chase's opinion on secession was dicta. I've only seen the dicta claim used in fringe arguments over the years, so if there is some consensus historical opinion that we should know about, please provide it.

The majority opinion of editors so far is that the section is relevant and should remain. The same majority does not see the need for the dissent which is not relevant to the article. Red Harvest (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I will give you one thing, you are consistent in your adamant belief that anything which goes against your own opinions on Texas v. White -- or most anything else related to the WBTS -- is a "fringe" viewpoint. All you have to do is some exploring around to find sources which believe Chase's opinions necessary to reach the conclusion he did -- and were already decided beforehand anyway in order to justify Lincoln's actions -- was dicta. Although I am sure no matter how many you come up with, you would dismiss them as "unreliable". As it is, JDCrutch gave a very good summary of it (one doesn't have to be a lawyer to present good legal rationale...although he may well be an attorney for all I know). He said what I have been saying the whole time, but he explained it much better and in much better detail.

You seem to predicate your whole thesis on why the dissenting opinion should not be included upon the fact Grier's position did not address secession. As has been said many times, he (and the others) didn't address it for the simple reason it was not the issue before the court. He refused to be drawn into a debate on a by then moot point which had been decided by force of arms. However, the dissent is very relevant in that it disputes Chase's reasoning as to the question of jurisdiction and -- by indirect extension -- his personal opinion on the nature of the Union and why secession itself had never been a fact. To this, of course, the Chief Justice resorted to amazing contradictions and leaps of logic; such as attempting to "prove" Texas had never left the Union, yet simultaneously trying to square it with the fact they had no representation in Congress and were under military rule. As the dissenting opinion said, it was based on "legal fiction". On a related tangent, I sincerely believe this is the real reason why certain editors do not want the summary of such presented. That is, because to do so would directly stack the two up side by side and could conceivably damage a "sacred cow" of many pro-Union historians; the ironclad belief that secession was "unconstitutional". Again, I can't prove this, but I stand by my opinion on it.

You obviously regard consensus as an end all and be all. On relatively minor or unimportant topics it might well be a decisive factor. But the one being discussed here is not of that ilk. It involves a controversial issue that is not only disagreed upon by historians, but played a major role in American history. Thus, if the Texas v. White article is not eliminated completely, and no compromise is reachable on the inclusion of a neutral and non-POV summary of the dissenting opinion, then the only alternative is to request moderation and/or arbitration to settle it. In any event, you might want to re-think your surety about having a majority as it stands on inclusion (assuming the article remains). Three are against it (including you), two are for it (myself and JDCrutch), and Virginia Historian has indicated he thought the opinion was "of interest" and put forth a suggestion/compromise as to wording (which can be found at the start of sub-section 8.1, "Alternate Language).

But first things first. A proposal has been put forth by JDCrutch to strike the article completely. I suggest the first order of business be to put it to a straight-up, slap-down, recorded individual "yes" or "no" vote by each of the 6 main editors as to whether or not the Texas v. White section should stay or go. That way there will be no mistaking where everyone stands. A "yes" vote means taking it out. A "no" vote means leaving it in. I further suggest that it be confined to a simple yes or no answer, with a minimum of explanations or rationales. This should be a vote where a majority (consensus)would be sufficient to pass or fail. If anyone disagrees, then they should say so along with their vote.

I guess I will go first. I vote "yes". I waive any further comments as my opinions have been expressed in other places on the Talk forum. TexasReb (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep it – there is a need In this article for mention of the final legal obituary for the CSA. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

With apologies to Texasreb, I think an up-or-down vote here is pointless. Majority rule and consensus are very different things. If Wikipedia operates by consensus, then nothing can be done here, since there is no consensus on my proposal, and the most aggressive and persistent voice will prevail, regardless of the merits of the proposal. If Wikipedia operates by majority rule, assuming the five participants in this debate have the right to decide, my proposal is clearly doomed to fail.

I made my proposal hoping to spare the forum precisely the kind of tedious, repetitive argument that this has become (and I admit to a share of the guilt for that). Probably what I should have done was simply to delete the section on White, and throw the burden of justifying its reinstatement onto those who want it in the article: that would at least have required them to cite some reliable sources for their POV. But there is no shortage of biased scholars to support that POV, if editors could be troubled to cite them; and I thought it would be more civil to discuss the matter rather than acting unilaterally.

I had intended to bow out of the dispute, because I found that I was just repeating myself, but there may be one or two new points to be made in response to Red Harvest, who writes,

The opinion on secession appears a necessary portion of the ruling, even though it was not the issue before the court.

That is an oxymoron. Only the issues before the court, issues fully argued by counsel and considered by the court, are necessary to any court's holding, because if they were not before the court, they are not part of the holding. Opinions that go beyond the issues before the court are dicta and are of no judicial authority (though, as with White, they may be of historical importance in the proper context). See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 399-400 (1821). The jurisdictional question in White was decided wholly on the basis of the court's interpretation of the acts of Congress:

It suffices to say, that the terms of the [Reconstruction] acts necessarily imply recognition of actually existing governments; and that in point of fact, the governments thus recognized, in some important respects, still exist.

The entire judgment of the court, in practical terms, flows from that finding, not from any of the previous speculation as to secession and the nature of the Union, and the decree would have been the same if Chase's dicta had been entirely left out of the opinion. That is clear from the dissent, which takes no issue with Chase's dicta on secession (not because Grier agrees with Chase, but because the issue was not before the court), but disagrees with the majority as to the effect of the Reconstruction Acts. As Mark Graber said in the article I quoted above, White is a case about Reconstruction, not about the C.S.A., and it belongs in that context, not here.

I will not speculate on the motives of the editors who want White covered in this article, but I will ask them: Is there any reason for including it, other than the desire for an "authoritative" declaration that the Confederate States of America were illegitimate and that their formation was unlawful and treasonable? That position is certainly entitled to acknowledgement in the articles on Secession in the United States, the War of 1861, and Reconstruction (within the bounds of NPOV), but it is not neutral here, and the declaration of it in White has no place in the present article. Otherwise, there is no reason to exclude other significant opinions on the question, such as those I listed earlier from notable Confederate officials.

Rjensen romantically calls White "the final legal obituary for the C.S.A.", but obituaries seldom speculate on the legitimacy of the deceased's birth. Chase's pronouncements on secession and the nature of the Union in White were not at all "final", inasmuch as scores of arguments on those questions appeared in the ensuing years, some rather more candid and judicious than Chase's; and the controversy continues to this day, even among respectable scholars, not to mention Wikipedia editors. I have already disposed of White's "legal" status: it is no more a judicial pronouncement than Bledsoe's brief in defense of Davis (which, tedious and occasionally sophistical as it is, makes a far more compelling legal-historical argument). No more is White an obituary of the C.S.A.: it is a manifesto against Radical Reconstruction, and it belongs in the article on that era, not here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing and distilling: you still can't provide reliable secondary sources declaring it dicta. It remains your personal opinion unsupported by sources. Your claim that it was based purely on acts of Congress conflicts with the structure of the opinion. And no, at this stage, a single source for the claim of dicta would not do. It would require some historical consensus (as seen in Dred Scott concerning dicta for example.)

As for TexasReb's up-or-down vote, it stands at 4 vs. 2 to keep. Red Harvest (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, Red Harvest, I am not sure of how you came up with your tally as to the vote. Can you explain this one...? TexasReb (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Unable to refute my arguments, Red Harvest falls back on a demand for authority, forgetting that the burden lies with the editor advocating inclusion to provide sources supporting same. I have already supplied authority for the irrelevance of White to the C.S.A., which Red Harvest has not rebutted. Red Harvest will nevertheless win this dispute because I have no further taste for it. That's how "consensus" works. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments have easily been refuted (once again.) The section is already referenced (and I didn't write it) so there isn't any need for me to rebut your assertion of dicta. The burden of proof is all on you at this point. Red Harvest (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, JDCrutch, this sort of thing is par for the course in this article talk page. I have experienced it for quite a while. There is a "bully pack" mentality that will shout down, shut down, and use every tactic allowed to censor those who disagree with them. I honestly hate to put it in these terms, but I don't know of any other way to say it. Some editors don't want to discuss/consider/compromise at all. They rely on numbers; they shut off, from the beginning, any attempt at reasonable discussion, when reasonably discussion would work and be productive to the article itself. That is telling, and has been for some time... TexasReb (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a useful element in this article but discussion of it should be abbreviated, not in its own section, I agree with the edit demoting it as it now appears. My earlier preference for reporting that there was a dissent in a footnote is met by the inline link to the article Texas v. White. As to the merits of the case, if secession were legal, post-war Texas would have had to pay up on the bonds floated by the secessionist government at Texas v. White, so the dicta discussion seems misplaced.

Again, the theory of secession is not upheld to grant the petition of any litigant to my knowledge. No lawyer now tries to get the money back from post-war Texas. Because it — the fact that unilateral secession is illegal — is settled law, there is no case. The reference in Texas v. White certainly does apply to CSA. The secessionist governments forming it were illegitimate, CSA was illegitimate, the rebellion was illegitimate, so the bonds floated to finance it were illegitimate, there is no binding contract for illegitimate purposes before the law.

The discussion here seems to have been sidetracked into a debate over the merits of Texas v. White, a favorite hobby horse of the "Republic of Texas" and neo-Confederate groups. When I point out continuity of government before during and after the rebellion is upheld in five Supreme Court cases, across two Chief Justices, we have ad hominem attacks on Chase but none yet presented for Chief Justice Morrison Waite who generally held to restrict federal powers under the Reconstruction Acts, --- but he also wrote upholding the continuity of state government, and therefore the illegality of unilateral secession, citing Texas v. White as settled law on this subject. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If anybody has sidetracked this discussion into a debate over the merits of Texas v. White, it is TVH. The merits of the case, as I've said repeatedly, are irrelevant to the C.S.A. TVH seems to have categorized me as a "neo-Confederate", whatever that is, which is a ludicrous error (see, e.g., my user page), as well as an argmentum ad hominem. He insists on trying to refight the Civil War in this space. Apart from being gratuitous (hint: guess which side won!), that is doubly inappropriate here, where discussion should be limited to the article; but it does stand as an effective admission, in case anybody had a doubt, that TVH's position as to the article is ideological, not neutral. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, TVH has pointed out that the opinion you are expressing is one used by neo-Confederate groups. This is the same experience I've had on this matter. Your points have once again been refuted and you still haven't produced reliable sources for the dicta claim, so here we are. It's the same problem that TexasReb frequently encounters. Red Harvest (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@ J.D. Crutchfield. Alright, I read your user page and I see you are a Virginia gentleman who has attained “esquire” status by merit as one of natures aristocracy as Jefferson put it, one of America’s priesthood, as DeToqueville put it. I certainly apologize for any ludicrous error on my part, as well as any argumentum ad hominem, as I am sure you do, too.

I concede Crutchfield may have a special knowledge of how neo-Confederates support the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, but I do not know of it, and he has not shared it. Rather, their objection revolves around mislabeling “dicta” in the case, dismissing the relevance of ruling on the unlawfulness of secession legislatures to the illegitimacy of their bond issues, and ad hominem attacks on Chief Justice Chase, arguments which resemble Crutchfield's.

I have had two posts of some twenty lines combined in this section, both related to the article in some way. I doubt very much that I have “derailed" the discussion here, — it is somewhat lengthy — I do believe the thinking of Chief Justice Waite on the subject should be considered, so as to get out of the partisan anti-Lincoln-Chase intellectual trap. Continuity of government before, during and after the rebellion, --- and illegality of unilateral secession, are two sides of the same coin.

I approach the CSA with a neutrality appropriate to the sacrifices of both sides — regardless of the historical imperatives others may see, I see contingency in history — so I have been sympathetic to removing references to Texas v. White here when they were first objected to as an ex post facto ruling. But it seems I was mistaken in my first impression, it is more a part of reconciliation, reducing the financial burdens on impoverished post-war Texans who had supported the C.S.A. Keep it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

When a discussion turns this nasty, with more said about the participants than about the topic, it's time to end it. While I'm not aware of any argumentum ad hominem I might have committed, I am sorry to have descended at times to personalities. Good-bye. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't leave quite yet, Jdcrutch, if you don't mind not doing so. There is no other way to resolve this issue except by some kind of intervention by higher authorities. As I have said repeatedly, I promise to abide by whatever ultimate decision is made. If "I" lose then I lose, so be it. But I am not going to surrender this without objection; it has gotten way to far out of hand. That is (to say for the umpteenth time) to allow certain editors to rule the roost on what goes or doesn't on this page without any challenge at all. That is not any sort of "threat" -- and for damn sure not a "bluff" or anything remotely like it.

No, it is just sort of a disgusted weariness with this whole damn thing. From the beginning, the section never belonged to begin with and, if it ever did, it should include neutral, non-POV, material on the dissenting opinion. But some object to that for no reason other than, seemingly, they just don't want it there. And, like you succinctly say, the discussion is often "nasty"...for no good reason. Oh well, again, I am going to request intervention. TexasReb (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious statement "Elliot's conclusions have been widely disputed by many Texan historians of the Civil War"

TexasReb added this section with two cites but provided no page numbers for either. First of all, two is not "many" (and there are others whose work seems to support Elliot) But more importantly do they directly contradict Elliot as claimed? The section goes on to say "on the grounds it's premises attempt to blur the lines between actual active support for the Union as in being a northern sympathizer, and that failure to back every measure undertaken by the central Confederate government was tantamount to giving passive support to the Union. When, in fact, the two cannot be combined; that the overwhelming majority of white Texans supported the Confederacy throughout the war." Is this what the two authors said? I'm skeptical and would like to see actual quotations here in "talk". Howell's work is an anthology...so it really needs to cite the historian that makes the claim. In reading Chapter 1, studies by Alwyn Barr that serves as on overview of the new studies I see no real support for the statement in this section. Red Harvest (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good god, RH. Do you just get a kick out of stirring up crap? Or just need attention? Or have some kind of personal issue? Who cares if you are "skeptical"? This is crazy. I would like to see your sources for disputing it (what I said), and I don't need pages to furnish what sources I provided. Read the damn things and what I said was provided all over the books themselves as just common-sense...and many more history books confirm the same. I have read Elliot and he said himself he was, in the preface of writing the piece he did, that he got "negative" reactions from native Texans concerning his conclusions. This guy obviously had a certain bias (just as you and I do), as he was a northerner who wished Texas had not taken the course it did. The record of Texas role in the Confederacy speaks for itself, in any event. What you, on the other hand, need, is to back up your own reasons for why -- apparently -- you have justification for marking my disputation "dubious." Have you ever even read Elliot's work? It was largely opinion. In any event, how in the hell could it be otherwise when Texas was one of the original Confederate States and the second to last to be "re-admitted" to the Union for the simple reason the state refused to comply with certain demands for the said re-admission. This makes no sense at all...not even counting (pun intended} the sheer numbers of Texans who fought on which side. In a nutshell, Elliot was wrong and his writings, premises, and sources were silly and false. And please provide -- since you are such a stickler for sources -- the "others" whose work supports his baseless conclusions...TexasReb (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TexcasReb is just a troll--he imagines past events and ignores RS. we can ignore his rants. Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a troll, right. And a "ranting" one at that, I am. Brilliant retort, RJ LOL *rolls eyes * Irony aside, whassmatter, just a little jealous for some reason? But to hell with all that, I ain't gonna lower myself to the level you and certain others are. I have watched the "operation" for quite a while and know the skewed rules of the "game". No true "guts" involved, but just a certain kind of "consensus" that others cannot buck for the simple fact they are outnumbered -- just like in Texas v. White -- and that is supposedly the final authority. I saw all that happen, not only with me, but with JCrutch, who provided great information on the subject. Same as in this case, although it hasn't come to a conclusion yet. I want to see the backup of Elliot's case, anything wrong with that? A troll...hahahaha. Come up with something better than that, prof... TexasReb (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Texasreb, no, this isn't about "stirring up crap". I had thought the passage was strange before, and my attention was brought back to it in light of another person's edit of it. In trying to understand what was wrong with it, I learned that the passage was another one of your edits. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise given your edit history. At any rate, above you have confirmed the problems with the passage:

• The basic statement is WP:Synthesis. Whether or not other historians have different views, it does not appear that "Elliot's conclusions have been widely disputed by many Texan historians of the Civil War." It is another example of your own bias getting in the way of basic reading comprehension.
• You are showing your propensity for WP:OR again by summarizing whole books through your own astigmatic lens rather than accurately conveying the authors' conclusions. It is because I have checked one of the cites as well as other works that I recognize the problem. There are elements of the statements I accept, but they are not backed with specific cites (as in page numbers or quotes). They also seem to have been added merely as an attempt to discredit an author.
• I gave you the opportunity to provide page numbers/passages to back your claims. You refused, so the solution is to remove the paragraph. Red Harvest (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You gave me an "opportunity? You really do seem to be full of yourself in lots of ways. Regardless, yes, I am "discrediting" an author because it makes no sense as to what he (Elliot) writes. Simple as that. Here are the real facts:

Elliot's thesis was based on a three-fold consideration. To start, his conclusion was -- recalling from memory -- that probably only a third of the Texas population "actively" supported the Confederacy. A third, he claims, were "neutral." Another third, again he claims, gave "passive support" to the Union (i.e. northern states which kept the name by default). I appreciate that you seem to be open to some kind of agreement, however...

Where the issue comes in is the "devil in the details." First of all, he makes no distinction between black and white Texans, which skews his figures. At that time, a third of people living in Texas were black -- mostly slaves -- who obviously were, for the most part, "neutral", in practical terms. By that standard, Mississippi and South Carolina would have been over half "neutral."

The real issue is, again, how Elliot blurs the lines between "active" support for the Union -- as in northern sympathy -- and what he attempts to define as "passive" support. A perfect example is -- from his work -- Throckmorton who opposed secession, yet later was a general in the Confederate Army because he went with his state and new nation. That is a prime example of what I mean by deliberately "blurring" the lines between of how Elliot makes his "case". The author of the piece also brought up opposition to the draft and keeping some troops in the home state for defense rather than sending them to the armies, was construed as "passive" support for the Union.

So how many states in the Confederacy, in toto, could the same conclusion not be reached by using Elliot's editorial (which was what it amounted to)? Support for the CSA "perhaps" being "weakest" in Texas? LOL. What about the Upper South States? Wanna make a comparison with real figures?

Now, if you are suggesting a solution being to remove the entire paragraph? Yes, I would agree with that... TexasReb (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Texasreb, seems you are projecting again--you are full of yourself since again you believe your opinion is more important than reliable sources. Afterall, your standard editing mode is to write your personal POV, then sometimes throw in some references to support it...often primary ones that you use to spin your own out of context narrative. That is the problem, Wikipedia editing is not about what YOU want. It is about accurately representing the subjects with the best information possible. So take all of your juvenile LOL's, ROFL's, etc. to some chat room and reserve this space for actual editing, NOT your personal opinion.

Your opinion of Elliot is irrelevant to this article. Unlike your original research, Texas historians take a different view since the TSHA online handbook lists Elliot as one of three sources in the bibliography for the Unionism article, and one of those cited is the author of the TSHA Unionism article, Walter Buenger. In addition we have McCaslin's work about Unionism in North Texas and others writing about the hill country. One of the things that comes across is that Texans were on average not terribly eager to go off and fight for the Confederacy. As Wooster writes in another TSHA article, "two-thirds of the Texans enrolled in the military spent the war in the Southwest." Other authors comment about the focus of Texans on frontier defense, concerns about slave insurrection, as well as Unionism as primary reasons that many tried to stay near home.

I don't know whether the claim that support for the Confederacy as a nation was weakest in Texas is strong or not. I'll defer to reliable sources. It certainly had some competition from Tennessee. That Texas was one of the original states to secede doesn't weigh much in the analysis since it was far enough removed that it had little immediate fear of the consequences militarily or economically, while the states of the Upper South had far more to fear from both. Red Harvest (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Red Harvest-- that is very well put indeed. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL I ain't one of your undergrad students, "professor", so if that is a "dig" at me? Then big deal. Most of what you do is call names and sling insult and falsehoods of your own creation. Who cares? TexasReb (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And etc., etc. Why don't you ever address the real point when you are challenged? Because you can't. You make a claim of "reliable sources", then you can't back it up with how it is reliable in terms of actually providing evidence of your own as to how Elliot's work actually made a case? And your use of the language really just proves it. The issue here is Elliot's work as to actual support for the Confederacy in Texas and thus far you just mess up your own position as in the linear sense of being able to respond the particulars. You make a claim, then retreat from the original, when you cannot refute the original. "Dubious" seems to be one of your favorite modes of objectio to use when you make a big production about something. There ain't a damn thing dubious about it.

So back and read carefully. Nothing presented ever said "Unionism" was not present in Texas. It was in every other Southern state as well. Just as there was "Confederate" sympathy in most northern states, and the comparisons are valid between the two regions, relatively speaking, for obvious reasons. So what are you even saying? Why don't you make an argument without deflection? Stick to the initial point, in other words.

Reliable sources? Oh boy, you actually dare to defend Elliot when you can't back up what he says? This is almost funny. On a related tangent, the whole page is becoming a "spokespeak" for a northern viewpoint of view as to the existence of the Confederacy and what was the principle for it.

And I will repeat again, if you want to take out the whole sub-section, then I would definitely go along with it. It made no sense from the very beginning. TexasReb (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you are having great difficulty understanding how this whole Wikipedia thing is supposed to work, despite lengthy efforts by many editors to educate you. The "real point" is that you keep inserting your opinion without providing accurate renditions of reliable sources that support it. Your edits are often dubious because they are original research or synthesis, as you have once again demonstrated in this section. I asked for page cites because if various historians were saying what you claimed then it was worth keeping as counterpoint. But I also knew your history, and had looked through what I could of one of the two sources and did not find support for your claim there. Your response was to refuse to cite pages. So I removed your entries because they appeared to represent original research/synthesis (in other words they were your opinion, not necessarily the stated assertions of the quoted authors.)

I don't have to "back up what he (Elliot) says." If the citation of his work is inaccurate, then it should be changed--I have not seen that challenge made, only your opinion that he is wrong. But the accuracy of his claim is not my responsibility to uphold. With what I have read of Texas ACW history I see reasons for the assertions, but I also see other states that were in the same league. So it passes a basic sniff test, particularly since it refers to the initial stage in 1861. That unionism in Texas was bloodily suppressed is well established fact. TSHA historians don't seem to be rejecting Elliot's work, so your opening statement appears to be false.

I'm well acquainted with the varying degrees of support from one end to the other in various states--particularly Missouri which makes Texas loyalty discussions look like child's play. These aren't easy things to summarize in a non-dedicated section because of the nuances. (McCaslin has an interesting take on how communities reacted for example.) It really looks as if you have misread the existing paragraph and responded with a knee-jerk opinion piece of your own. That's your problem, not ours. Red Harvest (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry RH, I haven't forgotten about you and your post, just haven't had time to respond to this malarkey. And my be a while before I get to the next one...

In any event I have no difficulty at all understanding it. Apparently you cannot grasp that -- in spite of your high opinion of yourself -- what you call "educating me" is laughable. So I don't need your tutelage -- if I do I will ask for it -- and I can figure out the rules myself. Yes, I constantly read up on them (I'm sure you know them all by heart and never unintentionally ran afoul of one, huh? I wouldn't be surprised if you actually said "no" LOL") Now I will give you that, a time or two, some things in your posts you actually seemed to impart a certain amount of information I actually gleaned something from).

BTW the LOL? and LMAO's? Fact is, some of the things said on these talk pages deserve nothing more. That of one editor in particular with his juvenile name-calling. So if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then don't worry about it. Lots of the LOL type stuff are self-directed anyway

But most of what you euphemistically label "education" is almost invariably (from a couple of other editors, on this particular page) nothing but labeling anything they either do not agree with or (in some cases) apparently just don't want read (i.e. Texas v. White dissent) as "original", "unreliable" "dubious" etc. ad nauseam. So spare me that presentation which seems to characterize it as a helpful attempt to guide a clueless student. Not that I would necessarily need it in any case (like I say, if I do I will ask) but don't p**s down my leg and tell me it's raining. What is usually is is revert properly sourced edits, then accusing me of starting an edit war; Accuse me of violating rules, but then using a "dubious" (see, I can say it too) interpretation of the rules. A great example in in the Texas v. White Talk. One editor would cite rules I supposedly violated then, when I quoted directly from the "rule book", would deflect and cite something else, and so on and so on, but never being specific with his own rationale from the said "rule book." Anyone can look at that page and see it for themselves. Then finally, has to resort to the most outrageous name-calling and almost libelous accusations. Geez. Well, I will give you credit for not having gone that low!

And incidentally, it wasn't that I can't cite pages, what I asked was why I needed to when a number of sources in this article are not paged (except for those that support a northern apologist viewpoint in many cases)? And ah contraire. I already have one (from Gone to Texas) and just need to get the one from Ernest Wallace (Texas in Turmoil)to insert it(gotta locate the book first, as it is boxed away from a move not long ago). But if you happen to have it, you can easily read it yourself. I can pretty much quote from general memory though: "This account of a dissatisfied Unionist minority, though historically essential, must be put in its proper perspective. The overwhelming majority of Texans supported the Confederacy throughout the war with undiminished devotion, on both the battlefield and homefront..." I did make one mistake though: I accidently left out "Gone to Texas" and used another book's title. I had just been reading the latter and wasn't thinking when I added it. I am sure it probably says the same thing, but want to be sure before I ad it as a third source.

And I know your history as well, so let's don't get holier than thou. And which source was it? The one I am talking about above mistakenly added? Because if you say it was Wallace's book then you obviously didn't look thru it very well at all. And oh please, how the hell could my "response" be to refuse to cite pages when this is the first I have heard about it? Lord. In any event, I said I was going to correct that.

LOL I just love that parenthetical phrase you used attempting to "explain" to me what original research is. Uh, I actually have a degree in journalism, won a number of awards at the state level, and have even been published a couple of times in minor historical/genealogical magazines.

No, you do not have to back up what Elliot said and my real point was not about the content of Elliot's work (which I already said I was going to address with page numbers), but the opening statement of ("Support for the Confederacy was perhaps weakest in Texas"). Now that was a bit "dubious" in prefacing, and seemingly reflected an unsupported opinion based on one source with no basis of comparison offered. For one thing, Elliot never even made that claim. Regardless of how suspect his conclusions were reached about support in Texas, he never said it was "weakest". Even he never went that far. Admittedly, it has been a good while since I read the article, but I remember the most important parts and themes.

And why do you still persist in clinging to this nonsense that it was "my opinion" that he was wrong? That it was my POV and then added the support? I cited what several Texas historians have said, how is that "my opinion."? I clearly said his work had been disputed by some Texas historians. And it has. I merely prefaced it with a relevant lead in. Yes, I do disagree with Elliot...but not because of some kind of wishful historical thinking on my part, but because it has been disputed by reputable historians. I have seen the same thing on countless sections and nothing wrong with that provided it is only done as an introduction to the source(s) themselves. That accusation is what is really juvenile and comes across as more reflective of a personal grudge. Sure, it is true there is no love lost between us (at least on this an similar topics; I don't know you personally).

But...in the interest of fairness, in going back and reading I will agree that the specifics of why the sources were correct could indeed be construed as my own analysis. Not POV as in editorializing, by any means; but rather I agree I should have sourced the analysis. And when I find it again, I will in my rewrite. Satisfied? However, the lead-in will remain as it speaks but a truism.

Unionism was in every state, and I am familiar with it to, and can state unequivocally that Texas' support for the Confederacy far exceeded anything in the Upper South and, with the possible exception of South Carolina and Mississippi, was pretty much on par with the other states of the Lower South. And if Elliot's conclusions about exactly what constitutes "neutrality", "active and passive support for the Union" and "active support for the Confederacy" were applied to other states in the Lower South as well (see the delineation of the three-fold considerations in my original post on this talk page) then I'd bet the cotton crop it would be little different from what was said about Texas. In fact, I know it wouldn't.

Now then, tell me what TSHA historians support Elliot's conclusions? I mean in using Elliot's methodology? Not deflecting with something about the "bloody suppression" of Unionism. There were not that many Unionists in the state to begin with (I am talking about as in "northern sympathizers who were outright northern supporters), but you make it sound like there was some widespread campaign of terror! There were two incidents that, however unfortunate, in the whole scheme of things, could not even really be called major incidents as in a horrible loss of life. The one with the small group of German free thinkers was condemned by Texas authorities, and the incident in Gainsville, when read it detail as to accounts, has some issues as well, on both sides. In any event, it was mostly the actions of a mob. Something that happens in every war when passions are high.

And I know what Wooster said (I have his book around here somewhere as well), but it doesn't say anything not generally known and certainly doesn't support your own POV conclusions that Texas were not anxious to fight the war. That is belied by the numbers who volunteered en-masse and enthusiastically, and is verified by numerous first-and accounts of the day. And by the overwhelming support for secession. So for your claim to have any validity at all has to be stacked up relative to the other states of the Confederacy based on the same criteria you used (whatever it was). Care to share it? And most Texas units did not stay in the "Southwest", in the way you seem to suggest, unless you either count it as part of the Western Theatre, or to a much lesser extent, in legitimate defense of the general Trans-Mississippi Theatre(as ordered by Confederate military authorities). And of course there is the famous expedition into New Mexico which was part of an overall military operation to secure it for the Confederacy.

That is really funny to hear you talk about "knee jerk" reactions! I have never seen anything like the knee jerk reactions of the northern apologist faction, in removing material they didn't like and using the flimsiest excuse for doing so. Then, of course, appealing to a "consensus", knowing full well which editors hold the majority. I don't know if it was a Freudian slip or not -- I doubt it was -- but that term "ours" says quite a bit! Yep, it does and you know exactly what I mean. I believe JCrutchfield discovered it to in the Texas v. White discussion (actually, there was little real discussion at all in the proper sense of the word). And in spite of his great arguments about the merits of including the dissent in the case (especially him giving a good lesson on the meaning of "dicta!), he (understandably) finally quit in disgust, knowing full well there was no point in continuing to make a case when "consensus" is obviously controlled by certain editors sharing the same northern biases. But hey, *shrug" if you want to be a part of that? Well, that's your problem, not mine.

On a related tangent, the Texas v. White issue hasn't gone away, I just haven't had time to make a formal request for arbitration by using the template and it may be some time before I can. But of course, all the editors on this page will be invited as participants, as will JCrutchfield. But like I say, that may be a ways off. And oh yeah, I read your rationale for removal of the article under discussion here and you cited it was done by agreement. I didn't mean just removal of my part, I mean the whole thing so it could be started from scratch. That is what I meant when I said the whole thing was ridiculous anyway. I don't see how you could not know that, be oh well. As I said, my section is going to be rewritten and added back.

Now then, I am locate Wallace's book and you can bet it will be going in there, along with GTT, and others I know of. So I will be back whenever I get a chance. Later. TexasReb (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Turmoil in Texas book has been located and the page found. It will appear, along with the by Randolph Campbell in his book Gone to Texas. And additional sources will be added as they are located. I intend to begin writing that section at first opportunity, although very doubtful it will be done today, and could be several days or so. TexasReb (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You could save yourself and everyone else a lot of time by actually writing properly cited statements rather than the endless tomes of editorializing. You've now stated you have degrees in history and journalism, but one would not know that from reading your edits. Red Harvest (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh spare me your sophomoric digs. What you personally think in that regard doesn't matter a lick to me in the whole scheme of things. And there were not "endless tomes of editorializing" and you know it. My comment about having a degree in journalism was only in response to your seemingly condescending attempt to explain "original research" to me, when I know full well what it is. If not for that I would have never even brought it up. And I agreed earlier I should have sourced the analysis of Elliot's conclusions. Of course, I concluded the same even before I read it elsewhere, but the fact remains I should have used the latter as the source. And as relates to the subject at hand, whether some of the content was improperly properly sourced or not, what about them violates journalistic style? One doesn't really have anything to do with the other. That is apples and oranges. Likewise with history. What have I ever written that was false history, even if the said history written should have been properly sourced according to Wiki rules. Again, apples and oranges. That is ridiculous.

But anyway, I didn't come in here to continue a p***ing contest with you. There has been enough of that on both sides and is non-productive in any case. I am just here to post my revised edit (for now, at any rate). 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Something to note in the paragraph concerning Elliott is that some of the information presented is not what he actually said. His work appears in "Lone Star Blue and Gray; Essays on Texas in the Civil War", (edited by Ralph Wooster) and I read it yesterday. In any event, the paragraph in the "Unionism" section reads: "Claude Elliott estimates that only a third of the population in early 1861 supported the Confederacy" However, in his actual article he did not confine it to early 1861. Instead he wrote: "It is extremely doubtful, therefore, whether one-third of the people of Texas actively supported the Confederacy". In addition, Elliott's piece is titled "Union Sentiment in Texas, 1861-1865". Thus, I suggest the "early 1861" phrase be stricken from the paragraph. I will do it if no one else wants to. TexasReb (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing the actual cites. However, only Wallace has directly contradicted Elliott's conclusion about the extent of disaffection with the Confederacy, which is a far sight from "Elliot's conclusions have been widely disputed by many..." or even "some" as it now is written. Instead, one conclusion is contradicted by the statement of one historian. A journalist or historian should be able to see those obvious discrepancies. Red Harvest (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And Texas A&M history professor Dale Baum has this to say on p. 83 of The Shattering of Texas Unionism: "This idea of a Confederate Texas united politically against northern adversaries was shaped more by nostalgic fantasies than by wartime realities. Putting aside the quelling of unionist sentiment by vigilante groups, which led to the murders of many alleged northern sympathizers, Texas Civil War history is, for the most part, a morose story of intragovernmental rivalries couples with wide-ranging disaffection that prevented effective implementation of state wartime policies." Hmmm...that sounds really familiar. And then he states many of the same things I observed earlier about Texas being far removed from the potential impacts of war, being naïve about the impact it would have, and being more interested in localism as he puts it rather than the Confederacy. That should sound really familiar as well. Red Harvest (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am presently reading Lone Star Blue and Gray myself. Not a lot of time to write at the moment, but a few quick comments:

Wooster himself speaks of the enthusiasm which most Texans greeted the news of Davis's calling up for troops and the outbreak of war. I haven't read Baum yet (is it available on-line?)but will comment after I do so. But just on the surface of things, it appears he is saying nothing not true of every other Confederate state, as I have read them. In any event, it states but a truism. Internal politics are always going to be a major player, and latter-day nostalgia become an intrinsic part of the history of any conflict. Ever read David Brinkley's "Washington Goes to War"? It is about the homefront during WWII, and going by it, we are lucky to have even got our troops overseas -- much less have won so convincingly -- given the mountains of bureaucratic red-tape, departmental and service rivalries, special interests at work, etc. But anyway, see below for more on Baum.

I am not going to quibble too much (at present) with the elimination of the determiner "some", but it is certainly accurate in the whole scheme of things as are there are undoubtedly more historians who take the same position; I have read them but simply don't have the sources available right at the moment for immediate quotation. Your revision makes the whole passage read awkwardly. But more on that later. Curiously though, how many sources -- in your estimation -- are needed to justify the use of "some"? Three, Five, more? This revision really seems "nitpicky", but I can live with it for the moment.

It seems -- no, it is obvious -- a disproportionate amount of attention is being given to Texas, when the whole sub-article is about Unionism (of whatever variety) in an article about the CSA in general. This is one reason (although I am not going to change anything at the moment), why the preface "Support for the Confederacy was perhaps weakest in Texas" should be eliminated or at least re-worded, as it is really a POV based on one source that has its own methodology issues, and no comparissons with other states. Also, you should be able to clearly see that Campbell too disputes Elliot as the latter's conclusion is that only a minority actively supported the Confederacy. I don't see how you could say otherwise. Campbell clearly states that the majority of white Texans supported the Confederacy throughout the war, which directly contradicts Elliot. That there was some dis-satisfaction with some CSA policies (as there was in every state, especially with draft laws) doesn't negate at all the fact most citizens clearly supported it in practice. I stand firmly behind that, as would most journalists and historians (professional or layman). Again, if anything, it is Elliot that has serious issues in the very questionable methodology used to arrive at his numbers. If you have read him, you should be able to see that for yourself.

Continuing on Baum, it appears that going by what you say about his piece, that he is giving emphasis to a "player" that is always going to be present in internal politics and using it to draw a misapplied conclusion about support for the war effort itself, when the two are not necessarily directly related. It really seems to say more about Baum's personal feelings than anything else. But again, I want to read it first before getting into detail or countering it with other opinions. Also, for it to carry a lot of weight, it would have to be shown that such was not true in other states as well, which relates to what was said about this whole sub-article giving an inordinate amount of attention to Texas (in fact, at present, an exclusive amount in terms of any one state).

Once again, I take issue with your seeming characterization of the killings/hangings of some radical Unionists as being widespread in the state. In both main instances, there is evidence that the North Texas affair was in response -- at least to a goodly extent -- over evidence that many of the main players intended to aid a yankee invasion of Texas. In the instance of the German freethinkers, they were violating draft laws although, yes, the suppression after the actual fight went beyond the boundaries of "a fair fight" and it was condemned by Texas authorities and a number of the soldiers who were with the Confederate band. But most Unionists (as in outright northern sympathizers)were not in perilous danger of being murdered in cold blood(although certainly it was wise to keep quiet, but that is true in war time every where when passions run high. Japanese Americans probably ran just as many risks in WWII).

I still dispute your analysis about the distance of Texas from the main theatres of war having much to do with the decision to secede. For one thing, many were convinced it would be done peacefully so it likely factored in little. Plus, no one really knew, should war break out, exactly what Union strategy was going to be. The vast majority of Texans fought in the Western Threatre or, to a lesser extent, in the Trans-Mississippi, under orders from the government. Plus the troops that stayed in Texas had pretty good reason as they were on an exposed frontier open to invasion from the west (which was the reason for the Silby expedition, which ultimately failed). As well as from the Gulf. So all in all, very few troops were really "home guard" in the proper sense. The vast majority of Texas troops were engaged in active defense of the Confederacy itself.

You brought up Walter Buenger a while back and I just finished reading his piece and he seems to back those who dispute Elliot. One notable point he made was that most Texans -- in good part because of their location and unique history -- did not give up on the idea of the benefits of being in a Union, but rather, transferred those feelings from the old Union to the new Confederacy. And the elections during the war indicated clear majority support for those candidates who gave enthusiastic support to the CSA. As a point of comparison, as Buenger notes, prior to Lincolns election, moderate candidates carried the slate (Houston, even John Reagan, etc), but that changed radically. Probably only in South Carolina was support for secession a majority opinion prior to the election of 1860 (they had the history with them). The feelings in other Lower South states could probably be summed up in the words of the Mississippi governor (paraphrased) "Mississippi will not be the first state to secede, but she will be second."

Far as that goes, had the Texas legislature been in secession (you know the story behind that ala' Gov. Houston's refusal to call it up), Texas could have easily been second or at least third as the legislature was staunchly secessionist. In fact, it is highly likely as -- along with South Carolina -- it was the only Lower South state where the "Cooperationists" (i.e. those who preferred the South go out en'masse rather than individually) did not make up a consequential percentage of the legislatures. Undoubtedly this is a major reason why in the other 5 states there was considerable opposition to immediate secession. The history of both Texas and South Carolina, even though different in many respects, was similar in the area of taking individual action.

Well, anyway, I have gone on far longer than I intended to. Got other things to attend to (trying to locate Baum being one of them). BTW -- these latest exchanges should probably be inserted in a new Talk Section titled "Unionism Section" or some such. I would have gone ahead and changed it, but that the earlier comments already appear in the summary as being for the "Dubious statement..." section. However, if there is no objection, it should be done. I will leave it up to you since yours is involved as well... TexasReb (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"No slave revolts took place anywhere during the war."

What about slaves who escaped to reach Union lines and often join Union forces? What about other forms of resistance? There were important during the civil war, and at best, this statement is misleading. 108.56.154.33 (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it can be stated as " no major slave revolts erupted during the Civil War." Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Like the IP editor stated, the original wording carryied some implications that would mislead the reader. I had noticed it as well. The additional wording about slaves making their own path to freedom addresses the issue. Red Harvest (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reagan Speech Inclusion

To Red Harvest: I do appreciate your comments left on my Talk Page. Thus, I will reword what could be considered a direct analysis of the same. That was my mistake, I agree. Also shorten the length of the quote (when I get around to it). Instead it will read:

U.S. Rep. John Reagan of Texas spoke to his northern colleagues on January 15, 1861, citing both slavery and economic concerns as causes of friction.

You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals...You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions...

That would seem to easily fit within the requirements for use of a primary source. On a related note, I see how this works occasionally as it has happened before. That is, some editors take turns with deletions so as to not cause any single one to exceed the three revision limit within a 24 hour period! It isn't rocket science. LOL. Also, I believe absolutely that the main objection by some has less to do with failing to use a secondary source for explanation that it does to keep the overwhelming emphasis on slavery. TexasReb (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Texasreb Wants to include the excerpt only because he thinks it refutes the dominant scholarship. But no scholars actually agree with him on that matter, and that's why it's another example of a fringe viewpoint unsupported by reliable secondary sources. That's why we don't want it. It works better on a Facebook page. Rjensen (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of all the editors, RJensen, your opinions on the matter are the ones that matter least, to me. Your definition of a "fringe viewpoint" comes down to anything that goes against your Lincoln deification. Sorry, professor, but your time has passed, in terms of that the said Lincoln cult is the only one acceptable. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not have evidence of the speech being widely reprinted in southern newspapers, or that it was reprinted in a pamphlet by South Carolina's 1860 Association or some such agency which might have given the speech a wide circulation. Is the Reagan Speech attributed to swaying the Deep South away from Union? If so, by which scholar? Texas was a trans-Mississippi state with two representatives prior to 1860. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it, VH. It is in the Congressional Records. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reagan's speech was reprinted from the Congressional Globe and circulated as a pamphlet. It is included in "Southern Pamphlets on Secession, November 1860-April 1861" edited by Jon L. Wakelyn. The problem is that the entire speech does not say what Texasreb proposes to say above (i.e. "citing both slavery and economic concerns as causes of friction"). Texasreb's source is a small, small excerpt from what covers 14 pages in the book. Wakelyn, in an intro to the Reagan speech puts it in its proper context when he writes:

"...Reagan stated that there was no time left to argue over the right of secession but he wanted to explain why Southern states had seceded. For him, slave property was at stake, and firsthand experience had taught him how abolitionists stirred slave violence."

No mention of economic causes as significant. We need to accept Wakeman's interpretation over Texreb's. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

PS It is also worth mentioning that the speech came during the debate on the report of the Committee of Thirty-three which produced the Corwin Amendment which was entirely about protecting slavery. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but no cee-gar, North Shore. And my revision makes no interpretation. It only adds a balance. It is understandable that you object to it. Because? It detracts from the slavery issue. And interesting as well that you will accept an interpretation which you agree with over that I have revised my own inclusion to give no personal interpretation at all. Please don't try and bullshlit a bullshliter. Try as you might, Reagan's speech concerning the economic issues which lent to the friction cannot be ignored, except at the risk of an extremely warped view of the said causes of friction. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The speech really doesn't add anything new. At its core it repeats what the paragraph before it already summarizes concisely. While Reagan makes some complaints about sectional issues he also makes it clear that the part that requires separation is "the inhuman alternative of unconditional submission to Republican rule on abolition principles, and ultimately to free negro equality and a government of mongrels or a war of races." The other sectional issues (which were the natural result of a slave based agricultural economy) even viewed through Reagan's distorted lens didn't rise to the level of secession. Red Harvest (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does add something new. It brings in that economic matters as well as slavery was a reason for the ultimate secession of the Lower South states...something that northern apologists get apopletic about. Read sometime, "When In the Course of Human Events." by Charles Adams. He freely admits that he grew up on northern history of the war. But, like many, the more he explored it, the more he became convinced that it was all a sham. That the northern reasons for invading the South were nothing more than economic. The whole slavery issue and keeping the Union intact, were nothing more that a latter day justification that appealed to mass emotion.

Fact is, this whole article is the property of northern apologists who cannot tolerate anything that goes against their own viewpoints. Some worse than others, of course. If they don't want certain things in there, then they will be deleted on the flimsiest of reasons. I have long resigned myself to that. Just have other editors who got disgusted and saw thru it, and finally just bowed out because they knew there was no appealing to any sort of balance at all. It is nothing to be proud of. Rather, it is the bulk weak mentality of those who do because they have the numerical superiority to get rid of anything that goes against what they want to have included. TexasReb (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Should we just delete Texasreb's Talk edits when they are cut and past disasters that foul up the discussion format and are unsigned?

What should we be doing about this, because the editor can't seem to figure it out? We get these multiple responses of uncivil vitriol that are inserted in others' posts, are unsigned, and generally make a mess of the talk page. Should we just delete them until he learns how to edit? He keeps threatening to seek intervention, I only hope he does because then maybe he'll be blocked for this sort of repetitive nonsense. Had enough of his crap yet? I have. Red Harvest (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If you will go back and look, I went back and edited to include my signature. That was my mistake. Seeking intervention. Dad gum right I am going to. Starting with the Texas v. White controversy. Uncivil? Uhhhh, gimme a break. Your fellow editor and ally has posted more "uncivil" comments than I ever have, or ever would. I see thru this whole thing. And what cut and paste are you even talking about??? Pray be specific? TexasReb (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. And something else. I honestly don't care if you or anyone else gets me "banned." I wouldn't want to be part of a censored article anyway -- where a few rule the roost by numerical superiority alone -- if there is that kind of outlook. Which is all it is. You have had enough of my "crap"? Awwww, poor fellow. Translation is that you can't tolerate anything that goes against your own biases. There is not a logical nor rule-violation at all on the latest revision of the Reagan quote that warrants deletion. And I think you know it. TexasReb (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)