Talk:American Civil War/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Truth

No legitimate discussion here DN (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Am not an American, but I study history. The fact that you don’t mention the truth about the civil war scares me. The war was between republicans who sacrificed their lives for emancipation and the right of black people to be free, and to vote and be elected and the leftist, extremist, elitists, feudarchs , communists democrats, who wanted to spread slavery everywhere. Everyone knows that, so do you. History can be manipulated by Nancy Pelosi, shifty Shiff, Schumer and other but it cannot really change 83.168.31.218 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) We do say it was about slavery. In the second line of the lede, in fact. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) search up August Willich if u really think that confederacy supported the confederacy 192.30.165.53 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) You do realize that "emancipation and the right of black people to be free, and to vote and be elected " were LEFTIST positions back then? You do realize that the Republican party then and the Republican party now are very different? And the same goes for the Democratic party. I am also very confused as to how you think elitism and feudalism can be the same as communism and what ANY of them have to do with this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Anyone who studies history, then, will surely know that the American Civil War was not solely centered on slavery, but rather states' rights and the preservation of the Union. It's too easy to paint the war with modern contentions. It should be noted that these modern appeals often focus solely on African enslavement, while ignoring the enslavement of Chinese and Asian Indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.147.79 (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) This topic has been discussed ad infinitum. The article discusses the various causes, with slavery as the paramount cause, as backed up by the consensus of reliable sources. If you wish to make a change, provide a reliable source. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Slavery became very controversial when it became sectional. As far back as the Missouri Crisis there was widespread talk of a war over slavery, which was Thomas Jefferson's "fire bell in the night". The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was strongly opposed in the North. The State of Wisconsin supreme court held that the act was unconstitutional. Many northern states passed personal liberty laws, and there was jury nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act. Southern slave states supported states' rights to defend slavery but were outraged when northern states attempted to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The South was inconsistent on states' rights, but very consistent in defending slavery. The Bleeding Kansas controversy was about slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 held that blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, that blacks weren't citizens, and that slavery could not be banned from the territories. Lincoln won the election of 1860 promising to overturn the Dred Scott decision and ban slavery in the territories. As soon as Lincoln was elected seven southern slave states carried out their threat to secede from the Union if an antislavery president was elected. Four of these states wrote declarations of reasons for secession. These reasons include the existence of abolitionists in the North, the existence of the Underground Railroad in the North, and the election of Lincoln because he said he wanted to put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction." Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, called slavery the cornerstone of the Confederacy. Confederate newspaper editorials said that secession was necessary to defend slavery. Both Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, and Stephens referred to blacks as an inferior race.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC) When Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania the Confederate government ordered Lee's army to enslave Pennsylvania freemen. Rachael Cormany, a Pennsylvania diarist, said, "they were driven by just like we would drive cattle."Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Near the end of the war the prisoner exchange program broke down because confederates enslaved black Union prisoners of war instead of exchanging them.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Even more truth left out: it wasn’t fought over slavery. 71.26.30.181 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please edit offset quote

The offset quote in the "Causes of secession" section should be capitalized and begin "[S]laves." 2001:56A:F2DF:E400:9D49:7CEA:6408:3ADA (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Should it? Is there a WP:MOS reason for doing this? To me, it looks ugly, and inappropriately implies that the word is the start of Lincoln's sentence. (I can't find this specifically covered in WP:QUOTATIONS - the most relevant I can see is "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization".) What's the reason for not leaving it as it was? TSP (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

To me, starting a block quote with lowercase is uglier than the square brackets, but if there is a MOS argument against this I am fine with being reverted. The bottom of MOS:CONFORM has some guidance, but it doesn't seem definitive either way to me. Starting with an ellipsis but keeping lowercase would work too. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with it as it was, as it is in effect in the middle of a sentence in our structure too (following on from a colon).

MOS:CONFORM seems to only discuss the opposite situation - a non-block quote that starts with a capital letter - but reading it for the reverse case suggests to me that it's "usually recommended" to leave the original capitalisation in place; but if it is changed, there's no need to use square brackets to note it (but we can).

I wouldn't mind an ellipsis. Alternatively, we could take it out of blockquote and have it as an inline quote after the colon, which would also avoid the problem. TSP (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with any of these solutions. As I said, I just think a block quote starting with lowercase letter looks bad. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not very strong feeings between the options, but I've gone with the ellipsis for now. I think it's significantly tidier and more informative than the brackets. TSP (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus, this is the debate that led to the edit you reverted - perhaps you'd like to contribute your thoughts?

For the meantime, I'm going to change it back to starting with a lowercase letter, as was the established situation before this series of edits, and, by my reading of WP:CONFORM, the preferable option under Wikipedia policy. I don't have a strong feeling between the other options, but I think using square brackets to capitalise the first letter is ugly, confusing, and not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. TSP (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer it as it is: no bracket and no ellipsis. I do not, like CWenger, find it ugly, but that's just a matter of taste. I would not object to capitalizing and bracketing the first letter (I do not, like TSP, find it ugly, but that too is just a matter of taste). But I think that capitalizing and bracketing the first letter is necessary only in the middle of a quotation; e.g., "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it.... [S]laves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest."

But I would object to inserting an ellipsis, because I do not believe that a quotation should ever be preceded by an ellipsis. It goes without saying that every quotation is preceded by something, and, if the quotation begins with a lower-case letter, that reveals that it starts in the middle of a sentence. But that's just my approach; I recognize that others do it differently.

On an unrelated subject (while I have your attention), I hate when Wikipedia editors place brackets around ellipses. I understand the logic: It indicates that the original quotation did not have an ellipsis -- that the writer we are quoting was not quoting someone else and dropping words, but that we are dropping words. But brackets around ellipses are not the convention and are the one thing I do find ugly. Furthermore, it is unnecessary. The reader should know that words have been dropped, but he doesn't care who dropped them, us or the person we're quoting. Does Wikipedia have a rule about this? Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Abolition as a cause

The link between the small abolitionist movement in the North and the Civil War is that a lot of white Southerners mistakenly believed that the "Black Republican Party" (as they called it) was dominated by abolitionists like John Brown. The section should be mostly about the Southern reaction--and we can skip the details about the not very powerful abolitionists. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rjensen I've just removed a paragraph from Abolitionists that I think wasn't particularly noteworthy. But I think the rest of the section is mostly well crafted and relevant. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

the abolitionists were a small weak movement -- the false idea of it by the Southerners was important, and not the text of the section. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to providing some counter authority that argues that position, but as is I think the section does a good job of covering some important topics, such the Whig to Republican switch, the split of North/South churches, books such as Uncle Toms Cabin, the abolition of the slave trade, and the Northwest Territory. I think abolition is a good general header for these ideas, even if they aren't all strictly about abolition. I'm also open to other naming ideas. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

the theme should be anti-slavery. That includes the powerful Free Soil faction of Democrats --they wanted white farmers to own the good farmland in the territories, not rich enslavers who would bring slaves to work large plantations in Kansas. Nebraska etc. Even more important It includes Lincoln who warned that the nation was now half slave and half free but it had to become one or the other, and the Slave Power was pushing hard to make slavery universal. The white South vehemently reacted against Lincoln's election -- even though very few abolitionists supported Lincoln or the GOP in 1860. Rjensen (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

by the way this sentence is a gross exaggeration--there were very few such churches and newspapers: " In churches, conventions and newspapers, reformers promoted an absolute and immediate rejection of slavery.[16][17]" and the two footnotes are really bad, (A children's book and a biography of Tomlinson born in 1865) Rjensen (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Maurice Magnus: I removed the section on Hinton partly due to this conversation. I was looking for ways to trim the section, and I felt like discussing Hinton was UNDUE, or at least we're discussing him at UNDUE length. The fact that I've never heard of him before indicates that he's probably not particularly noteworthy, which is a point against including him, not a point for including him. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  CaptainEek But he was noteworthy; take a look at Hinton Rowan Helper and The Impending Crisis of the South. He is not as well known as he should be, which is why the paragraph is important. And it's only one four-line paragraph. Thank you for not deleting it again. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Maurice Magnus Wikipedia's job is not to make unknown people well known. That doesn't comport with WP:DUE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  CaptainEek I read WP:DUE, and it is about different viewpoints. That's not the issue with Helper. No one, as far as I know, denies that his book had an impact comparable to that of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Wikipedia's job is to report the facts, and, if the fact is that Helper was important, then we should report that fact. If an important person is not well known, that's all the more reason to include a paragraph about him. The fact that Wikipedia has an article on him and one on his book says something about his importance, and the paragraph about him in American Civil War will lead readers to the Wikipedia articles about him and his book. If the section of American Civil War on abolitionists failed to mention Frederick Douglass, that would be wrong, but at least, since everyone has heard of Douglass, they'd know to look at the Wikipedia article on him if they wished. If we didn't mention Helper in American Civil War, then many readers would never learn about him, despite his importance. Including the paragraph performs a public service. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Maurice Magnus A public service? That's not our mission. I'm just not sure why Hinton gets so many words dedicated to him when he's still a minor figure. I guess I'd suggest cutting down his paragraph into one or two sentences; I'm not sure we need so much quotation from him. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  CaptainEek Not a public service? Isn't every substantive edit we make for the purpose of informing interested members of the public? Even grammatical and punctuation corrections we make serve the public by improving our product. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree the article provides too much attention to abolitionists and that they had little influence on events. The issue was whether or not slavery should be extended into the territories, not whether it should be abolished altogether. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was designed to cripple the Southern economy. Signficantly, no attempt had been made to end slavery in states that remained in the Union.

Because a major consequence of the war was ending slavery, some might assume that was the North's goal. The attention provided to Northern abolitionists implies that was the goal and hence is undue.

TFD (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

CaptainEek As you probably know, the federal consensus, with which Lincoln agreed, was that the federal government did not have the power to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed, unless it was a military necessity in time of war. It's true that ending slavery was not the North's goal, but, as James Oakes writes in Freedom National, "from the very beginning [Republicans] insisted that slavery was the cause of the rebellion and emancipation an appropriate and ultimately indispensable means of suppressing it." Then, on January 1, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the war. Therefore, I wouldn't draw a sharp dichotomy between the North's goal of preserving the Union and its means of achieving that goal by ending slavery in the states in rebellion. If it was, as Oakes said, true from the beginning, then Lincoln waited to issue the EP for political reasons. If he'd done it sooner, he might have lost the border states.

You are right that the issue was whether or not slavery should be extended into the territories, not whether it should be abolished altogether. But that doesn't mean that the abolitionists had little influence on events. They put pressure on Lincoln. He had to keep both sides -- the Radical Republicans and the War Democrats -- happy. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on these points Maurice, I think you meant to ping The Four Deuces. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln wrote, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it." This should be taken at face value.

How many people in 1860 thought the U.S. government should abolish slavery in the South? How many of them thought the government should go to war against the Southern states to do this? Very few. And if you think it had massive support, you need to find a source that says that.

Also, the section says Puritans "believed that slavery was morally wrong." I think that glosses over their doctrines. In any case, Puritans introduced slavery into their original laws and it continued until abolished following the U.S. Revolution. TFD (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

CaptainEek I don't know what "ping The Four Deuces" means. I am not up on Wikipedia jargon, if that's what it is.

Most scholars do not take the line you quoted at face value. Read the section on "Public opinion of emancipation" in Emancipation Proclamation. When Lincoln wrote that line, he had already decided, but not made public, his decision to issue the EP. He was preparing the racist white public for it. He wanted them to understand that he was freeing the slaves in order to preserve the Union, not for the sake of the slaves. But he was freeing the slaves, so does it really make a difference? In the EP, he said that, although he was issuing it as a military necessity, he "sincerely believed [it] to be an act of justice."

I agree with your third paragraph. Oakes, in the sentence I quoted above, argued that from the beginning, Republicans believed that emancipation was an appropriate and indispensable means to suppress the rebellion. I agree that that doesn't mean that a massive number thought that we should fight the war to emancipate the slaves. Also, Oakes referred only to Republicans. Democrats certainly didn't want to free the slaves.

I am not educated about Puritans. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You need a source that provides that interpretation. TFD (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just in general, Abolitionism, to the extent it is understood as an 'all or nothing' proposition was indeed 'small' partly because it had no political program to achieve its ends. And there was no program on what to do after. (It also seems doubtful that political (by political, I mean, short of violence) achievable abolition was ever an 'all or nothing' anywhere in the world of the 19th century, it was gradual and compensatory to slave owners, at most.) But, still, abolitionist sentiment was widespread and probably the consensus in the north (such a consensus makes sense from both a moral and political-economy standpoint for the northern state's population and politicians - they had, after all, enshrined abolition into their states' political-economy). Lincoln thought in the 1850s that the great body of northern opinion was anti-slavery (who "crucified" there feelings for the sake of the constitution), and explicitly wrote to people during secession winter that the north thought slavery was wrong (his political program was at the time to limit it). And of course in his second inaugural, he says slavery was the cause of the war - in short, before the war, there was a fundamental divide on the continuance of slavery. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Alanscottwalker (talk) My sense of the North's support for abolition is different from yours. It is only my sense (based on years of reading about the Civil War era), and I can't cite any polls, so take it for what it's worth. I don't think that abolitionist sentiment was widespread in the North; I think that most people didn't care or even sympathized with slavery, residents of New York City being one example, and Nathaniel Hawthorne and his buddy Franklin Pierce being others. Lincoln's emphasizing, as in his letter to Greeley, that his goal was to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves, was not aimed only at the border states, but at white people in the North generally, who would not have supported a war for emancipation. Finally, in his second inaugural address, Lincoln blamed the North as well as the South for slavery: "[God] gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came." Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again it depends on what you mean by abolition, if abolition is only the immediate ending of slavery everywhere in the country, regardless of means, than it was a small group as I said, and with no political program to do it (and an even smaller group who were committed to a violent overthrow). Abolition, politically, was seldom immediate though in actual real world practice, it was a process internationally, and a process domestically the United States had been going through for decades, resulting in a nation fundamentally divided on the system. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's an after the fact interpretation. The elites and the masses in the North did not think the war would end slavery in the South. They were fighting over who would control the western territories.

  Abolitionists did not give speeches advocating war with the South. The violent abolitionists, such as John Brown, were in the minority.

  Also, had the North intended to free the slaves, they would have developed plans for what to do after. Northerners, even many abolitionists, thought they could not be assimilated. TFD (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  They thought the fight would lead to one nation, that the non-slavery north would win, and they certainly became aware that war would end slavery in the south. (For most ordinary people 'control of the west' was even more abstract, but even there, it meant being abolitionist, abolishing it where it existed, such as in Utah.) And still, Lincoln's shared the great body of northern opinion against slavery in the 1850s, and told everyone just before the war that they thought slavery wrong.

  The immediate Abolitionists were giving speeches that the 'constitution is a covenant with death' and an 'agreement with hell'. And that can obviously only lead to one place, the end of the republic, and it does not sound like a peaceful end. And that the violent ones were a minority, is what I said, a minority of a minority, "even smaller". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Another point: lots of abolitionists saw secession as a GOOD idea--it meant far fewer slaves and slave owners in the USA. They were a very small group and after Confederates attacked Ft Sumter there was a huge surge of American nationalism in the North, with unanimous GOP support and very strong support from northern Democrats like Senator Douglas. In 1861 Lincoln said he NEEDED Kentucky (a slave state) to win the war. (Abe: "I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri [A slave state], nor, as I think, Maryland [also a slave state]. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us.") so abolition was off the table in 1861. Rjensen (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Abolishing slavery in the territories was very much on the table in 1860 and 1861. (And as I said, immediate Abolitionists had no political program, ending the country is a revolution not ordinary politics.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Slavery in the territories was not an issue in 1860-1861: 1860 census showed: Utah Territory had 89 slaves; Nebraska had 15; Kansas had 2 (and abolished there in early 1861 with statehood); zero in Colorado, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico and Dakota, and zero in states of California & Oregon. See 1860 United States census#Population of U.S. states and territories and see History of slavery in Nebraska. Much more important was Dred Scott decision of Supreme Court. Lincoln's election told the white South expansion was over and slave revolts John Brown style were a huge threat. Rjensen (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• So? this was (as I recall reading) one of the issues, the fact that territories would become free states, and thus the few slave owners would have to free their slaves. Precisely because there were so few slave owners, thus they wanted slavery protected in state constitutions. (any new state South of the Masson-Dixon line had to legally be a slave state, regardless of what the population wanted). 13:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [Slatersteven]

• [Moved my comment down, as the "reply" function displaced the above comment by Slaversteven, sorry.]

  Rjensen, Your last sentence makes ending slavery in the territories a huge issue in 1861-62. But actually it had been a huge issue going back to the Wilmot proviso (at least) in the 1840s, an anti-slavery measure which northern politicians passed repeatedly in the House, already suggesting to the southern politicians they were losing, and the north was of a different opinion. Yes, California and Oregon were states, as were the new states of Minnesota and Kansas, all free states, no slave states, since 1845 - slave states were already outstripped (and they had just seen how it went in Kansas - a civil war). It mattered very much that there were to be no slaves and slaveowners in territories in 1860-1861 (or in the new states). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that new states were free states was the reason why southerners saw that slavery was threatened. Slavery was "somehow the cause of the war", as Lincoln said.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It had become a huger issue by 1861 because (1) slavery had become more pervasive in the South and (2) settlement out west was increasing. So until 1861, both the northern and southern economies were growing, but by 1861 they were respective obstacles to each other's growth.

Lincoln was firm that there would be no expansion of slavery into the new territories. The compromise he was willing to make was to protect slavery in the southern states. TFD (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Change this

"The central cause of the war was the dispute over whether slavery would be permitted to expand into the western territories, leading to more slave states, or be prevented from doing so, which many believed would place slavery on a course of ultimate extinction." to "The central cause of the war was a disagreement on the state's rights to secede, the extent/reach of the federal Government, the southern way of life, and slavery." 70.191.203.101 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The cause was do to some states believed the federal gov was impeding the states right to govern themselves that is why whether or not an individual supported slavery or not they still fought in their states militia. 108.145.161.122 (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This should be changed because slavery was not the sole cause of the civil war, which is being implied by this sentence. 70.191.203.101 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Central cause" does not mean "sole cause". And your proposed change puts far less emphasis on slavery than your source does. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, slavery was the sole cause. Other differences between the North and the South would not have led to war, and the slavery dispute was sufficient to cause the war. I would simply delete "central" and say "The cause of the war." But I won't, because there seems to be a consensus about the state of the opening paragraph. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The four southern declarations of reasons for secession mention slavery related causes.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the cause of the war was that Lincoln didn't think the Southern States had a constitutional right to secede. If the North would have agreed with the South that they had the right to secede, there wouldn't have been a war to "preserve the Union". Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln said that secession is never a legal right, only a moral right at best. Given the South's reason for secession (to protect slavery according to secessionists), Lincoln didn't think that what he called a "monstrous injustice" was morally right. Also, Lincoln saw secession as an attack on democracy, the "last best hope of earth."Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Numbers in Ref. 3 do not match the numbers in article

Numbers in Ref. 3 do not match the numbers in article. 107.145.28.211 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ref. 3 gives very rough numbers and then other references are more concrete, so we tend to use those numbers. We could probably drop ref. 3 for all but the last use. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia table derived from the National Park Service figures (ref 3), the number of wounded is exactly the same for both Union and Confederate (ie., 275,154). The Confederate wounded in the NPS article is 194,026. 118.102.70.75 (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2024

There is sneatance requiring a citation in one of the paragraph in Eastern theater. 64.189.18.32 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize I meant sentence. 64.189.18.32 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Paragraphs in the Eastern theater sub heading. 64.189.18.32 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sixth paragraph under battles. 64.189.18.32 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Already done This sentence already has a citation needed template. If you have a citation that verifies this statement please reopen your request with the reference. Jamedeus (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sentence has no citation so it should be removed as it cannot be verified.

That sentence can't be verified as there no sources to verify it. 64.189.18.24 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Which sentence? The solution is to provide a source, not to demand its removal. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2024

In Eastern theater a paragraph requires a source for a sentence about Pope's slavery learning to victory. 64.189.18.24 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Numbers for accident/disease deaths

Why does the info box have numbers for “accident/disease deaths” for the Union but not for the Confeserates? 2600:1700:975E:E000:2DF2:F8BB:E311:8E6D (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

at a guess, sourcing. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

{{subst:trim|1= Citizens are missing one for forts that Lincoln wishes to retain and the other for McClellan's hesitation.rmeove thse snetances or add the citations.

{{}} 64.189.18.51 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: What unsourced sentences do you want to be removed? It's also helpful if you could state under which section is the mentioned statement in. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparison Chart

The chart Comparison of Union and Confederacy, 1860–1864 shows a decrease in the population of the Confederacy of six million and a comparable increase in the population of the Union. This calls for an explanation. As I understand it, there was no large-scale movement of people in the course of the war from the south to the north. The Confederacy did not experience anywhere near that number of deaths due to the war, nor can natural population increase or immigration account for the increase in the population of the Union. I suspect that something is wrong, or that the chart perhaps represents the population of areas controlled by the Union and the Confederacy, with the population of the Union including that of those parts of the Confederacy conquered by the Union as of 1864, and the population of the Confederacy excluding the population of the areas lost by the Confederacy. If that is the case, at the very least an explanation should be provided, but better yet, the figures should be revised so that the 1864 figures are for the same areas as in the 1860 figures. After all, the population advantage of the Union was not really increased by the population of the conquered areas of the Confederacy.Bill (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

Excessive amount of text add more subheadings. 64.189.18.48 (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The federal holiday Juneteenth

The federal holiday Juneteenth says your end of the Civil War date of May 26,1865 is wrong. The Juneteenth holiday celebrates the end of the civil war in Texas and the freeing of the slaves in Texas. Between your clamed of the end of the war on May 26 and the end of the war in Texas June 19 uniformed confederates were active in Texas and blacks were still slaves in that area. The true end of the Civil war is June 23, 1865, when the last confederate general surrendered all his forces. After that only scattered troops were still resisting and not a threat. 2600:1015:A011:BFA0:C82:AAB8:8474:6668 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1965? do you have a source for that? 12:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note the above comment was edited. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Appomattox marks the official end of the fighting, even though some skirmishes happened afterward. After Lee surrendered on April 9, 1865, Confederate Lt. Gen. Simon B. Buckner, acting for General Edmund Kirby Smith, surrendered the Confederate trans-Mississippi Department forces on May 26, 1865.Michaelbtfsplk (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Article must be condensed. 64.189.18.53 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Add more subheadings to background to cil war and early years of the war. 64.189.18.53 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Too long still

The article at 16,000 words readable prose size is still 1,000 words above the size guideline. It's probably worth cutting down the causes section as there's a whole sub article on that. any help would be greatly appreciated, Tom B (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I can give it a whirl in about a week when I've got more time. It was long on my to do list! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you! Tom B (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024

Remove the unverified claim in Eastern Theater. This was supposed to be removed a month ago. Someone add a claim about twice the number of troops or remove it!

{{}} 64.189.18.28 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Link to the talk page thread where this was agreed please. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

what here is the claim what talk page McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.^{[citation needed]} 64.189.18.32 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. I added a reference instead. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024

remove this senatcne as there is no source to verify it! remve it alredy! McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.[citation needed] 64.189.18.32 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. I added a reference instead. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)