Talk:American Civil War/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

Inaccurate statement of the origin of the Civil War in the first paragraph.

The statement "The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories." located in the first paragraph is simply not true. This statement should accurately state that the origin of the American Civil War was an ideological dispute between states and territories in the North and South over whether political sovereignty should belong to a central government (federate) or mostly to the states themselves (confederate). The fact that the southern states called themselves the Confederate States of America is probably the most singular indication of this as the true origin of the conflict. In fact, many folks who study history and politics consider the argument over a strong federal government to have been decided by the outcome of the War. I could site many authors who have written supporting works, but Federation vs Confederation as the origin of the Civil War already exists within your own Wikipedia article on federalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism).

In contrast, despite much evidence that ideological differences on the legality of slavery existed between the northern and southern states, the US Federal legislative record indicates they consistently agreed to disagree. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, the California Compromise of 1850, and a number of compromises between then and 1861, all prove that prior to the Civil War slavery was considered a states rights issue by the Federal government. The fact that only 11 of the 15 slave states in the union actually seceded to join the Confederacy also proves that slavery was not the ideological origin of the American Civil War.

In fact, the issue of slavery did not become central to the cause of either side until Abraham Lincoln issued the "Emancipation Proclamation". This didn't happen until after both sides were already two years into the Civil War. This statement about the redefining of the war by Abraham Lincoln to make the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal is also stated in a separate Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation).

The reason this is important is because redefining the war from it's origins was more strategic than ideological. Prior to the war, a major industry for both the North and the South was textiles. Cotton, which could only be grown in the warmer Southern states, was a major export for those southern states. Prior to the war the largest share of the cotton grown in the South was exported to the more industrialized northern states to be transformed by the textile industry into various products. The close relationship between southern US agriculture and northern US industrialism meant that the British textile industry was not as prosperous as it's post-revolution offspring. British businesses had much to gain if the Confederacy were to win the war. It was such an opportunity that they were prepared to send troops to support the Confederate army in much the same way the French helped the Americans win the Revolutionary war.

The first two years of the war did not provide significantly strategic victories for either side. By 1863, Abraham Lincoln could predict that the US would not win the war if the British sent forces to aid the Confederates. He also would have known that the British had abolished slavery in 1833 under pressure from the increasingly popular anti-slavery movement in Britain. In fact, the British military had been actively trying to suppress the slave trade since an earlier anti-slavery act was passed in 1807. President Lincoln guessed correctly that redefining the Civil War as a war to abolish slavery would cause a political conflict for the British government and keep them out of the war.

In conclusion, while it is accurate that slavery became the central issue during the war, your current statement that the issue of slavery was the origin of the war itself stops short of the truth. Please revise this article. (AndrewGertz (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)AndrewGertz)

According to Ulysses S. Grant “[u]p to the Mexican war (1846) there were few out and out abolitionists, men who carried their hostility to slavery into all elections [who constituted the newly ascendant Republican party]. . . . .But with the inauguration of the Mexican war, in fact with the annexation of Texas, ‘the inevitable conflict’ commenced. It was evident to my mind that the election of a Republican President in 1856 meant the secession of the Slave States and the rebellion. Under these circumstances I preferred the success of a candidate whose election would prevent or postpone secession . . . I therefore voted for James Buchanan for President . . . with a Democrat [Buchanan] elected by the Slave States, there could be no pretext for secession for four years. . . . Four years later the Republican party was successful in electing its candidate to the Presidency. The civilized world has learned the consequences. Four millions of human beings held as chattels have been liberated. . . . It was very much discussed whether the South would carry out its threat to secede and set up a separate government, the corner-stone of which would be protection of the Divine institution of slavery. For there were people who believed in the ‘divinity' of slavery . . . . but the common impression was that this step was so plainly suicidal for the South,that the movement [could not spread or persist]. . . . In the case of war between the states it would have been the exact truth if the South had said, 'We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer.'” Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Chapter XVI pp 143-145. Grant was there. I believe him. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy at the beginning in 1861, said the reason for the confederacy was slavery:

The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

(emphasis added)

Parts of his speech, known as The Cornerstone Speech are quoted in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To say that the war had its origins in the issue of slavery is not to say that the North's objective was to end slavery in the South (it was not) or that the North and South did not disagree about the limits of federal power. But disputes over constitutional issues only erupt into civil war if they have relevance to hugely important issues, in this case slavery. And the conflict you mention between northern industry and southern cotton agriculture was between systems using free labor and slave labor. In any case we need to follow what sources say. TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Gertz supposes the origin of the American Civil War was an ideological dispute ... whether political sovereignty should belong to a central government (federate) or mostly to the states themselves (confederate). But the issue was slavery in the territories as the sourced lead explains, — and thus the future control of the Senate — and thus the Supreme Court. The states were not threatened in their political sovereignty to slavery by the central government, the slave power would not relinquish control over the central government, it was "rule or ruin". Instead of allowing democracy to work its will peaceably by ballots, secessionist chose the bullets of rebellion.

The Corwin Amendment guaranteeing slavery in the states passed by the required two-thirds in both House and Senate. The Secessionists would bring rebellion before the states could either act on that, or provide an alternative amendment for peaceable secession proposed by a North Carolina representative. Instead rebel militias occupied federal forts, arsenals, treasury mints and court houses throughout the South, and then the Davis government provoked a shooting war at federal Fort Sumter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Military occupation

The New York Times today has "The Dangerous Myth of Appomattox" by Gregory P. Downs, associate professor of history at City College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and the author of After Appomattox: Military Occupation and the Ends of War. ISBN 0674743989

“ To enforce its might over a largely rural population, the Army marched across the South after Appomattox, occupying more than 750 towns and proclaiming emancipation by military order. This little-known occupation by tens of thousands of federal troops remade the South in ways that Washington proclamations alone could not. ”

As he asserts, our coverage of this matter is nearly nonexistent. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

? Well, the army was doing that for years before - emancipating slaves, etc. (Also, over a largely rural population . . . occupying more than 750 towns (emphasis added), is a bit of a non-sequitor) --Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Talking here about after the war. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The army in towns and lynch law in the countryside is another story. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

While the article mentions that troops were used to enforce reconstruction, I think there should be more mention of the use of the army after the truce was signed. There is no contradiction btw in saying that soldiers occupied towns to control rural areas. Rural areas are administered from towns. A "town" may be no more than a courthouse, jail, post office, church and general store and a meeting place for rural people. TFD (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Lee had power only to surrender his troops, there was no truce, but a series of surrenders by Confederate armed forces. Policing the countryside is for local people familiar with it, not so easy for occupying troops that may not receive full cooperation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There is an earlier book, but I'm not sure what its status is as a reliable source: Fleming, Walter Lynwood (2012-05-16). The Sequel of Appomattox : a chronicle of the reunion of the states Kindle Edition User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What the author terms "this little-known occupation" is called Reconstruction and it has its own article. Everything referred to in the Times article is covered by any number of reliable sources. I'm not sure why anything beyond the three paragraphs already in the article needs to be added to the Civil War article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps so, see Reconstruction era#Military reconstruction. This is not an area I usually edit. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

opinion not fact

because they felt as if they were losing representation, which hampered their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies

this is an opinion and is not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.127.84 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The observation is backed up by four scholarly references, found in the footnote. You may be interested to see some of the earlier efforts to gain another slave-holding state by looking into Bleeding Kansas. Early western free soil states had U.S. Senators who were pro-slavery, anti Indian tribe Democrats so the national party papered over the underlying difference over slavery. Then, although backed by President Buchanan, the illegitimate LeCompton Constitution to make Kansas slave holding was not recognized by the House. The electoral fraud was so extreme and violent even by 19th century standards, that partisans in every party from the free soil states all aligned for the first time -- and they aligned on a slavery-related issue. Kansas entered as a free state in January 1861 before Lincoln and the new Congress with more Republicans were seated. See also pro-slavery filibustering to conquer Latin American countries to become slave-holding states -- to restore a balance of slave-holding and free soil states in the Senate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Two capitals so close together ?

Why were the Confederacy and Union captials so close together, a little over 100 miles away ? Is there any answer for this ? I believe information on this would help the article...Seems like the Confederacy would want to keep their capital away from the Union capital. The first Confederate capital was in Montgomery, Alabama. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Richmond because Virginia had substantially the largest population to recruit and replenish armies and it was at the frontier, largest foodstuffs producer in the “breadbasket” Valley of Virginia, largest manufacturing center notably the Tredegar Iron Works, major port and naval yard facilities with ready communication to Europe, a developed interstate rail network, and essential mineral resources such as salt in quantities required for sustaining armies in the field during wartime. The Potomac, Rappahannock and James Rivers formed a defensive geography against northern advances. To lose Virginia would be to lose the war; there was no prospect for sustained independence for the Confederacy without it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: This is good information and I believe needs to be in the article. Do you have references for this information? Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's in John Keegan's American Civil War: a military history. I'll look into it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015

I wanted to add the following paragraph after "Historians have debated whether the Confederacy could have won the war. Most scholars, such as James McPherson, argue that Confederate victory was at least possible.[216] McPherson argues that the North's advantage in population and resources made Northern victory likely but not guaranteed. He also argues that if the Confederacy had fought using unconventional tactics, they would have more easily been able to hold out long enough to exhaust the Union.[217]" --> here's my proposal: "Another reason that could explain the victory of the North was its war financing. In a nutshell, Salmon Chase managed to "capture" all the gold of the banking system, making it really hard for the Confederacy to buy goods from the outside (they had to barter and by that had to have something to exchange). Sources: Pr. Perry G Mehrling in a recent lecture available on Coursera.com http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1861?OpenDocument Noideaaa (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Support the proposal. Amended to:

While the Confederates were able to capture bullion in the US treasury mint within the state borders of Louisiana, Salmon Chase managed to “capture” a continuing flow of gold from the banking system, reducing the Confederacy to bartering through an ever-tightening blockade.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. TheVirginiaHistorian, you are plenty capable of making this change. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: This article has been indef semi'd (see Julian Colton's protection from 2009)...maybe you looked at the protection logs for this talk page? The above user is not yet autoconfirmed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=TheVirginiaHistorian&project=en.wikipedia.org disagrees with you:

User groups: reviewer, user, autoconfirmed

First edit: Mar 21, 2009, 11:27 PM

Latest edit: May 15, 2015, 11:05 AM

Live edits: 9,683

Deleted edits: 22

Total edits: 9,705

The first responder is certainly more than able to perform this edit if they support it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comments seemed to address Noideaaa first which is who I was talking about. Your indentation seems to suggest this as well so I thought I would point that out. No matter, they'll get it sorted. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: How does your procedural response Not done, encourage the newcomer in collegial editing participation at WP? It seems unthinking, hurried and off-handed on the face of it, unrelated to the substance of the request. The only rationale for denial is that others somewhere on WP can do what is requested? A non sequitur at best. What is your intention here? Are you counting "requests closed" for a personal best this month as a technical goal? Noideaaa has a point for the substance of this article. Discuss his point, is Chase's contribution at Treasury a war measure worth including or not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, there is no objection, if you think it is worth including and improves the encyclopaedia, then include it. Otherwise, mark it as not done. Either way, a contributor to the discussion is capable of carrying out the request so there is no need for it to be broadcast all over the wiki that help is needed here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 08:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Great idea, no sourcing at web site to confirm authorship, no editor talk page to discuss. Nothing to act on.

Anyone have another source for the insight into Chase at Treasury? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I think the statement about Secty Chase is garbled and incorrect. Chase had very limited control over banks in the North, and he had zero control over banks in the South. CSA was in fact able to borrow large sums of gold in Europe ($11 million maybe), Which they used to ship in military supplies through the extremely expensive blockade runners. Rjensen (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cause of the Industrial Revolution?

It would definitely be a minority opinion to state that the civil war led to the industrial revolution. It certainly affected it but drawing a direct causal relationship is too controversial to state in an unqualified manner.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel that honest research would prove the Civil War was caused as a result of American Industrialization.--208.114.179.163 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Industrial Revolution, even in the United States as far as I am aware, began prior to the Civil War. Dustin (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It did begin earlier -- it was called "the American system" of manufactory, characterized by sequential steps in production carried out by mechanics fashioning elements, versus artisans fabricating entire items. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

PBS The_Civil_War_(TV_series)

Hello, Could you please inform me why the PBS series The Civil War is not mentioned in the Article, in a further reading or documentary section or some section? I could not find a specific Wikipedia explanation to include or not incude the series, the WP help mentions "notable" documentaries, external links are allowed, where I understand "notable" is subjective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_(TV_series) Jcardazzi (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

 Done under "Civil War commemoration" subsection. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Amendment

Let's be clear, as seen in other posts, it is my opinion that this page should have the following added to the top:

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (July 2015)

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.177.194 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a long article, and the sentence that you are upset about may be in there somewhere, but you have to tell us where it is. Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@anon; I don't see the problems you're implying. They seem a little vague. Can you give some specific examples?

WP has rules and guidelines that we follow. Perhaps your comments involve WP:Venerability, WP:No original research, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE. If you can point out where the article is specifically violating one or more of these, then that would add significant weight to your assertions.

But note, as stated at the top of this page, talk pages are not a forum for discussing the subject of the article; our own opinions don't matter, only those of WP:RSs. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP is located in Alabama, so I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the IP thinks that some part of the article is pro-Union in some way, or, more likely, insufficiently pro-Confederacy. BMK (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

69.63.26.239 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)This page needs significant editing to remove the items that suggest "revisionist history" and it should pay attention and give credence to the many causes of the war, and not just slavery. Whoever wrote the text of the page is himself, a "revisionist". This type of editing is why teachers tell their students every day NOT to use Wikipedia as a source.

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. Also, from just looking at the table of contents I can tell there is due diligence given to multiple causes - it goes

1 Causes of secession

   1.1 Slavery

Although slavery had been a part of like in the US since the early days of the colonies, in the decades leading up to the succession of the southern states there was a large shift as to which states had the most slaves. Over time the balance had become overwhelming in the southern states. However it is also a fact that slavery was protected by the US constitution. The right to own human chattel was guaranteed by the US Constitution (by Article I, Sections 2 and 9, Article IV, section 2, and Amendments IV, V, IX and X).

It is also fact that Lincoln was an open supporter of the first attempt at a 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was being debated in Congress during his campaign. This amendment would have protected slavery in perpetuity throughout the United States and was irrevocable. Lincoln also said that he had "neither the power nor the desire to end slavery".

With a president openly in favour of such a Constitutional Amendment and with other constitutional protections to slavery, it makes no sense to state that the secessionist states left over slavery.

   1.2 States' rights
   1.3 Sectionalism and cotton trade

The federal government of the United States received the vast majority if its budget from farm tariffs on the southern states. Roughly 75% of the federal government came from the south. Yet 75% of that budget was spent in the north. This had been a point of contention for some time. There was hope that the northern slave holding states would vote with the south on this issues, but the northern states where people openly held slaves continuously voted with the rest of the northern block. It was therefore impossible for the south to get any meaningful representation in government.

   1.4 Territorial crisis
   1.5 National elections

You might try actually reading the text of the page Cannolis (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with you modern day revisionists and apologists who passionately, vehemently argue that, in your words, "it makes no sense to state that the secessionist states left over slavery", is that this does not square very well with the reasons given by the secessionist states at the time for leaving, namely, that they left over slavery. These links were given already in the article, but since you seem to have missed it, here it is again. Please read this one thoroughly http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp and then come back and tell me how you can pretend the CSA regime were not white supremacists who seceded in paranoia of losing their "right" to enslave black people. (your severe case of WP:ICANTHEARTHAT / ICANTREADTHAT indeed gets tiresome) 71.127.134.119 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC) teh civil war happened in 1963.

The Number of Soldiers Killed

In the introductory three paragraphs, three contradictory estimates of the number of soldiers killed as a result of the Civil War are recorded (two in the same paragraph). The numbers given are: 600,000, 750,000, and finally 620,000 respectively. These are mutually exclusive quantities, and, confusing to this reader (presumably to others as well). Not being an expert, I cannot presume to correct this discrepancy, or to choose amongst the competing numbers. These estimates should be conformed by a suitable editor.Tresmegistus (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The discrepancies are not so bad. The first number mentioned (at the start of the introduction) is "over 600,000". Obviously, 620,000 fits this statement. The outlier is the mention near the end of 750,000, with a supporting embedded note about a novel calculation process. That clearly represents part of a discussion over casualty counts that properly belongs in the body of the article under "Costs" of the war.

I would propose modifying the last paragraph of the introduction to change the 750,000, making it instead a range (such as found in the sidebar). I would leave the sentence about the impact in percentage terms. I would remove the last sentence as redundant.Doug (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gratuitous innovation

I removed the surrender flags by Confederate leaders as gratuitous innovation on this page. While I oppose posting neo-Confederate flags in historical pages, I also disagree with the eccentric posting of surrender flags by each Confederate leader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

GA delisting

Three years ago there were three votes for delisting this article from Good Article status: Quarkgluonsoup, AIRcorn, and Interchangeable. Two votes to keep, both addressing article length: maclean and IP.93. Two comments, one specifying “I would not support delisting.” Then Jezhotwells declared, "No attempt has been made to address” the lack of article focus and so he delisted the article to C class.

Concerns about its length were to be addressed, then the article renominated: a) a slavery section which was 14 paragraphs which is now eight. b) a battles section which was too lengthy, it has been reorganized. c) “Territorial Crisis and the United States Constitution” has been edited, “Victory and aftermath” and "Emancipation during the war” within it were cited as too long.

The delisting resulted from a discussion which was open 30 days, resulting in 2-2 vote, then held open until one “I would not support delisting” comment and one delist vote two weeks later — which I count as a 3-3 vote, resulting in delisting the article. The article status should be reviewed for GA status again, a general review to shorten its length, perhaps spinning off sub-articles, with a more thorough defense of its length. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed "Causes" rewrite

In the Confederate States of America there is an extensive section on “Causes of secession”. That material might be combined with the extensive material on this current page for a new article “Causes of secession in the American Civil War” The section in this article might reduce the subsections to paragraphs, nineteen to six, with the narrative intact aligned with existing references, and reordered as follows. The section would again reference "Main article" links.

Slavery. Contemporary actors, the Union and Confederate leadership and fighting soldiers on both sides believed that slavery caused the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to emancipate the slaves. Confederates fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it.[43] From the anti-slavery perspective, the issue was primarily about whether the system of slavery was an anachronistic evil that was incompatible with Republicanism in the United States. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment — to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction.[15] The slave-holding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their Constitutional rights.[16]

Slavery was illegal in the North. It was fading in the border states and in Southern cities, but was expanding in the highly profitable cotton districts of the South and Southwest. Subsequent writers on the American Civil War looked to several factors explaining the geographic divide, including sectionalism, protectionism and state's rights.

Sectionalism. Sectionalism refers to the different economies, social structure, customs and political values of the North and South.[48][49] It increased steadily between 1800 and 1860 as the North, which phased slavery out of existence, industrialized, urbanized and built prosperous farms, while the deep South concentrated on plantation agriculture based on slave labor, together with subsistence farming for the poor whites. In the 1840s and 50s, the issue of accepting slavery (in the guise of rejecting slave-owning bishops and missionaries) split the nation's largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches) into separate Northern and Southern denominations.[57]

Protectionism. Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.[59]

The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 1816. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth, and Republicans called for an increase in tariffs in the 1860 election. The increases were only enacted in 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress.[60][61]

States rights. The South argued that each state had the right to secede–leave the Union–at any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a perpetual union.[46] The states rights which were the cause of secession and war to resolve the right to secession were the states rights to perpetual slavery secured by the impossibility of a Constitutional amendment abolishing it.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

good idea--let's try it. Rjensen (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree that the section in this article should be reduced in size. However your proposal has two paragraphs on slavery and six paragraphs on something else. As you well know, slavery was the overwhelmingly dominant issue; your proposal suggests that it was simply one of four equally significant causes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with editor Tom (North Shoreman)'s reservations. These listed causes are not equal. The vice president of the Confederate States of America, Alexander Stephens in March 1861, less than a month before the attack on Fort Sumter declared that slavery ‘was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.’ Furthermore, Stephens added, the foundation of the Confederate government–its very cornerstone, in fact—‘rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.’ Likewise U.S. Grant writes in his memoirs that the cause was slavery, pure and simple. Grant marveled at the valor of the South fighting in defense of the indefensible. So there's one from the North and one from the South--and they should know. They were there. I suggest saying the direct cause at the time was understood to be was slavery, and subsequently historians have come up with various other contributing factors.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My proposal should not be taken to suggest that slavery was not the primary cause of the American Civil War. I have copy edited the proposal to reflect the preponderance of scholarship in every subsection of causes explored by writers subsequent to that time: the issue of slavery was the cause of secession and war from every perspective. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you went ahead and implemented your changes despite the lack of any consensus on the subject. However I misunderstood what material you were actually proposing to eliminate. Since you actually left the introductory paragraph in place and retained the large sections on the "Territorial crisis" and "National elections" (both of which should be significantly shortened), I didn't revert. What I did do is add back material that spoke directly to how states' rights and sectionalism were actually causes. Under states' rights I added back the McPherson quote that points out that few historians treat states' rights as a cause. Coming at the end of the "Roots" section it also provides a fitting summary of the legitimacy of all of the other arguments. Under sectionalism, which spoke of the economic differences between the sections, I added back the statement that states the general rejection of economics as a cause of the war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I like your additions as important refutation to Lost Cause anachronisms. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the overall effect of the changes initiated by your efforts is a major improvement in the article. Today I added material from the Origins of the American Civil War article. This clarifies, with sourcing, that the tariff issue was not a subject of debate during the secession crisis and that only fringe elements today claim that it was a cause of the war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Territorial crisis rewrite

Next, the Territorial crisis rewrite, (but maintaining existing links) ...

Between 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of territory through purchase, negotiation, and conquest. Of the states carved out of these territories entering the union as slave states were balanced by new free states. It was over these territorial disputes that the proslavery and antislavery forces collided.[34]

With the conquest of northern Mexico, including California in 1848, slaveholding interests looked forward to expanding these lands and perhaps Cuba and Central America as well.[32][33] Northern free soil interests vigorously sought to curtail any further expansion of slave soil. The Compromise of 1850 over California balanced a free soil state with stronger fugitive slave laws for a political settlement after four years of strife in the 1840s. But the states admitted following California were all free soil: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859), Kansas (1861). In the southern states the question of the territorial expansion of the slavery westward again became explosive.[35] Both the South and the North drew the same conclusion: "The power to decide the question of slavery for the territories was the power to determine the future of slavery itself."[40][41]

By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed they were sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[42] The first of these "conservative" theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the Missouri Compromise apportionment of territory north for free soil and south for slavery, should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[43] The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance – that slavery could be excluded in a territory as it was done in the Northwest Ordinance at the discretion of Congress[44], thus Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it. The Wilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846.[45]

Senator Stephen A. Douglas proclaimed the doctrine of territorial or "popular" sovereignty – which declared that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery as a purely local matter.[47] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine.[48] In Kansas Territory, years of pro and anti-slavery violence and political conflict erupted; the congressional House of Representatives voted to admit Kansas as a free state in early 1860, but its admission in the Senate was delayed until after the 1860 elections, when southern senators began to leave.[49]

The fourth theory was advocated by Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis[46], one of state sovereignty ("states' rights"),[50] also known as the "Calhoun doctrine",[51] named after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesman John C. Calhoun.[52] Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the Federal Union under the US Constitution.[53] "States' rights" was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[55] As historian Thomas L. Krannawitter points out, the "Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power."[56][57] These four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution prior to the presidential election.[58]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Careful

It's fine to edit down but massive citation errors should be avoided. At present there is about a dozen missing citations, presumably because their anchor was lost in editing (also use the search function "45" in that article - a missing citation. If you lose citations you make the article worse, not better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but its been over 30,000 characters deleted ... All citations are not equal. Extensive padding by paragraph quotes of primary sources does not contribute to the encyclopedic summary style appropriate to Wikipedia. Generally, only one citation is required for a statement, a second reference quoting the same first author is unnecessary to establish credibility. Whenever possible one citation for a sentence is better than three at each phrase in a sentence for readability. Different editors have assigned different ref names to the same source, so an orphaned citation does not necessarily mean the source no longer contributes to the article sensibility. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what "[45]" was in the Territorial crises section? (I'm not as concerned about over-citation, as you - practically, it may avoid future talk page disputes, and 'too well cited' is not much of a critique (although surely there is a balance to be found, and theoretically what we want is the "best" cite, but opinions may differ on which is best- another way to look at it is, citations are at worst superfluous, not damaging, and should be carefully culled, as among the last, very deliberate things to do - because this article is prone to controversy)Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The note at [2] following "The Wilmont Proviso announced this position in 1846.”, Bestor 1964, pp.20-21 which then linked to Bestor, Arthur (1964). "The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis". American Historical Review 69 (2): 327–52. JSTOR 1844986. Editor unknown. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

States seceding after April 15, 1861

As the map shows, four states seceded after April 15, 1861. However, this seems to have currently dropped from the relevant narrative. Can this be re-added? 71.127.129.239 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No reply in two days... do I take that as a 'no'? 71.127.128.205 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The info is already in the article. The second sentence in the article says, "Among the 34 states in January 1861, seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy, often simply called the South, grew to include eleven states, and although they claimed thirteen states and additional western territories, the Confederacy was never diplomatically recognized by a foreign country."

Later, in the section "Battle of Fort Sumter" the article describes the aftermath of the attack on the fort, "Four states in the middle and upper South had repeatedly rejected Confederate overtures, but now Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina refused to send forces against their neighbors, declared their secession, and joined the Confederacy. To reward Virginia, the Confederate capital was moved to Richmond." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry I missed that.. 71.127.128.205 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery."

What a fictions revision of history. I guess this is to make the north feel a little more noble and justified regarding their war of aggression. The South succeed largely to gross over taxation and the heavy handed laws/regulations being forced on them by the North (power brokers/robber barons) The banks and barons of the North didn't like the burgeoning South and wanted to foist their way of life, taxes and get their (cut) from the South's vastly expanding cotton wealth. Especially in respect to the South's seaports. Lincoln even offered to allow the South to keep their slaves if they didn’t secede. Lincoln did not believe that he had the power to eliminate slavery where it already existed. However, Southerners feared that a Republican administration would take direct aim at the institution of slavery. By tacitly supporting Corwin's amendment, Lincoln hoped to convince the South that he would not move to abolish slavery and, at the minimum, keep the border states of Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina from seceding. http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.88.251 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As the still great (if older) historian James Ford Rhodes said, both Lincoln and Davis said a great deal about slavery in the years leading up to the war, and less about it during the war. For Lincoln, this was to keep the loyalty of the border states and war democrats. For Davis, this was an attempt to get support from England and France, where slavery was unpopular. Lincoln combined strong moral aversion to slavery (calling it a "monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual approach. Still, southern declarations of reasons for secession, Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech and many other secessionist documents make it clear that slavery was their motivation for secession.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the border states were technically Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware and (later) West Virginia.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The CSA openly believed in white supremacy, they openly believed blacks were inferior, they openly stated this, and they opposed the northern states for pushing equality of races, and in 1861 they made no bones about this being their reason for secession in, for example, the Texas Declaration of Reason for Secession, as has been pointed out ad nauseam to modern day psychos who cannot admit to these facts. 71.127.130.221 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The North mostly was white supremacist and only had a minority for racial economic equality (the Biblical right to the fruit of the sweat of one’s brow). The fringe for racial equality in that era was only able to persuade a majority to emancipation as the South brought unimaginable bloodshed for the sake of slavery in rebellion. The super majority against rebellion then brought an end to slavery by constitutional amendment, 2/3 of the people (without African-Americans) represented in the House, 2/3 of the states represented in the Senate, and 3/4 of the states representing the people of the United States -- 3/4 including the states which had been in rebellion (note the most recently admitted states of Kansas, then West Virginia and Nevada during the war to make the numbers required).

The revision of history is the assertion that taxation and finance was the primary motivator of the actors in rebellion. The only majority the North had prior to the Civil War was the sectional unity recognizing the domestic terrorism and voter fraud associated with the LeCompton Constitution providing for a slave-soil Kansas, a majority which formed over the protests of the northern Democratic president Buchanan. Kansas would be admitted as a free state in the old Congress before the new Republicans were seated or their President inaugurated in 1861. Please read some of the reliable sources referenced in this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The question usually being argued by these types is that the South was NOT White Supremacist. And the logic short-circuit seems to run like this: "If we can prove that there were also white supremacists in the North, then it will prove that the CSA Government was therefore NOT White Supremacist, exhonorating them completely from ever having given that as their stated reason for secession." 71.127.130.221 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a small vocal minority that argues the war had nothing to do with slavery, but it is considered a fringe view. TFD (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The OP does not know what he or she is even talking about. The sentence in the article is not the sentence they imagine - it is "The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories." Lincoln refused to compromise on barring slavery from the territories because that is what the nation voted for when they elected him president. As they say today, in a democratic-republic 'elections matter.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Confederate historical revisionism

At Historical revisionism (negationism) an editor has removed the text about Confederate historical revisionism[3] - see their reason at Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). Clearly needs input. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just vandalism and negationism (no pun intended). Good to see it added back. – Illegitimate Barrister, 12:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox extranea

Infobox “Result” of the Union victory should not include unrelated detail such as Lincoln’s assassination or establishment of the Ku Klux Klan. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the assassination, but why not the Klan establishment? – Illegitimate Barrister, 12:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The establishment and proliferation of the KKK is a part of Reconstruction, which historians such as Foner considers an extension of the Civil War, but the consensus here has been against that interpretation heretofore. Before the Klan is in the Infobox, the Reconstruction section should be expanded to address it, but others have resisted enlarging the scope of the article in that direction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, makes sense. Klan is part of Reconstruction, which is already mentioned. – Illegitimate Barrister, 12:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph rewrite

The third paragraph is too long and over linked. Here is an alternative.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter. While in the Western Theater the Union made significant permanent gains, in the Eastern Theater, battle was inconclusive in 1861–62. The autumn 1862 Confederate campaigns into Maryland and Kentucky failed, dissuading British intervention. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which made ending slavery a war goal. To the west, by summer 1862 the Union destroyed the Confederate river navy, then much of their western armies and seized New Orleans. The 1863 Union siege of Vicksburg split the Confederacy in two at the Mississippi River. In 1863, Robert E. Lee's Confederate incursion north ended at the Battle of Gettysburg. Western successes led to Ulysses S. Grant's command of all Union armies in 1864. Inflicting an ever tightening naval blockade of Confederate ports, the Union marshaled the resources and manpower to attack the Confederacy from all directions, leading to the fall of Atlanta to William T. Sherman and his march to the sea. The last significant battles raged around the Siege of Petersburg. Lee’s escape attempt ended with his surrender at Appomattox Court House, on April 9, 1865. While the military war ended, the political reintegration of the nation was to take another 12 years of the Reconstruction Era.

Comments are welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Some scholars see the Reconstruction Era as an insurgency to defeat the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States government, as the freedmen did not achieve voting rights and full citizenship as intended under regimes of domestic terrorism; insurgency by ex-Confederates in paramilitary organizations is not denied. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reconstruction has its own article--it's just as long and is the proper place for debates. Rjensen (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

Hey, is there a day to day timeline of the war somewhere? South Nashua (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Try "The Civil War Day By Day, An Almanac 1861-1865" By E.B. Long with Barbara Long. Doubleday 1971, ISBN 0-306-80255-4(pbk).

I mean on Wikipedia. I guess not. I'll try to start one soon. South Nashua (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

good idea. Make sure you have Long handy. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Casualty Numbers

Introduction, para 1, says 600 000 soldiers dead, para 4 says 750 000 soldiers. Any clarification ? Darkman101 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the first says "over', but this is a perennial issue (because it seems it is basically reasoned recent guestimates, or early documents). At any rate, I remain hopeful that someday we find a way to say it - I agree that the present is not great. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Stats

An editor has been playing around with the stats in this article, without providing a source. Two citations provided in the article refer to a single study, which differs substantially from all past studies. This appears to be cherrypicking. Moreover, the cited study estimates 750,000-850,000 dead, not 750,000-900,000 in the infobox. Can someone please clear this up? 32.218.47.159 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Both of those sources actually states 650,000 - 850,000, with 750,000 being the median. I'll change it to that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

the dates on the American civil war are from 1961 to 1965 and it is stated on the article 1861 to 1865. 1961 to 1965 is the correct timeline date... please change the date

thank you 70.113.164.84 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: That is blatantly incorrect. The Civil War did not occur after WWII as you are suggesting. Cannolis (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016

At the end of the last sentence in the introductory paragraph, it sums up the aftermath of the war by stating that the Confederacy collapsed "... and guaranteeing civil rights to the freed slaves." While I get the idea that you guys are trying to convey that slavery was abolished and that de jure, former slaves now had legal civil rights, it's quite clear from even a basic overview of the history of the time that civil rights were not really guaranteed for former slaves de facto. All you really need to do is take a quick peek over at the Jim Crow Laws article page, or look at the history of sharecropping for blacks in America to get an idea of how unequal things were for african americans post civil war, if you really didn't know already and needed to do that. I'm just saying that since there's nothing else at the end of the introductory paragraph, and that's how the article summary is finished, it's pretty misleading to say the least. I'd actually go so far as to call it (unintentional I'm sure) whitewashing of history since it seems to imply, by omission of any further accurate details, that civil rights were given and guaranteed to black former slaves after the war and all was good and dandy, when that was nowhere near the historical case. I think it would be wise and accurate to revise as such to give a more truthful picture. Check up on Plessy v. Ferguson if you're still not convinced. Thoughts? Thank you very much in advance for the hard work for accurate history throughout. Edit: See Also: the Black Codes.

2601:645:8100:C343:EC53:92C9:EEC8:369A (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

the passage is a transition to the long article on the Reconstruction Era that covers all these topics: beginning Reconstruction and the process of restoring national unity and guaranteeing civil rights to the freed slaves Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Italics for the South in lead

I made this change for consistency. Are there any objections to adding that North/South for the sides is still widely used today?

Off topic, I know, but does anyone know of an article(s) that show the Civil War is perceived in modern times or its lasting affects throught the decades? Not just Jim Crow, etc. I'm talking about the "we won, you lost" that one hears in present day (despite the fact that "we" and "you" often is meaningless as many US residents ancestors weren't even in the US), as well as modern Southern resentment. I was trying to find out if it was true that courthouses that were rebuilt after the war face south as a way of saying "kiss my ass" to the north. I know many confederate monuments were designed this way, but have never seen the KMA explicitly mentioned by historians. Much appreciated, and I am really enjoying this article. Thanks to those who have spent years on this.That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

See Lost Cause of the Confederacy and its Bibliography. I enjoyed Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan (ed.) "The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History". At the time of most confederate monuments, the survivors paid a lot of mutual respect to one another's bravery under fire, fighting for a cause they each believed in. It was a romantic time set apart from today, when many cannot imagine any cause of any description worth dying for under any circumstances. You have profoundly misunderstood the statue orientation. Although turning one's back to the enemy was generally seen as an act of shame, the statues were faced South, away to Dixie Land out of nostalgia, not out of any contempt meant towards the North. The "kiss my ass" take seems like a bad (irreverent) joke from a modern bar somewhere, unconnected to the regard for Civil War veterans paid during late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when most commemorative statues were built. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cantondailyledger.com/topstories/x1868081570/After-150-years-we-still-ask-Why-this-cruel-war

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

✗ Fail - dead link citation added by Cyberbot II but archived inline linked citation is valid. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 20:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Films

There is a film missing: "Glory" (1989) just look up "glory movie" on Google. The civil war one w/ col. Shaw. CaptainTyTy2 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be on the list. Dan D. Ric (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

First sentence

What is with the first sentence? "...was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the Union or independence for the Confederacy." The terms used aren't defined until much later in the lede, nor are they linked, and they only make sense in the context of the war itself. It also sounds very awkward and doesn't match the tone of the rest of the paragraph. This is not a good introductory sentence. 73.155.94.20 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

the first sentence works for me. people reading the paragraph will make sense of it. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's tough to say everything in one sentence, unless it's way too long.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm married to the idea, but could anyone else get behind "The American Civil War, widely known in the United States as simply the Civil War as well as other sectional names, was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 to determine the survival of the United States as it previously existed or independence for a coalition of seceding states." ? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

How about, "The American Civil War was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between the United States federal government (the Union) and eleven secessionist Southern states (the Confederate States of America)"? That sounds like a much better sentence. Jaqoc (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The existing first sentence is unsatisfactory in the use of "breakaway" POV. It reads, "The American Civil War was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865, to determine the integrity of the United States of America as it defeated the bid for independence by the breakaway Confederate States of America."

Prefer: The American Civil War was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between the federal government for Union integrity and eleven secessionist Southern states known as the Confederate States of America." -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's better, more informative, better tone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

To be more accurate so as to include the number eleven states, I copy edited the proposal to "The American Civil War was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between the federal government for Union integrity and the secessionists in eleven Southern states known as the Confederate States of America." I hope that still serves our purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if we drop the number of states, because it certainly can be said that seven state governments were captured by secessionists, it could be "The American Civil War was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between the federal government for Union integrity and Southern states known as the Confederate States of America." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems a bit awkward, as if there was some entity called "the federal government for Union integrity". I'd suggest reworking the sentence, or maybe dropping "for Union integrity", and explain the motivations later, perhaps in a follow on sentence in the lead. I also think United States should be retained in the lead sentence. Maybe something like: "The American Civil War was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between the United States federal government (the Union) and Southern states known as the Confederate States of America." Or perhaps reworked as: "The American Civil War was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between Southern states known as the Confederate States of America, which were attempting to secede from the United States, and the U.S. federal government, which was attempting to preserve the Union." Mojoworker (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I broke it into two sentences and the problem with breaking out the federal government is the northern states also participated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahh. Sorry. I had an old version of the page up from earlier this morning when I started reading the comments, and I didn't realize you had already changed it. I think it reads well. Mojoworker (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph syntax error

Forgive me my novice-ness, please; I will be short:

In the second paragraph, regarding this sentence:

> Four years of intense combat left 620,000 to 750,000 soldiers dead, a higher number than the

> American casualties of World War I and World War II combined

If you were to replace the word "casualties" with deaths, this sentence will agree with the data on , because casualties include the wounded, which wound send the number well over 1,250,000 for both world wars combined.

References

Arbyq5000 (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)arbyq5000 8/17/2016

 Done. I used "military deaths", to ensure someone doesn't think it includes civilians. Thanks for pointing this out. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The States in the war

Couldn't the article contain some information about the states in the war,information such as the battles fought in the state,the secession,the regiments,etc.

In addition,it could contain the two templates of the states in the war to lead for the articles for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.122.50 (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I added in See also -- * "*state* in the American Civil War". Templates sounds more ambitious. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

States

Why not list the States that fought with the Union and the Confederacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.158.175.240 (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Would have to specifically describe actions of/in some states, for example- Kentucky or Missouri, State governments for both sides, regiments formed and fighting on both sides, etc. Jmland3 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

73.185.143.93 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC) hi

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. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Stonewall Jackson

According to this Wikipedia article: American Civil War, Stone Wall Jackson was "killed in Action". See the "COW" by his name on the info bar. But according to the Stonewall Jackson Wikipedia article "Jackson died of complications from pneumonia on May 10" most historians and books would agree with the death from pneumonia because his friendly fire injuries did not kill him. He was only hit in the arm and hand.

Thatwhoiswise (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A "civil war" in fact?

This was probably mentioned before, but I think it is an interesting point. Although I readily concede that the title “American Civil War” should remain in place as that is what it is known as by most people, the war simply doesn’t appear to have been a civil war which involves two or more factions fighting for control of a single country. The Confederates were rebels (as they were/are oft referred to both then and now). They wished to establish an independent sovereign nation within the territory of the USA and did not express any desire to take control of the national government by force and impose their views on the other states. I just think that towards the beginning of the article it might be acknowledged that the war would have perhaps been more accurately known as a revolutionary one with the goal to establish a separate nation by the rebels exactly as the USA itself had been established. (No one refers to that as a British civil war.) Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no scholarship to substantiate your POV. As is noted in the Virginia ratification of the U.S. Constitution, only the “people of the United States” have the right to revolution. The states of the U.S. themselves cannot secede without Constitutional Amendment.

Individuals conspired in a rebellion to overthrown the United States Government in several states of the Union, and sought to extend their rebellion into states where they could not control or suspend the legitimate state legislatures where members had taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. These included Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and a failed effort to occupy Washington DC at the Battle of Bull Run (read the Richmond newspapers of the day).

They failed in a civil war with substantial division in their populations in Tennessee and Virginia (West Virginia). Most of the other“seceding” states did not have referendums among their people to submit to the Confederate military dictatorship, with Texas the only other referendum state. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian has stated the history very well indeed. Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Confederates would almost doubtlessly liked to have had included in their prospective new nation all the slave states, with the possible exception of Delaware, and would have liked to have had Washington D.C. included, perhaps as their capital. But still, they did not give any indication that they desired to control the Northern free states. If anything, they seemed to have desired to have as little to do with the people of the North as possible. In regard to Missouri, the legitimately elected state legislature and its governor voted and approved secession from the USA and were driven out by force of arms. Your point about only the people of the US having the “right” to revolution and not the states seems a point without a distinction as the legislatures and the governors of the seceded states had been freely elected by those eligible to vote in those times. Texas actually belatedly held a referendum, as you stated.

But after I left my note, it occurred to me that even the term “revolution” would not really apply as in revolutions, such as those in France and Russia, the revolutionaries took control of the entire country. The most accurate term would be, I think, a “war of secession."HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

See Civil war, territorial integrity is a hallmark of a nation-state - a civil war is not just what you say it is, it includes a region trying to establish its own independent nation-state out of the territory of an existing nation-state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Then are you suggesting that the American Revolutionary War is a misnomer? That war should have been called “The Second British Civil War”?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a nonserious argument. None of the colonies that rebelled in 1775 were a part of Britain. If the Welsh or Scots had joined us maybe we'd have had to rename the war. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

My argument is “nonserious”? Are you honest to God serious? The American colonies were not part of Britain? Did anyone tell the British that? It’s a shame if no one had thought of that as presumably from your POV it would have saved a lot of fuss and bother all around!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the British knew the colonies were not little counties of Britain, yes. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll play along. With the issuance of the American Declaration of Independence, whom exactly were the Yanks declaring their independence from, and why did the British send generals and armies to America in response?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't get why, anyone would have so unuanced and unbalanced a view of history that they would argue 'American Revolution' and 'American Civil War' are the same and should be looked at the same - when they were not the same events, at all, and there is no reason to look at them the same. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, obviously they were not the same event. They were, however, two wars of the same type. In both instances, subjects/citizens of an existing nation wanted to secede from the established nation and form their own within the existing territory of the present government. I really don’t understand how anyone can fail to note this. What am I missing, please?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be missing history. The American Revolution was the first modern colonial war for independence from a mother country. The American Civil War was a civil war between two groups in a single nation. To the extent you wish to compare and contrast those things, here is not the place. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree not a Civil War at all, A Civil by the very name is a, entity with a country trying to take over the government. That entity usually does not have their own treaties, currency, defined borders etc. Like the confederates did, and that why the civil war is also known as "THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES and THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION. But history is written by the victors. If the Britain won the revolutionary war it would probably be known: The British Civil War and not the American Revolutionary War. Thatwhoiswise (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The north american colonies were *colonies*, not little bits of Britain. That's what the (successful) attempt to break away a revolution. All parts of the Confederacy were parts of the USA. That's the obvious distinction.

"war between the states" is a neoconfederate term meant to minimize the fact that there was a legitimate US federal government. It was NOT simply a war between two collections of States. it was the elected federal government against pro-slavery yahoos. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thatwhoiswise and HistoryBuff14: “A civil war, by the very name is an entity with a country [sic] trying to take over the government.” No, it is a conflict with an internal faction trying to overthrow a national government within its sovereign territory, such as those rebels who were U.S. citizens pardoned by the U.S. Congress in a blanket amnesty following the American Civil War.

History is written by victors for triumphalism, or by the losers for triumphalism (see Lost Cause of the Confederacy). But it is also written by scholars accepted at Wikipedia with an eye to chronologically placed accuracy describing the relationships, ideas and self-proclaimed motives of the actors of the time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualties discrepancy in sidebar

The "Casualties and Losses" section of the side panel lists a total dead that is far in excess of what is said on any other site I have looked at , and within the breakdown is listed a second "total dead" figure for both sides of the conflict, apparently included in the overall bolded figure at the bottom. Is there someone that can clarify/fix what this? 2600:8805:90F:F100:6C6C:5FF3:BA1A:F7CE (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

True end of the war 20 August 1866

The American Civil war ended on 20 August 1866 by presidential order 157 . Many rebels were still fighting well past your claimed end of the war allegedly May of 1865. The rebel combat ship CSS Shenandoah was still active and fighting till November of 1865. Major divisions of rebels fought until well into October of 1865. The last of the Texas rebels were fighting till Aug of 1866. After they surrendered the president passed the order that the war was over. No confederate unit took up arms after that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The Civil War was a de facto war, not a declared war. Hence, it had a de facto beginning with the siege of Fort Sumpter, and a de facto end with the surrender of major Confederate forces, and the de facto disintegration of the Confederate government in May, 1865. cf The holdout of various Japanese forces and individuals well beyond the end of the Pacific war in September, 1945; some holdouts remained until the 1980's or even (reportedly) the 1990's. No one claims that WWII extended beyond September, 1945. Tresmegistus (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Under your De facto war theory you would have to consider the end of the Civil war to be June 23,1865. On that day General Stand Waite surrendered 15,000 native Americans and assorted Confederate soldiers. The May 9,1865 date is a joke as over 110,000 active Confederate combat soldiers were still in the field fighting the Union. At minimum the June 23, 1865 date should be used. Even if you used that date what do you consider the Confederate units that fought on till October not commanded by a General. Or the Navy unit not surrendering till November? The true end of the Civil war was 20 Aug 1866 after the last Texas Confederates surrendered . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Under your de facto theory the war began when South Carolina withdrew from the Union and called up troops to train for war on December 20, 1860. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting interpretation of my comments, and for your contribution to the topic. I would just like to state that my opinion, expressed above, was in no way a theory (as you have put it), it was a statement of facts from which I drew a conclusion. I think we all can agree that the Civil War commenced with the siege of Fort Sumpter, not with the calling to arms of the South Carolina military. The question is: when did the war end? There is no universally accepted date for that. Many have suggested various dates. None of which fits a universally accepted criteria. You have suggested a date of August 20, 1866. I have suggested sometime in May, 1865. I think the question is still open to debate among scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresmegistus (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki writers are not allowed to fix the date. Our job is to report what is the consensus among reliable secondary sources. The textbooks I think all have the war ending in late spring, with Juneteen (Texas) a common date. The historians do not focus on obscure naval units that had not heard the news in months. but rather on the people & territory of the Confederacy, who were all under Union power by June. Rjensen (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The 23 June 1865 is much more accurate accurate date than your made up date of May 9, 1865. At least by then the last Major General surrendered his army of 15,000. After that date small Confederate units were still fighting with small arms but no cannons. If you look at Union records they started discharging troops in July in great numbers after the last major Confederate Army surrendered on June 23,1865. So from the Union Army prospective the war was active at least until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Made-up? I doubt it was made-up, at least by Wikipedia but what does the source say? At any rate, there is a whole article on Conclusion of the American Civil War, and the Confederate armies were apparently surrendering all over at the time. So, no need for accusations just discuss sources, and make recommendations for text. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I take it the May 9 date was when the president of the Confederacy surrendered himself causing Johnson to declare the war "virtually" at an end. [4] Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

After the made up date of May 9,1865 for the end of the Civil war . A Major battle happened at Palmito ranch in Texas where Col John Salmon Ford won a great Confederate victory on May 13. Confederate General Kirby Smith did not surrender his units until June 2, 1865. Finally on 23 June 1865 the last Confederate General surrendered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.141.170 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction in Historiography Section needed

When mentioning prominent historians of the Civil War, there is reference to 'Bruce Canton' and links to 'Bruce Dal Canton,' a baseball player. This should be a reference to Bruce CATTON, who has his own page (). 2601:5CD:C002:628B:D865:D575:A39B:3491 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

What is this trying to say?

The wealth amassed in slaves and slavery for the Confederacy's 3.5 million blacks effectively ended when Union armies arrived; they were nearly all freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. I think it means that the Confederacy lost a lot of wealth (in the form of slaves), but the way it is currently written seems to imply that the blacks who owned and lost their slaves. Iapetus (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016

Under section 5 "Diplomacy"

U.S. minister to Britain Charles Francis Adams proved particularly [...] especially in Britain (which, through the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, had begun to abolish slavery in most of her colonies in 1834).[185]

Replace "had begun to abolish slavery in most of her colonies in 1834" with "began to abolish slavery in most of its colonies in 1834" Ulincsys (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it with new cited text. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

France

The Confederacy was never diplomatically recognized by any foreign country.

Total BS. France was buying cotton from them like it was going out of style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Trade is not the same thing as formal diplomatic recognition. Just ask Taiwan. -Ben (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not true that French businessmen were buying lots of cotton from the Confederacy. The Southerners themselves imposed export embargo and early 1861, and by the time it was lifted the US naval blockade shut down 90+ percent of cotton exports. French businessman purchased more cotton from the United States than from the Confederacy. In any case, the French government bought zero cotton and the French government did not recognize the Confederacy. Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that there was one small state in pre-imperial Germany that recognized the Confederacy. IIRC, it was attributed to the fact that the wife of the (count/Duke/Freiherr???) was a southern belle. My source is the book Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, but I can't find the specific passage that talks about it just now. Jmland3 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No that's a myth. The country was Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and it never recognized the Confederacy. The key person was Ernst Raven. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha strongly supported the Union and Raven did not tell it he was applying to the Confederacy--he was something of a rogue. (He had been appointed by S-C-G back in the 1840s when Texas was an independent country.) see the Raven article for details. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

How could Saxe-Coburg-Gotha be a "strong supporter of the Union" by recognizing a state that had just seceded from the Union? Consular authority was granted to Raven while Texas had delegates seated in the Confederate Congress. That authority was never withdrawn. The Duke of SCG would have been an idiot to not know that the aim of Texas was to become part of a Southern Confederacy. BorderRuffian (talk) 1 November 2016 (UTC)BorderRuffian

When the war broke out in April S-C-G supported the Union, hosted & Union hailed diplomats (according to NY Times report), & provided recruits & exports. Prince Albert (husband of Queen Victoria) was part of SCG leadership and supported the Union as well, esp in Trent crisis. SCG never supported the Confederacy and never sent any diplomat. It did not appoint Raven to the Confederacy. Texas was out/in/out/in of USA and Raven provided advice to SCG residents trapped there during the war. Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I see a NYT article (24 Aug 1862) about a German-American rifle club that had a meeting in Frankfort, Germany (btw that's not in SCG). They presented a Union flag to the Duke of SCG (he was president of the German Rifle Club). It's not clear that the Duke actually attended the meeting or was just in the same city at the time. No where do I see any "pro-Union" statement by the Duke. "Provided recruits & exports" - I don't see that in the article. What is your source? "SCG never...sent any diplomat." - No one has made that claim. A consul is not a diplomat.BorderRuffian (talk) 2 November 2016 (UTC)BorderRuffian

Great Britain also supported the Confederacy. In fact, rich British people have small, fast steam boats to break through the Union blockade that was designed to stop trade to the Confederates. The rich would hire Blockade Runners to get the cotton from out of the Confederacy and to Britain. Without these Blockade Runners, the Confederacy would've died quicker. This is common knowledge among many War Historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolframVonKrieger (talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Outside opinion

At the Ulysses S. Grant main article two (involved) editors want to include mention of President Grant signing an act establishing national holidays and two (involved) editors oppose. Opinions for and against can be found at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant. Outside opinions and consensus are needed and welcomed. Please help us resolve this ongoing debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

American Civil war started December 20, 1860

The American Civil war started politically on December 20, 1860 When South Carolina seceded from the United States and called up troops to fight the Union. After 4 months of training they started the military portion of the war in April of 1861. The war did not end until the last Confederates surrendered in Texas in 1866. The military and political end of the Civil war was 20, August 1866. Even though the South never officially surrendered no Confederate units were active or fought after that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:5D2A:4BF1:421A:7E8F (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The Civil war was 5 years and 8 months long. 20 December, 1860 to 20 August 1866 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:5D2A:4BF1:421A:7E8F (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This sentence is worded poorly.

In the "History" section, there is this sentence: " The three pro-Union candidates received an overwhelming 82% majority of the votes among Republican Lincoln in the north, Democrat Douglas nationally and Constitutional Unionist Bell in the border states."

I don't know about you, but its incomprehensible to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:4258:7C12:EFAC:FE4:EA33 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How about, "The three pro-Union candidates together received an overwhelming 82% majority of the votes cast nationally: Republican Lincoln's votes centered in the north, Democrat Douglas' votes were distributed nationally and Constitutional Unionist Bell's votes centered in the border states."

The point is to shed light on the notion that there was any equivalence between constitutional government by the people in the United States versus the Lost Cause conspirators whether the issue is considered legally, ethically or democratically.

The non-violent means of transforming the Union is by constitutional amendment, and that effort by secessionists in Congress failed before their coercive resort to bullets over ballots and their first-ever conscription for a mass army on the North American continent when its volunteer military dissolved in 1862.

The ever present goal of preserving slavery worldwide into the 20th century in the minds of the secessionist actors of the time does not justify the bloodshed against a government that caused no harm but allowing the free speech leading to the American Colonization Society and its ilk objecting to slavery in various degrees. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln was not killed in action!

On the 'Commanders and leaders' tab it is said that Abraham Lincoln was killed in action, this is not true. Here is the meaning of killed in action as stated on that Wikipedia page.

'Killed in action (KIA) is a casualty classification generally used by militaries to describe the deaths of their own combatants at the hands of hostile forces.'

Abraham Lincoln was not part of the military nor was John Wilkes Booth part of the hostile forces as described above. It would be best that the 'Killed in action' Icon be replaced by a different one, 'Assassinated' for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasvnl (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually as Commander in Chief of all Union forces AKA The President was killed in action by a hostile force of Confederate agents. Who were trying to kill him and others that night in Washington D.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:103A:AE67:8053:CA2E (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln, though Commander in Chief was not a combatant and as such he was not 'Killed in action'.

Fixed as of february 6th 2017 Thomasvnl (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

civil war

  Numerous locations claim to be the site of the "Last Battle of the Civil War". Bentonville, North Carolina is said to be the site of the last "major" battle of Civil War, where the Confederacy was able to mount a tactical offensive. Fort Blakeley in Alabama calls itself the location of the last "combined-force" battle of the War. Palmito Ranch in Texas also claims the honor of "last" battle and has a small marker commemorating the fact. The CSS Shenandoah is known to have remained active on the high seas well after hostilities had ended on land. The list also includes Columbus, Georgia the location of a little known engagement that took place on April 16,1865. And, surprising as it sounds, Columbus is the site of the actual "Last Battle of the Civil War."	On February 10, 1915 Charles J. Swift presented a paper concerning the last battle of the Civil War at the inaugural meeting of the Columbus Historical Society. In it he claimed the last battle of the Civil War began across the Chattahoochee River in what was then Girard, Alabama and ended at the foot of the 14th Street bridge on the Georgia side in Columbus. He had made this argument before and had a number of sources to back him up. Today, a granite monument placed at 14th Street and Broadway in 1938 and a bronze marker placed on the corner of 14th Street in and 4th Avenue in 1953 give only scant details of this often overlooked action.		  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:341:C000:6317:797B:A01A:478F:48F9 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 

surrender

Why is this the only war article on all of wikipedia that explicitly puts a little surrender flag next to each general on the losing side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.176.50 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It is routinely removed as it periodically recurs. I concur with its removal. Perhaps it is merely a reassertion of Jefferson Davis history of the Confederacy noting that the Confederacy "disappeared" and so in ended as an historical entity, but it seems gratuitous, unnecessary and redundant. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath → Emancipation

It's sort of peculiar that an "aftermath" section about emancipation never mentions the number of slaves freed. 3.9 million slaves were freed. Not only should it be mentioned, but also it should be mentioned first. I mean, it's pretty darn important. —Fluous (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

good point. Buried in Note 5 = "The great majority of the 4 million slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, as Union armies moved south. " I added this to the lede. Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

please consider adding a link

In the subsection ====Emancipation Proclamation====, please consider changing the sentence: "Lincoln laid the groundwork for public support in an open letter published letter to abolitionist Horace Greeley's newspaper." to: "Lincoln laid the groundwork for public support in an open letter to abolitionist Horace Greeley's newspaper."68.40.122.133 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Simple typo correction...

2nd paragraph currently.

"Among the 34 U.S. states in February 1861, seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the U.S. to formed the Confederate States of America."

"to formed" should be "to form" Deanresin (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing video game under "In works of culture and art"

I noticed a game I used to play back in the day which features the civil war is not listed in this article.

The game is called "North & South" from 1989 and the wikipedia artivcle for the game can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_%26_South_(video_game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.101.229.136 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017hi

167.217.121.240 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: no change specified ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017duhsnjka nzdnkcbhjfrueyoiqwuoijsnehwyfdiasuhjknrhfdkj,nhfrdbndmd

167.217.121.240 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: see above ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Historical sequence

Historical sequence: The statement on the Emancipation Proclamation (Jan 1863) is before the statement about the 1862 Mississippi campaign. Eviloverlords.chiefminion (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Eviloverlords.chiefminion

Contradiction re: motivation of Northerners

In "Root Causes / Slavery," it is stated that "Union men mainly believed that the purpose of the war was to emancipate the slaves." This contradicts a point from later in the article, from "Emancipation / Slavery as a War Issue," in which it is argued that "To Northerners, in contrast, the motivation was primarily to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery."

(I would personally argue that there is more evidence for the latter statement than the former.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.32.67 (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Prior to 1863 there is certainly no reason to think that ending slavery was a major purpose of the war; it wasn't even stated Federal policy. After 1863, it became one of the Union war aims. What that means for ordinary soldiers' motivations, I have no idea. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other sources, but if you have access to project Muse (if you don't, feel free to apply at WP:TWL), you can read chapter 3 of Ramold, Steven J. Across the Divide: Union Soldiers View the Northern Home Front. NYU Press, 2013., entitled “This Is an Abolition War” Soldiers, Civilians, and the Purpose of the War (p55-86). There, Ramold discusses the argument among soldiers over whether or not abolition was the purpose of the war as well as the growing sentiments in favor of freeing slaves as northern soldiers saw slavery first hand. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228202255/https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_principal_wars.xhtml to https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_principal_wars.xhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln War casualty Cross in the infobox

Should Lincoln be considered a "casualty of war"? He was a civilian, he wasn't killed on a battlefield, and he wasn't killed by a soldier of the opposing side. He was assassinated. which wouldn't be considered a "casualty of war". Although Booth, the shooter, wasn't brought to justice, eight of his accomplices were convicted in court, which would lead me to assume that Lincoln was not just another war casualty, because soldiers who kill on the battlefield are not convicted of murder in a court.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say not. War has all sorts of repercussions, obviously, but one has to draw the line somewhere. That someone's death may be indirectly related to a war—and it definitely was an indirect connection here, since Lincoln was murdered in peacetime—doesn't make that person a war casualty. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary definition: "One who is injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy". Merriam-Webster says "a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action". Webster's New World says: "a member of the armed forces who is lost to active service through being killed, wounded, captured, interned, sick, or missing". Random House (unabridged) says: "a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined". This last source also lists "any person, group, thing, etc., that is harmed or destroyed as a result of some act or event" as one of several definitions for the word, but that's not really what we mean when we say "casualty of war". Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Basing a discussion of this sort on principals or dictionary definitions could be considered OR, I'm not sure. Sources do talk about Lincoln as a casualty of war, for instance a google book search of "the last casualty of the Civil War" lincoln gives a number of results using that language. Interestingly, The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion. (1861-1865.) Part I, Volume II. (1st Surgical volume) by U.S. Army Surgeon General's Office includes Lincoln's death in its count of war dead from gunshot wound to the back of the head and presents him as a case study on page 305. On the other hand, calling Lincoln "the last casualty of the Civil War" is meant to be emotionally evocative, and not to be technically true or untrue, so I'm not sure if that sentiment is strictly NPOV. In any case, my first thought is that he should be so considered. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm, no. "Basing a discussion" on anything at all, including actual original research, cannot be considered original research; it's just basing a discussion. However, I didn't base the discussion on the dictionary definitions—I supplemented what I said in my earlier reply with the dictionary definitions, and they are perfectly relevant when weighing whether a given term is applicable in a certain context in an article. Now you've provided other relevant evidence that should also be considered. Let's consider them:

The Medical and Surgical History is, as its title suggests, about medicine and surgery, its primary audience presumably those working in those fields. It's interesting that its physician-authors (who one might suppose weren't necessarily dispassionate or disinterested) chose to include a discussion of Lincoln's wounds and the treatment that was attempted, but it's not surprising, since it was a particularly well-known, poignant case that occurred just after the war ended. I'm not clear that we should give much weight to their designating Lincoln a war casualty, although I think it deserves some weight.

I wouldn't necessarily give much credence to a Google Books search per se. A plethora of books about the war and about Lincoln exist—some old, some new, some carefully researched scholarly tomes, some popular page-turners. No doubt many historians do consider Lincoln's murder a casualty of the war in the broader sense, but one of the points I tried to make earlier is that that's not exactly the same as a war casualty strictly speaking. That's where the definitions I cited from the Random House come in handy. And that's what this question really turns on, I think. We, as editors, need to decide what we mean (i.e., what Wikipedia means) by "casualty of war" and then apply that to the article. Do we mean it in the narrower sense or in the broader sense? My instinct is to go with the former—the latter could be confusing to the casual reader, and it could prove to be a slippery slope—but I'm not sure. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As to the statement 'calling Lincoln "the last casualty of the Civil War" is meant to be emotionally evocative, and not to be technically true or untrue, so I'm not sure if that sentiment is strictly NPOV' – I'd say that it certainly fails NPOV, since it's patently false, given that the Battle of Palmito Ranch occurred almost a month later. My view is that "casualty of war" does not apply to Lincoln's assassination. Mojoworker (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the main intention of the addition was to linkup Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Should be linked somewhere in the article no?--Moxy (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

the opening lead is now nearly useless

In my opinion the current lede tells us almost nothing about soldiers, battles , strategy, civilians or main goals or results. It's a disaster for anyone who wants to learn the main points in a few minutes. Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, how about this Proposal A:

The American Civil War was fought in the United States from 1861 to 1865. The nationalists of the Union proclaimed loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. They faced secessionists of the Confederate States of America advocating states’ rights to perpetual slavery and its expansion in the Americas. After both sides raised conscription mass armies that contested almost half the continent, the Union won the war and abolished slavery in the bloodiest war of U.S. history.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he was asking to change the lead sentence and I see no reason to. I took his comment as he wants a short synopsis of the war down lead : In 1861, Confederates . . . In the Eastern theater in 1861- 1862, General Mcellean . . in the Western theater General Grant. . . In 1863 . . . In 1864-65, Grant and Lee. . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the current lede, --- "The American Civil War was an internal conflict fought in the United States (U.S.) from 1861 to 1865. The Union (i.e., The United States) faced secessionists in eleven Southern states grouped together as the Confederate States of America. The Union won the war, which remains the bloodiest in U.S. history." --- is subject to RJensen's criticism that it "tells us almost nothing about soldiers, battles , strategy, civilians or main goals or results. It's a disaster for anyone who wants to learn the main points in a few minutes."

The Proposal A above meets each of the criticisms. The soldiers fought in conscript mass armies across continental expanses, civilians were fighting for expansion and perpetuation of slavery or loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, main goals and results included preservation of the Union and destruction of the slave power that could sustain a violent rebellion for four years in the bloodiest U.S. war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First, "the lede" is not the lede paragraph, the lede is the entire section. Second, he will just have to be more forthcoming, because I don't see what you claim to see, and that's not how I understand what he said. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In regards to soldiers, the lede does mention "the bloodiest battle" and "620,000 to 750,000 soldiers dead". As for the idea of "battles, strategy", a given in any war, in the lede, I don't see where anything more is needed there. Perhaps RJ can offer other actual points of context that may be needed. -- -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see where the lede paragraph fails stylistically.

• "The American Civil War was an internal conflict fought in the United States (U.S.) from 1861 to 1865." --- "internal conflict" is redundant to Civil War, the remnant of a previous edit war. It is an awful redundancy of the common sense meaning of civil war. The abbreviation of the United States as U.S. is common knowledge in the English language, and need not be introduced in a parentheses or footnote. This is the English language WP.
• "The Union (i.e., The United States) faced secessionists in eleven Southern states grouped together as the Confederate States of America." --- using parentheses with a "that is" latinate abbreviation is pompous academic pretense, unsuited to encyclopedic style.
• "The Union won the war, which remains the bloodiest in U.S. history." is satisfactory, and is captured in the fourth sentence of Proposal A.

To meet RJensen's critique, Proposal A does the following:

• Addresses "soldiers, battles and strategy" by the words, "After both sides raised conscription mass armies that contested almost half the continent,"
• Addresses "civilians or main goals" by the words, "The nationalists of the Union proclaimed loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. They faced secessionists of the Confederate States of America advocating states’ rights to perpetual slavery and its expansion in the Americas."
• Addresses "results" by the words, " the Union won the war and abolished slavery in the bloodiest war of U.S. history." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. "internal conflict", which linked to Civil War, is redundant. Also made a few needed changes. Cause of war (slavery, state's rights) should be mentioned in first paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Emancipation proclamation

@Rjensen and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- We can leave mention of the Emancipation Proclamation out of the lede, {add: in the previous manner) per Rjensen's edit, but according to that article the Proclamation pertained to only ten states in the south, while slaves in the north were freed by State laws or the 13th Amendment which wasn't ratified until after the war. It's difficult to determine how many slaves were actually freed in the south before war's end. It's probably best we don't make any statement i.e.most slaves were freed by proclamation, which again wasn't ratified until months after Lee's surrender. Seems most were freed before that, and as a result of the Union victory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

all the slaves in the the designated areas of the confederacy--about 3 million in 1860 census-- were legally and actually freed by the emancipation proclamation from Jan 1863 to spring 1865. Before that they were legally slaves even where Union army was in control. in the border states (not covered by EP) state laws did the job with 3 exceptions (West Va, Kent, Del) where the rest were freed in dec 1865 by the 13th amdt. The Army freed the slaves and it acted under the authority of the EP. Runaway slaves were free if and only if they reached Union army lines where the EP was in actual effect. Rjensen (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost - in WV, slavery was abolished by state law on February 3, 1865.[5]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There were two Virginian state governments during the Civil War, even after the creation of West Virginia. Virginia’s Restored Government abolished slavery in its Constitution proclaimed on April 11, 1864. Its administration covered an area larger than Rhode Island and Delaware, and a larger population than Delaware, Florida, Oregon and Kansas. The Pierpont administration was recognized by both the Lincoln and Johnson administrations, and the Restored Government’s Constitution was in effect throughout Virginia until 1870. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the Proclamation was ratified after the war it seems we should link to that article in the course of this sentence near the end of the lede, (without the bold):

The Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished and 4 million slaves were freed.

A link to the proclamation placed after mention of the collapse, in the lede, would be appropriate, imo. If there are no objections I'll do this shortly, if someone doesn't beat me to it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131613143100/http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp to http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Financing the War

I think there needs to be a section on how the Civil War was financed on the Union and Confederate sides. How were all these armies funded ? California Gold funded the Union Army. Why did the Confederate economy collapse ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, "California gold" did not play a major part in funding the Union war effort. It came mostly from tariffs (passed by Congress before Lincoln became president, made possible by the fact that all the anti-tariff Southern politicians were leaving as their states seceded), war bonds, newly-levied taxes, and the issuance of millions of greenbacks. Taxes and bonds were issued in the South, but to a lesser degree. I do agree that there should be at least a small section detailing funding for the war on both sides, perhaps under the "Mobilization" section. Cheef117 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2017

I think Hiriji's edit changing Republicanism in the United States to republicanism should be reverted. From what I've read wikipedia links are meant to use transparent titles unless there is a reason for a WP:PIPE. The original version identified the correct topic being linked to, which is American republicanism and not republicanism in general. So it's a double error. It makes the link less clear, only for suggesting the wrong topic anyway. It should be changed back to the older version. 196.54.55.44 (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2017

Change the line "Slavery was illegal in the North, having been outlawed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries." to read as "Slavery was illegal in the North, having been outlawed in the late 17th and early 19th centuries." I don't have a source, but it makes no sense to say that slavery was outlawed on the North during a time that would have been after the civil war. Connecticut, I believe, abolished slavery in 1777, and the other northern states would have abolished prior to 1860. Bkieler (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: 18th century = 1700-1799. 19th century = 1800-1899. Early 19th century is correct. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2017

Section "Diplomacy", third paragraph, third sentence:

"Confederate spokesman, on the other hand, were much more successful by ignoring slavery and instead focusing on their struggle for liberty, their commitment to free trade, and the essential role of cotton in the European economy"

Change "spokesman" to "spokesmen" Willsonrobert (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done –72 _(talk) 00:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"The Civil War is the most studied and written about episode in American history."

Citation needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwhiz (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Attic Salt (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A lead section is generally supposed to summarize what follows, and I don't see that the idea behind this sentence is expanded on later in the article. It strikes me as something that's probably true but also hard to quantify. If it were changed to read "among the most studied and written-about episodes", that would be better, but it still should refer to something in the body of the article. (If the later content is sourced, this sentence wouldn't need to be.) Maybe it should just be removed. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's common knowledge --- and it's easily documented with a footnote that is basically just adding to the excessive number. James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier stated in 2012, "No event in American history has been so thoroughly studied, not merely by historians, but by tens of thousands of other Americans who have made the war their hobby. Perhaps a hundred thousand books have been published about the Civil War." [ref] James Lincoln Collier; Christopher Collier (2012). Slavery and the Coming of the Civil War: 1831 - 1861. Blackstone Publishing. p. 9. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So that probably should go somewhere in the body of the article. If I knew nothing about the topic and encountered it in the lede, I'd want to know more. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

map incorrect

Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky were Southern and did secede. My relatives came from Delaware, it was CSA and slave. Great Grandpa lost his slaves and plantation in 1865. 184.99.180.158 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please support your assertion with reliable sources. Personal or family history is considered WP:Original Synthesis and does not meet the standard for sourcing required by the encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Although there was sympathy for the Confederacy in the slave holding southern counties of Delaware where its two-percent enslaved population was concentrated, both houses of its legislature voted to remain in the Union. --- MO, DE, KY were slaveholding border states that the preponderance of scholarship does not count as seceding.

Historians take into account the majority of male voters, state legislatures meeting in the state capital with a quorum versus rump secessions of conspirators held out-of-state and funded with CSA monies (a million dollars each in MO and KY), and enlistments of men from each state "voting with their feet" on either side of the Civil War (Delaware's enlistment was less than one-third Confederate; was your kinsman one of those?). ---

By those standards of scholarship, Delaware was a Unionist slaveholding border state, one which clung to slavery in the state legislature even in 1862 when offered compensated emancipation by the Lincoln Administration, but Unionist nonetheless, acquiescing to the Fourteenth Amendment abolishing slavery after first rejecting it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018

maybe change southern slave states to southern "slave states" because that is a negative appearing way to label the southern states. Love the article! Kaldengilbert (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page, question 4. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

Under 'Section 8.2 Works of Culture and Art: Film' in the American Civil War page, is listed the movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012). While this film may take place during the American Civil War, I believe it is misleading to include it as a film depicting the American Civil War, due to its gross fictional exploitation of historical figures therein. I request that this film be removed from Section 8.2.

Thank you. cs120314 Cs120314 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Casus belli

The lead states that "The result of a long-standing controversy over slavery, war broke out in April 1861". I think that this designation is superficial or plainly wrong, as it suggests that casus belli was the slavery controversy, rather than the secession of the Southern states. Although the abolitionist movement was gaining influence in the North, it is wrong to oversimplify the reasons for going into the war. As I have stated in my edit which was reverted without explanation, and resulted in personal attack on my talk page, four of the Union states had slaves, and you don't have to go further than wikiquote page on Abe Lincoln to find his view on the war and the Union's goals. No one is denying that slavery was an important issue in the war, and that its outcome helped end it in the South, but on the other hand, this designation is simply not objective and in accordance with historical facts. Sideshow Bob 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You were provided a reliable source by RJensen when you were reverted: [6] US National Park Service: Slavery Cause and Catalyst of the American Civil War]. The sentence is not even talking about casus belli, it's talking about the result of a controversy. You seem to admit there was such a controversy, which just leaves result - the war did result did it not -- you seem to draw a distinction: slavery resulted in disunion, which resulted in war but that would still make slavery resulted in war -- you pick out four states, in which there developed active civil war, as they were on the border between slave and free - and you somehow miss Lincoln's statement that slavery was somehow the cause, and all knew it, and his many statements against slavery, and his and his government's refusal to allow it to expand to new territory, and other facts and multiple statements of governments and people - our purpose here is not to enshrine your view of history, but it is, in the lead of this article, to briefly introduce the sourced view. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to discuss this again. See this page's FAQ Q1: Should slavery be presented as the most important cause of the war? (Yes.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Charles B. Dew, raised in a Virginian family with Confederate veteran kinsmen, once held the same view until in graduate school, he read the writings of the proto-Confederate state commissioners from the Deep South states sent to influence the Border South Secession Conventions. They stressed the threat of the Lincoln administration to white southerners exclusive control over slavery, warning of racial equality, servile insurrection and amalgamation. They did not focus on the tariff question or any other issue than slavery, its protection, perpetuation and expansion. See Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War at the University of Virginia Press. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The main cause of the civil war was secession, not slavery. (81.153.133.154 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC))

Of course, there was a rebellion to attempt an unlawful secession among several states within the Union, which scholars now generously call the American Civil War rather than the Great Rebellion --- and we adhere to that convention in this article. And the purpose of that attempted secession was to perpetuate slavery into the 20th century (see a comparison of the U.S. and C.S.A. Constitutions), in a 19th century world where Western nations were abolishing it both at home and in their colonies as a moral, social and political evil. So in a short-hand kind of way, it is said that the issue over slavery caused both secession and the Civil War. One does not exclude the other.

It is obvious that the U.S. Constitution of the People in states formed a "more perfect" Union than "perpetual" Union of states in the Articles of Confederation, and they were guaranteed slavery under that same Constitution. And the same Amendment process that secessionists feared might end slavery might have also allowed secession, which some in Congress proposed. But it got no traction, perhaps especially among the Fire-eater secessionists who seemed to be bent upon an enterprise of civil war and the glory of establishing a new explicitly slave-based republic by force of arms.

Lincoln's first war aim was surely to preserve the Union from the secessionist confiscation of federal property ceded by state legislatures to the U.S. government, with a defensive call up of 75,000 troops compared to the previous Jefferson Davis call up of 100,000. With that strategy, he was able to hold the slave holding border South states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and then West Virginia. See William W. Freehling in The South vs. The South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

More people died in the civil war than korea and vietnam in the world war combined. Cris12343210 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2018 (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. The lede of the article says this already I think. RudolfRed (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

August 20, 1866 end of the Civil war

The Civil war ended on August 20, 1866 by presidential proclamation . The May 9, 1865 date is totally wrong. Many battles on land and at sea were fought after MAY 9, 1865. A huge Confederate victory happened in Texas after your claimed end of the war date of May 9, 1865. The battle of palmetto ranch ring a bell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:85D9:5D62:E14A:ADFD (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

the CIVIL WAR was not between units of soldiers, it was between countries. The end of CSA = no more war. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The CSA never surrendered. They just honored the document issued by the President on August 20, 1866.After that date no more Confederate attacks happened. Why do you think the South will rise again is said in the South. Its because no surrender document was signed by the Confederate government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:DB7:6186:AD7F:28 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest

This is a note to inform you that an NPOV discussion is in progress concerning Nathan Bedford Forrest and that any informed (and ideally so far uninvolved) editors are invited to participate to help reach consensus. The discussion is at Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#NPOV discussion and it has been posted at NPOV noticeboard. FrankP (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)